Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 May 15

Science desk
< May 14	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 16 >

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.

May 15

Magnetic powder

I have a magnetic powder that doesn't dissolve in acid. It is formed when ferrite magnets dissolve in hydrochloric acid, leaving a spongy insoluble magnetic residue behind. When dried, it is a powder. What is it? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Iron? --Jayron32 01:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

One of these perhaps? The iron would have gone I think. --BozMo talk 07:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Could be nickel, it's pretty resistant to acid attack. FWiW 67.170.215.166 (talk) 07:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It isn't iron, because it would have dissolved (and it looked like it didthe iron in the magnet did). Nickel dissolves, albeit slowly (I had the magnet in acid for 2 weeks). It might be some of the ferromagnetic compounds that does not dissolve in acid. I don't know which one it is. And by the way, it is unaffected by sodium hypochlorite. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you able to do a borax bead test? You need a block of charcoal, borax and a blowtorch. This can give a good clue as to content of a mineral substance. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have charcoal or a blowtorch. I only have borax. Thanks anyway. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Activated charcoal is readily availible, you can probably find it pretty easily if you look, if you are willing to wait a few days you can get it on the internet. Blowtorches are pretty cheap; you can get a small propane canister and a torch nozzle for it for a very reasonable price at your local supermegagigantohardwarestoreandlumberyard Depot. --Jayron32 13:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

They might not want an amateur chemist who is just out of 11^th grade to buy the blowtorch. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I know a girl of that age who bought one to make Creme Bruleé. Kids that age routinely take a welding course in high school. Edison (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone would care if you bought a simple torch. We aren't talking about an acetylene welding torch; a simple propane torch is cheap, easy to operate, and relatively safe if you are careful. You don't need to provide identification to buy one; just walk in and pay for it. No one is likely to bat an eyelash over it. And if you are woried, have your parent pick one up for you. You could also probably order one by mail from the internet as well. I just looked on Google, and they're selling Bernzomatic pencil torches for $11-20 dollars, depending on where you buy it. The canister of propane is sold seperately, but they have small canisters, probably a quart to a half gallon size or so, for not much more than that. --Jayron32 00:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

In a science kit I had it said you could do borax bead tests with a paper clip and borax. Heat the paper clip, then dip it in borax. Melt the borax, dunk it in the chemical, and heat it again. Cool it, and the color should be there. It doesn't seem to work that well though. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ferrite might give a clue - ferrite magnets aren't always pure Fe3O4 (which should all dissolve in HCl)

I can see three possibilites

• calcination to form the magnet produced chemically unreactive Fe3O4
• it's Calcium aluminoferrite or similar - which might not dissolve in dil HCl, or only slowly
• it's binder - the magnet was made by mixing Fe3O4 and 'glue' in a press and allowing to set - acid dissolved the Fe3O4 - leaving tge glue (as a sponge) - the glue is magnetic due to Fe3O4 particles trapped inside the glue.

What sort of magnet was it (fridge or brittle bar) - what colour is the sponge - is it flexible or is it a brittle sponge?Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It was a round, about 3 mm thick brittle circular magnet. The mushy stuff that dried into a powder was black. It becomes mushy when added to water again. The iron oxides did dissolve in HCl, because it made a yellow solution (with some red in it, probably from cobalt oxide). The HCl was quite concentrated (muriatic acid in a hardware store, about 12M). The glue idea seems plausible. Thanks for the thoughts. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

which would be worse

Would an ice age or a hot/warm age be more damaging for the world at this point in time? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to say unless we know what factors you would take into account in defining damage. That said, an ice age would be more fun. DuncanHill (talk) 02:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's probably safe to say that any drastic climate change within a human lifetime would be damaging for the global population. Based on latitude, an ice age would mostly impact the rich, while a hot house would mostly impact the poor. As for extant species, warming would likely be more damaging as the recent Pleistocene climate consisted of ice ages and not hot houses. ~AH1^(TCU) 02:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It depends if you are a sun person or a shade person. Vranak (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An "ice age" would leave vast areas unsuitable for agriculture and (eventually) covered in ice hundreds of feet thick. On the other hand, an overall increase in temperature will also affect agriculture because of shifting weather patterns, pests and pathogens, rising sea level, etc -- all the global warming effects that are being well documented now. BTW, we are barely out of an "ice age," although in a period without active enlargement of glaciation. 72.148.152.214 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Technically we are still in an ice age, there is ice all year round at the poles. We are in an interglacial period. Any significant change in global temperatures, whatever the direction, would be very bad for agriculture. Our current crops have evolved and been actively selected to grow well in whatever climate they are grown in. Any change in those climates will stop the crops growing well. Even though there may be places that still have reasonable temperatures, that won't help. If global temperatures drop, the tropics may still be warm enough to grow crops, but all our crops that grow well in those temperatures have evolved to work well at high latitudes with short growing seasons containing very long days, they won't grow as well in non-seasonal climates with 12 hour days. If global temperatures rise, the poles may be cool enough to grow crops, but will have 24 hour days during the growing season and we don't have crops that have evolved well to grow under such conditions. --Tango (talk) 00:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the sugar industry has evolved along the lines of two separate crops. One works well at about 20 and the other at about 50 latitude. One is sugar cane and the other is sugar beets so sugar is one crop that is more or less protected from climate change. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

My point applies just as well to sugar cane and sugar beets as to any other crop. There being two different crops with high sucrose content doesn't make any difference to what I was saying. --Tango (talk) 08:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Swima bombiviridis - article in Science

I need the above article. Does anyone have it? Very grateful for answers

/Jonte93 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia's article on that topic (which can be found at Swima) is very meagre. You can look at the sources cited or search Google. Intelligentsium 03:01, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here is a search for Swima bobiviridis at the Science website which found 1 article. You'll need an institutional/personal subscription to read it. This is a link to the abstract. It may be possible to email the authors for a copy (email on the abstract page). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 12:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The above article "Deep-Sea, Swimming Worms with Luminescent "Bombs"" can be read online via one of the authors homepage [1] - just find it under publications, and click it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Found it! Many thanks

/Jonte93 (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Nazi decompression experiments

Some years ago I read a rather grisly account of some high altitude simulation experiments that were run on prisoners in WWII-era Germany. However, neither a cursory search of Google nor Wikipedia has been able to uncover the level of detail I was looking for. I recall that at least one of the victims clawed at his temples to balance his gaseous equilibrium or some such. But there is no such account on the internet now, that I can see. Does anyone here know of site that has this information? Thanks. 70.70.149.172 (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems like Nazi human experimentation#High altitude experiments would (or should, if it doesn't and you can find info). DMacks (talk) 06:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly a wealth of detail, that. Perhaps google is the only hope. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 11:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Japanese did something like this as well, with prisoners placed in decompression chambers and essentially killed in somewhat tortuous ways. But I too was never able to find much info on it here or on Google. I suppose the library would be the best place to start. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese in WW2 were more into chopping the heads off prisoners of war, beatings, disemboweling, bamboo shoots under fingernails, eyes gouged out, thumbscrews, waterboarding. The Germans did the "medical experiments," as opposed to routine medieval torture of prisoners, like the U.S. has done recently. Edison (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

67.170.215.166 (talk) 02:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Check out our article on Unit 731. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 01:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't asking about Japanese or German torture of prisoners, I was challenging Edison's claim that the USA had recently practiced "routine medieval torture of prisoners", specifically that:

1)The interrogation tactics used amount to torture in the commonly understood sense (i.e. the infliction of physical injury and/or severe physical pain for the purpose of punishment, revenge or coercion), and not in the expanded sense used by human-rights organizations that classifies fear or psychological suffering as torture;

2)That these tactics are practiced routinely, and not just on rare occasions;

3)That they are "medieval", i.e. are known to have been used during the Middle Ages, including but not limited to use by the Inquisition;

4)That those subjected to these interrogation tactics are prisoners of war in the legal sense according to the Geneva Convention, not illegal combatants, saboteurs, or any other group not considered prisoners of war.

Oh yeah, and 5) that these reports are actually true and accurate, and not falsified or distorted in any way.

What say you, Edison? I'm waiting to hear from you on this. 67.170.215.166 (talk) 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Coat colour of wild mice

Is it possible to find coat colours other than brown/agouti in wild populations of mice? Are there any wild populations of black mice? 69.181.157.95 (talk) 05:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Melanism is common in some wild populations of rodents (Rock pocket mouse and Eastern grey squirrel come to mind), but I never heard of completely melanistic Mus sp. in the wild. That does not mean they don't exist, of course. Some house mice have fairly dark coat, but the belly is usually of a light color. Fancy mice can be completely melanistic, but those are deliberately bred mutant mouse lines. Bear in mind, however, that there is a very large number of ways in which Mc1r or several other genes that are involved in coat color regulation may (and will) spontaneously mutate. Some of those mutations result in melanism. The question is, how beneficial a particular mutation would be in the wild, and what are the chances that it will propagate in the population. So there certainly may be black mice out there in the wild somewhere. I've never heard of a known population of melanistic Mus sp. in the wild, though. Hope this helps. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Trigger point article needs help.

Someone who knows about muscle pathology should take a look a the trigger point article. It appears to be partially reworked to be neutral and balanced near the beginning, but there seems to be a lot of OR/poorly substantiated claims being given undue credibility in the body. -Craig Pemberton 07:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page on WP:Medical may be a good place to post your comment. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Thermal Wallpaper

Okay, so I am after gut reactions to "plausibility" of a claim. I live in a house with 13.5 inch solid brick walls with no potential for exterior insulation or cavity fill, but even in the middle of winter it is generally only heated in the evenings (thats not uncommon in England: I grew up in an unheated house). I am looking at thermal wallpaper which is 3.5mm thick and fire rated. On a straight k value steady state basis this would reduce the heat loss through the walls by about 25% but the "claim" is that this impact is greatly increased by three effects (1) that houses are not steady state, they have intermittant heating and by putting this paper on the inside of wall and partly decoupling the thick walls from the rooms you can decrease warm up time and decrease the time after heating is off when your heat is still being lost to the outside world (2) during the warm up period (of say two hours to get to full steady state) the liner means the surface temperature of the wall is significantly closer to ambient giving rise to a marked reduction in convection and convective heat transfer to the wall on top of the decoupling effect and (3) the warmer wall surface during the cycle makes people feel noticably warmer because black body radiation from walls is a significant part of perceived heat. So which of these do we believe and how significant might they be? In particular if 25% is achievable steady state what might be achieved if 50% of the heating is done whilst the rooms are warming? --BozMo talk 07:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't say whether your heater works by convection or radiation. Claims 1 - 2 - 3 are not false but if heating by convection the thermal inertia of the air mass dominates the warming time so 1 & 2 are not very significant. If your heater radiates then the subjective effect 3 is also insignificant. I don't see much increase over the 25% k factor which gives you faster warming to steady state. As you are interested in economy you will have a thermostat to hold the temperature at your minimum comfort level so slower cooling will not extend your comfortable time. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Convection, but you are seriously trying to tell me that 25kg of air has more thermal inertia than 50 tonnes of bricks? --BozMo talk 15:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the wallpaper goes on the ceiling as well (if ceiling uninsulated) there would be an improvement. But the heat obtained from heating your house will on stay only "a bit" longer e.g 5 degree drop over one hour instead of 10 minutes. Usually checking for air flowing through the house is first priority, then ceiling insulation, then walls and windows. The air on the house would heat up much quicker with the wallpaper. The difference between no insulation and some is noticeable; much more than the difference between some and a lot of insulation. What is the R-value of this wallpaper? Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 01:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Aerogel is now cheap enough to be used for insulation it's still more expensive than normal insulation, but if you have the budget for it, it would be ideal for your situation. Ariel. (talk) 02:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The roof is seriously well insulated. The wall paper (Wallrock) basically seems to be the German version of aerogel, and it has a list price of about $100 a roll. There are too many different units to convert them and give you an R value. The 25% is correct by the time you have recipricaled on a wall. Air flow is complicated because we burn a lot of wood and the walls are all breathable etc. --BozMo talk 08:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wallrock is most definitely not aerogel. Wallrock is some kind of foam, PVC foam I think. It's got decent insulation, but it doesn't come anywhere near aerogel. List the units here in their original form, someone might be able to convert it to an R value for you. But call the aerogel people and see if the price is in the realm of possible. (They don't list the price on their website, so it's probably high - but it might be worth it, depends on how much heat costs you.) Ariel. (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, as far as their claim that the room will "feel" warmer - they are totally right. Humans do not experience temperature in the same way that a thermometer does. A thermometer measures absolute temperature, humans measure the difference in temperature (humans measure the rate of heat gain/loss from skin, not the actual temperature of the environment). If the walls of a room are warm, but the air is cold, you will still feel warm because of the infrared light from the walls. And the opposite too - you can have a warm room (at least the thermometer says it's warm), but with cold walls you will feel cold. The traditional solution was tapestries. Ariel. (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wallrock is not a foam, I have some here. But is Aerogel breathable? This is pretty critical in a traditional structure? --BozMo talk 09:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Aerogel in general is breathable. But the specific one made by them I don't know.

Also, you can give your firebox air through a pipe from outside the house rather than have a draft through the house. Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

solid friction factor in pneumatic conveying

hi

does anybody know a good correlation to get a reasonably accurate solid friction factor for dilute phase flows of reasonably fine particles?

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.148.2 (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

bulk density vs product density

hi Is there any way to measure/calculate the product density of fine particles as opposed to the bulk density? thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.148.2 (talk) 07:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Some particles may be finer, which means that air is interspersed between the particles, making them lighter. I don't know of any other way other than taking a known volume (1 cu. in. or cm³), weighing it, and figuring out the density. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A harder way may be to measure how much air is between the particles. In an air tight container, find how the pressure varies with a small change in volume, Using the gas laws you can work out the volume of air, and then the difference is the volume of particles. If the particles are embedded in something else, you may be able to take a series of cross sections and total the area of the sliced particles to get a a fraction of the volume occupied. (sorry getting off track here). A better way will be to get one particles, weigh it accurately and measure its volume precisely, which may not be easy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

If the particles or powder are insoluble in water or another suitable liquid, see Buoyancy for a method. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

    Thanks a lot guys!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.17.148.2 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC) 

Doing exercises - general question

Hello, Friends. I have a general question which is kind of scientific. When doing exercises (any type of, sit-ups, or using thera band or whatever), what is the difference between doing them with more load/resistance but fewer repetitions, or less load/resistance and more repetitions? And an additional question, what is the difference between doing (such) exercises faster or slower? This is not a homework question, even if my girlfriend is a physiotherapist, just curiosity. Cheers and thanks, Ouro (blah blah) 10:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not a "science" answer, but... I was about to type something like "high resistance/weight, low reps gives improved power; lower resistance, higher reps improves endurance/strength". But then I realised that (a) I'm not sure of the correct terminology and (b) I'm using a command line browser and can't be bothered googling it. So in short - body builders tend to use high weight, low repetition (greatest weight they can lift for about 3 to 6 reps). General weight training for "normal" people looking for better fitness is 15 to 20 reps of a weight they can do 3 sets of that number of reps. --203.22.236.14 (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There are two classes of exercise: anaerobic exercise and aerobic exercise. Aerobic exercise is like walking, jogging, etc.: something that you do repetitively but doesn't require much strength. Anaerobic exercise is like pushups, pullups, situps, etc.:something that requires more strength. Both have their benefits. Aerobic exercise strengthens your heart and lungs, and helps your circulation. It makes you have more endurance. Anaerobic exercise improves your muscle size and tone, which is the hardness of your muscle. A balance of both is best. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we're talking only about different types of anaerobic exercise here. The general story as I understand it is that it is possible to differentiate strength from endurance -- strength is determined by the number of muscle fibers, endurance by the amount of energy available for each fiber. Maximizing load is best for increasing strength (and muscle size), maximizing reps is best for increasing endurance. Looie496 (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles seem to suggest that you are right, Chemicalinterest. I'd like to hear more responses, though what You guys wrote up to now does indeed clear things up a notch already. --Ouro (blah blah) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

mind control

Some have suggested that one reason pot should be legalized is that it is an effective means of greed control. Does pot control greed and is it the answer to preventing sale of tainted goods by Chinese manufactures and was this the purpose of the British imposing the sale of opium on China? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 13:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin with this one. Tommy2010 13:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay let me inject an example: Some say that pot destroys a woman's natural inhibition to allow anyone to see their nude body in our (former) culture or having casual sex. Give a girl pot and this natural inhibition is forgotten or wiped away. In fact that is why they call it Mary Wanna. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% wrong about why the British forced Opium on the Chinese. Read our article Opium Wars which describes what happened in great detail. The bottom line is that the European market wanted Chinese Tea, Silk and Porcelain - and the only goods they had to trade that the Chinese merchants actually wanted was silver and opium. Since silver was highly valued in Europe, and opium was dirt cheap to grow and process, the obvious thing for the British merchants to do was to push opium into the Chinese market. However, the Chinese government (wisely) banned that activity and cracked down hard on smugglers. In an ideal world, that would have been the end of it - and those valued Chinese goods would have risen in price and been paid for in silver. Sadly, what actually happened was that the British government were persuaded that "free trade" was important and there were a series of ugly wars about the opium trade. It certainly wasn't about "mind control" - it was pure, uncontrolled greed on the British side of things. SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not socks or other great stuff Brits are famous for making that the Chinese wanted - even raw materials like the Japanese? Why opium? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to ask the Chinese why they'd prefer Opium over socks.

Most statements about cannabis's effect on personality are either prohibitionist myths or, at best, poorly researched. I've heard that it makes people lazy, and that it also makes them violent. I've also heard that it drives people to satanic Jazz music and makes white women want to seek sexual relations with Negroes. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 17:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well the truth is that drugs do eradicate inhibitions and that some men know this and have no problem supplying women with drugs in exchange for tapping their honeypot. Its not a case of race or anything else except the loss of social and/or cultural inhibition and the reason why decent people are against the use of drugs and scoundrels are in favor of using it. 18:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.29 (talk)

Drugs eradicate inhibitions? Do you have source for such a sweeping statement? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 20:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

www.xnxx.com, www.tube8.com, www.xhamster.com, www.slutload.com, www.clipdump.com, Weeds © 2009 Lions Gate Television Inc. All rights reserved. Trademark, Copyright and Terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.29 (talk) 22:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Those are porn sites. That really isn't a source that we are looking for an answer. sources from Medical doctors would be nice. wiooiw ^(talk) 22:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Where is your source that these are all porn sites?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.29 (talk • contribs)

Where exactly are you taking this. The websites clearly say "Free porn". wiooiw ^(talk) 22:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Our gym has a sign that says free porn. So what? Besides, you are the one who is trying to take this somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.0.29 (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well there's greed, then there's greed. And Henry Hazlitt thoroughly examined the Foundations of Morality and concluded that rational self-interest, aka greed, is a very profitable and positive characteristic indeed. Basically, it's because each person knows best what will profit them, so they should go after that without delay. To 'sacrifice' one's desired outcomes for the sake of 'getting along with others' is a frankly wrong-minded and self-defeating approach. Vranak (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

An oxymoron: suppose one's desire is only to do right and 'get along with others' like Budda or Jesus Christ (or love one another in the case of Jesus Christ)? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it is naive to think that everyone is driven by prospects of peace. Many people seek zesty recognition from others, and will not let silly things like 'morality' and 'correctness' stand in their way. It is in their fundamental nature, peace be damned. See Year of the Dragon, Year of the Tiger, Year of the Monkey, Year of the Ox, etc etc etc. Vranak (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Its called Karma. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Pot" usually means cannabis. That is a completely different drug to opium. Why would you think that something you have heard about cannabis would explain the opium wars? --Tango (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Make a list of the things each drug is used for. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Stop trolling. You've already got a discussion going above about cannabis, this is clearly some sort of personal endeavor against it. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  01:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And just how would trolling help my cause? 71.100.0.29 (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• In the medical marijuana discussion Viriditas made a comment about greed being responsible for Chinese scandals; suggesting that greed could be eliminated if people smoked pot. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 06:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

• I made no such ridiculous suggestion, and any such a claim is absurd. Either you didn't understand what was said or you are trolling. I leave it to the reader to decide. Viriditas (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like both of you are trying to pick a fight in support of using medical marijuana for mind control but this is the first time I have encountered a tag team trying to label a discussion they are not going to win as trolling. I think your motives are suspect and transparent and that both of you must use pot. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you are an idiot. As you can clearly see above, I'm arguing against the use of cannabis. Stop trolling. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks may be your forte but pot dealers argue against the legal use of marijuana. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if it's a truthful statement. You first claim I use pot and yet you clearly note in another discussion that I'm against it's use. This makes a fool of you, not me. Again, I'm not arguing against the legal use of marijuana, just the illegal use. Under controlled situations (i.e. medically), it's okay. Please read the discussion before making bold assumptions, or else you're proving my point regarding your intelligence. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  04:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your statements lack citation and a conclusion is quite different from a claim. If you do not use pot then the basis you have for supporting its legal use is false pretense, fraud, irrationality or to sell it or use it to get into your girlfriend's or boyfriend's pants. Slander and personal attack are also different. Stating the truth may be required in order to avoid a conviction of slander but not necessary to wear the guilt of personal attack. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 06:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Now your sentences do not even make sense. "If you do not use pot then the basis you have for supporting its legal use is false pretense, fraud, irrationality or to sell it or use it to get into your girlfriend's or boyfriend's pants" doesn't work. I do not use cannabis, but I'm still allowed to say I agree with it's use under legal, controlled clinical situations. Who are you to deny me that fundamental right of free speech? Not only that, but what I've said is what the evidence posted above (you know, those sourced citations you've apparently missed) suggests. All your questions but one on this site are uncited, so you're just being hypocritical. I'm done with your trolling, goodbye. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  06:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Questions do not have to be cited on this site. Your accusations do. What doesn't work is your inability to explain your motive for not smoking pot yet wanting it to be legal without doing one of the above. Only you have to be concerned as to the consequences of your failure to use free speech for some constructive purpose rather than using it to make personal attacks and accuse others of what you are doing. Please consider staying away until you turn 18 or even better 21. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I am an adult (not that that's relevant at all to this discussion--and quite frankly it's a pathetic argument), nor have I made any accusations. I have explained perfectly well why I wouldn't oppose cannabis in a legal, controlled setting, you just haven't bothered to read through the discussion. If it's administered properly and clean, it's safe. If it's illegal and being cut on the streets by dealers, it's likely to have all sorts of dangerous crap mixed in, and it's smoked and therefore likely to be carcinogenic. I have cited all my claims, so don't go trying to tell me to back up my assertions when I already have. As I said, I'm sick of your pedantry, bigotry, logical fallacies and God knows what else. Please don't bother replying, I'm just not that interested. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  11:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

|}

Cyclonenim, your responses to the question are based entirely on personal opinion, are not relevant to the discussion and/or are not fact. Please desist from further response and vandalism to the question. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

They're sourced above, therefore not personal opinion and are facts, and are relevant because YOU BROUGHT IT UP. Please desist from further bigotry and ruining the intellectual content of the encyclopaedia. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Cyclonenim, the use of marijuana to treat illness is unnecessary because superior drugs are available to treat the same illnesses without the same side effects and social consequences. You have failed to provide evidence that the use of marijuana in medicine is necessary. You support a position that is medically unsound. Your purpose is to circumvent social and legal standards and not to treat illness. I have given your responses sufficient consideration to realize they are one track and one sided and not to be considered except as basis for any other responses to the question you make. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with this. You clearly haven't read the discussion, so there's no point making any further points. If you have any real, substantiated concerns, take them to my talk page or something. Every time someone (including myself) makes a valid point, you switch around their position without any logic or reasoning behind your reversion of stance. It's pathetic, and not how discussions should be made. I never once said there weren't more efficient medications, in fact I argue against its use. If it's used as an alternative to conventional medication, my view is it should be pure. STOP ASKING ME TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE WHEN YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE NONE. Your constant straw man arguments are becoming increasingly tiresome. I will summarise my points for you to make it easier for your mind to comprehend:

I don't advocate the use of cannabis in treatment.

Should it become legalised, which I'm against, I would prefer it to be clinically safe and not administered through combustion. There are references to why this is safe in the original argument, please go review it.

I would rather clinicians administered it than illegal drug dealers who cut it with all sorts of crap.

Maybe now you can understand my position. PLEASE give this some real thought. Again, if you have any further concerns, post on my User talk page because this is becoming too irrelevant for the RD. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Having made your illegitimate position clear, here, there is no need for further comment or discussion or interruption of this discussion, here, on your part. Please do as you have stated and refrain from further comment or response here. Thank you. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 23:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

do people in different inertial frames agree what time it is?

nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.204.221 (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not in general - no. SteveBaker (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's almost as easy for people in different frames to agree on time as for people in the same frame. Their clocks run at different rates, but since it is easy to predict what rate somebody else's clock runs at (if you know their velocity), it isn't difficult for one to know the time that will be assigned by the other to a given event. In other words, it is always possible to choose one observer as "reference", and to come to an agreement that the time recorded by the reference observer is the "official" time, which everybody will use. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

But in special - yes? For any gravitational fields? 84.153.204.221 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Well on the earth, in a non inertial frame, clocks run at different rates at different heights. The time is close, but not exactly the same, and does shift at different rates. See gravitational time dilation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Steve meant "In General Relativity...", he just meant "Generally speaking...". General Relativity doesn't really have a concept of inertial frames, so your question only really makes sense in Special Relativity. --Tango (talk) 00:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Swan mom throws away eggs

That's right, a swan mom nesting on a raft in the middle of the pond pushed an egg out of the nest. It it still there on the wooden deck while apparently she has others still in the nest. Did she know the egg was dead or sterile, or is it a reaction against overbreeding, or she just had a bad day? The other pair nesting in the same pond seems fine. East of Borschov (talk) 14:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it definitely a swan's egg? There are plenty of birds which lay into other birds nests... --BozMo talk 18:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It was big. There are no geese or anyone comparable in size around. East of Borschov (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've read that many species will reassess according to their resource how many offspring they can feed and will act accordingly. I'm not surprised due to the behaviors of birds like the coo coo and the bird of paradise. 71.100.0.29 (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you had a chance to take a close look at the egg? Maybe it was cracked? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

At twenty meters distance it looked ok. East of Borschov (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah - of course, she'd really try to hurt you if you went up to her nest, wouldn't she? Silly me. :) Just a thought - is it possible that another human has been interfering with her nest? I know that mother birds will sometimes freak out and discard/destroy eggs (or just abandon the nest completely) if they notice that it's been disturbed. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

These are captive swans, they get along with their caretaker for years. So unless some idiot swam into the pond... East of Borschov (talk) 22:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Suffice to say, the mother was of a low opinion that this egg would ever become anything worth having around. Vranak (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure one unsourced, unexplained opinion about a swan you've never met would actually suffice anything for most people. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, she plainly thought less of that egg than those that she kept around, no? Vranak (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It could just be a random selection, if the swan thought it had too many. One limit is how many they can sit on. If they don't all fit in the nest, it may be better to dump one than have them all get cold and die one at a time, as each falls out and is later retrieved. StuRat (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

snakes and lizard

In cambodia, there lives a lizard which depends on snakes to eat its liver, if not the liver will choked the lizard and the lizard dies. I have photo to show it, contact me at {Email Address Removed} I would like to confirm this fact or myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.191.235 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I removed your email address because Wikipedia often gets copied to many places around the internet, and leaving your email on it would potentially invite a massive amount of spam. We reply to posts on the desk where they were posted; we do not have the ability to send emails from Wikipedia. As for the lizard/snake, I know next to nothing about Cambodian reptiles. From my knowledge of the natural environment in other cases though, I am highly doubtful, though not ruling out, that such a relationship would exist. You can upload the picture to Wikimedia and post it here if you want. Falconus^{p t c} 15:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's where you can upload a picture. If you have any problems with it, let us know. [2] Falconus^{p t c} 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, now that I think about it, how is it possible for a liver to choke an animal? Maybe lizards are different, but I assumed that the liver was closer to the tail than to the head, and was an internal organ? Falconus^{p t c} 15:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This seems spectacularly unlikely for dozens of reasons - but it's incredibly difficult to "prove a negative". If we found evidence that this story was true - it would be an open-and-shut case - we'd be done. But if we look and don't find evidence either way - then we don't really know whether the story is true or false...people don't often write about things that aren't true.

Why it's unlikely:

1. Why would a lizard evolve in such a way? Why is it advantageous to the lizard to have this grotesque lifestyle? If it's not advantageous, then the weird genetics that would cause this abmormal growth of it's liver would very rapidly be eliminated from the gene-pool. No other lizards have this problem - so it would require a very special genetic setup to make it happen - and that would de-evolve in very few generations - if it appeared at all.
2. Why would the snake stop at eating the liver? Once you've got the lizard pinned down and you've ripped into it's flesh enough to get to the liver - why not eat the entire liver (resulting in a dead lizard) or eat all of the other edible parts?
3. How does the lizard recover from the injuries required for the snake to get into the body cavity to reach the liver? Seems like it would die of it's injuries 99 times out of 100. The rate of infection would have to be really high.
4. As others have said...how on earth can the liver (which is at the back end of the animal reach the point where it can get around the throat?
5. Snakes don't have the right teeth and jaws for ripping and biting things - they swallow their food whole. How would it evolve the necessary teeth and jaws for doing this with such 'surgical' precision?

From all we know about biology and evolution and how living things 'work' - this seems insanely unlikely - but we can't prove it's not true. In my personal opinion, this is premium grade bullshit...but we're not going to be able to prove that.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Snakes - unlikely. Worms make more sense. East of Borschov (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes -- pull the other one. See also Prometheus. Another fine myth. Vranak (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It's all about the burden of proof. The rule of thumb in any discussion is, that we prefer to hold the widely accepted views as true unless proven otherwise. So if the general knowledge is that something is not possible, than the burden of proof is on the one who tries to argue that it is: he is the one who has to come up with a proof, and not the others with a proof that it is impossible. --131.188.3.20 (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

In such cases, Occam's razor is most helpful. If we have no absolute proof that this happens - and if, for this to be true, a great number of new and unlikely-sounding things also have to be true then we should always pick the simpler explanation - the one which least multiplies the assumptions - which in this case is that the this weird behavior doesn't happen. Only when there is some solid evidence for the unlikely choice should we consider it to be true. SteveBaker (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

lyphoma

how is lymphoblastic lymphoma dfferent than lymphomblastic leukemia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.232.173 (talk) 16:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but check out lymphoma and leukemia. Falconus^{p t c} 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Lymphoma mostly effects the lymph nodes and thymus, leukemia blood and bone marrow. HalfShadow 18:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Our article on lymphoblastic lymphoma is an onsourced stub. Here [3], [4] are two better articles. Both agree that T-cell-derived disease is more common than B-cell-derived disease. Quoting the second source, "clinical distinction between lymphoblastic lymphoma and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) has been arbitrary and has varied among different studies and institutions."

When it comes to chronic lymphoid leukemia, it is considered to be the same disease as small cell lymphocytic lymphoma. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 09:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I got my info from the first link you posted and it stated they were treated in basically the same manner, but they are technically separate diseases. HalfShadow 16:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

is it possible for people in different inertial frames to see events in a different order?

nt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.153.204.221 (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See Relativity of simultaneity. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused (I'm the OP). I didn't ask about being simultaneous or not, I asked about the order of events. For example, A observes that event 1 and then event 2, while B observes that event 2 and then event 1. ie if observer a and b thought post hoc ergo propter hoc, A would thik that event 1 caused event 2, while B would think that event 2 caused event 1. Is this possible? 82.113.106.107 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 16 May 2010 (UTC).

The article explains that this can happen only if the events are separated in space by a distance greater than that travelled by light in the interval between events, so "no" is the answer to your detailed question. Dbfirs 11:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ordering of events is dependent on agreements of simultaneity—that's what relativity of simultaneity is all about, and why it matters that they are in different inertial reference frames. That is, all measurements of "what time did something happen" are really simultaneity measurements, and so "when did this event happen, when did that event happen" are really simultaneity measurements (we both agree that our watches say the same time on them... unless we're in different inertial reference frames.) So under some circumstances, from the perspective of different inertial reference frames, different events will happen in a different order. I don't think causality can play into it, as Dbfirs has pointed out, because by definition the events need to be quite separately in spacetime. But maybe our pal Dauto can weigh in on this. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all the explanations above are correct. Two events can be seen in different order by different observers, but only if they are so far apart that no information could have been transfered from one to the other (because it would take something traveling faster than light to do that). That way they cannot be interpreted as cause and effect by either observer. Dauto (talk)

Don't confuse an inertial frame (which you can think of as a huge network of clocks and metersticks, filling a large volume of space) with a person at a particular location recording the light that enters his/her eyes. Einstein carefully distinguished the two in his original 1905 paper on special relativity, using "observer" only for the person, but almost every later writer uses "observer" for the network of clocks and metersticks, even though that doesn't agree with the ordinary meaning of the word. Furthermore, the uses of "observer" in general relativity and in quantum mechanics don't agree with the way it's usually used in special relativity. It's probably better to never use the words "observer" or "observe" at all.

The clocks of an inertial frame are synchronized in a certain way (sometimes called Einstein synchronisation). Why that way? It's just convention. The universe doesn't enforce any particular synchronization of clocks. However, if you do choose to synchronize the clocks of two inertial frames in that way, and the inertial frames are moving relative to each other, then the times reported by one inertial frame's clocks will differ from the times reported by nearby clocks of the other inertial frame, in a certain predictable way. This is called the "relativity of simultaneity". The motion of the physicist in this thought experiment—what Einstein called the "observer"—is not relevant here. Any two physicists will see the same differences in the readings of the clocks, regardless of what they may personally be in orbit around. -- BenRG (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Besian Idrizaj - how can a physically fit young footballer just die of a heart attack at age 22?

I am not that much older than him, but I drink and smoke and he's gotta have been more physically fit than I am.

Assuming he didn't take drugs or anything during that day, how could a 22-year-old, physically fit professional footballer just 'randomly' die of a heart attack just spontaneously. It seems strange. I'm not saying it isn't possible, but it's weird. How can he die, but Manuel Uribe remains alive? It boggles the mind.--Lightsin (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

It may be an undiagnosed congenital heart defect. This article details a number of other sudden deaths of young athletes which were attributed to such conditions. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Also take a look at Sudden cardiac death for more possible explanations. Sometimes these things just happen to people you wouldn't expect it to happen to. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Alexei Cherepanov. One common link is that there were both born and raised in comparatively impoverished parts of the world (Russia, Albania). These are both solidly Second World nations that were under the yoke of Communism until, well, at least the fall of the Berlin Wall on November 9th, 1989. Vranak (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean under the yoke of Communism for the first 2 years and few months of their respective lives? Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. A lake may dry up but the water still goes somewhere. Vranak (talk) 23:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying they moved to China so they could be under the 'yoke of communism' and that's why they had heart attacks? As an interesting aside, they were both at least 1.85m as well... Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that Communism is a token of impoverishment, of compromised possibilities, of poor diets and bad air. Even if Communism has ended, it's still a lingering aura where these two guys grew up. Vranak (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

My friend's son died of sudden, inexplicable cardiac arrest in his early 20s, even though he was a very healthy athlete. Because my friend is a famous geophysicist, with a very analytic mind trained to glean information out of noise, he has published a website with a lot of analysis about the predictability/unpredictability of his son's condition, (as well as some tributes to his son). You can read about the extremely unlikely statistics of sudden cardiac arrest in healthy athletes here: Causes of sudden death in young athletes. Nimur (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily an explanation beyond bad luck. While the chance of something like this happening to a person who is otherwise in good health and with no obvious explanation may be a million to one (Nimur's link says 200,000 to one per year), there are far more than a million people in the world so we would expect it to happen fairly often. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

It may happen more frequently with athletes, who put stresses on their heart the average person doesn't, so while someone may live to old age with such a heart condition going undetected, an athlete may cause their own premature death. Some American athletes that spring to mind are Hank Gathers and Reggie Lewis. There's a number of others listed at List of sportspeople who died during their career. One non-athlete that springs to mind who died this way was John Ritter, though he was middle aged (by no means old). --Jayron32 00:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Had a friend in college who played football in high school, he was as fit as a fiddle at the time, and he'd had a heart attack. He's fine now, don't recall what the issue was. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 05:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I knew a 30 year old who had a severe heart attack, he survived by dint of quick medical response, it was caused by a genetic defect in a coronary artery. 86.4.186.107 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hiccups

Question removed per Wikipedia policy. We cannot provide advice concerning medical or legal issues. The only advice I can give on the Wikipedia reference desk related to medical advice requests is to see a doctor. Sorry about that. Falconus^{p t c} 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, so you can look at the article Hiccup for general information on Hiccups. Buddy431 (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)