Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 April 1

= April 1 =

True Diagram of our Solar System
Whenever I see diagrams of our solar system, it looks as if all of the planets are aligned on an even plane (some with planets equidistant from each other). Are the planets really aligned on the same even plane or is there a true diagram which shows the true (?) of our planets? --Reticuli88 (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current eight planets are roughly aligned with the invariable plane (which is itself the weighted average of the inclinations of the planets). Pluto is a notable exception, as are most dwarf planets.  This image from the solar system article nicely illustrates the orbits to scale. &mdash; Lomn 12:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The orbit of Pluto (and Sedna and all that) suggests that they were objects 'captured' by the Sun, rather than created 'in situ' with the rest of the planets. 94.168.184.16 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason for the usual diagrams you see (the big, equally spaced planets), is the vast scale of the solar system. The planets are truly tiny in comparison to their orbits, and the orbits themselves quickly spead out to be enormous distances apart.  That is why, to the naked eye, the planets look very similar to the stars.  The image link provided by Lomn does show the planet's orbits are not completely circular, but it doesn't show that the planets orbit in different planes.  This image of the outer solar system and this image of the inner solar system, hopefully show the different orbital planes of the planets.  Incidentally, I made these images using Celestia which I would highly recommend if you want to take a better look for yourself.  Astronaut (talk) 13:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * When I used to teach 9th Grade Earth Science (which had some astronomy in it), we used to take the kids out to the football field to model the solar system. If the 8 planets + pluto are scaled to a 100 yard distance, such that the Sun is at one goalline and pluto is at the other, the scale works out so that the first four planets all lie within a few yards of the sun, jupiter comes out around the 20 yard line, saturn somewhere near the 50, uranus and neptune split the difference between the 50 and the next goal line.  On this scale, the sun is about the size of a quarter dollar coin, and the only planet that would be visible at all would be jupiter, and only barely so.  IIRC, on this scale Alpha Centauri would be somewhere near the moons orbit.  It really gives you a sense of scale to bring it to human terms.  -- Jayron  32  04:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * See also Solar system model. I was surprised not to see the one in Peoria, Illinois, not mentioned in the city's article.  --Anonymous, 04:17 UTC, April 2, 2010.
 * The orbits of the planets aren't aligned perfectly to the 'ecliptic' - but (aside from the very remote not-quite-planets) they are all pretty close. The Earth's orbit is exactly on the plane because that's how astronomers define "the plane of the ecliptic" - it's the plane of the Earth's orbit. But Mars' orbit is at an angle of 1.8 degrees to that, Venus, 3.4 degrees, Mercury 7.0 degrees, Jupiter 1.3 degrees, Saturn 2.5 degrees, Uranus 0.8 degrees.  Pluto, on the other hand is off at 17 degrees to the ecliptic and Sedna is out at 11 degrees...which certainly suggests that they were formed or captured relatively recently compared to the major planets and the gravity of the other planets has not yet had time to nudge them into a more normal orbit.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst you're unlikely to be in the local area that I am, near where I live there is a long bike ride with the distances of the planets all laid-out based on a set 'scale' (http://www.solar.york.ac.uk/Sustrans_route/sustrans_route.html) ny156uk (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a similar thing (but walking, and much more compressed) on the National Mall in DC. --Trovatore (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy without sex
Have there ever been any cases of women who have got pregnant without actually being penetrated? I'm not talking about IVF or anything but cases where sperm has got into the vagina by means other than sex e.g fingering, has there ever been a pregnancy that resulted from that? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Bullet pregnancy! Adam Bishop (talk) 13:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mary, the mother of Jesus. Although that was a special case. :) Actually, I think Loni Anderson said, in her autobiography, that she managed to get pregnant without actually having been penetrated. Not an immaculate conception, just an awkward one. Thankfully I've forgotten the gory details. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * How on earth one could seriously make the claim that Mary was a virgin with anything other than pure Christian faith is totally beyond me. I am reminded of the opening scene in Snatch where the fake Jewish rabbis are discussing the preposterousness of Mary's putative virginity. Vranak (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * What about pure muslim faith?John Z (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in effect God turned Himself into a sperm cell and took care of it. I'm guessing Mary had one heavenly "Big O". That part is only implied. :) P.S. I'm not literally arguing for the literal truth of the Virgin Birth of Jesus. But many Christians do believe it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well virgin birth has been documented in sharks, so I would not assume that it's categorically impossible in 1 BC Bethlemites either. Vranak (talk) 15:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing against the truth of it either. Just reporting. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe turkey basters have been used on numerous occasions (then again, maybe that counts as IVF). Also see artificial insemination.  As for fingering, the finger would need sperm on it, though whether that would actually work is beyond my knowledge.  If you are worried, ask your doctor.  Astronaut (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, especially lesbians sometimes use them for inserting donated sperm. Anytime sperm is introduced, there's a risk possibility of pregnancy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Risk? Let's call it chance, as to not take an utterly nihilistic and antinatalist stance. Vranak (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's either a risk or a hope, depending on whether you want it or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ambiguity is not... ahh this is getting off track. Sorry everyone else. Gonna sidebar this. Vranak (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Some years ago, in the early days of sex education, I was taught that pregnancy can indeed result without genital penetration. For example, if a man were to ejaculate outside of, but not too far from a woman's vagina, particularly if that general area were moist with nontoxic secretions, spermatozoa could swim through the fluid on her skin and into her vagina.  I don't have references, but I think that pregnancies have occurred from extravaginal ejaculations.  Marco polo (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Christabel, Lady Ampthill - see John Russell, 3rd Baron Ampthill. - Kittybrewster   &#9742;  21:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See snopes.com: Bullet Pregnancy, said to be false. -- Wavelength (talk) 22:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * A similar case involving a knifing, but from a more reliable source (PubMed). 94.168.184.16 (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sex ed books for decades have said that pregnancy can result from the male ejaculating near, but not in, the vagina. See Non-penetrative sex and, for instance. If a "virgin" engages in sex play wherein the penis is rubbed around the female pubic area without penetration, to preserve "technical virginity," as in "dry humping" there is some small probability of pregnancy. Also, some females have turned up pregnant and denied ever having intercourse, and attributed the pregnancy to a swimming pool or hot tub having sperm swimming in the water. . Edison (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * discusses several possibilities. Nil Einne (talk) 19:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * See Impregnation via the proximal gastrointestinal tract in a patient with an aplastic distal vagina. 202.10.92.121 (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

business
step by step how do you start a resell business, what do you need to set up,do you need to partner with co.'s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.51.212 (talk) 15:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be posting from Nevada. What is it that you want to resell, and who do you think your suppliers and customers are going to be?  Are you looking to buy and stock items from suppliers, and then sell the items to retailers; or are you wanting to sell directly to consumers?  In any of these cases, yes, you will "partner" with companies in some way, in that you'll contact the supplier and arrange to buy stuff from them; and then you'll turn around and try to sell the stuff to someone else.  You might want to go to the library or bookstore and look for the topic "starting a business".  Be careful about searching on the Internet for information about resell businesses &mdash; I saw some apparent scams come up on my brief Googling.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Scratch Off Lottery
Why do I never hear of people winning the "$5000 a week for life" scratch off lottery? What's the catch anyway? --Reticuli88 (talk) 18:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's one : . Probably you're just not reading the papers closely enough, usually lotto winners are not headline news.  They're really just local news.  (After all, someone you don't know wins the lotto every week! Boring.) APL (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Most lotteries also offer the winners the option of privacy since people who come into a lot of money like that are often beset with people pleading for money from them - which can make life miserable. SteveBaker (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe in your country. Here the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation web site says at http://  www.olg.ca/lotteries/faq.jsp#7 that:
 * The publishing of winners is important in demonstrating the integrity of our lottery games. OLG reserves the right to publish the name, address and photograph of any winner. This is necessary for us to demonstrate that people do win. Winner information is released to the news media and may be used in OLG 's advertising. For every prizewinner there are a number of other players who did not win but have a legitimate desire to know that someone won.
 * which seems a good idea to me, and I expect it helped the news media uncover (a couple of years ago) the fact that some ticket sellers were scamming winners who brought their tickets back to the seller to be checked. I think the same rule applies in other provinces.  --Anonymous, 04:30 UTC, April 2, 2010.
 * The WP link above provides details of the scam, if anyone is interested. Matt Deres (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the flip-side of that is, as SteveBaker mentions, the fact that being known to suddenly possess large sums of money can open you up to all sorts of grief (unknown and dodgy relatives come out of the woodwork, people suddenly see you as a potential person to sue, etc.), which is why a lot of US jurisdictions let you be anonymous if you want it. Obviously there is a tradeoff between privacy/security of the winner and the desires of the lottery organization to make things public. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Walking in Stockholm
In Stockholm, Sweden, is it possible to walk all the way from the Viking Line terminal to the central railway station by keeping on pedestrian routes the entire time, never once going along a motor vehicle road or a bicycle route? (Crossing motor vehicle roads or bicycle routes at a point is allowed.) I've tried this twice, but both times got lost (as I remember it) at the point where I'm supposed to leave Gamla Stan and go back to the mainland, north of Gamla Stan. I simply haven't been able to find a pedestrian route, so what I've done is walk a couple of hundred meters along a bicycle route until I'm on the mainland again, and can find a pedestrian route. I'm sorry I can't remember the exact locations, as I've only tried this twice. J I P | Talk 19:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure you can. Go to Mynttorget, cross the bridge (a walking only path), cross Helgeandsholmen (that is, go the way that goes through the Riksdag), cross the the second bridge and then you're on Drottninggatan. There's three other bridges, and they all have sidewalks, but if want a walking-only path, that's it. Here's a link to Google Maps, showing were you cross. 83.250.239.198 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * (btw, the bridges you cross are Stallbron and Riksbron) 83.250.239.198 (talk) 22:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From a study of the area in Google Maps and from what I remember from my lengthy visit to Stockholm some years ago, I doubt it is possible to walk all the way on pedestrian only routes.  I think you will have to walk some of the way along the sidewalk of regular streets (with cars and bicycles rushing by).  I would suggest you walk along the dockside towards Gamla Stan. Gamla Stan was pretty quiet when I visited so you should be able to walk through without too much interaction with cars.  Try via Västerlånggatan (IIRC, that street is pedestrianised) which leads straight to Stallbron.  Across Stallbron, you walk under the arch and through Riksgatan.  Passing under another arch, you go across Riksbron and on to the mainland into Drotninggatan (another pedestrianised street).  I then suggest you continue up Drotninggatan to Sergels Torg where you turn left and walk the last 300 m or so along Klarabergsgatan 'til you get to the station.  Astronaut (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)