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.
In biology, we have many types of relations between two organisms and more (i.g. commensalism, symbiosis etc.). My question is what's called the relation / way of people to take or produce antibiotics by fungi? 93.126.116.89 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, but it isn't my question:). I asked about the relation (I gave a couple of examples for relations in biology: commensalism, symbiosis). 93.126.116.89 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Typically the fungus is destroyed in the process of consuming it. You would call it mycophagy. A non-human animal that consumes another organism for medicinal purpose could be said to be engaging in zoopharmacognosy. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a person or other animal is gaining a health benefit from the interaction, it's not amenalism, which is neutral to one party and detrimental to the other. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:52, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Fungi are often but not always destroyed in the process, so possibly the same as obtaining milk from cows or honey from bees, but anyway the same as obtaining meat from cattle, flour from wheat or wine from grapes?
Parasitism implies the parasite is on or in the host, and that the host is living. Consuming another organism whole thus fails parasitism on multiple levels. It's just eating. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 8
Which of "geometric algebra" or "algebraic geometry" proceeds the other.
I don't really know what it is. An insect or something else. I've uploaded another image of the creature.
Sandeshkumar M. 11:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC) (talk)
To help accurate identification include -
Something to show scale: ideally that would be a ruler with millimetre graduations.
A picture of the bottom of the organism.
A white background for the picture - it helps to give a better idea of the colour of the organism.
A picture of the bioluminescence - this would be in an ideal world.
A picture of the place you found it - to give an idea of habitat.
A general name like Mizoram is useful - it narrows things down. But was it in woodland or human settlement.
I appreciate this is a lot of information, but accurate identification is aided by this kind of information. There are places in India where bioluminescence is common. For Mizoram, that seems to be plant based rather than animal so more information about the animal is really needed to identify it correctly.
Having said that: it does look quite like a woodlice (and definitely an isopod). But I only counted eleven obvious segments - there could be 14 which is indicative of a woodlouse - a picture of the rear end from above would help to clarify that. There appear to only be three pairs of legs - woodlouse have seven pairs of legs (they can vary in size, so only seeing three pairs might mean the others are hidden). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hongnang (talk • contribs) 12:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I also think this is a bioluminescent beatle larva. Just as it is said that there are 11 segments on its back and and the last two segments have white patches which illuminates in dark.
And thanks for all your help. But don't know which species.
When a predator is removed from the food chain it is often seen that there is an overpopulation of another species. The most well-known example I can think of at present (which is not the same) is the Cane Toad in Australia, where without a predator, they have bread to enormous population sizes causing widespread destruction.
Further to this, if predation on a species takes place the food item tends to populate to make up for the loss and similarly if a food source reduces the number of predators reduces too. To expand on this concept, if my reserve has 10,000 impala and I have 100 lions, (10:10,000)… if the lions eat 2,000 impala, the impala will generally have about 2,000 offspring during the next breading cycle, and the numbers (presuming they are evenly matched, lions to impala and assuming there are no other animals [work with me here people]) In the same manner, if I hunt 9,000 of my impala, my lions will die off until I have only 10 (1,000:10). Nature ensures there is an equilibrium, if all of the additional environmental factors are left in situ and allowed to run their course.
What has been removed from the ecological chain to allow for the human race to overpopulate to such a degree as to cause the now seen climatic chaos. How was this element removed? Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking for a book on basic ecology? Humans fill a niche in the local and the global ecosystems, but your description of simplified replacement of one species by another... well, that is just overly simplified. Start with our Wikipedia article on ecological niche, human evolution, and so on... Nimur (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technology has allowed humans to expand from one ecological niche to many others. Chimpanzees, by comparison, only inhabit small portions of Africa. One very simple technology humans use is clothing, allowing us to live in far different climates, such as the arctic. And predation doesn't limit human numbers, since humans are more likely to kill the predators, such as sharks or lions. NonmalignedNations (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you hunt 9,000 of the impala and lions eat 2,000 a season, the lions will likely eat all the rest in a few generations and then you'll have no impala and no lions, or the lions will eat enough that they starve to death the next generation and you'll have problems when the impala population rebounds back above 10,000. Even if they both manage to survive, you'll have an increased risk of extinction of either species due to the ensuing genetic bottlenecks. Equilibrium is ensured for small changes only. 89.172.38.145 (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you assume that the limiting factor to human population growth was predation, when it might not have been (my impression is it almost certainly wasn't except perhaps in the deepest of pre-history.) The human population growth and overpopulation (if any) is usually credited to things like farming, industrialization, hygiene etc. Aecho6Ee (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where’s Greta when you need her?
Linked to the previous question and brought to my attention recently by a much younger person, was that the current environmental crisis should resolve itself. The rationale provided for this argument was that all of the fossil fuels and Co2 gasses being put into the atmosphere are all from earth and have been part of the ecology and part of the overall cycle of minerals etc. within the planetary system. I was not able to counter this point, as my questions clearly show I am not a scientist or scientifically minded. Please would you help me to understand why this theory does not hold water, as I am sure that it doesn’t but can’t explain why. Thanks. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Review the Wikipedia article entitled tipping points in the climate system, which is written for a general audience but cites detailed technical sources for the interested reader.
Some complicated systems are self-stabilizing; some are subject to instability. Scientists have reason to believe that some aspects of the Earth's climate may be undergoing an irreversible alteration that deviates from the stable "self-regulating" zone, which is one of the reasons for international concern. If you're interested in why some scientists believe such things, our article is a great introduction to the science, data, and models, that drive their concern. Nimur (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, pellet stoves, which burn compressed wood pellets, are looked at as a renewable heat source that is much closer to "carbon neutral." But in response to the OP, NN has the obvious and correct answer that's easier to explain than tipping points and the complications of these systems. Yes, all of this CO2 was once in the atmosphere, but not all at the same time. Even if we were to assume that all of the coal we have burned (or will burn) is from just the Pennsylvanian subperiod (a lot of the coal is from that time, but not all of it), and we take the period of industrial output to be from 1760 (the start of the Industrial Revolution, and this is generous since our output has accelerated over this time period a lot), that means we have been outputing CO2 that took nature about 24 million years to sequester in the space of 260 years. In otherwords, we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere about 90,000 times faster than nature took it out of the atmosphere. Again, these are really rough numbers and I could be off by an order of magnitude or so, but you get the general idea. That's also just for coal, it doesn't account for oil at all. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an obvious response to this if you understand the history of the Earth. Earth was once a ball of molten rock, so if it becomes that again, there's no problem; it'll all sort itself out. Earth was once hit by an asteroid 10 miles in diameter, so if that happens again, there's no problem; it'll all sort itself out. Earth is a big ball of rock. It's not going anywhere. The problem is we're disrupting our biosphere, which we rely on for things like food. Also, heat plus humidity means in some places it can get too hot during the day for humans to survive outdoors. Earth will "sort itself out" just fine; it's just that this might involve lots of humans dying. Or in the words of the late great George Carlin: "The planet is fine. The people are fucked!" --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Raptor on my office ledge in downtown Brooklyn, NY
The raptor above was photographed by me today, from the window of my office on the 26th floor of an office building in downtown, Brooklyn, NY. By no means is this his or her first visit; this raptor swings by approximately weekly recently, and he has been coming to my ledge at various times for a few years. I was wondering if someone with some expertise can definitively identify the species (hopefully my picture is clear enough for that). I think it's a peregrine falcon but I am far from certain in my lay identification. Thanks--Andy-Em-Ess (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This report looks at Peregrines in New York. Given where you saw the bird, and the Peregrine's love of high vantage points for hunting, that identification seems almost certain. Mikenorton (talk) 09:27, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I may have asked a related question some years ago, but in any case let me rephrase it.
When I turn my shower on, there's a short lag while the hot water reaches me. If my aim is to minimise water wastage, is it best to have the volume turned to high, or low, or some optimal point in between, or does it make zero difference what I do? -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the volume makes a negligible difference. I start at maximum heat and adjust as it goes to reduce water waste. Your best option would probably be to install a different kind of water heater that doesn't have lag due to pipes. One behind the showerhead rather than in the cellar or what have you. These exist, I don't remember the name for them. But: one is unlikely to affect much of anything by their shower duration. One's cumulative water use depends much more heavily on the products and foods they consume, and the companies they patronize. The shift of the burden of environmental damage from corporations to individuals is a bamboozle. Temerarius (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As a measure to reduce an individual's total cumulative water use Temarius is doubtless correct. But JackofOz did not raise the issue of environmental damage, and may (as I do) inhabit a domestic property whose water use is metered and charged by volume, in which case measures to reduce the water usage of that property can impact significantly on the wallet of the person who pays its water bill.
My domestic supplier (Southern Water, in the UK) includes in its bills a table of daily water use for "typical" households of from one to six persons, viz: 6 - 548 litres, 5 - 493, 4 - 438, 3 - 370, 2 - 274, 1 - 178. My most recent bill, covering April–September inclusive 2019, shows my (single-person household) usage as 22 litres/day, around 12% of "typical", so clearly there is considerable scope for reducing one's domestic water usage (and resultant bill).
Regarding JackofOz's hot-water lag period problem, one possible measure might be to hold a bucket under the shower head until it begins to flow warm, and re-use the collected water for some other purpose, such as watering garden plants or filling the WC cistern. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.204.182.54 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If taking a bath, the too cold water that comes out first can be mixed with the too hot water that comes out later to produce just right water, with no waste. However, the cold will tend to stay at the bottom and hot at the top, so mixing will take some effort. NonmalignedNations (talk) 22:19, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's about 20 seconds typically at full blast, that's 3 or 4 litres. It makes no difference volume-wise whether you open the tap fully or not, you need to expel all that cold water between the hot water source and the shower head. I'm on rainwater, so towards the end of the summer I have to get used to starting my showers icy cold! Greglocock (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might make a difference volume-wise depending on the heat capacity of the pipe (thermal mass, insulation in cold spaces, etc) because it's not just "hot pushes cold" (volume is the pipe volume), but the water cools down as it heats the pipe along the way until the pipe is up to equilibrium temperature. @Temerarius: seems to be thinking of a tankless water heater. DMacks (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the predicament described by JackofOz. Some of the hot-water taps in my house are a long way from the water heater (gas-fired.) During the protracted period of drought and water restrictions in 2003 everyone in my house got into the habit of putting an empty milk carton under the hot tap and filling it until the hot water arrives. Later, the milk carton is emptied into a watering can for use on the garden. It proved to be such a good idea that we keep doing it, even though the drought and water restrictions ended after 4 or 5 years. Dolphin(t)04:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In luxury yachts there is the option for instant hot water as the hot water pipe circulates continuously to the boiler, called hot water circulation. That would solve your problem, but it is probably not a cost-saver Rmvandijk (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the shower is used in a morning shit-shower-shave routine, the hot water lag will waste less water if the toilet can be flushed from the hot water supply. (A special plumbing arrangement would be needed, possibly as a third option on a Dual flush toilet).
Often hot water is supplied from a tank where it is heated to a higher temperature than used for showering. The water loss during the delay in the pipe before tolerably warm water flows in the shower can be minimised by starting with 100% hot / 0% cold mixer tap setting. To control this manually risks scalding but Thermostatic mixing valves can be fitted to achieve it.
The "Navy shower" method conserves water and energy by turning off the flow of water in the middle portion of the shower while lathering.
If you are able to and it's not already done, consider insulating your pipes. According to [1], the water will still only stay hot for about 30 minutes or so, but may still be useful especially if there are multiple people using your shower, or you take a while to lather etc with the shower off. And if you have access to the pipes and sufficient mobility, it's a relatively easy and low cost DIY task. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The insulation will have a secondary benefit. That is, it will reduce heat loss from the pipes after they've reached maximum temperature. With a long path of uninsulated pipes, you might notice that the maximum water temperature at the tap is considerably lower in winter, due to this heat loss. NonmalignedNations (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 10
Effects of aviation on climate change via contrails
Aviation is supposed to cause climate change not only due to CO2 emission, but also through other mechanisms, such as forming of contrails, cirrus clouds and ozone. However, these effects are short-lived. As far as I understand, when calculating the global future effect of a flight, say for 20 years from now, one takes the effect of, for example, the cotrails formed, multiplies by their duration, and then divides by 20 years.
This seems great if I want to either calculate the average effect over the next 20 years, or if I want to see the effect of trends in global aviation.
However, ignoring the differences between day and night, summer and winter etc., if I am interested in the effect of my next flight on the climate 20 years from now, this seems like a wrong calculation: Any transient effect lasting hours, days or even a year, will most probably fade away totally by the time 20 years have passed. Thus only the CO2 emission will actually have any effect 20 years from now.
Unless the effect isn't transient in the bulk; one flight may leave a transient amount of cloud formation which would dissipate if that were the only plane in the air. All flights together, taken as a group, are essentially permanently adding that effect to the atmosphere, because the effect never dissipates. --Jayron3217:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, you are likely describing countering effects. Contrails and cloud formation increase the Earth's albedo, which has a local cooling effect. This could, on the short term, seemingly mask or reduce some of the warming effects of the CO2, but once the clouds and contrails dissipate, the albedo drops, and the warming effects are not masked. Your one flight will not have impact from controls and cloud formation directly during the flight in 20 years. Its carbon output might still be felt. However, even that is overly simplistic. If we stopped all industrial activity, all transportation activity, all agriculture, all aviation, etc., i.e. if we stopped all anthropogenic carbon emissions today, CO2 in 20 years might drop (possibly significantly). That is, unless we have already passed through a tipping point. It isn't the one flight or the one driving your car that's the issue in 20 years, it's the constant/increasing levels of carbon output that's the issue. To take one action and try to measure the 20 year impact ignores that the levels are a result of constant, and not transient output. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, but you haven't really answered my question. Obviously one flight doesn't do much - it's the aggregation of flights that does. But one still may ask what is the contribution of one flight to that aggregate. The constant rather than transient effect you are referring to is due to the fact that there are flights all the time, but that is not what I've asked.
When refering to policy-making, there is not much of a difference. But When thinking about how personally I should change my behaviour in order to reduce my personal contribution to the climate change, it does matter. Dan Gluck (talk) 09:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are changing your personal behavior to be flying 10 times per year every year for 20 years vs not flying, no, you aren't really doing much through your personal action alone. The climate impact in 20 years of a SINGLE airline flight is not something measurable as its impact doesn't last 20 years. The aggregation of flights occurring every day, constantly, is the effect. I'm sorry if that's not an answer that you like, but that is the answer. If you want to know what the impact of your next flight, and only that flight, is in 20 years, then the answer is "basically none." If you want to know your impact of changing your behavior to not fly on vacations every year for 20 years, then we can start talking about impact. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To use a metaphor on this, lets say you want to know the impact in 20 years of you taking a cup of sand from a beach. The answer will be "essentially none." In those 20 years, that sand will have more than replenished through things like weathering and breakdown of rocks, deposition of material, etc. Now, let's change the question to be "what is the impact, in 20 years, of me taking a cup of sand from the beach every day for 20 years." Well, now you might be removing sand at a faster rate than replenishment, so you might, in 20 years, have a measurable impact. Let's change the question again. Now, "what is the impact in 20 years of 500 people each taking a cup of sand from the beach every day for the entire 20 years." Well, now the impact might very well be that the entire beach has no sand left by 10 years from now, and is never able to recover, or at least not until several decades (maybe centuries or more) after human activity has ceased, assuming it can at all. Do you see why asking "what is the impact in 20 years of my taking one cup of sand from a beach today" seems like a non-nonsensical question, one that is not even measurable? The damage threatening the beach in 20 years isn't one cup of sand today. It's 500 cups of sand, every day, constantly. Now, if we take away the "impact in 20 years" part from your question, the CO2 output and immediate impact of your airline flight is measurable. Asking about its impact in 20 years is the problem, because the effects are too transient for that. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2007 IPCC summary cited in the article section has a positive (0.01 [0.003 to 0.03]) value for radiative forcing, but a "Low" assessed level of scientific understanding. Another source, from New Scientist[2] states On average, both thin natural cirrus clouds and contrails have a net warming effect. The discussed study is here, maybe it or one of its references may help.—eric17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 11
Quark Magnetic Resonance
Could an X ray laser, or someday a gamma ray laser, be applied to a bunch of protons, and although xrays are probably pretty weak and long wavelengthy compared to quarks size, gradually excite the quarks inside the protons until they emit a signal? I’m thinking of an immobile grid of hydrogen ions trapped on a sheet of insulating material, and pulses of xrays shot at them at some fraction of a resonant frequency.Rich (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the idea is to get a signal from the quarks inside the proton, this can be done by high-energy collisions of other particles with the proton. You thought of using photons (which in a classical approximation are seen as "x-rays" of "gamma-rays"), but most convinently it is done with electrons or similar more massive particles. See Deep inelastic scattering. Dan Gluck (talk) 10:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't primates live in Europe and the Middle East?
I know that humans are primates, and I know that there are a few apes on Gibraltar and in Saudi Arabia, but given that monkeys are so versatile and adaptable, why aren't there monkeys or apes living in European countries or across the Middle East? They live in hot, dry parts of Western India and in the Yemen, and they've adapted to live in cold parts of Japan, so why have they never come further north into Europe, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.37.255 (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There should have been more than enough time for nonhuman primates to move back into the rest of Europe and Asia since the ice ages. Thus, there must be some factor which keeps them from moving north. The obvious difference is the climate. While it gets somewhat cold in Japan, it certainly gets far colder in northern parts of Europe and Asia. The central regions of Europe and especially Asia, not having temperatures moderated by air coming off the ocean, can also suffer from extreme temperature variations. But there are certainly some regions of Europe, like southern Italy, where the climate would be acceptable to many primates. So, some other explanation is needed there, perhaps hunting from prehistoric humans or predation from animals such as dogs. NonmalignedNations (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it's due to human predation, another question would be why monkeys haven't been hunted to extinction in Africa, as humans originated in Africa as well.
Let's suppose the answer is that the tropical conditions in Africa just allow a higher density of monkeys while humans don't have as much of an advantage compared to cooler climates.
Our article on Oreopithecus, an ape that lived in Italy 7 or 8 million years ago, says that "When a land bridge broke the isolation of the Tusco-Sardinian area 6.5 million years ago, large predators such as Machairodus and Metailurus were present among the new generation of European immigrants and Oreopithecus faced quick extinction together with other endemic genera". So you can't blame us for that - it was them sabre-toothed tigers, they come over here and take our monkeys... ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Although that greatly predated the extinction of other primates as RuslikZero's comment implied [3]. BTW this study [4] (news article discussion [5]) came to the conclusion that the main factor in the extinction of the European great apes was a failure to adapt to the food supply after deciduous trees replaced evergreen due to their existing dietary adaptations. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the OP that as per that article and ape, barbary macaques aren't apes under the most common modern definition of the word despite barbary ape being another common name. Nil Einne (talk) 21:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Curious Case of the Last ‘Wild’ Monkeys in Europe says that the Gibraltar "apes" were once thought to have been a remnant of the European population which is known to have existed, but recent DNA analysis suggests that they all come from either Morocco or Algeria. There was a large scale reintroduction from Algeria in 1944 (apparently at the instigation of Winston Churchill) in support of the superstition that the extinction of the monkey colony would mean the end of the British Colony. Alansplodge (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that there have been enough time for monkeies to repopulate Europe since the last Ice Age. After all they can not swim long distances. Ruslik_Zero05:29, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What in common to all vitamins B group (except for water solubility)?
I see that all vitamins B group are water soluble (but also vitamin C is). So I'm interested to know the reason that all vitamins in B groups name with the letter B. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Formerly some of them had other vitamin letters. Vitamin B2 was vitamin G. Vitamin B7 was vitamin H. Vitamin B9 was vitamin M. And vitamin B3 was vitamin PP. But there is no vitamin B4 or vitamin B8. Georgia guy (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our B vitamins article says that as a class, "Each B vitamin is either a cofactor (generally a coenzyme) for key metabolic processes or is a precursor needed to make one." That article notes that there are substances formerly known as B4 and B8. DMacks (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but also vitamin C and vitamin K are cofactors for key metabolic processes. I really don't understand the citation from the article. 93.126.116.89 (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't found an answer yet, but you may be interested in Lifespan and sexual maturity depends on your brain more than your body which says: "New Vanderbilt research finds how long humans and other warm-blooded animals live--and when they reach sexual maturity-- may have more to do with their brain than their body. More specifically, it is not animals with larger bodies or slower metabolic rates that live longer; it is animals with more neurons in the cerebral cortex, whatever the size of the body". So we're looking for an animal with more brain cells than us. Alansplodge (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will assume good faith in the questioner, but I will also point out that there have been other (to put it politely) banana-balls crazy questions about the public figure in question from unregistered users recently. Temerarius (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, banana balls are tasty! (Hmm, should banana ball be turned blue?) Anyway, cloning humans is likely feasible in the medium-term future, though I will note the Ref Desk is not for predictions. Human clones already exist and have existed for as long as humans have. We call them identical twins. The act of human cloning would simply entail producing an identical twin intentionally, and probably from a person's existing somatic cells, as opposed to "natural" clones, which result when a human zygote spontaneously splits and develops into two fetuses. Cloning of human organs (as opposed to complete humans) is seeing a lot of serious research, as this would allow an organ "self-transplant", which would solve the problems of organ rejection and limited supply of transplant organs. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even when it is possible to clone somebody precisely, with no genetic problems introduced, there's still the issue of reproducing the exact environment that produced the original. There may be something equivalent to the butterfly effect, where a seemingly trivial event early in life sets the course for that person's entire life. NonmalignedNations (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've read at least two stories about attempts to recreate a legendary hero by recreating his formative childhood experiences: "The Blabber" by Vernor Vinge, and another whose title and author I cannot recall; I wanted to say "The Conqueror" by Cyril Kornbluth, but it seems Kornbluth never wrote a story by that title, though at least ten others did. —Tamfang (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
January 13
Methane
Is Methane gas and (its associated components and) general gas as expelled in the act of flatus and defecation heavier or lighter than air? I need to change clothes daily in a public toilet and it often stinks to the point of having to hold my breath. Am I better off taking a breath when I change my shoes, or by standing on my toes? Google has not been of much help. Please assume good faith. Thanks. Anton. 81.131.40.58 (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Methane is odorless. (Gas as distributed in homes smells because they include an additive so that people can detect gas leaks.)
Assuming good faith against my better judgement for the last part... It does not fall under "google it yourself" but it still falls under "try it yourself". (The only way to answer from theory would be a combination of physiology of odor perception, chemistry of human waste composition and volatile compounds, and fluid dynamics in a 3D simulation of air motion in the place; the whole edifice would be extremely shaky.) TigraanClick here to contact me11:59, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The density of a gas is (to a good approximation, if the pressure isn't too high) proportional to its molecular mass. Therefore, methane (m = 16 u) is less dense than air (average m = 29 u). If you ask about flatulence, this article (which you could have found if you'd have read the article) provides data from 16 subjects - in some of them, there was so much carbon dioxide that the resulting gas mixture would be denser than air, in some less dense. Notice that there will be some water vapor in addition which is less dense than air.
But that's all assuming that the expelled gas and air have the same temperature, which generally isn't the case. Gas in the intestine has body temperature, and the public toilet is probably cooler. However, there will be a slight cooling due to the change in pressure when the gas is expelled (Joule–Thomson effect) - you can do some research on the pressure involved.
Notice that these effects which might make the expelled gases rise or fall are short-lived, as there will likely be convection in the restroom. And also, though slower, gas diffusion.
The other question was about the smell of feces, and I guess that in this case the gases in the vicinity of the feces, a mixture of air and the emanating gases, will typically be less dense than air because most of the emanation will be water vapor, and humidity of the surrounding air may be kept below 100%.
The smell is hydrogen sulfide and other thiols. These are present in low concentrations, but your nose is exquisitely sensitive to them. Given that, I'm not sure there will be much of an effect from positioning yourself differently; the concentration gradient in the room probably isn't very large. If the smell is constant, it's quite likely sewer gas leaking from fixtures with defective traps, or some other plumbing defect that lets the gas in. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where it would be useful, and even if it was, it certainly wouldn't be in this horrifically sensationalist form. "Awesome facts"? Random all caps? "FACT=>"? I'm not believing anything in this listicle even though I know the facts are true. Fgf10 (talk) 17:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fgf10: Thank you *very much* for your comments - they're appreciated - yes - *entirely* agree - template style could be toned-down and presented better, while maintaining the same facts (template style was somewhat influenced by trying to better communicate with some young students in my local area - but also - to be more accessible and useful to the average reader - after all => "Readability of Wikipedia Articles" (BEST? => Score of 60/"9th grade/14yo" level)[1]) - in any case - Thanks again for your comments - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are many dubious statements here, and also misleading links. Some is speculation, guesses or estimates. When I see the qualifer "fact" at the front, I can expect to be deceived. I do agree that it is an amazing list however! Also the linking to external sites is not our way to do things here. It would be better to link to an article or subsection that covers this statement in detail.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Graeme Bartlett: Thank you for your reply - and taking the time to comment - yes - also agree - seems the layout, text and links could be better managed - choosing a useful place on Wikipedia to apply such a template, even after all's been sorted out to everyone's likings, may be a challenge - perhaps the "Science" article may be a possibility? - there may be other places on Wikipedia that such a (more finished) template may be useful as well? - iac - Thanks again for your comments - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it grows toward the artificial light you have suppied or, it does not grow at all or withers very quickly. However you may be interested in reading articles concerning the germination of seeds on MIR Space Station. Due to the lack of gravity, the seed do tend to curl around themselves. Another Wikipedian may be able to source our article for this or provide a general link to valid source. I recall reading about this several years ago and it was very interesting as are many of the experiments they do there, such as hatching chicken eggs. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"PERSEVERANCE" Rover & "INGENUITY" Helicopter => 1196 Sols (1229 Days) (3 years, 134 days) (landed February 18, 2021).
.jpg)
