Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 October 2

= October 2 =

cancerous lump?
Hi, im 15 years old, and i recently found a lump on my left arm, near the tricep i guess, and i think i have a similar one on my right arm, my dad said its just muscle, but i dont think so, is it natural or cancerous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joejoe94 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are concerned, you and your parents should consult a doctor. Wikipedia does not provide medical advice. &mdash; Lomn 02:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The rain after earthquake
Did anyone notice this? Or is it just me, I remembered or notice it's almost always raining after the quake. Or maybe it's just a matter of geographical location or coincident or false observation. roscoe_x (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not quite what you're looking for, but we have articles on earthquake cloud and earthquake weather (and see also here. Those are phenomena said to presage the earthquake, though, not come after it. You'll note that our article asserts that "Geologists maintain that there is no connection between weather and earthquakes. " but it is uncited and, again, is talking about pre-earthquake effects. Matt Deres (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It rains every day there so there would be strange event if it was dry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible to shatter a toilet by alighting on it?
In Guinness a team of kung fu masters demolished a real house without tools so it's very probably humanly possible. Whether without injury I dunno, they could've just pulled it out and thrown it off the second floor (when the floor still existed). Could an amount of jumping-on force reasonable for a person merely wanting to get on (say, to change the lightbulb or close the upper window) break it and cause grave injury? Corner case of course, (i.e. temperature unfavorable, the dude is the heaviest person that has the athletic capability to want to do such a thing, he does this all the time for decades, and the workers who brought it up the stairs ages ago banged it pretty good) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your question reminded me of the Great John Toilet Company, but sadly, their site appears to be gone. Their products still seem to be available, and a google search will turn up pictures and brochures. One reason cited for making these XXL johns was just what you are talking about: safety. Presumably, a standard toilet might break under a very heavy person, if there was some kind of defect. And it's easy to imagine very nasty damage: split femoral arteries and the like.--Rallette (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, it'd be entirely reasonable for a person jumping up on a toilet to break cheap plastic hinges holding the seat together. It's then entirely reasonable that serious injury could result when the now-detached seat slides out from under someone.  It's not as dramatic as the porcelain suddenly shattering, but it's a lot more likely to be called "plausible" by the Mythbusters. &mdash; Lomn 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Corner case is a concept usually applied to more complex systems than a toilet but I understand what the OP is getting at. It would take a kung fu master to answer how best to shatter a toilet deliberately but the OP has described a feasible way of doing it without martial art. In the obviously unlikely event of a toilet shattering accidentally merely by someone standing on it, and that causing a serious injury, the cause of the breakage would become a legal question - who, if anyone, can be held negligent? We can't predict a legal outcome. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Our Dawn Eden article describes an incident where a toilet "collapsed", causing injury, but I can't find the original reference, so it's not clear if the shitter shattered. --Sean 15:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

i demolished a toilet with a firecracker Talk Shugoːː 17:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethical guidelines for biologists?
I'm currently doing research on the Tanager Expedition and I'm trying to get past the physical sickness and vomiting reflex I experience each time I read about the "sampling" of the species they encounter. Granted, this is 1923, but I'm curious about the ethical guidelines of scientific expeditions today in comparison to the ones conducted in the early 20th century. My question is this: If and when a biologist encounters a new species, or even a previously known species that is undergoing current study, what are the guidelines about killing that species in the wild to bring back to the laboratory? In other words, how does science approach the study of living organisms, while at the same time, acknowledging their right to exist in spite of our efforts to study them? Reading the notes of the primary biologist for Tanager, it seems like there were no ethical guidelines, and anything they encountered that was of any interest was immediately killed on the spot. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's clearly an awareness of the issue of ethics in field biology, and WP has content regarding ethics in conservation biology. There are efforts to raise awareness of this issue in the scientific literature and textbooks. Here's a very nice essay on the subject.  It's worth noting that "Science" is not a single organization, and scientists come from diverse cultural backgrounds, so it would be naive to suggest that they have a single, shared set of values or rules.  -- Scray (talk) 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think science is practiced differently around the world. My understanding is that scientific methodology is a shared value, so we should find a common procedure for studying captured organisms. So, what is it?  Catch and release?  Kill and dissect?  Study from afar and don't interfere?  It sounds like it depends on the situation rather than our values.  I doubt there are that many different scenarios so it should be easy to describe.  I'm just curious what they are and how they differ from those used in the past, or even if they do. Viriditas (talk) 11:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * see Whaling_in_Japan "Scientific research"--Digrpat (talk) 13:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Conservation is recognized as an important, actually "vital" is the appropriate adjective, issue today. The links Scray provided demonstrate this. The situation was different in 1923 in many ways: the diversity of species was less well known and the rate at which they were being lost due to human interaction was little known (and do we really know today?). It is only recently that the ethic of conserving biodiversity has been recognized internationally following advances in understanding of genetics, atmospheric pollution and the potential for discovering medicines in nature. At the time of the Tanager Expedition to Hawaii, not yet a US state but already the site of American political and military involvement for which the US would later apologise, Hawaii was with its many islands an ecological terra incognita. That gave the motivation for the expedition. It had some ethically laudable goals that included halting the extinction of local species by feral rabbits and investigating hitherto unknown species. Then as now, one has to discover a species before one can take specific steps to conserve it. That research usually requires obtaining "samples" in some way, dead or alive. We should not protest against this or this or doing warning: image that may upset this because these are the only ways to understand the natural world. The OP is clearly upset by this aspect of Biology and is curious about how the ethical issues are debated today. However the Ref. Desk is not meant to be a debating forum so if you need advice or opinions, it's better to ask elsewhere. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not upset by biology in and of itself nor am I trying to debate, but you seem to have reinforced my original point by saying "these are the only ways to understand the natural world". Obviously, such an absolutist statement can only be wrong.  While a tricorder is still science fiction, there may come a time when biologists of the 19th and 20th century are looked at in the same way we look at primitive societies who practiced human sacrifice to appease their Gods.  Surely for them, it was the "only" way. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your absolutist statement that an absolutist statement can only be wrong is wrong. Statements that use the present tense of "to be" are correct or otherwise at the time they are stated. You oppose my statement by posing a "there may come a time" speculation but that does not deny its present truth. It was once semantically correct to say "We must sacrifice to appease God(s)". That perception has changed just as mine is open to change. But that hasn't happened. Frankly, it is immature to insert a fictional tricorder gadget into discussion of real ethical issues. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the second response you've given that has nothing to do with my question. The first was when you outright dismissed and ignored my simple and direct question about ethical guidelines in the field today in comparison with those in the past by distracting away from it and bizarrely claiming that I was "upset" by biology and I was trying to start a debate.  Looking at my question above, there's no sign of that at all.  Meanwhile, you said that the only way we can understand the natural world is to kill and dissect, when clearly there is a lot to understand in the context of the Tanager Expedition, that involves merely observing wildlife.  You obviously did not take the time to even read the primary notes by the wildlife biologist that I was referring to in the first place, (Olson 1996) so you were offering an uninformed opinion.  We already have non-invasive ways of understanding the natural world, but they are not yet as portable as they could be, but are well on their way. (See also Goldstein & Pinshow, "Taking Physiology to the Field, 2002)  In other cases, wildlife biologists are carrying portable X-ray machines (MinXray) into the field.  So we already see alternatives in use. (Henen 2002)  In any case, Mr. 98 tried to answer my question without your distraction, so it is strange to see you appeal to a discussion of real ethical issues without ever addressing them. Viriditas (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It's of note, of course, that Gray didn't kill anyone to make his drawings. It makes him somewhat different than the frog bits. One can, of course, object to frog dissection on the grounds that when done by elementary school students, its educational import is rather low and could be easily simulated. It seems to be more a rite of passage than anything else. Which, depending on how you feel about killing frogs, may or may not be justified. (And just speaking historically, the Conservation movement was actually quite prominent in America in 1923 and had existed for quite some time by that point.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a wee bit tangential, but you might take a look at Gregg Mitman's Reel Nature: America's Romance with Wildlife on Film. One of the main narrative arcs, if I remember correctly, is how wildlife photography was initially developed as a way of documenting the hunting of big game (for science!) but over time, the actual killing of the game became frowned upon, and less invasive forms of observation were adapted and valued (hence the difference between Jane Goodall and, say, a primatologist of the 1920s). --Mr.98 (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that sounds exactly like what I was looking for here. Viriditas (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Particles from space time traveling thanks to special relativity...
I can not think of this to save my life, hopefully someone could help me out... What is the name of the particles that enter the earth's atmosphere due to solar flares and make it to the earths surface alive, even though they do not live long enough to make the journy from space to the surface of the earth. But what keeps them alive is that their timeline has slowed down due to special relativity.

Can anyone help me on this?

Thanks! Goatofmendes (talk) 13:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you thinking of muons, created by cosmic rays hitting atoms in the upper atmosphere? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Muon Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

YES! Thank You! Goatofmendes (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

acidity... how it changes
great scientists at the other end ... please help me on a small ... question.. ..can we have a plot of change of acidic character of an acid when we keep on adding water to it. if not .. then i would love to know the trend of acidity in above case. thankyou SCI-hunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
 * What is "the acidic character"? Do you mean the pKa of the acid itself, the pH of the solution, or...? DMacks (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You yourself can intuitively guess that "acidity" will decrease when you keep adding water to an "acid",ie, the substance will become less acidic. The rest depends on how you scale acidity.  Rkr 1991  (Wanna chat?) 13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks a lot for your quick attention ... what i actually want to know is :((pH)) of solution as we go on adding water h3o+concentration in acid goes on increasing.so pH of acid must decrease.but it is diluted.kindly elaborate with plot. thanks SCI-hunter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC).
 * Adding more H2O decreases the concentration of H3O+ in it. As you said, it's diluting the same amount of acid in a larger amount of solution. DMacks (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * pH gives some general rules but in particular cases something surprising may happen see Activity (chemistry) Dmcq (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A favorite exam question deals with the pH of a water solution with an H+ concentration of 10–7 M. What happens if it's diluted? DMacks (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

i think .. i got that .. water is diluting the same amount of acid as that required by the acid in a balanced chemical equation.and the rest of water remains idle.so amount(concentration) of h30+ in water goes on lessening with increasing amount of water.right?? one more misconception::can i say pH decreases for a while and then increases.because h3o+concentration must first increase untill equlibrium is reached and then its concentration decreases to increase pH.(le chatiliers principle of equlibrium.) SCI-hunter (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SCI-hunter (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A chemistry professor said it was common to try and trip up a grad student at oral exams by asking how much the pH of a very strong acid changed if it was diluted with an equal volume of water. (There was a standard rule of thumb change I do not recall). That was fine. Then they would ask how about if the result were diluted again with an equal volume of water? the nervous student might be so unfortunate as to repeat the previous answer in terms of numerical change in pH. In the extreme case, he would keep giving the same answer for each dilution, until he had agreed that a strong acid could change into a strong base by repeated dilution with water. Oops. Edison (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Human intelligence
Will prolonged ice age cause human intelligence to devolve? If a community could not operate any 'schools' say starting today for say the next 10 / 100 / 1000 / 10,000 .... years and most energies of adults are focused on survival, can we truly expect the children to be more intelligent or less? To me it seems like we will become less intelligent until the environmental conditions change and allow us back to have educational focus and less survival focus.

-- Srini Kasturi 2009/10/02 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.86.100.35 (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Intelligence increased in the past when there was no schools and there were ice ages. What makes you think that another ice age and no schools would reverse that? Dmcq (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We're in an ice age, by the way. Do you mean in a more general sense, would intelligence devolve in some sort of generalised apocalypse scenario? Vimescarrot (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he mean Glacial period, which we're not in at the moment. TastyCakes (talk) 17:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Intelligence" is such a poorly define concept that it is impossible to say. Knowledge would certainly decrease without education. --Tango (talk) 16:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Intelligence as measured by IQ tests would likely decrease, just as it has increased with modern education systems. People tend to view "IQ" as a innate, static property, but it really isn't. Evidence suggests that education and environment have an enormous effect on it. TastyCakes (talk) 17:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't negatively affect human intelligence in an evolutionary sense, or at least there's no obvious mechanism to me that would cause that. Even if their knowledge would suffer, I don't think "devolve" is the right word. Rckrone (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I can't see the genetics of intelligence changing. If civilisation completely fell and we lost (almost) all technology, then evolution might move us towards a genetic makeup better suited to the environment, but even that seems unlikely (there wasn't a great deal of evolutionary change during the last glacial period). If we maintain a decent level of technology, then I don't expect much evolution at all - we'll handle everything technologically, like we do now, so almost all selection pressure will be removed. So, nothing interesting for genetics - memetics on the other hand... --Tango (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think they might sometime soon? 72.58.74.34 (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They might. Wait and see. In the meantime, don't do anything. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Intelligence" is best defined as "the traits and abilities measured by intelligence tests." 10,000 years into an ice age, with no schools, people might not be able to read or write or solve math problems beyond basic arithmetic. How would intelligence be measured? Book learning might matter less than survival skills and interpersonal skills. (Bargh say "We killed 16 seals. There were 4 of us. Each should get 4 seals." "Huh, huh. Bargh stupid. He give Clargh 4 seals when Clargh didn't kill any in the hunt, just came along. Look Bargh step in hole in ice. Now I take his 4 seals. I smart." "Dargh figure out how to make good seal skin kayak. He smart, too."   "Fnargh get everyone to follow him as leader and lead  neighboring tribe into ambush. kill'em and take all their bear fat. He very smart."  "Gargh can take malted barley and hops and make yummy fizz drink. He smartest." Edison (talk) 00:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that there is a difference between "intellegence" and "education." Historically, Aboriginal peoples (and other visible minorities) were considered by Europeans as "unintellegent savages." However, in retrospect, Aboriginals and visible minorities are every bit as intellegent as Europeans although their intellegence may be a different kind (eg. "city smart" vs "wilderness smart;" there are different kinds of intellegence). The difference is education. I am probably "better educated" than many historical figures (as measured by access to formal academic education) but certainaly would not consider myself as smart as many of them (e.g. Plato, Michaelangelo, etc.). Another example of this would be my father who dropped out of school in grade 10. I am better educated than he is (having 3 university degrees including post-graduate) but when it comes to solving mechanical problems, I am as dumb as a stump in comparrison. So, in response to the original query, I would argue that we (as a species) would continue to be every bit as intellegent as we now are but would end up being less educated (due to lack of opportunity). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Architecture, High Ceilings (United States)
I wasn't sure if Science was the correct category or not...my question is: Why do rooms in buildings built prior to the 1920s/30s in the United States, particularly residential apartments, have higher ceilings than many modern ones? It would've made sense to prefer lower ceilings in that era, when heating technology was less effective. . .Thanks --68.175.44.30 (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why but a few ideas occur to me:
 * Your observation may be selection in that only the better apartments have survived.
 * High ceilings allowed better circulation of air and that's a good idea with a bad fire particularly if one can afford the fuel.
 * The kerosene lamps needed air and produced fumes and some soot which was better left on the high ceiling. Dmcq (talk) 17:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a definite answear, but I do know that the advent of electric lighting changed architecture. When the sun is high in the sky, you need a tall window for the light to reach deep into the room. Dmcq may also have a point in that upper-class buildings may have had higher ceilings and these are the ones that survive. I think I see this in the old upper and lower-class buildings in my city. The reason may be architectural style, light or simply more room for the chandeliers. EverGreg (talk) 18:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This reference bemoans the "disregard for...aesthetic dimension of a ceiling" compared with 100 years ago and concludes "Ceiling[s] in houses and apartments usually range from about eight feet to an expansive twelve feet high. Many New York apartments are prewar buildings with ceiling averaging nine feet six inches high; most newer buildings have lower ceilings. Ideally, the ceiling height should be in proportion to the size of the room. The larger the room, the higher the ceiling can be and still please the eye." Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What makes you think the heating technology was less effective? fire places work pretty well. Dauto (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fire places are esthetically pleasing, but wretched ways of heating a room. Freeze on one side while toasting on the other, with masses of hot air going up the chimney. Stoves beat them hands down. Edison (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many more people had domestics then too. Having a high ceiling would show your status difference. Dmcq (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it had more to do with staying cool in summer? Hot air rises - so a nice high ceiling allows heat to stay out of your way?  That's a guess though. SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, everyone! By the way I like your moving fractal images on your user page, Cuddlyable. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 21:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comment but now I fear so many will look that my images will wear out. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 00:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Not USA, but just to comment that the older part of the house where I was born and brought up had ceilings just over six feet high, and one doorway was only five foot seven high. It dated back to the early 1600s, but many houses in the area where I live have similar low ceilings. When an extension was built in 1835, they made the new doorways and ceilings much higher.    D b f i r s   01:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the rise both in standards of living (thus the price of labor) and in safety standards since the 1920s/30s has meant that building construction is more expensive in real terms than it was then. So builders may be looking more for ways to cut costs now, particularly in apartment buildings where any extra cost is replicated for each unit. But this is just my theory, I don't have a cite and could be quite wrong. --Anonymous, 04:12 UTC, October 3, 2009.


 * A reason given for high ceilings in 19th century homes in the U.S. was to let the hot air rise in the summer so it was cooler nearer the floor. I agree that homes in the 1600's, especially in the Northern U.S. had low ceilings, which kept heat down where it was useful. They generally seem mean and peasant-hovel-like. The larger a room was, the higher a ceiling needed to be so it seemed in proportion and gracious. A high ceiling also enclosed a larger air volume, so that if the room were packed with people at a party, it did not seem "close" or lacking in breathable air. Grand furniture, such as 4 poster beds with canopies or tall posts, or wardrobes 8 feet tall looked in proportion, and tall paintings could be hung on walls. Elaborate molding could grace the top of the walls. In a 19th century southern ancestral home the 10 foot ceiling in the most-used bedroom was lowered to 8 feet in the 20th century for easier heating, and an oil heater replaced the blocked off fireplace in that room. I see more than one reason for 10 foot or higher ceilings. Edison (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * To me a better solution than one floor with extremely high ceilings is two floors with low ceilings. The hot air will still rise up the stairs to the 2nd floor.  When it gets too hot upstairs during summer days, stay downstairs.  When it gets too cold downstairs during winter nights, stay upstairs. StuRat (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Spanking a baby when it's born
Is it true that they spank a baby when it's born? If so, what is the purpose of this? ScienceApe (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Whom do you mean by "they"? I'm sure there are many cultural and regional factors in this.  Intelligent  sium  17:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The doctor or the nurse. ScienceApe (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No it's not true. The misconception is derived from the fact that a small number of infants seem to be slow to take their first air breaths, and it is difficult for the attendant adults to restrain themselves from administering some form of tactile stimulation. However, actual spanking is not what is done. alteripse (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure this is an old fashioned thing that has survived in movies and television because it makes for good story-telling short-hand. (The entire birth can be presented to the audience as a light slap and a loud cry.) APL (talk) 18:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article Midwife notes that in ancient Rome a midwife "inspected the newborn for congenital deformities and testing[sic] its cry to hear whether or not it was robust and hearty." Her method of testing its cry is not specified. Those who promote Unassisted childbirth have produced videos of their deliveries where spanking the infant is usually unnecessary. (The boy in the second video typically takes his time to arrive but is vociferous enough once he does.) Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What they actually do in most parts of the world is some variation on the Apgar test. There is a whole procedure associated with this which assesses how the baby is coping and whether medical intervention is needed.  They do test for reflexes (typically by stimulating the babies feet) - and they expect to hear some sort of a cry when they do that - or the baby doesn't score a point for that.  Read the article - it explains it pretty well. SteveBaker (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * APL is correct, it's a fiction used by screenwriters. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But I can still put on diapers and ask my girlfriend to spank me, can't I ? StuRat (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Glycerol Surface Tension
What is the surface tension of the mixture between glycerol and water at a ratio of 1:1 (by volume) at room temperature? Thank you, 128.59.151.224 (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This has the value for $34
 * or, p81 gives 69mN/m for 68% (w/w) glycerol water which is ~54%  ~64% by vol.
 * There's a table here p139 table 6.2.7 from which you could extrapolate a value.83.100.251.196 (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The speed of light vs. special relativity
Quick silly question hopfully some one can answer for me... If your in a car, traveling at the speed of light, then you turn on the headlights...what happens? Does the light still project due to the velocity already being at the speed of light, then the light particles just travel at double the speed? 74.218.50.226 (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So someone will point out that it is not possible for objects with nonzero rest mass (presumably this applies to your car) to travel at the speed of light, because it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate them to that speed.
 * That's true, but shouldn't stop us from examining your question; Einstein thought about just such questions, and they helped lead him to the special theory.
 * One answer is that, for an object (however that word be interpreted) traveling at the speed of light, the Lorentz contraction of time goes all the way to zero. So you don't have time to turn on the switch.  This is how it was originally determined that neutrinos have nonzero rest mass.  If they had zero rest mass, they would have to travel at the speed of light.  But then there would be no way for them to switch between electron, muon, and tau neutrinos, because there would be no time for that to happen in.  But we know this switching happens (because there are too few observed electron neutrinos from the Sun). --Trovatore (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true about neutrino oscillation; I think it's only necessary that the masses not be all the same. The observed oscillation implies that there are three different masses, but one of the three could still be zero, in principle. -- BenRG (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's correct. If they were massless they would get from the sun to our detectors in zero proper time (to the extent proper time is even defined in that case), so there would be no time for them to oscillate. I guess it's possible that one or both or the flavours the sun doesn't emit could be massless, but then I would expect we would detect almost all them since once a neutrino became that flavour it would be stuck there, and that isn't what we see. --Tango (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The e, mu and tau neutrinos don't have well-defined masses, zero or nonzero. There are three definite neutrino masses, but they are masses of mixtures of the three neutrino flavors. Conversely, each flavor of neutrino is a mixture of all three mass eigenstates. As far as I know it doesn't matter if one of the eigenvalues is zero. A zero-mass neutrino won't oscillate, but neither will a neutrino of any other definite mass. -- BenRG (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you can't travel AT the speed of light - only a little below it. But let's suppose you're travelling at 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the speed of light - is that OK?   Well, the weird thing about light - and the entire reason we have their weird relativity stuff - is because when you're travelling at that ungodly speed and you turn on your headlights - the light shoots off away from you at EXACTLY the speed of light.  In fact - you can't really tell that you're moving at all.  Now - there is a problem with that - which is if someone is watching you (flagrently going WAY over the speed limit!) you seem to be moving at ALMOST the speed of light - and the beams from your headlights are travelling only just a fraction faster.  That's odd because you seem to think the light is racing away very quickly.   What's really going on is that time has compressed for you.  SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC) Your car can't go that fast, so let's say instead that it's going 1% of the speed of light. You shoot a bullet out the front window at 2000 feet per second.  From your perspective, the bullet is moving away from you at 2000fps.  From someone "standing still" as you whiz by at 1%c, the bullet is going 1%c + 2000fps -- faster!  Now, you turn on the headlights.  From your perspective, the light shoots away from you ... at the speed of light, of course.  From the stationary observer's perspective, the light from your headlights is going ... the speed of light!  Sorry, I know it doesn't make sense, and it seems like it should be going 1.01c, but the speed of light is constant in all reference frames.  --Sean 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

These all do make sense to me and thanks for the answers...one last quick question for all of you physicsheads 8') Sorry again if these questions seem silly, but I love physics...but I think I'm missing half of my brain... Why is it that light can only travel at the speed of light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.218.50.226 (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see our Speed of light article, which probably explains in more detail than anyone at the Refdesk will enter into. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there really is a "why", it's just the way it is. It falls out of the mathematics without too much effort. --Tango (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be fairer to say that it is the mathematics that has been built up to conform with that experimentally observed fact ? Abecedare (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An "enlightening" discussion that answers a question taken straight from a Steven Wright joke, and which I also wondered about when I first heard it years ago. The second question, about why the speed of light is what it is, I once heard posed differently: "When God created the universe, and when it came to setting the speed of light, did He have any choice?" To put it another way, what is it about the universe that compels light to travel at the speed it does? Maybe if that could be determined, it could answer a lot of other questions about the nature of the universe. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:33, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Steven Wright invented the headlight question; it has a long history. -- BenRG (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't remember a term... (Biology)
Does anyone possibly know what the term is for the effects an environment has on an organism? My mind has gone blank. --Glaesisvellir (talk) 21:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Many different factors can occur depending on the situation. For example, when I am at my Mother-in-Law's house, the major effect on me is stress. 68.245.48.172 (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant in general. The general term for how an organism's environment effects it's behavior. --Glaesisvellir (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Tropism? --Sean 23:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not tropism. I mean the general effects that an environment would have on an organism. i.e. why twins can grow up with different personalities. --Glaesisvellir (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The twin example makes me wonder if you mean "nurture", though that's more pseudophilosophic than biological. - Nunh-huh 03:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relevant article for Nunh-huh's suggestion: Nature versus nurture. If the term you're looking for isn't used in the article, I doubt it is in common use. --NorwegianBluetalk 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Habituation?--TammyMoet (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Acclimation - for example the changes that occur when the environment changes in the short term or Adaptation - longer term evolutionary changes in response to the environment? Smartse (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually the standard term for the effects that environment has on an organism is "environment". Sort of a trick question, not that I think it was intended that way.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)