Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 February 20

= February 20 =

Bordeaux colour - looks different in different states?
Hi there, I found that the Bordeaux colour looks in different language versions of Wikipedia (fr, de, ru) different - and it is not just my feeling, because even the RGB (red, green, blue) values of each of them is different:


 * fr - (128, 0, 0)
 * de - (128, 0, 50)
 * ru - (176, 0, 0).

See for example the German page: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bordeauxrot, where is a small discussion about it already (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Bordeauxrot).
 * Questions:
 * 1) Is it really so - does Bordeaux look different in each of the states? And if so, isn't it weird? :) (I would expect there could be a consensus at such a cultural issue, especially with respect to the fact that it probably is younger than many other colours, which, maybe, in spite of it don't vary according to the state....
 * 2) Why there's no article about this colour in the English version?
 * 3) What would be the RGB values in English Wikipedia, if there is such a colour in English?
 * 4) Who determinates this values for each / for the mentioned states?

Thank you very much! --Jiří Janíček (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed the extra ":" from the 1) paragraph - they are needed after "hard" line breaks only.
 * Colors with names like "Bordeaux" are fairly vague. You can't expect an exact RGB value - so it doesn't surprise me that there are different values out there.  There might also be a cultural difference - but I don't think you can infer that from the RGB values that have been arbitrarily chosen for Wikipedia articles.  Worse still, the perception of that color will depend on the brightness of your display, the amount of ambient room lighting when you look at the screen and so forth.
 * The question of who determines the RGB values for such colors is also tricky because there are a dozen paint and dye manufacturers who name their colors and thereby try to pin a name onto a particular color.
 * The most widely accepted sets of colors are those produced by the Pantone company. The names and numbers they choose and the precise colors associated with them are widely accepted around the world - so everyone agrees what EXACT color "Pantone Bordeaux" is - in paint, dye, print and on-screen.  If you buy a Pantone-bordeaux paint from one company and a pantone bordeaux cloth from another, you can be reasonably assured of a fairly close match.
 * "Bordeaux" is Pantone color "PMS 221" which has an "official" RGB value of (147,0,66) - so I suppose, on that measure, the German Wikipedia is closest. But it's far from true to say that the pantone definition is something that we should use as a standard on Wikipedia for a color that's best described as a dark purplish red.  There is a wide range of RGB values that most people would describe as "Bordeaux Red"...after all, they are merely referring to the typical color of red wine from the Bordeaux region of France - and I'm quite certain that it's not all the exact same color!
 * SteveBaker (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's mostly a way to avoid names like "dark red", or even "red."
 * Copyright. These simple names cannot be copyrighted, but neologisms can, just like sufficiently advanced combinations.
 * Not the same as old "red": There are no more "red" cars not only because of the copyright issues, but also because they used to have "red" paint which was a different tone than today's red-by-a-different-name.
 * Sophistication means awesomeness: If you can pick among dozens of red tones, would you pick the one that's merely called "red"? Imagine the conversation:
 * "Nice paint job, what is that tone of red called?" – "It's 'red' ."
 * Marketing issues. "Bordeaux" beats "PMS221". Even more so since no reddish color gets along with "PMS" too well... - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 12:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This is Pantone Bordeaux . μηδείς (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm - let's take that a bit further:
 * This is what French Wikipedia calls 'Bordeaux'
 * This is what German Wikipedia calls 'Bordeaux'
 * This is what Russian Wikipedia calls 'Bordeaux'
 * This is what the Pantone system calls 'Bordeaux'
 * Clearly they are all quite different - but I don't think you'd call any of them "right" - it's so much a matter of opinion. SteveBaker (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As always Wikipedia has an article about this, see Linguistic relativity and the color naming debate. Dmcq (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * That's a horribly named article. All normal trichromats agree there is a "pure" or focal red, green and yellow color, even if their language is limited to words for dark and light. Interestingly there is no focal blue.  See Stephen E Palmer, "Color, Consciousness, and the Isomorphism Constraint" . μηδείς (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * +1, horrible title. I wouldn't be surprised if it redirected to the same target as Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
 * ...it doesn't. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 08:27, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Irish doesn't clearly distinguish between green and grey. Dmcq (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

psychrometric
I am a chemical engineer,I felt a little bit unsure of the psychrometric chart which can be directed to by the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PsychrometricChart.SeaLevel.SI.svg when browsing it.my understanding is that the wet bulb temperature curve should be coinciding with dry bulb temperature curve when the air is saturated with water meaning 100% relative humidity,but the chart shows the contrary,i am thankful if any of you can get this clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Landwonder (talk • contribs) 01:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The chart does show them matching at 100% relative humidity. The angled light blue and vertical green lines meet at the top red curve, which is the 100% relative humidity curve.  It is a confusing chart, though, so I can see how you might have misread it. StuRat (talk) 01:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

medicine (how do you classify morphine? )
how do you classify morphine? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.147.190.51 (talk) 05:03, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am all for it. μηδείς (talk) 05:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As an opiate, a narcotic, a controlled substance, etc. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Medically, it is an analgesic - a painkiller. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In the United States, morphine is a Schedule II controlled substance, loosely meaning that it is a hazardous substance with practical, legitimate medical utility. Nimur (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Solar System to scale
Does there exist a picture of the Solar System that has the sizes of the planets (+ Sun) to scale and the distances to scale in the same picture? I have just managed to find a picture with either of those. I know it's a bit silly, but it's doable. Th4n3r (talk) 10:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A few years ago, I created a 3D model of the universe to scale. When the whole solar system was viewed at one time, the individual planets were less than a pixel in size on the screen. It was a little disappointing! To make it usable I had to scale all the objects up considerably.217.158.236.14 (talk) 10:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This website shows what you are after - it's not in an image but I'm sure you could convert it somehow. I'm not sure the sizes of the smaller planets will be totally precise - since they are 1 pixel in diameter and the sun is 650 pixels - this isn't becasue this is the difference in scale, just that your monitor can only display as small as 1 pixel. 80.254.147.164 (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thank you. Th4n3r (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * A picture? To scale? You are joking right? Either it is a BIG picture or it is not to scale. There is no way you can have the planets and the sun in a picture to scale. 202.177.218.59 (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's not normally useful to show the solar system to scale, for the reasons listed above. However, this does rather give everyone the impression that the planets are a lot bigger and closer together, relative to the size of the solar system, than they are.  A scale model set over a very larger area, like a science museum, might work and help to undo this impression.  Of course, you would need large signs to direct you towards each planet's dot, which could perhaps have a magnifying glass or microscope with it so you can see it. StuRat (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * When I have taught earth science and/or astronomy in the past, I used to do a scale model of the solar system on the football field. At that scale, the sun sits on one goal line and is almost exactly the size of a Quarter (United States coin), pluto would sit on the other goal line, and none of the planets would actually be visible to the naked eye.  -- Jayron  32  04:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sweden Solar System is not exactly a picture, but it is to scale. --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Also not quite a picture, but in Ithaca, NY there is the Sagan Planet Walk which has all planetary bodies and their distances at a 5 billion to 1 scale. This should give you an idea of just how massive a perfectly to scale picture would have to be. 8.17.117.40 (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, you need a large area to set up an visible scale model. At Jodrell Bank Observatory the arboretum features a small scale model of the solar system, the scale being approximately 1:5,000,000,000. As part of the SpacedOut project, Jodrell Bank also represents the Sun in a 1:15,000,000 scale model of the solar system covering Britain. There is also a string of model planets on signboards on the roads approaching Siding Spring Observatory which stretches some tens of miles.--Shantavira|feed me 17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found Sliding Spring Observatory on google maps, and while street view doesn't quite go to the observatory itself, it does extend over the road leading to it. I managed to find mercury (a little way before the first hairpin bend), and I'm sure it could be followed to find the other planets (though you might need to look up which way to go at the various junctions). That should give a better idea of the scales involved.  MChesterMC (talk) 09:30, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Neptune orbits at 4.5*1012metres from the Sun. If this is scaled down to 1 metre, then the Sun is 0.154 mm in diameter, a barely visible speck. Jupiter will be 0.015 mm, and Earth will be 0.0015 mm. CS Miller (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * One really cool example (if you have the means to visit it) is the scale model in the area of Peoria, Illinois, as seem here. The sun is the 36 feet in radius, and serves as the entrance for the local Science Museum there.  On that scale, Pluto is 1 inch in diameter and located 35 miles away.  A similarly scaled model also starts in Presque Isle, Maine, apparently See here.  -- Jayron  32  03:58, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a video discussing the scale of the Solar System here which follows on from one on the size of the Earth and Sun here. The series continues beyond our galaxy. Thincat (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the answers. Th4n3r (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Biology or sociology
Women feel guilty after having sex (or a least casual sex ) Is the reason for that biological or sociological? Sources don't agree so I suposse there is no scientific consensus, am I right?--80.28.202.253 (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Some women might feel guilty after some types of sex. The reasons are partly sociological, in that they feel they violated a religious or moral code, such as fornication (sex outside of marriage), adultery, or incest.  Of those, incest has perhaps the strongest biological reason to be avoided (inbreeding).  Fornication and adultery can also spread venereal diseases, so there is some biological reason to avoid those, but the biological advantage of breeding with multiple partners (genetic diversity) may outweigh those. StuRat (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)