Science desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

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.

September 22

What red and green fruit grown in mexico looks like a smooth, oversized avocado?

I went grocery shopping, and was looking for something new to try. In the fresh fruit section they had these red and green fruit, about a liter in volume, somewhat like oversized smooth and less pear-shaped avocados. I haven't a clue what the inside looks like. They were labelled as "Mexico" where the actual name of the item, like "sweet onion" would appear, and I had to ask someone to read the tag on the fruit, which said, "Producto de Mexico"! Anyone have a guess? I can then do a google image search, but otherwise I have no idea where to begin. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Papaya to me. Tevildo (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Papayas I've seen are yellow. StuRat (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is my public apology to all, including StuRat, for my own insufferable behavior here. I should not have carried on to this level. It is unacceptable, and I am sorry. Closing it, though you can still read it, to see my own bad behavior here. Sorry to all, and to StuRat. --Jayron 32 14:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

While that may be true, I'm not sure your experience is relevant and thus does not bear mentioning here. What you've seen is of no help to anyone. What people can see for themselves by reading the linked article (which you obviously didn't do, or you'd have seen something different) is the only thing that matters on this page. --Jayron 32 13:43, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And do you have any evidence that they are red and green, as the Q asks ? Or are you just here to make a WP:POINT ? I notice you didn't add this until after this Q was resolved (it was a mango) and I challenged your answer as to why there are so many skyscrapers in Chicago [1]. So, it looks like you are out for revenge. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, you're right Stu. You totally owned me there. What with your never ever providing a useful reference to anyone ever, and your spouting off personal experiences and half-remembered factoids because we all know, what StuRat has experiences must be The Truth and what StuRat thinks he remembers must be Important for Everyone to Know Now. As usual, every response you have ever given to any question here ever is as useful to anyone as tits on a bull. But you keep being you, Stu. Every time you do, you only continue to make your own ineptitude more and more apparent to all. --Jayron 32 14:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For half-remembered bullshit answers, we only need to look at your current false info you provided on the US Electoral College here: [2]. I can provide many more such BS answers, from you, if one is not enough. As for my referenced answers, here's one: [3], and I can provide many more, so your statement that I "never ever providing a useful reference to anyone ever" is an outright lie. StuRat (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

And when someone corrected me, I affirmed my mistake and thanked the person who corrected me. But you'd never do that, Stu, would you. Because you never actually have made a mistake, every pronouncement you have ever made is true because you make it. --Jayron 32 14:29, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I'm actually wrong I am willing to admit it, but often it's just somebody like you bitching just to be obnoxious. The statement that all the papayas I've seen have been yellow is absolutely true, and useful, as papayas was not the correct answer to this Q. And admitting to a mistake once you've been proven wrong (and calling it a "clarification" isn't much of an apology) doesn't seem to stop you from making up bullshit answers again the next time. StuRat (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Mangos? [4] -Modocc (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not a papaya based on any images I have seen on google, which are too yellow. It does look like a mango based on google images, and is almost identical to our main image of a mango. I'll assume it's a mango, buy one, and see what I can do with it. I suppose I should have just bought one tonight, but I am busy with other matters, and too distracted to think as clearly as the 25% of US voters who are deplorable, let alone a Bernie supporter.

Thanks. (BTW, I settled on half-ripe bananas, since I knew what the were.) μηδείς (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Mangos are absolutely my favorite fruit, if you've never had it before, omg prepare yourself for some magic in your mouth. You have to get one that's ripe and ready to eat. It needs to be a bit soft, press not too had near the top where the stem is, it should "give" a little, like a ripe avocado or a peach I guess, not hard like an apple or pear. Vespine (talk) 06:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found the Mexican mangoes sold in New Zealand very good compared to those from Thailand, India or Australia. (Or those sold in Malaysia generally from Thailand, sometimes locally grown maybe sometimes from elsewhere in Asia.) I don't know if this is also true of those sold in the US. They are better than the Tommy Atkins (mango) often from Peru or Ecuador though. (Although I admit I haven't tried that many, but I've spoken to people with similar experiencse.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but a poor mango is still damn good fruit.

I think this could be a papaya, or close relative. There are plenty that are eaten green and some that are quite large.

A good use for these larger papayas is as a vegetable in a salad, rather than as fruit. Halve them, deseed them, peel them, and then use a mandoline (or a lot of fine chopping) to cut them into thin strips or julienne. Mix with similar shredded carrot. Then dress with some mix of light (rice) vinegar, a light oil like avocado oil and a bit of chilli, black pepper or maybe citrus juice. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quite sure it WASN'T an avocado? There is a wide variation in avocado varieties, in terms of texture and color. this article explains some of the differences. We're used to one basic variety in American supermarkets, the Hass avocado, but there are many varieties, some of which may be grown in Mexico, which look very different. I remember about 20 years ago at a pot luck where a guest from Puerto Rico brought what she called a "Puerto Rican" avocado which was smooth, bright green, and the size and shape of a small watermelon. --Jayron 32 11:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; our list of cultivars at avocado really doesn't do it justice. The volume of one liter is also on the high side, regardless of whether we're talking about mangoes, avocados, papayas or some unholy hybrid between them. Luckily, the seeds of these fruit are very dissimilar; cutting open the sample will make it unambiguous pretty quickly. Matt Deres (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised you've never seen a mango before, they are quite common in grocery stores here in Michigan. One warning, when ripe they are quite juicy, so peel it over a bowl in the sink (the bowl is so you can drink most of the juice). I would use a knife to peel it. Also, you will need the knife to separate the flesh from the pit, which looks like a giant white watermelon seed, but had fibers extending into the flesh (a fun trick on little kids is to say you just had a giant watermelon, and show them the mango pit as "proof"). These are good roughage, but do tend to get stuck between the teeth, so plan to floss after. The flavor I would describe as like fruity maple syrup. You can eat it plain or in a fruit salad, or basically anywhere you would use citrus fruit, like mixed with yogurt. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually seen the meat of mangoes before, just not the whole unskinned fruit. This fruit is not an avocado, it would have weighed twice as much as it did, and I used to make the guacamole at TGIF. Next time I'm there I'll buy one. The also had ramatans, which thank god were not labelled as philippines from the Philippines. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Would ramatans be rambutans? I've never heard them called that before. @ StuRat you might find this clip helpful, lose no juice and minimise the fibers with this method widely used in the UK. Richard Avery (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they are the same thing, if you google image them you get the same fruit, although it looks like rambutan is the more common term. There are scary looking, like something out of The Expanse and I had never heard of or seen one until this week. μηδείς (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prickly pears are plenty scary, too. StuRat (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prickly pears are generally actually prickly. I guess you could prick yourself on the stalk of a rambutan, but that isn't that different from an apple or both ends of a banana. It's surely difficult to prick yourself on the hairs. Frankly the durian is probably scarier (although you're less likely to get a spike) but people often get too distracted by the smell to notice that. Still walking around a field of trees with ripe durians is best avoided. Recognising what you're seeing is I guess important. Some of the sharper looking Starfruit may look scary if you imagine the spikes are hard. Of course a fruit looking innocous doesn't mean it can't cause such inconviences. I wouldn't say the purple mangosteen looks particularly threatening but the the staining may be more annoying than anything you're likely to get from a rambutan or starfruit. (Although it is also annoying with the skin of the seed sticks to the rambutan flesh.) And since we spoke of smells, not a fruit but the petai smell and taste can be a bit offputting to some but like asparagus, it's probably the after effects that people notice more. Nil Einne (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a potted prickly pear, and my parents have them growing in their back yard. They might look dangerous and for good reason (their spines can pierce leather gloves even when they are grasped with aluminum foil), but the rambutan looks damn spooky, what with its red body and green tentacles. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between electromagnetic field and electromagnetic induction

What are the differences between electromagnetic field and electromagnetic induction? Is electromagnetic induction always being a kind of electromagnetic field?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 09:39, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is electromagnetic induction being an electromagnetic work of nucleus of atoms and is electromagnetic field being an electromagnetic work of atoms?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are the differences between a gravitational field and a pendulum clock? Induction is a process that uses the field. —Tamfang (talk) 10:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What vectors are always being the main a vectors of electromagnetic induction or vectors of electromagnetic field?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is nuclear always doing the work of atom or atom is always doing it self work?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are mechanical physics - mechanical models of atom says about that?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears your native language is not English. If you can tell us your native language, we can direct you to another site, likely another version of Wikipedia, in your own language. What is your native language? --Jayron 32 11:41, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is I’m. I’m interesting is universe being universal and unified, that is could mechanics being determines all?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of English is not good enough for anyone here to understand what you wish to know. If you tell us what language you speak normally, we can direct you to the correct venue to get your questions answered. What language do you speak? --Jayron 32 13:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speak Russian. I want say that the USSR was universalized and unified all humanitarian and all technical knowledge to win in global economic, but the USSR was not won in global economic because the sources of the USSR exhausted.--79.139.159.41 (talk) 13:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On explain of my country the USSR-Russia we could seeing that knowledge and technologies and also capitals are loses to mineral sources.--79.139.159.41 (talk) 14:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Russian Wikipedia's equivalent of the Reference Desk. If you ask your questions there in your native language, you will likely get better, more prompt responses than you would here. Because frankly, here at English Wikipedia, most of us can't understand you very well. --Jayron 32 14:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was first notice by BenRG but that page is to a merged/deleted page. It links to ru:Википедия:Форум/Вопросы but that page says "Вопросы, не относящиеся к работе над Википедией, будут удалены. Поищите в Википедии, Гугле или Яндексе" which appears to mean something like "Questions not related to work on Wikipedia would be deleted. Search Wikipedia, Google or Yandex." So there appears to be no where on the Russian wikipedia that anyone can get help with these sort of questions. In the case of Alex Sazonov, it's a moot point anyway, they appear to be unwelcome on the Russian wikipedia for writing barely understandable nonsense ru:Обсуждение_участника:Alex_Sazonov and were blocked back in 2014 [5]. My impression is it was the same when they tried speaking in Russian here on en.wikipedia. So I don't think asking in Russian anywhere, even outside ru.wikipedia is going to help if Alex Sazonov speaks the same way. They need to have a far better level of language be it in Russian, English or some other language is they actually want people to help them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is always being matter only a size of available natural mineral sources and nothing more.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 15:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Sazonov it is unlikely that we can help you further with the two Wikipedia articles[6][7] that you have cited unless you specify a sentence you don't understand. However you can read in most Russian libraries and encyclopedias about the radio pioneer Alexander Popov. Popov built receivers to detect the electromagnetic field that is radiated in all directions by the powerful currents in Lightning strikes. In his receivers, incoming electromagnetic field vibrations induce small current vibrations in an antenna and Coherer device that in turn passes a large current to an Electromagnet that produces physical force to ring a bell, to warn of an approaching storm. The USSR stamp shown says "Inventor of radio, A. S. Popov, 1859-1906. Demonstration of the first radio, 1895" AllBestFaith (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Is being interesting did the magnetic fields doing work same as electromagnetic fields?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, what a problem had the USSR-Russia if magnetic fields did always doing work same as electromagnetic fields?--79.139.159.41 (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Вы должны прочитать школы книги, что вы понимаете о электромагнетизма. Это обсуждение концы. This discussion ends. AllBestFaith (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this discussion was closed, but at the end of this discussion, I must to add that optical spectrum of magnetic field is same to optical spectrum of electromagnetic field, that’s why I was had a question what a problem had the USSR-Russia if magnetic fields are same to electromagnetic fields and their laws are same. Thanks to all for this discussion.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]