Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2014 August 12

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.

August 12

Nutrition question

Is EatMor, an appetite stimulant, sold in any physical stores? If so, where? Theskinnytypist (talk) 05:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

A placebo, really. Looie496 (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The company address and phone is VH Nutrition, 1075 Court St Ste 208, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401, (805) 458-5165 per this, but it might be out of date or just wrong. I have not found any store distributors. The main ingrediant is Gentiana lutea, which is not likely a placebo. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The feature of electrification of the USSR

What are you thinking about that, the feature of electrification of the USSR, is it been a science mean that electric is not much powerful?--Alex Sazonov (talk) 14:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Troll. 66.249.81.52 (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Electric is been much more powerful. Pee on a fence, nothing happens. Pee on an electric fence, magical things happen. What are you thinking about that? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I been thinking that, an electric been powerful since it fully become science open!--Alex Sazonov (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I been suppose that, the USSR always been use in all an engineering systems of powerfully electric because the science of the USSR still thought that electric is not much powerful.--Alex Sazonov (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sounds about right. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Orders of magnitude (viscosity)

Today, I needed a comparison for how viscous a particular material is (compared to, for example, honey)...and to my horror (ok, mild surprise) we had no Orders of magnitude (viscosity) article, so I had to create one. I know how useful those order-of-magnitude articles are to ref-deskers, and how much fun it is to populate them with the more extreme values ("fun" being defined over the range of slightly strange people who are denizens of the desks. :-)

So...I've filled in the obvious mid-ranges of the table, but I could use some help with examples of very low and very high viscosity materials...and because it's for an article, I need references and actual numerical values please. Also, if at all possible, it would be helpful to choose more commonplace materials that our readers will understand and identify with. So, for example, I chose air rather than, say, osmium hexafluoride because everyone has an idea of how viscous air is. I know this is going to be tricky for the more extreme examples.

Values should be in pascal seconds (Pa.s).

It would be helpful if respondents would help me out (please!) by directly editing the Orders of magnitude (viscosity) article in addition to discussing them here...but if you do so, please remember that the entries are presumed to be "at room temperature" unless otherwise stated, so if you want to add some of the more crazy values like liquid helium or something...please be sure to append the temperature/pressure to the entry.

TIA.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea! I see you already have pitch and the Earth's mantle, so I can't help you on the high end. This chart has a nice range [1], and seems reliable enough for the moment. Measurements are in centipoise, which is one millipascal-second. I added Lard after peanut butter. Someone who finds the table syntax easier than I do could easily add the others from this same ref. E.g. "caulking compound" and "window putty" are both fairly familiar, and rate between lard and pitch. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I love it! Thanks guys for making this article! Now when someone say "Blood is thicker than water", I can say "Yes! Four times thicker!" and "Motor oil is way thicker then blood!" Richard-of-Earth (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm confused though: whose honey is thinner than ketchup (by a factor of 5)? I haven't tried a funnel test yet, but I just checked my squeeze bottles, and the ketchup seems to squeeze through a (very similar) diameter hole much more easily. Admittedly, my unscientific experiment means almost nothing, but does the stated result seem odd to anyone else? I expect there's decent variation between brands, but still I would casually think of honey as generally thicker than ketchup. I suppose either/both of them might be non-newtonian fluids, and that might mess with my perception... SemanticMantis (talk) 19:11, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Viscosity of ketchup is tricky, because it is a thixotropic fluid. That means that it's viscosity is affected by its flow rate. This sets up a complex time-dependent behavior in viscosity. This is the property of ketchup whereby you can hold the bottle and the ketchup doesn't come out, and you give it a subtle tap, and all of a sudden half the bottle comes rushing out unpredictably. Normal (nonthixotropic) fluids don't behave this way: the viscosity is a constant, regardless of the existing flow rate. --Jayron32 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

We also need to distinguish between set and clear honey - in my experience, set honey is far more viscous than anything I'd call "liquid". Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't find a useful number for viscosity of glass. Old, lead glass flows and ripples of panes are evident and glass blowing heats up glass without a phase change. I think modern glass is more of a solid then a slow moving fluid. --DHeyward (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Glass#Structure, (a) "The notion that glass flows to an appreciable extent over extended periods of time is not supported by empirical research or theoretical analysis" (cited), and (b) "Laboratory measurements of room temperature glass flow do show a motion consistent with a material viscosity on the order of 1E17–1E18 Pa s" (also cited). Those statements look rather contradictory to me, but I'm not a materials scientist. We do have a number, though. Tevildo (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Jayron pointed out the difference between Newtonian fluids and Non-Newtonian fluids. Therfor this list is wrong in principle. You can not complare and on top not that simple. --Kharon (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying "The length of a piece of rubber depends on the forces applied to it - so we have to completely give up on the idea of anything having length." It's true that specifying viscosities (and lengths) has sometimes to be done with care. There are undoubtedly some materials that exhibit sufficiently unusual behaviour that assigning a simple viscosity to them is inappropriate. But there are a mountain of reliable sources that quote specific numbers for a wide range of actual materials and the concept of measuring and quantifying viscosity is not remotely "wrong in principle". We should, however, be careful about stating numbers for non-newtonian fluids - so I'm thinking we'll need footnotes for at least blood and ketchup for that exact reason. SteveBaker (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

What about... "The length of a piece of rubber depends on the forces applied to it - so we have to state with great care the circumstances under which we measure it."

For the rubber band, the "reasonable" circumstances are obvious: no (or at least negligible) external forces. With viscosity, we wouldn't have any flow without force, so we should take the slow limit (or a practical approximation of that), and mark the (significantly - I'm sure many fluids show small deviation from the Newtonian model) non-Newtonian fluids, to warn the readers that these figures are not necessarily indicative of observed behavior.

And now for something completely different: source #3 of Orders of magnitude (viscosity) reproduces the tables from this PDF. Shouldn't the PDF, rather than the page that reproduces it, be source #3? - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 06:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Some other relevant reading here would be the article on Rheology. --Jayron32 03:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Innate propensities for certain living conditions?

Are there any innate behaviors in some people that could explain the conditions they live in? Such as cleanliness, organization vs. disorganization, unsanitary conditions etc.? Can these behaviors also be be different per population, so like how Indians, Africans, Latin Americans etc.live in different conditions or environments than Europeans, East Asians and others? 74.14.22.58 (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be hard to control for poverty and the nature of existing housing stock in a particular region - so this would be a difficult thing to assess. Even within one city, the fact that some ethnic groups live in a lower grade of housing than others is more to do with discrimination and historical trends than genetics. Furthermore, the conditions that people would prefer to live in almost always differ sharply from the conditions they actuallylive in...so their current situation clearly doesn't relate to any kind of genetic propensity. It's possible that the habit of "Compulsive hoarding" is genetic in nature because (as our article says), family histories show strong positive correlations - which (although far from conclusive) does not contraindicate a genetic basis.

The trouble is that there is inevitably going to be dozens of reasons why two people with equal access to good living conditions might live very differently - isolating a single genetic cause would be exceedingly difficult. Suppose you did a study with identical twins, separated at birth and measured the cleanliness of their homes. Immediately, you run into problems...how do you know that other people living with them aren't the cause of any differences you find? How do you know that an accident of employment history resulted in one being able to afford a maid service while the other has to work such long hours that they have little time or energy for cleaning? I don't see how you can do this experiment on human subjects. SteveBaker (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Basically saying the same thing as Steve -- at the level of populations, there are situational differences that overwhelm any possible genetic differences. Wealthy people tend to be cleaner and more organized than poor people; people who live in cold climates tend to be cleaner and more organized than people who live in hot climates. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

So aside from private property, wouldn't it take innate behaviors within the general population to affect the general public living conditions? Take this picture of India as an example.74.14.22.58 (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2014 (UTC) The idea being that the psyche of the population is defined by its Genome74.14.22.58 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, you can just stop asking these questions. You're not doing a good job of trying to hide the fact that you're trying to prove some racist notion that "People from cultures that I have a negative stereotype of are destined to be that way because they are genetically inferior". Just stop it. We aren't going to affirm your silly racism, and unless you actually start listening to us and actually learning something about how genetics works, and how human society works, we're going to be through here. Once again: We aren't here to affirm your bigotry. Go elsewhere to do that. --Jayron32 19:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

How are my questions "racist"? Look, pulling the racist card only hurts your own argument.74.14.22.58 (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Your follow up comment certainly sounds racist, because it looks like you are trying to imply that Indian people swim in filthy rivers because of their genetics. Such an implication is patently absurd. More charitably, your comment might just be made from ignorance, and not out of racism. If that's the case, then we'd like to help you. You might enjoy reading about Guns germs and steel, which talks about the rise and fall of civilizations based on their cultures and practices. Everything you've talked about in this thread can be explained more scientifically through culture than through genetics. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so charitable. An ignorant person would have been corrected by now. This IP (and other similar) has a one-track contribution history. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

And where does culture come from? Indians might do what they do because of their culture. But culture is manifestation of inner behaviors. Compare how Hinduism condones unsanitary practices while other cultures don't have that, that is due to the fact that different populations vary in genes that produce different behaviors and thus different cultures. What I want to know specifically is what some of these behaviors can be and how exactly they affect the environments of the population.74.14.22.58 (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

But culture is manifestation of inner behaviors.

Any second-generation immigrant would find that hilarious. See cultural assimilation. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I would point you towards the Muslim immigrants to Europe and Mexicans in America to show that immigrants from incompatible cultures don't assimilate very well.74.14.22.58 (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Those are newly-arrived and first generation immigrants. Come back in 100 years. In the past, the Irish and Italians were treated equally as poorly in America as Mexicans were. In 100 years, no one will think twice about Hispanic people as being fully American anymore than people with Irish surnames, though Irish used to be treated just as bad. A perspective on history would do you well... --Jayron32 02:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The men in the picture you shared above are apparently looking for gold. That's an economic pressure, not a genetic one, and common to all poor people. The practice isn't a generally occuring one, just every twelve years, when there's a good chance at least one of the 80 million people dropped something valuable. They make the pilgrimage and take the "bath" because external forces tell them it'll cleanse their souls, not because their DNA implores them to get physically dirty. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Culture is not the manifestation of 'inner behavior' or 'innate behavior' or anything like that. This is easy to demonstrate, just look at any number of children who are raised in a different culture from the one they were born into. If you want to learn, you'll have to be careful about stating your assumptions as though they are facts. A good example of this is "Hinduism condones unsanitary practices". What do you think you know about Hinduism or sanitation that would lead you assume such a thing? I've given you a decent reference above on how cultures can affect their environments. If you want more, read up on cultural evolution. The only thing I can find on WP that has anything to do with linking culture and genetics is Dual_inheritance_theory. But note that this theory does not say that cultures are based on genetics, but rather that both evolve, and can interact. You will not find any semblance of "this race is unclean because of their genetics" or other such nonsense. I have attempted to give you references in good faith. I encourage you to read them, and keep in mind that the ethical scientific approach is to be disinterested in finding evidence of your preconceived notions (which seem to me utterly wrong, perhaps not even wrong). Rather, seek to learn about the findings of expert analyses, whatever they might be. Finally, if you keep arguing the same line despite all our points to the contrary, be warned that you might be branded as a troll. We are very forgiving of ignorance here, I personally think our duty is to help eliminate it, for those who wish to ask! However, we are not so forgiving of arguing in bad faith, WP:SOAP, WP:AXE, and WP:POINTY behavior. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

You won't get anything on a mainstream website other than affirmations of one's belief in conventional wisdom. Of course there is an interaction between genetics and culture, types of family, types of childcare (nuclear family/communal) etc. Stuff like the level of consanguinity says whether the society will develop abstract social contract- (as opposed to kin-based) -type relationships, and a civic spirit where people don't have to enumerate their ancestors when meeting to find a reason not to kill one another. PC is nothing more than who's this year's protected species, it's not even consistent. The same people who have no compunctions to say Russians are inherently subservient to authority or bad at languages because Commies killed or exiled all those that were good at them starting 1917 (a real position held by some Russian liberals. (with which I incidentally sort-of agree) Asmrulz (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least there's one person here who knows of the truths of HBD.74.14.22.58 (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either mental/behavioral features cluster as do physical features or the brain and how it's wired etc, are magically exempt from being heritable or the brain is not the source of behavior. Asmrulz (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The brain you're born with is a far cry from the brain at the root of adult behaviour. Which neurons form which pathways depends on how we exercise them. If you associate certain authors and topics with learning, you'll become wired to associate certain types of bullshit with truth. Same goes for all other associations. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't microaggression me. Keep believing in your pomo PC BS (BS as in blank slate) Asmrulz (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm way too stupid to understand this. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course consanguinity is a feature of populations, not of the individual. So presumably the ills attributed to high levels of consanguinity can be somewhat improved with smart policies. I guess (or rather, I'm sure) some stuff is not genetic but simply due to society having entered some sort of a self-feeding loop, such as tribalism->intolerance towards nonconfirmity->more tribalism etc. It's an Emperor's new clothes-type of situation. The thing is this: something, a factor A, must not necessarily cause something else, B. But it is entirely possible that A doesn't help to improve B) Asmrulz (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In the next few seconds a baby will be born in a poverty ridden area of a city in India. It will be surrounded by filth, disorganization and unsanitary conditions. That's not because that baby is genetically inferior. HiLo48 (talk) 23:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

No, but it will inherit the behaviors that made such an environment what it is.74.14.22.58 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no evidence for that statement. You came here asking if such a perspective was true. Several have said "No". There is no point asking questions if you won't listen to the answers. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, don't insult people just because they don't agree with your particular ideology. It's one thing to get an answer, but so far many of the answers provided have been insufficient, and try to wrongfully argue against an accepted scientific premise.74.14.22.58 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

If you really believe that it's "an accepted scientific premise", then your question was pointless. Piss off. HiLo48 (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that. If you know the sufficient answer, tell yourself some more. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

One solution to African poverty - make the men work as hard as the women. Note the URL. ONe common sight in Central Asia before the Soviets came there was a woman slaving away in the field while the men sit squatting in the shade, drink tea and play nard. Some cultures have a notion of masculinity in which it's not how hard you work but how hard you can make others, notably women, work for you. It starts in the family and it translates 1:1 to the social order. People who were informed by modern (i.e., 19th century) beliefs about these things did more to modernize the 3rd World than all the liberal pomo BS ever will. Liberal democracy doesn't work for everyone. Trying to bring it there is to approve of strife, squalor and suffering. Asmrulz (talk) 00:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Is any of this relevant to any of that? If not, can you share a better link to explain this "postmodern/liberal porno BS"? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Asmrulz didn't write "porno" BTW. (I had to read it twice, too.) "pomo" is post-modern. ¡Ocho! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain})07:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're right. Now I understand better and feel stupider at the same time. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

this (observe the overlap with gender feminism), this, this. The antagonism I see between the Left proper and "trendy parts of itself", modernity and post-modernity, socialism proper and mainstream Leftism is my own general observation. Also, this and this, absolutely great reads Asmrulz (talk) 02:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that should keep me busy. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We have no rules against asking basically racist questions - but we do have rules about how we answer them, or indeed whether we answer them. My previous answer (I believe) is a clear statement that genetics are obviously not the issue - and even if it were, there is no way to perform the experiment to demonstrate that. Science in no way confirms your inappropriate views. So, bad luck, you don't get any confirmation. Actually, there is a really good reason for that - your ideas aren't correct. Rather than seeking, time after time, to get confirmation for the way you feel - perhaps it's time to look inward and wonder why that confirmation isn't coming? The reason is that your views are wrong. Totally, utterly. The whole concept of "race" as a genetically significant matter is busted (as I'm quite sure we've pointed out to you previously).

So, stop talking and listen to the answers. Racial biasses make ZERO sense - either sociologically or scientifically. The differences you see between various groups of nearly identical humans (genetically, all humans are very nearly identical) is mainly due to economic factors - go to a majority of trailer parks in the USA and you'll see plenty of dirt poor, white people living in poverty in fairly squalid conditions. Being racially biassed makes no more sense than being biassed against people who can roll their tongues into tubes - or people who are lactose intolerant. Take the red pill, open your eyes. What you're seeing in the world is merely self-induced bias. Eliminate that weird mental bias and you'll see the world as it truly is: Poor people can't educate their kids as well as they should, poor education leads to poor job opportunities, which leads to poor economic results, so the next generation winds up as poor as their parents no matter how the genetic dice are rolled. It's not genetics - it's economics, social issues of all kinds - but it's not race. Tying something as vague and complicated as living conditions to genes is an impossibility - but then tying genes for such complex behaviors to the tiny genetic differences inherent in things like skin color simply compounds the impossibility.

Basically, the experienced ref-desk denizens have seen this pattern time and time again. We can clearly see that you've already formed your own opinion on the question you posted - you're not really curious about the scientific possibilities - you're not listening to the answers we're giving you - you're just hoping to find someone here to support your twisted viewpoint, or perhaps you're trolling in the hope of starting an exciting argument. Sadly, that ain't gonna happen because the premise upon which your basing your views is flat out wrong - and as a matter of science, this issue of race as a significant factor in almost anything of importance is well and truly BUSTED.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

He didn't actually say "race" in the question, and I suppose there's something to it at a lower level. Like, I tend to have a fairly weak sense of smell compared to some other people, so I might tend to be slower about getting the trash out or the sheets laundered. As I recall that actually is sex-influenced, e.g. [2], though I haven't really looked into it. So who knows, maybe the stereotype about women being neater isn't all just social stereotype and expectation. There are probably a lot of little things along this line. I don't expect race to have a big role, but yes, if you go over the races with the finest of fine-toothed comb, then pull out any little thing you found and say "So that is what makes us better!", well, have fun. Wnt (talk) 06:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is the "just throw enough claims around and one will eventually pass the test" problem, which is the statistical equivalent of the stopped clock which is still right twice a day. xkcd here.

Actually, if they survived poverty and the unhealthy environment for gegerations, their genes are probably slightly superior to mine and anybody who grew up in a more hygienic environment with a balanced diet. - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} /

Also, don't presume that changing poverty conditions changes opportunities and success. That is just as false a premise as race being responsible. They may correlate but are not causative. Freakonomics covers some this with "two paths to Harvard. 300 years ago, the richest people took their morning evacuation in a bucket, were afflicted with horrible disease, had no refrigeration and 95% of population had to farm in order to feed the world. We would consider it sub-humane to subject a person in the U.S. to the conditions endured by Kings. In a sense, poverty in 1st world nations is an illusion. Leisure time created by the advancement of science that led to the industrial revolution is the real metric and how people spend leisure time (time they have not dedicated to provisioning for life) is much more of an indicator of success and may be a learned trait. 300 years ago, the poor had no leisure time and had to farm or die. Newton's father was a farmer and happened to be good enough at it to become rich enough to support Newton's leisure. Being brilliant still didn't change the fact that he used a chamber pot, no TV, refrigerator, car, microwave, bathing facilities or medical care. Today we have people with just as much leisure time with all the conveniences listed above and some will be driven to use that leisure time to make a better life (as Newton did) and some will simply continue living as they do. It's not just poverty as poverty is a continuously moving definition and there are powers that be that will always set the poverty level as the lowest 20% of income earners. --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand though, I've seen claims that primitive societies had far more leisure time - that medieval Europe was the unpleasant aberration in this regard. Worthy of a thread, probably not this one. Wnt (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Was medieval Europe an unpleasant aberration?

Something I read recently got me wondering this. Were we better off when we came together in unity to solve the day's problems as a family before unwinding with song (like Fraggle Rock) or after the feudal lords took over and demanded back-breaking labour for rent (like Rent)? No rhetorical generalizations, please, just facts. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "better off". It's a serious request. Otherwise you're just asking for opinions. HiLo48 (talk) 23:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Higher levels of happiness. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

How to you quantify happiness? And who alive during the middle ages was quantifying it for us so we can read there works to find out? --Jayron32 00:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are several indices in Happiness economics#Indices. I didn't want to single one out. Whichever works best for the job, I suppose. Wasn't a field back then, but translation is probably possible. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)