Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 21

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.

August 21

Noah's Ark

Now, before I start, I'll just state now that I don't really want to start a debate here about whether Noah's Ark was actually real, or whether the Flood happened or not. What I'm actually curious about is this - supposing that one wanted to construct a great ship, capable of housing two members of every extant species of land animal (we can include species that were present in Biblical times but not now, if you wish) for a year or so, with enough space to store the food and fresh water required to keep them alive throughout... then how big would the ship actually have to be? I seem to remember that someone actually tried to work this out once and came out with a rough estimate that (assuming no physics-bending divine intervention) would put the Ark at several times larger than the largest supertankers and aircraft carriers ever constructed - and the amount of raw materials and time required for construction would be utterly staggering. Does this sound familiar to anyone? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but can't remember who did the math, either. I think the conclusion was that he stored the genetic material and not the actual animals :) . Besides, most extant species (that is, invertebrates) have a natural life span comparable with the duration of the Flood, if not smaller -- not to mention predation and such -- so they wouldn't have made it alive anyway. Another problem is the narrowing of the gene pool: if a species is down to just one breeding pair, its chances of survival are not too good; inbreeding is a Bad Thing. --Dr Dima (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you including insects and other invertebrates? I'm assuming you want birds. And do you want to limit yourself to animals from a given area, or do you really want it for all species in the entire world? And are you thinking of this article? 86.161.255.213 (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the specific article I read (I think I read mine in a newspaper) but that is a really good read. It covered a few things that I'd never considered. Nice find. I suppose that an argument could be made for limiting the number of species (including birds and invertebrates, as I think that is specifically stated in the Bible) to those present in the *known world* at the time of Genesis, to tie in with the 'it wasn't a global Flood - but a large Flood in the Near/Middle East' theory that some expound... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think predation would be a problem, since anyone with some common sense would take aboard young animals (taking up much less space). As for smaller animals, such as mice, you would need very little space (or just let them run around free). They were only to take animals "that lived on dry land and breathed through their nostrils", so you would not need to take fish, invertebrates, amphibians, etc. And since the Bible says "every species after its kind", not "every animal after its taxonomically separate species", I think they would have considered elephants, for example, to be just one kind (meaning you don't have to take aboard all three species that existed at the time, just one). And to KSB's earlier comment, the source says it took 120 to build! For a 450 foot long boat, I think it would be quite possible. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 04:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a challenging idea from the High Fin Sperm Whale. If it wasn't necessary for the Ark to carry a pair of each of the two or three separate species of elephant that existed at the time, only one pair, that begs the question how is it that we now see at least two separate species of elephant - African and Indian? How did two separate species spring from just one breeding pair of elephants on the Ark? Could they have evolved from that one breeding pair? Unlikely, since evolution and the story of the Ark are incompatible. Could the two or more separate species have sprung from the one breeding pair by a miracle of God? If God was into performing miracles as a means of populating the world from the animals in the Ark why did there need to be a breeding pair - God could have used miracles to populate the world starting with just one animal. That would have required an Ark only half the size. And pursuing that line of thought a little further, why bother with the Ark at all - just use miracles to populate the world with animals, starting with just fish or microbes. If God could manufacture Eve starting with nothing more than one of Adam's ribs He would have no problem creating a breeding pair of elephants starting with nothing more than a couple of tuna or trout or perhaps a pair of Elephant seals, and they would all have survived the flood without any trouble.

Another possibility is that the whole flood story is just a story that grew with the telling, passed on from one generation to the next until it was eventually committed to writing in what we now know as the Old Testament. This is the Science Reference Desk where people confine their ideas to things that can be supported by information gathered by observation, and without recourse to intuition. Outside the Bible there is no evidence to support the story of the Ark and the flood. Many people have attempted to shoe-horn various observations into the Biblical story but those attempts have never won support outside the group of like-minded people. Consequently the Ark and the flood have no place in science, unless and until someone finds evidence that will objectively support the Biblical account. Science must examine the facts and draw the most consistent conclusion, not search for facts that will support a preferred or pre-determined conclusion.

Answers to questions about the Ark and the flood don't belong on the Science Reference Desk. Dolphin (t) 04:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? The question encompasses both history and science. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 05:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that KSB's question encompasses science and a little recent history (someone actually tried to work this out once), but I think your first reply strayed from the scientific a little. My comment about answers to questions on the Ark and the flood was intended to be a general comment and not one directed solely at this thread. Dolphin (t) 07:41, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) ... and the story has been investigated by both scientists and historians. I don't think they have come up with a definitive conclusion yet, but the best explanation I've read that explains both the biblical story and the similar account in the Epic of Gilgamesh is that of the catastrophic flooding of the land around the Black Sea around 5600 BC as a result of the sudden breaching of the Bosphorus. Scientific evidence for this is set out in Ian Wilson's book Before the Flood (ISBN0752846353). Dbfirs 07:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I haven't read Wilson's book. I doubt an account based on the sudden breaching of the Bosphorus could be found compatible with the Biblical version, because the Biblical version speaks only of continuous rain for 40 days and 40 nights. I have seen a documentary about ancient flood and Ark stories abounding in the vicinity of the Euphrates River. Dolphin (t) 07:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many flood stories from around that time because of the climate change and the scientifically documented rise in sea levels. The continuous rain would only add to the sudden rise of the water in the lake that subsequently became the Black Sea. Wilson presents a convincing explanation, but does not try to justify the "Noah's Ark" story word-for-word. A suspiciously similar story is that of Atra-Hasis Dbfirs 11:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You should bear in mind that there weren't just two of each kind. According to Genesis chapter 7, There were seven of each bird, and of each "clean" animal (presumably as defined by Jewish dietary law), and two of each of the "unclean" animals. Rojomoke (talk) 10:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Was there one extra male and two of the males had to fight for the females or was there an extra female and one of the males got two females? Or some other combination like 1 male, 6 females? If it were either of the later two options, what happened to those animals (a number of birds for example) that practice pair bonding? Incidentally, wasn't it lucky Noah was so good at sexing so many different kinds of animals. Nil Einne (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have heard that Noah took only the kinds. So he wouldn't take 2 of each species of dog, but just the one original dog. Then the original dog "evolved" to the many species of dogs. But this evolution does not go out of its kind naturally. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've heard such claims before, but all they do is reveal how little people who make them know about evolution or even basic taxonomy. The idea we could get the level of diversity of life we see nowadays from this supposed 'restricted' evolution in a few thousands years, but it's impossible humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees in several million years is clear cut nonsense. (I wonder is the general idea only one kind of Simiiformes was chosen, excluding humans, which then underwent this limited evolution into Catarrhini and Platyrrhini or did these different 'kinds' already exist?) Being able to compare the increasing number of whole genome sequences is further proving the point. And we're not even getting into the other things people have discussed like the absence of any evidence of a genetic bottleneck for most species Nil Einne (talk) 12:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, we could certainly take a shot at this.

Using numbers from too many articles to list: There are 10,000 species of bird, 5,400 mammals, 5,600 frogs, 7,900 snakes & lizards - and much smaller numbers of other kinds of larger animal...but to be honest (in terms of species count), that's all largely irrelevant compared to the between 5 and 10 million species of arthropod (most of which are insects). A good fraction of those would be marine arthropods - which one assumes wouldn't need a ride on the ark - but if we make a guess at 2 million land arthropod species - then even if each pair needed a 10cm x 10cm x 10cm cage (pretty spacious for, say, an ant!), you're only up to 2,000 cubic meters of space. You could keep a pair of birds in maybe 30x30x30cm (on average - ostriches take more, but love-birds less) - so we're looking at another 1000 cubic meters of birds. Some mammals are much bigger - but 1,100 of those species are bats (100 cubic meters), 2,200 are rodents (maybe 200 cubic meters). Even if the rest are things like dogs and cats and cows and such, there are lots of voles and other tiny mammals to counteract the elephants and giraffes. Let's guess at an average of 1 cubic meter per non-rodent/bat mammal species, so we need maybe 4,000 cubic meters for the mammals. Frogs snakes and lizards would probably consume another 10x10x10 cm cage per species - so we'll need a mere 8 cubic meters for them.

I'd say that for a VERY rough estimate, the living space alone would consume something like 8,000 cubic meters. Let's quadruple that to allow space for food and water, add another 8,000 meters for corridors, access, exercise areas, etc. So perhaps we need 50,000 cubic meters for the entire ship.

The Seawise Giant (the largest cargo ship ever built) is 458m long, 68m wide with a draft of 24m - so a volume of 750,000 cubic meters is easily attainable in a modern vessel. A more typical large cargo ship would be more like 150,000 cubic meters - so we can get away with a relatively small ship. Could this be a wooden ship? You'd be looking at something about five times the size of HMS Victory (10,000 cubic meters). Is that possible? Well, yes! The Greeks built the Tessarakonteres in about the 3rd century BC - it was (very, very roughly) 200m x 30m x 30m - 180,000 cubic meters. Plenty enough to hold one pair of every land animal!

The bible says that the ark was 300x50x30 cubits...there are many definitions of a cubit - but they mostly come out at around a half meter - which makes the ark about half the size of the Tessarakonteres. So the ark (as described) was evidently well within the technology of the 3rd or 4th century BC. The ark could hold 56,000 cubic meters...plenty big enough for 8,000 cubic meters of animals, food and water.

Of course we can be very sure (from fossil evidence, DNA analysis, etc) that Noah's ark is a myth. Doing this is so far beyond the capabilities of the people of the time that it's completely laughable - there are a crazily large number of reasons why this is obviously bullshit.

I don't think the size of the vessel is (in principle) an obstacle...I'm very surprised about that...someone had better check my math!

SteveBaker (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article I linked suggests a lot of the animals will die if you try to keep them in those conditions for weeks on end. 86.161.255.213 (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've always thought that the story works much better from God's point of view if you assume that the flood was local, but God told us it was global. After-all, human civilization lived almost entirely in river valleys at the time, no need to flood all the way up to the mountain tops.

Anyway, with the ark story as written you'd need some good climate control systems too. Polar bears and Komodo Dragons are not going to do well in the same climate. I wonder which would be easier with the technology of the time : Sailing the ship in arctic waters and using some sort of solar heating rig to keep the tropical animals happy, or sailing in a warmer climate and rigging up some sort of evaporative cooling system. APL (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There was probably a canopy of water vapor or something that produces the greenhouse effect, making the heating almost equal. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That makes it worse not better. If, as you say, the air was saturated with water vapor and the world was globally warm, then Noah would have had a tremendous difficulty with keeping cold-weather animals cool. The cooling technology they would have had back then would have been very primitive evaporative coolers, not only would those not have been powerful enough to reach anywhere near arctic temperatures, those only work properly in very dry weather. A globally warm humid climate would have killed off many species that have clearly survived to this day. Polar bears.

The only way he's going to keep arctic animals happy is if he goes some place really cold, then warms the rest of the boat with solar power and fires. (Fuel for the fires adds to the boat's cargo requirements.) APL (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the flooding of the Black Sea, see Black Sea deluge theory. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve Baker has done an excellent job of estimating the order of magnitude of the size of the ark. Well done Steve! I think the next step to challenge our minds is the human resource necessary to feed all these creatures. It might go something like this. One trip by one person to carry enough food for 20 species of bird. That is 500 trips to feed all 10,000 species of bird. Distance from feed store to aviary - 200 metres; with a round trip taking 5 minutes. One minute to feed one species so each trip involves 20 minutes actually dispensing the feed. That is 208 hours to feed all the birds once. Let's assume Noah's family members worked 20 hours a day, so if all the birds were fed once every 2 days it would require 5 people working full time just to feed the birds on the ark, without considering any cleaning of the aviaries or carrying away the droppings.

Now let's consider the mammals. No! I'm exhausted. Dolphin (t) 02:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your estimate for birds is very low. You should be able to carry enough for more than 1000 birds in one load (a budgie eats 2 teaspoons a day, which is about 10cc, and weights maybe 12g or so). BTW the Talmud discusses this topic, and concludes that the whole thing is impossible for a person to do (for pretty much the same reasons as listed above), and that the story is a miracle. Ariel. (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Natural science relates a point in the present to a point in the past by natural laws, which are assumed to be constant. Any variation of the rules of nature by a divine entity invalidates the predictions of natural science. More generally, it is possible that a number of parallel universes exist, each related within itself by natural science, but relatable to one another throughout their extent by a different set of rules. Thus I think it could be meaningful to speak of multiple dimensions of time, each representing a different ruleset - however, scientists can only study the one that affects laboratory experiments as they perceive them.

The story of the Ark is utterly absurd in our universe as we understand it. Yet we should be sensitive to the consideration that there could be some other universe (perhaps one with fewer species...and fewer barriers to inbreeding) where the events make some sense. We cannot rule out that such a universe might have been created "before" our own, whether according to the biography of an Author of universes, or by the operation of a physics ruleset that we have not ourselves observed. In this way, we should recognize that our science cannot disprove the actions of a creator capable of creating and changing physical laws. Wnt (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The whole thing is obviously ludicrous to the modern mind. Consider the plight of the Granulated Tasmanian snail which lives only in Australia. That means it would have had to travel about 10,000km to get to the location of the Ark - at a peak speed of 1mm per second - taking about 7 years to do so (if it could do it in a straight line overland without coming across any insurmountable obstacles - which for a Granulated Tasmanian snail doesn't take much!). However, how could it cross the ocean? Clearly a lot more than one pair of snails would have to set out in order to be sure that they'd arrive without being eaten by a bird along the way. Worse, those snails don't live for 7 years - they'd have to treat this as a multigenerational trip. Worse still, we'd have to consider animals that live in cold climates that would have been unable to survive in the middle east...animals like the Giant Panda that can only eat bamboo - which didn't grow in that part of the world. What about those hundreds of species of cave-dwellers who are completely blind - how do they find their way there? Species of animal like the Ichneumon wasp that doesn't live long enough to survive the 10 month trip without reproducing - and which requires a living host for its pupea to develop within. I could keep on coming up with problems like this for as long as anyone would be prepared to listen. There are a simply insane number of little problems that would have to be overcome at every step of the way:

• How could these animals all be assembled at the right time?
• How could predation and sort life-spans ensure they'd all survive?
• How could their wildly varied diets have been handled? Even modern zoo-keepers with the benefit of years of study find some species to be impossible to keep in captivity. (How did the Noah crew find bamboo for the Pandas?)
• Why is there no evidence of a lack of genetic diversity such as would be expected if just one breeding pair of each species survived the mass-extinction event claimed here?
• There is no actual solid definition of a "species" - how exactly did all of the subtle variations between two species that blur together come to be represented in the Ark?
• Where did all the water come from to flood the earth to that depth? Where did it all go to afterwards? How did it disappear so insanely quickly?
• How come there is no geological evidence for all of this? We ought to at least find a thin layer of salty alluvium at the same geological age over the entire planet.
• How did plants survive the inundation? 10 months underwater would have eradicated every terrestrial plant species and likely made the soil so salty that nothing would grow in it afterwards.
• What did the animals eat when they were released from the ark?
• Were there two of every kind of bacterium present on the ark? If not - then how did the ones that require animal or plant hosts survive?
• What about communal species like ants and bees - one male and one 'queen' isn't enough to raise the first generation of pupea after the flood. Even if they could recover, how would the newly regrowing plants get pollinated in the meantime.
• ...etc, etc, for another few hundred obvious questions...

Clearly this was a story written for a local audience. People who had never gone beyond the next village in their entire lives - who perhaps only knew of a few hundred animal species. For someone like that, this would be a rather believable story. But in the light of modern knowledge, it's just plain silly.

What is sad is that when people like our very own resident fundamentalist have to resort to patently ridiculous "explanations" for a story that should never be taken literally. In response to the tricky issue of how the ark would have provided ranges of temperatures suited to everything from the polar bear to the desert tortoise we are told: "There was probably a canopy of water vapor or something that produces the greenhouse effect, making the heating almost equal."...um...words fail me! Noah's ark is a cutesy story for little children - there is no conceivable way it could be real.

The only answer that can possibly work here is "It's magic...God waved his magic wand and it all came out like the big book says...then (for some unaccountable reason) he did this amazing cover-up job to make all of the evidence point to it never having happened."...and if that's the answer, then it has no place here on the science desk.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably doesn't belong at the science desk, but we're misapplying science if we use it to rule out the miraculous. You don't have to be a fundamentalist to appreciate that our world may indeed be a re-creation, or a simulation, or a fictional landscape, whether dreamed up by a Star Trek Holodeck, Demiurge, a solipsist or an Almighty God. Religion seeks to explore the landscape beyond the confines of our observable Universe. Is it possible that the archetypes of living species were drawn up in some small walled garden, like a group of video game programmers might do it? Why not? Is it possible that some were discarded, others saved? Why not? We can't distinguish what God would do and what God wouldn't do, until we at least try to understand such matters on their own terms. Wnt (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wnt is right. It doesn't belong at the Science Reference Desk. Science doesn't rule out the miraculous - for example science accepts the existence and performance of polio vaccines, and they are miraculous in many peoples' eyes. Science says don't bother telling us about things you think are miracles, but come back and tell us when you have some objective evidence of these phenomena. Dolphin (t) 04:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I did a ballpark estimate once and estimated that it would take 15 aircraft carriers just to hold the animals (no food, etc). Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 04:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How come your estimate is so violently different from mine (above)? Could you share your reasoning - or at least point out the hole in mine? My conclusion is that the volume required is actually entirely compatible with the dimensions given for the Ark in the bible. SteveBaker (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember the details - I did it over 30 years ago. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 23:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh well - there were a LOT more species back then.  :-(

SteveBaker (talk) 02:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Space related

Sir, I am just an ordinary person. I am not a scientist. Stephen Hawking in his book namely " A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME" published during 1988 has narated in his conclusion topic that ' we shall all. philosphers,scientists,and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. Hence, being an just ordinary person, i would like to express my views to my indian scholars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kannappanvelu (talk • contribs) 07:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand your question. If you are asking for an analysis of Hawking's statement, he's commenting on the difference between the nature of science (which is about describing what the Universe does), and other analysis of the Universe, such as its purpose and reason for being. He is stating that all people, not just physicists as himself, have a role in defining for themselves why the universe exists, that is assigning a purpose or meaning to its existance. It is a similar sentiment, from the opposite direction, that Cardinal Cesare Baronio expressed when he stated "The Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go". In other words, there are seperate domains for Science and for Religion/Philosophy to occupy in the human existance. Hawking is merely reminding us that, while his (Hawkings) domain is the description of "how the universe goes", he isn't going to tell you "why" or "for what purpose" the universe goes. Ordinary people can do that for themselves. --Jayron32 07:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hawking expresses that Freedom of speech about existential subjects shall not be limited to those with particular qualifications, such as scientists or philosophers. Viewpoints on these subjects often constitute a Belief system. The rules stated at the top of this page do not allow starting a debate here about such questions. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Free speech is not a surrogate to "qualification" - it's a totally independent matter. I think India is a pretty progressive place; so if the OP wants to express his/her views to scholars, he/she can probably write a book, a letter to a major newspaper, or even visit a university and try to meet with a scholar. If I understand correctly, no government regulators will try stop you. But if you voice your opinion, it might not be taken seriously unless you have established credibility - in many cases, this means "an advanced degree in the subject you're interested in." It really depends on the community that you want to participate in - if you have opinions about physics, most physicists will expect you to have a well-rounded background in the "core subjects" of modern physics. If you only want to express philosophical ideas, most philosophers will equally-well expect a solid training (informal or otherwise) in the basic philosophical arguments that have historically been laid out before - so that you don't waste time their repeating other ideas that have been elucidated previously, and instead build new ideas. These are sort of "pre-requisites" for serious discussion in certain communities - it proves that you have invested the time, and been vetted for basic competency by a trustable institution. Nimur (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hawking mentions all people, not just those meeting pre-requisites. The OP spoke about "my indian scholars" (from Latin schola school) which may mean the OP is a teacher. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a completely silly conclusion to reach, and a nonsensical way of reaching it. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain clearer if there is a problem with my post. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, the most logical reading of the OP's post which I think 98 is getting at, is that the OP is an ordinary person who's job is indeterminate and largely irrelevant, who wants to communicate with scholars (meaning learned people or researchers, most likely scientists given the specific question) in India (where they likely live) about their views of why the universe exists apparently because they believed Hawking was encouraging it and/or suggesting they would be interested Nil Einne (talk) 13:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"My Indian scholars" does not imply, in any way, that the OP is a teacher. Falling back on the Latin roots of "scholar" is a ridiculous way to interpret the word in context. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

[1]scholar n.

1.A student; one who studies at school or college.

2.A specialist in a particular branch of knowledge.

3.A learned person.

4.One who educates themself for their whole life.

I make no assumption about which meaning the OP may intend. With respect, neither should you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to miss the point. The key question is not what the word "scholar" means, which is pretty clear without needing either the Latin or dictionary definitions. The key question is whether one should interpret "my Indian scholars" as meaning that the OP is a teacher. There is nothing that warrants that. One could more readily interpret them as being an administrator of an educational system (they are their scholars, after all), but that is clearly ridiculous in the context of the overall question as well. If it was "my fellow Indian scholars," then it would imply that the OP is a scholar, but it doesn't say that. It seems more likely to interpret it as "the Indian scholars in my country". Anyway, all of this shouldn't need elaboration, if not for your pedantry. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking[2] 67.243.7.245 (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hawking is not suggesting that scholars want to listen to you or care about what you say. What he is saying is that the overall question of the origins and purpose of the universe should not be limited to astrophysicists, that it is a broader question, that some of it is deep philosophy. He's trying to encourage you not to defer to scholars just because they are scholars. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

In the extract given, Hawking does not say the question is deep anything. One may deduce that he encourages ordinary people to take part in discussing the question, though his actual statement is worded as a prediction ("we shall..."). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the OP wants to communicate with scholars from the country of India regarding the nature of the universe and share his ideas. He seems to have taken Professor Hawking's ending sentiments quite literally rather than distant future figuritively. 24.177.120.57 (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Fishbone getting stuck in throat

A fishbone is getting stuck in my throat, and if I leave it there without doing anything for I have been told that fisbone is calcium which can automatically be decayed (though it is quite bothersome), will this be dangerous?

203.131.212.36 (talk) 12:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We are not allowed to give out medical advice. See WP:MEDICAL.

SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think deleting my comment was called for. It's not like I told the poster what to do. Wnt (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Adjusting the cost of energy for using carbon

█ Conventional oil	█ Unconventional oil	█ Biofuels	█ Coal	█ Nuclear	█ Wind
Colored vertical lines indicate various historical oil prices. From left to right:
— 1990s average	— January 2009	— 1979 peak	— 2008 peak

Price of oil per barrel (bbl) at which energy sources are competitive.

• Right end of bar is viability without subsidy.
• Left end of bar requires regulation or government subsidies.
• Wider bars indicate uncertainty.

How would you adjust Template:Cost of energy sources for the external, weather-related cost of using fossil fuel?

Carbon pricing is not much help. Here is a diminishing-returns chart; does that help?

What do we need to learn to answer this question? Why Other (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

A major part of the problem here is that we don't know the full cost of global climate change. We know it's happening - and we know that it's largely caused by fossil fuels and things like the large scale farming of herbivores (specifically "Cow farts"). However, even if we did know that, it's not a flat-rate kind of a thing. Think of it this way...X amount of CO2 in the atmosphere might have almost no effect because it might not cause the polar icecaps to melt - but twice X might be enough to melt the icecaps, create dark water where there was bright ice and therefore much more solar absorption. Twice X worth of CO2 could easily cause ten X worth of warming. So there is no price we can put on X amount of CO2 in the air.

That means that the price that's put on this is a matter of deterrence, politics, economics - not science. SteveBaker (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Good point, we need cost information per emitted carbon, with which this source-sink flowchart might help, in addition to the source information from livestock. Why Other (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Cow farts aren't a major contributor to climate change. Cow burps may be. Note that contributions from livestock also come from things like land cleared (a one time thing usually) both for the cows and for the feed due to increasing production are also usually considered a factor. Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked about that on Talk:Climate change mitigation#Low carbon diet. Why Other (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I just found Economics of climate change mitigation and I am having trouble understanding some of it.

Can we just move all the fossil fuel subsidies to wind and water power subsidies? That's $500 billion a year. How could we determine whether it would be too much or not enough? Why Other (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Why only wind and water? What about solar? Nuclear? Biofuels? (Incidentally does water include geothermal? Wave?) Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Solar is good, but does it play much of a role? Nuclear looks expensive to begin with, and I'm not sure it can be built out fast. Some of the storage and transmission energy developments look much more important than geothermal generation. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Depends where you're referring to surely. Iceland already gets about 24% of their power from geothermal. Also how/why have you determined solar doesn't play much of a role if you're trying to expand usage by subsidies anyway? Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; something like File:Extreme-weather-cost.gif is necessary to approximate the financial value of reducing atmospheric carbon. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 19:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wind, water, and solar are certainly all good, but definitely in that order long term. Water includes both hydroelectric and tidal, and geothermal is certainly more important than tidal (which is only used in 2010 to recharge the batteries a few electric yachts with on-board regeneration at anchor.[3]) Why Other (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, how have you made that decision on what's important and what order? Particularly since you talking about using subsidies and considering in many countries the level of usage of all (except nuclear and to a lesser extent hydroelectic) are rather small. Are you sure your suggestions apply everwhere? What about say in the Middle East or tropical countries? Nil Einne (talk) 19:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the order they appear by magnitude in Jacobson, M.Z. and Delucchi, M.A. (November 2009) "A Plan to Power 100 Percent of the Planet with Renewables" (originally published as "A Path to Sustainable Energy by 2030") Scientific American 301(5):58-65 and so that is the order I put them in energy development. Why Other (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That appears to be one group?'s ideas and while it may be legitimate to present such ideas in the article (something which is not up for discussion here, if you want to discuss what goes in an article that should stay in an article talk page), this doesn't mean that their ideas are the only valid ones as you seem to imply here. In fact, the fact it's presented in a popular science journal somewhat suggests is justs a simplified public proposal rather then a robust peer reviewed scientific analysis. BTW I forgot to mention this earlier. I'm not that familiar with nuclear power developmental time frames but if your suggestions are hinged on some significant developments in energy storage systems then it's not clear to me if you can reasonably dismiss nuclear as taking too long. P.S. From a quick read of the article you mention, it doesn't even seem to agree with your suggestions. In fact their proposal seems to be 51% wind and 40% solar, so I don't see how you can dismiss solar as not playing a role as you did early on. And in fact in their proposal solar appears to play a far bigger part then water. Wind may be more important then solar in their proposal but only by about 20% and it's difficult to imagine that they are really claiming their proposal is so robust that a change from their proposal to say 46% solar and 45% wind is impossible. Nil Einne (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is everyone looking at the graph on p. 64 of the November 2009 Scientific American (a NPG publication) entitled "Cost to generate and transmit power in 2020 (cents per kwh in 2007 dollars)" which lists wind at less than 4, wave and hydroelectric at 4, geothermal at 4-7, and solar, fossil, and nuclear at 8? Scientific American is peer reviewed, and the article is based on the costs of raw materials plus labor. Why Other (talk) 01:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If $500 billion/year currently used to subsidize fossil fuel were moved to wind power, how close would that bring today's prices to Scientific American's projection for 2020? Why Other (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said Scientific American is a popular science magazine not a peer reviewed journal. See [4] with a comment from the President of SA himself confirming this fact.

Also, any source which gives only one possible figure, without even an error estimation, for a cost in 2020 is clearly not intending it to be some sort of super reliable, end all estimate as you seem to be treating it.

BTW the cost to generate is only likely to be one factor in considering power sources most suited for future use, hence why the people who wrote the article you are referring to still think solar would represent 40% in their proposal, despite having the differing cost estimations.

Note that I am not suggesting any of the info you have is wrong, rather if you really want to consider it in depth/properly, you need to look at a lot more sources, preferably looking at the actual research or literature reviews rather then coming to a conclusion from one source who's authors I suspect would largely agree with me that their proposal is not intended to be the end all right answer. As with most aspects of science involving predictions of future developments, this is an incredibly complicated area and when you're talking about $500 billion a year people won't think much of an overly simplistic analysis. (For a starters, I suggest you take a look at the sources the SA authors used.)

Nil Einne (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I was mistaken about Scientific American's peer reviewed status. Where are you seeing the 40% figure and the other percentages you mentioned earlier? Why Other (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, you mean the charts on pages 60 and 61. I had misread the first on the upper left. How much water power do we already have built out? Figure 55 of page 73 of http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/pdf/electricity.pdf seems to suggest less than a terawatt, and at least it shows more wind growth than other EIA sources. Why Other (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The chart on page 61 of the November 2009 Scientific American doesn't add up. It says "Solar 4.6 TW (40% of supply)" but it only has 0.6 TW shown. (Note, it shows 0.6 GW, because the smaller figures are "per each") Nil, thank you for your good advice to find the cited review: Jacobson, M.Z. (2009) "Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security" Energy and Environmental Science 2:148-73 doi 10.1039/b809990c (review.)

http://aiche.confex.com/aiche/2009/webprogram/Paper159471.html is also very interesting. Why Other (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Identify this animal

Hello Science Desk! I just saw a creature, about the size of a small woodlouse and similar in shape, but light blue in color and with an outer body that looked hard and spiny. What might it have been? 82.44.54.4 (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We can answer these questions much more easily if you could tell us roughly where you live. Which country, which state? (I also gave your question a more useful title "Question" doesn't really help much!) SteveBaker (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If the IP address is any help, the questioner is located in the UK. Woodlice normally aren't spiny, though they can appear to be blue. Could it have been a short blue spiny caterpillar or other larva? (Sometimes, the caterpillar's appearance is even described as "woodlouse-form". --Sluzzelin talk 18:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the "hard" part in your question, which make caterpillars and other larvae seem unlikely. For woodlice, we have a list of woodlice of the British Isles. "Blue" isn't mentioned, but Philoscia muscorum looks blue on that picture, though its color is described as "mottled and greyish-brown". I was perhaps a bit quick claiming that woodlice normally aren't spiny. Stenophiloscia glarearum is described to have "a distinctly spiny dorsal surface", but it is also long and white, not short and blue. Another one from that list, Styloniscus spinosus, has a name suggesting spininess, but the entry lacks any description whatsoever. I wasn't able to find photographs of either of the potentially spiny species. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a woodlouse, but a silverfish might be what you're referring to from the description. Mikenorton (talk) 15:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Callus

When you develop a callus, is it there for good (permanent) ... or is there a way to make it go away (i.e., reverse the process of the skin hardening)? I am referring to a small callus on the palm of the hand, as the result of constant (daily) use of a gym treadmill. Once I noticed the callus, I started wearing weight-lifting gloves. But will these small calluses (calli?) eventually go away and disappear on their own? Or can I do something that will make them go away? Or am I stuck with them permanently now that they have arrived? Thanks! (64.252.34.115 (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC))

Pretty sure a doctor (presumably a dermatologist?) could answer these questions. Medical advice it outside the remit of the Ref Desks, but our article callus has a few ideas - it seems calluses are removed, rather than reversed. 90.195.179.233 (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Anecdote from personal experience: fifteen years ago, I used to carry a heavy case into work every day. A long and tough callus built up across my palm from the handle. Today, I can still feel where it was, but it's only a soft bump, difficult even to notice. I assume that it vanishes as the skin is constantly renewing itself. Oh, and the Latinate plural is indeed calli, though I think as it's a common English word you'd be fine saying "calluses". Marnanel (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

See Callus#Treatment. They may go away on their own, they may not. You can use pumice to grind it off if you wanted to, if you are not diabetic. There are also chemicals you can use to dissolve them. They sell things like this in the "foot care" section of your local pharmacy. You might talk to a pharmacist about this, if not a doctor. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2010 (UTC)~

Callous care advice and warnings. (video) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how much advice I'd take when the authors can't even spell it right. --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Brain

What part of the brain is imagination synthesized, specifically art, music, literature, ect. Maybe someone can satisfy my insatiable desire for knowledge by adding some interesting facts? Like maybe how does someone come to "enjoy" certain representation of art yet not others as much or not at all (e.g. music like deathcore compared to RnB?). 99.114.94.169 (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no definitive understanding of exactly how one derives pleasure. Have a look at Pleasure#Neurobiology, Pleasure center, Emotion#Neurobiological_theories, and Perspective (cognitive).Smallman12q (talk) 22:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that the best of Wikipedia can give me? I was hoping for some discussion on theory? Are there any theory on why people njoy certain types of music/art/literature, while other may prefer something completely different? 99.114.94.169 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You usually have to wait more than 2 hours on a weekend. People have lives, you know, and we're just volunteers. But I do suspect that Smallman12q's answer is probably about as good as it gets. You seem to be assuming there are distinct, known, physiological structures responsible for different types of cultural appreciation. I'm not sure there's any evidence of that, at least with out current understanding of the brain. The neurological domain may be a bit too fine-grained for the level of analysis you are talking about. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Harsh? Well, by the tone I was assuming that was the best answer I was going to get, but I was hoping otherwise. Well maybe if I tried something different... What part of the brain processes music, would it be the same part that processes other auditory stimuli, and art likewise? Then what of literature? Or maybe does it starts there and then what part of the brain says its "enjoyable." The I guess i can do some reading on the associated article. 99.114.94.169 (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at music-related memory, artistic inspiration, creativity, sleep and creativity, lateralization of brain function, reading comprehension, and imagination. ~AH1^(TCU) 01:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is still a lot of argument about how imagination works, but one popular view, backed especially by Stephen Kosslyn, is that the sensory parts of the brain play a major role in imagining things in a given sensory modality, especially the higher-level sensory areas. So when you imagine music, your auditory cortex is active; when you imagine a painting, your visual cortex is active; and so on. Other areas are active too, though, including parts of the frontal lobes. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did some looking around and found some more interesting reads. Such as Cognitive Neuroscience of Music, Music and the brain, and Amusia, a disease affecting perception of music. So it is commonly believed that each individual sensory area specializes and forms its own cognitive imagination? Or would it be more likely they all go to a certain part of the brain? And what part of the brain is the picture seen at the top of Amusia? 99.114.94.169 (talk) 01:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The section highlighted in that image is a portion of the temporal cortex. You could also do a search on google for "audio perception theories", or if you're more determined/interested, go through "theories+of+audio+perception" relevant books. The process of Perception#Theories_of_visual_perception is not yet well understood...though you might like to read Philosophy of perception. Sensory neuroscience is a fairly modern field and currently does not currently offer an in-depth explanation for how senses are perceived. That aside, you are welcome to debate the theories behind perception and pleasure, (as well as Nature vs nurture and stereotypes). Just a friendly FYI, you'll probably get more responses during the week so stick around. Hope I've at least somewhat satiated your otherwise noble unquenchable thirst for knowledge. Cheers!Smallman12q (talk) 02:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a recent paper entitled "Towards a neural basis of music-evoked emotions", which may be of interest. --Mark PEA (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)