Science desk
< June 21	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 23 >

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

June 22

Light-water breeder reactors

I've just discovered and begun categorising a lot of images from the Shippingport Atomic Power Station at Commons. Many of these are apparently of a breeder reactor; see File:LWBR REACTOR PLANT ELEVATION - Shippingport Atomic Power Station, On Ohio River, 25 miles Northwest of Pittsburgh, Shippingport, Beaver County, PA HAER PA,4-SHIP,1-162.tif and other images in Commons:Category:Diagrams of the Shippingport Atomic Power Station. Would these reactors fit into any of the types of Commons:Category:Nuclear reactors by type? I know virtually nothing about nuclear power, and the breeder reactor article didn't help. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons might be a better source for answers but they are all "pressurized water reactors" (PWR). They changed the moderator, core and blanket, but all were PWR's with various fuels and cycles. The last type used Thorium blanket that had a uranium byproduct that was identical to the core. After running, a centrifuge, can separate the thorium from the uranium created in the blanket and create a new "seed", whence it breeds fuel for new reactors. The efficiency is greater than 1 so it can create it's own fuel source (but not the moderator and target). In the "breeder reactor" article, it's a fast breeder with light water and fast neutrons. --DHeyward (talk) 06:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is cunnilingus natural?

Has oral sex on females been observed outside of humanity? Non-reproductive_sexual_behavior_in_animals#Oral_sex is not very clear on the issue. --Romanophile (talk) 03:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question in the subject is unanswerable on the science desk without a definition of natural. But as for your question in the text, the answer is apparently yes in Pteropus giganteus (Indian flying fox) [1]. There has been at least one attempt to look for it in bonobos as well, but none was specifically observed in the curtailed study I found [2] [3] Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This mentions anecdotal reports in the bonobo, orang utan and ring-tailed lemur [4] Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[EC]If anyone knows this, it'll likely be my acquaintance Professor Jack Cohen. You might try contacting him (unless he's reading this!). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For this and related questions, have a look at Non-reproductive sexual behavior in animals.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that article is what the OP linked to above and unlike with some other cases we get here on the RD, it sounds like they already read it. The OP appears to be correct that the article didn't and still doesn't refer to cunnilingus either directly or indirectly. Some of the statements are unclear and could theoretically refer to cunnilingus like generic references to oral sex or "Animals perform oral sex by licking, sucking or nuzziling the genitals of their partner" so it's possible the references would help clear things up. But I'm not sure, I wouldn't be surprised if they are as equal unclear as the article. Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do leap seconds matter at hardware level?

I understand some software is sensitive to timestamps and need accuracy. GPS and financial markets seem to be affected by imprecision of 1 second. However, could the addiction of a leap second also affect the hardware? Could a synchronous circuit be affected by it? --YX-1000A (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed at considerable length in our leap second article.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And where does the article talk about hardware or whether synchronous circuits being affected? Did you understand the question at all? --YX-1000A (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is asking whether there exist any digital circuits that use a real-time clock, and rely on its value, and behave poorly when encountering a more esoteric detail about UTC (like time-zone changes, leap seconds, or so on)... well, sure. Out of the thousands and thousands of commercially-available digital logic circuits, some probably satisfy all of these criteria. But those are exceptions, not the norm. In most systems, the details of time synchronization, including the management of leap seconds, are left to software that executes in a general purpose CPU. Meanwhile, the hardware value in the real-time clock is a simple integer counter whose value increases monotonically. Any mapping to human-readable time, including the management of leap seconds and leap-second updates, is an abstraction calculated by software, e.g. using a time zone database. Nimur (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "the addiction of a leap second" ... "That last leap seconds was sooooo gooooood ! I need another, no, 2, make that 3..." StuRat (talk) 13:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

The hardware of the IBM zEnterprise System and some of its more recent predecessors has hardware that actually implements the leap second. The system is capable of running a number of operating systems, both directly on the hardware, and at several levels of virtualization. Thus determining how all the different virtual operating systems capable of running on IBM zEnterprise System would treat leap seconds would be a significant research project (to say nothing of all the software packages that can run on those operating systems).

This, of course, is quite a different issue from disruption of hardware that does not rely upon time of day, and merely needs an accurate frequency at different locations; I'm not familiar enough with such hardware to help. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a technote regarding the Leap Second on AIX. "AIX does not have -- and never has had -- any direct awareness of the leap second." Here's a link to documentation on the zEnterprise Sysplex Time Manager, including scheduled- leap seconds. I'm not sure I would categorize the Support Element who manages a sysplex clock as a "piece of hardware" in the same sense that a real time clock register on a single chip is a "piece of hardware;" but in the context of the abstract machine in a virtualized z/OS world, I think Jc3s5h is correct in saying that "hardware" manages the leap second and time of day. Nimur (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metastability in electronics talks about the problems of asynchronous signals and saying we need a leap second would be one. The probability of a problem goes down exponentially with the time we have to resolve it - a second is an eternity in electronics so the problem is in essence non-existent. Dmcq (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

neutron stars and alpha particles

are there many alpha particles inside neutron stars? Do they tend to be unstable near or at the core, perhaps the two protons becoming neutrons?thankyouRich (talk) 09:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled neutron star that fairly comprehensively describes their composition and their properties and behavior, based on current understanding. --Jayron 32 14:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes i read that. It didn't have anything on alpha particles specifically. I thought perhaps there might be more known thsan was in there.Rich (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hmm I just scrolled down and read the next question, noticed jayron was harrassing(imo), at great length, the OP over secondary issue with the word flaw, rather than trying to help answer question. That made me wonder, so I looked at Jayron's recent contributions, and found the sarcastic: "try Wikipedia. I hear they have articles about these things.." as a description of his contribution to my question...Now definitely Jayron is a valuable Wikipedian, and I generally find him to be goodnatured and civil. But we all have our bad days, including me, I can really lose it sometimes. But sarcasm in the case of my question and pickiness about the word "flaw" in the case of the other question, make me think Jayron should take the day off and relax from wikipedia.Rich (talk) 19:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article states "It is also possible that heavy element, such as iron, simply sink beneath the surface, leaving only light nuclei like helium and hydrogen." (bold mine). Helium nuclei = alpha particle. --Jayron 32 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article indicates the spectra of neutron stars and other information is consistent with the presence hydrogen and helium. --Jayron 32 22:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this article raises the possibility of a primarily helium atmosphere. --Jayron 32 22:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses the presence of both hydrogen and helium in the atmospheres of neutron stars. --Jayron 32 22:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains more information along the same lines as several previous ones. --Jayron 32 22:49, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to be a pretty good summation of the above research, especially where neutron stars are part of a binary pair, and thus helium nucleii (alpha particles) are donated to the atmosphere of the neutron star from a lighter star, and the role of such helium (alpha particles) in the nucleogenesis of heavier elements, such as iron, in such stars. It seems to be a pretty good synopsis of the research I found above. --Jayron 32 22:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This short synopsis discusses the production of alpha particles during the formation phases of neutron stars. --Jayron 32 23:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book discusses the possible role of alpha particles in the formation of neutron stars due to their high stability. --Jayron 32 23:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book similarly discusses the ejection of high-energy alpha particles during the formation of neutron stars. --Jayron 32 23:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article discusses a process in the formation of neutron stars called Photodisintegration which in the case of neutron stars results from iron nucleii being split by high energy photons. --Jayron 32 23:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a fairly comprehensive book on neutron stars. I'm not really an astrophysicist myself, but if I were trying to research the topic of neutron stars, this book looks very promising for you. --Jayron 32 23:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This book here also contains lots of information regarding neutron stars and their formation. Again, not being an astrophysicist, much of it is outside my field of expertise. Perhaps it has some information that will help? --Jayron 32 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is really great, thanks.Rpeterson144.35.45.91 (talk) 02:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changing aberrant sexual fantasies

Question being disputed, please do not leave anything that sounds like advice. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:33, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine print: I do not want to stir up controversy. I'm a progressive individual and want only to discuss cold, clinical facts. Don't make assumptions about my agenda or try to lecture me (if you are so inclined, your assumptions are probably wrong and you'll be "preaching to the choir").

I have a friend who has violent sexual fantasies (among other personality flaws that I'm trying to get him to seek therapy for).

Since it seems to be accepted now that attempts to change sexuality from gay to straight is ineffectual, does this mean that changing other aspects of sexuality such as paedophilia or harmful tendencies like brutal sadistic fantasies are also unable to be changed? --78.148.105.170 (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is an imagination a "flaw?" --Jayron 32 13:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I infer that you are referring to these sexual fantasies as "imagination" but you are assuming they would never taken any other form such as to be enacted. 1) I'd prefer you to be more explicit. 2) I feel like this shouldn't really need to be explained. Nonetheless, my friend has declined sexual encounters because he fears going too far. The contradiction between his sexual fantasies and his own morality causes him distress. I am somewhat afraid to be alone with him because the fantasies involve me. I don't think that this level of detail should be necessary to address my original question. I'm not seeking medical advice and my friend is already searching for another therapist. I simply want to know whether actual change is possible or if, as I suspect, it will simply be about controlling/channelling his feelings or whatever (which I think is a little weak/unreassuringly). I'd appreciate if this divergence was not allowed to derail my original enquiry. 78.148.105.170 (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming nothing. I'm asking a question. You've made the assumption that a thought in someones head can be a flaw. --Jayron 32 14:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have not assumed that. I've discussed the issue with my friend and I think flaw is a reasonable term to use. Whatever term you want to call it, with all your preferred connotations, it's an issue that should be addressed for the well-being of my friend at the very least. Just to be clear, we're not talking about consensual BDSM and even if it was consensual, I'm led to believe that in many jurisdictions there are certain statutory rights that cannot be waived. 78.148.105.170 (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the warning above. Wikipedia's reference desk is not supposed to be used to answer questions which may effect the well-being of a person. Qualified, licensed professionals should be directly contacted regarding any legal or medical implications. We cannot provide answers to such questions. --Jayron 32 15:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost, Jayron. My question doesn't have any bearing on his well-being. He's going to be seeing a therapist regardless, and I wanted an unbiased perspective of what I can reasonably expect to be achieved. Here's an assumption for you: you've got some non-mainstream sexual preference and have been trying to derail my enquiry because I suggested (if you're narcissistic enough to construe it that way) that it somehow put a negative label on you. I don't give a shit what you do with your sexual partners, Jayron, so long as you don't break the laws of your jurisdiction it's probably fine and not a flaw. --78.148.105.170 (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "get lost" comment erases any doubts about your "good faith" here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}

carrots→ 16:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you're a paragon of civility are you; just like Jayron? You can only push me so many times before I tell you to get lost. In this case: three. Three times. ----Seans Potato Business 18:16, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really, because that's exactly what you said. You said "it's an issue that should be addressed for the well-being of my friend". If you didn't mean that, you should have not said that. --Jayron 32 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, Jayron, I said the reason this is a flaw is because it has a bearing on the well-being of my friend. We were arguing about semantics; remember? The outcome of this discussion has no effect on the outcome of my friend's well-being. I don't believe for a minute that you don't already know the difference. ----Seans Potato Business 18:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I'd say that's pretty obvious. Even though the thought itself doesn't affect anybody else, people are known to sometimes act upon their thoughts/fantasies, and therefore violent thoughts form a risk to people. Just like jealousy sometimes (but not always) drives people to hurt other people, the same can be true with (sexual) fantasies. Anyway, I don't think it's really necessary to say whether it's a flaw or not to answer the main question: can sexual tendencies be purposefully changed? I don't think we can ever say that it's impossible, just that certain methods have been shown to be ineffective. There are lots of anecdotal accounts, but as far as I know, studies have generally not found statistically significant results for therapies that try to do this, so I just wouldn't expect too much from therapy if I were the OP. - Lindert (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage has written about this kind of thing on a few occasions. He often has guest experts in sexual psychology or cites scientific studies, so that makes it a bit better source than an ordinary advice column. I'd recommend searching/browsing his archive at The Stranger here [5]. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional WP articles that may be relevant, some with "treatment" sections and refs: sexual fetishism, intrusive thought, paraphilia. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our Cognitive behavioral therapy article does not discuss sexual fantasies, but if you search for those two phrases on line you will find a lot of relevant material. -- ToE 15:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has been answered, we don't brook IP's attacking admins for quoting policy. μηδείς (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe all of you bought into this troll post. Except Medeis he thinks everyone is a trollAgent of the nine (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely not a troll post. This post was started by me without logging in. It doesn't matter if Jayron is an admin. The policy Jayron quoted is entirely irrelevant for the reason I stated - it has no bearing on the wellbeing of my friend who is already seeking help. The only reason Jayron even brought the irrelevant policy up was because he lost his argument that aberrant fantasies could not constitute a flaw. If you want to take this further, let's all go to arbitration. --Seans Potato Business 18:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, when you stated "it's an issue that should be addressed for the well-being of my friend", you meant... What? --Jayron 32 18:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant it's an issue that should be addressed by a therapist, which I said in the beginning I was convincing him (now convinced; past tense) to make an appointment with. I was giving my justification for calling it a flaw, because it's something the causes harm to the patient and can therefore being included in that big psychology book of mental illnesses you've probably heard of. --Seans Potato Business 18:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're friend is already being advised by you to see a therapist, there is nothing more for us to do to answer this question. You've already provided yourself with the totality of the advice we're allowed to give by the rules here. Well done. Nothing else more needs be said. --Jayron 32 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never once asked what I should do. I want to know whether research suggests a particular outcome is possible versus another less ideal but "easier" outcome. ----Seans Potato Business 20:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We've given all the advice we can give (i.e. none), but OP asked essentially if this sort of thing can be changed. Plenty of room for anyone to provide further references about changing of one's fantasies or thought patterns. Here's a few journal articles I found that might be useful for the OP [6] [7]. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read Seans potato business's talk page.. Saw this is a reoccurring issue with him.. (Seek medical attention) (There can only be one arbiter!)Agent of the nine (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what I may have done in the past, this query is not a request for medical advice. I feel like this shouldn't need to be explained. If a person has been convicted of a crime in the past, is that considered reason enough to convict them of something else in lieu of evidence? In no jurisdiction that I'm aware of.

What part of "my friend won't have sex because he thinks he might hurt others, how can this be changed is not a request for psychiatric advice? μηδείς (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those words reflect your interpretation and also reflect your bias(es). Here's the only question actually asked by the OP: "Since it seems to be accepted now that attempts to change sexuality from gay to straight is ineffectual, does this mean that changing other aspects of sexuality such as paedophilia or harmful tendencies like brutal sadistic fantasies are also unable to be changed?" You can tell it's the question because it ends with a question mark. I refer you to our policy on these matters here [8]. If you must sanction something now and then, do it answers, not questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:25, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the articles on sadomasochism and sexual sadism disorder lack "Treatment" sections. The former might be seen as controversial; the latter, to the extent that it exists as a disorder at all, should not. There is little doubt in my mind that even people who have acted out violent fantasies would still be given some sort of treatment by shrinks after a conviction; I'd like someone more familiar with the, um, science of psychology to review whether any of these treatments actually work or have a basis in science. :) Wnt (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasma steering

I was reading Plasma stealth, and it said that in addition to absorbing EM radiation, plasma also reduces aerodynamic drag. So I wondered if it were possible to change the shape of the plasma envelope that surrounds the aircraft or projectile, if the plasma could steer the aircraft/projectile instead of using traditional flaps, stabilizers and wings. Is this possible? Malamockq (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where the your plasma envelope is coming from with regular aircraft or projectiles, but for spacecraft reentry see Feasibility study of flight experiment for electrodynamic heatshield technology, whose abstract starts, "The electrodynamic heatshield technique is a promising technique which can replace the current heatshield system. In addition, the technique can provide us a way to maneuver the vehicle without moving parts such as rudders." -- ToE 19:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an active field of research. See the article on plasma actuators (which does need some work, but should be a starting point at least). Kolbasz (talk) 09:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Space

Hello!

Which article states that gravity of celestial objects consume molecules/particles therefore space is a vacuum?
How does the co-ordination works in space - I don't know how to state this, I'll give you an example i.e. Star Trek ship can travel to certain coordinates...

Space Ghost (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2) You need 3 noncollinear points in space to define a coordinate system. Ordinary stars are useful within a galaxy, while you would need something brighter, like supernovas, in other galaxies. There are then Cartesian (X,Y,Z), spherical coordinates, and cylindrical coordinates that can be used, based on those 3 reference points.

The Pioneer plaques refer to pulsars for both position and time. —Tamfang (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder about the wisdom of using pulsars. The idea was to pick stars that would be obvious to other civilizations, but if the pulsar beam doesn't ever aim in their direction, they may not be aware of it. A supernova remnant might be a safer bet. Yes, the supernova will quickly fade, but the remnants should remain notable for millions of years. StuRat (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the beginning (ἀρχή) the fulminate was just plasma without form. Yet, dense enough to conduct sound. The week force of gravity slowly clumped newly formed atoms together. The remnants was observed and mapped by the Cosmic Background Explorer. So that may be a good place to start.--Aspro (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Space is never entirely empty, and particles are not "consumed" by gravity. Concentrations of mass do tend to grow by gravity; there probably isn't any one article covering this simple and rather obvious phenomenon, though see planetesimal. It's my impression that the solar wind had a much greater role than gravitic accumulation in dispersing the cloud from which the Solar System formed.

(2) I believe Starfleet uses spherical coordinates with Sol as the center. A Galaxy-wide culture might use cylindrical coordinates with the galactic core as the center and the galaxy's total angular momentum vector as the axis. —Tamfang (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1)That's what I thought at first resulting in the creation of ISM, however, some Wikipedians advised to keep what I stated in mind... I can't recall exactly (its in an article somewhere), I think a 'mercury effect' by a scientist proves your point or something about the solar wind. -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You guys stated so many, there must be a 'universal system' that all space programs follow. -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't count on it. For travel between planets I'd use ecliptic coordinates, but if you're orbiting a planet then a system based on the planet's center and rotation axis is likely to be more useful. —Tamfang (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I got you (this post), why there is so many. Cool! Thank you!

-- Space Ghost (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Big Bang

What was the estimated size of the 'primeval atom'?
After it busted it expanded for 377,000/380.000, how was the expansion? e.g., 2D/3D=4D... Which way did it expand thereafter e.g., North, South, East or West?

Space Ghost (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The directions North, South, East, and West are defined in a geocentric frame. The answer would be that space expanded in all six directions, +x, -x, +y, -y, +z, and -z, except that our concepts of expansion assume that it is something that is expanding in a reference frame, rather than the the frame is expanding. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles about the Big Bang. Start there and follow blue links. It will answer all of your questions about the singularity (primeval atom) at the Big Bang, as well as the process of cosmic inflation and other issues you may have questions about. --Jayron 32 19:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: (1) Your statement sounds like it was a 2D explosion, like when you draw a circle in a piece of paper, with time involved, not like a football, 3D=4D. From what I recall, from the 'movies', a star usually bursts in a 2D style and expands as long as it can. A curiosity raises by the way i.e. what will occur (in what manner) if you throw a grenade in space? How will it explode? In the film Oblivion and Stargate when they blew a bomb (considering atomic and it was inside a house and in space), it bursted like a 2D explosion at first expanding with its debris, then the house's/box's debris spread... The 'primeval atom' of the Big Bang did not have house/box debris, pure matter/combined stuffed molecules that exploded and divided as they expanded...

(2) I'm not sure but IMO, after the expansion stopped, which lasted for 377,000/380,000 years, it did not expand anymore, what resulted in furthering the expansion from there onward was the Star and Planet formation/creation. The more it rotated and or the more got created the more it spaced out. Some found their designated place, some are still furthering apart (sometimes including the designated one's) as new formations are taking place and or the ISM is building up, and so on. There is no such thing as dark energy, regardless of what the article says (regard only if you are defining with pseudoscience), I believe its is only stated in science to collaborate with the words dark matter. The words 'dark matter' on the other hand, holds value if it is only labelled to the matter(s) we are still unknown of. Of course if we know, its not a dark matter any more; just like religion and science establishment problem... However, I could be wrong; my analysis are purely based on Wikipedia's articles and the sheer amount of teaching Wikipedians provided... -- Space Ghost (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Primeval atom" is an unfamiliar term, and not actually meaningful to me. Understand that according to our image in Timeline of the Big Bang, protons (produced by baryogenesis) didn't occur until a microsecond after the Big Bang, at which point cosmic inflation was over and the universe was already considerably enlarged. How large, I don't know - I don't notice a single length figure in any of the articles, and I don't know which ones I've read in the past ("grapefruit" was always popular) were purely hypothetical - but in any case, you didn't have an atom in the normal sense before there were many, many protons. Now you can call the universe a "primordial atom" when it was the size of an atom, but God knows what it was made of, and there's a fair possibility it didn't remain that size for long enough for the component parts to affect one another (due to the speed of light) which makes it not a single object at all. But that's behind the period of inflation, and cosmic inflation is such a vague theory that just about anything could have happened before it. If there are any hard numbers in existence for the size, rate of expansion, composition of the universe when it was the size of an atom I'd love to hear them, but for now I think we can only guess that it was ... something else. Wnt (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Also, I think I got this word wrong - "Primeval atom" -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I recalled, George Lemaitre states "Primeval atom", and I've not come across what you stated. Hopefully I do...or I'll take your word. -- Space Ghost (talk) 07:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I am not sure why you say that I was describing a 2-D explosion. I referred to three dimensions, X, Y, and Z. When you see an atom explode on film, it explodes in two dimensions simply because the film is a two-dimensional medium and representing three dimensions is tricky. What do you mean by 3D=4D, anyway? I don't fully understand the rest of your post and questions either. Star and planet formation occurred much later. What does this have to do with religion and science? (Probably nothing.) Religion and science are not in conflict unless one or the other of them is stupid, anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought x and y is the graph line and z is time. I did not know what other way to explain a 4D thats why I said '3D=4D' with time, tried to synchronise it with the 2D explanation... And about the 'star and planet', I was talking about the 'population III' firstly then about the others, I meant the expansion occured because of the step by step move the universe had after the expansion. Also, I was exemplifying dark matter using the religion and science. Sorry, my English writing 'is' a 'bit' rubbish. Apology -- Space Ghost (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmm, ahmm, 'Z' stands for back and forth, not time. I guess I misunderstood. -- Space Ghost (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to make an animal taste unpleasant ?

I'm thinking an endangered species could be darted and injected with a chemical that would make them taste bad, so people would no longer hunt them. They could either be marked to indicate so, or if enough were so treated it would no longer be profitable to hunt them. Of course, the chemical would need to last and not harm the animal. As a bonus, natural predators might also avoid them after they get a bad taste. StuRat (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related - there are some programs to dye rhino horns to make them less attractive to poachers [9]. The problem is, it doesn't work very well, and the shortcomings are summarized in the link above and reported in detail in the cited journal paper. And that's only trying spoil a small part of an animal... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think smart: Swamp the internet with my mother-in-law's recipes. They make even boiled eggs uneatable ;¬ ) Mind you, that suggestion might give the The world Health Organization apoplectic fit - similar to that suffered by her guests around her 19th Century dining room table. These recipes may even (most certainly) contravene the Geneva Conventions. So maybe its a bad idea. --Aspro (talk) 19:21, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would presuppose that animals are going extinct primarily to supply meat to hunters. I don't know that that supposition is true or not, so that means that we cannot meaningful answer your question about the effectiveness of your proposition until we've established that your unsupported supposition is likely first. The concept is known to many as the plurium interrogationum problem. First, provide evidence that your presupposition is sound, so we know how to proceed to answer the question that depends on it. --Jayron 32 19:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I kind of doubt the premise that hunting of animals for food is a general high-priority threat to endangered species - the Panamanian_golden_frog is not soon-to-be extinct because people eat them, it's mostly due to habitat destruction and habitat degradation, through things like pollution and land use change. However, it is a fairly important threat in at least some cases, e.g. lots of primates get killed and eaten as bushmeat.

The thing is though, Stu didn't ask if it was a good idea or would actually help any endangered species (the effectiveness), he seems to be asking if it is possible to make animals taste unpleasant. He does also seem to be assuming that is a good idea, but that's just a weird way of explaining the question and giving context. As for the question of technical possibility, I WP:OR personally doubt it, but the lack of feasibility of changing an animal's muscle composition long-term by dart without harm to the animal is the kind of negative claim that is very difficult to support explicitly with scientific references. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Answering my Q does not depend on me being able to prove that people eating endangered animals threatens them with extinction. (And, BTW, even if there was just one species so threatened, then the premise is still valid.) StuRat (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Humph! (picture steam coming out of my ears) StuRat may have not given a reference because it is such a widely recognized given.Is Africa's wildlife being eaten to extinction? --Aspro (talk) 20:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's bushmeat, but also people eating things like tiger's penis for "medicinal reasons". StuRat (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the authorities can secretly start a campaign to "get the word out" that the tigers have been implanted with powerful long-lasting synthetic hormones that affect humans but are benign to tigers, and that anyone who consumes the tiger parts for "medicinal reasons" will perform miserably in the sack and develop man boobs. :) --173.49.9.102 (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are such species-specific synthetic hormones scientifically plausible? --173.49.9.102 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In studies on the behaviour of hens, we sometimes make food distasteful by dipping it in a quinine solution. This is the substance used in treatments to prevent humans from nail biting. I'm not sure about the logistics of coating rhinos in such a substance, - perhaps something like a huge sheep dip - but I imagine it would have to be re-applied each time it rained. Hardly practical!DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Godmother lived in the country and she had funny coloured food delivered. The colouring was non toxic and cheap. So even if this stuff [10] could permanently colour meat it wouldn’t put people off. The only natural and ecologically 'viable' solution is to cull their human predators. Therefore, they do their part by contributing their meat protean to the rest of this hungry world. --Aspro (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They actually do sometimes kill the poachers, at least when the poachers fire on the authorities trying to stop them. StuRat (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]