Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Science/2006 September 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< September 3 << Aug | Sep | Oct >> September 5 >
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.


Contents

[edit] September 4

[edit] Just been reading about SMART-1

Why are we humans so quick to crash high-speed objects into the surface of alien worlds without a single thought for the consequences in terms of it being seen as an act of aggression by potential natives?

You believe in the man in the moon, then? 8-?--Light current 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - maybe they're up there but they live deep underground. Maybe they think we suck already and this just confirms it. I think we've done some very foolish things when it comes to space exploration - like sending out probes containing data which would allow any potentially hostile alien species to pinpoint the exact location of our homeworld. --84.68.214.65 00:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The Voyager/Pioneer probes are the least of our worries. Space is *big* and the chances of them being intercepted and picked up by a passing interstellar spacecraft are very, very, very small. Factor in the probabiliy that the aliens may be explorers, rather than conquerors and I wouldn't stress too much about that. We have, however been bleeding vast quantities of radio waves into space for the past century or so, basically turning the earth into a giant flashing 'something is going on here' beacon. Anyone/thing sentient and looking in the right direction within 100 LY or so already knows about us - and most probably knows *a lot* about us. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well theyd have to live deep underground to have survived all those impacts that the cratering shows has happened. And what do they live on, considering theres no water?--Light current 00:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe they live deep because it's warmer down there, nearer the core? Has it ever been proved that there's no water on the moon? --84.68.214.65 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How did they get down there in the solid rock?--Light current 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The onlyUsually, crashing is done by mistake. Everything else is simply a landing. AEuSoes1 01:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the SMART-1 spacecraft appears to have been intentionally crashed into the moon at high speed so astronomers could examine the dust could. Wasn't something similar done with a probe ramming into Halley's Comet ? StuRat 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
The space mission I think you're talking about is Deep Impact, and the comet is 9P/Tempel. --Bowlhover 05:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
But that wouldnt bother the moon men at all surely: because they live under the surface! 8-)--Light current 01:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Meteors hit the moon all the time, so the 'crash' would be a normal occurrence in that environment. (Then again, tropical cyclones are normal and they kill people - we'd be pretty upset if alien scientists created one artificially "just to see what it was like".) Peter Grey 02:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting Hurricane Katrina was an attack on our homeland by an alien race that hates our democratic ideals? Lets launch a War on Extra-Terrestrial Terror, shall we? Rockpocket 06:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
As to the 'why', we don't think much about destroying life here on Earth at a massive scale, so 'we' don't realy give a shit. As to whether that's a nice thing to do, that depends on which chances you are willing to take. This reminds me of those Indian religious freaks who whipe the floor before them to prevent them stepping o bugs, which are, after all, also living beings. In the case of extraterrestrial life, the chances of that existing i na specific place are so slim that if we'd want to eliminate that risk, we couldn't do anything at all. Hell, we even accpet the death of half a million of our own kind each year for the sake of transportation. And those are deaths we know will happen and could even greatly reduce without much negative side-effects. And still we do it. As to whether it would be wise - would they retaliate? If we don't detect them they probably live on such a different level that they may not even know what hit them - jut like we think hurricanes are a natural phenomenen. DirkvdM 07:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beer-- why is it fattening?

Is it the alcohol, or the sugar/carbs, or both?--Light current 00:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Beer is not really fattening at all. People tend to blame it on the beer when it is really the lifestyle that usually accompanies people who drink significant amounts of beer. i.e. sedentary jobless man that sit on the couch and watch tv all day lifestyle. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Are you really sure? I think its 200 cal /Imp pt It tends to make me put on weight.--Light current 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The calorific content of drinks like vodka and rye come from acetate. Ethanol is converted to etanal and then acetic acid in a two step process in the body. Acetic acid is essentially a very short chain fatty acid (it doesnt have enough carbon to make it aliphatic, but it undergoes the same chemistry). As such alchohol has only slightly less biological energy content than vinegar. Also, the other ingredients in beer and other spirits, such as sugars and various organic matter, adds to the bottom line (and the waist line).Tuckerekcut 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

OK so its the carbs and the sugars that do most of the damage. But if you go for low sugar beer, it means it has more alcohol usually? And is the converse true?--Light current 01:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't just blame the carbs--a shot of vodka (the regular stuff contains little more than ethanol and water) is ~50 calories. A pint of beer can run you 120-350 calories, depending on the brew. Mixers, of course, jack up the calorie content, too, as well as the greasy pub fare, and the following day's relative lack of activity (whilst battling a hangover) only makes the situation worse. Bottom line: total calories, in the form of sugars, fats, proteins or alcohol, is the most important number when watching one's diet, not the number of grams of carbs or fat. Net caloric balance is where it's at! Drink your beer! Just be sure to jog to the bar & back to help even things out! -- Scientizzle 02:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's only fattening when you don't use the calories you take in. -131.211.210.11 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
See also beer belly.--Shantavira 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It is also a result of the food that tends to be eaten with beer - e.g., peanuts, pizza... BenC7 10:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I tend only to eat 1 packet of peanuts per session and no pizza etc!. I tend to eat before drinking to try to protect the organs--Light current 12:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Beer is not fattening. However beer is extremely energy dense. So when you consume beer, you get to your daily requirement of energy very quickly. And so your other consumption of fatty food, quickly turn into belly fat. Remember, belly fat comes from other fatty food and not from beer. Ohanian 22:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats not true contrary to popular belief you do not have to ingest fat to become fat, fat is simply stored energy, though comprised of chemicals, that may not be available from the beer, the energy that needs storing is obtained from the beer. And so beer does make you fat. Philc TECI 20:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


OK but its the same difference!` I consume the energy fronm the beer instead of from my food which then goes to make fat? Makes sense--Light current 22:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


It's just like any other food. If you drink too much, then you will get fat. --Proficient 03:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] War between humans and another species on another planet in the solar system?

Suppose that our constant 'crashing of stuff into their planet' annoys them and they decide to do something about it and declare war - in what form would such a war take place?

If we assume that the alien species lives on a reasonably close planet (let's say Mars for the sake of argument) and has a similar level of technological development to us, then wouldn't the 'war' actually be a bit of a damp squib? Both they and we would be reduced to using rockets to launch bombs/heavy objects at each other's worlds, which would take several months to reach their targets, leaving plenty of time for them to be detected and diverted/destroyed in space.

Yep - interplanetary war would be pretty boring without manned warships and/or long-range laser cannons. :) --Kurt Shaped Box 00:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(fell asleep, edit conflict) Most astrophysicists and astrobiologists say that any civilization advanced enough to be able to proceed in interstellar warfare would not. Kind of a age=wisdom=pacifism thing. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
If the Martians were smart, they'd launch a small pod filled with a selection of interesting local bacteria/virii at the earth without even initiating contact with us to declare war. That way, we'd never see it coming. Billions dead if they chose the right bugs. --84.68.214.65 01:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Despite the War of the Worlds book, microbes from one planet are unlikely to be effective against life forms on another. In order to be effective parasites, microbes must be adapted to their hosts. StuRat 01:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We've been sending spacecraft to Mars for years. Most of them were probably covered with human DNA. If there are any Martains, they're probably aware of our genetic code. To the Martians, suddenly having a bunch of alien probes descending from the sky would seem very threatening indeed. It would only be common sense for them to examine the probes for evidence of their origin and for information about the species that sent them, just in case it became nescessary to defend themselves against an unknown enemy from space. Once you have DNA, you can figure out nasty things to do to the creatures that bear that DNA. --84.68.214.65 02:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Really? You mean like the amazing success we - with "a similar level of technological development" - have had studying the DNA of influenza and the mosquito? And we know the fundamental basis of their genetic code and have them to test our "nasty things" out on. Rockpocke
Actually, all Martian probes are thoroughly scrubbed before liftoff so as to prevent contamination. It doesn't eliminate all microbes, but it certainly means that they're not "covered" in human DNA.AEuSoes1 21:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

t 06:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And directed energy weapons like lasers would likely be ineffective because of the inverse square law. A more feasible scenario, perhaps, would be redirecting asteroids into collision courses with the Earth, particularly as ones made of ice make excellent nuclear rocket propellant. --Robert Merkel 01:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure it would be so easy to detect a nuclear missile? Terrestrial warning systems look for launch plumes, and we've got it easy because the launches are so close. If Mars launched a ballistic missile at us, we wouldn't see the launch, especially if they were clever enough to do it on the far side of the planet. And a missile is orders of magnitude smaller than some of the asteroids we periodically discover in the neighborhood, so we wouldn't be able to see it once its motor went dark. Our only warning method would be to insert surveillance satellites into Mars orbit and hope they don't shoot them all down. Melchoir 02:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't we have some sort of system already in place that routinely scans an area of space around the earth for objects and tracks them (radar based?)? I don't know what it's called but I've seen it on the news - they use it to locate and keep tabs on pieces of debris from our spacecraft that may be hazardous to future missions. Wouldn't that detect anything on a collision course with the planet? --Kurt Shaped Box 02:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but anything coming from deep space at very high speed may not be detected in time to do anything about it (though of course the faster it goes, the more shielding you'd need to get it into the atmosphere, and the easier to detect it would become). However, one might suppose that missile defence technology might have improved somewhat by the time this becomes an issue. --Robert Merkel
What if the martians launch several nuclear bombs in quick succession, each one targeting a different place on Earth? I'll be surprised if anyone detects the bombs before they get extremely close (like within 1000 km), because SMART-1 was only magnitude 19 when it was orbiting the Moon. I'll be even more surprised if anybody can intercept an interplanetary spacecraft that doesn't want to be intercepted. There's hundreds of billions of metres between Earth and Mars, and a spacecraft is at most only several metres in size. --Bowlhover 04:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
We'll have at least enough time to launch the same sort of barrage back at them, ensuring ourselves the last laugh. Dead.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's clear at this point that our only self-defense option is to pre-emptively bomb the tar out of the planet as soon as possible. With any luck it'll send a strong message to the Asteroid Belt, too. Melchoir 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No need to worry about the Asteroid Belt, the Martians already blasted them. :-) StuRat 08:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
So Astero was the solar system's version of Atlantis? DirkvdM 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Probes that have been sent to other objects in space have to be sterilized (USA and USSR signed a treaty on that). Their biggest fear is to discover life on Mars... and then to be forever in doubt about whether or not it's not from our own planet. However, the Mars 2 and Mars 3 in 1971 from the USSR are said to have been poorly sterilized or simply not sterilized. But why would an alien race declare war upon an unknown (and possibly much stronger) species for just a dozen of probes on their entire planet?Evilbu 21:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Imagine if alien probes of unknown origin started landing at various points on the earth's surface and regular intervals, taking readings/samples, then transmitting data offplanet. Provided that the governments of the world didn't manage to successfully cover it up, humanity would literally be *shitting* itself, due to fear of the unknown - "there is something out there that is interested in us and we don't know why!". You can bet that the military would have their best brains trying to figure out where the things were coming from, how they worked, what exactly they were doing, the technology involved in their manufacture, and coming up with possible strategies for defense of the planet in case the probes were only a prelude to something much bigger. A pre-emptive attack against the alien homeworld would certainly be an option raised at the meetings - "humanity must prevail at all costs", "violation of our territory by forces of unknown intent", "the enemy may walk amongst us at this very moment", "violence in self-defense", etc. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
In the history of mankind if two cultures met one easily overpowered the other because they were more technologically advanced. In the case of species from different planets, that would also likely be the case, just to a larger extent. So either they are very inferior to us, in which case they couldn't do anything, or they would be very superior to us, in which case they would have technology even we at the ref desk don't know about (assuming we're all humans - over the Internet you never know who's at the other end). So the question is unanswerable.
Another approach is to compare it to conflicts between different species here on Earth. We like to think we're superior to bacteria, but we rarely mange to stop them making us sick. So maybe the term 'superiority' doesn't apply if the species are too dissimilar, which they are likely to be in the case of species from differnt planets. Maybe we'd even be unaware of each other and consider what happened to be a natural disater or (more literally) an act of God. DirkvdM 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Most astrophysicists and astrobiologists say that any civilization advanced enough to be able to proceed in interstellar warfare would not. Kind of a age=wisdom=pacifism thing" — another example of why physical scientists don't make the best moralists or politicians. They also thought that after World War II, life would just be peaches and cream since nuclear power and nuclear weapons would ensure that everyone would learn to love their brother. Reality was a little messier. --Fastfission 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Scientists thought that? I thought that was the politicians. Anyway, whoever came up with that plan had a very short memeory, because it was exactly such a standoff that led to WWI. DirkvdM 17:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

War between two different species on different planets would likely be over in short order, as one side would likely be far advanced beyond the other. Since the universe is billions of years old, the chance of encountering another civilization at a comparable level of technology (say, within 100 years of one another), is almost zero. StuRat 04:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

We only need one word here to discount ALL the above : SETI--Light current 04:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abingdon Island tortoise

Since this species is nearing extinction, and there is currently only a single individual left (a male named "Lonesome George"), could it be cloned to continue the species ? Also, if male turtles have an XY chromosome pair, I would think that two X's could be taken from two cells, and the Y discarded, to clone a female from the male. A female of a similar species could be drafted as a surrogate womb, and the embryo implanted surgically (sorry if this is the wrong terminology for an egg-laying species). Is there any reason this wouldn't work ? I do realize the lack of genetic diversity would not be ideal for the species, but think it would be infinitely better for the species than extinction. StuRat 01:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The whole reason for sex (comments allowed) is to correct for genetic error. Sometimes the errors are good things, but mostly not. Even if there were both a male and a female, it would be difficult to keep the species going because of the lack of genetic diversity. Still, if they can clone dogs... --Zeizmic 01:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess a good question here would be, have there been any reports of clones being able to give birth?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Dolly the sheep had kids (well, lambs, actually), and plenty of cloned mice have reproduced. Rockpocket 05:45, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I actually checked that article (and others) to make sure before I asked. There's no mention in it of her lamb, though I see now it mentions it in the picture. Bah.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I would say your proposal is theoretically possible using current technology, though it would be very challenging and thus improbable. The inefficiency of cloning such a poorly studied animal notwithstanding, there are a few complicating factors. Harvesting different chromosomes from different cells during mitosis, then reconstituting them for successful nuclear injection could be tough. Using a difference species as a host would also complicate matters (consider Mitochondrial DNA). Overall, the track record for cloning of endangered species is not good. Rockpocket 06:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure we have the technical capability to extract single X chromosomes from XY pairs and use them to form XX pairs. --LambiamTalk 06:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Picking two Xs from metaphase spreads and chucking them back together in a tube with the rest of the autosomes wouldn't be too difficult, i would have thought, with the right equipment. Making sure it viable for nuclear injection is a different kettle of fish, however. Rockpocket 07:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
How big is the turtle? Where does it come from? What is the cause for extinction? The best chance for this species is finding a remnant population. It would not work to clone the current turtle, cloning technology is not that advanced as to save a species in such a poor state (and I doubt any state). --liquidGhoul 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a giant Galapagos Tortoise of the species Geochelone abingdoni. I believe that the sole remaining member of the species was moved to the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galapagos Islands, after the remainder of the population was wiped out on Abingdon Island (one of the Galapagos), due to introduced species (such as rats, which ate their eggs). StuRat 08:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Damn, then the chances of a remnant population are remote. I was hoping it was a small turtle from the Amazon or something. The Geochelone article doesn't mention this species, are you sure you have up-to-date taxonomy? --liquidGhoul 14:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article is at Lonesome George which says he is of a sub-species: Geochelone nigra abingdonii. Rmhermen 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading that article, there sounds like there is some hope for finding another specimen. There are hundreds of Galapogos Tortoises around the world, some of them would predate the introduction of whatever killed them. Hell, Harriet was caught by Darwin, anything is possible. Genetic testing needs to be done to find another of the same subspecies. --liquidGhoul 07:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
At the very least, we can hope he lives a full life, giving researchers another 20 years or so to figure out if his sub-species can be cloned back into existance.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tracking down original references

Hi

I was wondering if there is a good way to find original references - the kind of reference that lets you say "X was discovered by Y in Z (Ref 1.). Any suggestions? If you happen to know, off the top of your head, how cytochalasin B, phloridzin, pholeretin or wartmannin were discovered,that information would be great! Thanks everyone!

Aaadddaaammm 06:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

yeah i've seen one of those things, its big and rectangular, and has "library" written on the front ;-) more seriously, you could probably find phloridzin and pholertin in a review somewhere, or on SciFinder if you are lucky enough to have access. Xcomradex 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
PubMed is your friend. If you query "cytochalasin" and look among the earliest references, you will find what you are looking for. This paper states:
The cytochalasins are metabolites of moulds that have been recently isolated by Dr W. B. Turner, who was also one of the group that described the chemistry of these compounds (Aldridge, Armstrong, Speake & Turner, 1967). Their special importance lies in their property of inhibiting cell division by blocking cytoplasmic cleavage. Such compounds are of value in the study of cellular function and these particular substances are unique in their ability to block cell division without preventing mitosis. Four cytochalasins have been isolated from culture filtrates: A and B from Helminthosporium dematioideum and C and D from Metarrhizium anisopliae.
The reference: ALDRIDGE, D. C, ARMSTRONG, J. J., SPEAKE, R. N. & TURNER, W. B. (1967). The cytochalasins, a new class of biologically active mould metabolites. Chem. Commun. 1, 26-2.
If you follow a similar process you should find the history of the other compounds also. Rockpocket 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Awesome! Thanks very much for all your advice. I'll let you know how I get on. Aaadddaaammm 07:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


You can search google for databases of references I suppose. --Proficient 03:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientist - Enrico Fermi

Did Enrico Fermi have a middle name? My son is doing a research project, and his teacher insists that the project not be turned in without the person's middle name. We have researched numerous sources and have not found a middle name for Enrico Fermi on any source. Thank you very much.

Enrico Neutrino Fermi? Your son's teacher needs a vacation. Not everyone has a middle name. The 'S' in Harry S. Truman, for instance, doesn't signify a middle name and was added for the sole purpose of having a middle initial. ---Sluzzelin 13:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
He/she already had one--it's summer vacation! And it still is for me. --Bowlhover 14:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt look like he had a middle name--Light current 13:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Wow. That S in Truman I didn't know about. Interesting. --Proficient 17:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
...Jesus H. Christ...(--Shantavira 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC))
Does anybody but me find it mildly irritating when a history book insists on giving full names for the individuals they mention, even when the individuals in question never used some of the names in public? ColinFine 20:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Harry S Truman thing is not the version I've heard. Both his grandfathers had names starting with S, and his parents couldn't decide which one of them to honour in his middle name so they chose just the initial. That way, both granddads could say that they were looked after. Neat solution to a tricky family problem. JackofOz 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Then there's the fictional, although interesting, way of solving the problem as was shown on the Dick Van Dyke Show with their son, Ritchie "Rosebud" Petrie. The letters in "Rosebud" each stood for a seperate family member's name. Ritchie was bummed about having Rosebud as a middle name until Rob and Laura explained to him that he in fact had seven middle names. But back to the point, no, I don't know Fermi's middle name if he had one. And IMO, the teacher is being silly for putting forth such a requirement. Dismas|(talk) 07:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
What an amazingly pedantic teacher. Nothing like making children focus in on the unnecessary details (middle names?) to make them miss the big picture and get the absolute wrong impression about scholarship. You should leave a note for them that even historians of science honestly don't give a damn about someone's middle name. We prefer first names because of the narrative form of history, but there is no strict reason to require them (E. Fermi gives enough information to work with, even Fermi would be fine if there was context given). We don't even REALLY care about specific dates in most cases—if you can remember something to the resolution of a quarter of a decade, that's usually enough. History is not about pedantic details or specific facts, it is about being able to combine lots of small understandings into larger understandings, to really understand the causes for things and the contexts of them. And Fermi didn't have a middle name, no. --Fastfission 14:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
While it may be unusual in the USA not to have a middle name, I don't think they are so common elsewhere.
They're not in many places. And even in the USA there are lots of people without middle names (I don't have one). --Fastfission 18:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3d effects

Is it possible to create 3D efects with the help of the compouter screen?if not what extra hardware is required?

Origami — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
Are computer screens foldable now? - Rainwarrior 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes. With 3D glasses of some sort, like the usual red blue ones combined with making a 3D scene in those colours on your screen. The Sega Master System had an interesting device for the game Space Harrier 3D which ran in synch with your screen, flipping one eye open and one eye closed at each frame and alternating display of the left and right views. - Rainwarrior 18:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, there is the Stereogram or Autostereogram ("magic eye") kind of thing, which requires you to cross your eyes a little. That can also produce 3D effects. - Rainwarrior 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
LCD shutter glasses are a good way of getting full colour 3d images out of a computer screen. you need to buy the glasses and the sync box however, and you'll need to be using software that produces 3d data (eg. not wikipedia (yet)). Xcomradex 21:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Philips has had 3D screens for quite some time now: [1]. --LambiamTalk 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a higher end video card for producing graphic 3d effects. --Proficient 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MAGLEV

is it possible to make a maglev such that only permanent magnets counteract the weight and side to side motion and only energized ones control its velocity so as to attain full eficiency?

Yes it is but it would take alot of magnets for the track. THats why its not done.--Light current 13:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
No, permanent magnets don't give stable levitation unless you have spin precession [2] If you try to construct a model maglev train, you'll find that it refuses to levitate no matter how many magnet positions you try. On the other hand, if the train is already moving fast before the Maglev is activated, then you can stablize things by placing the moving magnets near strips of conductors on the ground. "Inductive levitation" using permanent magnets does stablize things. --Wjbeaty 00:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You could use small rubber wheels to stabilize the vehicle in a horizontal direction. But that solution does go against the questioners requirements.--Light current 17:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Black-holes

What determines the schwarzchild radius of the black hole?

Its mass (only)--Light current 13:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Just look at the formula given in the article. 2, G and c are all constants leaving m as the only variable.

[edit] bio project question

as i was looking 4 bio projects i came across this link , which described how to extract dna from green peas , im rather sceptical if this is true ,altough it looks like an university website, i think it is a prank. learn.genetics.utah.edu/units/activities/extraction/[3] my question is that is this experiment feasible , by that i mean when i tried it out i couldnt get the same results and i was wondering "is'nt dna soo small that it can't be seen with the naked eye?212.72.3.92 15:03, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. It looks real to me. When I did DNA extractions in intro bio in college, it was harder, but I think that's partly because we were using adult human cells, which as the FAQ for the Utah website explains, requires a centrifuge because the amount of DNA is smaller. An individual strand of DNA is tiny, but in principle there's no reason a bunch of strands stuck together wouldn't be big enough to see and handle. What I do wonder, though, is whether this procedure really separates out everything but nucleic acids themselves, or whether what you get at the end is something more like chromatin. (Also, we have an article on DNA extraction, but it needs work.) --Allen 16:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

(AFTER EDIT CONFLICT) Your link didnt seem to work for me, but my guess is that it described the rather simple marburg preparation of DNA by cold ethanol precipitation. Basically, if you put a whole lot of cells in your blender for a bit to crack them open (or alternatively use a chemical lysis method), and then put the resultant slush in to water, the DNA will dissolve in the water. If you then pour out a layer of very cold ethanol on top of the water so that there are two distinct phases, you can literally pull the DNA stands out of the water solution (and into the EtOH solution) with a scratched-up glass rod. The DNA is soluble in the water, but insoluble in the cold ethanol, so it will come out of solution as a sort of whitish clear stringy gunk. For the most part, this is DNA, with a bunch of other associated proteins. This is possible for two easily explainable reasons. First, the amount of DNA in a single cell is pretty large. If you were able to take the DNA out of a single eukaryotic cell and hold it as a piece of string, it would be about 2 meters long. It would only be a few atoms thick, and would break into millions of peices in the process, but you get the idea that it is pretty big nonetheless. To package this DNA into a cell takes many many recursive packaging mechanisms, and some of these are destroyed by the lysis/precipitation process, making the DNA more bulky than it would be in situ. The other thing to consider is that everything is made up of tiny things that are invisible to the naked eye. Even though a single copper molecule is too small to be detected, I can still see the penny in my hand. Similarly, even though a single (double) strand of DNA is invisible, when they are all stuck together, one can see them with the naked eye.Tuckerekcut 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

i had tried the experiment at home with rubbing alchohol ,not ethanol (i dont have ethanol at homeas u have mentioned could this be the reason why i was not able to get the desired results. forgive me for my naivety because i 'm just a ninth grader.i appriciate your efforts at tring to answer my query.212.72.3.109 17:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

by the way what is an edit clash???212.72.3.109 17:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record, it is not a prank. After developing it as a workshop for the The Edinburgh International Science Festival [4] I have personally extracted more DNA from more peas than one would think humanly possible. See here for a picture of the workshop [5] (though not of me!). Its pretty crude, its smells bad, and you often get protein contamination, but you do get floccules of DNA that you can fish out. Rockpocket 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

as i had mentioned before i'm justa naive ninth grader , could u be kind enough to enlightened me with the method u used 9 (not meant to be sarcastic in nature)and what is an edit clash ,(did 2 wikieditors clash sword s ???)212.72.8.224 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

An edit conflict is when two or more people try to edit a section or article at the same time. The second person to click 'Save page' has to do some sorting out to write what they want. Skittle 21:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Also, I did almost the exact procedure described on that page in class. We used onions blended with washing up liquid, and it worked. Skittle 21:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I remember passing someone at the Science Fair a few years ago who did a project like that. It worked for them, I guess. I've noticed, though, that almost none of those do-it-yourself science projects ever work for me, no matter how simple. In theory, I think I could create an antigravity system just by throwing something off a balcony. Black Carrot 06:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll let you into a secret, the DNA from peas hardly ever worked for us at our workshop either. Its difficult getting the peas digested up enough in the timespan you have to hold the attention of the kids. In addition, you need the alcohol to be superchilled, which we used to struggle to do in the absence of a proper freezer. So what we would do is extract shedloads of DNA back in the lab using better reagents, then spike the kids reactions with the pre-extracted DNA, which they could take home with them. If one kid was being a little shit (a regular occurance) then we would not spike their extraction and tell them they obviously didn't do it correctly. Those moments used to make my day. Rockpocket 06:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

but can i use rubbing alchohol instead of ethanol????212.72.2.238 16:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you can. But make sure its as cold as possible, by putting in in a freezer beforehand. Rockpocket 20:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] i want to be adoctor

hi am 21 years girl ia am studying genteics engenering in jordan and my dream in this life to be adoctor in some day i wana ask if i can continue medicine after i finsh gentics and how many years i need and what i could do to know all the information that i need because i lessen that someone finish genetics and know he study medicine not from the first he continue i want to know if this true or not please help me because i need this help

am marwa abulel am have israelian nationality

I think this differs per country so your best option would be asking your student career counceler. They should be able to tell you exactly what's possible with your genetics degree and what you would need to become a doctor. - Dammit 16:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
You will be much better off if you can get out of Jordan for studying and practicing medicine. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

How did you know that (practicing medicine in Jordan sucks)? ≈Eh-Steve 16:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do you want to become a doctor? --Proficient 17:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could do anything you want. I just figured you would be better off in Europe, Asia, or North America. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

Psst, Jordan is in Asia ;-) - Dammit 22:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If you are Jewish, you'd best get out of Jordan before you are murdered by terrorists. However, I'm assuming you're an Israeli Arab studying in Jordan, in which case you might be safe, except from random killings by terrorists. If you would like to work as a doctor in an English speaking country, you need to improve your English quite a bit. I suggest finishing your studies in an English speaking country, so you will pick up the language more quickly. I expect genetic engineers to mesh more closely with doctors in the coming years, with gene therapy becoming a major form of treatment in the future. So, your background in genetic engineering should be quite helpful. StuRat 03:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

To add to that, not only is it a good idea to have solid English skills if you want to work as a doctor in an English speaking country, but it is also an important (and extremely valuable) skill enabling you to communicate medical knowledge from the English speaking world (which is a good portion of it) into the world that speaks your native language. Even if you end up working as a doctor in Jordan, your English skills will be invaluable as you follow in the footsteps of reasearchers worldwide. Also, good luck!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  14:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no need to get a medical degree in another country. Just on my floor of the hospital, there are doctors who got their degrees from: Nigeria, Syria, Israel, Greece, Norway, Canada, China, Tanzania (sp?), and the U.S. of course. Ones that recently left came from Panama, Australia, and Japan. Now, there is one advanatage to getting a degree in the U.S. - it can be basically free. The U.S. is very stupid about student loans. You can come to the U.S. and take out huge student loans to pay for medical school. Then, when you are done, leave the U.S. and never come back. If you don't come back, you never have to pay the loan back. The idea, as far as I can tell, is that the government thinks that if you spend a few years here you will want to stay (and pay taxes) for the rest of your life. --Kainaw (talk) 14:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure they spent none of their University time in an English speaking country? I have a friend who became a doctor (MD) in China (Shanghai), who lives in Japan now and was finding it extremely hard to find work (he still doesn't work as a doctor), though it might be easier in somewhere a bit more accepting of other cultures. He speaks fluent Japanese and excellent English, at least when it comes to medical stuff. The reason why he came to Japan in the first place is that apparently MDs in Shanghai make less than taxi drivers! Hurray for communism!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
They got their degrees in their home countries. Most of them, I figured out the country from the degree (doctors feel a need to have an "I Love Me" wall with all their degrees and awards on it). Others, such as Syria, I had to ask because I couldn't make out the degree. It isn't hard for a doctor to get a job in the U.S. if they are willing to take a lower paying one in the south. Congress passed an act at least 10 years ago to speed such doctors through immigration and get them a working visa. I'm in Charleston, SC - so it is considered the south. That is probably why there are so few American doctors working here. --Kainaw (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, here is your question translated into proper English (or as near as I can get to it):

I want to be a doctor.

Hi, I am a 21 year old woman. I am studying genetic engineering in Jordan and my dream in life is to be a doctor someday. I want to ask if I can continue my medical studies after I finish genetics, how many additional years of study I will need and what I need to do to learn everything that I will need to know. I heard of someone who finished studying genetics and know he studied medicine afterwards. I want to know if this is feasible for me or not. Please help me, because I need your assistance. StuRat 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Death of Jupiter

The article on Jupiter points out that it expends more heat than it recieves from the Sun through the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism. My knowledge of thermodynamics isn't great but I do know that if it is losing more energy than it's gaining then it will eventually run out. What will happen to Jupiter and its sattelites as it cools down and "dies"? What impact will it have on the rest of the Solar System? Will the same thing happen to Saturn?

Regards, Gallaghp 16:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Are the energy inputs from collisions with asteroids, and the moons gravitational pulls (atmospheric tides I guess you'd call them) enough to balance the system.
Also even if the planet was radiating more heat wouldn't the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism cause it to shrink until its surface area was small enough for it to be radiating no more energy than it is recieving, and balance the system that way. Instead of your proposal that the mechanism continues indefinately until the death of the planet. Philc TECI 17:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
A good point. I was mainly concerned with Jupiter's influence over the surrounding planets and moons, such as with it's magnetosphere (am I right in thinking it's the biggest "thing" in the solar system?) which would certainly diminish along with the planet. I know it's composed of different elements but after sufficient shrinkage is it possible that it might behave more like the outer gas giants, Uranus and Neptune? Gallaghp 21:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hm, its magnetosphere is pretty colossal so I should imagine it wouldnt be shrinking to exclude its sattelites very soon, or ever, if the thing about it stabalising is correct. About it being the biggest thingin the solar system, it is (i'll spare you the perdanticities of the sun, and its related areas of effect). I might me getting out of my depth, as my knowledge of planet behaviours is not to good, but how does jupiter behave differently? Philc TECI 20:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Far planets have nothing to do with dying suns, they seem to be very cold already, I dunno if some more cooling may change their nor our way of life. -- DLL .. T 19:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, i think you may have misunderstood the question, hes referring to the planet dying, not its sun. Philc TECI 20:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rubella virus

i know that the rubella virus lives in the respiratory tract, but does anyone know what happens to the respiratory tract whilst it is infected??

so if anyone knows anything, please tell!! luvSammie hero 19:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

While the virus resides in the respiratory tract, the patient is asymptomatic. This is called the incubation period. So apparently the virus has no direct ill effects on the respiratory tract. It is only when the virus enters the bloodstream that symptoms appear, none of which have to do with respiration, except perhaps for a runny nose. --LambiamTalk 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing problem?

I want to edit the section above on this page on complex carbohydrate, yet all I am given to edit is the Rubella virus question above. What's happening?

I get that a lot too, just refresh and try again, it usually works for me. Philc TECI 20:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Seconded. Anyone know what the underlying problem is? Does it just happen when you click an out-of-date "edit" link? Because I can recall times when refreshing wasn't enough. Melchoir 20:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Could be an issue with transcluding, I can't exactly copy content at bot speed, so there is a bit of lag, but I've also been hitting a lot of server lag today, so that's probably more likely to be it--VectorPotentialRD NEEDS A BOT (-: 21:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Usually what has happened is that – between the time you loaded the page and the time that you clicked edit – a section had been inserted or removed above the section you wanted to edit. Someone may have removed a duplicate section, added a new subsection, or a bot could have archived some of the older entries. Look at URL in your browser's address bar after you click one of the section edit links; the last part of it will be section=21 or something similar. Sections are numbered consecutively down the page; if one is added or removed, you'll end up editing the wrong section. Refreshing/reloading the page will usually fix the problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, seems to work OK now.


Seems strange that the problem happens to a lot of people. --Proficient 03:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How do the unintelligent think?

Although there has been over millenia a lot of effort put in to describe how the intelligent think, for example logic, nobody seems to care how the unintelligent reach their conclusions.

My question is prompted by what I observed recently on a long bus journey. I overheard a middle-aged woman talking to what I expect was her grandchild. She had been smoking heavily before boarding the bus. I heard her say that the sweets her grandson had were full of "good things", for example sugar; that you needed to eat a little sugar (as if it was some kind of vitamin or essential nutrient), but that eating too much sugar makes you thirsty (perhaps some warped misunderstanding of diabetes). I wonder how she could have reached these conclusions? Credibility? Inattention? Sentiment? What?

Understanding how the less gifted think would help us more priveledged people improve our thinking, and also be of use for advertising and propaganda. 62.253.52.76 21:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Ill-informed? CAn be confused with lack of intelligence.--Light current 21:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Your base assumption that fallacious thinking has gone unstudied is simply wrong. I wonder how you might have reached that conclusion? Ignorance? Melchoir 21:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
While I agree that mistakes in intelligent thinking in the form of fallacy has been studied, I am doubtful that unintelligent thinking has been - can you provide some evidence or links please?
Prospect theory. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Obviously ignorance is studied and well understood, how else do you explain TV commercials? Why do you think people get paid millions to come up with the definitive SuperBowl beer commercial?--VectorPotentialRD NEEDS A BOT (-: 21:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hang on... beer commercials can be hilarious! Surely they're also accurate depictions of reality? Melchoir 21:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I think your belief that this woman was unintelligent, at best, did not follow logically from the available information, and at worst, was elitist and judgmental. Sugar, a source of calories, is indeed a good thing nutritionally when not taken in excess. She might have been speaking in a sense other than nutritionally, as well, with a meaning along the lines of "sweets are good for the soul." Sugar is hygroscopic, so too much definitely makes you thirsty. In fact, for rehydration, highly sugared beverages such as soda are not favored. You should really examine your assumptions before reaching such radical conclusions about other people's intelligence. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
While a packet of sugar sitting on the table may be hydroscopic, when sugar is digested I believe it releases water. (Sidenote - never try to drink blood when you're dying of thirst in a desert - the protein in it uses up more water in its digestion).

A classic example of Ignoratio elenchi or maybe Ad hominem.

Maybe she was lieing to the kid so that he wouldnt eat all of his sweets at once. Philc TECI 00:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I have a very closely related question. How do some presume, without any empirical evidence whatsoever, that they are more intelligent than others? What is the precise neurological malfunction causing this phenomenon? More specifically, what is the precise mechanism that serves to block their limited minds from considering that they may actually not know as much as they believe to know? In fact Socrates, one of the greatest thinkers humanity has ever produced, would clearly have no choice but to regard these individuals as the lowest of morons, for they, of all people, are the least bit in touch with their own ignorance. In the words of Socrates, true wisdom is only attained when one recognizes that one knows absolutely nothing. Loomis 02:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have also wondered why the less intelligent are also less concientious. According to scientists the answer is that both concientiousness and the executive functions of intelligence are controlled by the frontal lobes of the brain, so the two go together.

Is wisdom the same as intellignece? I would say not--Light current 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Inductive reasoning is one type of "illogical" thought process which has been studied extensively. Also, if you look under fallacy and logical fallacy, you will see there are a many examples of logic errors which have also been studied thoroughly. StuRat 03:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What does smoking have to do with sugar or intelligence? Black Carrot 05:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If someone chooses to smoke, that either shows they don't care about their health, or that they have concluded all the evidence showing the health problems caused by smoking is wrong, in which case they are idiots. There are many, however, who are addicted, so don't really "choose" to smoke, but rather wish to stop, but are unable to do so. StuRat 04:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

THe implication seems to be that because the woman was smoking 'heavily' (although Im not sure how that could have been deduced since the questioner was on the bus, and the woman at the bus stop) It therefore meant she had a low intelligence.Maybe shes not wise to smoke-- but thats not low intelligence (I believe Uncle Albert smoked a pipe)--Light current 05:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You've somehow decided that I was on the bus - I wonder how you reached that conclusion? In fact we were both queueing for the bus for a long time. I was trying to stay upwind of her to avoid her smoke plume.
I decided because of this sentence: what I observed recently on a long bus journey. You dont take bus journeys standing in a queue and you didnt day you were queing. So I assumed reasonably you were on the bus.

--Light current 08:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the process the unintelligent use to reach their conclusions is different from the cold rationality of the intelligent. I think people form their ideas from sentiment and ego protection. For example, if a fellow student is much wealthier than onself, then you would tend to think he is an unpleasent person. I've noticed that the less intelligent spend nearly all of their time socialising with each other and hence have no time left to do any work - this may be due to a functional necessity to stop such petty jealousies arrising and thus leading to bullying. Most of them also definately think that matters relating to dominance in the here and now are far more important than anything else in the world.

Could there be such a thing as a logic of the unintelligent? This would require consistency. If you put a bunch of unintelligent people together, will they come up with a way of communicating that is devoid of logic as we know it but has a consistency of its own? Take insects, for example. They are way off the scale (at the bottom end) when it comes to human inteligence tests, yet they have functioning societies. Do they therefore have a logic of their own (that we humans don't understand)? DirkvdM 08:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a lot of sense in that - ie the unintelligent believe in a 'set of truths' that are unrelated - ie no calculus is permitted on the different objects, so contradictions may exist and obvious conclusions are not drawn. Quite a pleasing logic from a mathematical POV however. Rentwa 09:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by unintelligent? I'm quite interested in abnormal psychology when it's actually morbid (especially autism), but if you're talking about average human moronicness it's just a hotch-potch of ignorance, poor culture, political degradation, drudgery etc. In Saturday's London Times there was an interview with a man who became prominent in homeless activism. He said (which I thought perceptive if a little damning) 'My family wasn't just poor, they thought poor and lived poor.' I remember a man in a pub telling me that 'if it was printed in the papers it had to be true', and no rational explanation of why this was false could shake his quaint view that there was a law (probably something to do with Magna Carta or Habeus Corpus) that journalists were honour bound to check every fact before commiting it to print. Or maybe he thought there was something special about the newsprint that made untruths vanish from the page, or maybe he had simply never thought about it for himself. I have a thousand similar jolly tales of working class life oop north, maybe I should write a book? Rentwa 09:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that conclusions are reached based on emotion rather than logic. There is a theory - cannot remember the exact terms - but it was something like Festinger's congruency theory.

That's Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. --LambiamTalk 04:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-expectation is very important in determining one's success or otherwise in life, perhaps more important than qualifications. That would explain why the children of the rich get rich themselves.

Is this why I'm editing wikipedia and not working on my book? :) Rentwa 10:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
You too, huh. We should form a "Society of Putative Writers Who've Become Temporarily* Diverted by Wikipedia". (*like, for years at a time). JackofOz 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I prefer to think of myself as a "punitive writer". :-) StuRat 04:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Oddly enough (and not to make any assumptions since Stu obviously understands 'putative/punitive') I think punning humour is often regarded as a low form of wit because it's available to those who have limited vocabularies (only requiring phonetic understanding), and is often used as a defense mechanism to cover their ignorance. Rentwa 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that. Punning requires a greater degree of linguistic and lexical knowledge, and often historical knowledge, than many other forms of humour. It requires an appreciation of subtle nuances, of homophones (there's that word again, Stu), and not least, the music of language. Puns are very under-rated, IMO. JackofOz 10:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Stu is a "punnitive writer". :-( LambiamTalk 10:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I usually bear the brunt of it. But rest assured, his puny wit doesn't get to me (damn, too many pointers in that link - let me try another one). Let the punic wars continue. (Is that enough history for you, Jack?) DirkvdM 17:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
On with the Punic wars, yes ... but, as for my "puny wit", I consider my wit to be rather elephantine. :-) StuRat 07:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Better to have historical knowledge than hysterical knowledge! Get it! No? Alright, lemme try again. Being an anglophone and not a homophone, perhaps I don't quite get Jack's humour! Get it! Yes! No? Oh well, I tried. :-)Loomis 22:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Huh? Either you are too smart for me or .... DirkvdM 08:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, Loomis, let me get this straight (oops!). If francophone means speaking the language of the French, and anglophone means speaking the language of the English, then homophone must mean speaking the language of .... (you fill in the blanks).  :--) JackofOz 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

And that is the gay dope. :) DirkvdM 06:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your use of the ellipse, Dirk. That was very kind and civil of you and I appreciate it (no sarcasm intended). As for my post, that was just a failed, pathetic attempt on my part to grasp the sheer genius that are puns (sarcasm intended!).

As for the homophone thing, English seems to be full of annoying misnomers. Take "Indians" for example being used to describe indigenous Americans. How the hell did that whopper of a snafu made over 500 years ago survive to this date? Indians?! Even referring to people from India itself as "Indians" is a bit screwed up. The terms "India" and "Indian" are derived from the Indus river. And guess where the Indus river is located today? In India? No! In Pakistan! So even by referring to Indians from India as "Indians" you're using a rather mild misnomer. But to refer to aboriginal Americans as "Indians", what you're actually doing is naming them after a river in Pakistan! Now THAT'S a stretch if I've ever seen one!

There are seemingly hundreds of these. One that bugs me is the word "homophobia". If one were completely unfamiliar with the phenomenon of gay-bashing or any other sort of discrimination against gays, one would likely just look to its etymology. Alright..."homo", well that's Greek for "sameness." And "phobia," well that's greek for "fear". Put the two together and what you've got is a word that seems to describe a "fear of sameness". Fear of sameness? What the hell could that mean? Well look up the word "xeno" in Greek and it seems to describe the English word "different" or "foreign," or "other." So from a purely etymological perspective, while "xenophobia" would seem to describe a fear of those that are different from you, "homophobia" would seem to apply to a fear of those that are the same as you. It would follow, then, that "homophobia" would more appropriately apply to, say, a French person who is afraid of French people, or a Jew who is afraid of Jews, or even a gay person who is afraid of gay people. Of course in real life it has a completely different meaning. So, for the sake of practicality let's just take for granted that the prefix "homo" doesn't refer to "sameness", but refers to "homosexuality". I still take issue with the term. I think "anti-homosexual" would be a lot more appropriate, not "homophobic". Any psychologist will tell you that a "phobia" is no more than an irrational, pathological, yet innocent fear of something. If you're arachnophobic you're afraid of spiders. It doesn't make you a "bad" person and it doesn't even make your fear a "bad" thing. It just makes you a person who has an irrational fear and, in most cases, one who would like to get rid of that irrational fear. So are "homophobes" simply kind decent folk who have an irrational, pathological fear of homosexuals? One that they'd love to rid themselves of with proper psychological guidance? Of course not! "Homophobes" are bigots. They don't have an "innocent but irrational" fear of homosexuals, on the contrary, their hatred is quite rationalized in their minds. They're bigots, pure and simple, who should be shunned for their hateful beliefs, not "innocent phobics" who'd like nothing better than to rid themselves of their irrational fears. Calling these people "homophobes" just sugarcoats the whole thing, and I really don't like that.

But as they say, you can't fight city hall. For centuries, those who hate Jews have come to be known as "anti-Semites". Another silly misnomer. Yes, Jews are Semites, but so are Arabs. And in today's political climate, the biggest "anti-Semites" (i.e. Jew-Haters) are Semites themselves. The whole thing is absurd. Anyway, I realize I drifted onto a whole tangent of my own here, as the original question had something to do with how dumb people think. Well, maybe my little rant here wasn't all that inappropriate. If anyone thinks what I'm saying is moronic, then this whole rant may actually be completely apropos. Here you've got a perfect illustration of how a dumb person thinks :--) In any case, Stu, now it's your turn to scold me and tell me that this whole discussion should have been moved to the language RefDesk :--). Peace to all of you. Loomis 22:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apples and Saliva

I've noticed that my saliva becomes unusally viscous after eating an apple. This only happens with apples and not other fruits that I eat. What causes this? --Burbster 22:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Anything with a lot of sugar causes an increase in salavia viscosity for me. Maybe that is it. As for the mechanism, I don't know. — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)
I don't know the cause, but when i was a student i used to work in a lab that did genetic testing for cystic fibrosis. We used to get buccal swabs from which i would extract DNA. We found that, when the patient had recently eaten an apple (specifically), we would really struggle to get good quality DNA from the swab. I always assumed it was related to the acidity of the apple. I wonder if these two phenomena are related. Rockpocket 06:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That's very interesting. I should probably look further into this. Thanks anyway guys. --Burbster 15:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How natural cherry flavor is made

I would like to know how natural cherry flavor is made. Signed: "Nacherl"

steam distillation? Xcomradex 23:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's natural, my best guess is that it's made from cherries. What am I missing here? Loomis 02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think Nacherl is asking how they get the natural cherry flavor into the product. My guess would be they mash the cherries into juice, then add the juice to the mixture, be it candy, soda, or medicine. Hyenaste (tell) 02:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
no, i would say they distill the flavour molecules away from the pulp, to stop other components of the pulp interfering at a later stage. So i'd say distilled from cherries (or some other plant). Xcomradex 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If you don't know the answer, then please do not substitute any random guess as a reply. --LambiamTalk 08:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you meant natural, so I may be missing the point if the question but esters are used to flavour most things. Cherry flavour can be made from ethyl heptanoate, geranyl butyrate, methyl benzyl acetate and terpenyl butyrate according to the article. Philc TECI 10:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
"Natural flavor" does not mean it actually comes from cherries. It means that it is the same chemicals as are in "artificial flavors" but has been synthesized in a "natural" way (there is a specific legal definition of this; see Flavor#Flavorants). They probably have nothing to do with actual cherries. "Natural" flavors are preferred by food companies because they sell better; they have otherwise no differences from "artificial" flavors. --Fastfission 14:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
If I'm reading that definition right (it is somewhat ambiguous), it does say that natural cherry flavorant needs to be made from cherries, or at least from some "spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, [etc.]". In particular, it says a natural flavorant needs to be an "essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis", which rather restricts the preparation methods allowed. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
That seems a little tricky about the natural/artificial flavors. --Proficient 03:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
This specific thing actually did come up in a legal fight some years ago. I don't remember all the details. But as I recall, one company sued another over the way the second company made "natural cherry flavor" (that is, benzaldehyde) from bitter almonds. The thing that struck me was, the first company also made its natural cherry flavor from bitter almonds, just in an allegedly more "natural" way. --Trovatore 03:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Hey, everyone, this is the first time I've used Wikipedia, so thank you for all the good information. --Nacherl

[edit] How does human body maintain ph?

I assume that if our bodies did not maintain a constant ph, our metabolisms would go awry.

How does it do this? If you eat acid foods, does your urine become more accidic?

Is the average long term ph of the food you eat the same as your body ph? If not, why not?

Could you kill yourself by just eating acid foods all the time?

Thanks.

There are several buffer systems, of which the most important is bicarbonate, and several compensatory mechanisms (metabolic and respiratory). For further explanation you can consult a medical text on acid/base balance, or our articles on acidosis, alkalosis, metabolic acidosis, respiratory acidosis, metabolic alkalosis, respiratory alkalosis. We may have a more centralized discussion somewhere in Wikipedia? - Nunh-huh 00:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
negative feedback, through homeostasis, by use of blood hormones. Philc TECI 00:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Which hormone did you have in mind? Hormones have next to nothing to do with regulating acid base balance. - Nunh-huh 01:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Vasopressin would affect blood ion concentrations and aldosterone is important to regulate sodium and potassium balance in the blood. -- Scientizzle 03:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and the question was about pH! - Nunh-huh 04:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. Hormonal alteration of ion balances is acheived by modulating ion & water transport activity in the kidney nephrons. Aldosterone stimulates H+ secretion, thereby raising the pH. Vasopressin will concentrate the urine, therefore also making the blood more dilute, too, and potentially reducing acidosis or alkalosis. -- Scientizzle 05:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
But neither of those effects are primarily mechanisms for regulating pH - they are epiphenomena. The primary mechanisms for regulating pH are those which I named in my answer. The questioner should not think that "blood hormones" are particularly important in regulating acid/base balance, because they're not. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you one iota. I was simply giving examples of hormones that have non-zero effects on blood pH. The important point: HCO3 and other buffers provide the immediate control over influx of acids and bases, and hormones (on a much slower time-scale) can modulate the buffer system. -- Scientizzle 02:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

farking edit conflicts: i remember a story about one of the early (german?) researchers (i forget the name) into blood pH eating 1 kg quantities of ammonium chloride and studying the effect, for those of you unfamilar with ammonium chloride, it is an acid with a "biting taste" (apparently) and an unpleasant ammonia smell. so i guess you can eat quite a bit of acid before fatally pushing the buffer equilibrium too far. Xcomradex 00:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Ammonium chloride (also known as salmiak) is a salt, and not particularly acidic, though the evaporation of ammonia may make its solutions slightly so. Mind you, if you eat a lot of a highly acidic or alkaline substance, the immediate effect (assuming it's not acidic or alkaline enough to irritate or even corrode tissue directly) will be to change the pH of your stomach content, leading to indigestion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Ammonium chloride is indeed a salt, but it is classically used for acidification of the urine. It has been used, for example, to test for distal renal tubular acidosis. - Nunh-huh 06:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)