Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 October 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 17

Uvula

Hi - I think somethings wrong with my uvula. Do you have any recommended sites to help me self- diagnose what could be wrong with my uvula.

Thanks, April 67.182.219.78 (talk) 02:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.219.78 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Once again, we cannot legally offer medical advice. See a doctor if you feel that you have a problem.CalamusFortis 03:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a site called WebMD. I've never used it, but I'm certain it's not as good as seeing a real doctor. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 07:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There;s also the article Palatine uvula with pix and pathology. Julia Rossi (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried the symptom checker, and for any given set of symptoms, it'll typically give you two dozen causes, with treatments ranging from "ignore it" to "get to an emergency room yesterday". --Carnildo (talk) 20:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've heard of these people called "doctors" that have experience with this sort of thing. Maybe you could try one of those?CalamusFortis 03:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Need Genetic Analysis of Japanese people

Historically, various non-Chinese groups like the Central Asian Turks, Iranians and Uyghurs have moved to Central China and were sinified in successive waves and together affecting the ancestry of the Chinese, thereby the Han Chinese are not very pure mongoloids. Similarly, the southeast asians may look mongoloid but they have mixed with arabs and east indians in ancient times. However, the Japanese had not mixed with many various non-mongoloids like what the Chinese and southeast asians had done and therefore they kept their race pure by living in remote, islolated islands for thousands of years.

I need a genetic analysis comparision between the Japanese people and other asians (Chinese and southeast asians) and the analysis explains that the Japanese are more pure mongoloid. Can anyone please provide me with a website that has a genetic analysis comparision between the Japanese and other asians? 72.136.111.205 (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll have a hard time finding what you're looking for, because most geneticists reject these old conceptions of race. For example, see Mongoloid race and Historical definitions of race. --Allen (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I's also suggest Japanese people. Though if you are trying to prove the superiority of a culturally and genetically isolated people, you'll probably be disappointed. Minorites like the historically repressed Ainu are probably a better approximation of the genetic heritage of the original occupants of Japan than is the current dominant ethnic group, which is itself probably a mixture of the original Japanese with Korean and Han lineages. Dragons flight (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Your question isn't very scientific. You start off with a premise, that may or may not be correct which is fine. But then despite the fact your premise is unproven, you asked for evidence to support your premise rather then simply asking for what evidence there is out there and whether it supports your premise Nil Einne (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't readily see nil einne's point, we have a decent article on the phenomenon. SeeConfirmation bias. --Shaggorama (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Sites of interest: the International HapMap Project [1] (genetic mapping of SNP's); the Yanhuang project (mapping genomes of 100 Chinese individuals); the 1000 genomes project (mapping genomes of 1000 individuals worldwide, including HapMap participants); overview of these projects in Nature [2].

And to the comments above imputing racist motivations for the question: it is actually quite likely that Japan, as a more closed society over the last thousand years or so, will have a more "pure" genetic background similar to that of Iceland, which deCODE genetics, Inc. sought to exploit. The exact meaning of "pure" is of course wide open to interpretation - but the projects I've cited are a scientific attempt to quantify those differences and similarities. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, I don't have access to those sites. I don't care about Ainu and the HapMap. Let's get to the real point. A certain group that live isolated for a long time, is generally more "pure". I simply want a genetic analysis that compares the Japanese people and other asians and to explain that the Japanese people are more pure oriental. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad that you don't have such access or you would see that the premise "a certain group that live isolated for a long time" is fatally flawed. Japan and surrounding areas is part of at least three major migration routes: Southern Asian coastal and overland; and mid-Asian overland. mDNA evidence makes this clear. It's important to start with evidence then draw conclusions instead of vice-versa. Saintrain (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And thanks for revealing your true colours in the face of my good faith efforts. The first three of my links are open to all. Those links are where you can watch the efforts and begin to construct your theory of racial purity. The world being what it is, I doubt such evidence will turn up, but watch the science and maybe you can twist it somehow. As to your "simple analysis" to explain Japanese people being "more pure oriental" - I don't know of one existing and I don't know of any scientific group particularly interested in pursuing such a ridiculous notion (since e.g. they would first have to genetically define "oriental", which is an exercise in futility). The concepts are much more complex than you seem to think. Franamax (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Further proof you just don't get it: haplotype maps are the way to identify genetic "purity", through persistent SNP linkage patterns among homogeneous populations. Franamax (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The other question is, what do you mean by 'oriental'? As others have point out, the idea of a Mongoloid race is now not particularly well supported. Furthermore the idea of an 'ideal' specimen of any race is even less supported. You can perhaps say members of race 'X' tend to have features A, B and C but to say an ideal specimen of race 'X' should have features A, B and C is quite a different thing and doesn't make much sense based on out modern understanding of genetics and evolution. So back to the question, what do you mean by 'oriental'? If you define 'oriental' to mean 'like-modern Japanese' then yes you can say modern Japanese are the 'race' most 'pure oriental'. But that's not surprising since basically what you've said is modern Japanese are the 'race' most 'like modern Japanese'. You don't really need any link to tell you that the modern Japanese are more like modern Japanese then modern Han Chinese are like modern Japanese. Of course you may find that modern Japanese are often more different from one another then some modern Koreans or modern Han Chinese are from some modern Japanese. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As an interesting footnote to this point, I strongly suspect that if one were to define "oriental" as something like a collection of those alleles having the highest frequency in the peoples of East and Southeast Asia, then Japan would probably be less "oriental" than China. By virtue of being somewhat more isolated and less numerous than mainland populations, I'm sure they do a poorer job of reflecting the median phenotype. For example, O is the common blood type among Chinese (~40% of the population), but only 25% of Japanese have that type, with A being most common (~35%). Similarly, there is a "Japan type" Y-linked DNA marker that is more prevalent on the islands than anywhere else and probably originated there. The flip-side of isolation is that a population also has the opportunity to evolve independently of the larger parent group. Dragons flight (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oriental means mongoloid. You can't find what I want which is okay. 72.136.111.205 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

"Mongoloid" is a historical term pre-dating genetics by nearly a century and doesn't have any widely accepted genetic meaning, hence asking for a genetic analysis of "oriental" or "mongoloid" traits isn't a meaningful question unless you also provide a means of specifying precisely which genetic traits you really mean. Dragons flight (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mongoloid and oriental in common use simply means something like "people who look like the average individual that one will find in the 'orient' ", and it's a pretty crappy meaning if you look at it from a scientific standpoint. Looks are deceiving and the "looks Oriental/mongoloid = genetically 'Asian' " correlates very poorly with any genetic traits other then the ones that express the phenotype of the "looks". And sometimes not even. If you are simply interested to know the genealogy of the Asian cultures maybe Genealogical DNA test can be a good place to start the learning process. Sjschen (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Movie sound

There's a stereotypical background animal sound that always turns up in jungle movies. It goes something like ooh, ooh, ooh, ooh, aah, aah, aah, aah (you know the one). Is there really some critter that makes this sound, and if so, what is it? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a chimpanzee call you're thinking of. [3]. --Allen (talk) 06:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or kookaburra?[4] --Rallette (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This could be several types of apes. You may want to listen in at [5] for some samplings of very jungle-like sounds of gibbons —Preceding unsigned comment added by EverGreg (talk • contribs) 12:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it's certainly the kookaburra. Probably soon to be followed by the Wilhelm scream. --Sean 13:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to say that "there's only one problem with the kookaburra: it's found only in Australia and New Guinea. We do have lots of tropical jungles and rainforests, but not many movies have been made in those locations to my knowledge". But then I was shocked to read that "Although the kookaburras are restricted to a relatively small part of the world, the distinctive sound they make has found its way onto many "jungle sound" soundtracks, used in movies and television as well as certain Disney park attractions no matter where in the world the action is set". This cultural phenomenon must also explain why I blithely assumed for many years that tigers were native to Africa - I saw them in lots of African-set movies as a child. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In Ramar of the Jungle this sound was constantly heard, and it sounded like a bird. "Hoo! hoo! hoo! haa! haa! haa!" Either that or a very crazy ape or human.Edison (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The belief that there are penguins in the Arctic seems to be a fairly widespread one. That probably originates from Saturday morning cartoons. Heh, I used to think that dinosaurs lived alongside humans because of cartoons I watched when I was a kid. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tooky-tooky bird (Tookarus birdoozi). Characteristic call is "Ah ah ee ee tooky tooky". Hope that helps. Saintrain (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you ou ou ou, aah aah aah aah. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Distance from nucleus: d or s orbitals

(moved from RefMisc by Franamax (talk) 05:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Yo, just some basic high school chemistry here: Say we take a transition metal in Period 4; the 4s suborbitals fill up before the 3d orbitals right? Yet, the 4d orbital electrons are lost first before the 3d ones in a reaction? So which one is the valence electrons? The ones in the 3d or 4s orbitals? Also, which of these suborbitals is farthest away from the nucleus. ie the greatest radius away? I'm guessing 4s because transition metals are dense because the 3d orbitals increase the atomic mass, without increasing radius. If this is the case, why is the 3d orbital considered a "higher energy" orbital than the 4s?

Peace guys, Hustle (talk) 01:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See Electron configuration#Ionization of the transition metals. That subsection of the article on configurations explains the transition metal paradox, that the filling order does not match the removal order. The assumption that all iso-electronic ions have the same configuration is faulty; the different Z_eff between, say, Fe⁺² and Cr shows that the two systems are not in the same general electric field, so the two systems do not behave identically WRT electron organization. Also, it is helpful to remember that the idea of electron configuration is more descriptive that predictive. We have a limited number of samples, 100 and change, with which to make understandings of the system. Describing the trends in the system is easier than explaining why those trends occur. The common explanation for any deviation from expected norms in chemistry is "Well, that is a more stable state" or "Well, that is a lower-energy state", both of which mean, essentially, "Well, that's just what it does". Its also helpful to remember that all atomic models, even rather complex and detailed models such as quantum mechanics, are models, and by necessity, are incomplete in explaining all aspects of the real system. Nature does what it does, and our models can be adapted if they don't completely fit; however it may be impossible, from a philosophical point of view, to ever create a model which fits nature 100%. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri system seen from Saturn

In this image: [6], Cassini took a picture of the Alpha Centauri system just over the limb of Saturns rings. You can clearly see that it is a binary star in the image, but why is this? α Centauri Appears as a single star from Earth and Satrun isn't that much closer (relatively!) to α Centauri, so why is it so much larger? How much magnification is necessary to see that α Centauri is a binary? Did Cassini magnify the image? 63.245.144.77 (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Gravitational lens? PMajer (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's the nearest star to us, what could get inbetween to create a lens? --Tango (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Our article on Alpha Centauri says that the angular separation of the two brightest stars in the Alpha Centauri system varies between 2 and 22 arc seconds. Let's take a value of, say, 10 arc seconds. Our visual acuity article says that a person with standard visual acuity can distinguish a pair of objects with a separation of 1 arc minute. So a magnification of about 6 is required to visually separate the Alpha Centauri binary pair. Couldn't find any detailed information about Cassini's visual imaging systems, but the flatness of Saturn's rings in that image suggests a considerable amount of magnification, either in the original image or in subsequent processing. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And indeed, you can separate Alpha Centauri with a small backyard telescope, or even a pair of decent binoculars. The Cassini Narrow Angle Camera is a 2 m f/10.5 reflector[7]. I know little about optics, but this provides more magnification than a pair of binoculars ;-) . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The image's filename is Alpha_Centauri_AB_over_limb_of_Saturn_PIA10406.jpg. It appears to me that we're looking at the limb of Saturn itself, with atmosphere – not the rings. In the foreground we see the rings' shadow (fuzzier than we usually see the rings, because the shadow falls on clouds). What does this say about the flatness? —Tamfang (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I really can't see how bright band across the image can be the limb of the planet itself - more likely, as the OP says, the star is appearing over the limb or edge of Saturn's rings. Maybe the filename of the uploaded file is inaccurate or incomplete. But this is all speculation. If we knew the original source of the image, it might have more details of context, exposure time, magnification etc. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the outer edge of the rings doesn't look like that! —Tamfang (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Makes me wish I lived in the Southern Hemisphere so I could look at Alpha Centauri with binoculars. :( Are there binary stars in the Northern Hemisphere that you can tell are binary systems using only binoculars? 63.245.144.77 (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri is interesting to watch because the two components have very obviously different colours. This search returns info on some Northern hemisphere double stars that can be observed with binoculars. Albireo (β Cygni) is described as quite beautiful. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll have to look at some of these objects. Ob the search, one of the first things that shows up is the Moon, and I look at the Moon with binoculars nearly every night it's out, but these other objects look like a lot of fun too. Thank you. 63.245.144.77 (talk) 06:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Frequency of different forms of cancer

Why are some forms of cancer much common than others? For example, why is heart cancer so uncommon?Mr.K. (talk) 09:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

See "Carcinogenesis". In cancer, there is a mutation in a cell line that leads to uncontrolled cell division. Certain cell populations already have high rates of natural cell division, notably epithelium and bone marrow. Other tissues, especially connective tissue and muscle, have low natural rates of cell turnover. High turnover tissues require less exposure to carcinogens in order to transform. Also, epithelial surfaces have more contact with the outside world, so have greater exposure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Length of electric power transmission lines

From out article on Electricity_transmission#Losses: "As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for electricity was 4,000 miles (7,000 km), although all present transmission lines are considerably shorter."

How long is the longest line? How long are common lines? Mr.K. (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

From the same article: "Longest power line: Inga-Shaba (length: 1,700 kilometres (1,056 mi))", and it also states that intermediate length lines are about 100km. Capuchin (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting note: long power lines are vulnerable to coupling to the weather in space. Franamax (talk) 22:32, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Solar phenomena can cause substantial DC voltage gradients on earth. These can be controlled by the proper placement of capacitors in neutral connections. Common lines go from substation to substation which can be tens to hundreds of miles.The referenced article says "Longest power line: Inga-Shaba (length: 1,700 kilometres (1,056 mi))" In more highly developed countries, lines would not be that long because of generating stations or load centers being more closely spaced. ("Hey! Gimme access to that power line!") In more war-torn regions, it would be easy to keep the line shut down by obvious means. Since it is high voltage DC, it would be expensive to tap into it to promote local industry along the route, due to the high cost of valve halls and switching yards. Edison (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

helicopter lift control

I have been working on creating a model helicopter with some automatic hover control. But I would like to know that what is it: torque or rpm of the motors that would determine the lift? Any shortcut method of creating the driving circuitry of brushless dc motor would be highly appreciated. 218.248.70.235 (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Lift in a helicopter depends on both rpm and collective pitch. Our radio-controlled helicopter article has a section on typical model controls - sounds quite complex. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Does your model helicopter have pitch control? If so, it is likely going to be much easier to adjust pitch than to constantly increase/decrease RPM. I would expect it to increase the lifespan of your main rotor motor as well. -- kainaw™ 15:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember - that changing the motor rpm (which requires you to change the torque - they aren't independent variables!) also changes the tail rotor rpm (the two are connected via a driveshaft and gearbox). In theory, you have the two nicely balanced by the pitch of the tail rotor blades - but that's rarely a perfect thing - so expect the helicopter to yaw around as you control the lift. When you change the collective - you increase the drag on the main rotor so it will tend to slow down. When hovering (particularly) you get all manner of interactions from 'ground-effect' at low altitude - and if you are hovering in a confined space (eg close to a building or something) then there are lateral forces due to that same effect. If the helicopter does start to move laterally or forwards/backwards, the amount of airflow over the forward-moving rotor is more than that on the backward-going blade - so the helicopter will want to roll or pitch because of increased lift on the faster-moving blade. Even as you attempt to cancel out the original motion, you need to compensate for the induced roll using the cyclic pitch control...but that too increases drag and that changes the required engine torque which cuts rpms which... Well, let's just say that the take-away lesson with helicopters is that no matter what parameter you change - at least two others will change as a consequence of that. Good luck with your project - it sounds fascinating! SteveBaker (talk) 00:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Eskimos

Why do eskimos live in such inhospitable locations? If they settled there when it was inhospitable, why? If it became inhospitable after they settled, why didn't they migrate somewhere else? I suppose they have enough food and other resources, but why didn't they seek out somewhere easier to live? MikeInABox (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably because there were already people living in the more hospitable places. It was easier to live in the inhospitable place than to fight for resources elsewhere. --Tango (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe they didn't know anywhere else was actually more hospitalable? But Tango's response is more convincing :) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That still leaves the question why they do not migrate now.--Radh (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's what they've always known, it's their cultural tradition. People often choose to stick with what they're familiar with rather than change to something better. --Tango (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Not really. They are perfectly well adapted, culturally speaking, to their environment. They have no reason to leave, and indeed why would they or anyone else want them to. If we judge them from our perspective in our environment (like "I would never want to live there"), then we do the Eskimo culture a disservice. They probably look at modern city life and make the same statement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Why don't we all move to Tahiti? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Because we don't really have a better chance of survival there. I am not at greater risk living in Cardiff than Tahiti. I understand they may have a preference for one area over another, but surely they would move to increase their chances of survival. MikeInABox (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure your quite mistake. Cardiff is rather cold in the winter. It may not be as cold as a number of other places but it still requires adequate heating or good insulating clothes. I don't know if Tahiti is the best example, a place which is too hot or has too much sunlight is not necessarily great either (although it's worth remembering that while nowadays we may spend a lot of our time outdoors in uncovered areas, historically in the hunter-gather era people would have spent a lot of their time in their shelters or under the cover of trees) but there are definitely places that emperically are more habitable. Definitely humans live in a lot of places that, while not as bad as Alaska have extremely cold winters (sub zero) and with regular snow. Are you really trying to convince me that climatically, such places are not more difficult for humans (being without any great level of fur and without hibernation) then a place with a mild 15-25 degrees year round temperature? Sure the temperature is not a great problem for us now because we have homes with good insulation, electricity etc. The key point is that humans are really adaptable which is why we are able to live fine in Tahiti, Cardiff or Alaska. Nil Einne (talk) 04:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can understand that they might not want to live in a city or leaves their groups/culture, but it is more a question that people (and animals) generally migrate to more hospitable environments where the effort to get a given amount of resources is easier. Not to be lazy, but just to increase their survival chances. If food does become scarce living in a cold environment must significantly reduce you chance of survival. MikeInABox (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do modern Eskimos often die for reasons they wouldn't have died of in a city? I see no reason why they would. The chance of getting hit by a car in a city is probably higher than the chance of an Eskimo getting frostbite. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't they still seek out somewhere better and keep looking until they found a better place where there was less competition? If they found a place that was more hospitable but with competition, they would know that there were at least more hospitable places. Also, why didn't they move when they knew there were better places (following contact with people with knowledge of other areas), but before technology (medicine/machinery etc) made life easier for them? MikeInABox (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Live wasn't particularly hard for the Innuit. Why would it be? They are hunters and gatherers, and these, at least on pre-industrial times, have much better quality of life than peasants. The arctic sea is very productive, with lots of fish, birds, and sea mammals. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is purely speculation on my part, but the angle of the Earth's axis does change over time. It's possible that when the Eskimos migrated, it wasn't as cold. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The Innuit arrived in Greenland at about the same time as the Norse. There is some debate about exactly how much colder or warmer than today it was back then, but in any case it was very cold by our middle latitude standards. They simply were well-adapted and knew how to live a good life there. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

While the climate may well have changed, it wouldn't be due to shifts in the Earth's axis over such a short timescale (by geological standards). Also, it would have likely been colder, not warmer. Theories put migration to North America between around 10,000 and 30,000 years ago, which would be during the last glacial period or the very beginning of the current interglacial period, so presumably much colder than currently. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Moving around is far harder than staying still, they would need a good reason to move their whole group somewhere else. They wouldn't necessarily know of anywhere that wasn't already populated (if there even was such a place), so they would be walking around randomly constantly running into people that didn't like them using their resources. --Tango (talk) 17:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

And if you're perfectly well adapted to a place, know every inch of its geography, know exactly how to survive, and know there won't be other people showing up regularly to take your stuff - why move? Lots of people live today in cold climates (ahem, Canadian talking here :), yes you could die if you get caught in a storm, but you prepare and you harvest the bounty around you while you can. Franamax (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Cultural note: while I personally associate the term "Eskimo" with a people having incredible survival skills and intimate knowledge of the environment, as well as an admirable society, the term is one given by "Indians" (people living where the trees were) and I believe means "eat raw meat", was derogatory, and was indicative of the Indians willingness to kill any and all Eskimos they encountered. The peoples name for themselves is generally Inuit (although there are sub-names which more closely identify those who lived in certain areas). Because of the derivation of the term Eskimo, Inuit is much preferred. Franamax (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, Inuit refers only to a subset of Eskimos. See Eskimo#Nomenclature, it would appear you are under a common misconception. --Tango (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My information comes from a professional with intimate knowledge of Inuit people and culture and adoptive mother of an Inuit child. Perhaps the misconception is also shared by the Inuit people themselves? Following the argument that a term is of uncertain etymology and thus not derogatory means that nigger and kike are also perfectly acceptable. As I noted, sub-populations have individual names, but from the link you give above "defines Inuit...as including the Inupiat, Yupik (Alaska), Inuit, Inuvialuit (Canada), Kalaallit (Greenland) and Yupik (Russia) [people]". It's usually better to consult the actual people, for instance to decide how to pronounce your name, I would ask you for advice (and possibly your mother as the ultimate authority :). Franamax (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or you could actually read the article Eskimo, which says "There are two main groups referred to as Eskimo: Yupik and Inuit. A third group, the Aleut, is related" and leave out mention of other editors' mothers. Edison (talk) 02:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify then: in order to discover Tango's name, I would directly ask Tango rather than consult a third party to see what their opinion was. Failing that, I would ask a related party, in this case Tango's parent, who would surely be authoritative on the matter. Sorry if my colloquialism has caused you confusion. And I evidently have read the article, since I quote from it directly in mentioning the preferred naming. I quite understand that Eskimo is a term for North American native peoples generally living north of the treeline. The older of those people are comfortable with the term, the younger are less so. The members of the Inuit Circumpolar Council seem comfortable with the overall term Inuit, although as I said, they will preferentially use their own regional name for themselves. "Eskimo" is an exonym and there is no particular reason to use it. Was there anything else? Franamax (talk) 09:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the OP's question: lots of Eskimos have moved far from home, although such a thing is hardly limited to Eskimos. Perhaps the question would be better worded "why don't the Eskimos move en masse, completely abandoning their homelands?" I think it is reasonable to say that that kind of mass migration is quite uncommon. Why hasn't North Dakota been completely abandoned? It's hardly Tahiti. Pfly (talk) 06:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The question begins from a misapprehension - that the arctic is inhospitable. It sure would seem so to me, just as a Floridian would find my Ontario inhospitable, but it's all a question of what you're used to. To them (personal communication) our (Ontario) climate is ridiculous - rain all spring and fall and stinking humidity in the summer. Matt Deres (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Apollo Landing Hoax

I asked this on the Apollo Landing Hoax discussion page and nobody there could come up with a satisfying answer. Watch the following video all the way through. The video begins with the flag at complete stop. At about 37 seconds into the video, an astronaut walks by. The flag begins to wave as if the astronaut's movement created a breeze. Obviously, NASA didn't fake the Apollo lunar landing, but I haven't been able to come up with a definitive explanation. I have a number of possible explanations:

1) The astronaut's bouncing on the ground caused the flag to move. But earlier in the video, an astronaut walks away from the flag and the flag doesn't move. 2) The astronaut's shoulder brushed against the flag. But he looks like he's too far away to make contact. 3) When the astronaut starts moving, he kicks a rock which hits the flag pole. 4) It's caused by static electricity 5) Gas emission from space suit but I have no idea if space suits actually have gas emissions.

Space suits both the material and the air inside both have small gas emisssions. ( usually from oil contaniments ). Even though the suits are tested, cleaned and packed with the *utmost* care. Still some still get finger-prints on them. A finger print is enough to cause a flag to wave. ( I have seen it in a vacuum chamber ).

Btw, this is a really good question. But you seem to have missed:

6) The astronaught bouncing by the flag, jars the ground. ( the lunar surface, aside from the dust is volcanic flows, i.e. its structure allows for the translation of movement rather easily, and since the air is NOT there to absorb any of the sound, likely it all gets translated into the ground. ( and note that the likely vector for the movment is perpendicular to the camera, so you dont see the flag pole wave, but as a result of the flag pole waving, the flag waves ).

Also, just so you know, The Flag was made of nylon.

[8] Information on the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.0.29 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that was #1. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWajUJ_NnHs

Does anyone have a definitive answer?12.10.248.51 (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

My answer is #2. Lenses on cameras can certainly give false senses of perspective, I see nothing in the video to show that he didn't physically touch the flag. My best interpretation is that he physically brushed the flag when he went by. For an example of the tricks that cameras can play on perspective, see this one: [9] showing Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and George Patton. Teddy Jr. wasn't a midget, and Patton wasn't a giant; the illusory perspective what causes us to make it look that way. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I vote for #2 as well. The flag looks like it's pointing towards the camera, so the tip of the flag would have nearer the astronaut than the pole, probably near enough for him to brush it - remember a spacesuit is quite big and bulky and it would only take the slightest contact to set it moving with no atmosphere to damp it. --Tango (talk) 16:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, now that I think about it, I recall someone on the YouTube page saying that the flag first moves towards the astronaut. To me, it the video moves too fast for me to tell, but he/she advocated the static electricity hypothesis. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It moves far too fast to tell without slowing it down and analysing it properly. I'm not sure you could tell even with that, isn't the astronaut in front of the flag, blocking it from view, when it starts moving? --Tango (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No, according to the static electricity proponent, the flag starts moving before the astronaut gets there. If this is true, it would invalidate hypothesis 2 and 5. Maybe if I get time, I'll see if I can analyze the video. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with either #1 or #2. When the astronaut walks away from the flag, he's taking baby hops (or the wires are lifting him less, take yer pick), when he moves in front he looks to be taking bigger jumps, although perspective enters the equation there. And there's no way of knowing the soil structure, which might not be uniform around the flag and he hit the bouncy part moving in front. That would explain any movement before the guy gets to the flag. #2 is much the most probable, those spacesuits were pretty bulky. It is of course possible that NASA hired a really lousy continuity clerk and they totally missed that little detail. Anyway, I thought we could already tell by the shadows of the moon lander that they faked the whole thing by filming it in a location with two suns. Franamax (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is the video real? Anyway, it's possible he brushed against the flag, but consider what is holding the flag up in the first place? I think it's either held up by a string/tether or there's a machine that blows air onto the flag. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

R u kidding? It's a metallic flag with pre-formed ripples made to look like a US flag waving on the moon - but it is the flag they used. And they wouldn't need a machine more complex than a valve cracked open on an air tank to make it move back and forth, but they didn't do that. Real video - crackpot interpretations to "expose the hoax". Franamax (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the flag is normal cloth, but there is a telescopic rod at the top to hold it out. I've read that the ripples are due to the rod on Apollo 11's flag getting stuck and not opening fully and the astronauts on the later missions thinking that looked good so intentionally not opening it fully. --Tango (talk) 16:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. [10] Shows what I remember from my distant youth :) Franamax (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You really can't tell - I stepped through it one frame at a time and whatever happens - it happens when the astronaut is blocking the view of the camera. I'd say this though...depth perception on the moon is seriously screwed up - and so is lighting - and that's the source of almost all of the conspiracy theorist's misconceptions. That pole is only about a meter tall - roughly half as tall as the astronaut. To me, it seems bigger - and further away - and I think that's the problem here. In truth it's close enough that he either just caught the corner of it on his spacesuit - or perhaps he was so close that vibration did the job. One thing that's seems strange about flags on the Moon is that in a vacuum, flags keep swinging for MUCH longer than they do here on earth - the internal stiffness of the cloth damps down the motion very slowly on the moon - but here on earth the lightweight cloth and the denseness of the air conspire to kill that kind of motion very rapidly. Hence, even a small vibration

would have been enough to start it moving - and once started, it would swing more impressively than we'd expect by our normal experience of cloth flapping here on earth. The pole that the flag was hooked onto was also engineered to be as lightweight as possible (easier in 1/6th gravity) - so it would more easily transmit any vibration to the flag than a pole strong enough to keep the flag flying here on earth would manage. Vibrations through the ground also depend on the force of the impact from the astronaut hitting the ground. While gravity is weaker on the moon, momentum depends on the MASS of the astronaut - not on his WEIGHT - so that "high mass" (but not "heavy") suit would have been able to transmit pretty large impacts onto the lunar surface. Astronaut plus space suit weigh about 480lbs - so the momentum transferred to the moon rock would have been pretty high. SteveBaker (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An astronaut adjusts the camera, then moves between the camera and the flag, and the flag moves. There is not basis for assuming that he did not brush against the flag. Occam's Razor. If it were a 20 billion dollar hoax, they could have paid Disney Studios to do a letter-perfect fake. The hoaxologists seem like a jealous bunch who don't want to believe that capable and hard-working scientists and engineers could achieve something they never could. Edison (talk) 02:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm not saying that there was a hoax, but it's better to avoid arguments against it that are flawed. "They could have paid to have it faked perfectly" is not a hypothesis that's obviously correct. Study the IMDB goofs sections for big-budget movies and you'll see that they always have slip-ups... not only in movies that are light entertainment but also in the kind that try to meticulously re-create a historical incident. It almost seems as though the more effort and money they put into getting things right, the more goofs people find. Look at the IMDB goofs lists for the movies Apollo 13 and Titanic, for example. --Anonymous, 23:54 UTC, October 18, 2008.

Obviously this and this are involved ;) -hydnjo talk 23:08, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I watched it a few more times and at least to me, the flag appears ti move away from the astronaut, not towards him. BTW, when Mythbusters tested waving a flag in a vacuum, it waves more due to the lack of air resistence. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

There's another version of the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGZte-k4G0&feature=related. Unlike the previous video, this one allows comments. I'm going to skim through them to see if anyone has a good explanation. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 09:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Highly Evolved Dinosaurs

What are some of the arguments against the theory that dinosuars evolved to higher thinking, more so than human beings today, and developed superior technology and left Earth? I have a friend that believes that this is very possible and that these very same beings are visiting Earth today. His argument is that dinosaurs have been around a lot longer than any humaniods thus had the time to develop into highly evolved dinosaurs. He states that there is no evidence of this because it could have happened so long ago, that the evidence got destroyed or buried beneath tectonic plates.--Emyn ned (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

We have fossils of non-highly evolved dinosaurs (size of the scull, lack of opposable thumbs or other means of fine manipulations, etc. show they probably weren't capable of developing space travel). If there were later dinosaurs that were more advanced, their fossils would be easier to find (unless they cremated all their dead, but there should still be something inbetween what we have and something advanced enough to have burial rites). While it is not entirely impossible, there is no evidence of such a thing. There is certainly no evidence of them visiting us today. --Tango (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Lack of evidence can not be used as proof. As Tango said, the theories that we have are derived from the current and best evidence available. -- MacAddct1984 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

"Lack of evidence can not be used as proof." Ah, c'mon! Why not? 206.66.66.1 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

'cos. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A slightly more sophisticated response is that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Your friend should also perhaps be introduced to Occam's Razor. Given the choice of supposing that the dinosaurs died versus evolved to intelligence, created space flight, left Earth, deliberately wiped out all traces of existence, but stuck around close enough to revisit and play pranks on those silly mammals millions of years down the road... well, one clearly requires fewer ridiculous assumptions. — Lomn 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor can be used to disprove the existance of the universe. After all, nothing is simpler than something. 206.66.66.1 (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Occam's Razor says we should choose the simplest theory which satisfies our observations. We observe the universe to exist, so a theory that says it doesn't can be rejected long before we need to invoke Occam. --Tango (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

1) Occam's Razor does not prove anything. It is a problem solving technique, anyone who 'proves' something with Occam's Razor does not understand what it is. 2) Occam's Razor is not about "Simple" it's about "needlessly multiplying entities". ie: Making stuff up that there's no evidence for. (example: "I lost my keys." verses "Pixies stole my keys". Both possible. One involves making stuff up.) 3) "The universe doesn't exist" does not satisfy observed evidence (I can see stuff.) therefore it is not suggested by Occam's Razor.

You guys do realize I was joking, right? 67.184.14.87 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the internet. All attempts at humor or sarcasm must be accompanied by at least one emoticon to show you aren't serious.  :-) Dragons flight (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Or, here, in small type. —Tamfang (talk) 05:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Which one was you? —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I am 12.10.248.51, 67.184.14.87 and 206.66.66.1. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 08:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem with things that fail the Occam's razor test is that there are an essentially infinite number of them - and without evidence, there are just too many to believe or even investigate. Sure, there might have been intelligent dinosaurs who did amazing things - but there might have been intelligent sharks/elephants/sea-sponges/penguins/octupii/dogs/herring who did something similar. It's only taken humans maybe 10,000 years to go from an animal-like existance to civilisation-as-we-know-it-today. There has been plenty of time in past history for any of those other species to go through the same cycle we've been through. You don't need to look all the way back to the dinosaurs to make those hypotheses. But why worry about the possibility of there being something for which absolutely zero evidence exists? There is no need to form any of those theories in order to explain some profound thing that we don't already understand. This is why Occam's razor is appropriate under these circumstances. SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than Occam's razor, I thought first of Russell's teapot. —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

HAHAHA!! Too funny! THAT'S what I am going to tell my friend. Thanks, Lomn!

The friend (or anybody) might enjoy reading the novels in the Anonymous Rex series by Eric Garcia. --LarryMac | Talk 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that Sarah Palin bit in the Anonymous Rex article is vandalism, right? 84.239.160.166 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Or in a more serious vein, try Toolmaker Koan, a 1988 novel by John McLoughlin. (Neither the book nor the author has a Wikipedia article currently, although some other people with the same name as the author do.) --Anonymous (although definitely not Rex), 21:55 UTC, October 17, 2008.

One way to think about it is that any civilization on Earth with sufficient resources to eventually leave Earth would have had to consume a lot of resources in the process. Some of these resources would replenish over very long periods of time (like biomatter and all of its derived products like fossil fuels) but many, like heavy metals, would not. There is no evidence that I know of that there were less iron, copper, or uranium reserves, for example, when humans began to use them in quantity than one would have expected there to be. If humans suddenly disappeared today and no evidence was left of them in a million years, I imagine a civilization of the future would still be able to tell that civilized life was here by the relative lack of heavy metals in the soil compared to a null hypothesis. But maybe I'm wrong on that. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But all the heavy metals are still here (except the very few we've fired off into non-Earth trajectories). All we've done is move them around. Franamax (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ore deposits are also replenished over time. Ores are formed by various igneous and geologic processes that happen to concentrate certain elements in one location. The metals we mine are only a tiny fraction of those that exist in the Earth, but in general we focus on the fraction that has been naturally concentrated in easy to get at deposits. Given ridiculously long periods of time, like 100 Myr, we can expect that new ore deposits will also be formed. Not to mention that natural erosion can dig down kilometers in that time and expose deposits to the surface that wouldn't be accessible previously. Dragons flight (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been covered in science fiction, where the highly evolved dinosaurs left earth due to some climate crisis and came back after eons to find that squirrel-like creatures they remembered as "tree-jontyles,(sp?) quite delicious" had evolved into humans. The dino descendants looked at our society and decided to leave for additional millenia, since we clearly were about to exterminate ourselves with nuclear or biological weapons, so they did not need to exterminate an arguably intelligent species o reclaim their homeworld. And the name of the story is? Edison (talk) 02:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Could it be one of the Astrosaurs series? SpinningSpark 14:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC). Doh, we have an article of course. SpinningSpark 14:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I liked a story about a research group who create alternate timelines to study the effect of, say, reintroducing horses to Kansas a few hundred years before Columbus. Their grandest experiment was to divert the Chicxulub impactor. Shortly after they came home from doing so, there appeared another tardis from which a reptile emerged, saying, "We saw you divert a rock in our past. So we un-diverted it to see what would happen, and here you are!" —Tamfang (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

do cleaners age your skin?

if you use cleaners (stuff to clean) without gloves, then does it age your skin faster? If for ten years you cleaned regularly (several times a day) with strong chemical cleaners, just washing your hands afterwards, would your hands end up aged more? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.166.235 (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is really a strict definition of "age" in that context. Using strong chemicals without gloves can harm your skin, certainly, and that harm could well be cumulative over a long time. Whether you consider that harm to be ageing or not is up to you, I guess. For advice on what to do to prevent such harm or heal it, see a dermatologist (or your GP, who can refer you). --Tango (talk) 22:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ceramic Insulation : Cenospheres

Those old Ceramic Insulators that people collect as antiques, glass as well, seen on ebay--do those actually still work in your home? If lets say you lived close to High-Level Power Lines.

Or Cenospheres, The microscopic ceramic beads (balls) have a technical name: Cenospheres, or sometimes called micro-spheres, or nano-spheres for the smallest size. Could you use like a shaman/indian/hippie medicine bag, and put these cenospheres in them to guard yourself from high voltage? Or am I on the road to myth making and Neo-Wives Tales?

Cheers, --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The insulators I have seen people collect are from telegraph wires on railroads, and are not at all suitable for high voltage. Insulators for increasingly high voltages are thicker and have more convolutions or "petticoats." You are talking hundreds of volts rather than thousands of volts. Interestingly, the earliest telegraph insulators were literally glass knobs intended to go on furniture drawers. Edison (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)