Can a 40 feet transit bus fit into a wide-body aircraft such as the Airbus A330, Airbus A380, Boeing 747, or Boeing 777 as cargo? For example, could a 40 foot transit bus manufactured by Gillig or New Flyer fit into an Airbus A380, the world's largest passenger airliner if the aircraft was converted to a cargo only aircraft? WJetChao (talk) 08:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WJetChao. There are many websites with dimensions on bus widths and many others with cargo aircraft door widths. Large busses are 2.5 to 2.6 meters wide. Large cargo aircraft have loading doors that average 3.4 to 3.5 meters wide, though some are much wider. Accordingly, most busses can easily fit into large modern cargo aircraft. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast, there, Grasshopper. Er, Dolphin. Some leaping creature, anyway.

I took as an example the New Flyer Excelsior bus and the Boeing 747-400 family freighter. As Dolphin says, the cargo door width is not a problem, and neither are the length or the weight. But the height is. The cargo door opening at the front of the plane is only 2.49 m high (98 inches); see page 18. Even the side door, which I suspect would not be workable with an object the length of a bus, is only 3.1 m high (123 inches); see page 15. Without doing something special you could not put this bus, which is at least 3.2 m high, onto this plane. The problem, of course, is partly that it's taller than a standard shipping container. I haven't looked at the other planes the OP mentioned; maybe one of them will take it. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 11:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would fit on top of a Boeing 747 Shuttle Carrier Aircraft, but that's probably cheating. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely fit into an Airbus A400M Atlas (17.71 m x 4.00 m x 3.85 m) or an Antonov An-225 (43.35 m x 6.4 m x 4.4 m). The Airbus Beluga and Boeing Dreamlifter appear to be larger still, but our articles don't actually have numbers for the maximum cargo dimensions. It wouldn't fit into an Airbus A330-200F, that has the same 96" height limit as the 747 (see Airbus' website). Tevildo (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beluga's dimensions are 37.7 m x 7.1 m x 7.1 m (here). You could probably get two buses on top of each other in there. Tevildo (talk) 18:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Boeing C-17 Globemaster III could handle a bus as well. Maybe two. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Airbus webpage, the Airbus Beluga can handle cargo 16 feet wide and 16 feet high. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think the answer to the OP's question is "No" - a bus is too big for a converted passenger jet, it would have to go in a specialist cargo aircraft. Tevildo (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Beluga is a converted passenger jet, based on the Airbus A300. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no requirement that the bus must be driven in. It would fit in on its side - though it's a rather tight fit, so you might want to take the wheels off. MChesterMC (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MChesterMC, I do not think that your caveat applies to the Beluga, a converted passenger jet with a 16 foot wide by 16 foot high cargo door. Upright or on its side, a bus fits into it easily. However, it reminds me of an anecdote I heard many years ago about a truck one inch taller than a highway overpass getting wedged into place. Powerful tow trucks couldn't extract it, and smart men stood around scratching their chins. A young boy said, "Let the air out of the tires", and then it was done. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that we don't have an article (or a redirect) for chemical notation. Or where would we have definition of parentheses, as in "Al(l)"? BTW, the reason I needed to look this up was because of this edit, which looks like a good faith misunderstanding to me. — Sebastian 08:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Chemical equation and look under Common symbols. We also have Chemical formula and Chemical nomenclature. Dolphin (t) 09:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I only now (thanks to your edit summary) realized that I had misread the letter, which I presume is what misguided the IP editor, too. I read "Al(l)" as "Al(I)", which can look the same depending on the font used. Since both of these occur in the article, I'm wondering if there's a better way to distinguish them. One thing I did notice is that the notation used in the article is inconsistent; often – as in "Al(L)_n(s)" (which, if I may add that parenthetically, has yet another use of a parenthesis) – the physical state is written as a subscript. Could that distinction help disambiguate "Al(l)" from "Al(I)"? — Sebastian 18:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is potentially ambiguous to use Al(l) to mean both liquid aluminum and aluminum in oxidation state +1, and yet this ambiguity occurs in Aluminum! Perhaps a chemist would say it is always possible to resolve the ambiguity by considering the surrounding context. Where there is a risk of ambiguity I like the idea of using Al(liq) but I can't cite a reliable published source to support my preference. Dolphin (t) 06:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've sometimes seen the state-of-matter detail in italics and/or subscript, but ACS Style Guide says it goes in-line as plain text. What if the (l) for liquid is simply omitted? It's not key to the reaction itself and the surrounding text can emphasize that due to the high heat involved in the reaction, the metal is produced as a liquid. Or else include an explicit charge of zero as superscript (to emphasize that the charge is changing), which makes it clearer that this other detail is not also charge. DMacks (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The whole Aluminium#Production and refinement is a mess. The "relevant reactions" for producing a certain chemical have that chemical as a reactant. And interleaves ideas about the chemistry with the physics/engineering but omits parallel details or relationships (no idea what the cathodic reaction is in particular, or that the C reactant at the anode is the anode itself). DMacks (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern era of the digital/technological age, why does intelligence fail? Surely digital capabilities should improve intelligence capabilities? --Copstwurst (talk) 09:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a Humanities question, not science. "Intelligence failure" doesn't mean that the microphones broke down or the drones shut off their transponders and flew toward Antarctica. It means that spies (the people we hire to spend their lives lying and deceiving people) didn't tell us the truth. Was Nigerian yellowcake an intelligence failure, or an intelligence success? Depends on whether the spies' purpose is tell Americans the truth, or start the war the President's family wanted. Wnt (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Copswurst: intelligence and measures of are human constructs, facilitates Illusion of control, explored in Philosophical zombie, Simulacrum, technology reduce pressure on brain to process, memorize viaRed queen hypothesisMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC) @Copstwurst:mention correctMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technology can improve intelligence gathering - reduce the rate of disasterous failures - but you're asking why there are any failures at all! There will always be failure so long as intelligence isn't 100% perfect. But 100% perfection requires governments to know 100% of everything that's going on absolutely everywhere. Even if 100% perfection were technologically possible - the issues of privacy and data security would be crippling. We don't actually want 100% perfection - we want an appropriate balance between privacy rights and security from evil-doers. It's tough to put together a scientific answer to that question because it's all about cultural, political, personal and emotional responses to invasions of privacy and such like. SteveBaker (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of battlefield intel, we aren't so worried about privacy there, so 100% correct intel would be a good goal. (And I'd have to think that civilians there would be willing to give up their privacy if it meant an end to us bombing the wrong targets.) StuRat (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human intel is still a critical ingredient. The US military has recently relied on "signature" targeting, which means killing people such as men wearing all black and carrying guns in the target area. Of course, in the Middle East, that's no guarantee they are the bad guys. You need people on the ground to tell the good guys from the bad (and, of course, who is good or bad is a matter of opinion, as Osama Bin Laden was considered a good guy by the US while battling the Soviet Union in Afghanistan). StuRat (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A matter of opinion or a matter of how much cheese a rat gets for pointing out the "bad guys". Zero cheddar points for negative results. It's a science question. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:30, November 2, 2015 (UTC)

I was making up a chart at neutron reflectometry recently, noticing the variation between elements in coherent scattering, incoherent scattering, and absorption. The neutrons can penetrate tens of millimeters into many materials. It is possible to use specular reflection for crystallography, but often at high angles there is simply random scattering. Still...

What would common landscapes - people, forests, houses - look like as illuminated by a neutron source? (Assuming either that you can detect at very low 'illumination', or can see the result of an instantaneous flash, like a Hiroshima bomb) At first I would think that everything would be just kind of white, from random backscatter, except that some materials absorb more than others, and I'm not sure how the coherent reflections would affect an ordinary photograph.

But there is also a matter of wavelength. The numbers I put in that paper were for neutrons with 1 angstrom or perhaps 1.8 angstrom wavelengths and seemed quite consistent, but in theory neutrons can have all sorts of wavelengths. And scattered back, their wavelengths should change from the recoil. So I'm thinking there ought to be such a thing as color neutron photography.

Is there a sense of this out in the literature somewhere? I wonder if the world seen by neutrons is as beautiful as by photons' light. Wnt (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick glance at the neutron reflectometry article, I note that nitrogen has quite a high scattering length - so probably very foggy, since the air is no longer transparent. MChesterMC (talk) 09:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does registration for professional status after getting an engineering major take a significant amount of time outside working hours? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation and licensure in engineering is not simply a matter of "getting an engineering major [degree]" (in some jurisdictions that may not even be necessary). Whether gaining PE status takes much time outside of working hours will depend significantly on whether one's workplace permits doing such work on company time. — Lomn 17:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP curious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahfuzur rahman shourov (talk • contribs) 15:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - the brain is a massively parallel and asynchronous system. There is no specific "frame rate". That said, there are various regular waves that can be detected - and each individual neuron has "firing rate". But as a whole, there is no particular number that could be assigned to major processing cycles. SteveBaker (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above is correct. You might want to look at flicker fusion for one possible interpretation of an effective frame rate for the human visual system, but it's actually far more capable than that suggests in special cases: hence the need for things like high frame rate video in VR systems. See this link for Palmer Luckey's opinion on this. -- 16:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The simple way of stating it is that the human visual system doesn't have "frames". Video systems work by displaying static images in rapid succession. These are the "frames" that "frame rate" refers to. Originally it referred to the individual frames on a film strip, but the term generalizes well to electronic displays like CRTs and LCDs, which work similarly, by drawing an image and then overwriting it with a new one. Our brains interpret these images as a single sequence due to persistence of vision. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lets assume I have a an inductor which is wound on an iron core that forms a closed loop and another identical inductor wound on a similar iron core but with the core not forming a closed loop as the first but open at both ends.
How do I calculate the inductance for these two scenarios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenola87 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Useful articles are Inductor, Magnetic core and Toroid. The A_L value of an iron core is frequently specified by manufacturers. The relationship between inductance and A_L number in the linear portion of the magnetisation curve is:

${\displaystyle L=n^{2}A_{L}}$

where n is the number of turns, L is the inductance (e.g. in nH) and A_L is expressed in inductance per turn squared (e.g. in nH/n²). Bestfaith (talk) 22:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The inductance L of an iron-cored coil may be calculated using: L = 3.2 × N^2 × μ × a/10^8 × l Henrys, where:

N = number of turns

a = effective cross-sectional area of coil in square inches

l = length of magnetic circuit in inches

μ = effective permeability

The length of the magnetic circuit is the length measured around the core at the center of cross-section of each magnetic path. For a rectangle-shaped core with the winding wound around one or more edges, this effectively means the mean perimeter of the core. For the more typical interleaved-E shaped core with the winding wound around the central element (think of it as two rectangles butted together), the magnetic path length consists of the mean perimeter around one rectangle plus the mean perimeter around the other.

The effective permeability depends on the type of steel used, on the AC and DC flux densities in the core, and whether the core laminations are interleaved or whether there is an air gap in the magnetic circuit. In order to calculate the inductance, you must know the properties of the iron or steel used, and whether the inductor is or will be subjected to a DC current flow. There may be no DC current flowing in the winding or windings, or the net effect of DC currents may be zero because the currents are of such magnitude and winding sense that DC flux is cancelled out. The calculation of μ is very complex and use is usually made of charts which show variation for multiple variable factors. I am unsure how to address the part of your question that relates to the open-ended inductor. Does 'open-ended' imply that the length of the magnetic circuit is very large (but not infinite)? Others here may know.

There is no simple calculation that will answer your question. Too many unknown factors. This response has been based on information in the "Iron-cored Inductors" chapter of The Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Fourth Edition, 1952, by F. Langford-Smith, with some of the above being direct quotes. There is far more information in that chapter than I can present here, and permeability graphs and charts are presented. Akld guy (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calculating the inductance for the closed core-loop core is somewhat straight forward but the second part of the problem with the open-ended inductor is where I am stuck. Just to clarify what is meant by "open-ended core", I have made a simple diagram to illustrate what I mean. Have a look below:

--Adenola87 (talk) 04:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is exactly what I thought you meant. I'm having trouble with the open-ended one too. By the way, the dashed line in the closed-core image is what I described as the 'median mean perimeter', and is used to calculate the length of the magnetic circuit. That image shows it very well. I'm curious how you are determining the permeability of a core of unknown characteristics. Usually when designing an inductor or transformer, a manufacturer will start with iron or steel of known permeability. You don't have that luxury. Or have you stumbled on a stock of unused cores with manufacturer's data attached? Akld guy (talk) 04:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Akld guy (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on something and I am trying to establish a sort of relationship in the size of the inductance of two similar inductors with one having a closed loop core while in another instance the same inductor is just wound on an open loop core. I am in the preliminary stages of my design and I have not started to zero in on the specifics of the actual permeability of the core. I do know that most commercially available cores can easily exceed 1000. It will be nice if I can work some sort of ratio between two coils of similar parameters with one wound on a closed iron core and the order on an open core like in the diagram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenola87 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC) --Adenola87 (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's called an autotransformer. Pretty straightforward calculations in the article, I believe. --DHeyward (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is NOT called an autotransformer, which is an entirely different device than what we are talking about. The autotransformer is a special class of transformer that has only one winding. It has a tap connection (or more than one tap) on the winding to transform one voltage to another, and does not in any way isolate the input terminals from the output terminals as a normal two-winding transformer does. Here, we are not even talking about a transformer. We are talking about an inductor, whose principal application is in smoothing DC that has been obtained by rectifying AC, thus reducing hum and ripple. Akld guy (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a physics perspective, what's the difference? It's magnetic flux through a number of surfaces. Why wouldn't the 1:1 autotransformer case degenerate to an inductor with an open core? --DHeyward (talk) 02:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The autotransformer is used only where AC is involved, since its function is to transform one AC voltage to another (or to a range of AC voltages that the user can select by moving the load to a different tap on the winding). The AC-only stipulation simplifies the calculations since the iron or steel core will not take on a permanent magnetization with only AC present. Now, the OP's question relates to an iron-cored inductor, and the only real use for an iron or steel cored inductor is as a smoothing choke in AC power supplies where the AC is first rectified to produce unfiltered, raw DC and is then passed through the inductor. The nature of an inductor is that it resists any increase in current flowing through it, yet tries to maintain the same current when the current flowing through it is decreased. The inductor therefore smoothes out the irregularities (the roughness) of the DC that resulted from rectifying the AC. Such metal-cored inductors are rarely encountered today, but in decades past they were used extensively in tube radios, TV's, amplifiers, speech equipment. Very large ones were used in telephone exchanges. The OP has not stated whether DC will be present in his inductor, but I see little practical use for an iron-cored inductor except as a smoothing choke as just described. To answer your question, 1. the presumption is that DC will be flowing, and 2. DC flow makes the calculation more complicated than for the case of the autotransformer by modifying the permeability of the core and thus introducing another variable. Akld guy (talk) 03:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Permeability is not a factor for DC. It's straight IR drop. Reactance has a frequency component. It seems odd to me to use a frequency varying permeability, though, as it would be non-linear which would create intermodulation products. Dynamic access arrangements used in telco phones and modems were very linear and the permeability was frequency independent (at least in the bands of interest). Midcom was the last brand I used but that was many moons ago. The inductor you are describing would be useful as a choke but is also used in relays and also ground-fault interrupting equipment. --DHeyward (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The effective permeability depends on the type of steel used, on the AC and DC flux densities in the core, and whether the core laminations are interleaved or whether there is an air gap in the magnetic circuit. That is a direct quote [my emphasis added] from page 243 of the Radiotron Designer's Handbook, Fourth Edition, 1952, which is freely available as a PDF online. I suggest that you read that chapter. The pages from 243 onwards show how to calculate inductance when AC and AC plus DC are present. Yes, inductors (that is, coils wound on a metal core) are used in relays, but it's not usual to refer to them as inductors because the properties of inductance are not exploited in relays. Relay windings act as simple electromagnets which move the armature when DC is applied to the winding. That does not exploit the reactive property of an inductor, X_L = 2πfl ohms, which is relevant only when a non-DC waveform is applied, such as the unfiltered DC that I mentioned above. If f = 0 (as in the case of DC), the reactance is zero, so essentially the relay winding is not being used as an inductor. Please try to answer the OP's question, instead of drawing me into irrelevant side issues. Akld guy (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much know what an auto-transformer is and how it works but what I am talking about here is is an inductor. Sure there are similarities in how most of these devices that have some sort of coil windings (like transformers, inductors, etc) operate since all them operate by means of electromagnetic induction but every one of them have their on peculiarities and functions. What I am interested in here is something which is just basic and what I am trying to do is to establish how much the inductance of the inductor with the open core will be different from the one having a closed core. Most of the calculations you need for simple designs do not need to be over complicated and extremely precise. It depends on the nature of the project you are working on. The inductance of the inductor with the closed core is easy to calculate. The problem is with the other inductor that has an open core. I found this article [[1]]. I found this formula there: File:Formula solenoid with core.png I have not been able to verify the formula yet. I must say that I never heard anything like demonetization factor mentioned in the formula before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adenola87 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to think on door and its pivot but it's not so close. Maybe you have other idea for that? 78.111.186.40 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please expand the question. How do atlas and axis go together? Are you looking for a (better) metaphor for something else? —Tamfang (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He means the atlas (anatomy) and axis (anatomy). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What actually rotate around what? Does the atlas rotate around the axis or axis rotate around the atlas? (I've pictures on google that show both of them and that's why I'm confused. 78.111.186.40 (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Atlas (anatomy) and Axis (anatomy) for the relevant articles. Neither of them rotate "around" the other - the skull rotates against the atlas at the atlanto-occipital joint; the atlas rotates against the axis. All the vertebrae rotate around the spinal cord. Tevildo (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, it's a complicated design... Not all of the rotation is in the atlas-axis. This site describes the atlas-axis relationship as so: A pivot joint is made by the end of one articulating bone rotating in a ring formed by another bone and its ligaments. Think of a metal washer twisting around a bolt. The dens articulates with the facet on the atlas, as well as the transverse ligament, and this articulation provides the head with approximately 50% of its movement. Wnt (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm trying to visualise the surface of a diamond - there wouldn't be enough carbon atoms for the tetrahedral structure to be maintained would there be? I'm probably getting it wrong, but are there C=C double bonds there - like the surface of a water drop? Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a crystal and the face will be along crystal boundaries and axis. There doesn't need to be anything but the crystal structure but the face and angles will be deterministic. The type of diamond cuts and shapes are determined this way. The axis and face are very important to know prior to cutting. See Cubic crystal system and Diamond cubic. File:Diamond Cubic-F lattice animation.gif is an interesting animation as it shows certain face alignments as they rotate into view. Alignments (at least for similar structure in silicon) are often noted as <010> or <111> and can determine many properties. None of it changes the basic tetrahedral alignment though. A double bond would be a crystal defect. --DHeyward (talk) 07:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The surface of a diamond has each carbon atom terminated by hydrogen atoms. Compared to the overall number of carbon atoms in any reasonably-sized diamond, this number of hydrogen atoms (a single atomic layer of them) is too minuscule to be counted in any reasonable way in comparison to the number of carbon atoms, and yet, they still exist. this is a nice image of it. There are synthetic diamonds which have surfaces terminated with other functional groups (this article provides a review of some of them), for a variety of chemical reasons, but standard diamond is usually hydrogen terminated. --Jayron32 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32:@DHeyward: Thank you kindly; an excellent clarification. Le Sanglier des Ardennes (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megachile lapponica is referred to as a "non-metallic bee". This article mentions "metallic and non-metallic bees". I don't seem to be able to find a definition. Is it just coloring/appearance or something more technical? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never looked into the etymology of this entomological term (how often to do get to combine those two?), such that I could say with confidence but typically it does seem to be applied specifically to species which have a phenotype which disposes their exoskeleton to an iridescence suggestive of metal: [2]. As an interesting little aside, some species of bee do have a tiny amount of metal embedded in a sensory structure that allows the bee to detect and orient itself in relation to magnetic fields. Snow ^{let's rap} 07:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it refers to the shiny/metallic/iridescent look. However, it could be that the bees that have that trait must all fall into a certain group, though it is almost certainly not a clade. I mean sure, technically they do fall in the group of "metallic bees", but does that mean anything biologically? Let's see: the Agapostemon have metallic members and are Halictidae, but the Euglossa are metallic Apidae. So the most it could mean in terms of systematics is that metallic bees are in superfamily Apoidea, but that superfamily is paraphylletic anyway. And while it's true that all metallic bees are in the suborder Apocrita, so are all non-metallic bees. So I don't think this can mean anything biologically in general other than they look metallic. However, when restricted to a certain case, it may be more meaningful. For example, here's a new taxonomy of the metallic members of Lasioglossum subgenus Dialictus [3], which seem to be all closely related.

Mostly, I think the metallic trait and terminology is just an easy trait to check off in the field - the metallic bees are very easy to notice, and there aren't terribly many of them, compared to non-metallic bees, so that's a good way to get ID started. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help directly with the OP but structural coloration might be a starting place.DrChrissy ^(talk) 13:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and there is some interesting biology there. I don't have time today to look for refs specifically about the metallic bees, but for e.g. blue bottle flys and tiger beetles, the iridescent structural color is thought to be involved in predator evasion, but also thermoregulation, and also, funnily enough, mimicry of metallic wasps [4] [5]. Sexual selection may come in to some of the bees, since some of them have iridescence as a sex marker (N.B. all the metallic bees I know of are less social than eusocial, so unlike honeybees, the males actually do a bit more than deliver sperm). Here's a nice freely-accessible review of functions of iridescence across all of the animal world. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all. Way more than I needed, but interesting. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I take part in a play, and there's an intense scene where I have to shake uncontrollably and sweat waterfall. I work on the shaking (still not look natural enough, but I hope I'll get it eventually) but sweating?? Is there any SAFE drug that will make me sweat? My director advised very spicy food, but I really don't want that. אילן שמעוני (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought makeup would be more reliable and safer than actually making yourself sweat. This site recommends a 2:1 mixture of water and glycerine, and there are plenty of special-effects makeup companies that sell suitable products. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is I need to start sweating mid-scene. Otherwise it would be good. BTW, are you evolving to be Sauron or are you a cat? אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat OT, but the question was asked. I am named after the illustrious Tevildo Vardo Meoita, but am not he. Whether I am a cat or not is a matter for MOS:IDENTITY. Tevildo (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chewing peppermint will have a diaphoretic (sweat-inducing) effect, but probably not enough to be noticeable unless someone's standing next to you. I believe you answered your own query in your initial question; anything with a diaphoretic effect rapid enough to sweat on cue, and strong enough to be visible at a distance, is going to be highly toxic. You're a lot better off using makeup. ‑ iridescent 12:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR... Some Chili peppers have that effect on me, especially habaneros. --Jayron32 13:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you need something that's visible at a distance, I'd recommend something mechanical. Sponges of water under the armpits give you an easy way to soak your shirt on demand, although you'll probably need to them to be fitted as soon as possible before the sweating scene, both for your comfort and to stop them dripping too early. If you have fairly long hair or wear a hat, you could try putting thin tubes (this sort of thing) over your scalp with little holes in them, and squeeze water out of them - for instance, from a bottle under your armpits which you squeeze (but unless you can get the blocking right, it might look a bit strange to the audience!) Smurrayinchester 14:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all that contributed. I'll try the Chili (Ouch ): אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That won't work, for several reasons:

1) The sweating will start as soon as the chilis hit your tongue, not mid-scene.

2) It won't be visible to the audience, except perhaps the front row.

3) A burning mouth will be so distracting you won't be able to perform.

The mechanical system (a damp sponge tied under each armpit) will work far better. Make sure you wear a shirt that will darken noticeably when damp. I also suggest another sponge under a hat or wig (tied down so it doesn't fall off when you shake). You can pretend to scratch your head but really push down on the sponge then. A more sophisticated system could have a water-release mechanism under your wig or hat, either on a timer or with a remote control operated by a stagehand. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the play's author is among the living, you could ask them how they expected it to happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know of some friends who have used packs of fake blood under a wig to simulate a head wound - perhaps something similar with a pack of the fake sweat suggested above would work for brow sweat on cue? You'd need to burst the bag (a paperclip concealed in the cuff of a shirt can work for this), but a suitable motion could probably be incorporated. The pain in your mouth from a chili strong enough to make you sweat might well interfere with gettin your lines out reliably. MChesterMC (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that in close up cinematography, sweat oil makeup may be advantageous but on stage it will not perceivable to an audience. Remember too, many great actors became so because they could disagree with the director when he was wrong (i.e. eating spicy foods). Remember, a director is just that, he is not a god and does a not know it all. Suggest to him at playing it your way. Meaning by that, this sounds like an amateur thing. A good playwright, would I think, indicate in the script that the actor should mime wiping his brow etc., and announce “look how I sweat”. So, add your own way of emphasising that your character is sweating profusely.

As for the shaking: Avoid trying to tense up you muscles in order to shake. That produces a repetitive tremor (which is fine when displaying frustration but frustrated people don't normally sweat). Relax and perform multiple muscle twitches. After all, that is what uncontrollably means. This has to be a whole body effect. Practice in front of a full length mirror; since one's legs also turn to jelly and knees knock together, ones actions and guidance of limbs are not longer smooth, one has trouble of controlling ones voice in timber, tone and volume, etc. Think back to any time in your life were you ever felt like this and draw upon that too. Video your performance in front of the mirror whilst saying your lines. Place the camera well back because subtle movements will not come across to the audience. Actions have to be a little exaggerated compared to real life.

It has to be a whole body performance that makes your audience believe you (you're character) is really and truly sweating buckets and shaking uncontrollably.--Aspro (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. By now I produce quite convincing head and hands shaking- should suffice. The theater is VERY small, and I doubt more than 30 people or so will be in the audience... As for the director, I had enough brushes with him already as it is... but I WILL consider it after I try the chili.

As an anecdote, I have a friend who consumed raw eggs (which is bad, Salmonella and such) on stage for the sake of performance. He had to do it three time each show. He only drew the line when they had to perform three times the same day on Akko festival. I can't remember how the director handled that. I do believe an actor must aspire for the perfect in order to get at least decent performance. אילן שמעוני (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In TV commercials where somebody needs to be shown eating or drinking, they usually just spit it out at the end of the take to avoid getting sick from overeating on all those takes (see Vitameatavegamin for a fictional example of what can happen when this was not done). In TV shows and movies, where it's not as critical to show people actually eating, they typically just mimic the motions, like bringing a spoon up to the mouth but not actually swallowing anything (camera cuts before they would). So, these might apply to theater, too. They could spit food or drink out when out of view. Or they could do some slight of hand to appear to be eating while really only palming the food. StuRat (talk) 23:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had the exact same task a few years ago and a fellow actor told me of his trick of inserting a jalapeno where the sun dont shine. Only trubble was that it brought tears to my eyes as well.109.144.180.19 (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Donald Trump as the next president. If that doesn't get you sweating up a storm, nothing will. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Thanks a lot Clarityfiend ! That thought not only brings me out in a sweat but likely bring me nightmares tonight.--Aspro (talk) 00:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you be scared of somebody with a halo hovering above their head ? ... oh, wait, that's not a halo, that's his "hair". StuRat (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Arthur C. Clarke writes in the introduction to The Sentinel that the Moon’s ocean disappeared inside it as the Moon froze. I thought it was obviously absurd but it turns out that some scientists, including Edward Frankland, considered it plausible.^[1] I find the argument that internal cavities originated from thermal shrinking obviously absurd, considering that such a cavity would immediately collapse under the enormous pressure inside the Moon. Is this theory still viable? Was it viable in 1951? Otherwise, why would the author come up with such an outlandish claim? --Yecril (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not our moon, but Saturn's moon Enceladus has a documented underground ocean: [6]. So it isn't a plainly ludicrous idea; whether or not our moon has such an underground ocean aside, the notion that it could is borne out by the fact that other similar bodies in the solar system DO have them. --Jayron32 13:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notion of the Moon cooling down and water disappearing into cracks inside it is pretty ridiculous. The cracks would inevitably get warmed now and then and outgas a telltale water vapor. Other moons with subsurface oceans are covered with ice, not bone-dry dust. However, there's another way for water to disappear into the Moon, which is how much (most) of it disappeared on Earth - by chemical incorporation into the rocks, most notably ringwoodite. The People's Republic of China is showing some interest in finding ringwoodite deposits on the Moon that are exposed by cratering. [7] Wnt (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe liquid oceans could ever have existed on the Moon, since it lacks the gravity necessary to keep enough of an atmosphere to support an ocean. With little atmosphere, the water would just evaporate into space. StuRat (talk) 15:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If I remember correctly from seeing a local exhibit of moon rocks in the 70's, wasn't the lack of hydrated minerals taken as an indication that the moon is essentially "dry"? μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of Laburnum contain Cytisine and how is it extracted and processed into the medicinal form? 114.38.128.163 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to this it is found throughout the tree and this tells you how it can be extracted from the seeds. However, it's not clear to me whether or not cytisine is extracted from laburnum commercially to be used as a medicine. Richerman (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, according to this it is: "a company in Bulgaria named Sopharma made a stop-smoking drug called Tabex. The pills contained cytisine, a natural compound found in the tree’s seeds. The drug was farmed from massive laburnum orchards in Bulgaria". Richerman (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a handy word for "other members of the same species", that would fit into the sentence fragment "Unlike the Lemur catta on Madagascar, their "X" in zoos across the world..."? I feel like something of the form "homospecies" or even just "specimen" would sound right, but I'm honestly not sure if there's even a short way to to describe this concept.12.109.68.198 (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "conspecific", but I think it would be better to rewrite your sentence so that it doesn't need such a word. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the context and audience. It's a simple con- construction, and any e.g. college student should expected to understand terms like "conspecific", "congeneric", "confamilial", etc. In the OP's sentence "counterparts" would fill in X without restructuring the sentence. If this is for WP, then the appropriate concept can easily be wikilinked, like we do with any other cromulent term that may or may not be known to readers. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using a word most people won't know, like conspecific, and then providing a link, is not a good idea, as long as there is an easy way to avoid using the confusing word in the first place. In the above example, I would just use "their species" or "that species" or "that same species". That's quite clear without readers having to research the words to understand it. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I write a lot in animal articles and I used to use the term "conspecific" regularly, However, after receiving many complaints that most people would not understand the term, I have changed my editing. Now I would write " ...members of the same species (conspecifics)..." and use "conspecifics" thereafter. To the OP (and others), please avoid using the word "specimen" when referring to animals - most writers would avoid that term these days.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks!12.109.68.198 (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should ignore those critics. There's all kinds of words in articles that people don't already know -- just like in the rest of the written world. But -- this is important -- that's how we learn new words! Especially when we are reading the worlds largest hyperlinked collection of knowledge, the answers are only a click away. Seriously, we shouldn't use a five-dollar word when a penny one will do, but we're also completely allowed to used the correct word for a concept, without being overly worried that some readers may not know it. If that were our guiding principle, we couldn't even have an article on sheaf cohomology, or Induced pluripotent stem cells, etc., etc. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't come here to increase their vocab. And the problem is that if they go to the linked article to understand that term, and it in turn requires following other links to understand, and so on, they may never finish and leave in frustration. Authors of dictionaries try to follow the principle of defining words using simpler words, whenever possible, to avoid this very problem. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that has come up time and again via MoS, Village Pump, the talk pages of policy articles, and various other community spaces. The (extremely rough) consensus I have taken away from those discussions (and the few polices that treat the matter directly) is an approach somewhere between your and SM's positions. That is to say, we should be using general terminology and typically choosing an approach that will be able to effectively inform as a broad a selection of readers as possible, but, that being said, there is no shortage of articles and topics which cannot be approached in the slightest without heavy reference to technical and scientific jargon. Some content and some concepts are just too rarefied to be explained in layman's terms, because they are so divorced from every day experience. If I had to stop in the middle of every sentence on an article in the topic of neuroscience and explain every physiological concept to the level of understanding of the average layman and then do the same for every clinical term that came up in those definitions, it would create a constant feedback loop that would lead to articles of this nature being hundreds of times longer than they would otherwise need to be, incredibly dense, and poorly organized and off-point to a degree that they would be unusable for their intended purpose. This is clearly one of the main functions (if not the main function) of internal linking in the first place.

This quote from WP:What Wikipedia is not, is instructive here: "Introductory language in the lead (and also maybe the initial sections) of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before [emphasis added] advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic."

Personally I see no problem with Dr. Chrissy's approach of defining a concept (for which parentheticals are particularly useful) and then leaning on the term thereafter, where appropriate. In fact, I know that's enshrined in some policy, though I am drawing a blank on just where. Snow ^{let's rap} 23:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the same "feedback loop" still exists when the explanations of each term are in external articles. So, at some point you get topics that simply can not be made readable by a general audience. If you want to understand them you will need to go get a PhD in the field first. Thankfully, that only applies to a small number of articles and, with the rest, we have the choice of making them readable to a general audience or totally opaque. StuRat (talk) 23:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the choice you are presenting is whether that loop is handled within the article (in which case it bloats, disrupts its structure and generally undermines utility) or using internal links for exactly the purpose they are meant to serve, thus keeping our content organized and allowing our readers to pursue the threads they need or want to pursue at their leisure without making each article an omnibus on ever field of inquiry the topic touches upon. We have clear and overwhelming community consensus on which of this approaches is better, at it's pretty easy to see why. I also disagree that a certain amount of technical jargon requires an advanced degree to process; the entire point of Wikipedia is it now puts a wealth of information at the fingertips of its users to fill in the necessary blanks; all that limits this process is the reader's time and level of interest and the quality of the relevant articles. But that quality is not improved by avoiding necessary clinical terms like the plague, even where that terminology presents a more refined and functional understanding of the topic at hand.

I think to some extent that your proposed standard puts the cart before the horse. When there exists two options to describe the same concept that are equally elucidative, and one utilizes more common usage terminology, by all means, use that option. But if the choice is between a less accurate and less instructive option that any random person can read and one which requires some further understanding of the predicate terminology, that's the better choice for an encyclopedia. We aren't writing for children here (at least, not as the standard for an "average person") and our readers are free to choose how far they want to follow a given thread. Not giving them that option is manifestly against the very stated goals of this project. That doesn't mean I want every article on Newtonian physics to start out with equations, mind you. Obviously there is a learning curve, and that's what the lead and other contextualizing sections are for, and there's room for a lot of improvement on some articles written by academics working in their own fields before they fully understand the Wikipedia approach. But more often than not, in an article on a scientific or technical topic, I'd just as soon the more precise description be given rather than one that levels the playing field relative to those who have no time to read even a single other article defining a predicate term. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "bloats, disrupts its structure and generally undermines utility". I absolutely agree. However, this is still the case when all the material the average reader will need to read to understand an article is at links. Indeed, it's even worse, since navigation is now complicated by links within links within links, and external links aren't always focused on explaining the linked term (for example, the article at the conspecific link first explains "intraspecific" and "interspecific", with "conspecific" only defined after about 20 unnecessary sentences and bullets.).

Now don't get me wrong, when there is no other option than to use a complex term the average reader won't understand, then links and a simple explanation are in order (there's also a "mouse-over" definition, which can be a better option than a full link). But, links can be abused. For an analogy, look at police use of tasers. The idea was to give them a nonlethal alternative to shooting suspects. And, when used in that way, they are good. But, police also then started using them on anyone being uncooperative. That's an inappropriate use. Same with links, if people decide they can now use the most complex words they can possibly find, so long as they provide links for each. StuRat (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Looie496: and @StuRat:, this isn't simple english WP. Shall I start replacing "amygdala" with "little almond-shaped bits of a brain"? Or maybe change "motherboard" to "biggest wafer with squiggly metal lines and boxes glued to it in a computer"? I could make suitable re-wordings to avoid both of those, as well as many other terribly complicated words... I'm mostly joking of course, but it does seem like you two have confused English WP with its Simple English cousin. :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC) ETA- oh wait, I thought this seemed familiar: it was less than a year ago [8] that the three of us went down this same specific road before![reply]

Those examples are words that have no simple, common equivalent expression in regular English. So, use those words with a link. What we want to avoid is using needlessly complex words, either with or without links. So, say "lied" instead of "prevaricated", for example, or "same species" instead of "conspecific". StuRat (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with Dr, Chrissy, that's the way I do it - use the correct term, linked if possible, and also explain what it means. Richerman (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is better than forcing them to follow a link in an attempt to decipher what you said. StuRat (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you say cousin? "Their cousins in zoo's around the world..." that's what David Attenborough would say. Ssscienccce (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct was to go with "relatives", though that is inexact (as is "cousins", of course). "Unlike the Lemur catta in their natural habitat on Madagascar, the members of the species in zoos across the world..."? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving to one side the eternal populist-v-expert war, I would just note that (unless I misunderstand it), the word "conspecific" doesn't actually work in the example sentence. *Unlike the Lemur catta on Madagascar, their conspecific in zoos across the world.... Not grammatical. --Trovatore (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe I have to amend that. Wikt:conspecific lists a noun meaning, and I see above that Dr Chrissy uses it in the plural. To my ear, though, it has an inelegant sound used as a noun. --Trovatore (talk) 07:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To mine too. That's mainly why I suggested rewording the sentence -- it can be used as a noun but looks like an adjective. Looie496 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The noun use is as a Nominalized_adjective, and it usually has a plural form - "Grackles roost with conspecifics, while doves will roost with congeners." It is true that in many examples, the word can be avoided relatively easily. But other times we want to say something like "When corn flowers receive pollen from different species, they preferentially accept conspecific pollen, and heterospecific pollen will only fertilize if there is no conspecific pollen present. While congeneric cross-fertilization is relatively common, crosses outside the genus are unlikely." -- and explaining those (fictional) concepts with "members of the species/genus" workarounds will be result in a long and tedious mess. I do think it's interesting that you phrase this as "populist vs. expert". I hadn't heard that before, and thought it might be a common term for this type of debate. When I googled it, the first relevant hit was our own article on Anti-intellectualism, make of that what you will :)SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My rewrite:

"Corn flowers prefer pollen from their own species, but, if they have none, they will accept pollen from a different species. While cross-fertilization within the same genus is relatively common, crosses outside the genus are unlikely."

Is that incorrect or in any way awkward or confusing ? (My version is shorter, at 62 syllables versus your 84.) I am reminded of the father in A River Runs Through It, who made his sons rewrite everything to make it more concise. I would also aim for more accessible at the same time. StuRat (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What substances can produce vapor or fume that glows in the dark (with green, blue or other color, not simply colored fume)?--93.174.25.12 (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility is Will-o'-the-wisp. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wabbit farts when ignited.?31.55.64.143 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More like decomposing trolls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The colour of a flame can detect some metal ions. In pyrotechnics, the pyrotechnic colorants are used to produce brightly colored fireworks. Examples are:

Arsenic - blue
Boron - bright green
Calcium and Cadmium - brick red
Copper - Green
Potassium - Lilac
Sodium - Yellow
Lead and Tin - Blue/white
Rubidium - Red/violet
Strontium - Crimson to Scarlet

Bestfaith (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neon lighting or, more generally gas-discharge lamps. Also see Northern Lights. If you wanted to simulate the effect, perhaps colored lights or lasers aimed at water vapor produced by a fog machine might be a practical method. StuRat (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With separate illumination the following toxic gasses qualify.

F2 - pale yellow
Cl2 - green
Br2 - red/brown
I2 - violet

NO2 - ugly brown - copper metal in conc. HNO3
NOCl - orange/brown - NaNO2 in conc. HCl
ClO2 - intense deep yellow - NaClO3 in conc. HCl (explosive)

CF3NO  -  blue
NC-N=O  -  blue
CH3COCOCH3  -  yellow/green vapor

Bestfaith (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not many options I think... Powdered white phosphorus at low temperature might do it, it reacts with the oxygen in the air (would burst into flames in warm air). A mixture of ozone and nitric oxide could be another option. See chemiluminescence. Ssscienccce (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 06:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it. Fibrin appears to only exist when the clotting cascade is activated, which causes thrombin to convert fibrinogen into fibrin. Fibrinogen, in turn, is only present in the blood; it's manufactured by the liver. Fibroblasts on the other hand hang out in body tissues and produce extracellular matrix and collagen. The names are presumably similar not because the two things are linked biologically, but because of structural similarities. Fibrin binds together to form long chains, to produce a blood clot, while connective tissue, where fibroblasts are found, often has a fibrous appearance. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fibroblasts actually react to fibrinogen by becoming more active [9] and/or replicating [10], and fibrin can contribute to a epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition that can create fibroblasts where they were previously (and properly) absent. [11] For the cell type to produce something it responds to would be an engineering challenge (though I'm not saying nature couldn't find a way).

Really, at first blush fibrinogen appears to be a liver gene, though if you look closely enough you can find traces of expression in odd places [12]. Trace expression can turn out to be very important, but then again if you look at practically any gene hard enough you have a fair chance of finding a trace of expression ... so this doesn't really prove or disprove anything, especially since the data I linked above is organ-specific rather than cell type-specific. Wnt (talk) 15:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Bit of an odd question, I know, but it's for a writing project. I was just wondering if anyone happened to know if any famous scientist (prior to 1935 so not Feynman heh) used prostitutes. Sorry to be so crass, but it's not the easiest thing to Google for heh. I swear this is a serious and adult writing project which happens to need this information heh. Dan Hartas (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) was a frequent visitor of the Zurich red light district during his time as Professor of Theoretical Physics at ETH (1928-?), it seems. Although other sources say that he made frequent trips to Hamburg (Sankt Paili district) and Berlin... In 1929 he announced his marriage with a cabaret dancer. See source Ssscienccce (talk) 11:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So then the original Pauli exclusion principle was "No fat chicks" ? StuRat (talk) 00:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the most important scientific figures of the 18th century but not a full-time scientist, is known to have used strumpets, as he called them. John M Baker (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm overly sensitive, but is "used" the right word for a human? "Visited" would be a less demeaning alternative. Do I "use" a painter if he paints a wall for me? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Who do you use for your lawncare?" is a common construction. But I take you're point, just because it's common doesn't mean it's not also demeaning. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about prostitutes, but Feynman often bragged in print about his sexy exploits, e.g. hot tubbing with with beautiful naked ladies, playing bongos late into the night... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP finds it difficult to consider a 16 year old a famous scientist (even if he was already very smart at that age), hence why they ruled out Feynman. Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the OP's mention of Feynman, as well as the time restriction. I'll read better next time :) SemanticMantis (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leonardo da Vinci was prosecuted (and acquitted) for consorting with Jacopo Saltarelli, a notorious Florentine rent boy, if that comes into the solution set. Tevildo (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Used" is an ambiguous term. Here's a quote from Henny Youngman: "A hooker came up to me on the street. She said, 'For 100 dollars, I'll do anything you want that you can say in 3 words or less.' I said, 'Paint my house!'" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I need a link to show clearly how carbon dating works (he thinks it's unreliable), as well as how other dating methods of fossils work. Their Wikipedia articles don't do this very well. Also, a link showing the fossil record of humans and other animals would be good. Again, the article List of human evolution fossils doesn't work so well for this. Thanks, 2.102.187.59 (talk) 16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The TalkOrigins Archive at http://talkorigins.org is one of the best resources for this. For the claim on unreliability of carbon dating, see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html. For radiometric dating in general, there is http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html. There is a list of hominid fossils at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html. You can dig around the site for ages and find more stuff. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the first question is "Why are you convinced?" Start with the material that convinced you and it will be easier to explain. It's also a good cross-check to find out individual misconceptions by characterizing your own thoughts and beliefs and then comparing them to others. --DHeyward (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The very simple point is that we always find more primitive ancestral forms (or some lines that have simply gone extinct) below more recently deposited layers in the geological record that have more derived (more advanced) forms. Fish, but not pre-Cambrian rabbits in layers below layers with the most primitive amphibians, layers with amphibians below the first layers with early reptiles. Reptiles below layers with birds and mammals.

This is grade-school stuff that doesn't need one to be able to understand what the half-life of radioactive decay is. Arguing that carbon dating is unreliable is a very sophisticated objection to a very simple fact. To object to the obvious fact of evolution by doubting the physics of carbon dating is like denying you have diabetes when you are always thirsty, get up at night to drink and pee, have sores and nerve pain in your extremities, have weight and vision problems, and your urine tastes sweet if you sample it, but you object that your glucose meter may not be accurate.

Is there some more fundamental reason that your father doubts the obvious? μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you some reason for wanting to get into an argument with your father, what on earth difference does it make to you whether he believes in it or not? Evolution offends many peoples idea of their position in the world and rational arguments for iit will just offend them more. Do this with people with whom it doesn't matter whether you get on well with them or not. Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's open to new information and is openly unsure of his religious beliefs, trying to convince him will do nothing but create ill will between the two of you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a three different sources for you to look at. The first is the easiest to understand, its just a quick youtube video on carbon dating. The second is an in-depth book on fossil records. The third is a very scientific-heavy article on another type of time-dating.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54e5Bz7m3do

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=EPKGnF7oZXgC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=human+fossil+records&ots=lS1qIky-oV&sig=X7ztZtJsM6Zmp9VdQTK7VlqJ4cM#v=onepage&q=human%20fossil%20records&f=false

http://jmammal.oxfordjournals.org/content/jmammal/82/2/280.full.pdf

Atsand 19 (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with most proof is that those who don't believe in evolution don't believe in science either, so no scientific proof would convince them. I suggest taking him to a natural history museum, and showing him the dinosaur skeletons. You will need to find some which are complete or nearly complete, not mostly the fake white "bone" they use to fill in gaps, as that will cause him to doubt the results. But it's hard to look at a complete T-Rex skeleton and not think that life has evolved considerably since then. The only way around that is to believe in a massive conspiracy theory where every dino skeleton is completely fake. StuRat (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Creation Museum 10.png

Surely the exhibits in the Creation Museum show otherwise ;-) Dmcq (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I thought the disputed tag in Wikimedia commons on this picture of humans and dinosaurs coexisting was hilarious - "This dinosaur restoration is inaccurate, or its accuracy is disputed. Reason: No feathers + Skull clearly based on that of the baby T. rex in The Lost World: Jurassic Park rather than on actual fossil material." Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions guys. I think YouTube videos would be the best bet. He's not dumb or anything but he's convinced he's right and so wouldn't see the point in reading pages of text. The YouTube video on carbon dating was good. Does anybody know one for the fossil record of humans/other animals? Also, we're not having an argument or anything, and he doesn't take it deadly seriously (unlike my granddad). 2.102.187.59 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually, typically, three stages of disbelief...

1. That evolution is still happening - the fact that bacteria are evolving to avoid being killed by antibiotics, is a very clear - almost impossible to dispute thing.
2. That animals and plants evolved from simpler forms is usually a harder sell.
3. The toughest thing of all is to convince doubters that humans evolved from simpler forms.

The business of arguing against these things depends on you understanding which (perhaps all) are in doubt here. SteveBaker (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's an important argument you left out: That any apparent evidence which contradicts the Bible was placed there by Satan. And if someone truly believes that, the argument is over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that. However, there are believing Christians who state that radiometric dating does not contradict their faith: [13]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Radiocarbon dating? Why pick on that? Its usefulness is great for many purposes, but in evolution studies it's pretty minor. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very common creationist trope to argue that radiocarbon dating doesn't work and therefore evolution is a lie. The talk.origins archive linked above has a whole subsection just on carbon dating. You're right that there's oodles of other evidence for evolution, but none of that prevents people with a preconceived belief from cherry picking evidence that supports their belief. "This one study using radiocarbon dating was later found to be inaccurate. Therefore all science is wrong!" --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an abundance of time, I highly recommend the original Cosmos; it includes a detailed (if just slightly dated) understanding of the topic, will contextualize it within the broader framework of the physical universe and the origin of life, and there may not have been a person ever born that had a better gift for distilling these kinds of complex topics down to simple but still elegant language that draws in the expert and the layman alike. Snow ^{let's rap} 00:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some on the side of rationality mount an all-out counterattack, impugning the integrity or sanity of dissenters. I figure such an attitude, however justified by those personalities, works better to defend a foolish doctrine than a wise one, so it's best omitted. This discussion reminds me of another on the topic, years ago with a colleague at the telephone exchange.

-Evolutionists are foolish and depend on carbon dating, which is entirely unreliable.

-Radiocarbon is useful in some works of geochronology, being highly precise out to a few tens of thousands of years. Beyond that, it rapidly loses precision and has little use beyond about a hundred thousand, which is too short for most work on evolution.

-No, evolutionists think carbon dating is the be-all and end-all for ancient dating forever.

-No problem, then I'm not an evolutionist.

-What, you mean evolution never happened?

-No, evolution happens. However, I don't believe in the doctrine that your definition of "evolutionist" requires me to believe. No problem. If you change the definition maybe I'll fit the new one, thus becoming an evolutionist. However, evolution started before I was defined, and redefining me won't make it stop. Many things happen in the world, and not many of them depend on me.

As it happens this is a reasonable fellow; just excessively attentive to tendentious foolishness. I didn't convince him that I was right, but my ambition was more modest than that. Presumably there are many hopeless cases who would retreat into vituperation; no use bothering with them. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An even more succinct argument his father could pose would be, "Why should I care?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's something to be said when a father looks at his son and says "I don't believe in evolution." Maybe just "Q.E.D." --DHeyward (talk) 08:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To the OP: There's an aphorism which states "You cannot reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into" Disbelief in the general concept of biological evolution is dogmatic, and not based on reason or evidence. The answer is "you cannot, so stop trying". Knowing when to fish or cut bait is a useful skill to have in life, and if someone has reached the level of not believing in evolution (which is akin to not believing the earth travels around the sun, or is a round object that turns on its axis) then they are what we like to call a "lost cause" and, in my experience, it's best to not even try anymore. Your energy is best spent on other things. --Jayron32 02:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's always the case. From what I've seen, a lot of people have questions about evolution just out of ignorance and misconception ("How come there are still monkeys?"). They're open to learning, if you can figure out what questions they have, and present evidence in a straightforward fashion. Primary education in many countries isn't that great at systematizing knowledge, and often focuses more on rote memorization than elucidating the connections between things, so even many people who've been through formal education don't have a great grasp of evolutionary theory. Evolution is not something that's immediately obvious, since it generally takes timescales much longer than a human lifespan for its effects to become really apparent. To contrast with your other examples, today it's really easy to show people evidence against geocentrism or a flat earth: just show them pictures from space. Now I do agree that real hard-core creationists are a lost cause, since they've usually decided that evolution must be false and any evidence to the contrary is either misinterpreted or part of a conspiracy. Similarly, there are still some flat-earthers and geocentrists even today. But the original poster's dad sounds like he might belong more to the first camp. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is most frustrating about the creationists is that their dogma rests on a notion of a God with limited powers. A human author can write a backstory for his creation - he doesn't just put pen to paper and write in chronological order, but expands the pasts of his characters and world as he goes along. Why should God then have to look at a calendar and see it's November 4 2015, so that's what He has to write about? Why can't God go back at any time and decide that a flat world makes more sense as a ball, sketch out galaxies to fill the skies, fill the rocks with fossils that attest to a more consistent natural history? There's no need for creation and evolution to have any conflict with one another. Wnt (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm no, it doesn't rest on that at all. Quite the opposite. The underpinnings of creationism are "faith" and it is a failing of man that leads to question their faith or deny god. A test of faith would be an all powerful God that gives man all sorts of worldly clues and opportunities to deny god (i.e. fossil records, stars, galaxies, etc) while also asking man to take his word for it. That's a simple test of faith and has nothing to do science. An all-powerful god can have any history that tempts man to deny him. A test of faith doesn't have reconciliation as an outcome, whence creationism doesn't need scientific backing. It's generally not a lack of understanding or knowledge. The first story in genesis is "faith" falling to "knowledge" and is a constant religious theme. --DHeyward (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know and understand what happens when having high concentration of sugar or salt outside the cell. Should it constrict the cell or blow it? 78.111.186.95 (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the second paragraph of our article on Crenation. -- ToE 10:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plasmolysis. The rule is that the water goes where the solutes are, to even out the concentration (osmosis). Wnt (talk) 16:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In plain English, it will draw water out of the cells. See also, how to murder slugs. μηδείς (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to vandalism on Wikipedia (please have look into https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=689022628&oldid=689022484), my question is:

Why does the Wikipedia allow editors to destroy initially very good articles? --81.6.59.42 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia enables users to do nearly everything to nearly every article. The hope is that this improves, on average, the quality of articles. It's not guaranteed to work (although the evidence so far is that it does), and it's certainly not a monotonic process. In order to make the process more efficient, Wikipedia has certain policies and guidelines about what users should and shouldn't do. Sometimes these rules lead to what looks like (or even may be) a decrease in quality - e.g. if a user removes parts of a well-written and maybe even correct article because of insufficient sourcing. We don't have a Truth-O-Meter, and we often have no way to distinguish between real experts and victims of the Dunning-Kruger effect. That is why we rely on external reliable sources per WP:RS. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should provide some sort of reason as to why this "destroyed" the article. You are able to challenge edits if you want to, but there was no reason provided as to why this edit in particular was wrong or somehow unconstructive. Scarlettail (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the edit summary appears to be accurate. Most of the information which was removed appears to have been poorly sourced. Can the IP provide one example of information which was well sourced and removed? Nil Einne (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When footage of blasts in open-cut pits is viewed one sees linear flashes of light across the ground at extreme speed immediately prior to detonation. These must be related to fuses but what exactly is occurring? Why the light show?

If you mean when rows or arrays of explosive (dynamite or a successor) is used in quarrying, you're seeing the explosion blowing out through the drill holes (the holes into which the explosive was tamped). This is the detonation, not prior to it, but you see it before you hear it, because sound travels slower than light. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naah, Finlay. The lights flash sideways. One sees them skip over ground where nothing explodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainbeefart (talk • contribs)

detcord. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 14:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) WAG, but this might be the network of fuses which link all the explosive charges, these would be similar to the "black match" or quick fuse type mentioned there, used so that all the charges detonate simultaneously. [Edited to add: More accurately, what Finlay said.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blasting caps come to mind. If they are on the surface, you can see the flash, while the secondary explosives are underground, so you don't see the flash, but only the results of the explosion. Since moving all that ground takes some time, there is a slight delay after the flash. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. When blasting a face or strata, one doesn’t want all the charges to go off at once. It goes outer face to inner. Each charge can be be fitted with an standard delay fuze calibrated in milliseconds. The detcord (linear flashes of light) quickly primes all fuzes. The length of each detcord can be varied to match the standard delay's to synchronize the whole blast. Thus, ensuring that the charges go off at the right time.--Aspro (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Form cracks on the surface first, then detonate the lower charges, allowing the cracks to propagate downward. StuRat (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions about the vertebrae:

1) Are the Accessory process and Mammillary process unique for the lumbar vertebrae or they appear in the rest of vertebrae (cervical, thoracic).?

2) Is there any place (I mean site, page) that presents the differences between the types of vertebrae?

78.111.186.15 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we have this article you should be able to find the answers to your homework there. 64.170.21.194 (talk) 01:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it's not homework, but I take it as compliment. Second, there is no information about the questions - in this article that I already before I asked my questions. Moreover, You wouldn't find these two simple terms in the article. So, in the next time before you judge questioners, please think a little bit and check what you write. I'm here in order to study, not because I'm lazy. Thank you. 78.111.186.63 (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information is not in the human vertebral column article, but it is in the vertebrae article, in Vertebrae#Variation. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If hiv is so easily transmitted through needles and anal sex, why isn't it just as easily transmitted through wounds of different people touching each other or through a bodily fluid (whether saliva, semen, vaginal fluid etc) touching a wound? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9 (talk) 23:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that's correct. Are you sure that HIV isn't transmitted through wound contact with the same (or greater) chances of infection than through sexual contact? HIV does not have a section on transmission, but it says "Sexual intercourse is the major mode of HIV transmission." I think that means that is the major way it is actually transmitted in the real world. Far more people have sex than rub open wounds against each other. So just because more transmission happens via sex than via wounds does not mean that the virus cannot infect well through that vector. HIV can definitely be transmitted via blood. This [14] journal article says in the abstract

I see no reason to believe that mingling of blood does not have the same, if not higher, risk of infection than sexual contact. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One factor is that HIV is killed by contact with oxygen in the air. So, transmission is more successful where air is absent (inside a syringe) or limited (inside a vagina or rectum). StuRat (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any citations for any of your statements here, Stu, so that readers may learn more about what kills HIV? --Jayron32 00:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, since you're apparently incapable of Googling it yourself: [15] (7 and 8 are relevant here). (Meanwhile, I'm still waiting on a ref for your baseless assertion here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Bookshops_with_sofas_and_comfy_chairs). StuRat (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) That's a reliable site? Do you have anything that resembles something with editorial control or peer review? 2) You don't get to avoid providing any references ever because I made a side comment to a discussion once. The fact that someone who isn't you, once, didn't provide a reference to something, once, doesn't mean you never have to verify anything you ever say ever. That's not how life works. --Jayron32 02:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sponsor of that website also claims that he was "healed" from AIDS, cancer, a "dying kidney," and vertigo (sic) - "by faith alone." It is absolutely not a reliable website for scientific information on HIV or anything else. Nimur (talk) 08:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the HIV help line with the same info: [16]. Also, your "side comment" wasn't just unreferenced, it was unreferencable, because it was completely wrong and should have been immediately redacted. StuRat (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this resource, the statement was provided by a volunteer who was not a doctor or a scientist. Their disclaimer states clearly: "Volunteers are not doctors, nurses, or other licensed professionals. Volunteers do not give advice, and strive to provide service-users with adequate information and appropriate referrals." The information on their website is not encyclopedic; it's essentially a free service intended to refer people to community resources, not to provide authoritative medical and scientific opinions.

I think the benefit of the doubt has been exhausted here; the assertion that air "kills" or "inactivates" the HIV virus is frequently repeated and rarely backed up with evidence. You need to find better sources, like peer reviewed medical journals; or you should rescind your claim. If there is actual scientific debate over this factual detail, it should be straightforward to find a review article that summarizes the evidence and arguments on both sides. Nimur (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat is wrong: [17]. Air does not sterilize stuff against HIV. However, the virus still needs a vector to enter the body, so syringes are more contagious that doorknobs. --Scicurious (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. How did you find that ? I did Google searches on "air kills HIV" and "oxygen kills HIV" and didn't find it. (Note that your source does show that exposure to air kills HIV, just much more slowly than my sources said, over many days or weeks.) StuRat (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exposure to air kills you, just even more slowly, over many decades. --Jayron32 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant for the discussion here, and also relevant because you keep not reading this exact statement, even though it's been told to you multiple times: Providing references has nothing to do with proving anything. You are not being asked to provide references because anyone thinks you're wrong, and requests to provide references are not accusations that you are wrong. No matter how many times you think requests to provide references are accusations of anything, they aren't. Your job is to provide references. Period. --Jayron32 03:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you always provide refs, even when asked ? StuRat (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yes, there are times when I haven't provided a reference. 2) That is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You don't get to say "Look, I found this one time once, where another regular user forgot to provide a reference! It means I can continue to just repeat stuff I think I remember, and never provide a reference ever again". That isn't how life works. Finding cases where another person has violated expected norms once doesn't mean the norms never exist for you. Just start providing references for your answers. Like, as a regular habit. No one will ever bother you again about it. All you need to do is research reliable sources, or find a Wikipedia article which itself has reliable sources, and link them in all of your answers. The first time you do that, and then keep doing it, is the last time we have to repeat this same conversation. --Jayron32 04:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone". StuRat (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that that is "Let him (who be without sin) cast the first stone"? "Let he cast the first stone" whould even get you laughed of Wheel of Fortune". (WoF being one of the two TV shows I still watch.) μηδείς (talk) 05:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've never cast a stone. You're not being punished. You're being asked to follow expected norms. If you don't realize the difference between punishment and being told to do the right thing, I'm not sure you have the mental capacity to handle finding references for users here anyways. --Jayron32 14:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I paraphrased. Is One Foot in the Grave the other show ? StuRat (talk)

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, here is the article on Search Engine Bias. When you "search" for something, a modern web-search engine finds it, even it if is not correct. Furthermore, if it is profitable to show you a result, the search engine will "find" it with high probability, even if it is not correct.

Can you see how this might be problematic if you search for "air kills HIV", or platypuses are reptiles.... or time is a cube? If anyone has ever published these incorrect statements on the internet, a modern web search engine will turn up a "positive hit."

Search engine results are not reliable sources, and they have no place on our encyclopedia. If you do not already know how to find and use a reliable encyclopedic source - and to distinguish reliable from unreliable sources - you should not be contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are using a search-engine to help prompt your recollection of a reliable source - or to narrow down a set of websites, then read and understand those websites, that is fine... but if you're just posting the first link that "matches" what you want, you really need to re-think your model of information consumption and regurgitation, and how that relates to Wikipedia's standards for content.

Nimur (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, Nimur. But who wouldn't sue his highschool if they let him graduate thinking a platypus were a reptile? WP:Competence is required, and ignorance wins big rewards. μηδείς (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in "blood brotherhood" may indeed end up with some genes in common - HIV genes, that is. [18] HIV is an enveloped virus and so far as I know all such viruses are vulnerable to air exposure one way or another (the latter article mentions desiccation as a reason; I think lipid peroxidation has a role also). While these things limit the spread of HIV none of them come with a money back guarantee - the specific conditions are important. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• [ec] Okay, if I may interrupt, first of all, HIV is readily killed by exposure to oxygen, so a wound-to-wound exposure would be an unlikely route, given people rarely hold actually open bleeding wounds together. That being said, there was a study popularized in the last few months that advised that if one could control STD's that cause open sores in Africa, one could drastically reduce the HIV transmission rate, the point being that sores on the penis or vagina exposed to the body fluids of an infected partner are ideal points of transmission.

Now, the confession: I have spent the last 15 minutes googling that and can't find the original source, which I am sure I must have found at Real Clear Science. This may have been in conjunction with an initiative from the B&M Gates Foundation. But I will keep looking. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • A little more to it. HIV has been transmitted from infected dentists to their patients [19] which is problematic considering its casual contact with open air wounds. Also, transmission rates for sexual contact are asymmetric and also varies by type of contact. With straight vaginal sex, an uninfected woman is much more likely to be infected by an HIV positive man than an uninfected man being infected by an HIV positive woman. It's pretty rare for women (even infected women) to transmit the virus to men during vaginal intercourse. Anal sex is not as gender selective but the risk is higher for the uninfected person being penetrated. This is why the gay community has higher incidents and also why women are more likely to be transmission victims from a polyamorous man than a man being infected through the conduct of a polyamorous woman. --DHeyward (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Well ok, yes, the chances of someone holding open wounds together is rare but let's look at a more likely scenario. Oral sex with an open wound in the mouth or on the lips. That must happen alot but you don't really hear of hiv being transmitted this way. Why not? 2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9 (talk) 07:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Physics. For women to be infected, there must be some penetration and an exchange of infected fluids. The vaginal wall is susceptible (much more so than through the skin of the penis). The main sexual transmission routes are through ejaculate from an infected male. I believe the main spread of infection where women are the carrier is to their children. They can transmit it sexually but that number is dwarfed by men transmitting it through sex. --DHeyward (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@2A02:C7D:B8FF:7E00:25F3:6D6E:4020:6AA9: [20] has a thorough discussion about ways of infection, and the difficulty of quantifying the rate of infection, among other research pitfalls. In summary: deep cuts or infected injuries are more dangerous than just an injure. And it's difficult to isolate cases of oral sex that exclude other forms of intercourse. It's still plausible to get infected, it's just a (much) lower risk. --Scicurious (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This [21] while coming from a source for people living with HIV/AIDS says similar so perhaps not unbiased, says similar and also discusses penetrative (although most of what you mentioned would apply to both anyway). I think another key point although not really mentioned in either source, is that while the risk of HIV appears to be quite low, the risk of some other STIs is high enough that few health authorities are going to suggest protection isn't neessary. Nil Einne (talk) 16:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing a sci-fi story. Here is a concept I'm describing:

"If someone wanted to visit Hawaii without leaving home, that person could still see Hawaii, but first, the person's eyes would have to be covered with two displays (one for the right eye and one for the left eye), each display showing live action moving images (one for the right eye and one for the left eye) of life, like, someone at home could be able to see, for example, Hawaiians surfing. The image of the right eye and the left eye combine to form a single image."

I don't know what my concept is an example of, though. One person told me I was describing virtual reality. Another person told me I was describing 3-D movies. I don't really know the difference between virtual reality and 3-D movies. So is my concept an example of virtual reality or 3-D movies? VRtrooper (talk) 06:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your technology (variations of which exist, I should mention, so it's not altogether sci-fi) shares elements of both 3-D displays and virtual reality. The relevant articles you are going to want to look at are Stereopsis, binocular vision, virtual reality and 3D film. In short, in normal vision, the human visual system constructs a three-dimensional representation of the surrounding environment by comparing two essentially 2D image maps formed by stimuli acting upon the retina of each eye. The thing is, the pattern recognition capabilities of the brain are such that it can extract a three-dimensional representation even from a two-dimensional projection (hence the effect of a regular television or cinema screen and numerous forms of optical illusion). 3-D movie technology attempts to augment this perception by introducing more depth to the image it projects and allowing one to adjust their angle of perception to the stimuli. This can be accomplished in numerous ways; perhaps the most common in the history of 3D-cinema is to form a 2D projection to which the color has been altered in such a way that, when the viewer wears glasses with two lenses that filter different wavelengths of light, each eye is given a somewhat different set of stimuli, even if each is focused on largely the same point in space. The effect leverages binocular vision and allows for the perception of depth from an image which actually consists of optical stimuli on a flat plane. Depending on how your headset was designed, it could leverage similar effects, though probably through different mechanisms than colour filtration. In any event, any headset displaying a visual representation of a simulated or pre-recorded environment which the user could interactively engage with would be considered a form of virtually reality, which is basically defined by that form of interactivity. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Stereoscope has been around for about 200 years, and a 3-D film is simply a moving-picture version of the same idea. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Real world devices that use this idea include the Virtual Boy, Oculus Rift and the Virtuality. Smurrayinchester 09:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or Google Cardboard and your cell phone. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between a 3D movie and virtual reality is that in the latter you get to decide where to go. That's why the latter is a "reality" rather than just a 3D image. I don't think that wearing a headset or using inertial sensors or even having 3D is actually a requirement of virtual reality, since people have been using the term loosely for a very long time (and hey, your virtual avatar might be a Cyclops! Come to think of it, having the people with old/simple equipment appear as cyclopes would explain their uncoordinated blundering, and just be kind of cute), but certainly some would insist on it. Wnt (talk) 13:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q: What is cyclopes' favorite reference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was wondering if someone could help me identify what species this spider belongs to. I do know that the photograph was taken in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia and that it's a huntsman spider, possibly of the genus Heteropoda. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Americanfreedom (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lean towards Holconia: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26] Snow ^{let's rap} 07:30, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go, would you like to buy him some companionship? Actually, don't; one will very likely try to eat the other, but this newest image/phenotype does seem to suggest that your specimen is likely to be a variant of Holconia immanis, or a very closely related species. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:13, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read that the Universe is c. 13 Billion years old, and that our Sun is c. 4.6 Billion years old. I also understand that there are Suns/Stars that are c.10 Billion years old. Considering the time taken to form suns, followed by planetary solar systems, and the time taken to form Galaxies, and that the death of a star is where (I am informed) the heavier elements are distributed, the relative lifespan of the Universe and Stars appear not to make sense. Explanation please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.134.38.231 (talk) 07:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The death of a star only causes heavy elements to be distributed if the star dies in a supernova explosion. The stars that undergo these explosions are very large ones. But the larger a star is, the less time it lives. The very large stars that become supernovas do not last billions of years, but much less, perhaps only 10 million years. --70.49.170.168 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The article Stellar population explains a bit more. The oldest star whose age is fairly certain is SM0313: at about 13 billion years old, it's nearly the same age as the universe. However, it's a "K dwarf" – fairly small and cold compared to, say, the sun. Supergiants and hypergiants, which are the really big and hot stars, only live a few million years. There have been many generations of supermassive stars blasting metals throughout the galaxy. Smurrayinchester 08:40, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since certain heavier elements catalyse fusion processes, earlier stars (in particular population III stars), which are poor in metals (in the astronomy sense), start fusion slower and at higher densities, thus allowing stars to become a lot larger before ignition, when radiation pressure clears the environment and accretion stops. Thus, population III stars are hypothesised to have been, on average, very large, and hence short-lived. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want more details, I highly recommend Crash Course Astronomy. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 09:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As per Stellar population, the idea is that early on, it was easy to form huge stars that supernovaed fast. These burst into supernovae and salted the galaxies with heavy elements. Even so, the older stars are more metal-poor than the new stars, because the process continues. Wnt (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP curiousMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Hepatitis_A#Treatment. In short, forever. Hepatitis A cannot be cured, only its symptoms managed. --Jayron32 16:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP curious about nameMahfuzur rahman shourov (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]