The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
A brief look at the contents of the last few issues shows the journal accepts crackpot articles that contain crucial elementary errors and should not have survived even a moderate peer review (and, obviously, articles claiming that relativity theory and quantum theory are wrong need a strong review). I can't think of a reason to publish anything about the journal other than to point out this does not belong on academic bookshelves. --Lambiam23:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the more reason to help Ca with their request, since we can't relate any of that without good sourcing. Ca, I'll see what I can do to help, but I suspect the name of "journal", combined with it's meager (though honestly possibly still inflated) impact factor is going to make the process difficult. SnowRise let's rap03:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Lambiam is simply speaking as to what is WP:DUE in the existing article--though again, we need to approach that issue from a WP:WEIGHT/WP:NOR perspective. As to the AFD, it looks as if the OP is proposing deletion largely along the lines of failure to meet WP:GNG: I haven't had enough time to reach a firm conclusion as to whether or not the body of WP:RS support that conclusion or not, but if accurate, it's a relevant (and indeed, usually dispositive) factor. On the other hand, there is also an element of WP:FRINGE violations to their concerns as well, and I'm much more wary of carrying a delete !vote on that factor alone, as per your last comments. SnowRise let's rap07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was actually explaining why there are (very likely) no reliable sources to be found that discuss the topic in sufficient detail to base an article on. The current article contains only standard facts such as can be given about any journal. The cited sources acknowledge the existence of the journal but do not discuss it. There is a reliable source reporting that Eli Thomas Lane was born on November 20, 2014, in Hamilton Medical Center, Dalton, Georgia.[1] That is not enough to base an article on. --Lambiam10:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked at the article and commented briefly at the AfD that it looked like that might be the case, though I didn't have enough time to do an independent search significant enough to lodge a firm !vote before it was closed. There was a near-unaninmous consensus, but I'll say bluntly, I think it was a pretty badly argued and supported consensus, both in terms of the sourcing that I did see and certainly as regards the (frankly completely accurate/invalid argument made, which was (more or less explicitly) based on disregarding relevant policy as wrongheaded, rather than complying with it. If anyone happens to see it come back there eventually, feel free to ping me and I'll !vote accordingly--assuming the sourcing situation has not improved. SnowRise let's rap06:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 2
Are there internationally recognized scales for (male) body hair and hair color?
Are there internationally recognized scales for (male) body hair and hair color? There is a scale for skin color (Fitzpatrick) but not for hair color (my hairdresser said #6 means "dark blonde" bu I've found also "medium brown") and for normal body hair (I read once I grade hypo ~ III grade hyper but I can't find anything)-- Carnby (talk) 06:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IP editor. You have already identified one way in which the two compounds are "similar" and for a non-chemist that's probably all one needs to say. Both also include OH (hydroxy groups), so that's another point of similarity. However, their behaviour in biological systems (and hence usefulness as drugs) are very different, as the articles describe. Professional organic chemists formalise chemical similarity between two compounds in terms of something called the Tanimoto coefficient but unfortunately the Wikipedia article on that is too specialist to be of much use to non-experts or even most experts! See also chemical similarity for the basic idea and some reading. Mike Turnbull (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I considered this, but frozen peas are blanched, a vital step before canning, and I don't see how that differs from the heat treatment described at Canning#Microbial_control. But maybe it's simply a different amount of cooking and that's the reason. Marrowfat peas makes a slight suggestion about selecting the bright green peas for export markets and putting the less good-looking ones in cans, but that may not be relevant. Card Zero (talk)18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even when peas are blanched, there is no cooking involved. Blanching is supposed to a be quick, and halted before the cooking process start to change the chemical composition of whatever you are blanching. The change in color reflects a chemical change that is caused by the cooking. Dhrm77 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary purpose of blanching is to inactivate the enzymes responsible for enzymatic browning. These enzymes are proteins, and are inactivated by the protein denaturation effected by heating. This is an irreversible chemical change. There is no precise definition of the term "cooking", but note that our article on blanching writes, "... finally plunged into iced water or placed under cold running water ... to halt the cooking process". This formulation implies a point of view in which the cooking process has already started. Although our article only mentions the process as a treatment prior to freezing, drying, or canning, it is also used as a step prior to fully cooking green vegetables in order to attain a result that is a brighter green. Then keeping the food immersed in boiling water for up to a minute is not unusual.[2] By the end, the cooking process has definitely started. This is not considered parboiling, not only because the purpose is different, but also because parboiling is not terminated by shocking the food to halt the cooking quickly. --Lambiam18:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know about blanching peas, but I have blanched chestnuts (for the purpose of peeling them more easily), in the past. And what happens when you do that is that the outer layer is cooked while the inner part is still uncooked. I suppose that if you blanch peas very fast, the skin gets cooked while the "meat" stays uncooked, and since the skin is basically translucent, the color comes from the meat, it would explain that they stay bright green in the process. But I suppose colors can also be added. Dhrm77 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Climate questions
In Köppen climate classification:
Is there any area in Europe with Cw or Dw climate?
Is there any place in British Isles with Group D climate?
Is there any place in Southern Hemisphere outside Antarctica with below-freezing average high temperature in coldest month?
Is there any place in Eastern Europe outside Russia with average low temperature below -10 C outside mountains?
Is there any place in Western Europe with Ds climate?
For 1. Why there are no such places?
For 3. And are there any such places for all Southern Hemisphere places which have group D climate?
For 4. Finland is not in Eastern Europe. Are there any such places in Ukraine?
--40bus (talk) 11:53, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
1. Because Europe is on the West side of Eurasia and Cw climate types are more typical of the east side of continents; Köppen described them as having a summer month with 10 times the amount of rain of the driest winter month and AFAIK there's no place in Europe with this feature;
3. Nope, the coldest South American locations are all Cfc (Ushuaia, Punta Arenas); there are no vast landmass to enable the formation of strong winter anticyclones;
3. There surely are some Df and Ds (but not Dw) places in South America. And this map shows some areas in Lesotho with Dfc and Dwc climates. --40bus (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider 0°C as the isotherm fo D climates (remember the original definition by Köppen was -3°C) there are patches of Ds and Df in Argenitina (but not in Chile!) on the Andes slopes; Dw should be present also in South Africa but it's not visible on the map.-- Carnby (talk) 06:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 3
Planck law Energy
In "Ueber das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Norrnalspectrum".
When Planck write "u dν statt E dλ", what is the difference between "u " and "E ", as all two are radiation energy ? Malypaet (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've had that before, haven't we? If I remember correctly u is flux (or was it energy density?) per frequency interval (in modern notation something like ), whereas E is flux per wavelength interval (). They're related by . --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's, u and E are energy accounted for 1 second (power/c), so in W-s or Joules, if you prefer . So Why not E dλ = E dν ?Malypaet (talk) 07:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are not the same, they are different quantities! Question: Do you know what dλ and dν mean? Do you know any calculus at all? --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, are you aware of the concept of dimension of a physical quantity? Dimensional analysis can save one from some of the worst blunders. The dimension of is while that of is It follows that and have different dimensions, and therefore cannot be the same quantity. In fact, but --Lambiam09:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand better.
So "E dλ" == "ML³ T-²" and "u dν" == "ML³ T-²".
"E" is energy ("Joule" == "ML² T-²"), "E dλ" and "u dν" are energy per unit volume, or energy density.
"u" == "ML² T-²" * (c/ν²) == "ML² T-² LT-¹ T²"
"u" == "ML³T-¹" == "ML³ T-²" * "T".
So "u" is already an energy density multiplied by a unit of time and when we multiply by "dν" we eliminate this unit of time.
What looks like "multiplied by a unit of time" is actually "divided by a unit of frequency". is the energy density (J/m3) that is carried by radiation in the frequency interval of width (I'm writing a finite interval here, because I'm not convinced that you know about infinitesimal quantities - nothing to be ashamed of); u is the energy density divided by that frequency interval, it's called a spectral energy density with units J/(m3 Hz). E is similar to that, but instead of a frequency interval it uses the corresponding wavelength interval . For infinitesimal quantities, this becomes . --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Realy, do you know what is a frequency and a unit of frequency ?
On wikipedia:
"The hertz (symbol: Hz) is the unit of frequency in the International System of Units (SI), equivalent to one event (or cycle) per second." Malypaet (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "unit" is not really applicable. A quantity like is not a unit of time, but a time value denoted by a dimensionless value () multiplied by a unit of time (). --Lambiam16:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So when you have:
(a dimensionless value "2" multiplied by a time unit "s")
divided by
(a dimensionless value "1" multiplied by a time unit "s")
What is going on ?
For example in electricity, if we have a constant power (an energy flow per unit time), if we multiply it by a certain dimensionless value and a unit of time we obtain a dimensionless value multiplied by kilowatt-hours, therefore energy in joules where the initial unit of time has disappeared. Malypaet (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem. Given a dimension, it is somewhat meaningless to ask what a physical quantity with that dimension "corresponds to". For example, both work and torque have the dimension but are incomparable quantities. For a more mundane example, the efficiency of a loom may be expressed as the area of cloth produced in a given amount of time, having dimension It would be peculiar to call this the "flux" of the loom. --Lambiam09:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I disagree, 2.45 ms can also be decomposed into a dimensionless value 2.45 multiplied by a time unit of 1 ms, as the number 1 is neutral. Similarly for a frequency unit of 1 Hz == 1 cycle / 1 s, with a dimensionless value for the number of cycles divided by a time unit of 1 s. Malypaet (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My aim was to point out that the conventional way of expressing the nature of quantities that are rates of change is potentially confusing. For example, according to the article Speed, "the speed ... of an object is ... the magnitude of the change of its position per unit of time". But is it? There are many units of time, and the magnitude of the change of position of a snail per fortnight will not be the same as the magnitude of the change of its position per megasecond, even if our snail proceeds in a straight line at a constant rate. To express the rate of progress we can use units with the dimension such as the knot (unit). Otherwise, we need to choose both a unit of length and a unit of time. The use of the term "unit" in the definition of speed is a red herring. --Lambiam09:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a common pattern of speech, though. It may be a bit imprecise but I don't really see it as problematic. My answer to "what unit of time?" has always been "pick whatever unit is appropriate for the situation". The same for the distance even if the word "unit" is not mentioned there. It should be obvious to everyone that two velocities should be expressed in the same units when they are being compared... Note that while dimensional analysis is certainly useful, it provides only very limited information on the physical significance of a quantity. In the definition of the Jansky (an article that might actually be helpful for Malypaet's understanding) the product s·Hz occurs in the denominator. Dimensional analysis would cancel those: obscuring the fact that this comes from a product of a time interval and a frequency interval. --Wrongfilter (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is a common pattern of speech; I called it "the conventional way of expressing" rates of change. It becomes problematic if one is doing dimensional analysis while not realizing such expressions are imprecise, and also if one does not quite grasp the concept of dimensions. Responding by "pick whatever unit is appropriate for the situation" is then not helpful. Assume I am clueless about dimensions but need to report the speed of Beep-beep, my racing snail. The animal being blindingly fast, I pick the second as being an appropriate unit. In that time, it moves a whopping 2.4 mm. Now, applying the definition in the article Speed literally, substituting my hand-picked unit of the second for the indeterminate "unit of time", I report its speed as being the distance it progresses per second and so report Beep-beep's speed as being 2.4 mm. If you think people wouldn't actually make such mistakes, you probably haven't been a teacher.
The jansky has the same dimension as units of acceleration, such as g-force (which is not a unit of force). So it is another nice illustration of the fact that it is somewhat meaningless to ask what physical quantity corresponds to a given dimension. --Lambiam10:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was talking about the product s·Hz in the denominator, not about the entire unit Jy. Franchement, cette discussion va nulle part. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but for me the jansky only brings confusion. A watt is a flow of energy for 1 s and here the Hz brings a number of cycles during this same second. So we shouldn't have Hz in the denominator, but a dimensionless number of cycles because it's measured in the same time interval. We should rather have a matrix with a column for the irradiance and a column for the frequency, it seems to me that it would be more coherent, especially since we have two distinct simultaneous measurements. Malypaet (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would have thought that it was obvious that spectral density or irradiance are functions of frequency, (is that what you mean by your "matrix"?). But the units/dimensions of are not affected by that at all. --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very strictly speaking, the latter infinitesimal equality should be be since decreases as increases, but in the context it is clear that we are not interested in the sign but solely the magnitude. --Lambiam16:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: Yup, just like I hoped. But the subject may be not that widely interesting like sports or politics, so despite pinging the author at the talk page I wanted to gather some more attention. Just in case the original author does not response. My bad, may be I should have rather checked whether the author is still active and ask her/him directly, and come here if that have failed. Anyway, the ref is fixed now, thanks to you and Snoteleks, so I mark this thread as Resolved. CiaPan (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Laser measurements show that the average lunar distance is increasing, which implies that the Moon was closer in the past, and that Earth's days were shorter.
I understand why this implies that the Moon was closer in the past, but what does this have to do with the speed of Earth's rotation? The increasing distance means that the Earth-Moon centre of gravity is moving slightly farther from Earth's centre; does this affect the rotation speed? Nyttend (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One explanation may be related to tidal locking and the fact that the Moon’s rate of rotation is locked to the Earth. As the Moon moves further from Earth, the Moon’s orbital speed and angular velocity about the Earth reduce in order to conserve mechanical energy. As the Moon’s angular velocity about the Earth reduces, tidal locking causes the Moon’s rate of rotation to decrease but also applies a brake to the Earth’s rate of rotation so the length of one day on Earth increases. Dolphin(t)22:07, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mechanical energy isn't conserved; it's consumed by tidal heating. What is conserved is angular momentum. As the Moon moves away from the Earth, its orbital speed drops, but slower than the orbital radius increases, so its orbital angular momentum increases. This comes from the Earth's spin angular momentum (also a tiny bit from the Moon's spin angular momentum). The orbital period and both spin periods increase. PiusImpavidus (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the earth's rotation is gradually slowing down, is there a predictable point in time where it will be tidally locked to the moon just as the moon is tidally locked to the earth? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 00:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. The simple theory predicts that the rate of rotation will get closer and closer to the Moon’s rate of revolution but will never actually reach it. One will approach the other asymptotically. Dolphin(t)01:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be asymptotic if the force depended in the speed of rotation, but it doesn't. Thesesourcesagree (oh, two of them are the same writer; but that's still two sources) that the predictable time Bugs asked for is about 50 billion years from now. However, by that time the Sun will have had its red giant phase and I don't think it's known for sure whether the Earth and Moon will still exist. --142.112.221.43 (talk) 07:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Models predict that liquid water will disappear on Earth in approximately one billion years.[4] It seems that the estimate of 50 billion years for the Earth to tidally lock to the Moon[5] is based on the assumption the oceans remain more or less as they are now. --Lambiam09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least it should not be hard to compute the asymptote, given conservation of angular momentum: solve an expression in which the different ωs are equal. (By Kepler's third law, orbital distance can be expressed as a function of ω.) —Tamfang (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What would the physical properties be of a macroscopic quantity of COVID? I know some viruses can crystallize, but what is it like if they weren't? Thornfield Hall (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Model of a SARS-CoV-2 virionThe virus causing COVID is SARS-CoV-2. Its virions, like those of all coronaviruses, are globular but have a large number of protrusions, called "spikes" (although these are not pointy like the spikes of a hedgehog). As far as I know, the virions of viruses that crystallize have more tidy shapes with no unruly protrusions, like the neat rods of the tobacco mosaic virus and the almost-spheres of the poliovirus and tomato bushy stunt virus. I expect that in a highly concentrated suspension of coronavirions their spikes would tend to get entangled and keep them from forming any regular arrangement. A mild application of force might locally shear the spikes off. So, if I'm allowed to speculate, I guess it would be a squishy but not fluid substance. --Lambiam08:52, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A substantial part of the mass is formed by RNA, which is an acid, so one might guess a somewhat tart sensation. However, the RNA is neatly contained in a lipid envelope, so it won't titillate your taste buds. Only the spike proteins are in a position to bind to taste receptors. I doubt that the taste can be predicted theoretically, given our current knowledge; the only way to find out may be experimentally. I can't think of a reason to expect any identifiable taste; most likely the spike proteins will in fact not bind to any receptor. So my best guess is that it would be bland. Our understanding of the sense of smell is even less. Until the proteins start to decompose (rot), I do not expect a smell. Our knowledge of colours is much more advanced, and a simulation using a supercomputer of light waves bouncing off virions might predict some outcome, but this is beyond my ken. --Lambiam20:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whey cheeses like ricotta are a more appetizing model, although the protein contribution to its solid mass (about 30%) is less than that of fat (more like 40%). Oxidation will turn the proteins more yellow. --Lambiam10:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 6
Snakes
Is it true that poisonous snakes will not bite human unless provoked?
AFAIK there's no way to identify a venomous snake from a harmless one. Where I live there are two commons snakes the European viper (venomous) and the Green whip snake; I tried to observe the scales on the head but it's tricky.-- Carnby (talk) 11:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They may bite when they are startled, which can easily happen since they tend to blend in with their natural surroundings, which may be brush land. For that reason, it is commonly advised to not walk stealthily but make enough noise to make your presence known sufficiently in advance that the naturally shy snakes have the possibility to retreat. Some venomenous snakes, however, are known for not retreating and striking without being provoked, such as the Ottoman viper of Greece and Turkey. If you are an expert herpetologist, you may perhaps be able to identify the species or genus just by looking and thereby determine whether an individual is poisonous. Otherwise, no luck. Some sources will tell you that venomenous snakes have triangular heads and/or non-round eyes, but that works only for some specific geographic areas, such as here for Bluestone National Scenic River. There is no common visual characteristic of venomenous snakes in general. Just look at the non-triangular head and beautifully round eyes of the venomenous Malpolon insignitus. --Lambiam11:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Australian tiger snakes will actively approach humans. I've never found out what they do if you don't get out the way. Greglocock (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is it with Australia and all these venomous critters? Seriously, it seems that in Australia everything tries ti kill you, from box jellyfish to spiders. Zarnivop (talk) 03:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zarnivop, you should try living in the temperate humid regions where most Australians do; we have heaps of animals here in Melbourne, and the only common ones that are any threat whatsoever are magpies. A small minority of them become territorial during the springtime nesting season, and swoop people, but they don't cause serious harm; they just want to force humans (which they view as threats) away from their nests. People aren't seriously injured or killed in such incidents, except for the occasional person who sustains a significant injury while trying to avoid the bird, e.g. this unfortunate man who suffered a fatal bicycle accident. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to what looks to me to be a reputable source, "Contrary to perceived wisdom, tiger snakes are not aggressive, although they will bite if interfered with."[7] A more balanced pronouncement is that, yes, they can definitely be aggressive, but only when they feel threatened. Many accounts state that they put up an impressive warning display before striking, which implies they are not attacking out of aggression just for the sake of it, but to defend themselves. --Lambiam11:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's a matter of interpretation. I've had quite a few "meetings" with tiger snakes over the years. Many have just been of the form "Oh there's a snake over there", and we each head off in the separate directions we were already heading. Some, however, have been on more narrow trails, where the snake was stationery, enjoying the sunshine right in the middle of the trail. Such snakes hold their ground. They do not slither away on becoming aware of a person nearby. They will rear their head into an aggressive pose. No, they've never chased me, but they did retain control of the piece of the world they were in. I'm happy to live and let live. HiLo48 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you were to step over it, it might perceive it as a threat even if you did not intend such. I recall Steve Irwin once said about crocodiles, "I love them, but they don't know that." The flip side to that is what got him killed. He was snorkling over a stingray and it fatally struck him. The flip side being, 'I'm not a threat to him, but he doesn't know that.' ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 13:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Most probably not - but expired ones may be less effective than designed and, as a result, they may lead to a faster development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (similar to an effect of underdosing antibiotics). --CiaPan (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't give medical advice. Your girlfriend should discuss this with her doctor or consult a different doctor for a second opinion. RudolfRed (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
💊🦟? It would take a while eating that! But as said above what doesn't kill it would make it stronger. I'd be nice to it so it doesn't turn evil and want to kill your girlfriend or you after you did a reverse spiderman to it! NadVolum (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doctors occasionally prescribe antibiotics, but I've never heard of one prescribing expired antibiotics, or of chemist's providing them. Maybe they made an error at the chemist's? PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could be wrong, but in the US it is common for doctors to give patients "samples" they happen to have lying around, because they suspect that the patient may not fill the prescription due to embarrassment or poverty. In this case, it is possible that the "bug" is an STD. Abductive (reasoning)01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
July 8
Information for parrot health (Goffiin)
Can you tell me information about what is considered the best amounts for a female Goffin (27 years) with regards to CBD oils, Bach Flower and Echinacea? That will increase the strength of her immunity and improve her feather condition? I read Rosemary Low's book a while ago but it was not specific. Thanks ---Iqbal. 146.200.126.176 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
CiaPan (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
