Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 May 17

= May 17 =

Historic geophysics
Is it true that the seven continents dividing from one huge Supercontinent could be better energized by more reservoirs erupting pressurized waters out of it? Nuclear energies their lightning released may have had waves and particle velocities of lightning in it (as M.I.T. graduates Doctor Walter T. Brown and Doctor Robert Brown have calculated) exceeding 20 GeV).

So, my question is, without people who have the mathematical physics expertise engaging these two men, is it not premature to conclude that the reality that virtually all the heavy radioactive elements in Earth is concentrated in its continental crust dates back to billions of years before lightning in its continental crust could have built them up with magnetism in concert with electron densities residing in medium atomic weight nuclei (cancelling their positive charges) while they were focused into central axes of lightning bolts in a cataclysmically outbursting Supercontinent? Is it true that uranium, and even heavier, transuranic radioisotopes, can be built up with lighter elements by lightning with particle velocities which are in excess of 20 GeV? Is it true that free neutrons such intense lightning can build up and shoot into heavy radionuclei can extraordinarily rapidly disintegrate them into the lighter elements at the ends of their decay chains? 184.88.61.128 (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * These are all random sciencey words thrown in a blender and vomited out here. I can't even make out a question I can attempt to answer.  -- Jayron 32 06:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, reminds me of Time Cube. StuRat (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Flood geology and Walt Brown (creationist) are our relevant articles for the OP's - thesis, for want of a better word. Nucleosynthesis is the appropriate scientific article on the subject. "No" is the answer to the OP's questions.  Tevildo (talk) 09:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * We can comment on "the reality that virtually all the heavy radioactive elements in Earth is concentrated in its continental crust" thus: no, there's probably a lot more in the core. —Tamfang (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP's premise can be discerned: reading something like about lightning bolts powerful enough to create positrons, he wonders whether billions of years of lightning could have built up heavy elements in the Earth's crust. (I assume he wonders why, after all, uranium would be sitting up on the surface rather than sinking to the core at the start) The problems with the theory are:


 * Lightning doesn't actually spread much radiation around: apparently the gamma rays were detected, but with difficulty; they don't represent a radiation hazard to us during a thunderstorm, for example.


 * Lightning affects only small regions of earth near the surface, and these fulgurites don't show obvious signs of nuclear transmutation, but are merely melted and perhaps chemically altered from the heat.


 * The production of uranium in supernovae is well explained by the r-process and existing theory.


 * The production of uranium before Earth formed, followed by its slow decay, accounts for why a Natural nuclear fission reactor was possible in the past, but cannot happen now.


 * (I haven't addressed/figured out where uranium stands in regard to siderophile, chalcophile, lithophile etc., but note that the elements of the Earth didn't just sort themselves out by weight, but also by chemical affinity within fractions. Compare separatory funnel. Wnt (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand Brown's position, it's really the other way round - the Bible tells us that all rocks were created in 4004 BC, but if we examine their isotopic composition (see radiometric dating) they appear to be billions of years old. We therefore have to explain how the isotope ratios were changed during the Flood, and lightning is - well - a possibility, I suppose.  This particular branch of Young-Earth creationism doesn't want to use the Omphalos argument, so they have to try and find a way of reconciling a 6000-year-old Earth with modern science.  Such attempts are unlikely, IMO, to be successful. Tevildo (talk) 23:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that creationists are unlikely to be able to reconcile an approximately 6000-year-old Earth with modern science. Even with an Omphalos hypothesis, the problem is the Flood.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where does the Bible say rocks were created in 4004 BC? I must have missed that part. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Bible doesn't say 4004 BC. It does provide an approximate chronology, and 4004 BC is one estimate, consistent with the dates of the patriarchs, for creation, and millions or billions of years BP is not consistent with Genesis.  The Jews use a date that is equivalent to 3726 BCE.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The decay of radioactive isotopes is exceptionally straightforward. It is possible to figure out how many atoms of uranium are in a sample, how many of them decay in any given minute, how many minutes therefore it takes for the ratio to change, for the daughter elements to be produced, etc.  And we know that water doesn't change it.  So creationists should pick one of two explanations: either the rocks are as old as they seem (or were created already seeming old), or some miracle intentionally changed them to seem old later.  But either way, the point is, if God directly interfered with them, it was with the apparent intent to create a consistent backstory for the development of the planet over a much longer period of time.  Which is, of course, an Author's prerogative ... but if an author we want to read has gone to that much trouble to craft a long timeline, shouldn't we consider it carefully? Wnt (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Can Gene Therapy Naturally Reverse Itself?
Theoretically speaking, is gene therapy capable of naturally reversing itself? Futurist110 (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * A risk of transgenes is that expression is not "stable". If multiple copies of a gene end up spliced into the DNA, it often triggers the conversion of the gene region into heterochromatin.  You see, the genome has many endogenous retroviruses embedded in it, and for that reason or some other, it has evolved this as what I'd call a sort of anti-spam protection.  There are other complexities of transcription and gene silencing that might affect even single copy transgenes, especially if transcribed at a high level... I ought to look up what progress has been made in understanding them.  The practical impact is that after you make a mouse you should recheck and see that it is still producing your transgene.  See  (which says it depends on integration site, and the DNA can actually be lost... interesting)  But, in a very different system, shows that a single integration event can lead to different expression levels over time as cells adapt their chromatin structure to the new genomic sequence.  Oh, also, if you use a transposon to put a gene into place, there's the issue that the same transposase might pull it back out again.   (I ought to come back and make a better answer to this one)


 * I suppose it's also possible for those cells without the gene to outgrow those with it, if that change retards cell reproduction. For example, an anti-cancer gene may stop the out-of-control cellular reproduction associated with cancer, but those unaffected cancer cells continue to spread, so the ratio of non-gene therapy cancer cells goes up steadily.  This would be rather similar to other cancer therapies, where the resistant cells continue to spread. StuRat (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

At what point will all the rainforests be used up for any kind of human development?
I know there are three main rainforests in the world - the Amazon, the African, and the Asian. I also know that cities are expanding in the Amazon region. As cities continue to expand and animals and plants are forced to coexist with humans, at what point will all the rainforests be used up for any kind of human development? Why do humans demand so much land anyway? Would humans eventually have to colonize the ocean floor for more space? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * City development isn't all that big a contributor for deforestation of rain forests. Most of it is in support of agriculture. Asian rain forests are cleared to make space for palm oil production, for example. You (and all of the rest of us) have a far larger footprint of space than just where we are living. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see the ocean floor as very useful for human development. Most of it lacks sunlight, and the pressure there creates major engineering and safety issues.  We could make a lot more land by milling down the mountains and using that rock to fill in shallow coastal seas.  Or, due to global warming, we can just move closer to the poles, where the land is mostly empty now.  Greenland alone ought to be able to hold a billion people, once the glaciers melt.  As far as room for agriculture is concerned, in the long term we may need to go with hydroponics and related methods, which allow for higher production per land area.  StuRat (talk) 20:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What I really want to know is when wikipedians will stop beating their wives. But I should point out, Stu, that Greenland will actually be a small archipelago if its glaciers melt. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You know what? Quit it with that, Medeis. So this person was misinformed as to the major causes of deforestation. So what? We can correct misconceptions without jumping down their throats and belittling them. I doubt that this is an uncommon misconception. I know I grew up with cartoons showing forests getting torn down to build minimalls... --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not ignoring you or your advice, Ouroboros, but you should become familiar with the Ohio State IP's habits here if you want to champion his cause. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a rather large archipelago, at the very least. The depression in the center will also rebound considerably after all the ice weighing it down melts away. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it will rebound, but if the Greenland icecap melts, the sea level will also rise about 20 feet, and such a temperature rise would imply the melting of other ice caps and a further sea level rise as well.. According to the article, only 1/5th of what looks like land now would actually be above water without the ice and no rebounding or water-level rise. μηδείς (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it possible to take out smoke of the ear?
I saw some videos on YouTube that show people who smoke and then take out the smoke out of the ear. Is it fake or real? If it's real, how can they take out the smoke through the ear anatomically? 149.78.38.232 (talk) 20:59, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Eustacian tube. Now the eardrum would normally stop it, but perhaps this individual has a ruptured eardrum. StuRat (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Or maybe it's a trick. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So how would you perform such a trick if it was a trick?--86.179.251.18 (talk) 20:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) If your only view is from the front, it could come out a tube behind the ear, and you couldn't tell the difference.


 * 2) If it's definitely coming out of the ear, then some type of a pierced ear with the tube passing through it might work. As for how to create the "smoke", a small amount of dry ice would work.


 * 3) If a small enough amount of smoke is needed, it could even be placed inside the ear, with a thermal insulator placed between the dry ice and skin (don't try this at home !). StuRat (talk) 20:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the difference between academic article to scientific article (if there is)?
149.78.38.232 (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * In brief, not all academics are scientists - an academic article on history for example isn't science. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And not all science is academic - much science is done outside of academic institutions and is not of a theoretical or abstract nature. SteveBaker (talk) 23:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there are an awful lot of scientists working inside academic institutions who would be very surprised to hear that all of their work is of a theoretical or abstract nature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Or even that it isn't of a theoretical or abstract nature. In general, though, people working in industry can publish in the same journals as those used by academic institutions (as long as they have proper copyright releases). --OuroborosCobra (talk) 00:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What kind of bug is this?
 Thanks! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like a small beetle of some sort. This page on identification of small beetles may help, but be aware that there are more beetles on earth than anything else (by a pretty large factor; about 1 in 3 animal species yet described are beetles), and as such, identifying a single beetle species with little more to go on than a picture is a Sisyphean task.  -- Jayron 32 02:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like a weevil to me, with the long snoot. But that's not much help either - most animal species are insects, most insects are beetles, and most beetles are weevils :) SemanticMantis (talk) 13:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not a very big one, so that would make it the lesser of two weevils. StuRat (talk) 15:19, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Groucho [and Chico] would be proud cf you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That line is from Master and Commander, not Duck Soup. μηδείς (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then Groucho (and Chico) would be proud of the author of Master and Commander. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the book,, but see this 1 min clip. μηδείς (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)