Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science: Difference between revisions
AboutFace 22 (talk | contribs) →Thunder and the lightning: new section |
AboutFace 22 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 231: | Line 231: | ||
== Thunder and the lightning == |
== Thunder and the lightning == |
||
What is the physical explanation for the fact that |
What is the physical explanation for the fact that thunder always follows lightning? [[User:AboutFace 22|AboutFace 22]] ([[User talk:AboutFace 22|talk]]) 00:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:25, 5 August 2023
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
Main page: Help searching Wikipedia
How can I get my question answered?
- Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
- Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
- Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
- Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
- Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
- Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.
How do I answer a question?
Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines
- The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
July 29
Epigenetic reprogramming
Is it possible to perform epigenetic reprogramming on cells as a private person? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:9B9B:C02B:F5CC:22D1 (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Epigenetics? How much money ya got? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:23, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not in any way that could be targeted or healthy. Epigenetic changes are typically induced by stress. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Eh, I think that's a little misleading as a generalization. Epigenetic effects are a part of the normal, everyday functioning of one's cellular and systems physiology level of functioning, occurring constantly, and not always as a result of catalysts that one would normally classify as 'stress' (in either the clinical or idiomatic senses). Every new memory or perspective you form (to take just the most obvious example from one organ) is the result of epigenetic effects. SnowRise let's rap 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- What does money have to do with it? I think you might be confusing gene editing with gene expression. SnowRise let's rap 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not in any way that could be targeted or healthy. Epigenetic changes are typically induced by stress. Abductive (reasoning) 15:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- OP, I'm not entirely certain about what you mean by "reprogramming". Epigenetics is a term which roughly defines the subject of how the various genes collectively comprising an individual's genome are expressed; specifically the interplay between environmental/extrinsic factors, the organism's coded genetics, and the various biochemical mechanisms which mediate the influences of the former upon the latter, triggering triggering RNA and protein activity causing cellular (and ultimately broader physiological) effects, causing certain traits to turn on or off or change the mode of their expression. That's a really simplified version of a very complex set of biophysical pathways, but suffices to grapple with your question. To wit:
- If by "reprogramming" you mean causing changes in the expression within a cell, then yes, not only is that possible, it inevitably happening every second of your life.
- If you mean using gene therapy or other genetic engineering (altering DNA is some other artificial/biomedical fashion), then that is a very complex question and the answer depends on whether you are asking if it is practically feasible to do so as an individual or if it is regulatorily permitted, each of which would require paragraphs here to just summarize the answer (but the gist of which would be "generally speaking: no, not really", in both cases). Let me know if one of those was the sense in which you intended your question and I can elaborate further, with some additional wikilinks and sources. However, crucially, this would not be accurately described as "epigenetic reprogramming" but just "genetic manipulation", since it would be the underlying genes altered (though this would of course have knock on effects for the epigenetic functions that rely on that underlying genetic code).
- Finally, if you mean using epigenetic expression to create a kind of feedback loop which actually impacts DNA and genetics, that is technically a thing that happens, since DNA does to some extent get altered during the normal physiological functioning of an organism as complex as a human over a lifetime, and you can, in a sense, say that any expression of a gene/resulting expression of trait/physiological activity is going to have consequences in this regard. But this is really unpredictable and cannot really be leveraged for specific, tailored results--and if one were at the stage of scientific development where the could manipulate DNA in this way, their knowledge of genetics and biochemistry would be so advanced and detailed, they would essentially already be capable of tailoring their genetics and resulting gene expression with very few intrinsic limitations through more direct means, as an almost per se matter. SnowRise let's rap 18:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- I suspect the OP is referring to something like Epigenome editing. I say like, since I'm not sure the OP really understands the Epigenome. I don't know if this applies to the OP but IMO there's a tendency to think of it as a simple additional largely universal to the individual code like the genome, perhaps only being aware of one or two parts of what can be called the epigenome perhaps specifically DNA methylation with being aware of the complexity. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- You may very well be right as to what the OP was roughly inquiring about. But there's no doubt that you're right as to the more general point. Epigenetics does include many discrete (and sometimes quite well quantified and qualified) biophysical mechansism and pathways, but ultimately it's a topic best understood through the lens of systems biology if ever there was one. However, for those coming to the topic new and/or with a superficial understanding of those discrete parts, many will just intuit epigenetics as being mostly about changes to the epigenome itself, and specifically with regard to intergenerationally persistent phenomena. But changes to heritable traits are a truly tiny fraction of the implications of how epigenes and epigenetic mechanics operate. Hopefully what I'm saying makes sense to any readers here: this is one of those topics where I sometimes feel like I may be spewing inscrutable word salad to those who don't already understand the point I am trying to make. SnowRise let's rap 02:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
July 30
2023 nematode revival
Hi! Should there be an article about the nematode revival? It seems like it's article-worthy! 2402:9D80:272:BD02:694E:B788:6748:A701 (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is mentioned in our nematode article. If you think there is enough material for a standalone article you are welcome to create one. See Wikipedia:Articles for creation. Shantavira|feed me 12:00, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- The fact that nematodes can survive long periods of deep frost is old news. The previous record was 42,000 years,[1] so the new record of 46,000 years is not astounding. The feat is perhaps more the ability of the researchers to find and identify permafrost of that age. --Lambiam 12:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Cooking bacon in microwave
Anyone know if any of those devices you see for sale that claim to allow you to microwave bacon without mess actually work? Or does the inside of the microwave invariably end up getting laminated with bacon fat anyway? My cooker is broken and as wonderful as my Foreman is, I've never liked the way bacon turns out in it (too dry), so am considering trying microwave. Iloveparrots (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Some of those look as though they'd struggle to cook back bacon properly, or even fit it in there. Iloveparrots (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- At the very least, you'll want to "contain" it some way, within the microwave, for cooking anything that can tend to splatter. You should be able to find something that looks like an inverted frying page (without a frypan handle), usually made of clear plastic or some other see-though material, to totally cover it except for a few vent holes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. Some of those look as though they'd struggle to cook back bacon properly, or even fit it in there. Iloveparrots (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- A few of the problems with cooking bacon in the microwave are that microwaves have trouble with two things that make cooked bacon taste good. Those are heat and time. That's because things like the Maillard reactions require certain temperatures, AND require more time at those temperatures, than a typical microwave can impart. So called microwave "bacon cookers" mostly attempt to fix this by providing some kind of conductive surface so heat spends more time in contact with the bacon. As Alanspoldge notes above, if you google "microwave bacon cooker reviews" or something like that you'll find reviews of various devices, YMMV, caveat emptor, etc. etc. --Jayron32 12:35, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- If you have a working oven, cooking bacon in an oven is an excellent, or even superior, method to frying it in a pan on the cooktop. There are many recipes available on the Internet but they're all basically the same: cook in a baking sheet at 400 F for 10-20 minutes, depending on how crispy you want it. CodeTalker (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also useful to help cook in a pan is a "bacon press". Basically a big piece of cast iron with a handle on it. The weight keeps the bacon in contact with the cooking surface and helps it cook quicker and more consistently. --Jayron32 16:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clearly nobody responding above considered registering under the user name 'Ilovepiggies'! SnowRise let's rap 23:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
July 31
I think I have a complex
Complexity theory, complex systems theory, systems theory, dynamical systems theory. Perhaps I'm forgetting some. How do these map? Are any of these not a real field? What is subsidiary to what? Temerarius (talk) 01:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Systems theory appears to be an overarching topic, so spend some time reading our article, which links in those other topics. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- H'oh-boy, you're really asking a whopper here: these are all deeply complex (ironic phrasing incidental but unavoidable) and at least semi-interdisciplinary concepts with nebulously defined borders, varied applications and sometimes difficult to articulate implications. But I'll give it a try. I was just about to be out the door, so I may need to stage this response. Here goes though.
- I'll start with systems theory because it is the paradigm I am most familiar with and I believe can fairly said to be the broadest topic of the lot. Though saying that, I also note that none of the terms you employed refers to a field of thought that is necessarily a formal subdomain of that of one of the other terms, if that makes sense. They all just use similar terminology for semi-convergent purposes.
- That caveat done, systems theory is all about understanding phenomena on the basis of their interaction with larger collectives of phenomena. It can be considered (and this is not necessarily the formal definition, but one which I think is helpful at understanding it's boundaries at first blush) as an effort to nest all naturalistic processes and mechanisms within countlessly recursive layers of scale and complexity). In the broad strokes, it is a highly ambitious and holistic method for trying to relate all phenomena. But also, on a less macro-level, it is a way of thinking about even discrete systems, interactions, and pathways as being better understood by their borders and feedback with other phenomenalistic systems. In other words (and I know this is getting highly abstract, ontologicaly dense, and maybe even a little unwieldy sounding, but a thing is best understood by what it does and what is done to it, not just a description of it's parts.
- With regard to theories of complexity (to reorder 'complexity theory' into something more workable and consistent with how those terms are often related, for our purposes here), I don't think there's one standard definition of the way the nomenclature is used across the fields in which the concept (of understanding phenomena by virtue of their complexity) arises, but there are some commonalities: complexity models mostly concern how many subparts of a given system there are, how dynamic (that is, generally how reliably defined they are) each component is in its own right, and the computational implications for predicting the behaviour of the holistic systems. That said, on this topic it is too bad SemanticMantis seems to be on hiatus, because I am certain they could give you a more accessible and robust definition. "Complex systems theory" is somewhat more a neologism than either of the other above terms, but I interpret the phrase as meaning just as what you might assume from combining the above two foci of the individual terms: it is about understanding systems comprised of larger numbers of and/or highly dynamic systems.
- Which brings us to dynamical systems theory, where I am most out of my depth. This is a good place to note that all of these models have both more analytical and computational components, and more theoretical/broad framework applications, but some lean more to one than the other. You're going to get more broad philosophical generalizations from (at least some) big systems theory thinkers, but dynamical systems theory is almost incidentally using a similar label. It's a purely mathematical approach to crunching data relating to complicated systems by way of functions related by complex equations. And if that is a bit of an earful, I apologize, but I barely possess the vocabulary to conceptualize the broad strokes of these mathematics, let alone find novel ways to express them. Suffice it to say, I would categorize this field as much more discrete than the others, and much more bounded by strict analytical rules, expressly defined inputs, and straight-forward (if highly complex, obviously!) transformative operations.
- Was any bit of that helpful?? I hope so, but I'm not sure it will be! SnowRise let's rap 03:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, that was a wonderful response! I'll need a minute to digest it, and I hope the robustness of your reply doesn't prevent others from pitching in. Thank you! Temerarius (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Very happy to help Temerarius! And happier still that what I wrote was basically decipherable. :) I found myself thinking about examples earlier that might further clarify the distinctions here and better emphasize the the applications/raison d'etre of a couple of these fields, and came up with a couple of good ones, but I'm running around putting out fires at the moment, so you'll have to be patient with me in getting them down in paragraphs here.
- Yes, that was a wonderful response! I'll need a minute to digest it, and I hope the robustness of your reply doesn't prevent others from pitching in. Thank you! Temerarius (talk) 03:33, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- In the meantime, it also occurred to me that I should mention that there is a movie called Mindwalk that you might be interested in: it's a fairly accessible (indeed, if anything, oversimplified maybe) primer to systems theory based on the writings of Fritjof Capra, one of the academics/public intellectuals who helped popularize systems theory. It's pretty slow: it's just a dialogue between three people (a scientist, a poet, and a politician), discussing the philosophical underpinnings of what was at the time a somewhat novel way of relating naturalistic phenomena, physical and otherwise; it borrows this structure from Galileo's Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. It won't set your world on fire with new ideas, I don't think, but you can definitely get a sense of (at least Capra's idea of) how systems theory tries to address describing the physical universe. Plus it must be said that Sam Waterston plays "Simplicio" to perfection therein. ;).
- If I recall correctly, Mindwalk is mostly based on Capra's The Turning Point, which is also highly accessible for a book in this area--but also a little preachy and proselytizing as I recall it: Capra also wrote the much better known The Tao of Physics, so if you're familiar with that book you'll have an idea of what I mean. It's constructed on top of hard science, but also contains lot about social philosophy, ideology, and policy. I read all of Capra's work (at the time) a couple of decades back and I think my overall impression was that he was somewhere between brilliant and very heavy-handed as a writer and psuedo-policy thinker. But you can definitely do worse for an entry point on systems theory. SnowRise let's rap 23:43, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- My attempt, as I understand these terms. Complexity theory is an ambiguous term, but one meaning is complex systems theory, that is, the field of study of complex systems. In this context the term system usually refers to a dynamical system, a collection of components that evolve in time while interacting with each other – the behaviour of one component can have an effect on other components. For example, the system could be a deliberating jury, and the components are the jurors. For a mathematical treatment, when modelling a system, the relevant aspects are modelled as numeric values – perhaps the strength of a juror's conviction that the alleged facts have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Some dynamical systems are very simple, which is generally the case for systems with fewer than three components; such systems are never chaotic. A system is called chaotic when its collective behaviour is chaotic, which means that it is impossible to predict the long-term future evolution on the basis of past observations. Weather is a prime example; no one can reliably predict whether it will rain in Amsterdam on the first of August of next year. Chaos theory is about understanding when systems become chaotic, as well as determining what can be said about the evolution in spite of the chaos. Chaotic systems can be reasonably simple (just three components), while some very complex systems are nevertheless not chaotic. --Lambiam 08:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex / You may have heard about his odd complex --47.155.41.201 (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
August 1
Alias for inflationary blood pressure measurement
I am studying inflationary blood pressure measurement devices. Because it is rather new, I assume the name of the type of device hasn't settled on a specific term. The devices I've found are all made by one company, Welch-Allyn. I've been trying to find an alias for the device name so I can find similar devices from other companies. By chance, does anyone here recognize this class of devices and know other models? 12.116.29.106 (talk) 11:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Do you mean a sphygmomanometer? -- Verbarson talkedits 11:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Or maybe this gizmo [2]? Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. That is it. It says it uses linear inflation technology where the devices I was already looking at use the term inflationary. But, at least that is another company making the same type of device. With two companies, I have a better chance of finding competitors. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Or maybe this gizmo [2]? Alansplodge (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- In the UK, the company that makes almost every blood pressure monitor I've seen is Omron.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
How does hobby glue work?
I want to use a certain brand of adhesive for a task. It is sold as a general purpose hobby glue supposedly able to stick just about anything. The packaging says it is a mix of acetone 45% (average), ethyl acetate 20% (average), and n-butyl acetate 5% (average). This adds up to only 70% - the packaging does not say what the missing 30% is. The distributor provides a Material Safety Data Sheet - it just says the balance is determined to be non-hazardous and doesn't say what the balance is.
Question: Given the listed ingredients are all solvent liquids, what is the balance likely to be?
This adhesive upon exposure to air changes from a low viscosity clear colourless liquid to a soft rubbery translucent material within a few minutes, then gradually goes quite hard over several days whether air exposure continues or not. There is very little shrinkage.
Question: What is the result of the chemical reaction(s) triggered by exposure to air - what is the chemical name or chemical formula for the cured state?
I rang the distributor but they don't know anything - they have no chemists. They buy it ready made and packaged from somebody else who in turn buys it from somebody else who in turn buys the ingredients in large quantities and mixes and packages it in accordance with some recipe that was devised decades ago - in other words they have no idea how it works. Dionne Court (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe rubber cement? From the description you've given, that sounds like it. --Jayron32 14:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is nothing like rubber cement. It is colourless and eventually sets hard. Dionne Court (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many adhesives contain cyanoacrylate as a main ingredient and other ingredients to make it dry faster or be less bumpy or make it less liquidy. Acetates are hardeners, often used in nail polish. They would give the hardened glue a smoother surface. Acetone is a solvent. It is often used to keep mixtures from hardening. When exposed to air, the acetone quickly evaporates, leaving the hardened glue behind. If cyanoacrylate is the main ingredient, you would see the glue harden to a clear and smooth blob as the acetone evaporated and then the cyanoacryalte would harden white as it reacted with moisture in the air. It would be far more helpful is you mentioned the name of the product because there are many alternatives to cyanoacrylate. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if it was cyanoacrylate (sold as "Superglue") as it forms a very strong bond on most surfaces, regardless of whether they are smooth or rough. One thing it won't bond to is skin, which cyanoacrylate will. Also, it has been sold since I was child, and that was >70 years ago. It is called "Tarzan's Grip" but I assume that is a locally branded name. I expect similar formula glues have various brands/names around the world. Note: the same company also sells cyanoacrylate adhesive, which is very considerably more expensive. Dionne Court (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Anything like this? H&S datasheet here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- This MSDS for "Tarzan's Grip All Purpose Glue" says it contains polyurethane. --Jayron32 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- See also List of polyurethane applications#Adhesives. --Jayron32 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Another option is polyvinyl acetate, which is a super common general purpose glue ingredient. In the U.S. most of the Elmer's glue varieties are PVA-based adhesives. --Jayron32 17:36, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The averages of the proportions of acetone, ethyl acetate, and n-butyl acetate all match up, this checks out. Card Zero (talk) 21:14, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Jayron. I had downloaded a much more recent MSDS than the one you found - it looks like the later one omitted the polyurethane for some reason - I assume by error. It didn't occur to me to try getting another version of the MSDS.
- It would not be PVA as it is waterproof. PVA definitely is not. Dionne Court (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- See also List of polyurethane applications#Adhesives. --Jayron32 17:34, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- No, definitely not Goy Gum. `Dionne Court (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- This MSDS for "Tarzan's Grip All Purpose Glue" says it contains polyurethane. --Jayron32 17:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Anything like this? H&S datasheet here. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- I would be surprised if it was cyanoacrylate (sold as "Superglue") as it forms a very strong bond on most surfaces, regardless of whether they are smooth or rough. One thing it won't bond to is skin, which cyanoacrylate will. Also, it has been sold since I was child, and that was >70 years ago. It is called "Tarzan's Grip" but I assume that is a locally branded name. I expect similar formula glues have various brands/names around the world. Note: the same company also sells cyanoacrylate adhesive, which is very considerably more expensive. Dionne Court (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Swedish inventor Axel Karlson around 1922 made one of the first synthetic glues by dissolving Celluloid in Acetone. The resulting quick-drying glass-clear Karlsons Univarsalklister (universal glue) is still sold in northern Europe with swedish advertising slogans such as the pointed "Alla använder Karlsons klister utom jag, för jag är en åsna" (Everyone uses Karlson's glue except me because I'm an ass) and the unofficial "Om ditt hjärta nånsin brister, laga det med Karlsons klister" (If your heart should break asunder, make it whole with Karlson's wonder). The same or a similar glue is widely marketed by German manufacturer UHU. I suggest that a homemade version can be made by dissolving pieces of PMMA (Polymethyl methacrylate i.e. thermoplastic acrylic glass such as Plexiglas or Perspex) in acetone. Philvoids (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- One should be careful not to use Karlsons klister as a clyster. DuncanHill (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2
Bear or person in suit
Would anyone here have any scientific evidence to conclude whether this is a real bear or a person in a bear costume?
Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 13:58, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Cmglee This has been heavily covered in the recent news here in the UK and is now generally considered to be a genuine sun bear. Mike Turnbull (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike the joke where a 1-gorilla zoo hires a guy to be a gorilla and the increase in anthropomorphicness over the dead gorilla makes the zoo profitable again and one day he swings too high and screams in the lion area and the lion jumps on him and says shut up or we'll both be fired. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also note, the Wikipedia article sun bear states "Sun bears can expose the patch while standing on their hindfeet as a threat display against enemies." What we have, in that image, is clearly a pissed off sun bear, performing a threat display. --Jayron32 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good joke! Thanks for the replies.
- The articles I've read, including the above, do not give any evidence besides what the zoo spokesperson said (which they would lie about if they had gone through the trouble of dressing someone up).
- It would also not be too difficult to add the patch to the costume if they were already making one.
- I think the movement of the mouth looks very realistic, not having been around bears much, so that might be the key. However, the shape of the feet does look human.
- Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Occam's razor my dude. Either 1) The zoo has, unremarkably to anyone, had a sun bear on display for years, and for just one day when that picture was taken, dressed up a man in a very convincing and realistic sun bear suit, and that was captured by a video on that one day, which no one of the hundreds of visitors noticed it looked like a man in a bear suit, except for this blurry video captured that man in a bear suit, and then every day after that the regular sun bear was again, unremarkably, on display, or 2) That's just a sun bear. --Jayron32 17:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Haha, thanks, @Jayron32. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:48, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Occam's razor my dude. Either 1) The zoo has, unremarkably to anyone, had a sun bear on display for years, and for just one day when that picture was taken, dressed up a man in a very convincing and realistic sun bear suit, and that was captured by a video on that one day, which no one of the hundreds of visitors noticed it looked like a man in a bear suit, except for this blurry video captured that man in a bear suit, and then every day after that the regular sun bear was again, unremarkably, on display, or 2) That's just a sun bear. --Jayron32 17:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Also note, the Wikipedia article sun bear states "Sun bears can expose the patch while standing on their hindfeet as a threat display against enemies." What we have, in that image, is clearly a pissed off sun bear, performing a threat display. --Jayron32 16:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Unlike the joke where a 1-gorilla zoo hires a guy to be a gorilla and the increase in anthropomorphicness over the dead gorilla makes the zoo profitable again and one day he swings too high and screams in the lion area and the lion jumps on him and says shut up or we'll both be fired. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Here is a video from two years ago of a sun bear in an zoo that stands up in a very similar way, but in other parts displays behaviour that would be very hard for a human actor to mimic in a believable way. --Lambiam 17:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Lambiam: first part is indeed very humanlike. Pity the bears look like they're suffering in subsequent parts though. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- The current issue of National Geographic has an article about an animal refuge in Jordan, and the picture of a Syrian black bear standing up looks similar to the one in question. Bears can walk on their hind feet if they're of a mind to do so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
August 3
Star Trek ships
I have been watching Star Trek series, and I was wondering... many things in Star Trek lore are fine as sci-fi but completely impossible in real life (faster-than-light travel, teletransportation, matter replicators, etc). But what about the ships themselves? The Starship Enterprise and the Deep Space Nine (fictional space station) clearly dwarf the Starship HLS and the International Space Station, but would humanity be able to build such big things at some point in the future, or that is also just sci-fi daydreaming? Cambalachero (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- You may be interested in the books The Physics of Star Trek and The Science of Star Trek. Turner Street (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Engineering speculations |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- Would it at all be incorrect mention that on this Earth there exists many oil tankers, cruise ships, and aircraft carries that are blatantly larger than the claimed size of the Enterprise? How can the pessimists from earlier possibly claim otherwise? Yes we can build something that big. Yes the Earth does contain enough metal for the task. So why the pessimism and confusion? Is it really THAT hard to build that kind of metalwork in space? And is it that hard to imagine someone like Royal Caribbean or Carnival offering space cruises in 1,000 years for goodness sake!? Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- The nay-sayers are like the ones prior to 1903 who said man would never fly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Good point Pablothepenguin (talk) 23:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- The nay-sayers are like the ones prior to 1903 who said man would never fly. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Would it at all be incorrect mention that on this Earth there exists many oil tankers, cruise ships, and aircraft carries that are blatantly larger than the claimed size of the Enterprise? How can the pessimists from earlier possibly claim otherwise? Yes we can build something that big. Yes the Earth does contain enough metal for the task. So why the pessimism and confusion? Is it really THAT hard to build that kind of metalwork in space? And is it that hard to imagine someone like Royal Caribbean or Carnival offering space cruises in 1,000 years for goodness sake!? Pablothepenguin (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
August 4
List of youngest birth mother/father
Why these lists was deleted? 94.247.8.9 (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Not sure what you're referring to, but if you want the youngest mother see Lina Medina EvergreenFir (talk) 15:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of youngest birth mothers --DB1729talk 16:04, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Thunder and the lightning
What is the physical explanation for the fact that thunder always follows lightning? AboutFace 22 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)