Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 July 23

= July 23 =

Can our scientific knowledge be understood any other way than it is?
okay, so I was watching a video of Hank Green in which he basically talks to aliens, introducing earth. Now one thing is that he used the radius of Hydrogen atom as a unit for human body's height. Now since the real hydrogen atom doesn't really have a definite radius, and the radius we define is not very fundamental in a universal sense (I mean sure it's a constant in the whole universe, but there's no reason for ANY sentient being to define a radius that way, correct me if I'm wrong) that may not be a good unit. Then I thought what if they don't have a notion of atom? I mean in molecules, the thing we call atom doesn't exist anymore (maybe only nuclei and electrons "distributed" around them, but not atoms in the way we think about it) so why would they have a notion of atoms?(that's my first question)

Now a deeper question. Given a different "science history", can they come up with theories in physics and chemistry that are self-consistent and correct, and logically equivalent to ours, but look totally different, theories that for example do not have a notion of wave or particle, or even mass? In other words, if their theory is correct, does it have to include the notions and definitions that we have? can our understanding of science be shown, or understood, any other way?

Also, does having an advanced technology require the same kind of knowledge that we have? like do they have to know what an atom is in order to make a space ship? or satellite? or any other of our inventions?--Irrational number (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * On that last point, it does seem to be entirely possible to develop advanced technology by trial and error alone, without any understanding of the underlying concepts. For example, some current medications work despite us not knowing the mechanism by which they work.  And many technologies were developed before the theory.  For example, I believe projectile weapons were in use long before physics of projectile motion were fully understood.  There may be a few areas of technology which can't be arrived at by trial-and-error, though, like nuclear weapons.  Nuclear power, on the other hand, might be possible, say if people noticed some perpetually warm rocks, used them to heat their home, but then all got sick, except those who stored them under a pile of normal rocks, so then people would start doing that, and maybe learn how to refine the rocks so they get hotter, and learn that putting them in a pool generates steam, etc.  In another example, Thomas Edison didn't seem to have any theory that told him which filament would be best in a light bulb, he just tried everything he could think of until he found tungsten carbonized bamboo.


 * It's also possible to have a theory that's fundamentally wrong, but that nonetheless is useful. For example, during the black plague, many thought it was caused by "bad air".  This is wrong, in that it was transmitted by fleas of rats.  However, to avoid foul smelling air, you would implement sanitation measures, such as burning or burying corpses and trash, and this would eventually reduce the rat population, and hence the disease.  Of course, there are other things they did, like using perfume, which were useless against the disease.  More generally, contagion theory was developed before microscopes allowed us to actually see that the contagions were microorganisms, and they even determined which diseases were airborne, waterborne, etc. .  StuRat (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are both superficial and deep answers to these questions. At the heart of it, you're asking whether our understanding of reality is based in an objective world picture or is a essentially linked to our language and culture. Philosophers and scientists have been arguing over this for literally thousands of years. Applying it to the question of extraterrestrials doesn't necessarily prove it one way or the other (commensurability is possible through shared culture, for example), but is a related question.
 * The right answer to this question is that there is no simple, obvious answer to this question. A fun book which explores this question in some depth, and actually spends quite a good amount of time playing with the philosophy of it, is Neal Stephenson's Anathem. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a darn good question. Although there's plenty of our mathematics, physics, and chemistry that feels pretty utterly fundamental (and might therefore be equally comprehensible to an alien), I suspect there's also plenty that's somewhat artificial, and wrapped up in our scientific tradition, and might be amenable to alternatively systematic explanation based on completely different principles.


 * You're right, measuring distances by atomic radii is lame. But I've never heard of anyone doing that -- the more usual "fundamental" length units are wavelengths of various oscillators (krypton-86 emission, spin-flip transition of hydrogen, etc.).


 * I always thought the Pioneer plaques did a pretty good job of communicating using "fundamental" constants. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. StuRat: Edison didn't find tungsten; that came later.


 * Thanks, I corrected it. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

H2 has an average width between the nuclei at a given temperature. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Edison, the example quoted by StuRat, is a good example in a way he may not have appreciated. Edison famously tried an immense variety of materials for possible use in incandescent lights, before finally settling on one (carbonised bamboo if I remember correctly) that worked acceptably well for long enough.  If he had a good theoretical knowlege of both materials and the requirements for a lamp filament, then (a) he could have got there much more quickly, and (b) he might have realised that the best material would be a metal (because its electrical resistance is self regulating), and not some form of carbon/graphite (which to an experimeter looks good becaues of its higher electrical resistance).
 * An even better example with Edison was his lab experiments aimed at discovering why his lamps didn't last long. He put an extra electrode in the bulb not in contact and notice a current never the less flowed.  But because he was not a physicist he completely missed the importance of this discovery (the fundamental basis of electronics).
 * A different sort of example: Rudolf Diesel relaised that vastly better engine eficiency was possible than was then obtained from internal combustion engines, which had until then been designed on experience.  Efficiencies of 15% of so were common, but Diesel thought he could do as well as 50% or more, and set about achieving it, based on sound theoretical knowlege of thermodynamics gained in his career in early refrigeration techniques.  His theory was not quite right, never-the-less, with only 2 prototypes he achieved an efficiency of ~37%, and was able to immediately correct his theory.
 * So it seems that while it may be possible to have advanced technology with only practice of the art, and not a good theorrectical undertsanding, but advancement with good theory is much more probable.
 * It should aslo be realised, that the natural reaction to something not working well, or not working as expected is "Let's try and figure out why" - which inevitably leads to good theory, except where the theory is exceptionally difficult.
 * Note that there are two kinds of boffin - Scientists, who seek to understand what has been discovered, and Engineers, who seek to apply the scientist's understanding to design things we need. In different words, there is analysis (why is it so) and synthesis (let's make it so) - both analysis and synthesis depend on good theory.  In nearly all fields, good analysis and good synthesis vastly outperforms mere practice of art.  An example:  By practice of the art and successive refinement, and limitted theory, AM radio was taken from a novelty to practaical home entertainemnt in the 1920's.  But Armstrong's excellent theorectical knowlege produced a breakthrough in sound quality in one step - FM radio.  That's the key - Good theoretical knowlege enables breakthough progress & technology change, without it, you mostly get only incremental improvement.
 * Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 02:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You may find some answers in the philosophy of science, specifically in the philosophy of science related to linguistics. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has mentioned Bohr radius yet. Also the article on Model-dependent realism might be interesting. Vespine (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is unlikely for an alien civilization to really start exploring the world at the level of quarks because none of that exposes itself in a manner that is obvious to anyone, vs atoms which are more directly accessible.


 * Much of what we know in the sciences originally developed from trial and error exploration of the real world around us, trying to learn what works and what doesn't. For at least 2000 - 3000 years the pre-science (and totally wrong) concepts of earth air fire water prevailed across human civilization (see Classical elements), and it wasn't until alchemists really started pushing the limits of what was known to find "base substances" from about 1500 AD onward, that our understanding of the world flipped around to consider the idea of atoms and elements sorted by atomic weight.


 * Also much of our modern scientific knowledge comes from exploring electricity and magnetism and understanding the relationship between these forces. Since these are "fundamental forces" that govern how the world works, it is unlikely for an advanced civilization to have much progress without discovery of them at some point.


 * DMahalko (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "It is unlikely for an alien civilization"... frankly, neither you nor I have any barometer as to what is "likely" in such a case. We have exactly one data point — humanity. We don't know if we're normal or strange. That's kind of the problem. Anyone with a small sci fi bone in their body can easily imagine alternatives, both big and small in their differences. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A very advanced civilization could reduce the knowledge to a mere intuitive sense and just look things up in old books, I suppose, when curious about where the things they use come from. As far as how the world is described accurately, within a certain range of means of description the facts are what they are.  But the same facts are already described mathematically by us in very very different ways that only translate into each other by specialists.  This is discussed by others in a different question below.  Choice of what facts are most worthy of emphasis could have enormous implications on epistemology that we only barely can guess.173.15.152.77 (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Pseudo-freezer
I was at a motel last week and there was one of these mini-fridges in the room. Inside, there was a freezer-like compartment, but it was not completely sealed off from the larger refrigerator compartment. How is it that putting something into the freezer pseudo-compartment can reliably and consistently freeze while the things just inches away do not?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 01:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Direct conduction of heat. If you were planning on staying long enough that it would matter, you could rent a freezer. Most college students don't have that problem. μηδείς (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Those things don't work all that well anyhow. If you put stuff inches away from the freezing compartment it can easily freeze too. Looie496 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Your complaint seems to be that they work too well. How in the world do you get things that near the freezer coil anyway unless the entire compartment is full, Looie? μηδείς (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's quite easy. On mine, the right half of the top shelf is filled with the uninsulated freezer compartment, and items on the left half of the top shelf must not be placed so they touch the freezer compartment, or they will freeze solid. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a thermal gradient thing. The piece of metal that forms the freezer compartment is the cooling element for the entire refrigerator.  Since the inside of the freezer compartment is small, you can think of the cold getting "concentrated" there and making it that much colder.  On the other side (the outside of the freezer compartment, the inside of the rest of the fridge) there's much more space (and much more outside surface area for heat to leak in), so the little piece of cold metal can't keep that larger volume frozen, and doesn't.  (It's actually sort of a clever design, if you like minimalist kludges.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have a full size fridge like that in my house, manufactured by Phillips Australia (known in the USA as Magnavox I think). It actually works very well, but not quite as efficient as a more traditional design.  (I've had it for over 25 years).  The cooling by the refrigeration machinery is only applied to the freezer compartment.  Cold air from the not quite fully enclosed freezer compartment (-12 C) then flows downward to the meat box, which tends to be about 6 to 8 C.  From the meat box the air flows downward to the general area, which tends to be about 10 to 12 C, ideal for bread and vegies. Air relatively warmed in the general area then flows by convection up the back into the freezer compartment again to be re-cooled.  Critical to the success of this system is the small gaps in the freezer box and the meat box that the air "leaks" thru.   In fact the manufacturer provided 2 temperature controls - a thermostat to adjust the freezer temperature, and a slide to vary the meat box air leakage to set the main compartment temperature.  Ratbone124.182.137.103 (talk) 02:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The equilibrium temperature for any volume will be where the total amount of heat coming in equals the total amount of heat going out. In the general fridge section, a fair amount of heat is going in, coming from the large outside surface area.  A fair amount is also going out, being removed by the refrigeration coils around the freezer section.  So, you get a cool, but not frozen, fridge.  Inside the freezer compartment, much less heat is going in, since it needs to go thru that small surface area of freezing metal to get inside, but just as much heat is being taken out by the refrigeration coils, so it's much colder inside.


 * For an analogy, think of heating your house in winter. You could close and seal all the vents (I'm assuming a forced air system) in every room but one small room, in which case that room would get hot, and the rest of the house would barely be warmer than outside, even if you had all the doors open. StuRat (talk) 03:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * All fridges used to be made that way. It works fine, except that the freezer compartment invitably develops more and more ice on the walls. Given time, the entire compartment will freeze up. You have to periodically empty the fridge and defrost it.--23.24.20.245 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * But that's also true of regular fridges, unless they have a defrost cycle added, which also destroys the food. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking locked
Can someone explain why the description of passive smoking is locked? It appears to be provided by an entirely driven special interest [an advertisement for smoking patches] with many factual extensions and outright inaccuracies with many evidence links dead. The IARC report much to the contrary of what is written demonstrated also much to the embarrassment of the World Health Organization who financed it, in the press of the day; displayed no significant risk to non smoking spouses, even among those who worked and lived with smokers, In fact the effects to children seemed to demonstrate a curative effect. The much larger Enstrom and Kobot study a few years later demonstrated that the risks of second hand smoke are largely overstated. Continuing with the risk to children and cognitive losses, anyone who actually read the made for media research claims and followed up with an evaluation of the data, saw that the author was led more by agenda than her acknowledgement of the facts observed. You see the data actually showed a lowered risk pattern which was inversely proportional with most exposures, so the media report stated that they "could not find a level where no losses were observed" while those with no exposures, had the highest level of losses by far. There are far to many inaccuracies and outright untruths stated in the WIKI article none more abhorrent than the "causal link to SIDS" claimed to be found in the 2006 surgeon Generals report. While no such statement exists in the report, it was claimed in the news release purchased by an obviously financially conflicted special interest group, prior to the report's actual publication. Locking an article as controversial as passive smoking, which is more a religious belief as a product of paid promotion, than any connection to legitimate science. This brings a deficit of credibility in the entirety of what is provided by WIKI to the public, as a work of the public or any community beyond the 1% who are profiting billions every year by misleading advertising and the existing ad agency ability to flow their purchased spin to the front pages without restriction. WIKI should work harder to protect itself as distinct, from the traditional and bottom line oriented "mainstream" sources of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.56.250.14 (talk) 02:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The article is pretty one-sided; I see what you mean. I wouldn't call it a stellar example of Wikipedia's neutrality principles.


 * It is "semi-protected", not completely locked. This is (unfortunately) the norm for more and more of Wikipedia's controversial articles.  Any established (registered) editor can edit the article -- register an account and you can, too.  Others can request changes on the article's talk page.


 * This reference desk isn't really the right place to discuss editorial issues with articles. Bringing up your concerns on the talk page would certainly be a good first step. If you get lots of pushback there (as I fear you might, if the article has indeed been "taken over" by special interests), you can consult Dispute resolution for lots of resources on resolving disputes.  In this case, if you don't get anywhere on the talk page, posting a notice at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard might be in order. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC), updated 02:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Semi protection is applied when there is a lot of drive-by vandalism or contentious edits by anonymous editors. The purpose is to make sure all edits are constructive and according to consensus. Non anonymous users who refuse to discuss issues get blocked. The locking is no indication of the articles current quality. Make your suggestions for the article on the talk page. Even better, if you have a rewrite, put it in a new section on the bottom of the talk page. Good luck!Staticd (talk) 13:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will science come to an end?
Will we eventually discover everything discoverable and learn everything learnable? Or will there always be more to discover and learn, no matter how much we discover and learn? -150.203.114.14 (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * From my experience as a working scientist, the more I learn, the more new questions I have. It's like the border of an unknown country - if I start an expedition into the wilderness, I may discover something new - but I also extend the length of the border into the unknown. Of course I don't know if the "continent of knowledge" is infinite, but it sure looks like it. BTW, what makes me realise how far we have come is teaching - it draws me back from the perpetual half-ignorance in my research onto a well-established map, and makes me realise how big the mapped area has become. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Asked and answered. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At first thought I want to say that there are an infinite number of things to know, so we can always learn more. However, their could be limits.  String theory, for example, may never be testable, which makes it as much a philosophy as science, with each person choosing their own version, according to their beliefs.  So, that may put a limit on delving into the super small.  On the large scale, once we've fully explored the observable universe (admittedly that may take a year or two), that may put an end on that large scale exploration. StuRat (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There may also be theoretical limits to the total amount of information in the Universe. This would mean that the "continent" of all there is to know is finite, but of course this would exceed our capacity to hold knowledge by many orders of magnitude. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

My understanding of science, from history and philosophy of science, is that science is a human practice dependent upon small group power relations and classed power relations. As there are no plans to sustain human culture beyond the information death of the universe (as currently expected), science will end with the end of the universe, or with the end of human and post-human cultures, or with the abandonment of the cultural construct of "science" in favour of other (almost certainly) instrumentalist understandings of material reality. For example, "technologism" could conceivably replace science in our lifetime. This is in contrast to the unlikely abandonment of material instrumentality altogether. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Gesundheit! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Read more HPS Steve. This stuff came out in the late 1960s as a result of pursuing pre-structuralist arguments in science itself.  Most of it is hardly even influenced at its commencement by Marxism.  See Feyerabend for the debate. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on previous millennia of human history, scientific knowledge, even just pretty basic stuff, may be lost and may need to be rediscovered. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems unlikely. It is somewhat of a cliché, but nonetheless true, that the more we discover, the more we realize how much we do not know. In the grand scale of the universe, humanity devotes precious little time and precious little resources to knowledge generation. I would not expect us to exhaust that knowledge within the limited lifetime of our species.
 * This entirely avoids the question of whether you could write down "reality" in an unmediated way, given infinite time and resources. This is a much stickier philosophical question, with a great many disagreeing answers, and depends on whether we, as conscious beings, can actually have unmediated access to the fundamental nature of reality. People have been arguing over this for thousands of years. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And God already knows everything! lol.. Vespine (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We may eventually discover a complete set of basic laws of physics. But there is no limit on the phenomena that can result from complexity. Looie496 (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because of things like Goedel's incompleteness theorem, it's general consensus that mathematics can never "end" in the sense the OP says. Since (as far as we can tell) physics obeys mathematical rules, this would suggest that physics too will never end. Staecker (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sulfonamide antibiotics
I remember reading somewhere that before the first Sulfonamide antibiotics were discovered, people used to just swallow sulfur and it was just as effective. Is this true? --Wrk678 (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sulfur was used medically as a tonic and laxative. I doubt that it was effective as an antibiotic. -- Q Chris (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

thats not what I heard I dont believe you. --Wrk678 (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that says plain sulfur is an effective antibiotic? I couldn't find any. Sulfa drugs were an amazingly effective treatment for some infections, way beyond any drug up to that time. "Plain sulfur was just as good" is not a valid claim.Edison (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I now can see where this notion came from. The Bayer company spent a fortune developing a drug "Prontosil" in 1935, which was effective against strep. They expected to make a fortune from their patent. But the French, in the process of reverse engineering it to evade the patent, found that the chemical sulfanilomide, called "sulfa" was just as effective, and was not patented, since it had been introduced in 1906. It was "plain old sulfa," not "plain old sulfur" that was "just as effective" as the newly introduced (in 1935) Prontosil. Your recollection is correct, once we change "sulfur" to "sulfa." Edison (talk) 16:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

so what is "plain old sulfa," exactly? did they have it in the 1700's? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrk678 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No idea. Have you tried looking up in the Sulfa article?  Especially Sulfa about when it was available.  Or just read what Edison wrote more carefully, where he mentions some dates and a chemical name?  &#x2013; b_jonas 11:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

How does the seat push when a pilot ejects?
I was just reading about the American pilot who ejected out of his crashing F-16 in Japan recently and I was trying to picture in slow motion in my mind the process of the cockpit opening and the pilot's seat rising up both without him hitting the windshield and quickly enough so that the forward-moving pilot, who is moving very fast, is not pushed back into the opened windshield by the no-doubt great amount of wind force on him. Does the ejection mechanism provide some forward boost in addition to vertical to counter wind immediately experienced that would tend to push him into the windshield before he got the 3'-5' clearance needed to clear the windshield and the presumably still-powered jet safely rushes ahead below him as the wind continues to drag down his forward speed? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's quite a bit of information in our Ejection seat article. —Steve Summit (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The short version, though: bear in mind that the canopy is subject to the same factors (initial speed, drag, etc) as the pilot, and as it probably has higher surface area and lower mass, will be dragged aft of the plane more rapidly than the pilot. Note also that we have a picture of a pilot ejecting from an F-16 that nicely illustrates this.  Alternate options include ejecting through the canopy (with reinforcements above the pilot's head to break through the glass) or, in a handful of cases, ejecting out the bottom of the plane (obviously less useful at low altitude). &mdash; Lomn 13:46, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The initial impulse of a fighter jet seat tends to be backwards, so allow the pilot's legs to clear the instrument panel under which they normally rest (ref). That's done by a system sometimes called the "ejection cartridge" or "ejection gun". That's just enough to get the seat out of the cockpit. Then the problem is, as you say, to clear the airframe. The high drag of the seat is one issue, but a bigger is the consideration that the aircraft may be pitching or yawing wildly, and may be compromised in some other way. So your assumption about airflow is valid in level flight, but so many ejections happen in other circumstances (spiral banking, pitch-up stalling, uncontrolled diving, etc.) that the seat has to conservatively cope with all kinds of unpleasant and unpredictable scenarios. So the gas generator (which is how aeronautical engineers spell "bomb") they use to blast the pilot clear of the aircraft's environment is massive (this gives mass of 3.73 kg for a Russian fighter seat design), burning for only about 0.1 seconds (ref). That's enough force to throw pilot, suit, seat, and parachutes one to 200 ft in the air (ref)(ref) (and given that's a subsonic trainer, the system for a supersonic aircraft is surely more powerful still). Modern seats have attitude control (cf the howstuffworks ref and this). But the key point is the astonishing vigor of that explosive ejection - the ejector seat article cites 12-14g for western designs, with older Soviet designs yielding an astonishing 22g. Those are car-crash-like forces, more than enough to tear the tattered pilot away from the aircraft and its environs.  The onrush of air is injurious, and tends to wrench the pilots knees violently apart - if they weren't restrained the pilot would sustain serious hip injuries. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Excellently detailed explanation. Anecdotally, the force of the ejection is particularly problematic for the human spine. Apparently at some point in history (and possibly still the case), U.S. fighter pilots were only "allowed" two ejections because of the potential cumulative spine damage - after you ejected twice, your career as a fighter pilot was over. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * This paper says that between 30% and 70% of ejectees sustain vertebral fracture. At least anecdotally there's some evidence that ejection makes the pilot slightly shorter, due to the trauma to the intervertebral discs.  I can only imagine that being ejected from a tumbling aircraft must feel like being an Action Man in the grip of an angry toddler. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A ejection seat isn't an amusement-park ride; it's an option of last resort, when a combat pilot believes he should be safer outside his aircraft than inside. That means that his aircraft is probably in bad shape: not only damaged, but unable to land safely.  When compared to almost certain fiery death, an ejection seat need not set a high bar for comfort or safety... as long as it's "mostly" better than exploding.  Even this Air Force Fact Sheet bluntly says it... "Not all emergency situations are escapable, but ejection seats greatly enhance a pilot's chances of getting out of most of them."  Nimur (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Ejecting is hazardous even from a stationary aircraft - broken limbs are common, and I believe an accidental ejection from a stationary BAe Hawk on the ground recently killed a pilot. The pilot who ejected from a hovering Harrier jump jet at an air show off the Essex coast a few years ago, broke his ankle after landing on the remains of his aircraft. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the 1960's era F111 fighter-bomber, the entire crew compartment was designed to be blasted away from the airframe in emergencies, as they considered it was not possible to eject and survive from an aircraft going at Mach 2.5 at low altitudes, and probably any altitude. Ratbone121.215.33.69 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The F-111, like most fast aircraft of its era, was not capable of Mach 2.5 at low altitudes - its maximum speed (in level flight) at sea level was less than half that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question
How automatic are modern ejection seat systems? Some of the answers above seem to imply that the pilot choses when to eject. I've always assumed that the seat was automatically actuated since I would think that in many cases the window of opportunity to eject safely would be closed by the time a human could respond to the emergency situation. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * For the same reasons (mostly) explained by others above, the control of life-critical systems like these is not given to computers. Feel free to go on YouTube and look for and listen to "ready to eject", "ejecting to the north" and all the rest of it. Computers can quite plausibly decide that the aircraft is inverted when it is not. Humans also sometimes make that mistake, but humans mostly know to pull the eject lever when things have become very bad.


 * Listening to some of those recordings, you will hear and see that the human pilots left the aeroplane long before the computer decided it might be necessary.


 * The interesting one is the F-16 at an air show. I assume that the pilot made that choice, since he knew there was no way he could pull out of that dive. Do you have any evidence to indicate that the computer made the choice for him? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't have any evidence either way. The article on ejector seats mentions how ejections are performed manually by pulling lever and so forth, but it also cites a dead link to say that a "Soviet VTOL naval fighter planes such as the Yakovlev Yak-38 were equipped with ejection seats which were automatically activated during at least some part of the flight envelope." The article on the Yakovlev Yak-38 (which was introduced in 1976) also mentions that feature and says that it was "advanced". If it was advanced in 1976, then by now it might be a standard feature. If the pilot experiences G-LOC and the aircraft encounters a situation where ejection is appropriate, then I can see how automatic ejection would be helpful. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

a puzzling biophysical relationship
While processing my data, I found that the instantaneous curvature of the 2D plane-constrained trajectory of a fruit fly is positively correlated with the inverse hyperbolic cosecant of its instantaneous speed (r=~0.7) Such a relationship is the best fit I've found (among logarithmic, inverse square, etc.) and gives a very convincing straight line correlation in the scatterplot. I have no idea why. Does anybody have an ideas? I don't know how to interpret this relationship.

This is regardless of whether they are on cocaine or not. (Yes, I work in a cocaine behavioural lab.) 128.143.1.64 (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the logical place to start would be to find prior research that correlates instantaneous curvature and instantaneous speed for other test subjects under other conditions. What techniques and methodologies did they use?  What correlations have been found to exist by previous researchers?  What causative factors explain those correlations?  It's very easy to crunch a lot of numbers, but if you don't have any motivating reason to assert a cause, detecting a correlation might be totally useless (even if it is very strong).  Even worse, the calculation may be incorrect, due to some detail of your process that you overlooked.  (Is there a geometric relationship between radius of curvature, and instantaneous velocity, possibly amplified by your data collection methodology?  Can you test for such an effect in your algorithm by feeding it a synthetic or randomized data-set, as a control experiment?)  Nimur (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Curvature on a plane is abs(y"x' - x"y') / speed^3. If I multiply the curvature set by speed^3, I get a weaker line (correlation r=0.55) and a lot more scatter. 76.104.28.221 (talk) 19:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why doesn't the fruit fly operate in 3-dimensions of aerial flight? Did God made that individual incorrectly? Bus stop (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually the experiment involves hundreds of fruit flies, "a" is just rhetorical. The arena is 3x4 inches long but only ~1.5mm in height. 76.104.28.221 (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be worth looking at what happens if you use the radius of curvature as your variable rather than the curvature itself -- that's what most of the literature does, and it gets you away from the singularity at zero, which can really distort your numerics. Most of the literature looks for power law relationships when examining curvature-velocity relationships. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It might be helpful to know the range of speeds and curvatures covered by your data, the value of the constant of proportionality, and the units you're using for speed (since the argument of arccsch is unitless). -- BenRG (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SYSTEMIC LUPUS ERYTHROMATOSUS
CAN MENTAL STRESS CAUSE SLE NEPHRITIS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.37.13 (talk) 13:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After looking at several medical sites including Merck Medical and Systemic lupus erythmatosis I have found no reference to stress as a causative factor. The disease itself is thought to be possibly genetic in origin. It is a long duration disease with periods of remission punctuated by flare-ups of signs and symptoms. The flare-ups are caused by clear physical agents like strong sunlight, infection or surgery, among others. Richard Avery (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

LHS and RHS differentiation
In gravitation, we know F ∝ m1m2 and F ∝ 1/r2. Combining both equations, we get F ∝ m1m2/r2 Here, we multiplied LHS (Left Hand Side) of both equations. But why we don't multiplied RHS (Right Hand Side) i.e., F. I don't understand why we cannot write F2 instead of F. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 19:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Because they're not equations. They're proportionalities. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * When setting up a problem you need to decide which are your variables and which are your constants. For example the two masses might be constant while the distance and force vary with time. In that case the equation is F(t) = G m1 m2 / r(t)2, which you can write as F(t) ∝ 1 / r(t)2. Or the distance might be constant while the masses vary with time (though that's a bit weird), in which case you could write F(t) ∝ m1(t) m2(t). But these two proportionalities don't apply to the same problem, so it doesn't make sense to multiply them together. -- BenRG (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's given that: $$ F \propto m_1 m_2 \text{ and } F \propto 1/r^2 $$ $$\text{so } F = k_1 m_1 m_2 \text{ and } F = k_2/r^2 $$ Since the constant of proportionality k1 represents the components of F other than m1m2, and it is known that F ∝ 1/r2, therefore k1 ∝ 1/r2 and likewise k2 ∝ m1m2. $$\therefore k_1k_2 \propto \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$$ $$\therefore k_1k_2 = K \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$$ If we then multiply the equations: $$F = k_1 m_1 m_2 \text{ and } F = k_2/r^2 $$ We get: $$F^2 = k_1k_2 \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$$ And substituting in the expression for k1k2 we get: $$F^2 = K \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2} \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$$ $$\therefore F = \sqrt{K} \frac{m_1m_2}{r^2}$$ The squareroot of K is the constant of gravitation which is usually represented by G. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're saying that F2 is proportional to m1m2/r2, with the constant of proportionality being G2m1m2/r2. But if you allow that, the ∝ symbol is meaningless since everything is proportional to everything else. For it to have any meaning, the constant of proportionality needs to be constant for the purposes of whatever problem you're solving, and something else (on both sides of the proportionality) has to vary. -- BenRG (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Value of second square
What is the value of Second2? Sunny Singh 19:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs)

I would answer your question if it only made any sense. A second is a unit. It doesn't have a value. Dauto (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sunny has been asking a variety of very simple questions about basic physics and algebra. When a person is struggling with such basic concepts, it becomes reasonable to ask them to do some homework: review the basics, and come back to ask questions about the parts you're struggling with.  Here is a list of really good introductory physics texts that may be at your level: texts commonly used in introductory high school physics.  If you would like help finding free online alternatives, we can link some of those as well.
 * You may also find the links to the complete physics lectures of Professor Walter Lewin of MIT useful (the full courses are available online); though they are actually quite a bit more advanced and expect certain prerequisite familiarity with math and physics. Nimur (talk) 23:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Where did you see the unit s2? Since you've been asking questions about kinematics, was it perhaps m/s2? Acceleration is the rate of change of the velocity, which is in turn the rate of change of the displacement. It's actually s-2 which means "per second per second". It's a rate of change of a rate of change i.e. a second derivative. 203.27.72.5 (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Body hairs
Why do our body hairs raise when we feel cool? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysinghthebaba (talk • contribs) 19:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See goose bumps, specifically, Goose_bumps SemanticMantis (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Musical orgasm"
Sometimes, then I listen some piece of music, I feel something like religious ecstasy (although I'm not religious). Extreme happiness. Really really intense feeling. More intense than orgasm. For example, Symphony No. 9 (Beethoven), Also sprach Zarathustra (Strauss), The Darkness Inside (Agathodaimon).

Could you help me with the name of the phenomenon? I'm sure I'm not the first who feel this way. I don't need a medical advice, lol. --Ewigekrieg (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Serendipitously, this question can also (see above) be answered in part by goose bumps, specifically Goose_bumps talks about release of dopamine. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Numinous is perhaps more accurate. Although the word is religious in origin and usually interpreted as such in various religions (where it is known under names like ecstasy, mysterium tremendum, unio mystica, mast, wajd, etc.), the experience itself isn't. See also the wiktionary entry: numinous. It's not restricted to music. Can also happen while, for example, stargazing, seeing a particularly stunning view, witnessing a particularly emotional moment, dancing, etc.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  20:11, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You will probably want to listen to Liszt's Les Preludes http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnITC-IkPVg also known as the theme to Flash Gordon. (Not the one by Queen).
 * See Euphoria which includes a section on Music. Also Stendhal syndrome and Lisztomania Rmhermen (talk) 22:48, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There's also the page Music and emotion, which gets into some of the theories about why music can elicit emotions. There are some interesting unresolved questions, like why people enjoy listening to powerfully sad music. Pfly (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't mean to get off topic, but isn't the fact that it's cathartic a good enough reason? It lets you (or gives you the excuse to) get the emotions out in a socially acceptable way, when in normal day to day life we might be conditioned to bottle it up. Vespine (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's actually catharsis. If I'm right, I've experienced what Ewigekrieg has described. It's not catharsis in the sense of letting go, it's more like a powerful (though usually fleeting) hair-raising feeling of wonder and/or pleasure usually accompanied by the feeling of being dwarfed by the awareness of something greater (hence why I think it's usually associated with religions).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  01:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, my comment was specifically addressing the "unresolved question" raised by Pfly immediately above my reply. Vespine (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It sounded unresolved or at least debated in Music and emotion, a section which admittedly could be much improved. Personally I find I enjoy really good "tragic" or "melancholy", etc music in a way that involves non-negative feelings. The first example that comes to mind is Prelude, Op. 28, No. 4 (Chopin), known as the "Suffocation" prelude. I find it hard to describe how it makes me feel, but "hair-raising feeling of wonder and/or pleasure" sounds in the ballpark. I'm reminded of an article about "tear jerker" songs like Adele's 'Someone Like You', . I'm not sure I'm convinced that the appoggiatura is quite as powerful as they suggest (although, that Chopin prelude is full of appoggiaturas, now that I think about it!), but there's other interesting points raised--that heartfelt music can trigger pleasure and reward centers in the brain that can "rival any other pleasure"..."even when the music is extremely sad". Maybe "catharsis" is the right word for this, but I thought it was generally associated with feelings of relief after the release of negative emotions?Pfly (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Why California Highway 57 south extension were never built
I have only learn a little bit about the California 57 extension south into Huntington Beach to meet the I-405 or California 1, but I don't think I know enough details about it. What type of opposition blocks that road from being extended to I-405 or CA 1. is it because of the house development or is it more about the environment issues. Did city committees resist the highway from being extended, or is it just the earlier days they try to make PCH into a freeway?--69.226.40.110 (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Our Orange Freeway article cites this newspaper story, which seems to cover the issues pretty well. Looie496 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Determining gender of peachfaced lovebird using a pendulum?
I saw this being done recently. If you hold the pendulum above the lovebird's head (or even a lovebird egg) and allow it to move freely - allegedly, if it swings back and forth the bird is a male, or if it swings in a circle, the bird is female.

Is this an accurate method to determine the gender of this species, or can this be considered 'woo'?

Also, how are the peachfaced lovebirds themselves able to determine the gender of others of their species? This is a bird where the male and female are notorious for looking exactly the same, for anyone that's never seen them. --87.115.140.123 (talk) 22:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Where did you see that being done? Looie496 (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In a pet shop a couple of weeks ago. There was a guy in there who said that he breeds lovebirds, and uses this technique to determine the gender of his chicks. Just some guy who happened to be in the shop at the same time as me, I think. He was talking about it to the owner and demonstrated it on the lovebird in the shop. He correctly detertmined that the bird was male using his pendulum (though I suppose there was a 50% chance that you could just guess and get it right). I asked him if it worked on eggs too and he said that it did. --87.115.140.123 (talk) 00:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The pendulum method is an old method of determining the gender of babies (by swinging it over the mother's pregnant belly). This can safely be put into the "old wives tales" category. StuRat (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * See article on Dowsing, subsection Other equipment
 * DMahalko (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No. Likely to be confirmation bias. This article lists more scientific ways to determine gender. But given that Agapornis roseicollis (like most parrots) are sexually monomorphic, the consensus is that you can't always tell without genetic or surgical testing, or more blatant proof like having had it lay eggs already,


 * As for pair-bonding, I assume it's the same as with other birds which depend largely on hormonally-determined courtship behavior. Pair bonds are established very early as juveniles. Unpaired juveniles will "test" other juveniles for compatibility by preening them or catching their attention, and if successful, they'll pair up.


 * However, this seem to rely more on if they get along well (i.e. behavior towards each other), not on determining if their potential partner is of the opposite sex. Which can explain why they will readily bond with humans when kept alone and are quite affectionate in such situations. Even when allowed to select their mates naturally (i.e. by putting them all together in a cage), lovebirds and other pair-bonding parrots will still sometimes end up bonded to a partner of the same sex, especially when the male-female ratio is not equal. But note that although pair bonds are relatively stable, contrary to popular myth, they are not life-long and are often rife with infidelity in the wild (i.e. it's a form of social monogamy). Pairings can change if the pair is separated (e.g. with the death of one partner or a change in male-female ratios). The function of the pair bonds thus, seems to be primarily social, a necessity for maintaining flock stability. However, same-sex pair bonds will still exhibit the same mating behaviors as heterosexual pair bonds; in captivity they can be distinguished by an excess in eggs which never hatch (indicating a female homosexual pair) or no eggs at all (a male homosexual pair). In the wild, female same-sex pair-bonds can still raise chicks if fertilized by opportunistic matings with males (i.e. cheating ;P).-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  00:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Peach-faced Lovebirds regularly demonstrate infidelity? In the wild? I was under the impression that they were one of the very few species that were genuinely sexually monogamous. Within reason, of course - I know that it's untrue that if one bird in a pair dies, the other one will die shortly after... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently, see, under "Polygamy or Promiscuity".-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  05:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me add a link to Peach-faced lovebird. &#x2013; b_jonas 11:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)