Science desk
< April 3	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 4

Request for id of Anole(?) seen in Guadeloupe, possibly an Anolis marmoratus (Leopard Anole)

I just uploaded this photo of an Anole (I think), which was observed in a residential area in Guadeloupe. There are lot of these individuals around the place, also green ones like this Anolis marmoratus or Leopard Anole. The green ones and the grey ones like these seem to interact and they look very similar disregarding the coloration, so I was wondering if the more boring looking individual (who also lost its tail) is just the opposite gender? Possibly the female? --Slaunger (talk) 01:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the identification, but, are you aware that anoles can change their color, somewhat ? It's not as impressive as a chameleon, but might be enough for those two apparently different anoles to actually be the same gender and species. StuRat (talk) 13:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of that, but it does explain that I have now also seen yellow-greenish individuals hidden in yellow-greenish leaves, so it may simply be color-changing as you say. On the other hand it is peculiar that sometimes they have a color, which is in sharp contrast to the background, like brilliant green on a white wall. The green ones also sometimes unfold a yellow piece on skin on their throat, which I guess is to defend their territorium. The bright green ones also tend to be somewhat larger than the more boring looking individuals. From what I have seen (and I have seen about 25 individuals now, some may be the same, but with changed color), it seems like approximately half of the population is bright green and the other half of the population is grey/brown/yellow-green (and a little smaller). I feel more and more convinced that it is all the same species, the Anolis marmoratus, and I am inclined to think that there is both a gender and a camoflage aspect to their coloration. At least that would match my observations. --Slaunger (talk) 10:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable. The one on the white wall couldn't match it, because anoles can't do white. Perhaps it decided to try to look like a leaf, instead, that being the next best type of camo. StuRat (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

calories burned per hour of X activity

Where can I find a list of calories burned per hour of all different types of activity? 71.100.3.207 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: [1]. Here's another: [2]. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein postulate:

Let a pulse of light and spaceship/ train are moving perpendicular to each other such that after sometime the same pulse of light

Strikes and enters spaceship/ train through its one longitudinal side

Travel inside spaceship/ train for some time and then

Leaves the spaceship/ train through its other longitudinal side

Thus are such postulates holds true in abovementioned scenario 68.147.38.24 (talk) 04:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)khattak#one-420[reply]

Yes. The observed lightspeed depends neither on the velovity of the sender, nor on the velocity of the receiver, nor on the direction of the light beam. 213.49.88.115 (talk) 05:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why so many "funny" effects (time dilation, length contraction) happen. Einstein himself joked that his theory shouldn't be called "relativity theory," but "invariance theory," because what is interesting about it is not that things are relative (which is pretty clear even without Einstein), but that some things are invariant (like the measured speed of light), and that is what makes the theory have interesting results. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things become weird for inside and outside observers if the width of spaceship (moving with 0.9c) is increases, e.g 30, 00,000 km. I don’t want to discuss further as this is not a discussion page. Please consider this post as an annotation to my question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.38.24 (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical training of doctors with a first professional degree in medicine

The answer to the question may well depend on the country, but what kind of surgical training do doctors have when they get their first professional degree in medicine? In practice, what kind of surgical procedures can a non-specialist doctor with such training handle competently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.14.137 (talk) 04:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know for sure. Recently qualified doctors will probably have decent knowledge of certain surgical procedures, but that doesn't mean they're qualified to perform them. As you said, it will depend on the country you qualified in. For example, in the UK, you graduate with your first degree in medicine then you will train further through specialist posts in the NHS. It's at these posts you learn the vast majority of your surgical knowledge, but I think it's pretty much up to you and how much you know and how much trust your supervisors place in you. They may allow you to perform complex procedures if they've observed you doing other simpler ones perfectly, and they're willing to supervise you. There is an exception, though. GP's in the UK can perform minor surgical procedures, but I'm not sure whether these are learnt during GP training, or whether the knowledge is gained through the first degree. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the question "what kind of surgical procedures can a non-specialist doctor ... handle competently" relates to doctors who qualified more than a year ago, then the simplest answer would be "none, unless they've had specific training since qualification". Having said that, it will also depend on the individual, their inclination and their experiences at medical school. When I qualified as a doctor in England ten years ago (and I don't think the situation has changed significantly), newly qualified medical graduates were expected to be able to take blood samples and insert an intravenous cannula without further training, some but not all could suture simple wounds, but anything beyond that depended on further training after qualification -- bearing in mind that most doctors work in a surgical team for a few months during their first year after qualification, and some gain quite significant experience of operative surgery during that time. Surgical skills decline rapidly if not practised regularly. Neurotip (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK: none. [We don't regard venepuncture, IV cannulation or suturing as surgical procedures. In UK medical schools, these minor procedures are taught to and learnt by students prior to graduation.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the US also basically none. Medical degrees are granted after four years of medical school. This typically involves two years of classroom education and two years of various medical rotations through different specialties. Each doctor would have rotated through the almost certainly required surgery rotation, but it would be for a short enough time that they would not be qualified for much more than sutures, which they would be more likely to learn in their emergency medicine rotation than in their surgery rotation. In the latter they would essentially just watch since they don't know how to do surgery yet. After medical school doctors in the US are required to go to residency if they wish to become board certified as a practicing specialist or Family Practice or Internist, etc. and residency and later fellowships are where a surgeon would learn surgery. So basically medicine has specialized heavily and that's a good thing. The people that do surgery have a lot of training. In some cases, some students could graduate from medical school having done extra surgery or other rotations such as emergency medicine and been given an unusual amount of training in some sort of basic procedures, but that wouldn't be the norm. - Taxman ^Talk 21:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Tangential velocity

Does any one have a significant number for this velocity, (or is its average along the orbit)?--Email4mobile (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's about ~~586~~ km/h. Dauto (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be much less compared to the orbital speed which is about 3679 km/h, Dauto, doesn't it?.--Email4mobile (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where Dauto got that figure. The tangential velocity (I'm assuming you mean the speed along the tangent to its orbit at its location) will be exactly equal to its orbital plaine. That's how velocities along paths works - the object is always moving in a direction tangential to the path. If you mean the transverse velocity, that is the velocity along a line perpendicular to the line joining the centres of the Earth and Moon, then it will be almost exactly equal to its orbital velocity, but very slightly different because the Moon's orbit is slightly eccentric, that is not a perfect circle (but it is close). --Tango (talk) 13:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I dropped a factor from my calculation yesterday. The correct value is about 3680 km/h. Dauto (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tango and Dauto. I was thinking that tangential velocity is angular velocity which would be one component of the orbital velocity, whereas the radial velocity would be the the 2nd component.--Email4mobile (talk) 16:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you did mean transverse, not tangential. Transverse velocity is angular velocity times radial distance. For a circular orbit, all the velocity is transverse. The Moon's orbit is almost circular, so the vast majority of the velocity is transverse. The average radial velocity is going to be zero, since the orbit is periodic so any increase in radial distance at one point in the orbit much be balanced by a decrease elsewhere so you can get back to where you started. More interesting values would be the average radial speed (the absolute value of the radial velocity) and the maximum radial speed. I'm not sure what those are for the Moon, and it would take me a while to work out the formulae, so I'll leave this question for a bit in the hope that someone else can help more easily than I can! --Tango (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do mistakes frequently, thanks Tango ;).--Email4mobile (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finasteride

Is Finasteride a topical medicine for male pattern baldness or is an oral medication??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 08:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oral. Ariel. (talk) 09:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The topical medication is Minoxidil. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physics definitions

What's the difference between kinetics, dynamics, and mechanics? They all seem to be pretty much the same. 173.179.59.66 (talk) 08:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig: Kinetics (physics), Dynamics (physics). From the kinetics article: "Since the mid-20th century, the term "dynamics" (or "analytical dynamics") has largely superseded "kinetics" in physics text books". Mechanics includes dynamics, plus more. Dynamics is mainly Newton's laws. Mechanics seems to include pretty much everything, click on the image for more details. Ariel. (talk) 09:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanics is traditionally divided into Statics (stationary) and Dynamics (moving). Dbfirs 08:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mechanics" is most often used to describe A body of physical knowlege, so we have classical mechanics (often simply called mechanics), quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics... Dynamics is used to describe the part of that body of knowlege that tells us how things change or evolve over time, so the dynamical equation of classical mechanics is Newton's second law, the dynamical equation of quantum mechanics is the Schroedinger's equation, the dynamical equations of electromagnetism are the Maxwell equations. Kinetics usually has a more restricted scope of usage being used to describe things directly rtelated to movement such as kinetic energy and kinematics. Dauto (talk) 13:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egg heat

Does eating Egg(chicken) generate heat in our body?? It is disastrous in summer I think..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.54.67 (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any food will generate heat in the body when it is metabolized. Eggs are unlikely to be different in that respect.

If you're asking whether chicken eggs contain something that will disturb the body's temperature regulation, then I've never heard about that. Raw eggs may contain bacteria that can infect you and cause a fever, but that's a different story. –Henning Makholm (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. Thank you! This is the perfect answer - and should have ended this thread right here. SteveBaker (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eggs are relatively easy to digest, so that would limit the amount of heat produced during digestion. Also, eating chilled eggs will, of course, cause you to heat up less than hot eggs. StuRat (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that's technically true - it's quite utterly negligable - and besides, the human body has thermo-regulation, if some kind of food did produce a tiny temperature increase for some bizzare reason, the body would simply cut back heat production to compensate for that. So please let's not start off another "old wives tale" that causes a bunch of people to eat their eggs cold in warm weather just because someone felt in need to have something to say!

The correct answer for our OP is:

"No, you are incorrect. Eggs cause neither more nor less heat to be produced in the body than other kinds of food."

Getting into these kinds of detailed technicalities does not serve to provide a clear and useful answer to a very simple question. SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the human body can thermo-regulate, within a certain range. However, some of the mechanisms for doing so may be objectionable, such as sweating to cool the body and shivering to warm it. Drinking warm or cold fluids is a good way to regulate the body temp when you are feeling just a bit hot or cold, and prefer not to shiver or sweat. (Putting on a sweater is another way to keep warm, of course.) If you do the math, drinking water 60 degrees F below body temp, with a mass 1% of your body mass, should lower body temp by 0.6 degree. That's a huge shift in core body temp, and more than enough to prevent sweating, in many cases. Now, since you're probably not going to eat 1% of your body mass in eggs, the effect is somewhat less, but still significant. The heat generated by digestion may well be more significant, but note that this effect will start gradually, while the actual temperature of the food you eat has a more immediate effect. So, if you are hot now, eat or drink something cold. When the heat from digestion kicks in, hopefully you will be inside in an air conditioned room. If not, then you'll sweat. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what happens if you do the math - but I'm not likely to start off with assumption that people (average body mass ~80kg) is going to drink 0.8 liters of water thats just a few degrees above freezing! A typical 'large' chicken egg weighs 50grams. So not 1%, not even 0.1% of body mass and the effect isn't just "somewhat less" - it's an order of magnitude less...and that assumes you're consuming the egg at 60 degrees over body temperature...which is unlikely. This "heat of digestion" is also very small - digestion is an energy-efficient process - it produces vastly less heat than the food itself provides. An egg contains about 300kJ of 'food energy'- but only the smallest fraction of that is produced as heat during digestion. Sweating is one of the body's last defenses against overheating. The first effects are for the mitochondria to reduce conversion of fats and carbohydrates - then blood vessels expand towards the surface of skin to shed heat that way - and only then does sweating kick in - finally, and ONLY after all of those mechanisms fail, will your "body heat" change - which is what the OP asked. The additional heat of digestion from an egg is scarcely likely to do much more than trigger the first of those cooling mechanisms unless the body is already working hard to lose heat. Besides, the issue here is not "Do I eat an egg or do I eat nothing at all?" - it's more like "Do I eat an egg or do I eat something else?" - and if that is the question then the answer is, again, a very clear "NO!" because the heat produced in digesting pretty much any food is going to be very similar. So why are you working so hard to confuse the OP with highly dubious arguments when the answer is so very simple? If you eat an egg - your body temperature won't change to any measurable degree...period. SteveBaker (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) You can't drink 0.8L of cold water ? I certainly can, as can many people.

2) Why do you assume the person will only eat a single egg ? I can certainly eat several, as can many people.

3) If the heat of digestion is low, then the temperature of the egg is even more significant, by comparison.

4) It certainly seems likely that they are already hot, if they are worried about getting hot from eating eggs. Thus, they may be just about to sweat, or may even be sweating already. So, every little but counts, if they want to keep from sweating more. StuRat (talk) 02:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems likely that they are already hot, if they are worried about getting hot from eating eggs - I'm not so sure about that. When I original saw the question removed for medical advice by the same OP, my first thoughts were similar to 206, the OP was referring to the concept of heaty food as described e.g. [3] oh and look I found an article Chinese food therapy. Then I saw the IP looked up to India so I wasn't so sure since I was aware of Chinese concept (it's not uncommon in Malaysia) but not sure that it had an India counterpart (I did search but didn't come across anything useful, the Ayurveda article for example only makes one irrelevant reference of heat).

206 suggests a similar concept in India and in fact looking more closely, I found at least one ref more when I connect it to Ayurveda as 206 suggest [4]. I'm not so sure how the Ayurvedic concept works, heck not even that familiar about the Chinese concept but I wouldn't presume someone being worried about 'heaty' or 'heating' foods is necessarily feeling hot they might just be worried generally because of their belief in the concept. (Balance is of course an important component of the belief, if you eat too many heaty foods like durian you're supposed to eat cooling foods like mangosteen.)

Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this down below and I'll say it again. I'm Chinese, and I can tell you that "heaty", "heating", "cold", and "cooling" DO NOT refer to temperature. They refer to an abstract quantity that has nothing to do with temperature. To use an analogy, the concept of "color" in quantum chromodynamics has nothing to do with the wavelength of the photons reflected from subatomic particles, and the "strangeness" of a particle has nothing to do with how weird it is. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that just further proves the point then (although I'm not convinced the OP is referring to the Chinese concept) Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off topic conversation about traditional medicine, etc. One possible (but disputed) reference to food allergies

Some people have food allergies with eggs, you might be one of them. Also traditional medicines like chinese medicine and indian ayurveda have for thousands of years described certain foods and other substances as "cooling" or "warming". I don't think modern science recognizes these effects, but then again many things have not been recognized by modern science that may still have merit. 206.53.153.184 (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another useless answer to a simple question!

Firstly: Allergies don't cause your body temperature to go up or down - please don't guess when you provide answers here: Allergic_reaction#Signs_and_symptoms has no mention of body temperature change and fever is very clear that this is the body responding to infection. You are thinking of infections causing fever and that's an entirely different matter. Furthermore, you are diagnosing a medical condition and that's not allowed on the Wikipedia reference desks.
Secondly: There are vastly more ancient claims that turn out to be worthless (or perhaps even dangerous) nonsense than there are scientific claims that are eventually overturned by ancient knowledge. This is undoubtedly a case where the "traditional medicine" answer is 100% incorrect. Look at it this way: If you have to make a decision, by far your best chance to make the best chooice is to go with modern science and ignore all of that ancient/traditional junk.

Please - can't we just answer a simple question with a simple, science-based answer? SteveBaker (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC):[reply]

I think your presumption that I hate science blinds you here. Allergic reactions produce histamines, as well as increases in blood pressure heart rate, adrenaline, and cortisol. These are all highly warming, and could raise the sensation of body temperature if not produce an actual fever.

While many traditional cures are bunk, many have also been incorporated into modern medicine, and you well know that natural substances found in plants, fungi, and bacteria are the overwhelming inspiration for biochemical research. Ancient traditions stumbled upon some of these by accident and cultivated a holistic theory of medicine around them. Which ones are valid and invalid remains open to further research. Skepticism does not preclude, and indeed it benefits from a curiosity about historical practices.

Finally, the actual biochemistry of digestion as well as the absorbtion of nutrients through the stomach, intestines, blood, and cells, as well as the interaction of nutrients and organic matter with enzymes in the body is a phenomenally complex process that we don't have a full scientific understanding of yet. So why not consider another source, albeit anecdotal.

Also, hating on wikipedia makes it not fun, so maybe don't do it?68.171.233.151 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said anything about hating - and I have no idea about whether you hate science or not. However, giving wildly incorrect guesses to legitimate questions is indefensible...and when you do that, you will be called on that. I'm not about to let people tell untruths to our questioners. The references desks are not about having fun - they are about producing factual answers to serious questions - and if you think otherwise, then you're in the wrong place. So, if you intend to continue to give misleading answers, maybe you are the one that should "maybe don't do it".

Anecdotal answers are also unacceptable here - except, perhaps, to serve to better explain a properly referenced fact. WP:NOR applies here - and so, no - we aren't going to "consider another source, albeit anecdotal" because that would be contrary to the rules, and again, if you think that's acceptable, then you're in the wrong place.

Certainly there are cases where 'traditional cures' happen to work - but there is zero methodical process involved in them. Science has researched many of them - and the ones that turn out to have a basis in fact become a part of the scientific canon. Nobody is denying that substancs in plants, fungi and bacteria are biologically active - it would be exceedingly surprising if they were not! However, random application of biologically active substances holds as many dangers as it does opportunities...which is precisely why we need to take a scientific approach to investigating them.

At any rate, we aren't being asked about some complicated, untested traditional cure. We're being asked a very simple question about an exceedingly well-researched subject of thermoregulation (and homeothermy in particular). This is well understood, established science - and 'traditional' views are simply irrelevant.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, are you 206.53.153.184? Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if you drop the science vs. nonsense dichotomy, you'll see that my response addressed the questioner's personal experience which, by "disastrous" was clearly not a merely technical question about thermal regulation/metabolism but about the op's personal experience of how the digestive process and its aftermath made him or her feel. Allergies are not magic and science has ample explanation for them.

as for traditional medicines, they're interesting historical, cultural, alternative explanations. They don't offer proof but they might be useful for confirmation or as starting points for further research. Surely people might do some useful things that science has not yet tested. Even old practices evolved through processes of experimentation, though not up to modern standards. Further, my post didn't suggest those as "answers", just references, places to look for further research, which is what we do here. Its not original research in any way to link to pages which exist! on wikipedia and address the topics of egg allergies, and traditional categorizations of the effects of food.

in other words, its not original research just because you don't like it, aren't interested in it, or discount it entirely. Its also not anectdotal, as in my personal story, but as in the collected experiences of an entire civilization, which recorded and passed on their observations all the way to present day sources. Readers benefit from a variety of opinions and a discourse about them. I'm not equivocating between science and ayurveda, but there's no reason not to mention a millenia-old cultural belief if it has some direct relevance. Let the reader see what it says and take whatever insight there is to take.

calling answers useless is not civil. Even if you disagree or are right, it stifles participation and offends good faith efforts. decreeing that because many traditional practices haven't stood up to scientific scrutiny (implying that others have) that all are therefore irrelevant is unneccessarily strict for this kind of page. They're relevant because they offer another viewpoint on the subject. The wikipedia reference desk can mention areas within the entire encyclopedia, even if they're outside the scope of a particular sub-page. And just because a field of science has an answer, it doesn't mean that no other information would be relevant. Wikipedia seems more fun when people aren't so critical of responses that attempt to add to the discussion, fun including both usefulness and enjoyment.

Ips 68 and 206 are floating cell phone ips, both mine.206.53.157.72 (talk) 02:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how is any of this related to the original question? You said "chinese medicine and indian ayurveda have for thousands of years described certain foods and other substances as "cooling" or "warming". That is bullshit, period. If you're Chinese like I am, you'd know that "cooling" and "warming" do not refer to temperature, but are instead abstract concepts that have to do with how "energetic" a food is. You'd also know that the words for "cool" and "warm" as they relate to medicine literally mean "light" and "dark", not "of high temperature" and "of low temperature". Finally, if you actually did some research on traditional Chinese medicine instead of pretending to know what you don't, you would have known that "hot" foods DO NOT feel any hotter or colder than "cold" foods, either before ingestion or after.

Please stop mentioning traditional Chinese medicine. Even if we forget about the fact that it's bullshit, that it cost countless lives due to its fraudulent claims, and that it makes pharmacists rich at the expense of their patients, it's very clear that you do not understand ANYTHING about TGM or its claims. Once again, TGM does NOT say that eating an egg will make you feel hot. It's scientifically obvious that eating an egg will not make you any hotter than eating other foods. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

first, the op doesn't say, "I took my temperature and my core thermal average heat had increased, why?" It was therefore open to subjective interpretation what the perception of heat related to. The literal and obvious choice would be temperature. A secondary consideration would be non thermal physiological effects which mimic heat such as those produced in an allergic reaction. Finally, and for a cultural-historical perspectove, there was the reference to traditional medicine. None of these were obviously correct, all of them could add some insight (scientific or otherwise) for the reader.

claiming tgm is irrelevant because it describes "energetic" as opposed to "temperature" effect assumes the op was describing temperautre. I think the non-fringe idea of a food allergy, however unlikely, permits that there could be some completely "natual" non-thermic cause for a perception of warming. Mentioning tgm and ayurveda was mainly for historical-nutritional background, to suggest that other people had noticed or described effects of food in a way that might be relevant.

my expertise regarding chinese medicine is irrelevant, as I made no specific claims about how tgm or ayurveda categorized eggs specifically, nor represented myself as an authority on those sources. I simply identified a topic which addresses the issue at hand and linked to pages for further research.

the criticism of tgm is understood but also does not disqualify the reference. For one, its a personal opinion. Secondly, even if scientists dispute its concepts, it still carries historical, cultural, and therefore anecdotal support. That was all the reference suggested, so it is within the scope of a reasonable addition.

206.53.147.36 (talk) 10:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me say this again. "Hot" and "cold" do NOT refer to heat, temperature, the perception of heat/temperature, or anything remotely resembling heat/temperature. It refers to yingyang, an abstract quantity that has nothing to do with temperature. To use the same analogy I used above, color in quantum chromodynamics has nothing to do with wavelengths of light, and the strangeness of a particle has nothing to do with how weirdly it behaves. --99.237.234.104 (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this question is being asked on the science desk - so it's reasonable to assume that a scientific answer is what is required - per heat. Unlike "color" or "strangeness", that word has a fairly unambiguous scientific meaning. Failing that, go to the 'heat' entry in Wiktionary and pick an alternate meaning. As far as I can see, eating an egg will have no measurable effect on the heat in your body for any of those meanings. Please don't start making up your own meanings for words because that way lies madness! SteveBaker (talk) 21:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing thread that's getting off topic. Buddy431 (talk) 05:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese traditional medicine egg is a neutral food neither having the heaty spirit or cool nature. Though the answers above cover the science. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who said this had anything to do with Chinese traditional medicine? The questioner certainly didn't mention that! That's something being made up by people here who are (for some weird reason) determined to provide a completely useless answer to a really simple question. SteveBaker (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, of the OP is interested in the concept I suspect they're more likely to be interested in the Ayurvedic concept then the Chinese one Nil Einne (talk) 01:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muskrat

My dogs found, much to their entertainment, a muskrat under a trailer next to my garage. I've read our article and poked around a bit. What I'm wondering is if I need to worry much at all about my chickens being killed by the muskrat. I realize that they're omnivores but is there much need for concern?

For what it's worth, I live on a mountain with some swampy areas along side the road a little ways, roughly 150 - 200', down the road from me. I suspect that's where it has been living. I'm at a loss as to why it would come up the road to my house as the only water near my place is a small spring I have next to my driveway. I'm at the top of the mountain, so everything drains away from my place. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty ignorant about muskrats, but if it's just the word "omnivore" that worries you, it shouldn't. Usually that just mean an animal that will eat critters small enough for it to swallow if it gets the chance. Actively hunting and dismembering prey of your own size tends to demand adaptations that the guy pictured at muskrat does not appear to have. Indeed, the article says:

Plant materials make up about 95 percent of their diets, but they also eat small animals such as freshwater mussels, frogs, crayfish, fish, and small turtles.

It's a far reach from that to chickens. Worry about the fox and the hawk instead. –Henning Makholm (talk) 10:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the adult chickens are pretty safe, but maybe not the eggs or chicks. He probably is living under the trailer because that's a nice ready-made home for him. To get rid of him, you might want to eliminate this home, by putting the trailer on it's side, for example, so there's no space underneath it. StuRat (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurances. I doubt he'll stay/come back to live under there. With four dogs, we don't get much wildlife in the yard to begin with, so one taking up residence is fairly unlikely. The biggest problems that we've had with animals killing our chickens have been from an ermine who would take them out in the middle of the night and from a wolf or fox. We were out of town and the dogs were with us when the wolf/fox came that time. Dismas|^(talk) 21:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for why he went roaming, maybe it's mating season and he's looking for a g/f ? StuRat (talk) 02:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How far does a muskrat ramble during mating season? Edison (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough with Muskrat Love to answer that. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Is it safe to assume it is a "he"? It could be a female looking for shelter as well. 10draftsdeep (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a female, it would have asked for directions before getting lost and ending up in my yard with four dogs. Dismas|^(talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I just didn't want to say "...(s)he's looking for a (b/g)/f". StuRat (talk) 21:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a well-established gender neutral pronoun it for use on animals (I sometimes think it would improve the English language to extend this to humans). I guess "It's mating season and it's looking for a mate" sounds odd though. 81.131.7.235 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the bizarre "xe" that some editors on Wikipedia like to use. I wish writers in English could adopt the Spanish practice of using the male pronoun to refer to males, the same pronoun as a gender-neutral pronoun for mixed groups, or where gender is not known, and the female pronoun to refer to females. Years ago people parodied gender pronoun worries like changing "congressman" to "congressperson" by arguing that instead of "woman we should say "woperson, but wait: that still sounds male, so let's make it "woperdaughter." Then we could have "huperdaughterity" instead of "humanity." Something written would be a "woperdaughteruscript." Edison (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Speed of light frame of reference

Light cannot go faster than the speed of light. But what about a universe where planets and stars are whizzing around choatically at near the speed of light in all directions. How does the light know which frame of reference to choose? Depending on the choice of the reference frame, the light may appear to be going very slowly, too fast, or even backwards. 78.149.241.120 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wonder of special relativity and the Lorentz transformation. Light doesn't have to "choose" a preferred frame of reference. The speed of the light is the same relative to every inertial frame of reference, thanks to time dilation, length contraction and the relativistic velocity-addition formula. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction, gandalf. The speed of light is the same relatative to all reference frames, including inertial and non-inertial ones. Dauto (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A minor correction, Dauto, ...including inertial and non-inertial ones when locally measured :-) - DVdm (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also could say that the speed of the light is the same relative to every inertial frame of reference, hence time dilation etc...

Originally special relativity started with the invariant speed of light and decuced dilation, contraction, addition and transformation from it. We don't really know what causes what. We just know that the speed is invariant - not why it is. DVdm (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And for the original experimental evidence that the speed of light is invariant, see Michelson–Morley experiment. –Henning Makholm (talk) 10:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It runs completely against "common sense" - but light is weird stuff. No matter how you are travelling and no matter how the source of the light was travelling - the speed that you measure is always exactly the same. So even in your chaotic universe, the light never appears to be travelling at anything other than the speed of light - no matter which reference frame you are in. In a sense, light "chooses" all of the frames of reference at once! SteveBaker (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and thus, to make everything come out basically the same in every different frame of reference, einstein et al had to mathematically generate the corrections to length and time between frames of references at different velocities. tada. Gzuckier (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness: A mental illness?

Could Poppy, the unreasonably cheerful character in the film "Happy-Go-Lucky" be described as suffering some kind of personality disorder? And is happiness or a alternatively a serious outlook on life gender specific, for example, does testosterone affect dopamine levels?[Trevor Loughlin]80.1.80.15 (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's fiction. Its unwise to attempt to deduce facts concerning real life from fiction. 78.149.241.120 (talk) 11:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've often thought that happiness is inversely proportional with intelligence, which might explain why small kids and the retarded often seem happier. They are thinking "I'm happy because I'm playing with a puppy !" while I'm thinking "I'm depressed because I'm playing with a puppy that will someday die, as will I, and as will the universe". StuRat (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that's just dumb. I am usually pretty happy and I am also intelligent. I work with small children and they are a mixed bunch. Some are always happy, some always morose, but most are like me, happy most of the time. Many people who are actually dying state that they are happy - they appreciate every day. Theresa Knott | token threats 14:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, please say you disagree, don't call the contributions of others "dumb" (especially since that actually means an inability to talk). I'm not the only person to notice the link between intelligence and happiness: [5]. And, you should know that you can't draw conclusions from a handful of individual cases, you would need a scientific study of thousands of individuals to discount the link. StuRat (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I knew that as well, but I also knew that one of Nature's ways of making sure that my genes would reproduce better, was by making me feel happy about it :-) - DVdm (talk) 13:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a correlation between size and intelligence? Since when? (Excluding children whose growth is stunted by malnutrition, disease, etc., which is a tiny minority of small children in the developed world.) --Tango (talk) 13:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The chief criteria for a mental disorder is if it causes problems for the person, or the people around them. If people around her find her annoyingly cheerful though, that sounds more like an attitudinal issue on their end, rather than hers. See this link -- FDA approves depressant drug for the annoyingly cheerful. Warning, may contain humour. Vranak (talk)

The original questioner may want to read about definitions of mental illness. There is much debate in academic and professional mental health fields about this issue. Nimur (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Though I didn't see it, review of the movie made me think the director's answer would be no.

On the other hand, there are some interesting psychological conditions which may be relevant. The most obvious is mania, a condition characterized by near euphoric feelings of optimism and ability. It sounds great but apparently it can also be tied to really hard lows, see bipolar depression, as well as some risky behaviors and a difficulty interacting with mere "mortals".

The movie's main character doesn't seem to have that, though so it might not matter.

Incidentally, if you ask an actual bipolar person, they'll admit that it having uncontrollable bouts of surging energy can itself be scary or even unwanted (perhaps only in retrospect).

More recent research into happiness shows that cognitive behaviors (ie positive thoughts)) can be improved, and brain scans of people who meditate show altered activity levels in parts of the brain linked to happiness.

You could also consider that our moods are partially determined by neurotransmitters like serotonin and dopamine, which could be genetically or periodically higher in some people than others.

As for the bigger picture there's an interesting though marginal theory that depressed people actually see the world more accurately and that happiness involves a kind of cognitive "shield" (see depressive realism).

Finally, its worth considering that poppy is the "normal" one, and everyone else is really bonkers. 68.171.235.107 (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your second question. Testosterone does not affect dopamine levels. However there is a relationship between Dopamine and serotonin. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also see height and intelligence, happiness and pursuit of happiness (pursuing happiness means you're unhappy). Usually, a relatively simple life leads to more happiness. Children tend to be happier due to generally fewer adverse life experiences and heightened curiosity, and as for why the "retarded" may seem to be happier–some may consider that word to be degrogatory, but it is likely due to the fact that many of them try to live to the fullest. Also, if intelligence is negatively correlated with happiness, does that mean Albert Einstein or Leonardo da Vinci would have been chronically depressed? It is highly unlikely that happiness would be gender-specific...what are the evolutionary advantages of that? ~A H 1^(TCU) 22:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not how correlation works. For example, consider a hypothetical world where anyone with an IQ_{( $\sigma =15$ )} between 100 and 130 is unhappy (happiness=0) anyone else is happy (happiness=100). In such a world intelligence would be negatively correlated with happiness, but Einstein and Leonardo would still be happy. (This, of course, has nothing to do with the original question – which is more about the meaning of 'disorder' than about happiness). –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happiness is a cigar called Hamlet! :)--79.76.175.65 (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kidron

Don't know if this is the right place to ask but could anybody tell me what kidron is? I have a collection of books bound in kidron but I can't seem to find what type of material it is... Wikipedia doesn't have an article. I'd be grateful for any help! ; ) --91.49.119.20 (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that "kidron" is intended to refer to the material? The Kidron Valley is a location near Jeruselem and Kidron, Ohio is a town in the US - "bound in Kidron" could simply mean "produced in a bookbinding facility located in Kidron, Ohio/the Kidron Valley". If you are certain it refers to the cover material, it may be related to "kid", the term used for young goats, and for their leather. (Kid leather was regarded as a fine and elegant leather, see kid gloves.) -- 174.31.194.126 (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, I'm sure. A catalogue of the books can be seen here. The Oscar Wilde collection for example states that the edition is bound "in deep red Kidron" and the Macaulay Collection states that in addition to the lambskin and 23 kt gold bound collection the edition is also available in "golden embellished Kidron", indicating (IMO) that Kidron is a lesser material. Thanks for any further help. --91.49.119.20 (talk) 17:16, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your external link, which had broken syntax. Nimur (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

It appears, in this context, to be a kind of paper-plastic composite imitation leather. Probably a long-discontinued trade name. Google finds a few references implying that the same stuff (or something close enough to be mistaken for it) is also called "skivertex", and skivertex itself has ghits that look like they should be useful. –Henning Makholm (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks soo much!--91.49.83.183 (talk) 10:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]