Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 October 19

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 19

What facts and examples should I use in a debate with a Relativity Denier?

I have been asked to 'defend Science' at a Creationist event, and the guy I'll be debating is against 'Einsteinian Relativity', or as he characterizes it, the idea that there is no universal reference frame. To summarize his position bluntly, "There IS a universal reference frame, and it is God."

I'm hardly qualified if this were any sort of scientific event, but it isn't, and looking at the guy's credentials, neither is he. What sorts of examples, facts, and topics should I review and study up on to back up... well, modern scientific thought on this?

Note: if you have any biblical quotations, those will be helpful as well, as creationists infrequently listen to logic and rationality.

Here's the 'Moderator's Introduction':

Whenever a Relativist says: “space is curved,” this merely begs the question: “Curved in relation to what?” If the Relativist says: “time slows down,” we respond: “Slows down in relation to what?” If he says that he has a “preferred frame of reference” we ask “what frame, and in reference to what?” Every proposition a Relativist utters assumes there is an absolute against which he can measure his proposition. To put it another way, the whole theory of Relativity, ironically, is based on the assumption that something is at rest. Even if he says “the speed of light is my absolute,” we respond: “the speed of light in relation to what?” And if he is someday so bold as to assume he has a “what,” we are still going to ask him “what in relation to what?” and thus require him to prove his “what” over against any other possible “whats.” If he says, “the universe is at rest” then he is once again on our side, since he has already admitted there is no difference between a rotating Earth in a fixed universe as opposed to a fixed Earth in a rotating universe. God has sprung a trap for modern man, and Relativity is its name.

I assume most of us on this site find this ridiculous, but why, specifically? I'm not asking anyone to spell out a transcript of what to say, just point me in good directions while I prepare; wiki articles to read, experiments to read up on, biblical passages to memorize, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.171.193 (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If the real issue is Creationism, it's a huge tactical error to get sucked into a debate about a different issue. It's an even bigger error if you don't actually understand that issue. Trying to win a debate by memorizing arguments you don't understand is what the bad guys do. Don't be one of the bad guys.Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congratulations! You have been sucked in to be the sucker they use to make whatever they want look stupid. They'll be doing their preparation too -they'll be checking the sorts of arguments put up elsewhere by people such as yourself, and will come equiped with counter arguments that worked - i.e., not counter arguments that are correct, necessarily, but arguments that experience has shown will amuse/satisfy their captive audience, and confound you.

There are a multitude of practical applications of Einstein's general theory, and especially his special theory of relativity. For example, nuclear power is one that everybody knows. E = mc² is the core engineering equation for nuclear power. One that is less appreciated is the picture tube in TV sets (before they went to flat screens based on plasma and LCD technolgies). These worked by emitting electrons from a hot cathode at the back of the tube. Electrostatic forces are used to accelerate these electrons in a focused beam toward the screen; when they hit the screen, dissipation of their kinetic energy causes the screen to glow. Magnetics are used to make this electron beam sweep back and forth and up and down. It happens that these electrons travel at a significant fraction of the speed of light - so due to Einstein's theory, their mass increases. So the magnetic force required to sweep the beam is greater than would be expected. Picture tube engineers must understand and apply the theory in order to make tubes that work correctly. The widespread use of picture tubes and X-Ray tubes that work just as predicted by the factory engineers is a proof of Einstein's theory.

However, I'm with Looie496. What any of this has to do with creationist ideas (essentially, God created in spurt of effort every mineral and every plant and animal without using evolution) is a mystery to me.

Wickwack 124.182.48.155 (talk) 02:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The introduction itself makes it obvious the person who is moderating this event does not understand relativity. You can't really debate with people who have made up their minds on a subject they haven't bothered to learn. What they really need is a physics lesson, not a debate.Someguy1221 (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -Phil Plait 67.163.109.173(talk) 02:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikiquote, Jonathan Swift said that. -- BenRG (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't mean Phil Plait didn't say it too. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Simply ask your fellow debater to express their idea in mathematical form, and use these equations to make a prediction about a physically-observable effect. For example, if they contend that there is a universal reference frame, they should be able to express the governing equations of electrodynamics in a way that predicts a variation from the documented results of the Michelson-Morley experiment. If the person can not express their ideas mathematically, or is unable to see how they relate to the question of a physically-observable fact, then inform them that they are unqualified to make assertions about the topic, and move on to discussing other interesting issues with them - issues that do not relate to empiricism and mathematical physics. Many interesting conversations are to be had with non-physicists, and sometimes even with people who hold beliefs that are contrary to empircal observations. Or, you can find a new group of people to discuss physics with, who are able to back up their assertions about the physical universe with logically-consistent observable consequences. In its present form, it seems that the debate is centered entirely on the name-label "relativity," and notactually on the mechanics of the theory that holds that name. The debate can not make progress in that form; it is little more than name-dropping and appeal to authority. One side appeals to God, and the opposing side appeals to "facts that were established by very smart and infallible physicists," but neither side actually brings any substance to the discussion. Nimur (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Never make the mistake of thinking that because someone believes in something stupid, that they themselves are stupid. You get highly intelligent creationists! Prepare to be out argued! Wickwack 124.182.48.155 (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're talking at cross purposes. Moral relativity and the theory of relativity are two completely different things. You can't prove the first and final answers about the purpose of the universe or whether there is a God based on some scientific observations. And he can't predict the shift in spectral lines of a distant star based on the brightness of a "standard candle" supernova. Wnt (talk) 02:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Take this opportunity to teach audience about relativity. At the end, do mention you are aware that you cannot win a debate because science is based on knowledge, and there is limit to knowledge but there is no limit to ignorance. manya (talk) 03:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

1)God isn't an inertial reference frame, so its ludicrous to argue God is one. 2)They need a physical model based on a classical space that accurately explains observed facts such as the Michelson-Morley experiment, relativistic Doppler relation, time dilation, length contraction and E = mc². 3)Given a classical space, with Galilean transformations (if they know what that is) explain why if the universal vacuum speed of photons and other bosons is not invariant (the same speed in every reference frame), why it appears to be invariant. 4)If they can do the above, such a model wouldn't entail the abstract nonEuclidean geometries and maths of Minkowski space and the relativity of simultaneity. And in case any of you guys are wondering about my complete insanity, with a couple of very simple ideas, I've figured out such a model too... -Modocc (talk) 03:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

God and relativity are not necessarily incompatible (just like God and evolution, see theistic evolution). From the perspective of fine-tuned Universe God is the creator of physical laws and as such you can't extend scientific laws and theories, including relativity, on Him. Catholic doctrine in particular says that God exists beyond time (and of course is not affected by ageing), while relativity needs both time and space (the spacetime).Brandmeister^talk 09:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't look like an impartial moderator. Would you get into a boxing ring knowing the ref would punch you too? And it looks like they'd have trouble with Newtonian relativity, never mind Einstein's Special and General theories. There are no Bible quotes that can back you up here - not because relativity is anti-Biblical, but because it deals with questions that the text was not written to answer. But if they're not Young Earth Creationists, you could do a lot worse than to argue that the six days of Creation in Genesis reflect an Iron-age approximation of the stages through which the universe went in order to produce living things. (I don't believe that myself - I think it's just the prelude to a series of moral just-so-stories - but it's not nearly as bad an argument as theirs are shaping up to be.) If they are young-earthers, then you're stuffed, because a lot of the astronomical evidence relies on accepting that there have been more than 6000 years.

I'd take the fight to them. Rather than defend your positions, try to tease out theirs. What is the speed of light in a vacuum, in their physics? If there is an absolute frame of reference in the physical world, what and where is it? If they mention God at this point, direct them to John 1:18 - "No-one has ever seen God". Attempts to express God as a physical frame of reference are bound to leave them in contradiction of scripture. But yes - Wnt is right. They have done the spectacularly ignorant thing that many such people have done, and conflated physical relativity with moral relativity.

Newton was a devout (if non-conformist) Christian, and saw the exploration of physics as an investigation of the methods and glory of God. He was certainly a moral absolutist, and yet he developed a theory of relativity that stood for 200 years, and is still the best everyday approximation of universal law. If they can't grasp the difference, they fail before you even start. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

While Alex and others have said a lot of sense, I think they are missing an important part of how you are most likely stuffed before you begin, at worst, and at best, what you really have to grapple with. This "event" - it's not just a debate between 2 opposing people with a (biased) moderator. It is relatively easy to win and argument with one or two people who have some misconceptions thru ignorance. But this "event" is I assume, to be before an audience. An audience of creationists. Creationists of all sorts maybe - ones who can think, ones who can't think. Ones who will simply not tune in to what you are saying, but will tune in whenever their side appears to land a blow. In short, its entertainment, and you are part of that entertainment, under their control. You have to win the audience, not the debator(s).

If you start talking about science or math, more than half the audience will simply tune out. If you ask them to explain with their physics what is the speed of light, they'll most likely replay with something that has nothing to do with it, but calculated to make you stop and think. Then they've won in the eyes of the audience. Wickwack 120.145.50.173 (talk) 10:35, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against creationism, but that that is just a silly argument. Try this: since God created the universe, which includes everything (space and time), who's to say that there exists a concept such as time outside of the universe? You run into a philosophical dilema when you propose that God created the universe around Himself, that is if you agree that He was before the creation of the universe. It would be foolish to assume that God's computer runs on a Windows opperating system, just because our one does. For all we know, He could have Linux. Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the folks who are telling you "don't even enter this debate". There is no upside for you (unless perhaps you are doing this for a bet ?). It won't even give you any useful experience of debating. If you were asked to give your opponent $100 and then convince him and his friends to give some of it back to you, would you agree ? Just tell the "moderator" that his introduction is so biased and his arguments are so absurd that you are withdrawing from the debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Spot on. Of course when you do that, they may tell each other that the scientist (you) chickened out because, deep down, he/you knew your argument was never going to be any good. But that doesn't matter, if you were set up to lose anyway. Folda 120.145.5.61 (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree, and this really is advanced stuff. If you really explain things you will probably lose your audience. There are things that you need to be able to understand and demonstrate mathematically. Take a observer and two people moving away in opposite directions at 25% of the speed of light, 50% of the speed of light and 100% of the speed of light - what would be observed from each point. Once understanding the theory you need to show them evidence for its correctness (Michelson–Morley experiment, clocks in plains, gravitational lenses, GPS timing), and show why it precludes there being any absolute frame of reference - which is something beyond me (after all couldn't there be some view from an extra small dimension which sees all other points as close, as some quantum theories state).

After all that they will turn round and say "well if it contradicts God being omniscient then its wrong because the bible says so". -- Q Chris (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

(Fairly ad hominem, but ask him what he thinks about Einstein. Every Relativity denier I've ever interacted with was also a fairly vicious anti-Semite and unable to hide it when talking about him, for whatever reason.) If it were me, I would just explain that Einstein's theory is a theory of gravity, it has nothing to do with morality or theology. (Einstein himself got tired of people making such connections himself and lamented that he hadn't called it the theory of invariants instead, since it is not the relativity — which is just an extension of Galilean relativity — that makes it interesting, it is the conjunction of the relativity with an invariant speed of light that comes up with funny effects.)

As a theory of gravity it has completely conformed with predictions and experiments; GPS wouldn't work if relativistic corrections weren't applied. It has absolutely no impact on whether there is or isn't a God. If you want to interpret the Big Bang as an act of Creation you are welcome to, but science isn't going to shut its ears up if it sees something that doesn't conform with your perceptions of it. This is really a textbook case of a false dilemma between science and religion — there is nothing in the equations of GR that make it even slightly against a notion of God.

I don't think you need to prove to them that GR is real or that the math is real or whatever. Kick that one down the hall to the scientists and the technologists — if GR didn't work, then various technologies based on it wouldn't work, and they clearly do work. The issue is one of the guy being confused about what he thinks the science says, and it really doesn't say that. You don't have to try and argue that God didn't exist or didn't kick off the Big Bang or something. GR has nothing to say on that point. I don't see why opposing GR is a plank of Creationism, frankly.

The moderator's intro contains many obvious errors — an actual physicist will tell you, straight up, what the reference frames are. They don't say "time slows down absolutely," they say, "time in frame A slows down relative to frame B." There's nothing inconsistent there. Personally I'd just put up the Lorentz transformation equation and the GR field equation and ask them which of the entities named is God or has any relevance to him.--Mr.98 (talk) 11:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I've met a (probable) Jew who denied Relativity, though he may have been merely making a joke. Louis Epstein (I may misremember the name) was a fanatical monarchist, or at least posed as one for laughs (and was usually amusing, rather than trollish). I once concocted a scenario involving a king and his heir whose deaths are separated by a spacelike interval – that is, near enough in time and far enough in space that neither one lives long enough to learn that the other has died – and therefore whether the heir was ever king depends on frame of reference. Louis replied (paraphrase) "Impossible; the kingship transfers instantly, in every frame of reference, and therefore Relativity is wrong." —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Here's an alternative approach: Attack their theology. The idea that 'God has sprung a trap for modern man' is fundamentally anti-biblical, and anti-Christian. The idea that the God of truth and love would inspire the creation of a mostly secular theory in order to deceive his suffering creation is insane. In mainstream Christian theology, God already came into the world as a human being in order to suffer and die, so that people could be freed from pain and sin. God's love is portrayed as being all-encompassing. So why on earth would he ever seek to lay a trap for us? Psalm 19 draws explicit parallels between the consistency of the physical law and the perfection of the moral law. Relativity is a consistent physical law, and experiments (including concerning the motions of the Sun, as mentioned in poetic language in the Psalm) back it up. And yet these people would rather claim that the universe isnot consistent, and that God has deliberately deceived us, in order to trap us into sin and damnation.

So my 'official' advice to you - as someone with undergraduate degrees covering theology, scripture study, special relativity and formal logic - is to refuse to debate with them because they doubt the consistency and truthfulness of their own God. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:40, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is an awesome answer. Here is a quote "Any fool can start an argument." Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreeing with Alex, you could also point out that I John 1:5 says explicitly that "God is Light", not some Universal Reference Frame. Why do they say different to their own Scripture? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Carefull! Although the creationist said "God has sprung a trap for modern man", if you try the argument "why would a loving God set a trap for (all) mankind, they'll come back and say "God set a trap for the modern relativity scientist man, not for us faithfull creationists." Floda120.145.5.61 (talk) 12:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That sort of circular logic isn't worth engaging with. My advice is definitely to stay away, for the reasons everyone has outlined.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the key to the argument is that, while God is universal, He cannot be the "reference frame" as the term is used in physics. To be a reference frame, you'd be using it to measure the motion of another object against. How does one measure the motion of anything against God? If your debate opponents can't answer that, you've won. --Jayron32 12:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Straight to the OP's question: "Nuke them from high orbit. That's the only way to be sure."

And just as it happens, it'll demonstrate relativity in a way they can't deny... ;) — Precedingunsigned comment added by One.Ouch.Zero (talk •contribs) 13:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

See here and in case of objections, you refer to this page. Count Iblis (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everybody here: don't engage in this silly "debate". Instead, take this opportunity to learn some science. I'll comment on the moderator's points, not because I think the OP should bring them up in a debate, but for the OP's own enlightenment.

1. Space is curved in the sense that if you transport a gyroscope around a closed loop, parallel to its own axis, its axis will point in a different direction than when it started. A completely uniform universe can be curved, in the same sense that a 2D bug on the surface of a balloon thinks its world is both completely uniform and positively curved.

2. Time slows down for a moving object relative to the guy observing it. That is the only sense in which time slows down; it doesn't slow down with respect to any global reference frame.

3. There is no preferred reference frame in general relativity. In special relativity, non-accelerating frames are privileged. You can tell which frames are accelerating: if you put an elevator there and get in, do you get smashed against one of the walls?

4. The speed of light is not absolute. In special relativity, it's the same in every inertial reference frame. There isn't a well-defined speed of light in an accelerating reference frame, because it depends on which direction you measure it.

5. The universe is not at rest. There is no difference between saying that the universe is rotating while Earth is not, or Earth is rotating while the universe isn't; in general relativity, every reference frame is equal. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't read through all the answers, but take my advice in this sort of questions: discussing with people who analyze plain scientific phenomena from, and only from, a biblical perspective is not worth your time. No matter how good your evidence, they can always reply that God created that evidence, that he wanted to confuse us, that we are too small to understand his greatness and so on. Once you introduce a concept like God into a discussion everything goes, if God allows. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• I got it! Ask him whether there is any speed you can go, that God isn't with you. (You can then follow up by saying that, like your relationship with God, the laws of physics don't change depending on what speed you are going, and relativity is a way of working that math that agrees with this.)Wnt (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like the start of a good answer. The basic flaw in the creationist's premise is what a "reference frame" is supposed to be. If God is everywhere, but invisible (just like the blackness of space, or the classic notion of the "aether"), how does that figure into anything? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. Right, as if. That idea, just like this "debate" and just like all of religion, makes as much sense as colorless green ideas sleep furiously. --140.180.242.9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd take a non-contradiction approach: the relativity principle merely says that we cannot know what the absolute reference frame is, if there is one. Consider up and down: they are not the same for me in America as for my friend in India; if God has an up and down, how are we to know where they are? Newton – no atheist, as has been mentioned – showed that it doesn't matter where we put our spatial coordinate axes (so long as they don't rotate); Einstein showed that spacetime has a Minkowskian geometry in which it doesn't matter (within limits) where we put our temporal axis. God may have a preferred coordinate system for spacetime but has not seen fit to show us its axes. —Tamfang (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If there is a preferred coordinate system, we can know what it is though. I've mentioned this before, but its worth repeating, I predict that the absolute reference frame is precisely the inertial reference frame with the universe's fastest identical clock rates. We know that both gravity and acceleration slows decay rates, but what we have not observed yet is what set of particles has the fastest decays. Therefore, perhaps observations will show that particle decay rates are generally slower than for those whose objects happen to be at rest with respect to the Cosmic microwave background. This idea alone is, of course, not enough to show that space and time are classical, for this takes more assumptions and thought. For instance, with an invariant simultaneity and the fact that every frequency is a proportionality between events, say the revolutions of two planets, A and B, then a frequency of A can be defined in terms of B, as in A revolutions per every B revolution, then, by the assumption of invariant simultaneity, their proportionality, or the defined frequency, will be the same in every reference frame. Getting the maths to work out to my satisfaction has been difficult, but once I figured out what is required, these actually have turned out to be simple. I am not sure yet when I will publish, because there are substantial details still needed to make my model complete that I've not yet figured out, and I have this more important invention to work on that needs completion too. -Modocc(talk) 15:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So far as I know, the fastest decays should be in your own frame of reference. I have to agree that the CMB and the overall distribution of galactic velocities suggests an absolute rest frame at any given point in space, and I suspect there's some physics that takes advantage of it, e.g. FTL which can never travel backward in time relative to the rest frame for a specific locality. But I anticipate that the absolute rest frame varies from place to place (just like that of the CMB) per Hubble's law, and any such physics is as yet undiscovered. Wnt (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

With the Twin Paradox, twins can have different reference frames, but one of these will be observed to age faster than the other (or others), thus different inertial frames are not the same in this regard. Thus its a matter of observation to determine which reference frames of the universe have the fastest rates of aging when these are compared. You seem to have implied that the CMB varies from place to place, but AFAIK, observers in other galaxies are measuring the same CMB. -Modocc (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You can expect them to use the same tactics as when "debating" about evolution. I've read a few reports from such debates, and tips for those that want to enter them. Your google skills are probably as good as mine, but I'll point you to some examples from the NCSE web site:[1] [2][3] [4]. In addition to what others have said, look out for the "Gish gallop" where the other side trots out a large number of one-liner questions which each would take several minutes to answer well.Sjö (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

as fate would have it, i've been mulling this over with my Fine Mind lately. My conclusions, after a whole half hour or so, were that we as humans are stuck with a single, subjective, point of view; and God would presumably be capable of an objective, universal point of view. That's pretty hard for a human to imagine. But, the development of science is towards mimicing as best as possible, this universal, objective POV; thus, relativity; which would sort of pull the old switcheroo on your opponent. There is a universal reference frame, and it would presumably be God's, but either way, that's what Einstein is saying. Gzuckier (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology of M. manavi

Hello. When Oldfield Thomas described Miniopterus manavi in 1906, he did not explain the etymology of manavi. Does anyone have any idea what it could refer to? Thanks in advance. Leptictidium (mt) 08:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

An idea: from the latin "Mano"(manare, manavi, etc)-- to drip or flow [5]... so possibly it is a bat that drools a lot? Perhaps there is something "flowing" about its wings? SemanticMantis (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Extremely unlikely: manavi would mean "I have dripped", so it would be a bizarre form of the word to use in that context.--ColinFine (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Names like that are often taken from a person. I don't know who "Manav" would be, though. Looie496 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I thought of that too. Problem is that there appears to be no trace of anyone named "Manav" or "Manavo" who is related to Madagascar or bats.Leptictidium (mt) 14:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

According to this page (bottom entry), there's a Malagasy word manavy that denotes a small bat.Manavi is likely a Latinate representation of that. Deor (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that's it! Leptictidium (mt) 10:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

About Karl Emil Lischke

Hi all,
Apologies for creating a fuddle I should be following up myself. Looking at refs at de:Karl Emil Lischke, nl:Karl Emil Lischke, and fr:Karl Emil Lischke, I am at a loss about to migrate those to the en:wp article.
--Shirt58 (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit: Still can't find refs in English.--Shirt58 (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to have English refs if none are easily available. I suggest you use the French refs on the grounds that they are (possibly) the easiest for native English speakers to understand. There is discussion about this theme atthe Village Pump. Richard Avery (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no French refs; the French article's only source is the German article. Isn't one of the refs on the German article in English? --140.180.242.9 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Coastal armoring in Connecticut

Does anyone know which areas of Connecticut's beaches have the most Coastal armoring structures? Does anyone know what Connecticut coastlines were never modified through coastal armoring or Beach Nourishment?149.152.23.9 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not a direct answer, but note that Long Island provides some protection from ocean waves to most of the Connecticut coast, thus reducing the need for coastal armoring. StuRat (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Also not a direct answer, but if beach erosion is something that interest you generally, you could do worse than to look into the work of Orrin H. Pilkey, who works in the field and is something of an expert on the topic. --Jayron32 04:24, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo

Was Terri Schiavo alive after she became brain-dead? Based on her date of death in that Wikipedia article, I'm tempted to say Yes, but I'd like to hear about the views of others on this.

To quote the article: "Terri Schiavo died at a Pinellas Park hospice on March 31, 2005." By definition, and not withstanding Schroedinger's cat, if she was not dead until March 31, then she was alive before that. She was not brain dead, but in a persistent vegetative state prior to March 31. (I don't know what happened to my signature. It was here two days ago when I wrote this. Bielle (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC))

Thank you for clarifying. However, I have a question--in regards to brain dead individuals, would it be fair and accurate to biologically classify them as dead if the rest of their bodies are still working due to artificial aid? Futurist110 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If they have functioning vital biological processes, such as heart and lungs, they have to be considered alive. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Biologists generally don't concern themselves about issues that come down to the meaning of a word. Legally, though, a person who is brain dead is considered dead. Looie496 (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not everywhere, according to Legal_death#Brain_death it is not like that in every US state. I suppose there are several different legal definitions of death around the world. OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I was not asking about legal definitions, but thank you for your info. For the record, though, I don't think that people withglobal ischemia would be legally classified as dead despite having no brain activity (electrical activity in the brain) for up to several minutes. The global ischemia article itself talks about electrical activity temporarily stopping, so your previous statement about electrical activity continuing in patients with global ischemia appears to be inaccurate. Therefore, I think that the legal definition of brain dead would be more along the lines of "you're dead if all electrical activity in your brain permanently stops with no chance of ever getting it back."Futurist110 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the article. As I understand it, if electrical activity in the brain completely ceases, there is never any recovery. I didn't see any statement to the contrary in that article. Looie496 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think I did, since the article said "In 1974, Hossmann and Zimmerman demonstrated that ischemia induced in mammalian brains for up to an hour can be at least partially recovered" and that "[t]he interruption of blood flow for twenty seconds results in the stopping of electrical activity." An hour is obviously way longer than 20 seconds. Also, I've heard that the book What Happens When We Die by Sam Parnia supports the statement that I just made. Futurist110 (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If their stomach cells are alive and functioning, then their stomach is alive. If their heart's cells are alive and functioning, then their heart is alive. Whether the whole person is alive if some parts are dead is an uninteresting semantic question that, as Looie said, biologists have no reason to consider. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in this question due to the whole brain life vs. life part of the abortion debate. Futurist110 (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

From a scientific standpoint, life began about four billion years ago and forms a continuous chain of "aliveness" since then. There's no meaningful point at which you can say a person "started to live", because from a biological standpoint, sperm and egg cells are just as alive as an embryo. --Carnildo (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You can't try to seek scientific answers to semantic and moral issues, because there simply aren't any. Science can describe how somatic cells split through meiosis to form gametes, how the gametes combine to form zygotes, how the zygotes split and develop, and what an embryo/fetus looks like at a given stage of pregnancy. Personally, I see absolutely no purpose, aside from the purely semantic, in trying to define when an embryo becomes "alive", or "human". You might as well replace "alive" with "phillip" and "human" with "trodinos". The statement that "an embryo becomes phillip after 3 months and trodinos after 6" has as much moral significance as the statement "an embryo becomes alive after 3 months and human after 6": in other words, absolutely none, because we made up the definitions of the words in the first place. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We've been asked when she was "alive" and/or "dead"; discussion of the ethics of her treatment might better be pursued with a more focused question at the Humanities desk

• What do you mean, "was she alive"? She was judicially murdered[6][7] by the Florida Supreme Court with the complicity of the US Supreme Court at the request of her adulterous "husband". Had her parents gained custody, she might have been rehabilitated. But the court decided that she be starved to death rather than let that happen. μηδείς (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
  • --Jayron32 01:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The left wing village voice and the right wing wash times good enough for you? A court ordered starvation counts as judicial murder in any human's book.μηδείς (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, it is entirely off-topic commentary here on RD/S and unrelated to the thread-topic either. DMacks (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

If the OP wants an independent objective scientific answer, he simply won't get one, or at least not a better one than the picture will provide. No testimony independent of witnesses solicited by the husband who gave hearsay evidence she wanted to die was ever procured. If the OP is only asking for the substance of the legal judgments they can be found and linked to. μηδείς (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the witnesses, the legal judgements, or the picture help with the OP's question. As far as I know, the fact that she was alive but in a vegetative state was in no way questioned by anybody in any court. The picture shows that she was not in an advanced state of decomposition, but that's about it. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Murder is the unlawful taking of human life. There is no such thing as "judicial murder". You might hate how the case was handled, but it was done with "due process of law". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 04:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This from the guy who says you can't murder a horse. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Murder is the unjust taking of human life. (Bugs and I have both omitted some other key features.) The concept existed before legislation. An unjust killing that follows the forms of law may never be punished as murder, but still is what it is. (But I am not informed enough to give an opinion on the case in question – and do not care to become so.) —Tamfang (talk) 07:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, you have just affirmed my statement. Note EO's take on "murder"[8] "secret" or "unlawful" killing; and "just"[9] as "legal" and also "right in the eyes of God", the latter being a matter of dispute, which is why we have laws to define these things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 16:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Laws, at best, express a pre-existing moral consensus, in which case they are redundant to the definition of justice; at worst, they express the interests of an insider class, in which case they are irrelevant to an honest definition of justice. Thank you for calling my attention to the Roman meaning of ius, but I hope we've outgrown divine law as the foundation of ethics. —Tamfang (talk) 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm hatting this - this sidetrack looks like it killed the main discussion. Wnt (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Feel quite free to continue the discussion then--it's hardly proper to hat what you may see as an unpopular viewpoint, one supported with references and reflected in a law passed by congress and signed by the president. μηδείς (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• • • To take the opinion out of Medeis's long-form answer and return to the OP's question: "Yes, she was alive." And that just happens to be what every preceding answer has said, in greater or fewer words. Bielle (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DNA Question

I apologize if this is a stupid question, but is our identity (what we develop into, etc.) caused by our DNA? For instance, what would happen if technology allowed us to modify/change a human's DNA and replace all of it with a cat's DNA? Futurist110 (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

DNA is an important part of the biochemistry of living things, but there are a lot of other things going on too. And if you stop and think about it, magically altering the DNA in your every cell in an instant, aside from being impossible, could be extremely traumatic to your body. But if you catch it early enough, like right when an egg is fertilized, you might be able to do something. That's how genetic manipulation is done currently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that some techniques for cloning extinct animals rely on removing the DNA from a close extant relative, then placing the extinct animal's DNA in the nucleus. However, with something as different as a cat and human, I suspect some incompatibility in the DNA and organelles in the cell would quickly kill the cell. StuRat (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is technology capable of eventually modifying these differences between cat and human zygotes as to turn one into the other in an experiment successfully? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose, but you arrive at a Ship of Theseus situation. You could also replace components on the QE2 and eventually make it into a jet plane, with nothing remaining but the ship's wheel. StuRat (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Also - they start with gametes, not with mature individuals. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:48, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

If our DNA was somehow instantly changed to cat DNA, we would rapidly die, possibly within 24 hours. DNA contains the instructions for making all the body's proteins, and cat proteins are not compatible with human proteins. Looie496 (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"Within 24 hours"? No, it would certainly be within minutes, because DNA is being transcribed and translated into proteins at every instant and in (almost) every cell. There is simply no way that a human body could chemically function with a cat's DNA. As for the OP's question, definitely. Have you ever seen twins, and noticed how similar they were? Exactly how much genes matter and how much the environment matters is an ongoing and heated debate called nature versus nurture. --140.180.242.9 (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Within minutes qualifies as within 24 hours. :) If you could change not just the DNA but also everything else in the body that is required to support a cat's biochemistry, then you might have a fighting chance of surviving. But it would all have to happen in a nanosecond (unless it's a sci-fi movie). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that if turn a human into a cat, the cat can survive. Well yeah, we know that; nobody's saying cats can't survive (in fact, they have nine lives). --140.180.242.9 (talk) 06:35, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm postulating that it could survive if a complete and instantaneous biochemical transformation could occur. The problem is, if you do this to an adult, they'll be a cat in the form of a human, and that might have consequences of its own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll volunteer for being turned magically into a cat. But I get to decide who I live with Asmrulz (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

See Somatic fusion. You can take a human cell and a mouse cell and fuse them without killing them. Of course, this is different from the hypothetical scenario in which you start off all human and replace with all mouse - you'd have to try the experiment to see what would happen. :) (Cloning one species with the cytoplasm of another involves something much like this, but the nuclear proteins are transferred, and I don't know of anyone trying that far of a genetic distance) Wnt (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• The most significant difference between cats and humans is developmental. Once adulthood is reached, body form is set. Tissues that regenerate, like hair, would probably take on a feline appearance. Probably the biggest difference would be metabolic enzymes. One might develop the ability to produce one's own vitamin C, but lose the ability to metabolize a lot of the alkaloids that humans deal with. Having a cat's liver enzymes would significantly change your dietary requirements and tolerances. I doubt there'd be any immediate problems, just cosmetic and dietary. There might be mood changes due to a change of hormonal and neurotransmitter balance. And cats age much more quickly than humans. How you would react to catnip and cats of the opposite sex would be curious. μηδείς (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Would we still have an intelligent human mind if we would have been successfully transformed to cats in adulthood? Yes, right? Also, if a human being's DNA was completely and successfully changed into that of a cat at the zygotic stage, then this human being would develop into a regular cat after the DNA changes, right? Futurist110 (talk) 22:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The brain is a network of neurons that functions using electrical impulses and neurotransmitters under the influence of sense input and hormones. The long term balance of neurotransmitters and hormones might change under the influence of cat genes, but probably no where near radically enough that it would disrupt sentience sapience. But mental health might be affected by mood alteration and changes in impulses. There is no way to know what would happen long term without experimentation. A person whose genes were replaced with cat genes in one fell swoop might simply die of a massive auto-immune reaction. [10]. But they won't turn into a cat. μηδείς (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cats do have sentience, but not self-awareness. What if a human zygote's DNA was completely changed into a cat's DNA (and doesn't die as a result)--would this human zygote then develop into a cat instead of a human? Futurist110 (talk) 23:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say sapience, not sentience. Zygotes haven't yet reached anywhere near the stage where there is a difference between cats and humans, so you'd simply have a cat at that point, maybe with human mitochondria, which shouldn't matter. It would be like creating a cat clone using human host cells and cat nuclei. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• I think the answer is really that you have to try it and see what happens to know. I can vaguely picture you do something akin to X-inactivation on a spare animal genome in an engineered individual, then [somehow] get the cell to destroy/discard its first genome while reactivating the second one. It seems like a procedure well in excess of our capabilities... for now. Wnt (talk) 17:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You can do exactly that in bacteria, which was famously done in 2010: Craig Venter#Synthetic Genomics. It cannot yet be done in anything more complicated than a particular bacterial species with a mere ~1mb genome. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:36, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

But there are some very good educated guesses we can make. Genes are mostly either structural genes or regulatory genes. The structural genes code for things like the structure of collagen and so forth that are basically the same in cats and humans. Some enzyme proteins humans have cats won't have, and vice versa. That will mostly end up in changes to dietary needs and tolerances, and changes in balances of hormones and neurotransmitters, but not their function. As far as regulatory genes, those that govern growth and development will largely be out of play once the skeleton is formed, and the body matured. Regenerated tissues like the stomach lining and blood will slowly become more cat like. (Eggs and sperm will become cat's eggs and sperm, so any children if conceivable, should be kittens.) But that will have little effect on the adult animal. The skin and hair will change to cat skin and hair--a striking, but largely cosmetic change. But body layout, the wiring of the brain, the skeleton, the shape of the musculature, the arrangement of the organs--that is all set once development is complete. Functioning at the cellular level is regulated by highly conserved genes, and basically identical among mammals. μηδείς (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Cardiac arrest

Hello,

During a tuition on cardiopulmonary resuscitation, I've been told by the instructor that cardiac arrest was always causing heart fibrillation and pulmonary arrest in adults (no pulmonary arrest in newly born infants), hence requiring chest compressions and assisted ventilation. Why does cardiac arrest prevent breathing in adults and not in newly born infants? Thanks, 188.194.48.183 (talk) 21:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Either you didn't grasp correctly what the instructor said, or you need a new instructor. Cardiac arrest is the cessation of pumping. Fibrillation is the uncoordinated crontraction (twitching) of heart muscle fibres. There's 2 main locations of fibrilation: in the upper return chamber (atrial fibrilation), which in the short term doesn't matter much (my wife has been in AF for months and will probably stay that way) Lots of things can cause cardiac arrest, and one of them is extensive fibrilation in the lower (main pumping to body) chamber. You cannot breath in cardiac arrest because the breathing muscles aren't being supplied with fresh oxygenated blood if the heart is not pumping. A newbon infant suffering cardiac arrest cannot breath for the same reason as an adult. If still connected via the umbilical cord to the placenta, and the placenta is still attached in the womb, the baby can still get oxygen, but without a pumping heart it can't use it. Floda 124.182.4.128 (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I may have made a confusion while listening to him. It's clearer with your explanations. Now, if I come across an unconscious person who is unable to breathe and whose pulse can't be felt, I have to perform a CPR by default; just for curiosity (as I am not supposed to make a diagnostic during basic life support), this person can suffer from cardiac arrest, heart attack or fibrillation, is that right? Is the AED able to determine in which condition is the victim before delivering a shock? 188.194.48.183 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your IP address geolocates to Berlin. First aid training varies from country to country and from time to time. I am Australian - first aid training here had the following principles, when I did my Senior Certificate:-

1. Follow "DRABC" - Do in this order: Check Danger (to yourself), Response, Airway, Breathing, Circulation (Pulse & bleeding).

2. For response checking, attempt to wake person up. If person is awake or shows some sort of response to shaking, yelling and the like, there cannot be a serious problem (yet) with breathing or heartbeat.

3. If no response, Check for breathing - feel rib movement, or feel for breath with your face. If person is breathing, there MUST be a pulse.

4. (if not breathing) Check for pulse at neck. Neck pulse is reliable, as a live body will always ensure blood flow to the brain. In severse cases, the body may shut down blood flow to limbs in order to do this. However, if you can detect a pulse at wrist or ankle, well and good.

5. If not breathing but there is a pulse, commence moouth to mouth & check frequently that there is still a pulse.

6. If not breathing and no pulse, commence CPR cycles.

7. Do not do heart massage if there is a pulse - you will make any heart problem worse.

First aid givers, whether Junior or Senior First Aid trained or not, are not required to make any diagnosis beyond the above points. If there is no neck pulse, it matters not a whit whether it is because of fibrillation, loss of blood volume thru bleeding, a heart attack, or wound, blood flow MUST be restarted. So Fisrt Aiders are not required to diagnose fibrillation, however if you do detect fibrillation and you can advise medical personell via phone, well and good. Note that Atrial fibrillation is readily detectable but is NOT life threatening. Low chamber fibrillation will very likely result in cardiac arrest, which if it has already happened, youll have no pulse, requiring CPR. If fibrillation causes cardiac arrest in a conscious patient, they'll faint, so you go thru DRABC again.

Portable automatic defibrillators all sense whether a pulse is occuring - they will not fire if they detect a pulse (more correctly, they detect a QRS Complex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QRS_complex), as nothing heart-wise needs or should be done unless and until there is no pulse. Therefore you can do no harm using an automatic defibrillator (assuming you don't interrupt mounth-to-mouth, where required, too long messing about) when not required - it simply will not fire if it is not needed. Cardiac arrest can occur from all sorts of causes, but the patient can't live without blood flow, so if no neck pulse & you have a defib machine, give them a zap - it might work.

Floda 124.178.131.13 (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I was just looking forward to the details of the AED pulse measurement and how the machine was able to interpret it, but your DRABC explanation is welcome. This DRABC procedure is exactly the same as the one I've been instructed in France. The QRS complex keyword routed me toa manufacturer documentation, which gave me more answers than I could expect! Thank you for your time, 188.194.48.183 (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossing the Atlantic, the order is different. The formal American Heart Association recommendation is now CAB (circulation-airway-breathing)--seeCardiopulmonary resuscitation#Methods for details and refs. Their rationale is essentially that even a little circulation immediately with residual air is better than checking for breathing and doing rescue breaths before the first chest compressions. A victim with no pulse is in more immediate danger, so is addressed first (and presumably would wind up needing breaths also, so "look listen feel" is not done). And they suggest that it's easier to teach and get nonprofessionals involved in at least the first step than a more involved process--and both the new process itself and likelihood of "someone doingsomething" are more likely to lead to a successful outcome for many cases. DMacks (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

On a somewhat similar note, there were attempts in the UK to persuadeuntrained bystanders to assist heart attack victims using chest compressions only, rather than full CPR. The aim, apparently, being to encourage them to at least do something, rather than doing nothing through nervousness. Of course, trained first aiders would still do more.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually when I last trained in the UK 2010, I was told to only use compressions. This is because of the risk of infection (nobody uses the proprietary barriers apparently), and also because you don't know whether there is a blockage between nose and lungs: blowing it down into the lungs could do more harm. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That may be due to the regional variation in training that was mentioned above. However, the correct technique for Mounth-to-Mouth is to pinch the victim's nose off & blow in to mouth. There is a posibility of a blockage in the throat, but that is easily checked for and (mostly) easily cleared. Blockages between the nose and throat thus do not matter at all; blockages lower down than the first tracheal split do not matter much. What does matter is that the patient does get some air movement. Ratbone 121.215.62.205 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK professionals in the UK are supposed to use mouth to mouth. They don't teach it for amateurs I think because research shows the prospect puts off a number of people from doing resus at all. --BozMo talk 10:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting statement. Can you prove it with a reference? At least in Australia, professionals NEVER use mouth-to-mouth - being professionals (whether abulance crews or hospital staff or doctors) they have on hand, or within fast access, ventilators (mouthpiece & valves connected to rubber bulb). Mouth to mouth is taught to non-professionals because such folk will NOT have a ventilator - for them M-to-M is the only realistic option. Professionals have a high probability of encountering an infectious patient, and they don't want to carry it to the next patient. But the probability of getting anything more than the flu from an unconscious accident victim you encounter is very low. Ratbone121.215.62.205 (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You can trust the Americans to do things different - whether it is electrical standards, govt standards, metric vs traditional measurements, first aid or whatever. Meanwhile Australian fisrt aid teaching has followed European practice and is now DRsABCd - seehttp://www.stjohn.org.au/images/stjohn/information/fact_sheets/DRSABCD%20A4%20poster.pdf). This is really just a slight adjustment to DRABC - s for send for help, d for defribrillate, as the machines are now widely available. Ratbone 120.145.68.9 (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do pet parrots enjoy being stroked and cuddled by people?

Question in topic. As far as I know, there are very few other birds that actually like being handled, even when tame. Some birds might allow you to touch them a bit or even pick them up, but will make it clear from their body language that they'd rather you didn't (e.g. canary, myna bird, zebra finch, pigeon, chicken) and will bite you if you keep doing it. Any ideas? --91.125.132.147 (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Many wild parrots engage in social grooming. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I grew up on a chicken ranch, and as a child I had my own pet chickens that I raised from eggs. Who says their body language says they don't like being handled or petted? Even as adult chickens, they would come up to me and jump into my hands. Of course I aways bribed them with grain and other things that chickens like to eat. Floda 124.182.4.128 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm with the IP editor above. Chickens handled from early on can become very comfortable with it and actively seek out handling. And because I've seen such signs, I just did a Google Images search on "beware of the parrot". Very revealing. I've been bitten many times. I would just add the word "some" to the OP's question. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Animals in general aren't too keen on being handles handled unless they're used to it. Before your time, perhaps, but there was a place calledAfrica USA, I think film director Ivan Tors was connected with it, and they raised many of the animals with what they called "affection training", i.e. handling them from a young age. Even not terribly cuddly critters like tarantulas were affection trained. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

the local guy who drags various crawly animals to kid's parties, etc. says that he can make pretty much any of the animals he's handled (including hissing cockroaches, tarantulas, etc.) comfortable with handling and more or less recognize that he's neither prey nor predator, except for alligators and crocodiles, which he says will inevitably try to predate anything that moves and are of suitable size, no matter how familiar it may be. Gzuckier (talk) 05:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree that animals aren't keen on being handles. I once tied a live snake in a loop and used it as a handle for my suitcase, but, judging from the rattle, he seemed to object. StuRat (talk) 05:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I just knew I should have fixed that typo before you got your hands on it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, non-Australians often gain the impression that koalas are cute and cuddly creatures. Nothing could be further from the truth. They LOOK cute, but their natural behaviour involves lots of really ugly noises, fighting among themselves over members of the opposite sex, and ripping human flesh with the quite evil claws they possess. Those available for cuddling in tourist traps are separated pretty early on from their mothers and given the affection training Bugs speaks of above. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

And beware the drop bears. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Parrot and parakeet nomenclature?

Another quick parrot question. Or maybe this is a question of language use?

Where exactly is the demarcation line between parrots and parakeets? The term "parakeet" implies a small bird, so something like a macaw might have the long tailed 'body plan' of a parakeet, but I can't imagine anyone ever referring to macaws as anything other than 'parrots'.--91.125.132.147 (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Parakeet indicates that "parakeet" refers to any number of species that are small members of the order of parrots. So, there is no clear biological distinction between the two terms, and usage will vary by region. Insofar as we can make "rules" for common names, we can say that all parakeets are parrots, but not all parrots are parakeets. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• What birds outside the rather restricted Loriinae (Budgies, Lories & Fig Parrots) are considered parakeets? μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

not to be confused with paracletes, which seem to be more likely doves.Gzuckier (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)