Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 April 20

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

April 20

The Twelve Dimensions

If possible I would like to learn the dimensions 6-12. I'm pretty sure #1 is a line, #2 is a flat square, #3 is the square, #4 is time, and #2 is a Tesseract.

The other dimensions, as postulated by string theory, are pretty boring compared to the 3 spatial+1 time dimensions. They are just tiny ways in which string theory says the world had to be bound up at the tiniest scales—it's like a rough texture that makes of the fabric of the world on a very tiny scale, like all the different tiny hairs in a rug (though this is a very imperfect analogy). You know that #1 dimension you mention, the "line"—well imagine that if you looked at it REALLY closely, that it actually was not just a line but had tiny little dimensions in it that made up the line dimension. That's sort of what string theory says the other dimensions are like. Personally I find them boring from a popularization point of view—the idea of time as the fourth dimension is still way more interesting, IMO. See String_theory#Extra_dimensions for some more technical discussion. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Try watching the video here: http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php . Can't vouch for its accuracy etc, but seems interesting. 81.187.153.189 (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of confusion in your question. A line is not a dimension, it is a one-dimensional object. A square is a two-dimensional object, a cube is a three-dimensional object. There are other 2 and 3 dimensional objects, such as ovals, triangles, spheres. When people talk about space-time they tend to add time as a 4th dimension on top of the 3 dimensions of space. When people talk about tesseracts, they imagine them in 4 dimensions in the same way that a cube is in 3 dimensions; time doesn't feature as a dimension in these imaginings. There is no order of dimensions. A dimension is just sort-of a direction things can exist in. Further dimensions may well exist, but they aren't numbered in an agreed-upon manner. You might find dimension a useful read. 79.66.99.37 (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that a time dimension doesn't behave the same as a space dimension, which is why physicists usually refer to spacetime as being 3+1 dimensional rather than 4 dimensional. --Carnildo (talk) 22:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. There are also theories like dimensions 5-11 are "branes". Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 20:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Shepherd's pie

I had a shepherd's pie today and its mashed potato top solidified after it had cooled. Does mashed potato do that (you can tell I know little about cooking)? Imagine Reason (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep that's normal. Dismas|^(talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's water content dries out due to the room ambient temperature and the heat of the filling below the spud topping.92.9.53.225 (talk) 08:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I put butter in my mash so mine would solidify, butter being a fat.hotclaws 13:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I had a quorn cottage pie. when the mash goes dry, mix it up wive the gravy and mean underneeth to get it nice again.

I vote this a yummy thread. Julia Rossi (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The Pope

What languages does the pope speak and which is his native one and which is the one he talks to people with informally?

According to Pope Benedict XVI:

As well as his native German, Benedict XVI fluently speaks Italian, French, English, Spanish and Latin, and has a knowledge of Portuguese. He can read Ancient Greek and biblical Hebrew.[3] He has stated that his first foreign language is French.

One would assume that he speaks informally in whatever language he and his guests have in common. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles V is supposed to have said "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to Women, French to Men, and German to my Horse." [1] BrainyBabe (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I read somewhere that MTW2 got thats quote's providnece wrong and one of the languages the wrong way round. BTW i meant you used that off MTW2.

House style

What style is this house? A relative is moving into it and he's trying to figure it out. I think it has Craftsman or Mission influences. Any help is appreciated! --NellieBly (talk) 04:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

My first thought was that it has Arts and Crafts influences. It lacks the distinctive features of the Mission styles (Mission Revival and Spanish Revival): low pitched roofs, clay tiles, terracotta colours, arches and so forth. Gwinva (talk) 05:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't sure about that. You'd think it was just an unusual iconoclastic house, but there are thousands of houses similar to this all over Western Canada. They don't seem to fit any of the common American architectural styles, possibly because they aren't American. They seem to have been put up from about 1925 to 1930, during a flurry of immigration from Europe. --NellieBly (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say its English Cottage but the styles name varies depending where you are in the world. It is a style that developed in the early 20th century and boomed after the First World War and can be seen in vast swathes of suburban development round the world. It's a developer / builder style that is influenced by a picturesque romanticism derived from Arts and Crafts and Garden City planning / landscaping but characterised by small houses with a couple of architectural features. It was also largely used by councils in estates or governments in state housing. We don't seem to have an article which is surprising, perhaps because it has many names that are variations on English / Cottage / Garden , or because its not a "high" style. That is it tended to be done by anonymous designers working for builders / councils, rather than name architects Mhicaoidh (talk) 09:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Food Ingredients.....Clean Product??

What is the true definitin of the term used in the Bakery Industry when they say this is "Clean Product". i.e. The cake line is clean.÷←→§

From what country and who specifically (bakers, retailers, customers, journalists) is using the term? The meaning differs from country to country and from user to user: there is NO agreed-upon international meaning. It may mean that the product is safe to eat, it may mean that it's produced under reliable kosher certification, it may mean that it's environmentally sound, or it may mean that it's free of traces of the most common allergens. It may even mean something else. But there's no way to know which of these definitions are correct without specifics. --NellieBly (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I've also seen "clean" used in an artistic sense to mean "simple". So, perhaps a cake with smooth frosting and a single rose might be "clean", while one covered from top to bottom with decorations would not be. StuRat (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe clean goes with food more postiively than "green"? I found among google hits[2] a suggestion that it means a product that hasn't been manipulated (handled?) much. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Pascal's Wager vs. the Problem of Hell

No offence to Julia Rossi but I honestly think you will get a better response if you post your question on the Humanities Desk, 202.7.166.174.

Cool. Let's take it there. Julia Rossi (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC) <moved>

China's arms

How good are governmental communications in China ? sending weapons to Zimbabwe at this point in time seems kinda ... weird . Why did South Africa not take in the arms ? A destinationless ship full of weapons floating off the coast of Africa doesn't seem wise either - at least the Saffas would have had some control over a docked shipment ? Boomshanka (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Just hope that the pirates don't get the ship, there is plenty about these days.--Artjo (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

China appears to be trying to foster "friendships" with genocidal nations around the world, such as Sudan, which is killing off it's people in Darfur, and Burma/Myanmar, which is killing off ethnic minorites and protesters, including Buddhist monks. This, along with their own suppression of Tibet, are reasons for the protests against China hosting the Olympics, and calls for civilized nations to boycott those Olympics. Perhaps China's goal is to get the world to accept doing "business as usual" with genocidal regimes, so China will be allowed to commit genocide against Tibetans, and, after they invade Taiwan, against the Taiwanese, without any repurcusions. StuRat (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Upwards?

Is there something in it that each day this and all other questions posted today will rise up towards the rules on top of this page until they, just before reaching the top, get archived to make room for new questions? --84.251.6.195 (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure quite what you are asking, but yes, that is the normal procedure.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This happens because new questions are added at the bottom and old ones are archived from the top, one day at a time. The result is that each question moves upward until it is archived. StuRat (talk) 13:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I always thought that the questions gradually absorbed the ineffability of Wikipedia by osmosis and rose towards Heaven. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Gravity sucks this way and osmosis sucks that way. The succulence of the WP:RD, however, is its delectable multidimensionality in lateral dimesions. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing sucks like an Electrolux. BrainyBabe (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing shocks like an Electrolux either. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a high concentration of crap in the ref desks. Hopfully it wont diffus into the rest of wikipedia... Prehaps the OP is axing what causes the questions to muve up. Currontly it is done by a bot (automatted computer script) called Scsbot

rights to a timeshare deed

four years ago, my then partner and myself, whilst holidaying in america, entered into a timeshare agreement , on a property in florida, shortly after signing the relevent documentation , my partner and i ended our relationship. we sold , as we thought the property under a cashback arrangemnt, due to mature after 5years, handed over more monies , and thus continued with our separate lives , at different intervals , bills kept dropping through my door in england , for the maintanence fees on the property , but as we were of the impression that the property no longer belonged to us , we subsiquently ignored them , my mistake at this time aws to trust my ex partner by , one sending her the bulk of any correspondence , and two believing her when she said she was dealing with it. three weeks ago , a letter arrived at my home , telling me that court proceeings were iminent due to these ever increasind fees , and thus my question transpires, on contacting my ex , she refuses to speak to me , and after a week , i contacted florida, they have informed me that she has contacted them , via a lawyer and has agrred to pay the fees owing , has instructed them to draw up new deeds with only her name on them, and thus be sole owner of the property, florida is happy to do this , can they do this without my signiture, dated as now, as i feel that as i paid half the deposit she owes me monies, minus obviously , the outstanding arrears, this all seems to be happening very quickly and i feel helpless , not being familiar with your laws, any help and advise much appreciated. thanks

We can't give legal advice as per the disclaimer at the top of the page because we aren't professionals, but I'd say you really do need a professional to give you an hour of their time at least to point you in the right direction and how to go about sorting the mess. If where you are in the UK there's a free legal advice hotline or community lawyers you could get initial guidance from them. You could at least ask them what questions you need to have ready when you see a lawyer who charges for their time – to keep things tight. All the best with your situation, Julia Rossi (talk) 12:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

phenomenon/energy

We have been experiencing problems in our house, our dog is disturbed by the presence of something in the kitchen. It is always in the same place and does not move around. My mothers dog also reacts in the same way and is obviously frightened by something. I dont think it is a ghost, but more like an energy, as it is always there. Do you know if there is anyone who investigates phenomenom such as this? We have had dowsers investigate and they have found 2 ley lines and a meridian line as well as many other things which they say they have put right, but the problem still remains. Our house stands on the site of an old priory and our kitchen is right where the chaple once stood andI think this may have some connection. We would be extremely grateful for any information as such things are not easily available. Noni46 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a shaman in Congo. Want me to give him your number? Imagine Reason (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Before you start investigating the possibility of some supernatural explanation, I suggest you investigate the possibility of a rather natural explanation that you've missed (e.g. high pitched sound that you can't hear but the dogs can; some odd smell or vibration at that point). Additionally, you may be interested to know that a 'meridian line' is simply any line dividing a sphere into two hemispheres (i.e. any line of longitude at all defines half of one meridian). Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 15:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, maybe you have mice or squirrels or whatever the local pests are in your area, and your dog is reacting in this place because this is where they've nested or something like that. Alternatively, there's a draft at floor level or something of that kind. --Anon, 19:27 UTC, April 20/08.

Try not to automatically jump into superstition and magic. There is always, always, a scientific explanation for inexplicable phenomena. Kironide (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm ... yes, but sometimes those explanations prove to be very wide of the mark. I'm not suggesting there's anything magic going in here, but when a scientist says "it must be because ...." he or she is just as prone to error as anyone else. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's bad thinking. Since there hasn't been any evidence of the paranormal, ever, a scientist who proposes an alternate, natural explanation has a much better chances of getting it right. We can't disprove entirely that it isn't something supernatural\magic, sure, but that doesn't mean it has the exact same probability as something else. It is similar to the statement that an asteroid has 50% chance of hitting us, because it either hits or misses.

But if what you mean is that "scientists can get it wrong too", then yeah, no questions about that. It's still a better option than a psychic. — Kieff | Talk 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the proper rejoinder to that is that something which is currently outside of the bounds of what is considered science might tomorrow be within the bounds of it. Newton was accused, as you might know, of postulating gravity as an occult (hidden, non-natural) force originally; the idea that you could have some sort of unexplained force governing the universe was thought by many philosophers and scientists of his day to be totally unscientific, even if the equations did seem to work out. Of course it would not be until centuries later that Einstein would give something of a real physical explanation to what gravity truly is. That being said, supernatural explanations are almost certainly unfalsifiable; even a vague or incorrect scientific hypothesis can be ruled out or for one way or another, which makes it immediately more useful, if not necessarily correct. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 13:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

But something that has been 'known' for ages but is showing no sign of ever being specific or well defined seems, to me, to be very unlikely to ever be considered part of scientific understanding. You mention that gravity was once mysterious and incredible, but it was also very well defined, testable, and falsifiable. Generally when someone resorts to "Science doesn't know everything!" arguments they are positing something that is neither well defined, testable, or falsifiable. APL (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe so, but a lot of what actually goes on in the universe happens to be in this category. Science is great for explaining things that are ultimately explainable - but that isn't everything. This isn't the place to go into this question deeply, but I can't let the assertion that "there hasn't been any evidence of the paranormal, ever" go without comment. There's a huge literature on the subject; some of it is utter crap, admittedly - but some of it isn't. Also, I don't believe it's bad thinking to keep an open mind about things, and to question categorical statements from figures in authority. History is on my side. Maybe it's bad thinking from a scientist's point of view to believe that science doesn't always ultimately have the answers, but they would say that. I'm no scientist, so I'm not bound by their rules. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but the Newton and gravity example does not at all illustrate the point that "History is on [your] side." Newton's Theory of Gravity started out as a Scientific theory, and later became accepted as accurate. (Unless you can point to a Theory of Ghosts or a Theory of Occult Energy that is a predictive, falsifiable, and mathematically complete explanation of the phenomena under discussion.) APL (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Those were Captain Ref Desk's points, not mine. I've already said that I'm not suggesting anything unexplainable is happening in Noni46's house (just what it is, though, I have no idea). I've been focussing on Kironide's assertion above, which has somewhat diverted us from the topic at hand. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. I got confused about who said what. Sorry about that. APL (talk) 15:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"...more like an energy..." - you're right, there's usually a lot of energy in kitchens. In most places it's normal to have more power sockets in the kitchen, so you have a lot of electrical energy available. There's probably a gas supply (even if your current cooker's electrical) - lots of energy in gas. Those are the obvious sources, but I can think of a few more - there's typically a greater density of furniture in a kitchen (all those cupboards) which would release energy if burnt. If you have "eye level" cupboards with heavy stuff in (plates etc) that's gravitational potential energy right there. I would suggest that only an unusually intelligent and scientifically-minded dog would be aware of all this, though, so the explanations given by others above are probably a better place to start than "energies".

It doesn't sound like you have a problem; it sounds like there's a place in your kitchen that dogs dislike. If my dog stopped following me into the kitchen, hoping I would give her some food, I would consider it a blessing -- I have a small kitchen and a hyper dog. In my experience, what troubles a dog most is food that it cannot obtain. That particular spot in your kitchen may be close enough for the dog to smell some food that it cannot access -- be it crumbs hidden under the fridge, cookies in a jar on the counter, or dog biscuits behind the pantry door. There might be small cracks in the refrigerator door seal, and a tiny draft might be blowing right to that spot, so your dog can SMELL ham, but can't find it anywhere. Conversely, there may be invisible goblins that are about to jump on you and eat you. However, until something more concrete than an upset dog manifests, you are probably just borrowing trouble. Faithfully, Deltopia (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that if there isn't a smell or a high pitched noise (Possibly from the fridge) that is bothering the dogs, then they could be simply reacting to the fact you are expecting them to act in a particular way and that in and of itself is making them nervous. You're obviously pretty worried about this, and dogs are often sensitive to that sort of thing. APL (talk) 14:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, The Straight Dope recently talked about infrasound possibly being a reason for paranormal feelings in an area [3]. If it's just the dog noticing it, it could be ultrasound too.-- 128.104.112.85 (talk) 22:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bear arms

Where can I buy some bear arms?

As in weponds or animals? please clarifi.

It all depends on if you have the rights to Boomshanka (talk)

Maybe they're looking for this. Dismas|^(talk) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe he's looking for one of these. Useight (talk) 04:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't need to buy anything that is yours by right.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"Right two bear arms" is obviously an error anyway. There should be a left one and a right one. APL (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the bear had a Parasitic twin from earliest infantry infancy. Edison (talk) 19:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Where can one buy Noxon in Canada?

Hi all, I'm wondering where one could find a retail outlet that sells Noxon 7 metal polish in Canada? I've tried a couple of my local hardware stores with no luck, does anyone know of a chain that carries it? I live in Vancouver, BC, so if anyone knows an independent store in the area that carries it that would be great too. Thanks, -24.82.140.138 (talk) 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not looking to purchase it online, as the shipping will likely cost significantly more than the Noxon itself. I have found a few online sources though if all else fails.

Video Game Script

Hi. I was playing The Godfather: The Game earlier today, and there was a quote that i really enjoyed listening to. It was quite lengthy, however, and I can only remember a bit of it (it was when the player character is made a Soldier, and Vito Corleone talks about the ruffians of the world and how they are asking to be killed). This made me wonder: is there a website out there with a comprehensive listing of video game scripts? Obviously, I'd prefer the script for the Godfather Game, but a site like that could be useful. Thanks. 70.105.164.43 (talk) 23:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Was it this?

"There are people in this world who go about demanding to be killed. You must have noticed them. They quarrel in gambling games. They jump out of their automobiles in a rage. They humiliate and bully people whose capabilities they do not know. These are people who wander through the world shouting, "kill me". And there's always someone ready to oblige to them."

If so, I found that on IMDB. Digger3000 (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)