Science desk
< October 22	<< Sep | October | Nov >>	October 24 >

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.

What is the principal cause of the characteristic sound of a typical rip? Is it the flapping of the butt cheeks together or the fluttering of the sphincter muscle? If the latter, what frequencies are we talking here on average? 71.161.59.133 (talk) 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you consider checking flatulence for the cause of the sound? As for the frequencies, there must be a wide range or we couldn't have flatulists making money off it. -- kainaw™ 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact Mr. Methane at his website. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a risquė subject, but my guess would be that the sound produces a standing wave, much like a trumpet or other brass instrument does. Like Kainaw said, you should read the article "flatulence". I hope that this has helped! Letter ⁷ _{it's the best letter :)} 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in doing a check of medicines that were perscribed to my dog(ketoconazole, 200mg capsules) i was unable to see if any precautions exist that apply to animals that might not exist for humans reguarding the use in animals. are there any?24.7.248.73 (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, and we don't have any more expertise in veterinary medicine. If you have concerns about the appropriateness of the medication, I strongly suggest consulting a vet or other appropriate professional. Warofdreams talk 11:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not clear what you are asking. If you want to know about the published side effects of ketoconazole in animals, see [1]. If you want to know what effects it could have on you as you give it to your animals, then as Warofdreams states, we are unable to help. Rockpocket 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My teenage son is putting together his Halloween costume (he's going as a Borg) - complete with laser-pointer eye-gizmo, LED's on bits of fake circuitboard, mechanical 'claw', heavy face make-up, etc. Since we know lasers don't really shine those cool beams out there - I suggested trying to rig up a dry ice 'smoke' generator to feed a mist out of a thin hose to make the laser visible. So the approximate idea is to take a large coke bottle - built into some kind of back-pack - fill part-way with water & dry ice - run a thin pipe (maybe the ~5mm stuff they use in aquariums) out through the head-gear to squirt a flow of white mist out in front of the costume. We should take it as read that this would be unutterably cool. Sadly, I don't have much practical experience with dry ice. We're going to need to experiment with the design - but it would be good to get some solid suggestions. Hence:

1. Can you generate enough mist from a 3 liter coke bottle to last an hour or so?
2. Will the mist travel up a couple of feet of plastic hose without recondensing?
3. What kind of flow rate would we get? (if there would be enough - we'd like to route several hoses out so that other parts of the costume emit 'smoke' - perhaps turning it on and off as he bends his elbows by kinking the hoses).
4. Would the mist be ridiculously cold - maybe dangerous to his face? (seems unlikely - and we can maybe build some protective insulation into the gizmo that fits over one eye and that half of his face).
5. Do we have to worry about it exploding or something ridiculous like that? (I can't imagine it would given there is a 5mm hole in the cap and plastic coke bottles can take a fair amount of pressure).
6. What's the optimum ratio of water to dry ice?
7. Someone told me you need warm water to avoid a coating of water ice forming around the dry ice and stopping it from doing it's thing. True or false? (He could, for example take along another tank of hot water to top up the dry ice tank once in a while)

OK! Go!!! SteveBaker (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IIn college I remember trying to completely enclose dry-ice nuggets in water-ice, but could never accomplish it fully. As the water freezes and gradually covers the dry-ice surface, the area from which sublimated CO2 can escape gets smaller but there's still heat being absorbed (even though water-ice is something of an insulator). That makes it progressively harder to narrow that gap (gas flow and bubbling prevent liquid water from freezing in place). If it did manage to completely enclose, it would surely burst because the capsule can't prevent heat from being absorbed and therefore CO2 gas pressure from building up.

Thinking of which, you're throwing -78°C water vapor through a small hole...if it ever clogs, you can get an ice plug and a nice dry ice bomb. Wouldn't be likely to happen (in my mind, see above) unless the gas flow stopped long enough for ice to form but WP:RD/S/NO_MEDICAL_ADVICE. Warm water probably works better (more visible smoking) because it gives greater water-vapor in the air (smoke is condensed water vapor) and because it causes faster sublimation (greater cold-gas flow). After a while, the water cools and will eventually slush and then freeze.

Maybe you could just hope it rains a little?

OTOH, the whole idea of a laser pointer being directed wherever he faces seems ungood from the "every time you as someone's face, you're shining a laser into his eyes" perspective. DMacks (talk) 07:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you have looked at Smoke machines? --BozMo talk 14:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer a low-pressure system using, say, a battery powered hand vacuum cleaner reversed to blow the fog. "Putting dry ice in a bottle and closing it is kinda illegal" according to Dan[2]. Other useful information at that site[3] includes a Japanese video of a Borg secret weapon. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its a very cool idea, but my gut tells me that it may not be practical for what you are trying to achieve. The size of the reservoir you may need to get a strong enough flow for the effect you are looking for may be too large for a little guy to carry on his back. I'm not sure 3 litres will do it, but I could be wrong and it would certainly be worth a try.

1. Can you generate enough mist from a 3 liter coke bottle to last an hour or so? You would need to top it up a few times with both dry ice and perhaps water. It would probably be a good idea to have a fresh bottle too, as the first one is going to get very cold.
2. What kind of flow rate would we get? (if there would be enough - we'd like to route several hoses out so that other parts of the costume emit 'smoke' - perhaps turning it on and off as he bends his elbows by kinking the hoses). This is going to depend in part on the dry ice to water ratio. I fear it would be a pretty weak flow rate. Also remember the CO2 mist is heavier than air, so it will tend to settle rather than rise up. A hose outlet lower than the reservoir would assist flow rate.
3. Would the mist be ridiculously cold - maybe dangerous to his face? The mist will not be too cold, though the reservoir will be very cold and will need to be insulated. The bigger concern is breathing in the CO2. A deep breath of dry ice mist is rather painful (I speak from experience) as it activates the trigeminal neurons in the nose. You need to ensure your child is not breathing it in.
4. Do we have to worry about it exploding or something ridiculous like that? So long as there is a hole in the bottle you should be fine. You don't want to block the pipe and (obviously) do not use a glass bottle.
5. What's the optimum ratio of water to dry ice? Trial and error. Too little and you will not get enough mist, too much and you will freeze your water.
6. Someone told me you need warm water to avoid a coating of water ice forming around the dry ice and stopping it from doing it's thing. True or false? True, when the water begins to freeze, the CO2 production slows. Warm water will help, but it cools down pretty quickly in the presence of dry ice

Let us know how it goes! Rockpocket 18:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo pointed out Smoke machine, which in turn mentions Haze machine for laser visibility. However, these are not practical if the situation will be walking around outdoors. He's a teenager so a cigar is probably not legal in your area. If it's for a party at his house, he can run a smoke machine before the guests arrive so the area is hazy. Otherwise consider a green laser, which reportedly is visible to the human eye, but has to be carefully aimed due to its brightness (workaround - don't aim it outward, aim it up or down, perhaps along an arm). -- SEWilco (talk) 16:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This technically qualifies as biology, so I will post it here if you do not mind. When I move my head rapidly, I occasionally get a pain on my right side. I was once hit was a dodgeball on the left side of my head, which oddly enough left the left side of my head sore, and I'm not sure if this is related, but it sure is troublesome. The pain is sharp but fades quickly. Note I am not asking for medical advice, only some guesses as to what this may be or may be related to so I can do more research. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.218.255 (talk) 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By asking for "guesses as to what this may be" you are asking for a diagnosis, which does fall within our definition of medical advice (see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice). The only reliable research that you can do is to consult a qualified medical practitioner. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really, truly, go and talk to a doctor and tell them everything you said here, and anything else that seems relevant. They will know what other questions to ask, what else to look for, etc. People here on the internet can lead you to frightening ideas or falsely reassuring ideas, either of which is harmful. Ask a medical professional. 86.142.231.199 (talk) 15:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can we identify and isolate tissue specific complementary dna? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinesh11bajaj (talk • contribs) 06:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To identify if it's present in a particular tissue? That's easy to describe. If you wanted to determine if tissue X has specific gene Y, you could utilize a fluorescent DNA probe to a sample of the tissue and provide conditions for it to hybridize (allow the DNA to unzip and then re-zip in the presence of the probe (probably can all be done in a PCR-type machine) and then perform a Southern blot to streak the sample and check for fluorescence, thereby indicating successful complementation with the probe and thus presence of the probed DNA in your sample. To isolate it, I'm no molecular biologist, so I'll leave that to someone else. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A southern blot is usually used to detect genomic DNA, not cDNA. A tissue northern blot will tell you if the RNA transcribed from a given gene is present, which is what I think the OP is after. Or, you could use RT-PCR as described by Rockpocket below. Technically, our tissues only have genomic DNA or different types of RNA, not complementary DNA (which is an artificial copy of RNA made using reverse transcription). --- Medical geneticist (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dissect out your tissue of interest from your organism of interest, then do an RNA extraction (either following a protocol like the one described here or using a manufactured kit like Qiagen's RNAeasy to extract mRNA). Then do a cDNA first strand synthesis reaction using a reverse transcriptase enzyme (for example, SuperScript) and a Poly-dT primer, to ensure you only make coding DNA. This should give you what you need. Rockpocket 17:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine we're floating in space with no stars or anything else for reference. I'm going to be talking about my velocity, and since you're the only reference I have, I'm going to be measuring it releative to you.

Experiment One

I turn on my jet-pack. I note the distance between us is changing and conclude that my velocity has become non-zero.

Experiment two

You turn on your jet pack. I note the distance between us is changing and conclude that my velocity has become non-zero.

Question

In both experiments, I (correctly) conclude that my velocity has become non-zero, but in the second one this managed to happen without me having a force applied and without feeling any acceleration. Without reference to absolute space or Machian frames of reference, what's going on here?

82.64.139.77 (talk) 08:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You assume the other guy is at rest. When the other guy turns his jet-pack on, he suddenly feels acceleration, which is indistinguishable from gravity by the equivalence principle. The other guy concludes that the rest of the universe -including you- is being accelerated by this gravity. But you don't feel gravity-caused "free-fall acceleration". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.193.173.205 (talk) 09:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? That doesn't make sense. When someone turns their jet pack on, their conclusion is not that the rest of the universe is being accelerated by gravity. Indeed, it isn't necessary to talk about gravity at all in this problem. The spacetime involved is flat, so gravity here is irrelevant and just confuses the matter.

What's going on is that although all inertial frames of reference are indistinguishable, an inertial frame of reference is distinguishable from a noninertial frame of reference. Proper acceleration can be felt and measured, without any reference to distant objects. So what's really going on is:

Experiment one

We choose an inertial frame of reference, call it A, in which you and I are at rest. You turn on your jet pack, and feel an acceleration, so you conclude that your velocity has become non-zero with respect to inertial frame of reference A. After you've finished firing your jet pack, you may find it convenient to define a different inertial frame of reference B, in which you are then at rest. But you know that frame of reference B is not the same frame of reference as A. You and I agree that it is you that has undergone a (proper) acceleration. If you want, you can also define a coordinate system C in which you are always at the origin, even while you are firing your jet pack. You can define C such that it coincides with A before you fire your jet pack, and coincides with B after you are done firing your jet pack. But coordinate system C is not an inertial frame of reference. At any point in time, there is an inertial frame of frame of reference that's tangent to C, but C taken as a whole is not an inertial frame of reference.

Experiment two

We choose an inertial frame of reference, call it A, in which you and I are at rest. I turn on my jet pack. You, however, do not feel an acceleration, so you conclude that your velocity remains zero with respect to frame of reference A, regardless of the fact that I am moving away from you. You conclude that it is me that has gain a non-zero velocity with respect to frame of reference A. After I'm done finishing firing my jet pack, you may find it convenient to define a different inertial frame of reference D, which is co-moving with me, i.e., an inertial frame of reference in which I am at rest. But you know that haven't accelerated, and that you are still at the same location in frame of reference A. You and I agree that is is me that has undergone an acceleration. Red Act (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only points of reference are you and me, so when you choose A in which both you are I are at rest, aren't you making an implicit reference to "absolute space"? 82.64.139.77 (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Purely for convenience in analyzing the situation, A was chosen such that you and I aren't initially moving relative to it, but no statement was made that A itself isn't moving. There are other, equally valid inertial frames of reference, relative to which A is moving. There's no absolute space involved, just differing, equally valid, inertial frames of reference. You could just as validly look at the problem using a different inertial frame of reference, in which both people initially move at the same constant velocity before the jet pack is used. But regardless of which inertial frame of reference is used, the person who uses the jet pack is observed to undergo a non-zero acceleration, and the person who does not use the jet pack is observed to travel at some constant velocity (possibly zero). It's just a little more convenient to choose to analyze the situation in an inertial frame of reference in which some of the velocities involved are zero. Red Act (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I (as the "observer") have chosen you as the coordinate system I'm going to be talking about. In that coordinate system, if I turn on my jetpack, I feel an acceleration and I see the distance from me to you is changing - so I know that I'm moving relative to you. When you turn on your jet pack, the distance increases - but I don't feel an acceleration. So my only conclusion can be that our mutual frame of reference accelerated. That makes it non-inertial reference frame and the laws of special relativity don't discuss that situation. To make sense of this, you have to move to general relativity in which acceleration and gravity are equivalent. When I turn on my jet pack, it's no different than before, I feel the acceleration and I see the distance increasing. When you turn on your jet pack, it's as if gravity just turned on in our little universe. If you start getting closer to me - that's equivalent to me falling towards you in free-fall. I don't feel any acceleration (just as I don't if I fall off a tall building). The "force" that's making me fall towards you is entirely equivalent to gravity! If I decide I don't want to get any closer to you - I can fire my jet-pack to counteract gravity and "hover" relative to you. But I have to expend energy to stay still just so long as you are firing your jet pack to provide that "gravity". If this seems peculiar, it's only because I made such a peculiar choice of coordinate system - but the universe doesn't care what coordinate system I choose! SteveBaker (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning gravity is not only confusing the issue here, it's incorrect. There is no gravity involved here, because the spacetime involved is flat, not curved. The acceleration of the person who uses the jet pack is not the same as if gravity was "turned on" in such a way that it only pulls that one person. The person using the jet pack undergoes a proper acceleration, which is physically very different from the mere coordinate acceleration that gravity is equivalent to. A person undergoing a coordinate "acceleration" due to gravity of 1000m/s² can close their eyes, and they won't notice any difference than if they were just floating in space without that "acceleration". A person undergoing a proper acceleration of 1000m/s², due to a jet pack that's way too powerful, will get squished into a puddle of goo inside their space suit. The person not using their jet pack can also observe the difference, by using a telescope, and observing if the other person's helmet contains a face, or a red puddle of goo. Red Act (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less humorously, the person who doesn't use the jet pack will also observe that the center of mass of the person who uses the jet pack, plus the trail of propellant coming out of the jet pack, remains a fixed distance away. Under a gravitational acceleration, that center of mass would not appear to remain a fixed distance away. Red Act (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate the point above: Steve, you said "That makes it non-inertial reference frame and the laws of special relativity don't discuss that situation." That's inacurate. Special relativity can deal with non-inertial frames without any problems. See Rindler coordinates. Dauto (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The jetpack is not required to provide gravity. Gravity is inherent to that non-inertial frame of reference. The jetpack just makes the astronaut using it hover at the origin, rather than falling with the other astronaut. — DanielLC 15:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no gravity in this problem. The acceleration that gravity appears equivalent to at the surface of an object like the Earth is the purely coordinate acceleration of an object that has no proper acceleration, as viewed in an accelerating frame of reference. However, it isn't true that all acceleration observed in an accelerating frame of reference is gravity. Instead, some of that acceleration can be proper acceleration, which is due to forces other than gravity. (Gravity isn't actually a force; it's a pseudo force. Proper acceleration is the acceleration of an object due to real forces.)

The rule is "No curvature, no gravity!" There is no curvature of the spacetime in this problem, so there is no gravity. Regardless of whether you use an inertial frame of reference or an accelerating frame of reference in this problem, the Riemann curvature tensor will be zero everywhere, so the Einstein tensor will be zero everywhere, and the Einstein field equations simplify down to 0=0. (The mass of the objects involved here has a negligible effect on the curvature, and so is taken to be zero.) In other words, in this problem, even if you use an accelerating frame of reference, the Einstein field equations that describe gravity say nothing at all about the observed acceleration. That's because the acceleration involved is not caused by gravity. Red Act (talk) 17:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do the principles change? If I nitrated napthalene, would it still be meta-directing...? John Riemann Soong (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Directing patterns around substituted benzene derive from the way the directing group affects the electron density patterns in the conjugated pi-system. For polycyclic aromatics, you'd need to figure out how a functional group would affect that electron density pattern in the conjugated pi-system. I suspect the effect to be similar for Naphthalene, but you'd have to consider that unsubstituted naphthalene has 2 locations availible for substitution (due to symmetry) and once substituted, the resulting molecule now has like 6 non-equivalent locations for the next functional group, so terms like "meta-directing" have little meaning. --Jayron32 12:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sir, in my b tech project i m doing a image processing analysis of candles.images are taken under different circumstances.I have processed these images in matlab to get a intensity vs time plot and amplitude vs frequency plot.I can not further more process the results so as to be able to give results with respect to physical significance.

as i was searching over net i found bouancy induced flames are used as model for studing nuclear reactions in supernova(celestial).can i apply my model there.

please suggest

yours sci-hunter 218.248.11.210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

A candle flame is shaped by convection and turbulence in the surrounding air and limited by the flows of liquid wax and oxygen to the wick. None of those factors are found in a supernova. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking not turbulence for a candle, the Reynolds number is too low. Buoyance/convection is right though. I don't know of any real link to supernova dynamics but they could be used as an illustration for students I guess. --BozMo talk 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regarding my project,can the fft plots be utilised in some way.indeed i dont know any use of a fft plot please help. sci- hunter 220.225.98.251 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

One use of a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) of data is that one can apply filtering in the frequency domain, such as reducing or boosting certain frequency ranges, then convert back to the original domain via an IFFT (Inverse FFT). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there Cosmological Constant in Newtonian Gravitation? Even if there is then does it even have an effect on gravitation? The Successor of Physics 11:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no cosmological constant in Newtonian gravity. The cosmological constant is only a feature of Einstein's model of gravity, general relativity. At any rate, the cosmological constant does not have any appreciable effect on gravitationally bound systems. The cosmological constant only makes a difference at the largest, cosmological, scales. Red Act (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Within Newtonian or classical mechanics the Gravitational constant in Newton's law of universal gravitation is an empirical physical constant. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the gravitational constant is a completely different thing than the cosmological constant. Newtonian gravity only uses the gravitational constant; general relativity uses both constants. Red Act (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newton didn't use a cosmological constant, but you can add one to Newtonian gravity. It's just a matter of changing the gravitational Poisson's equation from ∇²Φ = 4πGρ to ∇²Φ = 4πGρ − Λ. That gives you a force of ma = F_G + m (Λ/3) (x − x₀) where F_G is the usual gravitational force and x₀ is an arbitrary point in space. It looks like the effect depends on which point x₀ you choose, but actually it doesn't, for reasons I explained in this old thread. It's easy to see that if the universe is filled uniformly with matter at a density of ρ, then taking Λ = 4πGρ will cancel out the gravitational attraction and prevent it from collapsing. Newton could have introduced the Λ term for the same reason Einstein originally did: to allow for a static universe. But it would have failed for the same reason Einstein's attempt failed: it's an unstable equilibrium. For a more modern example, you can derive a Newtonian version of the Friedmann equations and get a solution equivalent to the ΛCDM accelerating universe, as I showed in that old thread. -- BenRG (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BenRG!!!The Successor of Physics 08:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what's the worst thing in egg whites, since as far as I know "nothing". If you ate 90g of boiled egg whites every single day (ie the total protein requirement from ALL sources for a hefty guy) for 50 years, would there be any bad effect from that as compared with not doing that?

Note: I am not seeking or asking for medical advice, this is just a point of curiosity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.150.192 (talk) 13:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Egg white has protein, which as you rightfully say is edible. but it is mostly Albumin which (due to its hydrophobic core) collects hydrophobic molecules, which are molecules which are not that water-soluble, say hormones (animal and plant), antibiotics, pollutants, pesticides etc. obviously most of these would be at a level the body can easily handle them. Although hormones and antibiotics are what worries people the most as they are at a higher level. Secondarily, the aminoacid balance is a bit of and it may (very big may) give too much cysteine (kidney stone), which is why eggs smell of sulfur. Thridly, it is an animal product (4 chickens per 50 years), so that guy helped destroy this planet a bit quicker. --Squidonius (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! what would be an equivalent vegetable alternative, not including soy products? Rice and beans or lentils daily for 50 years (to the tune of 90g of protein per day, let's say it's a 200 pound man)? What would be the worst effect of that? note: still not asking for medical advice :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.150.192 (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Egg_white#Nutrition says that raw egg whites they bind biotin strongly and thus can create a biotin deficiency if you eat a lot of them over time. Which sounds bad. But cooking them gets rid of that. Mr.98 (talk) 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Squidonius, about the destroying the planet part, could you clarify? These are unfertilized eggs I presume, so how does eating the whites use up 4 chickens over 50 years? And also, how does the deaths of four chickens over that period of time contribute to the destruction of earth? I guess you are probably joking, but I still don't get the 4 chickens part. —Akrabbim^talk 14:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument is that you need to keep 4 chickens to deliver those 90gm/day - and if you do this for 50 years, you need to keep them for 50 years. Animals as a food source are highly uneconomical in terms of food calories produced per input. You can keep a lot more people fed if you feed the chicken feed to people without the intermediate agent, who wastes most of the input energy running around, keeping its body temperature elevated, clucking, and fluttering its wings. I don't have the numbers handy, but I would expect orders of magnitude loss in efficiency (and yes, I still eat plenty of meat and eggs despite knowing better ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, this assumes that the food you are feeding to the chickens is suitable for feeding to humans, and that humans could extract the energy from the food more efficiently than the combined efficiencies of the chicken extracting the energy from the food and the human extracting energy from the chicken. This is not always the case. For example, if you live somewhere with scrubby hills, you can graze sheep on this land without costing you a lot of energy. You can't grow crops on it without investing a lot of energy on transforming the land into something suitable, and you can't get as much energy from the grass by eating it yourself as you can by letting the sheep eat it, then eating the sheep. To get the same amount of protein as in 100g of lamb, you'd need to eat about 300g of beans and grains (remembering to eat a mixture to get all your essential amino acids), which can only be grown on land suitable for these.

In order to know which is more efficient, you need to carry out a proper life cycle analysis for the options, taking into account the specific conditions in the specific area the food is raised. The answer for growing the food in Ohio might give a different answer to growing it in Wales, which might give a different answer to growing it in Canada. Eating just the egg whites is a rather inefficient way of extracting the calories, but I'm not sure that all conditions would give an orders of magnitude loss in efficiency. 86.153.168.52 (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule of thumb is that each step in the food chain gets 10% of the energy of the previous step. So, for example, if you're eating lions, you've got (lion eats gazelle eats grass absorbs sunlight) = 0.1% of the available sunlight in the form of lion-derived calories. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have read in some blogs that this picture was taken by Apollo 11 before they landed on the Moon, possibly 10 to 15 miles (more than 60,000 feet) above the lunar surface. It was part of Dr. Ken Johnston's (which he has now given some of his photos to Moon researchers) personal (former Directer of the Photographic Department of NASA, and trainer of astronauts, of which he has other degrees in science) collection that he had from NASA, and still has the better quality original versions of other pictures. Therefore, one does not need to be an expert, but does anyone know the frame number of this photograph from more than 40 years ago? If anyone can get someone interested in the Moon for help, it would be really appreciated. Note, the link does work, when you go here; click twice in where the link is written, then press enter for it to work. The picture is half over exposed, but you can still see the image, the other tiny white specks are the photographic defects and some stars, but something else that should not be there is in the picture. This is the picture, it's called the "Tower." Thank you for reading.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All photos taken during the Apollo 11 mission can be found here at NASA's official site at the National Space Science Data Center. You might want to track down whether this photograph was actually taken on Apollo 11 (or any other moon mission) - because if it was, it will be available in high resolution from NASA. I suspect the image you linked to is the result of many many stages of photocopying and digital post-processing - it's hardly suitable for meaningful scientific analysis in its present state. Nimur (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, here are the Apollo 11 Lunar Surface Journal (and other associated non-ALSEP flight- and pre-flight) photographs. Nimur (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link doesn't work. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's important that you see the actual picture. I'm really sorry about the site, when you go there, and as you see the link at the top, click on the link twice (for example, as if your going to change the words there) but don't change the words, just press enter again. Another way to word this... So click on it twice, you know the place where you can see the link written at the top of the internet, and press enter, I guarantee the link will work then.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 15:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to see the photo and the OP's curious instructions are correct: Click his link and observe the 403 error, then click the URL in your browser, then hit Enter. The photo displayed, oddly. (Windows Vista and Firefox 3.0.13.) Now I'm more interested in why this occurred than the artifacts in the badly photocopied photo. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Note - this is a complete guess, but one based on experience). I think the intention of the designer was to prevent the images being displayed other than from a page on the website. The first visit to the URL is aliased to a PHP script that checks for a valid cookie, doesn't find it, and therefore refuses to display the image. However, this script is sending out the very cookie it's checking for, so that, the second time you visit the URL, the system is happy. _Not_ the best of designs, and a brief survey of the rest of the site might lead one to the conclusion that the designer is not among the ranks of the most competent... Tevildo (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's great, I'm glad you guys were able to see it. From what I know, this photo was enhanced using photo shop, and anyone can do this (this does not mean adding or removing anything from the photograph), to bring out the all the details in the picture, as I'm guessing it was "lighted up," because the dark parts of the craters are gray in color. It was probably originally overexposed by too much light, then it was enhanced, and finally made into copies. As I said before you can see tiny scratches, specks, and stars in the picture (plus the overexposed part). Note, I just want to be clear I am not an advocate of www.enterprisemission.com, which 75% of the site is filled loony unscientific data, and I agree the original site designer was incompetent, as it access denied the link to people who were honestly looking for the truth. However, the "artifact" in the top center of the photograph (which can faintly be seen as rising from lunar surface) is 10 to 15 miles in height, and should not exist (emphasis added)...--24.23.160.233 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not really sure what you mean by "the artifact". Is it the very prominent trapezoidal shape in the center of the image? If so, that suggests to me that the image has been photocopied on a machine with a worn drum and/or dirty corona wires, as that's exactly the sort of effect such a device produces. If it's something more subtle, you'll need to identify it more precisely. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can see is that increased light has been added to the image, as the shadows in the craters should be black, but are gray. True that it has been photocopied, with possibly a dirty corona wires which have produced the lines you see in the picture, but are you suggesting the trapezoidal shape is not a solid object? Careful analysis, and I have downloaded the image on my computer and played with it, shows that it is solid object, and that it touches the lunar surface, therefore it is connected to the ground, and not a floating blob. If it was in the original photo, could this be a natural formation, 10 to 15 miles averaged is just over 12 miles in height?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear - contrary to what our OP says - ANY form of "enhancement" whatever (with photo shop or any other image manipulation program) will "add or remove" something. Even loading up a JPEG file, cropping a couple of pixels off of one edge of it and saving it again will introduce artifacts and remove quality from the original. So before we go anywhere - we have to be 100% clear about that. I'm not going to do it again - but a few years ago on this desk, I showed how a speck of dust on an image could be turned into a very believable "flying saucer" by doing nothing more than "image enhancement" to the picture. An awful lot of UFO/conspiracy-theory/Moon-landing-hoax nut-jobs have fallen for this very thing. The trouble is that artifacts from camera flaws (lens flares, etc) - from the transmission technologies of the day (scan-line artifacts) - and from modern data compression systems (JPEG, GIF) - all share the property that they produce fairly sharp-edged geometrical-looking changes to the image at the lower end of the brightness scale. Newspaper and magazine prints add half-toning artifacts. Fax machines and printers make longitudinal streaks. Lens flares are often hexagonal or octagonal and add diagonal lines into the image. Scan line artifacts produce horizontal features and JPEG makes square or rectangular blocks and adds lots of weird colors into the image. Color banding and 'mach' banding is easy to introduce into an image by boosting the brightness and playing with color mapping curves.

When your budding Ufologist gets one of these images - the first thing he thinks to do to "enhance" it is to boost the gamma or the brightness to see what's "hidden" in the dark areas. Lo and behold, there is some kind of a dim, geometrical shape there! So he crops it down to size - maybe rotates it some to get a better 'appearance' - and posts it to all of the other nut jobs. Sadly, saving it that way adds more artifacts from image compression. These other guys get it - and they do the same thing - finding still more amazing details of this 'tower' or whatever it is. Recomposing the image makes noise that was parallel to the screen become diagonal. Repeat this process enough times and you can find amazing looking "structures"! The joke is that all of this "enhancement" has been degrading the image more and more - to the point where pretty much all you're looking at is garbage produced by the processing. The only sure way to know what's really going on is to go back to the most original, UN-enhanced image and look at that - do all of your enhancement from that original image and never, ever store it as a JPEG or a GIF. If the only source image you have is JPEG or GIF, or in a newspaper or magazine or a photograph taken from a video...then all bets are off. :::::::::::SteveBaker (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, hold on! I'm sorry but you must be tripping, looks like I hit a hot button, and that we got off on the wrong foot here. I never edited the image in the first place. I found the image on the site, and said that I edited the image later on my own computer and found it to some kind of object (because I and everyone here can already see the object without any enhancements). The picture you see on the site is the picture I saw when I first went there. And you suggest conspiracy on my part being person who follows a ufologist enhancing person (which I'm not) is out of line for a reference desk question, I suggest if you can tone it down a little buddy. Also the image has not drastically been made so every find detail has come out, all I can see is that one side is overexposed and the other side looks normal but sides of the photo suggest it is from a worn off picture. That's what causing the image noise, lines, white specks, and scratches. If all the detail was to come out, the hole image would have dots on it. All I'm saying is that it is highly unusual for an object or the trapezoid shape to only appear in one area (why did the astronauts taking the picture from their lunar module position the camera so that the [NONE-existent made by a loony] object should appear exactly in the center of the photograph?) that extends to the ground, and to appear where it does, and that's on the Moon, is even more baffling. If the original picture had the trapezoid tower on it, what can anyone say then?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no! You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that YOU did this with inapropriate image enhancements. I'm saying that dozens of people before you did. The image you pointed us to is already screwed up beyond repair - it's essentially garbage. The only thing I'm disagreeing with you about is your (incorrect) statement that "[enhancement]...does not mean adding or removing anything from the photograph"". That's flat out not true. (I've been in the graphics/image processing business for 35 years - I know of what I speak!) I'm telling you - as clearly and simply as I can - that enhancement (especially done by amateurs) is more likely to turn subtle imaging artifacts into alien towers on the moon - than it is to show you anything useful. Unless you can get a hold of the original NASA image and know exactly how it got from the camera to your desk - and unless you know what you're doing - you are unable to do any kind of image analysis that has meaning because everything you (or anyone else) does to it can only add artifacts that look like geometric objects of one sort or another. Why is this artifact slap bang in the middle of the photo? Well - there are any number of possible explanations. Perhaps a previous amateur image enhancer cropped the image to place the object in the center for a more pleasing composition? Perhaps the astronauts didn't point their camera directly at some "object" - perhaps the thing your seeing is precisely in the center of the image because that was the only point in the image plane where the lens of the camera was perfectly parallel to the window of the spacecraft - so only then did you get a reflection of something inside the spacecraft showing up in the image. I don't know whether that's what happened - but it's all too plausible that some effect like that caused a very, VERY dim artifact in the original image - which has been "enhanced" (screwed up) to the point where it looks like something geometrical in the scene. The point is that you honestly don't know - and in the absence of that, you have to be skeptical of the wild-assed "hidden tower on the moon" hypotheses - and use Occam's razor to seek the simplest explanation...like a reflection of the astronaut himself in the window that's been over-enhanced. But there doesn't even have to be anything in the original photo at all. Multiple stages of inappropriate digital processing can pull junk out of literally nothing at all. 22:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You may also want to know that I consider all the possibilities compare this link and this link. Plus it's critic link, although the person does say not all objects in SOHO can be explained, as I've seem some intriguing images myself that can't be explained. So please don't blame me for putting these here, I put them to show that I have an open mind and look at both sides of the story. I don't believe in everything I see or read, which is not even the case here. The image which I had the question about comes from Dr. Ken Johnston, who is a reliable person, read my first message. So it's best to contact him, though he has lend some of his images (that he originally got from NASA and had been hiding it for more than 40 years) to the guy who is loosing his mind day by day (Richard C. Hoagland), if the original image has the object in it, and it is not a product of Hoagland's photocopying, then we might have something here. Thanks.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is of very poor quality; it has probably been printed and scanned, perhaps several times. The "tower" looks to me like a patch where some old physical copy of the photo got scraped and damaged. But, yes, if an undamaged, closer-to-the-original copy could be located it would help to resolve this. —Steve Summit (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OMG! There is a secret map of an alien city hidden in the period at the end of our OP's post! It's a Wikipedia conspiracy!!!

1. Take a screen-shot of this very page as a nice, clean '.png' image.
2. Save it as a JPEG image at poor-ish quality settings so you can post it on your overburdened, underfunded web site.
3. Someone sees the image, zooms into it and notices "hidden stuff" - all sorts of cryptic and interesting patterns. Is it some kind of a code? I'd better post this on my web site!
4. Someone sees that image, and notices a subtle yellow structure in the middle of the image - which they enhance with the gamma tool. HOLY CRAP!! There's a bunch of stuff in here. It looks like some kind of alien character set hidden in the message that was posted on Wikipedia! WTF is going on here?
5. Someone else hears the breaking news and enhances the image with the 'edge' enhancement tool. There is something very weird about that full-stop. Let's zoom in for a closer look!
6. That looks like a map. No! If you put it into perspective, you can see that shadows are being cast by the "buildings" around the edge of each city block. Maybe it's a secret city belonging to an advanced alien civilization or something?
7. Discovery channel makes a two hour documentary about how the aliens are communicating with each other using Wikipedia's servers right under our very noses! Look - there are DOZENS of sites out there on the internet telling us about this and NOBODY in the Obama administration are doing anything about it. Jimbo Wales has denied it all! Cronies of his on the so-called "Science Reference Desk" are trying their best to suppress the story and claim that it's just a chance spark from an off-course weather balloon igniting marsh gas reflected in a layer of warm air. Are these mysterious patterns an attempt to indoctrinate humans? Perhaps they are subliminally teaching us the layout of their streets so we'll be better road cleaners when they enslave us all? Our "experts" have looked into other Wikipedia posts - and even some on government web sites, the department of homeland security and even reports denying the existence of Area 51 - and we've found exactly the same kinds of structures!

It's amazing what you can get out of a single pixel period at the end of a sentence...or from a photo of the moon.

SteveBaker (talk) 23:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Summit, all I can say is that you have put a lot of effort into debunking this photo (or the possibility of what this could as suggested by me), and I can see why. I hope you checked out my links before posting your message, as I also included links to show how some people can mistake objects for UFO's in NASA pictures. Therefore, I actually appreciate that you have helped me understand how some pixels can be mistaken for objects. Though I could have just accepted your first paragraph. I don't believe in the invisible lunar glass domes on the Moon, only if they are solid objects appearing in the originals, then maybe I will pay attention to them. I also think that we should keep an open mind, since there are other photos that show similar objects without any enhancements. I could post them for fun later if you like just for you. At this time I wont, but like you said it would be great to have the original so we can see if the object was originally there. My original question sigh... Was what number is this photo so I would have been able to see it in the first place if the object that appears in the edited picture is actually there, I was trying to debunk this photo myself from the beginning, I think your sarcasm is understandable, but I would not be this sarcastic until I see all anomalies photos. I can see that you have had some experience dealing with crack-pots, and I assure you that I'm not one, I'm just an ordinary guy doing some research to do some of my own debunking. A friend had firstly told me of this image, and I looked for it and found it, I was not the explorer as you might think. I encourage you to publish the Wikipedia's Alien Conspiracy as a article in a comedy magazine, you know, so you can make some green off your imagination, which is good in these economic times. Best regards.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came to a realization, I know that however old the picture is, a trapezoid shape cannot appear in empty space. If Hoax(g)land (just in case you don't who this guy is, he was responsible for making the Face on Mars popular) did do the same thing you did in the image you put in your last message then the whole part of the sky in the image should have specks of gray as they appear in the over exposed right side of the picture, not just one part! They key to finding out how much the original image was played with is looking at the craters, like I have said many times. In my own investigation on photo shop I blacked out (it's interesting to note NASA sometimes blacks out the sky in their Apollo images so much, sometimes the head of a hill is blacked out) the craters as they appear in all space images, and made the sky pitch black as if there was nothing there, but still outline of the object can be seen (the original probably had a black sky too, then ONLY when I adjusted the color temperature to the left or to blue, the object appeared out of nowhere in a pitch black outline - I encourage you to do this, but why does it only appear when adjusted to blue?), I had a scale which measured the histogram of the image (I don't know if this means anything or not, if you can tell me). So this means two things, either the object is really there, or Hoax(g)land purposely edited the image to make it appear as if something was there. There is no middle ground, either this was done on purpose-hoax, or such an object actually exists on the Moon. So what do you think? Any comments would be appreciated if they can shed more light on this subject. Thank you.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 02:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with below). Not necessarily; the shape could be an "artifact", see Artifact (error), of the original photograph. It could be a lighting effect; it could be some defect in the film, or any of a number of other explanations. I think that's what SteveBaker is trying to show you above; there is a middle ground between "really there" and "deliberate hoax", and that is "artifact of the photographic process which has been misinterpreted, either wishfully or willfully". --Jayron32 02:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I know that however old the picture is, a trapezoid shape cannot appear in empty space". Wow! You "know" a lot of things that aren't true don't you!

I think '24 really needs to carefully re-read everything that I and others have already written. I've explained this already. The example above was just one way that artifacts can come about. Here's another one - I just picked an image of the moon totally at random from WikiCommons...then I fiddled with the gamma correction - nothing more than that - and...viola! Alien Rocketships shooting across the lunar surface where previously there was only "empty space". You can produce these kinds of artifacts from almost any image that's been messed with, JPEG-compressed or whatever. It proves NOTHING - except that most non-experts don't know what the heck they are doing when they play with image enhancement tools in an effort to find evidence of conspiracy theories, coverups, etc. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of order: Steve Baker put a lot of effort into debunking the photo. Steve Summit just took a look at it and offered his opinion. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:25, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't really a LOT of effort - part of the problem here is that these tools are so easy to mis-use! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I want to thank all of you for almost debunking this photo, as you have put a lot of work into it, and therefore I dearly appreciate the effort. Seeing that the only way to find if the object is real, is to have the original, I might need to contact Ken Johnston himself, so we can forget about this picture for now. However, the reason I got into this is because of another photo, which this time its not edited, just enlarged, which actually you don't need to enlarge it anyways, here it is, it is possibly the best of all. I don't want to sound weird, but the image itself can only be described as that.

The image is from Lunar Orbiter 3, taken in February 1967, frame number 84MIII (LO-III-84H). Here is a list of links, which are mostly from reliable sources that have the enlarged versions (of which only 20% have been enhanced) of the image which contains object(s) in question. Some of these sites may contain conspiratorial information, which I myself am skeptical about, so please ignore that. This has nothing to do with transient lunar phenomenon or fake Moon landing theories (to be clear, the first is mostly natural, and I believe we have gone to the Moon), but this has to do with photographic evidence of something on the Moon. I always apply the scientific method to subjects of this manner. Just to know, I am a person of college level, not perfect, but other than that I prefer to remain an unknown user.

The pictures are not fake, this is the first fact. There are others that I might show later on, but I decided to start with the The Shard. After appearing on two news sites, two works of art, and many mystery sites on the net, I think this is worthy of its own article, or its up to you, we can add it as a section to the Lunar Orbiter 3 article. Nothing has been added to the original image, only a tiny portion has been enlarged and enhancement to show the object(s). The object(s) are connected to the ground and have shadows (they appear in 5 different photographs from other missions), and the other tiny white cross marks, lines, and specks are the photographic defects. A NASA scientist has also quoted on the object(s) (I remember this quote, but have to find it). He was basically saying that you would need water or wind erosion to create it in millions of years (which there is supposedly none on the Moon), it may be referring to another object, but it goes something like this, "No geological phenomenon can explain this object" (the average height of both object(s) is 4 miles, or the size of the Himalayas).

Also the appearance of the object suggests it is a crystalline glass structure (I'm just theorizing here, so you pay attention to that part), also (note, if artificial, it would take hundreds of years to build, and glass weighs 10 times more than steel on the Moon, but I'm not sure about the latter) it looks heavily eroded. This and many other details appear in the links given below. There are 15 links, and I would like to apologize if they take too much time to look at, so thank you for your time. Therefore, I really appreciated and thank you for reading this message. Please, if you can just respond on your own talk page, that would be great, so best of regards. Please, I encourage you to look at these as if your looking at pretty space images, I'm not here to prove or disprove anything, just want to know what the experts think of (the Easter Island statue on the Moon, LOL!) it;

• NASA education site, the object has a cross mark above it by the bottom of the photograph.
• Closeup of the main object.
• Second closeup of the main object.
• Object by itself.
• Object with Tower/Cube.
• It's best to check back in first link, now that this link shows where the object actually is.
• Color rendering of the first object.
• Largest closeup of the first object.
• Wide view color version of the object.
• Article about it, another site is LIFE.com, search for Ken Johnston NASA Washington Press Club.
• picture showing connectivity to the ground for the tower.
• the end of last sentence is missing, and I found it another site which it ends like this, ... that the Tower is a real Lunar feature and not a photographic defect.
• Art inspired by the object #1.
• Art inspired by the object #2.
• John Lear's Moon site, from what I know John Lear is an reputable person, read from the Shard section.

From the biblio-apocalypse site I got this, this is what it say's on the site, if you can confirm this that would be great; These tales are far away from the much more mundane conquest of the Moon. Nevertheless, some mystery surrounding the Moon has always intrigued scientists. The front page of the November 2 1966 edition of The Washington Post read: “Six Mysterious Statuesque Shadows Photographed on the Moon by Orbiter”. The Lunar Orbiter 2 had photographed a lunar area of approximately 30 by 50 kilometers. The photo apparently showed six or seven towers, appearing in a specific geometric pattern, rising from the Mare Tranquilis. Their pointed shadow indicated that they were either conical or pyramid-shaped. (image left) One of the towers measured an impressive 213 meters. NASA countered that the photographs did not show anything of any interest… whatsoever. Perhaps in an effort to merely embarrass the Americans, the Russian magazine Argosy offered the opinion of the Russian space scientist Alexander Abromov. He stated that the Russian Luna 9 had, on landing on the Moon on February 4 1966, taken some bizarre photographs: structures that stood in the landscape in a certain pattern. “The location of these lunar objects is comparable to the location of the pyramids at Giza. The tops of the towers show the same pattern as the tops of the pyramids.” One decade afterward's, in 1976, George Leonard published Somebody Else is on our Moon. Leonard stated he done extensive research in NASA’s archives and had found several photographs, including some of the first, unmanned mission to the Moon. Leonard’s effort was followed by Fred Steckling, who wrote We Discovered alien Bases on the Moon in 1981. It was an analysis of 125 photographs, on which Steckling pointed out “evidence” of buildings and other constructions on the surface of the Moon. Major parts of this publication, privately published, were later reused by David Hatcher Childress in his Extraterrestrial Archaeology. Indeed, many of the photographs that were used did seem to indicate anomalies that apparently did not belong on the surface of our Moon. In the late 1980s, Leonard’s research was handed over to James Sylvan, who reanalyzed Leonard’s material. Sylvan then handed his material over to Richard Hoagland, who had been writing about the strange objects that were visible in photographs of the planet Mars. Hoagland and co. used “fractal imaging” to analyze the photographs and identified the various anomalous structures as “the shard”, “the tower” and “the cube”. Specific attention was given to the Ukert crater, a crater which is the closest part of the Moon to Earth. Hoagland’s contact with geologist Dr. Bruce Cornet resulted in the observation that the crater apparently contained a triangle. Cornet confirmed that this could not be a natural event, but was proof of an artificial origin. Cornet also stated that the structure labeled “the Shard”, visible on a photograph of the Lunar Orbiter III in 1967, was the best available evidence that there were enigmatic – artificial – structures on the surface of our Moon. The Shard was apparently more than 1.5 kilometers high. He stated that if it was natural, it would be the miracle of the universe, defying all known patterns of erosion. But the Shard was apparently topped by “the Tower”, which rose no less than five miles above the surface of the Moon. The Shard, believed by some to be the best evidence of artificial structures on the Moon. Such massive construction projects were possible because of the lower gravitational pull that existed on the surface of the Moon. Hoagland and team stated that the Tower had been seen by Armstrong and team… and had even been filmed by them. All these structures were apparently made from glass. Though fragile on Earth, in the void environment of the Moon, glass would achieve the same rigidity as steel is known to have on Earth. What can we make of this?

Just tell me what you think. It is okay if you say that the square Tower blob is just a piece of floating jelly, I'll believe that. And that the Shard is part of many ordinary peoples imaginations of which it is a photographic defect that casts a 3 mile shadow on the lunar surface (without enhancements or enlargements as found in the first link), and that it appears in 5 different photographs from different missions to the Moon. It is probably the only unexplainable photograph, I just type in "the moon shard" in Google images and walla! Thank you.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not allowed to tell you what I think - to do so would be a gross violation of our "No Personal Attacks" rule. We've answered your question comprehensively - with demonstrations provided that clearly demonstrate the principles behind these bogus claims. I've been in the digital imagery business for an awful lot of years and I've looked into a bunch of these things - they are ALL bogus. Every single one of them - no exceptions. If you persist in believing this pile of crap - there is nothing we can do about it. The truth - boring though it is - is that all of these bizzare features are very simple image processing artifacts and when you go back to the original source material, that's easy to prove. There are a lot of idiots in the world who don't understand this simple fact - and sadly they make a lot of noise about it. Please - don't be another one of them. SteveBaker (talk) 14:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it really were true that unexplainable geological features/structures built by extraterrestrials had been observed on the moon, astronomers would be competing to be the first to characterize them. Suggesting otherwise, would be to subscribe to a conspiracy theory. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I find no extraordinary evidence in the images you linked to. Calling the dark area to the right of the blob the blob's "shadow" is a human interpretation, not a fact. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 15:35, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A; most of the general public does not know that these photographs exist (therefore they will not look for it with their telescopes, its too small anyways). B; not every image of a tower on the Moon is a photographic defect (especially the shard as you can see it with its shadow WITH NO enlargements-I did not come up with that originally). C; its very possible that you did not look at all the photos and text I provided, plus its pretty ignorant of you to say that all these claims are bogus, forget about the claims, what about the photograph's themselves, the source of the material can't be questioned, unless you think NASA planted the tower in the picture? Especially as we also have dialogue between mission control and the astronauts from most of the Apollo, and later space missions, even above Earth. With pictures and video, which the astronauts themselves said they saw UFO's and weird formations on the Moon. But you can forget about that, because that is a whole other subject with enough material to fill a hole article with, which I will not go to at this present time. What I don't understand is why every geologic anomaly on the Moon is a defect, it could just be a natural formation. I don't care if you have a million years experience in image analysis (extraordinary claims of experience need extraordinary evidence), at least 5-10 other scientists, 2 from the space programs themselves have commented on the shard, and they say its there. I later proposed we include the shard in the Lunar Orbiter 3 article, just like the Face on Mars is in the Viking 1976 article, there your welcomed to debunk and bash the photograph as much as you want. But its important to have it in a article so more people can investigate it, without more investigation there is no way to prove or disprove that the shard exists. Here is list of links that are from online articles to books of which they range from really reliable to barely reliable sources, what you might find interesting is that the last link is Italian but with pictures pinpoints the Shards location using newer photographs that show there is some kind of hill there (the pictures where taken right above the object, so we now have new evidence that something is there), plus I am concerned about the moon hoax section below this message, I hope this is not an attempt to derive attention from this to stupid moon landing hoax theories. Also, obviously Hoagland's conspiracy theories are wrong about NASA, and only half of the photographs he claims there are structures in is worth looking at, this is the only thing that you and me disagree on, you believe that all are bogus, while I believe a small percentage shows something-and therefore I have found support from scientists to crazy researchers of what I say, but I'm not claiming I'm 100% true, I'm simply saying more needs to known so we can be sure above these subjects; [4], [5],[6],[7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]. Video links, you will like these; [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]. Your right, there is no evidence huh?--24.23.160.233 (talk) 04:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before you start trying to put these ridiculous pictures into articles - I strongly suggest you get familiar with our policies at WP:FRINGE, WP:NOTE and WP:V. You're going to have a hard time getting acceptance for this nut-job stuff. SteveBaker (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Steve, I just want to say I understand that even if these subjects are true, they have to follow Wikipedia guidelines like you said-so I will try my best and only include things acceptable to Wikipedia. To be fair I'll include sources that will even try to debunk my nonsense. So I think its best to have a small section about it, so people will at least become aware that such things might exist, its a start. I appreciate your honest input, I myself have trouble believing in this nut-job stuff too. I might, and there is a very small possibility that I was thinking to add anything on the Shard, if I do, it will be a tiny section, and no original research, only what I find in reputable articles and books. I'll try to find the opinion of more than one scientist. I got a lot of verifiable evidence, I just need to organize it and take out the loony stuff. I want to thank you again, and respect your criticism (it is good to have it), I think being a skeptic for these subjects is always a good thing.--24.23.160.233 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If China were to claim that it is CURRENTLY landing something on the moon, and for some reason we doubted this claim, then the easiest way to TEST it -- something that doesn't require TRUSTING them at ALL -- would be to actually take some telescopes to it and LOOK. Obviously we can do the same thing with the past, as the light rays from the supposed landing event have been streaming continuously outward like waves from a pebble thrown into a very still lake: the original event is simply still radiating outward. Only space is not flat, but very curved, and there are all sorts of places where the 40-light year distance is traced around large gravity wells. By finding the longest of the paths tracing these wells, we can calculate where the light from the event will be at a certain time, catch up to it (by taking a more direct path), and look at that light. But we don't do that. Why don't we do that? Is there a single reason not to do the ONE thing that would SHOW, definitively, the event right as it's taking place? the one thing that simply CANNOT be faked? I humbly submit that there is one and only one reason why we do not do that: there is no moon. Never has been. 92.224.205.52 (talk) 17:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spoon - "There is no spoon" - please, get it right! SteveBaker (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting idea though - find where light from an event in the past was bent by a gravity well - and catch up with it at subliminal speeds by taking a short cut - and take another look at it! Sadly - none of the gravity wells within 40 light years are going to bend the light by more than a fraction of a degree - so you'd still have to be traveling at very nearly the speed of light to catch up with them. Then, by the time you got back to earth, time dilation would ensure that there would be no earth...or moon...or anyone to care about whatever you found out. It's an interesting thought-experiment though. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome! would you like to collaborate with me on a science-fiction book, containing about one hundred similarly infeasible ideas (which I am happy to share with you by e-mail)? 92.230.68.6 (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an Asimov short story on this very subject - The Dead Past. Original ideas in SF are a bit thin on the ground these days. :) Tevildo (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"il n'y a rien de nouveau sous le soleil". If we take that attitude in the arts, we might as well pack up our shit now and close down shop, because I guarantee you that the Greeks already knew all the best ways to tell a story. 92.224.206.209 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the maximum expected speed of an electron in its atom? Can I apply Bohr Model electron speed rule directly with Bohr radius, or shall I take into account the number of protons in that atom? --Email4mobile (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What purpose do you have for calculating the velocity? Unfortunately, your approach will not yield a "correct answer" (in that it will have subtle consequences which do not make sense theoretically or empirically). To accurately answer your question requires a full quantum-mechanical treatment of the electron. Because its momentum is defined by a probability function, its velocity is also similarly "spread out" - the single electron does not have a well-defined exact velocity. But, the level of complex quantum-mechanical treatment you need to apply depends on your purposes (e.g. are you trying to determine optical effects or scattering, or some other atomic interaction? If so, you need a very thorough QM treatment). If you just want to know this for "trivia", you can just pretend the Bohr model applies, and forget the QM details, and assume a circular orbit... (but this velocity will have no practical useful meaning). Nimur (talk) 14:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just curious know the maximum possible speed an electron would ever achieve inside an atom and compare it to the speed of light. For instance is it possible to have electrons rotating at speeds of 0.08c or even higher? I'm not looking after precise measurements but the worst case to know the upper limit for these velocities. I am afraid I am not that skilled in quantum and modern physics.--Email4mobile (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a back of envelop ball park calculation shows that within the Bohr model the innermost electron of an atom with Z protons is given by ${\displaystyle v=Z\alpha c\,}$ which obviously breaks down for Z>137! Dauto (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That limit is actually discussed in End of the periodic table and Bohr model. DMacks (talk) 18:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For instance the 1s electron of gold (Au) has a velocity 58% of light, and the "orbital radius" of the 6s orbital is contracted by ~13%.[22] Franamax (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Modified by Email4mobile), I a think this should be an appropriate title for the question posted by 85.115.52.180: What is valve hysterics in relation to process control85.115.52.180 (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteresis, I think you mean. :) See the linked article, and also Control theory. Tevildo (talk) 17:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically for mechanical valves, Backlash would be a more usual term than hysteresis. Basically, if you're trying to control the flow of a liquid using a valve, your process has to take into account the fact that the valve needs to be turned backwards by some distance before the flow starts to reduce. Tevildo (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What causes 1998 Ford Explorer injectors to over fuel?

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.99.179 (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nine times out of ten, the Lambda sensor. However, only a competent mechanic who can look at the vehicle can give you a definite answer. Tevildo (talk) 23:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is rainfall measured in inches? Isn't that an inaccurate measurement since inches can vary depending on the size of the container? Like in a small cup 3 in comes very fast, but in a bowl it takes awhile for the some measurement.Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is measured in inches (or in millimetres in many parts of the world) since that is the best way to describe how much rain has fallen. If your cup or bowl have parallel sides, instead of being cup-shaped or bowl-shaped, then they would both fill up at the same rate. Rainfall is decribed as the depth of rain that would accumulate in a parallel sided container. --Phil Holmes (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the complaint is that a cylinder with a diameter of 3 inches fills up faster than a cylinder with a diameter of, say, 10 inches, a bit of thought will make it clear that they will fill up at the same rate if they are really cylinders and their tops are the same diameter and shape as their bottoms; and if the fall of rain is consistent — a cylinder with a diameter of 100 kilometers will fill up at a slower rate if only half of it is under the rain cloud. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of thinking about it is that the "real" measurement is "volume of rain per collection area" (e.g. something like cubic feet per square mile). It's a little more obvious to see in the metric system, but you can convert to common units (e.g. inches cubed per inches squared), and cancel out the units from the bottom (e.g. (in.*in.*in.)/(in.*in.) => in.) Numbers stated that way are equivalent to stating how deep the rain would be over the (level) square mile if none of it soaked in or ran off. Twice the area would get twice the volume of rain, but it would still cover to the same depth, since there's twice the area to cover. It works when you shrink the area too. A little thought will show that as long as the opening of the container is level, it doesn't matter how small the observed area is - it'll be about as accurate as the full acre, even if the rain isn't coming straight down. -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it is common to use a funnel to collect the rain from a larger area into a container with a smaller cross-section, then scale the markings on the container accordingly. Eg if the funnel has a collection area of twice the cross-section of the container, then the container would have "1mm" marks every 2mm on the container. This gives more accurate readings. (See "How does it work" on this page.) The Rain gauge article mentions funnels, but not the scaled marking. (Probably it should.) Putting the smaller container inside a larger container (eg with the same area as the funnel top, and non-scaled markings) such that the smaller container overflows into the larger container allows for measuring more rain (with less accuracy). Mitch Ames (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that "which of the method used in wireless LAN either CSMA/CD OR CSMA/CA?" i found the answer that CSMA/CA used in wireless LAN ,but now how can i justify my answer.this is the problem.220.225.244.114 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read our article Carrier sense multiple access? Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear to me what you mean 'justify my answer'. If you need to explain why CA or CD is used then I think the article Comet Tuttle provides will provides the basics, enough at least for it to be easy to do further research. If you need to prove that CA or CD is used then I guess the best thing to do is to go to the official spec sheet and cite that. Failing that, look for a few journal articles which discuss it. Wireless LAN is of course a fairly imprecise term. I presume you want 802.11g or some such Nil Einne (talk) 20:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a list anywhere? And what about ordered by mass - perhaps the mass of the gas giants is not so great. Since what is and what is not a planet has become so confusing recently, including some new planets being discovered, then this would help clarify things. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Solar System objects by size. The list there can be sorted by various attributes, including mass and volume. Tevildo (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]