Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2010 August 14

= August 14 =

Will scars ever be possible to remove/are they possible to remove?
Not seeking medical advice, and already looked up the wikipedia article on scars but it seems outdated. I was captivated by this story on the Extra-Cellular Matrix and how it helped regrow a man's finger with-out scar tissue.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.85.15.164 (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed the OP's details about their scars. Sorry, I know you didn't mean to ask for medical advice, but we cannot comment on your specific case, and I don't want strangers on the Internet giving you false information and speculation about your scars when only a medical professional's word is accurate.--el Aprel (facta-facienda) 18:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per our article on scars, the American Association of Dermatology notes that no scar can be completely removed, though many can be considerably reduced. We cannot say whether or not perfect removal will someday be possible. &mdash; Lomn 02:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article about Extracellular matrix. The OP does not identify which "this story" was but here is the BBC report (with video) of the finger recovery. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * See for an old article about Renovo plc, one of many companies trying to reduce the activity that creates scars.  Bear in mind that humans have an especially strong pathway (TGF-beta) to force scars versus forcing healing, for reasons not entirely understood. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Drug prices
What is the single most expensive drug per pill or shot in the US? What drug has the highest use cost per year in the US? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * From our article Eculizumab (trade name Soliris): According to Forbes magazine, Soliris, at $409,500 a year, is the world's single most expensive drug. --NorwegianBluetalk 11:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

AIDS Question
How long can someone live who is on medication on average that has HIV that has developed into AIDS? The AIDS talks about how long if you ARE NOT getting treatment, but how long if you are? Also, are people who have HIV that has advanced to AIDS usually in the hospital? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.33.234 (talk) 05:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at our article on AIDS? It says there that 'HAART is thought to increase survival time by between 4 and 12 years'. HAART is the treatment you are talking about. I can't answer your second question, I'm afraid.--HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 09:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Right, but I believe it is talking about going from HIV to AIDS. Then it goes to say that on average when someone who is untreated and has AIDS will live about 9.2 months. So I don't believe the article answers my question, but I could be wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.30.156 (talk) 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I recall the article saying the average survival length is about 10 years. However people who have AIDS generally don't die from it, rather they die from pneumonia or brain inflammation or cancer etc. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The nature of AIDS (which is to greatly diminish the immune system) means that sufferers die from other direct causes (like pneumonia) - but the root of the problem is the loss of their immune system. If someone is killed in a car crash, the actual cause may be that their heart stopped beating - but it's still the car crash that is to blame.  Sure, people who have AIDS sometimes die of pneumonia - but they almost certainly wouldn't have gotten that disease if they didn't have AIDS in the first place. SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Sorry. I interpreted that section wrong. My belief (Or at least what my PSHE teacher always told us at school), is that AIDS is when your immune system has been completely destroyed by HIV: i.e. you literally have no way of fighting off infections. I would therefore assume that if you want to survive as long as you can with AIDS, you need to be in as sterile an environment as possible: like a hospital (or something like the Bubble Boy lived in). . So I would guess, if you had full-blown AIDS, you would have to stay in a hospital, unless you wanted to die from any of the hundreds of minor infections our immune system deals with without us even noticing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.250.168 (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)  Oops, that was me. I forgot to sign in, and sign my post! --HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 09:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the "bubble boy" approach would perhaps give patients a better chance of survival - but it's pretty impractical and not a pleasant way to spend what time people have remaining to them. But hospitals are full of people with diseases - and they are also places were drug-resistant diseases are most often to be found.  If you have no immune system - then antibiotics are very important and drug-resistant diseases are a potential death-sentence.  So keeping AIDS patients in hospital is also a really bad idea - at least while they don't have any serious infections.  Also, it's not the case that your entire immune system is gone the instant you have AIDS, it's a progressive thing - I believe the formal definition of someone "having AIDS" is when the HIV virus has reduced their CD4+ T cell count to fewer than 200 cells per microliter (µL) of blood.  At that point, the remaining T cells are still working to kill off invaders...but just not as effectively as in a normal person. SteveBaker (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you have a compromised immune system you want to stay as far away from hospitals as you can, while still receiving the best medical treatment you can! There was a big shift in treatment of cystic fibrosis some years ago, for example, when people realised it was a really bad idea to have children with CF meet up for camp-style holidays every year, and get treated in shared CF wards. Whoops. 86.164.66.83 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * AIDS is a disease caused by HIV and defined using specific criteria developed by the U.S.A. CDC and various health agencies around the world. By current convention, once someone is diagnosed with AIDS, this diagnosis is not removed even if their condition (including CD4+ T cell count) improves.  In part, this is a recognition that it's clear that not all of the immune system damage is reversed once someone has reached that stage and then improved; hence, clinicians often keep track of the nadir CD4 count.  Nonetheless, someone with AIDS who is receiving combination antiretroviral therapy, has recovered their absolute CD4 count above 200 cells/mm3, and has an HIV RNA level below 50 copies/mL has an excellent prognosis as long as they continue to take and tolerate their medication well.  Because effective combination antiretroviral therapy only became available in ~1998, we only have a little more than 10 years' experience, so any prognostication beyond 10 years involves extrapolation.  Most experts anticipate that people receiving effective treatment for HIV can live many decades.  I know people who had AIDS in the 1990s who are now working and feeling fine, except that they have to take medication every day without fail and they are having complications of aging (diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer) much like the rest of us (though perhaps at higher rates, e.g. ).  -- Scray (talk) 05:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. In response to the last part of the original question: most people with AIDS are not housed in hospital, regardless of geography or wealth. Most conditions associated with AIDS can be managed in the clinic until they reach the most severe stages; many are diagnosed and treatment is initiated during a hospitalization.  -- Scray (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dwarf wheat
What is dwarf wheat? They were talking about it on TV and said that is was a very important invention, but there is no article or redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.203.43 (talk) 06:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A simple internet search should find things like Norman Borlaug, &  which should mostly answer your question. I'm doubtful this merits a seperate article so I've redirected it to wheat which also already contains some info on dwarfing, feel free to add more with references as appropriate Nil Einne (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Bruegal's The Harvesters shows that wheat used to be nearly as tall as people. Some typical wheat I saw growing in a field in the UK recently was somewhat over a foot high. In past decades I recall seeing wheat about half this height, but have not seen any of that in recent years. Presumably modern wheat is dwarf wheat. 92.28.251.219 (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Phase Diagram Topology
Is there a finite set of phase diagram topologies? Are there any invariant properties of all phase diagrams? For example, are there any substances completely missing basic phases? Do they ever demonstrate fundamentally different phase layouts? - Craig Pemberton 07:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are certainly substances that break down chemically when heated and that prevents the existence of a liquid and/or vapor phase. I'm not sure if that is the kind of thing that you had in mind though.  Dragons flight (talk) 08:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So I guess some phase diagrams will be truncated. Of the states that "remain", can we still observe a consistent pattern or set of patterns? - Craig Pemberton 08:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Helium has a unique phase diagram, in that there is no triple point and two liquid phases. Many susbtances display a variety of solid phases and there's no consistent pattern between these. But the generic phase diagram shown in the figure works for the vast majority of substances. Physchim62 (talk) 08:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the phase diagram for Helium, it seems like you could achieve the same topology by drawing lines into the area of negative temperature and pressure. It's like Helium's triple point has fallen off the chart. Are there other exceptions of this nature? Are there other kinds of exceptions? 24.206.78.155 (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Helium is also unique in having two distinct liquid phases, which is what "causes" the triple point to "fall off the chart" (not that negative pressure has any understood physical meaning, but to take your topological analogy). Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are general patterns of adjacency. In almost all cases (i.e., I can think of a few but only very few exceptions), at a given temperature, decreasing pressure goes from solid (possibly through several different ones) to liquid to gas, assuming each of those states exists at that T. Likewise, at a given pressure, increasing temperature goes from solid(s) to liquid to gas, assuming each exists there. That's just like saying "a solid melts when you cross its melting-point temperature" and similar general ideas of phase transitions. Well, except water and a few others whose volume-change at freezing is reversed. And some things likely have both a meta-stable solid (or maybe technically "glass"?) phase with low melting point and a highly crystalline solid phase with a high melting point. DMacks (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What other exceptions are you thinking of? I am also wondering if the line of sublimation always begins exactly at the origin of the diagram. - Craig Pemberton 09:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming the lines are drawn as equilibrium lines (as is conventional for phase diagrams), then no, the line of sublimation does not always begin absolutely at the origin. To draw it like that is really just laziness, but it does also indicate that, for most substances, we have very little idea o phase transitions at very low temperatures and very low pressures. Physchim62 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the set of possible phase diagrams is finite, but it may be pretty large. Consider for example the full phase diagram of water, as illustrated in this image. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're going to include all solid phases, then I would say that the number of topologies is countably infinite (as is the number of possible chemical substances). If you limit yourself to pure substances and lump all crystalline phases together as "solid", then I believe that there are only a few known types of phase diagrams, and plenty of theory to explain why. Physchim62 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's ignore any distinctions between the various forms of solids for any one material and just try to establish clarity for the basics right now. What are these few types of phase diagrams, and what is the theory which informs them? 66.112.225.248 (talk) 07:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

isn't science a religion?
Let's take one simple thing - the paradox. Obviously, scientists strongly believe that the actual, physical Universe cannot evince any paradox. Any "paradox" is in the mind of the weak, inept understander, who must change his mind about what he had thought about the Universe. But why do they believe this? They have a definition of the paradox, but believe strongly, I would say religiously, that the Universe can contain none. Granted it is a negative religious belief, different from believing in the existence of something. But isn't the belief of science in the non-existence of paradox just as religiously strong? 84.153.210.148 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The difference between science and religion is that the latter requires some sort of faith in something untenable, whereas the former requires evidence. I'm sure some philosopher will correct me, but that's always how I've defined the distinction. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 10:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, science is built on a constantly growing base of evidence, knowledge and information. For most religions, the evidence is fixed and unchanging, and unlikely to be acceptable to modern science. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * neither of you addressed my specific point: scientists' views of paradox in the Universe. Namely, they take it on faith that there can be none, and any theory that would show one must be (ipso facto) flawed. How is this faith in the absence of paradox not religious? 84.153.210.148 (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that (all?) scientists think there can be no paradox? --VanBurenen (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * VanBurenen asks a good question. If unambiguous and repeatable experimental evidence of a "paradox" (whatever you mean by that term) is produced then science has to accept the reality of that evidence. Scientists then look for a new or extended theory that can accommodate and explain the new experimental evidence without contradicting other known facts. The results of relativity and quantum mechanics, were, at one time, regarded as "paradoxical" because they did not fit into the previously accepted theories of classical physics. "Paradoxes" such as the ultraviolet catastrophe, the photoelectric effect and the Michelson–Morley experiment were triggers for the development of new scientific theories. All science is based on the assumption that the physical world obeys consistent laws, but I don't think that is the same as "faith in the absence of paradox". Gandalf61 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, let's break this into two pieces:
 * 1. Does science have preconceived notions? (Is the lack of paradoxes in nature just an assumption?)
 * 2. Does having preconceived notions make something a religion?
 * As for #1 — obviously yes. The paradox example might not be a good one because arguably that is just a question of logic. But in any case there are many others. There are lots of deep-seated philosophical views that scientists have that they don't question and don't have any evidence for other than it makes sense. These are best seen in retrospect, when we look at scientists in the past, who make gigantic assumptions that we now think look quite odd, even though they were very smart people. Scientists are, of course, human, and it is very hard to see the philosophical assumptions that underlie one's whole life and profession, much less one's general society. A key point, though, is that the really brilliant and cherished scientists are the ones who can pull the rug out of such assumptions. Einstein is an icon because he was able to point, in a very specific way, at major assumptions about the nature of "time" and "space" and "measurement" that were being taken for granted by other scientists of his day, and show how they were not only wrong, but that with a more philosophically grounded approach, one actually ended up with a totally different physical theory, one that proved to resolve a number of problems with the previous theory. That's one of the nice things about science — it actually values (in the long run, anyway) being shown where its assumptions are trash.
 * As for #2 — I don't think so. What makes religion "religion" is not that there are some things which are not regularly questioned, that there are preconceived notions. Religions are a bit more complicated than that, a bit deeper than that. They are not just "things you don't question." (It is not a "religion" that I, say, am clueless or possibly wrong about what happens to the trash that I put out on the curb. It is not a "religion" that I think it looks better when I comb my hair than when I don't.)
 * Now, whether science has "religious" qualities (like faith, dogma, etc.) is an entirely valid question, but this isn't really the approach that will get you any good answers on that front, I don't think. In any case, my personal opinion is that while pointing to similarities between science and religion is a useful enterprise — it gets those of us who are so smug about our supposed greater connection to truth to come down a notch or two and admit that indeed, human knowledge is flawed — it does obscure some pretty important differences between scientific practices and religious practices, between scientific knowledge and religious knowledge. There is some overlap, to be sure, especially historically — but the really important aspects about both science and religious lie elsewhere, in my opinion. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another example could be found in the development of quantum mechanics, which defied all sort of regular logical precepts. In QM, things often happen without a reason; information can simply not exist sometimes where you would expect it to; time is a pretty complicated thing; things can sometimes be two things at once, etc. The fact that many of these discoveries violated all conventional, macroscopic logic, certainly did make them hard sells. But in the long run these kinds of "weird", "illogical" explanations actually worked out better than the "classical, logical" approach. Does the fact that people believed that the universe acted consistently causally, or that all information was theoretically knowable, make physics before QM a religion? Does the fact that they believe the opposite now make it a religion? It's the wrong question to ask, in the end. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There are lots of things that scientists "take on faith", as you say. Most basically, that observations and experimentation can lead to accurate descriptions of the universe. If this were not true, then there would be no point in doing science (or theology, or pretty much any intellectual activity). Why should this be described as religious? Just because a belief is "religiously strong" doesn't mean it is a religious belief. I believe about as strongly as possible that Barack Obama is president of the USA, but that's not a religious belief. Staecker (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is in the definition of the word "paradox". It is by definition something that cannot be - something which is simultaneously both true and not true. The word implies something that cannot possibly be.  If the word "paradox" meant "something difficult which can still be the truth" then we'd just have to invent a new word to mean "something self-contradictory that cannot be".


 * So this is not a case of scientists not being prepared to accept the possibility of there being actual, real world paradoxes - it's that when someone thinks they have found a paradox, we know that cannot (by the very definition of that word) be the case - so we have to look to see whether they are using the word incorrectly to describe something which can really be accepted as possible - or whether there was something they didn't understand that means that this wasn't really a paradox at all - or whether the laws of physics or some part of mathematics are making something seem paradoxical because those laws are incorrect in some way.


 * The latter situation is very interesting to science because it leads us to find errors in our laws - which is always an exciting and interesting thing! So when Gödel found a way to make a mathematical statement akin to the English phrase "This sentence is false." - this seeming paradox lead him to discover Gödel's incompleteness theorems that proves that there are statements in mathematics that cannot be proven to be either true or false (they aren't paradoxes though - they are things we can't discover the truth of - not things that are both true and false at the same time).


 * Accepting that something is a paradox is a typical religious reaction to a flaw in their belief system (eg: "Can God create an object so heavy that he cannot lift it?") - which is to try to bury the consequences and say "This is something mankind was not meant to know" or some similar bullshit. (Check out Omnipotence_paradox for some of the pathetic efforts to resolve this issue.)


 * A scientist has to find an explanation to discover why this is not, in fact, a paradox. So we might say "Well, the assumption that there exists a being that has absolutely no limits whatever is undoubtedly a paradox.  So there must (by definition) be something wrong with our assumptions here.  Either there is no such being - or the being is truly limited in what he can lift or in the maximum weight of object that he can create - or he lacks "free will" and that actively prevents him from choosing to create unliftable things - or to choose to lift things he previously created as unliftable"...and so on.  A scientist might then go on to try to investigate which of those things is true (and in this case fail because there is an unfalsifiable hypothesis here).


 * But we are forced to deduce that either there is no God or God has at least one fundamental limitation that he cannot breach. Religions will accept neither of these possibilities - so they are forced into fluffy B.S answers like "accepting a paradox", which is about as reasonable as "Proving a falsehood" or saying that 1=0.  You can't truly "accept a paradox" because the very meaning of the term is that this is something that cannot be accepted.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if anyone'll see this, buried in the middle of this huge argument, but I have to object again to this characterization of the incompleteness theorems. The Gödel sentence of a foundationally relevant theory (say PA or ZFC) is not a "thing we cannot discover the truth of".  The Gödel sentence of a consistent theory is true.  It just can't be formally proved in that theory.  But if you believe the theory is consistent (which presumably you do, or you wouldn't be using it foundationally), you must ipso facto believe that its Gödel sentence is true. --Trovatore (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No. One can indeed "accept a paradox" (it's not beyond the capability of the brain to simultaneousy treat contradictory propositions as true). People quite routinely do. The result is normally some form of cognitive dissonance. The Rhymesmith (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, you can store the concept in your head - I'm thinking "1=0" right now - and so far, no major organs have exploded - but that doesn't mean it's true. If I can find a way to remove the paradox - then that's by far the best answer.  There really aren't any solid paradoxes that can't be resolved in some satisfactory manner if we choose to open our eyes and reason our way through them. SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a small difference: Science is the belief in the exstence of an (as of yet unknown) objective truth that you can then try to find using sound strategies (Occam's Razor and taking falsifiability of theories serious etc. etc.), while religion is based on the acceptance of dogmas that are most likely false. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This has already been well responded to, but let me add one more thing, in response to: Obviously, scientists strongly believe that the actual, physical Universe cannot evince any paradox. It's not obvious to me that one can say anything about scientists in general. I am friends with some scientists who believe all kinds of wacky things. And there are plenty of scientists who are also very religious--in the "spiritual" or "mystical" sense. There's no reason why a scientist can't believe the universe is fundamentally paradoxical at some level. Scientists are people. Their lives involve more than just doing science. Pfly (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The only things integral to science that can even be close to being called a religion are materialism, Occam's Razor and current paradigms. Also look at dogma, spiritual dimension and quantum paradox. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I just want to add that I am truly tired of this continuous science/religion squabble. I know a lot of scientists and a lot of religious people, and it's clear to me that thoughtful people in both camps are all very interested in understanding the true nature of the world. They are interested in different aspects, of course - scientists are focused on the material world, while theologians are much more interested in the characterization of human existence - but for the most part they are complementary rather than opposed. This entire squabble is the result of zealots on both sides of the fence who are worried that the other side is trying to uproot their ontology. yeeee.... -- Ludwigs 2 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be much better if we could "just get along" - but there are serious issues out there that mankind has to face which puts science and religion at opposite ends of important debates. When preachers start telling their congregations that (to pick an example) global warming isn't true - or if they to work to prevent the teaching of evolution, (preferring intelligent design) - then there is guaranteed to be conflict.  So we are approaching a point where it is not simply possible to sweep the conflict under the rug and hope it'll go away.  Sure, there are a few scientists who somehow manage to juggle both ideas in their heads at once - and there are plenty of religions who don't try to deny solidly proven scientific fact in order to promote their dogma - but those areas of overlap and tolerance are not enough.  What flat out doesn't work is to say that we shouldn't discuss it because it upsets people.  I'm sorry that you're "tired of it" - but that won't make the actual real issues magically go away.SteveBaker (talk) 00:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to make the issues go way, I want to make the zealots go away. There are no real points of conflict to speak of; there are only a small population of religious advocates and a small population of scientism advocates shouting across each other about topics neither group understands properly.  The division here is not between science and religion.  the division is between people who use reason and people who don't, and the problem is that the people who don't use reason are inclined to be loud and obnoxious.  -- Ludwigs 2  22:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that a few things have been sort of implicitly hinted at above. Objectivism is not a prerequisite for science.  In fact, empirical skepticism is diametrically opposed to objectivism - that is to say, a scientist may choose to believe philosophically that (A). there is an objective truth in the world, and that the scientific method, applied to parse through observed data, is the best method to discern that objective truth; or (B). there is no objective truth, and the only relevant reality is that which we observe via experimental method and observation, so we construct a scientific method to "float" on this sea of observations to help us make sense of it.  These are totally different fundamental world-views - yet both are capable of sustaining the same scientific methodology and stringent experimental validation to discern and describe a "reality" based on experiment.
 * Furthermore, I think the assumption that "paradox does not exist" is weakly-defined. If I understand the OP's insinuation, what they mean to say is that "scientists must accept on faith that the universe is consistent and predictable." This is not a requisite for using the scientific method to make sense of the universe.  This is a particular world-view, and it happens to be the more effective world-view (because, to date, we have never observed any serious inconsistencies with our universe - gravity hasn't shut off; the Earth hasn't stopped spinning; and so on).  One can make a serious and legitimate argument that there is a "faith-based" assumption about this consistency.  Most scientists accept "on faith" that the laws they discover today will continue to be valid tomorrow.  Most scientists would probably clarify that if the laws changed from day to day, the universe would be "paradoxical" - and then they would note that they do not seem to observe that strange behavior, and therefore conclude that it is not the case.  Now, if all this is said, and we concede the point that a belief in a consistent and predictable universe is a belief, and not a fact, all is not lost - we don't need to start publishing flying spaghetti monster experiments in Nature just yet - because the scientific method has one more tool: Occam's razor.  Not all "faith-based" beliefs are equally improbable.  A belief that the universe is consistent is intrinsically simpler than a belief that the universe changes from day to day.  (There's nothing to explain if nothing changed!)  And scientists typically prefer simple explanations.  If every day, the parameters for the laws of gravitation changed, we'd have a lot of figuring-out to do, in order to deduce a reason and characterize the ways that these laws changed.  So, while consistency is impossible to prove, (arguably, it must be accepted on faith), it's still the better explanation for the universe than inconsistency.
 * To go even deeper in to the realm of the philosophical, there is one last detail of the scientific method that is also accepted "on faith": causality. This is the "assumption" that "things affect other things."  If we want to dive deep into the humanities, there have been discussions about causality dating back to at least Aristotle's primum movens discussions; and for obvious reasons, this issue has been corresponded to a religious context by theologians (though originally, Aristotle's discussion had absolutely nothing to do with god, a god, or any sort of deity - it was purely a secular philosophical question about cause and effect).  But there is an assumption in the scientific method that cause is related to effect.  This is such a stupidly simple assumption that it takes a very large amount of psychodelic ... thinking... to try and break it.  It is very hard to conceive of a universe where cause does not relate to effect; but it is exactly this principle that we can never prove exists, and we must rely on entirely, in order to make the scientific method work.  The scientific method uses controlled experiment, with the assumption that repeated experiments will behave consistently, in order to reduce and simplify explanations of cause-and-effect.  But if there is no relationship - if we live in a purely random and chaotic world, where particles do not interact and every state of energy and matter in the universe is completely uncausally related to any previous or future state, ... the scientific method has nothing to show or deduce.  If we break causality, then consistency is irrelevant.
 * So, yes, there are some fundamental, deep assumptions in the scientific method: scientists believe that the universe is consistent in the ways that things cause effects. These are pretty solid, easy-to-accept assumptions: I challenge you to come up with any reasonable philosophy that does not make these assumptions.  They are such reasonable, simple, and fundamental assumptions: Things exist; they affect other things; and we can explain how by observing them carefully.  With those very simple assumptions, you start running and end up with all of science as we know it today.  These assumptions are not sufficient to qualify scientific thought as a "religion." Nimur (talk) 06:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On causality, it is of note that at various times, the notion of what causality even means — precisely — or if it holds at all has actually been perfectly within the realm of scientific research. Modern physics is full of redefinitions and even occasional abandonment of causality in favor of statistical explanations. All of this is just pointed out to illustrate that the system is quite, quite flexible — it can question its own underpinnings quite readily, once it has reason to. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Occam's razor isn't a true part of the scientific process. You cannot say "This is definitely true because Occam's razor says so".  It is, however, a useful and powerful general guideline.  If we cannot prove whether hypothesis A or hypothesis B is true - then presuming that the simplest of the two is true is very often the best course of action.  Is it possible for pink piano-playing aardvarks to exist on the far side of the moon?  Yes, it's definitely possible.  Should we design a spacecraft to go out and look for them?  Hell no!  Occam's razor says that's a really stupid idea!  However, the razor can be wrong.  If I give you the number series "1,2,3,4,5,6" and ask you for the next number in the series, you should realise that mathematically, there are an infinite number of possible answers.  Occam's razor says that '7' is the best choice because xn+1=xn+1 is the simplest possible mathematical expression that produces the data we've been given.  Sadly, I was thinking of numbers that are factors of 60 and the next number in the series happens to be '10'...Occam's razor failed us - but in the absence of any other data, it was still by far the best/most-likely choice.  People unconsciously live by Occam's razor all the time in their daily lives.  We do not behave as if every closed door has a ravenous tiger hiding behind it...although that is certainly a possible explanation for why nobody has come out of that door in the last 5 minutes, we prefer the simpler hypothesis that nobody came out of the door because they had no need to.


 * Occam's razor isn't like a religious belief to be taken on blind faith. Scientists are (or at least should be) aware that it's only a rough guideline - and that we should always be prepared toss out it out whenever better evidence comes along.  It is certainly interesting that nature does seem to prefer simple solutions - and it's amazing how often the razor produces the right answer - but it's far from a dogmatic belief.  SteveBaker (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * When you argue about whether a paradox can exist - you are merely debating the definition of a word. If you conclude that the linguistic definition of "paradox" is such that paradoxes can exist - then we need a new word to describe a condition which cannot exist because (for example) nothing can be both true and false at the same time, or because 1 cannot equal 0 or whatever.  If you go on to claim that things can indeed be both true and false at the same time - then we need a new definition of the words "true" and "false" - and so forth.  So, presuming the "normal" definitions of such words, paradoxes cannot exist because the word is used to define things that cannot exist.  When we say that "There exists an immovable object and an irresistable force" - then the consequence of that assertion is a logical impossibility - this statement cannot be true - so it is definitely the case that either there are no immovable objects or there are no irresistable forces or that neither exist.  I'd like to use the word "paradox" for such things - but if you'd prefer a weaker definition of that word then we just need to agree on a new word that I can use in order to phrase this discussion.
 * The things I'm talking about (like "God exists and has no limitations whatever" - or "This sentence is false") need a word that means "impossible for reasons dictated by mathematical/logical rigor" - and that word is "paradox". That kind of paradox cannot (by the definition that I'm choosing for that word) exist.  All cases of seeming paradoxes must therefore have some kind of flaw that results in them either turning out not to be paradoxes at all (like "Which came first - the chicken or the egg?") - or which turn out not to be "correct" (like: "let x=0 therefore x(x-1)=0 therefore x-1=0 therefore x=1 therefore 1=0").  Finding that flaw is sometimes tricky - but it is inevitably present. SteveBaker (talk) 15:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * From the OED, "paradox": first definitions are obsolete, then we get: "An apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement or proposition, or a strongly counter-intuitive one, which investigation, analysis, or explanation may nevertheless prove to be well-founded or true." Then, "A proposition or statement that is (taken to be) actually self-contradictory, absurd, or intrinsically unreasonable." Then, "Logic. More fully logical paradox. An argument, based on (apparently) acceptable premises and using (apparently) valid reasoning, which leads to a conclusion that is against sense, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory; the conclusion of such an argument. Freq. with a descriptive or eponymous name." Then follows a bunch of more specialized, jargony definitions. My point here is that a number of people above are defining "paradox" to have a strictly, more "strong" meaning than the OED's definition. The OED's definitions do not suggest that paradoxes are by definition impossible. On the contrary, the very first non-obsolete/archaic definition explicitly defines paradox as apparently self-contradcitory but in fact "well-founded or true". This is the way I have long used the word: A paradox is something that seems impossible but actually happens. We have plenty of words for things that are impossible. The word "paradox" is more subtle, I have long thought. I realize I am arguing over semantics, but this is the reference desk, so I refer you to the OED. Pfly (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We can certainly take this weaker definition - but then consider the OP's original question, rephrased with the weaker definition: "Obviously, scientists strongly believe that the actual, physical Universe cannot evince any apparently absurd or self-contradictory thing. Any "apparently absurd or self-contradictory statement" is in the mind of the weak, inept understander, who must change his mind about what he had thought about the Universe. But why do they believe this?".  Do we really think that's what the OP is asking?   Well, if so, the question is patently unfounded - scientists are well aware of things that are merely apparently absurd...the quantum and relativity theories are stuffed to the brim with apparently absurd/self-contradictory things - particles are simultaneously waves - 100mph+100mph doesn't make 200mph - gravity changes time!  The OP's question only makes sense in the context of the strong definitions of the word.  Hence my position that paradoxes (of the kind the OP is talking about) are impossible by definition. SteveBaker (talk) 23:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Darksucker Theory
Hello Everyone. A few years ago, I remembered reading in the New Scientist 'Last Word' section a reply (I think for a question about why light bulbs turn grey over time), that light bulbs do not emitt light, but suck dark. It sounded very fishy, but I forgot about it. Recently, however, I was thinking about it again, and wanted to know the full theory. I did a google search and found this, which explains the full theory. To be honest, it seems to be phrased as a joke; but I was wondering what exactly means it is BS. I thought of two reasons:

1.Dark cannot travel faster than light, as it would violate casuality per Relativity 2.Light has been shown to be Photons/EM waves, depending on curcumstances, not some Field that is revealed when dark is removed.

Any more reasons why this theory cannot be true? (I know it probably isn't, but I would like some concrete reasons). Thanks for any answers. And incidentally, it was startling, when I put 'Darksucker' into the search bar, to be returned with 'Do you mean 'dicksucker'! --HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 09:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * first of all - maybe you were signed in, and Google knows you all too well? Second, you can see even just a few photons with your naked eye, and we have machines that can emit photons (particles of light) one by one, so obviously "sucking dark" is a joke.  The punchline is, that's why when an incandescent lightbulb "goes out" you can see the filament turns black (or even releases smoke): it's sucked all the dark it can. 84.153.210.148 (talk) 10:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good point, about devices that can produce photons one at a time. I can remember Feynman mentioning them during one of his online lectures: what are they callled? And I wouldn't have been surprised if google did it, but I was talking about the wikipedia search bar! --HarmoniousMembrane (talk) 10:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The New Scientist's 'Last Word' page is a question and answer section much like this Ref desk, and sometimes deliberately includes joke answers if the joke is good enough, although the assuption is that readers will not really be taken in by it. Much humour can be extracted from treating abstract concepts, and absences or deficiencies of actual entities, like dark (absence of light) or cold (relative deficiency of heat), as entities in their own right (there's a special word for this, which I've momentarily forgotten - anyone?). Terry Pratchett often deploys this tactic, and has argued that (at least on the Discworld, where light is slowed to near-sonic speeds by the intense magical field) dark must be faster than light, because it has to be able to see the light coming and get out of the way in time. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You cant suck dark as darkness is simply the absence of light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.16.154 (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it there are no evidence against a theory where photons are a hole in a field of darknes analogous to electron hole in a semiconductor but as long as it does not explain more observations than the theory that a photon is a elementary particle it fails Occam's razor. --Gr8xoz (talk) 14:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Was the original New Scientist column published around the the start of April by any chance? Equisetum (talk &#124; email &#124; contributions) 21:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, "dark", being the absence of light, travels at the speed of light. If a star twenty light-years away suddenly stopped shining, we would see the light "go out" twenty years later, give or take. When a light bulb is turned on, the "dark" would travel away from the light rather than be sucked into it. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * just for another reason, 'dark sucking' would play hell with various laws of conservation. where would all this sucked darkness go?  a candle, for instance, would have to grow in length to store all the darkness it's sucking, and a light bulb would eventually collapse into a black (or white?) hole.  but since these don't happen, you'd have to create a whole new set of theories about how darkness has negative volume/density (i.e., the more darkness something contains, the smaller it is, until the object reaches its maximal darkness capacity and disappears).  -- Ludwigs 2  23:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * On printed circuit boards and schematic diagrams, incandescent bulbs (such as indicator lights) are abbreviated "DS", much as resistors are abbreviated "R", capacitors "C", inductors "L", and diodes "CR". ("L" is used as a symbol for inductance and "CR" stands for "crystal rectifier", but I don't know the origin of "DS".  Is there a WP article on this?)  I have always assumed that the phrase "dark sucker" was chosen to match the abbreviation.  -- 1.47.99.181 (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apart from any comedy about light bulbs turning grey, see transactional interpretation. Light detectors emit "dark" as an advanced wave moving backward in time. Wnt (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

MTech in IITs
Hi I am from Hyderabad. I want to do my MTech from IITs but my aggregate is less than 60% in my BTech. But in IIT Madras website I saw the minimum qualification is a degree and GATE score http://gate.iitm.ac.in/mtechadm/gelig.php Can I get the admission if my GATE score is good?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.109.194.75 (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not this year, because IIT Madras is full for its M.Tech. courses! You really need to ask the IIT itself if you want to know how they treat candidacies: note that they might change requirements from year to year, so don't rely on the 2010 rules being valid for 2011. Physchim62 (talk) 18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * ^^^How can you say that actually??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.109.194.75 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

student directories
where can i find past copies of student directories with addresses  so i can re connect with old classmates  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * We're going to need a LOT more information - like which school you went to and in what years. A good place to search for people like that (if you don't have any more specific place) is http://www.linkedin.com  SteveBaker (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

would my old school give me their addresses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjohnson357 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Only your school could answer that question. DMacks (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Old student directories would be of little use unless you are a recent graduate, since people move. You might see their parents address and get the current address from them if it hasn't been too many years since the directory was issued. Some old college directories are for sale from time to time on Ebay. Classmates.com exists to connect you with old high school or college classmates who wish to be contacted. Facebook has "groups" of alumni from many colleges and highschools, without the high subscription fees Classmates demands. Some colleges have alumni internet sites where you can email classmates who have also joined. Some schools demand you pay to join the alumni association.  It is possible to use internet people finder services, which (possibly for a fee) will find just about anyone, but your old classmates might see you as a stalker if it is clear you spent a lot of time and money tracking them down. If the old classmates have websites, like for business, or Facebook pages, it seems natural enough to drop them a friendly note. Edison (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Try searching their names on Facebook. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking for old classmates has become a tricky area on the Internet. There are some sites that purport to help with this task but which are more spam sites than real directories. As for the old school helping, privacy requirements will often get in the way of this, but the old school may be wiling to pass your details on to others so that they may contact you. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

If an icebreaker hit the iceberg that sank the Titanic...
Would it survive without any problems? ScienceApe (talk) 17:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I would think so, as icebreakers are designed for such tasks and are designed to have hulls much more powerful than the Titanic.  Tyrol5   [Talk]  17:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Icebreakers are designed to break through sea ice -- which is relatively soft -- up to a given thickness. They aren't designed to hit massive icebergs of the sort that calve from glaciers. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but I would think that it would stand a better chance than an early twentieth century steamer would. Tyrol5   [Talk]  18:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The titanic would have survived the iceberg had it hit it head on - it was the sidewise hit and extended damage down the side of the hull that did it in. An icebreaker would likely suffer the same fate, though it might be a little more resistant.  Icebreakers are designed to use their bow weight to crack ice, not to bash through it like a chisel, so I doubt they are extensively reinforced down their sides.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends a lot on how the hit occurred. The Titanic iceberg was described (and photographed) as a "large" iceberg. "Large" (in this context) is actually a technical term used by the International Ice Patrol for a berg roughly 45–75 metres high (above water) and 120–200 metres wide.  Since icebergs only have 10% if their total height above water - we could estimate the total volume of this one as about a million cubic meters - hence weighing in at about a million tonnes.


 * A modern icebreaker (let's pick the USCGC Healy as an example) weighs just 16,000 tonnes. Running into an iceberg weighing 60 times more than the ship is a lot like hitting an immovable object.  The worst-case energy released by a 16,000 tonne vessel moving at (let's say) the top speed of the Healy (30kph - roughly 8meters/sec) and coming to a dead stop would be considerable: mv2 is 16x106kg x 82 ms-1 is 109J - which is an ungodly amount.  Enough energy to completely melt a ton of steel for example!  More than enough to make a considerable mess of an icebreaker.  The difficult question is what fraction of that energy would be transferred to the iceberg and what fraction to the ship - but it's pretty clear that the worst-case impact would not be survivable.


 * However, the impact with the Titanic was a glancing blow. The Healy has most of her heaviest plating at the bow and stern and within one meter of the waterline - and she has a double hull and stiffer internal ribbing in those areas.  The hole in the Titanic's hull was more than a meter below sea level - so that thicker steel closer to the waterline wouldn't help the icebreaker much.  The Titanic has steel plates between an inch and an inch and a half thick - but it was of a type of steel that became brittle in those cold ocean temperatures.  The Healy uses a special type of steel that doesn't suffer from that problem - but it's nothing like as thick that far below the waterline.


 * CONCLUSION: As you can tell - this isn't a simple call. The double-hull design of a modern icebreaker would certainly help a lot - but I'm personally skeptical that it would be enough.  A head-on impact produces a lot of energy - but on the strongest part of the ship - a Titanic-like impact happens on parts of the icebreaker that aren't specially reinforced - but the double-hull might be enough to save her from sinking.  Perhaps the biggest saving grace is that the radar and satellite links available to modern ships of all kinds should allow them to completely avoid iceberg impacts in the first place - and that's probably the best answer here.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Regarding the Titanic (which had a tonnage about 3 times that of the Healy), I just looked over some of the testimony given in the Inquiry. One of the design engineers testified that he believed the Titanic would have survived a head-on collision because the first 100 feet of the ship would have crumpled and cushioned the blow for the rest of the ship.  However this same engineer testified that he did not believe the ship could have broken in two shortly before it sank, which as I understand it is now conclusively known to have happened.  In any case it's not as if the ship could have got off without injury. Looie496 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep - that's what I'd heard too. The damage to the bow of the Titanic would have been extreme.  The ship could stay afloat with as many as 4 compartments full of water - but the damage to her side breached 5 of them.  If a head-on collision would have damaged less than 5 compartments, it might have saved her and it seems perfectly possible that she would have at least remained afloat long enough for adequate help to arrive.  However, it's hard to imagine the captain of the Titanic being congratulated for deliberately ordering his crew to slam his vessel headlong into an iceberg.  After all - if they'd managed to turn just maybe ten feet more to the left, they wouldn't have suffered so much as a scratch and the whole event would have been considered to be a masterful stroke of seamanship.  The root cause here was pushing on speed where caution was needed.  Had she been sailing at a speed appropriate for the visibility and known presence of icebergs, that would have been an easy escape.  The many design and construction flaws in the ship herself would never have been a problem.  Anyway - this is getting off-topic.  The question is about icebreakers - and they aren't built in the same way as the Titanic so the conclusions would be quite different. SteveBaker (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I thought it was interesting that the reason the Titanic might have survived is that it was not built like an icebreaker. If it had the rigid bow of an icebreaker, the whole ship would probably have disintegrated in a head-on collision -- there's no way 50,000 tons is going to stop on a dime, and the iceberg wasn't going to get out of its way. Looie496 (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As a minor clarification, I've just been reading the articles in response to this topic and as far as I can tell it was the first officer not the captain who was in command when the iceberg was spotted, the captain I guess asleep or trying to sleep Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd have thought it reasonably likely a strong ship like an icebreaker would survive hitting an iceberg by gouging a big hole in it. I've twice seen docks destroyed by ships bashing into them, one made a huge hole 30 feet into the concrete and earth that reached the road behind. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's a quote from John Jenner, the captain of Canada's largest icebreaker, taken from this web page: Question: What problems do you have with icebergs when you’re icebreaking? Answer:  Although we’re built to break ice, if we were to collide with an iceberg at a certain speed it would certainly do damage. When you have an iceberg you have all types of little pieces of it breaking off, and they’re very hard. When we’re manoeuvering and laying out course lines and we know there’s a ‘berg, we will pass on the side that we know is clear. You also have to keep in mind that seven-eighths of an iceberg is under the water so you can’t just come right up to it ― you have to give yourself some distance. So we slow down at night and when the concentration of icebergs increases because we have to keep track of them. Looie496 (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Measurement system used by the US Military
Does the US Military use the regular or metric system? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The answer appears to be that they use mostly metric (to avoid confusion when working alongside allied forces), but with some exceptions. See Metrication in the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equisetum (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Do they use nautical miles and knots? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 22:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nautical miles have been internationally agreed units (1 NM = 1,852 metres) since 1929 Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "regular" is called imperial--92.251.230.132 (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * By using the word regular. our questioner shows the unfortunate but typical US-centrism of many who post here. Only two other countries (which most Americans would prefer to not be seen to be aligned with) have failed to officially metricate. So regular in most of the world means metric. As for it meaning imperial in the USA, that's wrong too. It's United States customary units, which differ from Imperial in many areas. Gallon is one of the most obvious. By not metricating, the USA basically has a can of unmeasurable worms. HiLo48 (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * As it happens we have a comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems article. WP:WHAAOE  . CS Miller (talk) 19:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I see more often the opposite bias. UK and Commonwealth posters, for some reason, are overrepresented here relative to their population, and a lot of them seem to have the idea that "international" means "not the United States". --Trovatore (talk) 10:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The commonwealth is nearly 2 billion people.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 16:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the English speakers. More than 60% of English-as-first-language speakers are from the United States. --Trovatore (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly true. But nothing to do with metrication. It just reinforces my point about US-centrism. HiLo48 (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't reinforce your point even minimally. --Trovatore (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple logic says that if 60% of native English speakers are from the US, there will be a US bias on English Wikipedia. But be that as it may, the bigger problem is usually one of knowledge. Most non-Americans are very aware that the US uses different spelling and measurement systems from the rest of the world. Unfortunately, too many Americans don't seem to know this. That was what I was talking about with the comment about regular. HiLo48 (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, first of all the US does not use different spelling from "the rest of the world". It uses different spelling from the Commonwealth.  Conflating the Commonwealth with "the rest of the world" is the bias I'm talking about, among editors who seem to think "international" means "not United States". --Trovatore (talk) 01:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah you mean the Commonwealth is overrepresented here relative to their population of English-as-first-language speakers. I don't really see what as a first language has to do with anything nowadays. It's probably true first language-wise but that's very different from overrepresented relative to population which is what you said. I suspect that the Commonwealth is probably quite badly underrepresented in terms of English-as-second-language speakers or else I would expect to see far more Indian and Nigerian editors for example.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 19:07, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, with second-language speakers things get much trickier. There's a huge range from "uses English very occasionally and not very well" to "operates in English on a daily basis".  For the former group I would assume they would be more comfortable looking things up in the Wikipedia for their own language.  Granted that these are likely less complete than English WP, and when they can't find something there they would naturally come here. --Trovatore (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that for a number of commonwealth countries like India and Malaysia, the number of visitors to the English wikipedia dwarfs any other wikipedia by far (from the WMFs statistics which IMHO as I mentioned elsewhere do have flaws but it's perhaps slightly less of an issue for intra-country things). However generally speaking those who are richer etc and therefore more likely to have internet access tend to also be more comfortable using English so it doesn't really tell us that much about the rest. The statistics themselves are actually quite interesting. The not exactly commonwealth and English likely to be closer to US English, Philippines is perhaps unsurprisingly similar to the commonwealth countries I mentioned. But quite a few other countries have a relatively high proportion of English wikipedia visitors. Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, (Israel) & Portugal for example of European. China & Indonesia for example of Asian ones. Some European ones like Norway, Romania, Denmark, Greece, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Serbia, Crotia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia have more people visiting the English wikipedia then any other single one. Also true for some Asian ones like South Korea, Hong Kong (okay commonwealth in some ways), UAE, Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait. For some of these particularly Asian ones with restrictive internet access expatriates may represent a big proportion of that and of course the factors I mentioned earlier also likely play a part particularly in developing countries. Nil Einne (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the user was trying to insult anyone. If you live in America and are used to speaking to Americans, you wouldn't ordinarily think twice about calling U.S. measurements "regular" measurements. Most Americans aren't used to speaking in forums where they may encounter people from other countries and be expected to use terms like "United States customary units." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the US Government? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My overall impression is the U.S. federal government (except the military) is a little more likely to use SI than the general public. The state governments (except the National Guard) seem to use SI to about the same degree as the general public. Various laws have been passed to try to get the federal government to use SI more, but they always seem to be greatly relaxed before they have any real effect. These impressions come from living in the U.S. For another point of view see Metrication in the United States. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ether
Which was named (a)ether first, the anesthetic or the "element"? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The element. Aether_(disambiguation) is your friend. --Dr Dima (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically, one might compare the information in Aether (classical element) and Diethyl ether. Deor (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The derivation of the terms might be somewhat independent. Aether just comes from the greek word for 'upper air': the philosophical use is obvious, since they were looking for something that bound everything together; the chemistry use may merely have been a reference to the fact that these compounds have comparatively low boiling points and thus are more likely to be gaseous - compare with 'ester' which refers to fatty-type substances.  -- Ludwigs 2  23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Adrenaline
Could you inject yourself with adrenaline to give a quick burst of energy? --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you could. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 23:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why don't people do that? After all, it could come in handy if you have to run for your life or fight someone hand-to-hand. --70.134.48.188 (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * because the effect would likely be short-lived, the crash after debilitating, and the risk of death unacceptably high. -- Ludwigs 2 23:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of adrenaline (also known as epinephrine) can have dangerous side effects, so use for trivial reasons isn't encouraged by the medical industry. However, it does have many medical uses. &mdash; Lomn 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Needing to run for your life or fighting hand to hand are very rare occurrences, things that never happen to the vast percentage of people in the world throughout their entire lives. Worse still, in cases where running/fighting is necessary, you probably don't have time to stand around sticking needles into yourself.  Hence, carrying a shot of adrenaline around with you for that specific purpose would be kinda stupid.  (Although people with certain medical conditions do actually do that - in the form of EpiPens, Anapens and Twinjects.)  It's also worth mentioning that in Fight-or-flight response situations, your body produces adrenaline quite naturally - and probably in a carefully controlled optimum amount, so injecting yourself with more of the stuff is almost certainly unnecessary - and quite likely to be counter-productive.  Your body does a whole bunch of other things during 'fight or flight' that make the naturally occurring adrenaline more effective.  Using the stuff routinely would also be kinda stupid - it has a bunch of not-so-great side-effects and using it too often would put the body under a lot of additional stress. SteveBaker (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It has been known for mountaineers to carry adrenaline autoinjectors with them, for the most dire of emergencies, when the physical effects of the extreme altitude on your body have sapped your strength to such a degree that you literally cannot continue and all your systems are starting to shut down - and you will certainly die where you sit if you don't open your eyes, get the hell up and carry on. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)