Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 November 14

= November 14 =

non-enzymatic catalyst
I was justing thinking, some biological enzymes like lysosome catalyze the substrate conversion to product by preferentially binding to the transition state. This transition state binding lowers the Gibbs free energy of TS, therefore speeding up the reaction. My question is why is it UNLIKELY that non-enzymatic catalysts operate by this fashion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.173.86 (talk) 01:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See Enzyme. It has to do with the complexity of enzymes as molecules.  Consider the difference between an enzyme, which is basically structured to recognize a SINGLE transition state based on its peculiar protein structure, versus "non-specific" catalysts, such as MnO2 or suface catalysts like Platinum or Paladium.  Enyzmes are the only molecules even CLOSE to the complexity necessary to "recognize" a specific transition state.  Non-organic catalysts just aren't that "picky".  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Neem oil as insecticide
I find references for Neem used as an insecticide. Plus some pharmaceutical company had a patent lawsuit going, so there's evidence it works. But how does it kill the bugs? Inhibit reproduction? Glomm up their breathing mechanism? Damage their organs? Other? 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Neem oil is a type of horticultural oil which also is said to have insecticidal properties. Take a look at these links and --Eriastrum (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The links help a lot. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

creatively, how heavy might I make pure heat (historical caloric) in liquid form?
Hi guys. Last time I asked about the temperature of pure heat and got very good responses, including historical things like caloric, etc. This time I would like a creative answer to how much, hypothetically, caloric might weigh, even though the whole idea is at complete odds with about two hundred years of detailed observations. Thinking back before then, to the seventeen hundreds and before, what might be a plausible weight scientists could have given to heat? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, heat is not a substance... I thought we went over this. Heat is just a form of motion.  Motion doesn't have a temperature, or a weight.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose you could apply Einstein's Energy = mass*(speed of light^2) equation to figure out how much mass an object's thermal energy would be equivalent too. This has no bearing on reality: adding energy to a system via heat does not increase the system's mass at all. (except perhaps in the world of freaky-particle physics that I know nothing about and assuming we are staying within classical velocities). You can calculate the amount of thermal energy has been added to a system by knowing how much the temperature changed (Celcius) and the object-you-are-heating's heat capacity. Then you can find out how much mass has an equivalent amount of energy by using E = mc^2. If you keep your units straight you should wind up with a rather unimpressive small number (or if you find small numbers astounding an impressively small number). 152.16.15.23 (talk) 04:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding heat certainly adds mass; see my post below. --Tardis (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When did this become Wikipedia:Reference desk/Nonsense? 24.76.161.28 (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Seriously dude, if you are writing a fictional story ANYWAYS, well, just make it up. Are you really just asking people to give you ideas for your story?  I mean, if you aren't interested in writing a story where the laws of nature bears any resemblence to reality, why bother even asking us?!?  Just make it up yourself! --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it shouldn't bear any resemblance to reality. If scientists never had any instruments, science would still be in the dark ages...  And caloric isn't from the dark ages, but much later. :)
 * Please follow-up at pseudoscience refdesk, not here. --Scray (talk) 04:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Where can I find the pseudoscience refdesk? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * haha, but obviously of the actual refdesks science is the closest :)
 * Yikes, 24.76 please don't get so grumpy (the internet does not transmit emotions well). While you may have intended to come off differently, it seemed like you were ranting, which isn't going to make people want to answer your question. (Just to be sure I'm trying to be friendly myself so imagine a calm soothing voice with this text) Some friendly advice from someone who has asked many off the wall questions here myself, it would help to phrase "odd" questions like this so refdeskers people know you want a creative answer rather than a scientific one. I realize you tried by posting pseudoscience in the header, but it may have also been useful to ask in a more hypothetical manner like "How might I be able to express heat as mass? I know that doesn't make any sense realistically but hypothetically can anyone think of some way to do it?" 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, you're an angel (even though they don't exist). I'm deleting my 'rant' and changing the subject.  I love you very much.
 * Why would energy have mass? 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't I think, they're just interchangable per E=MC2. A bit of mass is lost when atoms are formed from protons and neutrons because they need energy for the strong nuclear force to hold them together. That's the basic gist of it, anyway. To the OP, please understand, you cannot ask for a real world answer to something that bears no resemblence to real life. We can't weigh heat, we can only describe it as moving particles. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a couple of things backwards there. Nuclear fusion releases energy, rather than requiring it from the incoming nucleons.  (In general, it doesn't take energy to hold things together; instead, the fact that they are held together implies that it would take energy to pry them apart, so they must have less energy when together than when apart.)  The energy that is released was potential energy before the particles combined; that the result has less mass than the sum of the constituents implies that the now-absent potential energy had &mdash; or was &mdash; mass.  The same applies to all forms of energy; a hot brick has more mass than a cold brick, and a charged battery has more mass than a discharged one.  With mass (perhaps "as mass"?) comes inertia and gravity; even light gravitates (it has to; otherwise gravitational lensing would violate conservation of momentum).
 * I find it next to useless to try to partition the "amount" of something into "mass" and "energy"; energy is just a term that implies certain behavior (like being transferrable) for some portion of the "stuff" present. You can consider them different "currencies" with an exchange rate of $$c^2$$ if you like, but then considering an object's amount of each is much like asking how much of the worth of a computer should be measured in euros and how much in yen.  The answer depends on where it is and what you're doing with it and is clearly unrelated to the intrinsic value of the object.  --Tardis (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear OP: The last time you asked (essentially) the same question, we tried to tell you - as politely as possible - that this is a bloody stupid question and consequently it can't be answered. You pigheadedly insisted that we still try to answer it - lacing it with caveats to the point of meaninglessness.  So this time - I'll just come right out and say it: It's a bloody stupid question and it STILL can't be answered.  There is no such thing - nor can there ever be such a thing as "liquid heat" - I don't know how you got this concept wedged into your brain - but you need to get it un-wedged.  As for everyone else - please don't feed the troll. SteveBaker (talk) 15:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * SteveBaker, I'm at a complete loss. I like your answers here and at other reference desks, they're highly informative and well-reasoned.  But I just don't understand why this question (or the previous one) bothers you.  Would it bother you as much if I were asking about astrological signs, making it clear that I wasn't looking for a scientific answer, which is that astrology == nonsense?  If I said "to those who believe in astrology, which would be good signs for a Gemini's partner"?  It might be "essentially" the same question as coming back and asking "okay, other than the people who told me to go **** myself because of how unscientific astrology is, I got very good responses, and now would like to ask about who good partners are for a Libra.".  Seriously, I don't see how you can consider me a troll for asking for something whimsical.  Do you think I believe in liquid heat?  No.  Do you think I'm pretending to believe in liquid heat?  No.  If one day I asked about spiderman's powers, and a few days later I asked about superman's powers, making clear that I meant my quesiton "in-universe" style and not from the point of view of an actually, really existing spiderman or superman, would you call me a troll?  No.  In this case my question has been answered below, "caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas".  If the spiderman article told me that he is able to stick to buildings through tiny, sharp hairs that come out of his fingertips, would you deny me this information just because it's nonsense?  Of course not.  so be nice.  you might have a point if I pretended to believe in this stuff, or if my question wasn't very clear on the point that I'm asking for pseudoscientific answers...


 * If you were truly asking for a non-scientific answer (which admittedly you are claiming to do) then there would be no problem - but you're asking for things like masses and temperatures which are firmly in the realm of science - they are measurements - and then you are demanding "non-scientific measurements" - which is a contradictory demand. If you were asking for (say) historical information about liquid heat or what the world of cuisine feels about heat as a liquid - then that might (maybe) be appropriate.  But demanding to know the weight of something that quite clearly doesn't exist - is just bloody stupid.  It's like asking how much a ghost weighs or what the mating rituals of mauve elephants are.  So you're repeatedly asking for things that you KNOW can't be answered (if only because we explained that to you the first time you asked).  Worse still...you're deliberately asking the question on the SCIENCE reference desk - after I've pointed out that it's inappropriate to do that.  It's a pure waste of everyone's time - and I know full well that you know that - because this is precisely the behavior of a troll.  Repeatedly asking something in order to waste people's time and create discord is Trollish behavior - which we don't tolerate here.  If you continue to exhibit this kind of behavior - you're going to get very unpopular around here - and that can only lead to "Very Bad Things".  So kindly drop it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're being incredibly rude to me. I asked for a creative answer to the weight aspect of caloric and received this, below, in the form of the answer Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids.  Honestly, if I were asking about whether the moons of a planet (other than Earth, such as Jupiter's moons), would have been considered to move around that planet, or around Earth, in the geocentric world view, would you consider that a troll?  Honestly, I think you're being just incredibly rude.  I am clearly not making any impression of believing in caloric (or geocentrism).  And these are things that REAL SCIENTISTS really believed hundreds of years ago.  I think my question is EXACTLY the same as asking from a "cooking" perspective, since I am asking from a historical perspective that really existed.  Why this would bother you is utterly beyond me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then what the hell is this? Matt Deres (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Anti-freeze with a stupid brand name? --Tango (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in reading Caloric theory. Here is a quote from the very first line (emphasis added) : "Caloric was also thought of as a weightless gas that could pass in and out of pores in solids and liquids.". So there's your answer. Even back when scientists thought heat was a liquid, they thought it was weightless. I'm sure they came to this conclusion by noticing that hot objects do not get lighter as they cool off. APL (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the answer. I had indeed missed that part of the article!  I'm marking this question resolved.

CONTRADICTION TO RELATIVITY
question accidentally deleted by new question poster. Restored by 152.16.15.23 (talk) Harshagg (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)harshagg

Hello,
 * question is something tricky pls. try to understand it

Question :-
 * Consider 2 persons A and B .A is at rest wrt earth and B is moving with velocity of light wrt earth.
 * I A observe B then time for B will be infinity wrt A.
 * And if B observe A then for A time will be infinity wrt B.

According to this time for A and B will increase wrt each other and time increase will be same so time cannot be infinity for either A or B wrt each other. Which actually contradict relativity.

Is this concept true if yes then relativity doesn't exit and if not what is wrong in this???

(Email removed to protect from spam; answers will be provided here. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC))
 * Not a contradiction. This was answered about 3-4 days ago; look above or at the archives. Basically, in order for A and B to "compare notes" one or the other must accelerate to reach each other's frame of reference, and this acceleration brings them into the same frame of reference, and removes the paradox. I am sure SteveBaker will be along shortly to give you the right answer, and tell you how wrong I am, but I am pretty sure I have the basic idea here... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 04:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The main problem is that the theory of relativity says no object with mass can move at the speed of light. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being pigheaded about this but it can create all kinds of confusion if people leave out "speed of light in a vacuum". The experts are going to say "of course" but ordinary folks might spend years trying to figure some phenomena out till they get a "now they tell me" revelation. This doesn't affect OP's question though.  76.97.245.5 (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And massless objects going at the speed of light cannot be decelerated to sublight speeds, so there's never a chance to 'compare notes'. Algebraist 11:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrocausal information transfer.


Trevor Loughlin (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2008 If a certain device dramatically cut the low frequency component of consecutive incorrect predictions of a one bit random event generator (or deterministic and chaotic events for that matter) over billions of results, turning a bell shaped curve into a spike with rarely more than three incorrect predictions, would it be fair to call this process a form of intelligible faster than light signaling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Loughlin (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Trevor, you accidentally deleted someone's question when you posted yours. Don't worry, I fixed it! These refdesk pages are really active so it is easy to accidentally overwrite someone else's questions. You can avoid this by clicking the ask new question link at the top of the page which creates a separate little section all for you. If you want to edit it later, scroll down to where you asked the question and click the edit button on the right hand side of your subject header rather than click the edit this page tab on the top of your screen. It cuts down on edit conflicts that way... 152.16.15.23 (talk)
 * I'm not sure if I understand your question entirely. (I don't know what the "low frequency component of consecutive incorrect predictions" is specifically) If you are asking if hypothetically we could predict the outcome of a random 2 state event better than chance will we have succeeded in superluminal information transmission? For that to be the case, some form of information needs to be transmitted at superluminal speeds. I am trying to think of a way to exploit this to create a superluminal situation, but I am not having any luck so far. Can you clarify when hypothetically during this process of random generation and subsequent transmission, the value of the bit is being correctly guessed at? 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the value of the bit can only be predicted after it has been generated (i.e. you can't see the future), and it moves at slower than light speeds then no. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And a warning that a low pass filter cannot work in real time, but can only produced a delayed result. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly if any device predicted the future, even to the slightest extent, by increasing th accuracy of predictions, it have immense practical effects. I would install a bank of them and bleed the Las Vegas casinos dry by predicting the roulette wheel outcomes, while making a jillian dollars on Wall Street. Edison (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, though not quite on that scale (yet) because you have to start with a reasonably low bet and not be greedy even with this device, or in the short term you could still lose your bankroll. I turned £2 into £85 at 1 pence per go on a casino which is now closed (due to loss of American business, not me.) It took a week and got boring in the end. Beating the lottery would be more fun. My main aim is to increase the accuracy still further to predict and prevent (as in minority report ,but without the precogs) abductions and terrorist attacks before they happen(multiple universe theory gets rid of any paradox)-but only for nations that respect basic human rights! A sort of terrorism in reverse. The device works by sorting randomness a bit like Maxwell's Demon sorts atoms, but after 27 years work I will make a bit of money and rule the world for a while before I give more details! Of course the most intriguing aspect would be to send ASCII code from a future wikipedia page to bring transhuman technology from the far future to right now, eliminating inconvenience like aging and death. The device can be considered an infinite improbability drive. It alters probability enough to reverse the arrow of time on a macroscopic scale, and i wonder, though this is pure speculation, whether this could be enhanced enough to reverse the thermodynamic arrow for physical objects. I will leave you to think about the implications of this. Incidentally the device is not a filter in the common sense of the word, I am talking about the result of the predictions. This device DOES work in real time. The low pass cut-off refers to the analysis of the previous results (a histogram of how many incorrect predictions there were in a row, and the fact that the distribution is non-random. The device waits until it has made its prediction and then waits for the user to enter the predicted binary result via two form buttons, and in the process it compares the input to the past prediction (more often correct than not) and makes a line graph and frequency polygon from these results. It can also work in continuous test mode, using a separate electronic true random number generator plugged into the computer. The device uses its own true random number generator to provide the bits for the forced synchronicity mathematical (negentropy) software I have developed. User:Trevor Loughlin|Trevor Loughlin]] (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is incredible! CBHA (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent use of definition #1. &mdash; Lomn 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this proves that the visual basic 6.0 programming language is not for dummies after all. The enormous complexity of the mathematics such as designing software logic gates that have not been thought of before, such as the "analogue XOR gate" in the quantum neural network would not have been possible without the ease of the VB6 programming environment. I can program visual c++ with MFC but if I had to use a less intuitive compiler I would have got nowhere. Bring back classic VB6.0!Trevor Loughlin (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At this point I think it best to remind you that the Reference Desk's core purpose is to provide referenced answers to questions, not serve as a soapbox or venue for promoting original research. You seem to be drifting pretty far from the original "superluminal information" concept. &mdash; Lomn 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure this filter will work at all like you want it to. Even though you can plot the number of times you guess wrong consecutively, you won't improve your guessing rate from 50-50 (over a large number of guesses). If you think about it, that same curve also applies for the number of times you guess correctly consecutively. With enough guesses, I bet if you plot them they will be exactly the same, indicating you have roughly the same number of right answers as wrong answers. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is entirely possible to cheat an online casino by predicting their random number generator. No it does not count as superluminal communication, even if the casino is on Mars. APL (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, Yes it is possible to constantly come out ahead at online poker against stupid humans, simply by playing the odds. People make bots for this all the time. No prediction needed. APL (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

WRONG ON BOTH COUNTS. First if a casino uses a psuedo-random number generator OF COURSE they are asking for trouble, because NO finite computer program can EVER produce truly unpredictable numbers,which is why nearly every sensible casino now uses totally unpredictable electronic quantum random number generators-look this up to understand the difference. Secondly it is true that a good robot will beat a novice player because poker has an element of skill and the robot never misses a trick or gets tired, but that is an entirely different issue.No amount of skill will predict true random events. Also some robots actually HACK into the system, there is no prediction involved in this, just cheating, and the security flaw has already been corrected. By the way, if anyone sells or gives you a robot to play online roulette you will lose money. Unlike poker bot's they cannot work in the long term. If they did work the people who wrote the software would keep it to themselves.

My device does not have any internal model of what it is going to predict, because it does not predict, rather it TRANSMITS data from the future to the present by modulating probabilty waves. Thus it is capable of "predicting" things that no amount of skill could predict, such as things with no or virtally no previous history like the twin towers attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Loughlin (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to tell us, Trevor, that you can make a 100,000 binary predictions of random events that have 50:50 odds of going one way or another, and be right even just 50,700 times (ie 0.7% better than pure luck)? I hereby bet you $58,000 to your $460 that you can't.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 14:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Care to tell us how you picked those numbers? —Tamfang (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I will make a web page with a client program linked to my device, and then you can test the device before you want to take on such a bet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Loughlin (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Listen, if you want to rule the world with your device, you'd better NOT make any sort of public interface, otherwise you may lose your competitive advantage. I suggest you take only my private bet, and make the interface available only to me, since I will not be asking any questions about your device (so you don't lose your competitive advantage), and $58,000 will certainly help you start ruling the world. The bet is, you get $58,000 if you make 50,700 correct predictions out of 100,000 guesses -- ie a 0.7% advantage over blind luck -- as to which of two possibilities my next random number will be (you don't even have to show me your device or tell me anything about it) against your $460 if you lose. I am more than happy to test this using a web interface you make available only to me (again, I don't suggest you make it public) if you can allow me to use it to predict the results of my own hardware random number generator. I hereby take your bet on these terms.

first we'll try your web interface, which will fail to predict my result at least 50,700 times out of 100,000 guesses (ie fail to have even a 0.7% advantage over blind luck), and then we'll talk about how to show you that I'm really using a random number generator and that you're really failing to guess its results better than 50,700 times in a 100,000, ie any better than 0.7% better than blind luck. Then you can pay up. Alternatively, I am happy to send you $58,000 within a fixed number of days if you are able to guess correctly even 50,700 times out of 100,000 guesses, ie if you show even a 0.7% advantage over pure luck) -- no questions asked about your device. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I recommend hurrying up and collecting the JREF prize while it's still being offered. APL (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, Travor, the JREF prize is a scam. It will NOT pay out money if you do something supernatural in a scientific, repeatable way.  It will just say "well, since it's so repeatable under rigorous, controlled experiments, it's just part of science now, whether we understand it or not.  sorry...not paranormal.... but thanks for advancing science!  We have hard work ahead now, because what you showed is really ****ing weird, so please, let us get to work.  Don't let the door hit you on the way out.  We might call you back for even more experiments, though -- this thing has us completely puzzled, it's not supposed to be possible!  We have to revise all our rules."  That's right.  Revise all their rules.  After the fact.  In reaction to your demonstration.  And their rules will include the possibility of whatever you just did, since it's now part of the empirical record (or will be once Harvard, Princeton, etc.... scientists are through with their even more detailed experiments on you.)  You'll note that this extra step is part of the protocol.  Of course, Harvard, Princeton, Yale scientists won't be there at the preliminary step, but only after you've "passed" that step.  They will be there to make sure whatever you can do is now part of official, accredited science, and that therefore you will not get one penny of your million.


 * I might as well say : "I'll give you $1,000,000 if you get half of America to use a non-word at all levels of speech and writing, and get the non-word into all the dictionaries". This is fraud, a scam, because if you succeed they will just say  "thanks for the effort, but since half of America is using it in all levels of speech and writing and it's in all the dictionaries, it certainly is a word, regardless of the fact that you are its coiner.  The million dollars is for doing it with a nonword.  Go ahead: we are so firm in our belief that Americans use only real words, and that the dictionaries have only real words, that if you can show half of America using a nonword in all levels of speech and writing and in all the dictionaries, we'll pay you ONE MILLION DOLLARS".  It's a fraud.  It's a scam.  It's not a real challenge.  It's a shell game, where you're told that you can win money by pointing to the proper one of the three cards.  It's a lie, because you can't win money by pointing to any of the cards.  This is a scam in the EXACT SAME WAY: you're told you'll win a million dollars by doing something paranormal in a scientifically rigorous way, but that is by definition impossible, just as through the trickery of the dealer it is IMPOSSIBLE to point at the king.  Not impossible because you couldn't have done anything paranormal, impossible because EVEN IF YOU DID YOU DON'T WIN.  The reason it's a fraud is because EVEN IF you point at the proper card you don't get the money.  EVEN IF you do something paranormal you don't get a million.  By the way, just so you know, James Randi used to be a MAGICIAN.  It's why he knows how to develop fraud protocols such as his challenge.


 * There is no CHALLENGE, they are just ripping people off. He says : "if you demonstrate something supernatural in a scientifically rigorous way"...  Look, there are plenty of things that science is surprised by, doesn't understand at all.  If you had said you would do any of them before science produced that result, scientists would have said "no way!  that's supernatural".  but now that they know the results, they call it a part of science, even if unexplained.  So there is no way to win with James Randi.  You could clap your nude arms and have a perfect gold sphere with a diameter the size of your head fall out from your hands every time you did that, as many times as you did that, after you went nude through a metal detector into a room surrounded by a thousand scientists, and stood on a scale brought by them, to show you're not even carrying any extra weight, and clap and have gold spheres fall out as many times as you wanted, and they wouldn't pay out: as soon as you've proved that this effect is part of the universe in a rigorous, reproduceable, scientific way, they will say "well, damn is that unexplained, but now that we have so much evidence, it's not paranormal anymore.  It's just an unexplained part of nature."  STAY AWAY FROM THAT FRAUD, JAMES RANDI.


 * I, on the other hand, bet you $58,000 to your $460 without a scam protocol. You make that interface, I go on it, and if you predict even 50,700 of my random results out of 100,000 guesses I pay you $58,000, no questions asked.  you don't have to show me your device.  there is no second step.  there is no fraud protocol.  there ain't nothin but the money, which I will transfer to you within a specified number of days.  But that won't happen: what will actually happen is that your device will fail to be right even 0.7% of the time, even 50,700 times out of 100,000, and once I show this to you as well, you will have to pay up $460.  Do we have a deal?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this long rant about the Randi foundation prize (which is $1,000,000 - not $50,000) is that none of it is actually true. I can prove that.  The fundamental premise (set out in the second and third sentences of the rant) is false - and everything from that point onwards fails because of that.  User:83.199.126.76 says:
 * "It will NOT pay out money if you do something supernatural in a scientific, repeatable way. It will just say "well, since it's so repeatable under rigorous, controlled experiments, it's just part of science now, whether we understand it or not.  sorry...not paranormal.... but thanks for advancing science!""
 * Well, that's simply not true, '83 is either woefully ill-informed - or is quite simply feeding us bullshit in order to make his/her bizarre case. Quoting directly from the contest rules at http://www.randi.org: "The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant. In most cases, the applicant will be asked to perform a relatively simple preliminary test of the claim, which if successful, will be followed by the formal test. Preliminary tests are usually conducted by associates of the JREF at the site where the applicant lives. Upon success in the preliminary testing process, the "applicant" becomes a "claimant."".
 * So, the conditions for winning the money are agreed in advance by both the participant and the foundation - those conditions are written down and signed by both parties before the testing starts. The prize itself is held in escrow - so if the test is passed - the Randi foundation can't prevent the money being paid.  So the possibility that 86.199.126.76 brings forth that someone might pass the test and that they'd not get the money because the foundation would claim it was "just science" can't happen.  Sure, if someone ever passed the test then either:


 * The Randi foundation would have to admit that they'd made a HORRIBLE mistake and somehow allowed a perfectly normal, scientifically understood thing to be tested - and hand over the megabuck anyway...or....
 * ...they'd have to admit that something "supernatural/paranormal" had really happened - and to be sure, scientists around the world would want to investigate it. The Randi foundation would still be on the hook for the $1M.   Presumably, some major new scientific breakthrough would be made - and indeed that particular branch of the supernatural/paranormal would eventually be understood and become a part of mainstream science.


 * Look at our article and you can see (with the detailed example of what happened with the water dowsing test) what typically happens. The foundation and the dowsers agreed in advance every tiny detail of the test.  On the day of the test, the dowsers inspected the apparatus and agreed that they could easily pass the test - and the testers agreed that if they do, they'll hand over the money...they do the test and fail MISERABLY - they don't come even close to passing - not by a mile - they perform exactly as you'd expect by chance alone.  Now that they've failed (and only now) the dowsers claim that sunspots and other such crap interfered with the test.  Quite how they know this now - and didn't find that out when they were practicing - and quite why they didn't specify a particular sunspot configuration for doing the test (if it's known to be so important to the outcome) is unclear.


 * This is pathetic, 83.199.126.76 - just pathetic. We have higher standards of research here on the science desk.  The Randi foundation's prize is quite genuine...and your tirade is a ridiculously unfair disinformation campaign. SteveBaker (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, it's quite obvious if you read the thread that the $58,000 is MY challenge. I said $1,000,000 or the word million about the Randi prize many times above.  Anyway, $1,000,000 is only 17 times my offer -- but my offer only takes 3 minutes so set up if Trevor already has his machine hooked up to his computer and knows what he's doing.  That means if the Randi prize takes anything longer than 51 minutes to complete from start to finish, my deal is a better value.  Please admit to Trevor for the record that there is no way the Randi protocol would pay off with a total investment on his part of 51 minutes.  In fact, there is no way to win the Randi protocol within the day, but he can win my bet within one hour of accepting it.  Further, my offer pays him $58,000 no questions asked, no negotiation, doesn't have to show me the device, etc, and ALL he has to do is predict over the web 50,700 correct results out of 100,000, ie 0.7% better than dumb luck.  Again, no questions asked.  Please admit to him that if he has a device capable of retrocausal information transfer, it is much more worth his time to take my bet under the radar, than Randi's extensive, elaborate, and involved procedure, along with the associated publicity.  Remember: Trevor wants to rule the world with his device, so the less publicity he gets the better.  Admit it that my bet is an amazing opportunity for him, should he have such a device.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevent. Do you admit that all of that rhetoric against the Randi foundation was completely unfounded? SteveBaker (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I just skimmed the JREF article and it includes the line "The foundation now requires a demonstrated media profile as well as the support from some member of the academic community before it will discuss the challenge with claimants". So unless Trevor is already famous in the media, the James Randi Foundation won't even speak to him.  Does this seem scientific to you?  After reading the JREF article, I have many, more specific criticisms of JREF.  But they won't help Trevor, who they wouldn't even talk to.  Just tell Trevor, the original poster, that unless he is famous in the media Randi foundation wouldn't even talk to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.199.126.76 (talk) 01:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure - but every crackpot and nutjob writes to them - they simply don't have the staff to test all of those claims. So why not let the press sort out the ones with something to show.  Also (since realistically, their mission is to inform people's opinions of the supernatural) it's more productive to prove that Uri Geller is a fraud than Granny Arkwrite who claims she can read people's future in tealeaves.  There is a risk they might miss something truly interesting - but when faced by a tidalwave of undoubted frauds and crazies and on a limited budget - what would you have them do?  If the supernatural/paranormal is "real" then surely ONE of the proponents would have made it into the media and have a shot at the Randi challenge.  What's more relevent (IMHO) is that none of the really big-name claimants of supernatural powers will agree to take the test - that speaks volumes for how credible these people actually are. SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IIRC, another reason given by the foundation was that they felt they feared many of the people whose requests they had been entertaining until they introduced the requirement weren't really frauds per se but likely people with genuine delusions or other mental issues which required professional help and they weren't helping anyone by giving undue attention to and wasting time and money on such people Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * At risk of answering the question and avoiding all this side-talk about predicting random-number generators...
 * Simplify this to a common analogy. I have two boxes.  I place a left-hand glove in one and seal it.  I place a right-hand glove in the other and seal it.  I give one box to Julian and one box to Adaline.  Julian hops on a spaceship and travels to Pluto (let's assume he has a real cool ship so can get there at the speed of light).  Now, he tries to predict what is in Adaline's box - not his.  He has two choices.  It could be a right-hand glove or a left-hand glove.  Statistically, if this is repeated millions of times, he will be correct 50% of the time.  But, we assume he has some magic way of being correct 75% of the time - as the question states, the wrong answers are avoided more often.  Does this mean that Julian has created superluminal transfer of information?  No.  The information is in the box. He took it with him at the speed of light.  When he guesses, no information is being transferred.  He is just guessing.  When he opens the box, he sees in the time it takes light to get from the box to his eyes what he has.  That information travelled with him at the speed of light to his destination.  From that, he deduces what is in Adaline's box - he does not see Adaline's box at superluminal speeds.  From here, you can expand this scenario to include 3 options in the box, 4 options in the box, 5 options in the box... as many as you like.  Anything you do will show that the only information transfer is what it is in Julian's box, which travels with him at the speed he travels, which is not faster than the speed of light. --  k a i n a w &trade; 20:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a device that gets a small percentage above chance for the first 10000 goes and then over the next million a decline sets in but then at a fraction of a percent, then no further decline occurs over billions of results. But the consecutive miss spectrum I have published is my new device, which I have reason to believe is much more efficient. I am at this very moment testing the new device for the running total score and percentage of hits and misses (relevant to the challenge you suggest), also the running total score of the Martindale system played at one to twelve different stop-losses limits (relative to roulette gaming) and also programming in a hit spectrum to compare it to the miss spectrum (as suggested) but previous experiments show a big contrast in the hits spectrum, which has a long tail showing greater than average long hits sequences compared to the short miss sequences, so I would imagine this effect will be more pronounced but cannot comment until the test is complete. Since I have four ComScire true random number generators (souped up to double speed by the manufacturer, the only other person who knows about my experiments) each working at 2 MHz and the device works at about 5 predictions a second, it should take till the end of Sunday to know if the new device is efficient enough to meet the challenge. I will be improving the device still further. As for compromising this technology, since it requires a powerful dedicated server and specialized quantum based hardware, a client, public or private would merely automate the transfer of information to and from the device, it would contain none of the software mathematics and (obviously) none of the hardware either. As all this money you are offering me, I predict that you will use my predictions to play the stock market or on-line casinos and make ten times the money you are offering me-but I am O.K. with this! I will email you a PRIVATE client or otherwise if everyone gets the data (whats left) of the financial system will be destroyed! For every winner there is a loser, and irresponsible use of this device could have bad consequences. On the other hand if you are taking a gamble with money you do not have (unlike Randi, who uses insurers I believe) then I think it is only fair to give you a free test (equivalent to fun games in a casino) because when I  decide to take the challenge it is highly improbable that I will fail. As for Randi, I could always pretend I had psi abilities! I have the $ 460 in cash ready and have no problems losing it,because it will be payment for testing my theories. e-mail me at james.edward@tesco net and you can personally test my device. And thank you for giving me a bit of incentive, because once I have basic proof of a concept I get bored and start thinking up new ideas instead of develop what I already have-though the greatest incentive I have is the thought of preventing this years inevitable child abduction and the enormous damage these incidents are doing to society. I do question the morality of keeping this idea to myself sometimes-a few clicks and all could be revealed on this site, and well financed, better scientific minds nearly as great as mine would bring this project to 100% accuracy in a month. I did ask the Exeter weather center to connect my hardware to their supercomputer but they were not interested, and I am pretty sure that with their help the Asian tsunami could have been predicted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevor Loughlin (talk • contribs) 03:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer. I've sent you an e-mail, waiting to hear your results with the new device. 23:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.217.32.24 (talk)

P.S. Kainaw, I think Bells Theorem is similar to what you are talking about. But Bells theorem only creates correlations that can be measured after the event, as in modern quantum teleportation experiments. But supposing you encrypted real information to look as it was random but knew the code one step ahead, developed a pure mathematical method of warping probabilty waves(!) to predict the random bits, and then decoded them with the bit you are about to use (which is in a SIPO shift register. Then you have a different proposition, as I have found out. My device forces Bells theorem to transmit any form of data in a closed timelike curve.Trevor Loughlin (talk) 03:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally - I'm betting you have a bug in your testing system. If you program in Visual Basic - you clearly don't have solid computer programming skills (it's just not a programming language that serious programmers use - so I KNOW you don't know your stuff in this regard) - so the odds are extremely high that you have a screwup in there someplace.  Before you start making claims to make a killing on the stockmarket and save humanity from tsunami's - you need to step back and examine your testing procedures a LOT more rigorously.  Realise that the odds of you overturning most of science on the basis of a single Visual Basic program is as near zero as anyone could imagine.  It's OVERWHELMINGLY likely that you've made a teeny-tiny slipup - perhaps something as simple as a roundoff error in your "success average" calculation that's producing these tiny skews to your results.  If you could truly predict random numbers in advance then making perpetual motion machines using the "Maxwell Daemon" approach would also be possible - and we know that's not possible.  So to be very clear - I completely discount your claims - they are simply not possible.  On the other hand - as a computer programmer of 35 years - I can't count the number of tiny, subtle errors I've seen that caused people to make outrageous claims.  Remember - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.  The scientists who are ignoring you are 100% correct to do so.  The probability that you're right rather than making some naive slipup is so astronomically overwhelming that it's simply not worth their effort to investigate further.  Making these large, grandiose claims is only making you seem more like a typical nut-job.   So dial it back a bit - inject some healthy skepticism and humility for those who have been there before.  You need to behave like a scientist and start from the ASSUMPTION that your code is wrong (trust me - either you are lying to us - or it IS wrong).  If after a couple of months of careful investigation you can't find a problem - then get someone else with decent programming skills to review it. (And before you ask: No - I'm not going to do it - I think you're a nut-job!). SteveBaker (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Better plan - if you're so sure it works, take it to Las Vegas and make a few million dollars. After that, people will believe you. --Tango (talk) 19:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, if you start to beat the odds people are going to pay a lot of attention to you. AFAIK, Vegas is supposed to be relatively clean nowadays so worst case you should get banned and perhaps investigated there's always the risk you'll piss off the wrong people and find yourself at the wrong end of criminals. Far better to make your money off the lotto where this is IMHO a lot less likely Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To win either in Vegas or in state lotto, doing slightly better than chance (as Trevor claims) is not enough: you need to beat the house advantage – which is much bigger in state lotto. —Tamfang (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Long time later (searching for something else) but who said anything about 'slightly better'? If you win the powerball or equivalent 10 times in a row, I don't think anyone is going to question you are doing far better than chance. You will probably be investigated and perhaps after the 3rd or 4th time they will stop you playing more but I think most lottos are clean whereas as I'm said I'm not certain Vegas is. Then again, you could use your predicting device to predict whether anyone is going to murder or beat you up for 'cheating' Nil Einne (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See the screen capture. the column on the left shows (top to bottom) the hit to miss and miss to hit transitions, profit using simulated Martindale systems at limits 1 to 12 (limit one being right the first time, and even this is over unity, as are the majority of Martindale limit predictors, which is even less likely by chance (Martindale normally works for a bit and then loses violently.) It seems to have got a lot better than that, I will download a new picture but its 04:13 GMT (I am a UK citizen) and I need to go to bed. Incidentally Scott Wilbur of Comscire is always happy to let his team test my device and confirms my anomalous results on previous less efficient predictors, but I think I'll do Vegas before I send him this one.


 * By Martindale do you mean martingale (betting system) and/or martingale (probability theory)? Have a look at Kelly criterion. —Tamfang (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

bronchitis/passing out - need information
My friend was diagonised with bronchitis 3 months ago. he was passing out every time he coughed. he was treated after one month and was discharged. he has started coughing and getting the feeling he's going to pass out. Is this normal? what is the cause of the passing out? please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njmagondu (talk • contribs) 09:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We cannot give medical advice on the Reference Desk GaryReggae (talk) 10:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your friend needs to see a doctor. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  10:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Try looking at passing out and bronchitis. 152.16.15.23 (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cure for AIDS by giving him transplanted blood stem cells
Recently, doctors have reported that they could cure at least one man of AIDS using a rare treatment. See the full story [here]. The case has been reported first in the Wall Street Journal.

Why did they choose a non-scientific publication to describe the case? Mr.K. (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not uncommon for authors to announce their findings in popular media before the findings are formally published in peer-reviewed literature. --98.114.98.124 (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The key phrase here is "peer-reviewed literature". The Wall Street Journal will print anything that sells papers.  It doesn't have to be true.  A real medical journal will require review by experts in the field before agreeing to publish an article.  So, when a story such as this comes out in the press before the medical journals, there is a very high probability that it will fail peer review. --  k a i n a w &trade; 13:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A more generous viewpoint would be that peer review takes a long time and they wanted to publish quickly and the peer reviewed version will follow later. I wouldn't be that generous though... --Tango (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * They didn't choose the WSJ. The case was presented at the Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections in February and a special meeting convened by the Foundation for AIDS Research in September.  The case was discussed again at a recent HIV conference and this time the mainstream noticed.  Dragons flight (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'd normally offer a similar answer to Kainaw's, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. Hütter and Thiel seem to have a respectable publication track record, and the mechanism they propose for this cure seems reasonable.  Bone marrow transplants have a high rate of morbidity and mortality, so this isn't a silver bullet treatment.  (This therapy is only worth the risk if the patient also needs treatment for leukemia.)  Donors carrying suitable mutations are relatively rare, meaning that even among patients who need a bone marrow transplant, a suitable donor will be difficult to find.
 * In other words, scientifically speaking, this story isn't that huge. It isn't going to directly help more than a very small fraction of HIV-positive individuals, and it operates by a mechanism that was already essentially known to work.  The mainstream media have picked it up because of the OMG they CURED teh AIDS1!!!! factor; it's roughly akin to the Scientists cure cancer stories that we see every couple of months, whenever someone has a promising result in an in vitro trial.  To summarize: these guys did cure an HIV-positive patient; it's pretty cool from a technical standpoint; the method is only applicable to a tiny subset of infected individuals; we've still got a long way to go for a generally-applicable cure; this proof-of-principle lends (further) credence to some gene-therapeutic approaches which are in the works. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of this, but it may be premature to say "these guys did cure an HIV-positive patient", because only time will tell. I recall when some thought nef-deleted virus would be a vaccine strain for HIV, until people infected with this strain of HIV progressed to AIDS.  I've given other reasons to take a deep breath before cheering too loudly here: Talk:AIDS.  It is an interesting report, no doubt, but "cure" should be used carefully.  --Scray (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Supposing it was possible to find a few uninfected bone marrow stems cell in an AIDS infected patient. Could these not be cultured without the need for a foreign donor, and then re-injected?Trevor Loughlin (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that will work for two reasons. First is the transplanted marrow from the article came from an HIV resistant patient. Second, I'm not sure if there is a method that can surely locate bone marrow with uncompromised cells. Maybe you could remove the marrow cells, treat them, then culture them... I dunno though. I've heard from someone that donating bone marrow feels like your soul is being sucked out. Can anyone corroborate that description?  152.16.15.23 (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Marrow donation really is not that bad for most donors, but isn't generally necessary now, anyway. Stem cells can be obtained by treating with factors like G-CSF then drawing blood, isolating the uncommon stem cells using antibodies like anti-CD34.  BTW, simple treatment of stem cells with antiretrovirals won't do the trick, because of HIV latency.  --Scray (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RNAi in flatworms
What species of flatworms have been used in RNAi studies? I know of S. mansoni, S. japonicum and F. hepatica. Does anyone know about monogenea or planaria being used in RNAi? Thanks Donek (talk) 13:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Isn't species an artificial distinction?
OK, I'm not exactly sure how best to phrase this question, but I'll do the best I can. Isn't species an artificial distinction? That is to say that evolution is constantly happening, that life is always evolving, and that one species doesn't magically evolving to a completely new species. Everything is in a state of transition and usually very slowly, like the hour hands on a clock. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure where you are going with this, but you might be interested in our species problem article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The clock is a very good example. If you imagine each tick of the second hand as a genetic mutation, then every movement of the minute hand might represent different strains of a species (e.g. MRSA) and, as in your example, every hour a new species is formed. Whether the distinction is artificial or natural depends upon whether the definition of species is shared characteristics between two organisms or the ability of two organisms to successfully reproduce, respectively (I think). Donek (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - "species" is an extremely arbitary distinction - and the precise point when two sets of gene-lines have split far enough to call them "different species" is horribly vague and certainly inconsistently used.


 * However, like a lot of things it's very convenient.


 * We know that there is no distinction between a Zebra and a Lion that's materially different than the distinction between this Lion over here - and that other identical-looking Lion over there...or that cockroach or that bacterium. The two lions, the zebra, the cockroach and the bacterium are all related back in history - they have a common ancestor - they are all (including the two lions) genetically different...it's just a matter of degree.


 * Even using genetic similarity is a bit tricky because there is more genetic similarity between a male human and a male chimpanzee than there is between a male human and a female human (a fact which explains a lot about interpersonal relationships!). But having to call everything from a bacterium to a bactrian by the same name for the sake of some kind of linguistic purity is simply not productive.  So we use this artificial distinction - in the full knowledge that it's arbitary and that there will be tricky 'corner cases' where the distinction is hard to nail down.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "species" is not arbitrary. It has a very specific meaning: Any animals that can procreate and produce fertile offspring are in the same species.  If mutations cause an offspring to be unable to procreate and produce fertile offspring, then it has mutated into a new species.  The problem is that people who do not comprehend the definition of species use it for whatever they want it to mean.  Then, a word with a specific meaning suddenly has dozens of possible meanings and nobody knows what anybody is talking about.  So, ignorant use of "species" may be arbitrary, but proper use is not. --  k a i n a w &trade; 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is not exactly true. There are actually very intense and ongoing debates within the scientific community as to the reality and definition of the species concept, all of which revolve on the inability of a simple linguistic construct to take into account the mind-boggling diversity in nature. Ability-to-interbreed seems to work sometimes but not always as a way of determining things. There are many examples that don't fit well into the above definition, in part because biology is, well, complicated. Darwin himself recognized that under his theory, "species" was to some extent necessarily an arbitrary marker of genetic differentiation—the lack of a fixity of species guarantees this fact. The "can it interbeed" is a useful heuristic for talking about species, but for those who are really dealing with the fuzzy borders between species, and for those engaged in the philosophy of biology, it is insufficient... --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The "problem" is when the interbreeding concept is applied to asexual or bacterial things. For animals, interbreeding is well-accepted as the primary indicator of species.  Difficulty identifying the species of a bacteria has no bearing on identification of the species of an animal.  Attempting to mix up and confuse the two is rather misleading.  For Darwin, he did not take the time to grab up two similar birds and see if they could breed.  He just assumed that since they were very similar, they probably can breed, and went from there.  Using Darwin's lack of time to perform experiments to claim that he didn't understand what an animal species was is also misleading. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Is this relation "being in the same species" transitive, though? If animal X and animal Y can interbreed successfully, and animal Y and animal Z can interbreed successfully, is it always and necessarily true that animals X and Z will be able to interbreed successfully? Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it is not transitive, and so does not give rise to well-defined equivalence classes (i.e. species). See ring species. Algebraist 16:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent question. I was about to ask that myself.  As a layman, my response would be no, otherwise evolution wouldn't progress.
 * Ring species are used as an example of demonstrating that species are not discrete. You cannot assume that because two different animals procreate they are in a unique species.  One of them may be in a species that the other doesn't belong to.  The inability to discretely map every animal to a unique species causes problems for people who need to put each animal in its own little box.  But, that is a problem for the person doing the classifications, not the animals. --  k a i n a w &trade; 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC) (Outdent) I'm the OP. If it helps, what I was referring to was species within a single branch of the evolutionary tree. So, I'm not necessarily talking about a frog versus a tiger, but rather all the previous versions of frogs and all the previous versions tigers. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't really affect anything. How do you know your separate species aren't the start of two branches? Dmcq (talk) 18:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are many attempts to draw trees that show how different organisms relate to one another. It is required as common homework and tests in biology (especially bioinformatics).  But, any respectable professor will explain that the trees are only for the benefit of those trying to do research on some specific evolutionary trait.  As explained above, an organism may bridge other species.  I've used geometry since I work in bioinformatics and the students have a lot of math background.  Consider the "species" of all shapes with all sides equal.  An equilateral triangle and square fit that species.  Now, consider the "species" of all shapes with four sides.  A rectangle and a square fit that species.  So, you have a square that bridges two species.  You can see that species overlap.  That happens with real organisms (not just abstract shapes).  Trying to divide up the species so there is no overlap will lead to many false assumptions and artificial distinctions. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the poster is actually commenting on a related but slighty different issue. Take a tiger.  It is descended from millions of other animals that we would call "tigers", and before that millions of other "cats", and before that other "mammals", and so on.  Within that continuous chain of descendancy we insert names for different species, however the gradiations are often gradual rather than abrupt so choosing when a cat becomes a tiger is rather arbitrary.  Dragons flight (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There are 3-D models that I've seen. They are rather useless in my opinion.  But, they show evolution over time and the speciation fades in - showing how a single species can evolve into multiple species.  It isn't supposed to be arbitrary though.  The term "mule" used to refer specifically to any offspring between two animals that was not fertile.  That indicated that there was the start of a separation of species since animals in the same species must have fertile offspring.  As evolution progresses, the two groups of animals may have DNA drift that causes procreation to fail.  So, as time progresses, there is supposed to be a point where a single species separates into two groups - with possible overlap. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then again, there are things like Ligers which are not necessarily impotent. A species can be defined based on biological capability of reproduction, but there are barriers other than biology to consider.  A saint bernard and a chihuahua may be the same species, but a wolf is different?  Behavior and ecology are the barriers between wolves and dogs, not anatomy.  The concept of a species is a useful tool, but there are lumpers and splitters and the idea that there is a single ironclad definition of the word is a gross oversimplification.  SDY (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

heat and static transfer through extension cables
i have an extension cable that when in use and it has not been fully extended it blows the socket it uses and i was also wandering about static electricity being in the extension cable if that also causes the problem? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kendo23 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An undamaged extension cable should have no appreciable external effects. If you've got a cable that is blowing fuses, tripping circuit breakers, accumulating static charge, getting hot, or doing anything else abnormal, stop using it.  Replacements are cheap. &mdash; Lomn 16:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * A coiled up extension cord can't shed heat as quickly as an extended one. Most extension cords that come wrapped up inside a reel of some kind either say in big letters that you can only pull such-and-such number of amps of current through it - or they tell you that the cord must be fully extended before it can be used safely.  So I'm guessing that you're trying to run something that needs far to much current (like a room heater or something) - or that your extension cord has to be unreeled before use.  There should be something written on the reel telling you what the restrictions are.  Failing that - it might be damaged and shorting out against the casing or something - if so, then as Lomn says...get it fixed or throw it away!  (It's definitely not static electricity by the way.) SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Lomn. A hot e-cord will allow fewer amps to flow than a cold one.  There appears to be a short circuit in the cord that allows a high current flow and "blows the socket" (trips the circuit breaker?).  Toss it!  "Replacements are cheap" (which may also be the problem hear).  Static is not the problem.  Saintrain (talk) 17:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen cords that specify different maximum currents for coiled and uncoiled use, so it could be a combination of the two. Whatever the instructions are, it's important to follow them (unless you are a qualified electrician and know when it's safe not to). --Tango (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's blowing the fuse or circuit breaker, it's not due to heat accumulation. There's probably a fault in the cord's internal insulation at some point along its length.  When the cord is coiled, the two conductors are brought into contact, causing a short circuit and blowing the fuse.  When the cord is extended, the two wires are held apart and everything appears to work.  (Until someone wiggles the cord, or steps on it, or picks it up, or...and brings the conductors together again.)  I concur with all the above comments &mdash; if an extension cord is behaving oddly, stop using it.  (It's possible that the cord could have been damaged by overloading it while it was coiled; the heat buildup could have melted some of the internal insulation, causing this intermittent fault.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being infected and sweating
When I have been close to somebody with a cold, for instance when my face got showered when a young child with a cold had a sneeze, I think it is good to sweat a bit to get rid of some of the virus. I checked common cold, transpiration, perspiration and sweat therapy, and didn't find anything, but the article on sauna said: "The skin of our bodies is in effect another eliminatory organ so even when other organs are compromised in chronic illnesses or contamination, the skin through sweating can rid the body of such chemicals and toxins." And this is basically my idea about why sweating would help to prevent a cold. Is this true or is this nonsense???

(I know that maybe strictly speaking some could call this asking for medical advice, but I disagree, because I don't ask if sweating is good for curing a cold, just about if the mechanism of sweating leads to getting rid of some of the virus, possibly helping in preventing getting a cold.) Lova Falk (talk) 16:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think an important issue here is a question of scope -- can we expect sweating to operate on a scale large enough to be useful? It's entirely plausible that some amount of virus is sweated out; that much is true.  But even if you sweat 1% of your body moisture (a level I would expect to be dangerously high), you'd also likely have sweated out just 1% of whatever virus concerns you (a level that can be dismissed as meaningless).  If a child sneezes on your face, the most efficacious response is to promptly wipe your face.  As for the sauna article, it is heavily referenced -- but it's not specifically referenced.  I'm quite skeptical of three paragraphs that drop 40 references at the very end with no indication as to what relevance any of them have to the material presented.  Long story short, I think it's nonsense. &mdash; Lomn 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is common for an active athlete to lose 2-3% of their water per hour to sweat. Dragons flight (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that sweating per se improves outcome. However fever has a beneficial effect in recovery from many infections. Axl ¤  [Talk]  23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a rule of thumb for you... If any process, product, or comprehensive lifestyle uses the word "toxin", it is total bullshit. Real, tested, curative processes are targeted at real chemical compounds made of real atoms, or real biological agents with real DNA and genetics and stuff like that.  Anything which supposedly rids your body of "toxins" is just snake oil.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the liver is not made of snake oil, and it could broadly be said to remove "toxins" as one of its functions. Pharmacokinetics might be of interest to anyone looking to clear "toxins" from the body, though the article on Wikipedia is pretty general and I've yet to see any good "layman's introduction" to the subject.  SDY (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The liver removes specific compounds and infectious agents from the body, which can be named and identified and given chemical formulas, and the mechanisms for their removal can be explained using chemistry and biology. If any advertisement for anything tells you it removes "toxins" from the body, but does not name those "toxins" it is bullshit.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your implication generally, IMHO you're stating the "BS" case too strongly. For instance, hemodialysis is frequently said to work (in part) by removing "toxins", the vast majority of which we cannot name.  We don't even know which are the most important in mediating uremia. --Scray (talk) 05:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (After edit conflict higher up in the queue) I'm not expert. However the mechanism you are describing looks highly unlikely for preventing an infection.  Cold viruses attack the Mucous membranes of your upper respiratory tract. There are no sweat glands in those.  So you'd either have to get rid of the virus before it gets into your respiratory tract, for which washing would be more effective than sweating it seems; or you'd have to wait till enough of the little blighters have multiplied to be present in your sweat. (At this point you'd likely be quite sick and even the ones you loose with the water you sweat wouldn't make that big a difference.)  What might work, though is that sweating is a "symptom" of a whole range of processes in your body.  Since sweating is the body's cooling system it is likely that your body temperature is increased, creating an inhospitable environment for the viruses.  If your body is cooling itself  by sweating then your respiration rate may also be increased, that should reduce the number of viruses per volume of air.  (Think hurricane vs. light breeze.)  More importantly blood flow throughout your body is probably higher. This helps getting components of your Immune system to the site where the viruses are trying to get a foothold.  If we are talking sauna, the higher air humidity also makes for an unfriendly environment for cold viruses.  It helps keep your mucous membranes moist and flush infectious agents into your acidic stomach.  The cells lining your mucous membranes are also "happier" in a moist environment and won't be as easy to attack as stressed cells.  To what extent the salt that gets excreted in sweat is also excreted in mucous secretions by association I don't know.  Saltwater is however more effective in nasal lavage than plain water. (see Osmotic pressure).  And just to boot when you sweat your feet are likely warm: cold feet cause the blood vessels in the nose to constrict, which makes the nose colder and reduces the blood circulation, inhibiting the body's immune response.   :-)Lisa4edit (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all! Next time I get close to a child with a cold, I'll wash my hands and face, and make sure to stay warm - but not by running or biking when it's cold outside.Lova Falk (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

searching for the name of a old device with large glass discs
im serching for the name of a device the has a serie of large glass discs that turn in opposite directions and generate sparks from static electricity, i saw it in a documentory about the victorian era  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.44.180 (talk) 18:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you looking for a Wimshurst machine? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

yes thats it, thanks , there is just one thing i cant figure out , im not sure if the charge in this machine is generated by the disc itself or metal fixed to it and if the type of material used influences the amount of electricity generated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.44.180 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The discs have to be an insulator and the metal affixed to it has to be conductive. The insulating quality or dielectric strength and breakdown voltage of the insulators as well as the geometry determine the maximum voltage and current produced for a given speed of rotation. The charges are produced by electrostatic induction in the wedges of tinfoil pasted on the rotating glass discs. a 1903 encyclopedia explains it in some detail and says the discs might be made out of rubber. A good machine could produce a 1 foot (30 cm) spark. The glass was likely to be varnished to reduce moisture on the surface which would drain off the charge.Edison (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

oxyfuel combustion engine( IC engine)
out of quriosity i am posting this question, what happens, what load is applied on the piston, how much is engine efficiency when; 1) the 78% of nitrogen in the air that is supplied to the combustion chamber is replaced by oxygen ie. there will be 100% oxygen plus fuel for combustion. 2) the 78% nitrogen is removed and there is only 21% oxygen and fule in the combustion chamber of the same size as in the above case. please answer with an equation to prove it. thanx in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharath.sgh (talk • contribs) 18:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Oxy-fuel, which while a short article, leads to several OTHER articles which may be helpful. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How does water put out a fire?
Is it through cooling or does it smother the fire? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.234.6.82 (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From our article on fire, "Fire extinguishing by the application of water acts by removing heat from the fuel faster than combustion generates it."  J kasd  00:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cooling, I believe. See Fire triangle. --Tango (talk) 00:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesnt the application of water all over the burning mass also starve the fuel of oxygen?--GreenSpigot (talk) 01:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If that were the case little children around the world would be suffocated as they played in water sprays. --Trieste (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I didnt say sprays of water. I meant a mass of water. Any way, a spray of water will reduce the available oxygen content around the fire wont it?--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Fire fighting says that both factors (cooling and asphyxiation) come into play. Rather than the water itself, it is the water vapour that reduces the supply of oxygen to the fire - so more of a sauna effect than a shower. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So, shouldnt the article on Fire state that fact?--GreenSpigot (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You should mention it on the Talk:Fire page - but they're going to want a reference to show that this is true. SteveBaker (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)