Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< May 9 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 11 > |
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. |
And spare me “jokes” about luminiferous ether. It’s just that there are obvious similarities between the attractive effects of those two forces on distant objects. (Although there seems to be no repulsive action with gravity). So, can magnetism curve space and slow down time like gravity? And if not, how does a magnet ATTRACT a distant object? Myles325a ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OP Myles325a back. Ok gogobera you SHOULD be sorry, because throwing Kaluxi—Zippi …Lapis—Laputski …Lupus—Kaluah …Whatever the hell those jokers are called—at me and then saying BYEEEE…. This is just what the other clown was doing. I would hardly be asking THIS question if I could UNDERSTAND anything on that page, would I? Now, instead of throwing someone to the most esoteric edges of physics, how about starting somewhere closer? Isn't it true that Einstein's General Theory received its first big corroboration when it was observed that light rays were deflected by the Sun's gravity? So, let me ask then, does Magnetism similarly deflect light? And it has been demonstrated that time slows down for objects in strong magnetic fields. So is anything like that observed in strong magnetic fields? And wouldn't such effects be much stronger as magnetism is so much stronger than gravity? And don't magnets just work on metals? In that case, how do those particle accelerators bend deflect those particles in a curve? See, just take it from there, and we will all be soaking up Kalitsy—CalvinKlein or whatever in no time at all. Myles325a ( talk) 05:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OP myles325a back. Again. Graeme Bartlett gets me confused by saying:
A magnetic field only has a very small effect on warping space-time. The reason is that a magnetic field contains energy. But you would need a collosal amount of energy in a small space to have a significant effect,…
Now, the ambiguity is: Are you saying that the BECAUSE a magnetic has energy it warps space-time, or are you saying that BECAUSE a magnetic field has energy it has ONLY A VERY SMALL EFFECT on space-time? Also, I thought that magnetism was much more powerful than gravity, as evidenced by my fridge magnets staying on my fridge even though the whole world is pulling them the other way. So why does not magnetism have a greater effect on space-time? And could you, with a sufficiently strong magnetic field, slow time down for particles a la neutron stars? Have any relativistic effects through magnetic forces been experimentally observed? Myles325a ( talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I sometimes see dogs and cats licking their privates. Do they ever do this to the point that they, shall we say obtain their jollies? FairmontMN ( talk) 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you reward a behavior irregularly, it will condition that behavior very strongly, even when the rewards disappear. If you punish a behavior irregularly, it will tend to prevent that behavior very strongly, even when the punishments disappear. What happens if you both punish and reward a behavior, both irregularly? Will the animal shoot up a convenience store? Black Carrot ( talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but the focus of my question isn't really on whether the animal will continue the behavior or not, it's what the side effects will be. See, if you do this to most humans, they'll get incredibly stressed-out and frustrated, whatever they wind up deciding to do about it. Some humans are pushed so far by conflicts like this that they become needlessly and self-destructively violent. I'm wondering whether animals have the same capacity for stress, and eventual mental illness, that people do, or if they respond to it more dispassionately, as merely a stimulus. Black Carrot ( talk) 07:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With ref to Michele Bini’s comment above, dolphins are NOT the only animals that engage in self-destructive behaviour when panic-stricken or in extreme pain. All the ‘higher mammals’ including horses, cats, dogs and apes can present with human-like symptoms of severe stress. Dogs which lose a much-loved master can show every sign of ‘nervous breakdown’ and clinical depression, both behaviorally and physically. Other mammals will go on rampages, chew their own fur and eat their own excrement, refuse food and howl incessantly. Apes will throw themselves against their cages. In a series of notorious but well-conducted experiments of the 1960s, researchers tormented dogs to the point where they not only had ‘breakdowns’ but showed every sign of having become permanently insane through terror and pain. These were ‘higher’ animals. I have no idea whether you can make a butterfly mad, or drive a snail to distraction. Myles325a (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cetacean_intelligence"
Myles325a ( talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nimur, thanks for your note re” “what you really meant”. Find below my response, which I am also posting to your Talk Page, and to OP Black Carrot.
There are many things in life that make me want to get down on the ground and pull up carpet tacks with my teeth, and one of the main ones is people who write or say something that reads as muddled or dead wrong and then, after they are taken to task for it, aver that the critic has misunderstood what was intended. The ensuing “debate” takes up everyone’s time, and WP talk pages, and archives, and bandwidth, and patience, and produces much more heat than light.
Your contributions, Nimur, are a copybook example of just such a skew-whiff dialogue. As WP is full of people waving hands and employing phrases that could mean any number of things, I will try to show you why writing clear English and saying EXACTLY what you mean in as concise and unambiguous way as you can, will render you far less misunderstood than you are at the moment. Before I continue might I ask you and others to re-read this and the preceding paragraph? You might not AGREE with the content, but is there anything at all there which you find less than crystal clear? Good. Then let's pass on to your recent offerings. I have put your words in bold type and my own comments in plain.
One of the assumptions of behaviourist school of psychological thought is that the behaviours are inherently dispassionate. Now what significance does dispassionate take on here? Let's not beat around the bush. Does this mean that animals don't feel pain, or that behaviourists don't believe they do, or don't care if they do, or don't believe that pain exists, or don't believe that animals feel pain the way humans do, or consider the subject of subjective feelings of pain as a metaphysical hobbyhorse external to scientific research?
And why would you opt for the murky term "dispassionate" rather than write "behaviours are inherently without emotion"? Dispassionate muddies the waters in this context because it can ALSO mean impartial, disinterested and the like. Are you using it as a "weasel word" because while it connotes "without emotion" it also tempers it with a soupcon of "impartial". Are the animal behaviours themselves "dispassionate" or are the scientists "dispassionate", or is it the methodology itself?
And what is the force of "inherently" here? How is "behaviours are inherently dispassionate" different from the shorter "behaviours are dispassionate". The addition of inherently would suggest that while some external observers might perceive certain animal behaviour as "passionate", objectively, that is "inherently", they are not. If this is not the meaning you intended, perhaps you could explain what you DID intend.
Now let us look at there are definitely realms where the simplistic experimental view of single-stimulus, single-behaviour, single-response mappings do not really hold well… Frankly, Nimur, there are NO interesting cases of animal, or human behaviour, which conform to the single-stimulus, single-response case. I spent a year of a University Psych course under a fanatical behaviourist learning about mice pushing levers for food. In the end, I ascertained that the good Professor preferred to record the highly circumscribed behaviour of mice because, as a scientist, he could not neatly explain what it is that HUMANS were doing, and as a border-line autistic, he was only dimly aware of the world of human experience, and cared even less for it.
A mouse pushes a lever and gets a food pellet. Great! Now, Cindy likes going out and often says "Gee, swell! When do you want to pick me up?" when she gets an invite, uh, sorry, the stimulus of a speech segment over a phone to that effect. But today, Cindy got just such a stimulus and replied to the effect that she was doing her hair. Now, we airy-fairy metaphysical types might just say that's because Cindy did not think that the boy who phoned was a "real spunk rat" or a "hunk". But, and I quote my erstwhile teacher on this, scientifically it should be said that there were "intervening variables" between the stimulus and the response, which made Cindy behave differently. What an absolute laff riot!! Everything—but everything—interesting in this episode lies in these "intervening variables". And as for Cindy, so for all humans, and the great bulk of life. It is another example of weasel words for you to say that the single stimulus – single response model does not (in some cases) old really well. Apart from jumping up when you sit on a tack and the like, there is NOTHING in life which can be described by such a mechanism, and it is an absolute indictment of the entire psychological "profession" that it was not laughed out of business when it was first proposed. So, do tell us, Nimur, what does "does not hold really well" mean?
Nimur, if you cannot quantify the stimulus – response model in life, can you at least quantify how often and in what circumstances human responses DO conform to such models? After all, if we are unable to record and quantify human responses, then we should be able to at least quantify the success to failure ratio of its predictions. My own estimate is that, after all those experiments, the success rate is close to zero. Millions of mice and pigeons pecked and pushed at levers and ran down mazes, and in the wash-up, decades later, I think it was B.F. Skinner himself who gave a description of how behaviourist theory can have some practical significance. Some college was having problems with student stragglers coming late for lunch and thus keeping kitchen staff waiting. Skinner suggested ringing a bell that would summon the students and then denying lunch to those who came more than 30 minutes later! Yes, we are indebted to Skinner and the behaviourists for this and many other such breakthroughs.
You end your piece on another weasel note. After noting that you did not say that animals did not feel pain, you finish with I don't see in any way how this has anything to do with the capacity for the animal to feel pain, nor the ethics of animal testing While OP Black Carrot's original post does not directly deal with animal cruelty, it broaches the subject of highly stressful / painful experiments in which an animal is rewarded and punished randomly for the same behaviour, and links it directly will existential pain felt by humans who might be exposed to such treatment in a social setting. It is hard to credit that you really have no idea how any of that can impinge on the broader topic of animal cruelty.
Moreover, I do not see why you simply do not declare yourself and say that what it is that you DO believe in this regard. Why duck the issue of animal (or indeed) human pain by sweeping it under the carpet of "complex behaviours"? And the question of animal pain is not a red herring. Descartes publicly propounded the theory that animals were no more than machines—a prototypically behaviourist notion—and that the noises they made when they were killed were no different in type to those of a creaking wheel. France, which still venerates Descartes has—for a European nation—a backward attitude toward animal suffering precisely for this reason.
But to get back to the main thread. Nimur, if you said exactly what you INTENDED clearly and without ambiguous weasel-words, then you would find yourself misunderstood on fewer occasions. As it is, if I have misunderstood you, then the preceding will give you fair indication why. Myles325a ( talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How does the copper tubing temperature sensor in a sauna provide feedback to the electrical control box to maintain the temperature?
Will throwing some water on the copper tubing sensor damage the control box?
Will intermittent water squirted on the copper sensor eventually damage the sensor over a period of time? Jaimegonzo ( talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
In a Rube Goldberg machine I am building, a marble hits 'something' which causes a pendulum on the top of a tower to swing back and forth a few times before it hits another marble which rolls down the tower. I'm having some trouble deciding what must be used to do what I just described. What should that 'something' I mentioned earlier be? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
In truth I have some ideas, it wouldn't hurt if I get some more. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just created the article geographic feature, but I'm not sure I've defined the class entirely correctly. I took some of the material from other Wikipedia articles, and I don't know if they were correct.
For example, are countries and other administrative divisions geographic features? What about imaginary lines like borders, the Equator, etc.
I said they weren't (except for settlements), but I'm not 100% sure.
Wikipedia isn't consistent on geographic features, landforms, etc., and it isn't clear what is or is not a geographic feature. The article landform implies that landforms are not geographic features.
I couldn't find a definitive treatment of what is or is not one, so that leaves a bunch of things up in the air:
What about national parks?
Nature reserves?
What about orchards?
And then there's the sea floor, and its features, like trenches, submerged reefs, etc.
I look forward to your edits and comments.
The Transhumanist 07:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone done a Fourier analysis on the screeching sound which can be made by chalk or fingernails on a blackboard. Does anyone know why this sound is so unpleasant. 90.206.167.42 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
hi, can anybody tell me how i would find the sugar content of grapes using the equipment found in a small lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.96.96 ( talk) 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can an aircraft able to transport a human being have the form of a flying disc? 217.168.4.133 ( talk) 12:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The concept of gaining command over the matter, that is the entire nature through the process of accelerated thought demands attention. Is there any model which presents the operative dynamics of "accelerated thought"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Ramakrishnan ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Dr.Ramakrishnan ( talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Asked my physics teacher a rather obvious question after being taught about cosmological redshift the other day: If the energy of a photon is given by E=hf (planck's constant * frequency), yet the frequency decreases over time due to the expansion of the universe, then doesn't this violate conservation of energy? Won't photons from distant stars lose energy before they reach us? Where does the energy go?
I've had four thoughts about this:
1. Is planck's constant really a fundamental constant? Could it change related to the age of the universe so as to conserve photon energies?
2. Is the problem here that cosmological redshift (though not redshift due to relative motion, which I understand has energy conserved in a specific reference frame) is a prediction of general relativity, which is incompatible with quantum mechanics (which is where I assume the E=hf equation comes from)?
3. Moving on from the last point, does general relativity actually include conservation of energy? what about other conservation laws?
4. If it does, then is photon energy somehow conserved in a specific reference frame within general relativity, and the apparent loss of energy due to considering the photon from different reference frames?
Or is it something else altogether?
JMatopos ( talk) 13:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Suppose, I'm filming a glass of vodka (or, generally any alcohol). How can I prove to the audience that this is vodka, not water? A litmus paper? -- 85.132.14.38 ( talk) 13:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can the aurora borealis be seen from space? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 13:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the explanation for the length of the magpie's tail. It must be an adaptation to something, but to what? Since both sexes have the same tail length it cannot be sexual selection. 217.42.89.22 ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Who invented a machine that destroyed itself on purpose? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the airport security system x-rays the same in strength at those at the dentists? If so, why do the dentists run out of the room when they use the x-rays but the airport staff are next to them all day long? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the average airport security system x-ray the contents of your stomach? For example if you were hiding something illegal in there would they find it? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can i use rechargeable batteries in television remotes? The instruction manual says not to use them. What damage would it cause? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is on the misc desk. Doesn't seem to work there, so I copied it here: (don't know how to move stuff) 71.236.23.111 ( talk) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Which method would be more reliable to measure soil moisture: resistance or capacitance? Does different soil type contribute much to the measured resistance/capacitance? Does capacitance method still work at freezing temperatures? I'm working for a automatic watering controller using soil moisture measurements and the accuracy doesn't have to be very high, but I do want it to work reliably between different soil types. --antilivedT | C | G 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
... in which the male is far tinier than the female, and ends up living parasitically inside her vagina (or fishy equivalent)?
thanks, Adambrowne666 ( talk) 17:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a gene sequence around its transcription start-site, so I'm using this Japanese website: http://dbtss.hgc.jp/ - I am interested in the TJP1 gene: http://ensembl.genomics.org.cn/Homo_sapiens/geneview?db=core;gene=ENSG00000104067
When, on the Japanese database page, I set the category to Ensemble(ENST), and insert the code ENSG00000104067, I get the message: Sorry, there is no hit data. Your search keyword is 'ENSG00000104067'. Is there an alternative to way? ---- Seans Potato Business 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I use this site for all of my searches. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What was the natural habitat of the seagull before humans started interfering with the environment and encouraged them into towns and cities? Are there any seagulls left that still live as nature intended? -- 62.136.203.112 ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Science desk | ||
---|---|---|
< May 9 | << Apr | May | Jun >> | May 11 > |
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. |
And spare me “jokes” about luminiferous ether. It’s just that there are obvious similarities between the attractive effects of those two forces on distant objects. (Although there seems to be no repulsive action with gravity). So, can magnetism curve space and slow down time like gravity? And if not, how does a magnet ATTRACT a distant object? Myles325a ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
OP Myles325a back. Ok gogobera you SHOULD be sorry, because throwing Kaluxi—Zippi …Lapis—Laputski …Lupus—Kaluah …Whatever the hell those jokers are called—at me and then saying BYEEEE…. This is just what the other clown was doing. I would hardly be asking THIS question if I could UNDERSTAND anything on that page, would I? Now, instead of throwing someone to the most esoteric edges of physics, how about starting somewhere closer? Isn't it true that Einstein's General Theory received its first big corroboration when it was observed that light rays were deflected by the Sun's gravity? So, let me ask then, does Magnetism similarly deflect light? And it has been demonstrated that time slows down for objects in strong magnetic fields. So is anything like that observed in strong magnetic fields? And wouldn't such effects be much stronger as magnetism is so much stronger than gravity? And don't magnets just work on metals? In that case, how do those particle accelerators bend deflect those particles in a curve? See, just take it from there, and we will all be soaking up Kalitsy—CalvinKlein or whatever in no time at all. Myles325a ( talk) 05:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
OP myles325a back. Again. Graeme Bartlett gets me confused by saying:
A magnetic field only has a very small effect on warping space-time. The reason is that a magnetic field contains energy. But you would need a collosal amount of energy in a small space to have a significant effect,…
Now, the ambiguity is: Are you saying that the BECAUSE a magnetic has energy it warps space-time, or are you saying that BECAUSE a magnetic field has energy it has ONLY A VERY SMALL EFFECT on space-time? Also, I thought that magnetism was much more powerful than gravity, as evidenced by my fridge magnets staying on my fridge even though the whole world is pulling them the other way. So why does not magnetism have a greater effect on space-time? And could you, with a sufficiently strong magnetic field, slow time down for particles a la neutron stars? Have any relativistic effects through magnetic forces been experimentally observed? Myles325a ( talk) 03:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I sometimes see dogs and cats licking their privates. Do they ever do this to the point that they, shall we say obtain their jollies? FairmontMN ( talk) 01:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If you reward a behavior irregularly, it will condition that behavior very strongly, even when the rewards disappear. If you punish a behavior irregularly, it will tend to prevent that behavior very strongly, even when the punishments disappear. What happens if you both punish and reward a behavior, both irregularly? Will the animal shoot up a convenience store? Black Carrot ( talk) 02:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Possibly, but the focus of my question isn't really on whether the animal will continue the behavior or not, it's what the side effects will be. See, if you do this to most humans, they'll get incredibly stressed-out and frustrated, whatever they wind up deciding to do about it. Some humans are pushed so far by conflicts like this that they become needlessly and self-destructively violent. I'm wondering whether animals have the same capacity for stress, and eventual mental illness, that people do, or if they respond to it more dispassionately, as merely a stimulus. Black Carrot ( talk) 07:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
With ref to Michele Bini’s comment above, dolphins are NOT the only animals that engage in self-destructive behaviour when panic-stricken or in extreme pain. All the ‘higher mammals’ including horses, cats, dogs and apes can present with human-like symptoms of severe stress. Dogs which lose a much-loved master can show every sign of ‘nervous breakdown’ and clinical depression, both behaviorally and physically. Other mammals will go on rampages, chew their own fur and eat their own excrement, refuse food and howl incessantly. Apes will throw themselves against their cages. In a series of notorious but well-conducted experiments of the 1960s, researchers tormented dogs to the point where they not only had ‘breakdowns’ but showed every sign of having become permanently insane through terror and pain. These were ‘higher’ animals. I have no idea whether you can make a butterfly mad, or drive a snail to distraction. Myles325a (talk) 04:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cetacean_intelligence"
Myles325a ( talk) 04:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi Nimur, thanks for your note re” “what you really meant”. Find below my response, which I am also posting to your Talk Page, and to OP Black Carrot.
There are many things in life that make me want to get down on the ground and pull up carpet tacks with my teeth, and one of the main ones is people who write or say something that reads as muddled or dead wrong and then, after they are taken to task for it, aver that the critic has misunderstood what was intended. The ensuing “debate” takes up everyone’s time, and WP talk pages, and archives, and bandwidth, and patience, and produces much more heat than light.
Your contributions, Nimur, are a copybook example of just such a skew-whiff dialogue. As WP is full of people waving hands and employing phrases that could mean any number of things, I will try to show you why writing clear English and saying EXACTLY what you mean in as concise and unambiguous way as you can, will render you far less misunderstood than you are at the moment. Before I continue might I ask you and others to re-read this and the preceding paragraph? You might not AGREE with the content, but is there anything at all there which you find less than crystal clear? Good. Then let's pass on to your recent offerings. I have put your words in bold type and my own comments in plain.
One of the assumptions of behaviourist school of psychological thought is that the behaviours are inherently dispassionate. Now what significance does dispassionate take on here? Let's not beat around the bush. Does this mean that animals don't feel pain, or that behaviourists don't believe they do, or don't care if they do, or don't believe that pain exists, or don't believe that animals feel pain the way humans do, or consider the subject of subjective feelings of pain as a metaphysical hobbyhorse external to scientific research?
And why would you opt for the murky term "dispassionate" rather than write "behaviours are inherently without emotion"? Dispassionate muddies the waters in this context because it can ALSO mean impartial, disinterested and the like. Are you using it as a "weasel word" because while it connotes "without emotion" it also tempers it with a soupcon of "impartial". Are the animal behaviours themselves "dispassionate" or are the scientists "dispassionate", or is it the methodology itself?
And what is the force of "inherently" here? How is "behaviours are inherently dispassionate" different from the shorter "behaviours are dispassionate". The addition of inherently would suggest that while some external observers might perceive certain animal behaviour as "passionate", objectively, that is "inherently", they are not. If this is not the meaning you intended, perhaps you could explain what you DID intend.
Now let us look at there are definitely realms where the simplistic experimental view of single-stimulus, single-behaviour, single-response mappings do not really hold well… Frankly, Nimur, there are NO interesting cases of animal, or human behaviour, which conform to the single-stimulus, single-response case. I spent a year of a University Psych course under a fanatical behaviourist learning about mice pushing levers for food. In the end, I ascertained that the good Professor preferred to record the highly circumscribed behaviour of mice because, as a scientist, he could not neatly explain what it is that HUMANS were doing, and as a border-line autistic, he was only dimly aware of the world of human experience, and cared even less for it.
A mouse pushes a lever and gets a food pellet. Great! Now, Cindy likes going out and often says "Gee, swell! When do you want to pick me up?" when she gets an invite, uh, sorry, the stimulus of a speech segment over a phone to that effect. But today, Cindy got just such a stimulus and replied to the effect that she was doing her hair. Now, we airy-fairy metaphysical types might just say that's because Cindy did not think that the boy who phoned was a "real spunk rat" or a "hunk". But, and I quote my erstwhile teacher on this, scientifically it should be said that there were "intervening variables" between the stimulus and the response, which made Cindy behave differently. What an absolute laff riot!! Everything—but everything—interesting in this episode lies in these "intervening variables". And as for Cindy, so for all humans, and the great bulk of life. It is another example of weasel words for you to say that the single stimulus – single response model does not (in some cases) old really well. Apart from jumping up when you sit on a tack and the like, there is NOTHING in life which can be described by such a mechanism, and it is an absolute indictment of the entire psychological "profession" that it was not laughed out of business when it was first proposed. So, do tell us, Nimur, what does "does not hold really well" mean?
Nimur, if you cannot quantify the stimulus – response model in life, can you at least quantify how often and in what circumstances human responses DO conform to such models? After all, if we are unable to record and quantify human responses, then we should be able to at least quantify the success to failure ratio of its predictions. My own estimate is that, after all those experiments, the success rate is close to zero. Millions of mice and pigeons pecked and pushed at levers and ran down mazes, and in the wash-up, decades later, I think it was B.F. Skinner himself who gave a description of how behaviourist theory can have some practical significance. Some college was having problems with student stragglers coming late for lunch and thus keeping kitchen staff waiting. Skinner suggested ringing a bell that would summon the students and then denying lunch to those who came more than 30 minutes later! Yes, we are indebted to Skinner and the behaviourists for this and many other such breakthroughs.
You end your piece on another weasel note. After noting that you did not say that animals did not feel pain, you finish with I don't see in any way how this has anything to do with the capacity for the animal to feel pain, nor the ethics of animal testing While OP Black Carrot's original post does not directly deal with animal cruelty, it broaches the subject of highly stressful / painful experiments in which an animal is rewarded and punished randomly for the same behaviour, and links it directly will existential pain felt by humans who might be exposed to such treatment in a social setting. It is hard to credit that you really have no idea how any of that can impinge on the broader topic of animal cruelty.
Moreover, I do not see why you simply do not declare yourself and say that what it is that you DO believe in this regard. Why duck the issue of animal (or indeed) human pain by sweeping it under the carpet of "complex behaviours"? And the question of animal pain is not a red herring. Descartes publicly propounded the theory that animals were no more than machines—a prototypically behaviourist notion—and that the noises they made when they were killed were no different in type to those of a creaking wheel. France, which still venerates Descartes has—for a European nation—a backward attitude toward animal suffering precisely for this reason.
But to get back to the main thread. Nimur, if you said exactly what you INTENDED clearly and without ambiguous weasel-words, then you would find yourself misunderstood on fewer occasions. As it is, if I have misunderstood you, then the preceding will give you fair indication why. Myles325a ( talk) 04:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
How does the copper tubing temperature sensor in a sauna provide feedback to the electrical control box to maintain the temperature?
Will throwing some water on the copper tubing sensor damage the control box?
Will intermittent water squirted on the copper sensor eventually damage the sensor over a period of time? Jaimegonzo ( talk) 03:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
In a Rube Goldberg machine I am building, a marble hits 'something' which causes a pendulum on the top of a tower to swing back and forth a few times before it hits another marble which rolls down the tower. I'm having some trouble deciding what must be used to do what I just described. What should that 'something' I mentioned earlier be? --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
In truth I have some ideas, it wouldn't hurt if I get some more. --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 03:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I've just created the article geographic feature, but I'm not sure I've defined the class entirely correctly. I took some of the material from other Wikipedia articles, and I don't know if they were correct.
For example, are countries and other administrative divisions geographic features? What about imaginary lines like borders, the Equator, etc.
I said they weren't (except for settlements), but I'm not 100% sure.
Wikipedia isn't consistent on geographic features, landforms, etc., and it isn't clear what is or is not a geographic feature. The article landform implies that landforms are not geographic features.
I couldn't find a definitive treatment of what is or is not one, so that leaves a bunch of things up in the air:
What about national parks?
Nature reserves?
What about orchards?
And then there's the sea floor, and its features, like trenches, submerged reefs, etc.
I look forward to your edits and comments.
The Transhumanist 07:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone done a Fourier analysis on the screeching sound which can be made by chalk or fingernails on a blackboard. Does anyone know why this sound is so unpleasant. 90.206.167.42 ( talk) 10:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
hi, can anybody tell me how i would find the sugar content of grapes using the equipment found in a small lab? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.96.96 ( talk) 10:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can an aircraft able to transport a human being have the form of a flying disc? 217.168.4.133 ( talk) 12:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The concept of gaining command over the matter, that is the entire nature through the process of accelerated thought demands attention. Is there any model which presents the operative dynamics of "accelerated thought"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Ramakrishnan ( talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Dr.Ramakrishnan ( talk) 13:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Asked my physics teacher a rather obvious question after being taught about cosmological redshift the other day: If the energy of a photon is given by E=hf (planck's constant * frequency), yet the frequency decreases over time due to the expansion of the universe, then doesn't this violate conservation of energy? Won't photons from distant stars lose energy before they reach us? Where does the energy go?
I've had four thoughts about this:
1. Is planck's constant really a fundamental constant? Could it change related to the age of the universe so as to conserve photon energies?
2. Is the problem here that cosmological redshift (though not redshift due to relative motion, which I understand has energy conserved in a specific reference frame) is a prediction of general relativity, which is incompatible with quantum mechanics (which is where I assume the E=hf equation comes from)?
3. Moving on from the last point, does general relativity actually include conservation of energy? what about other conservation laws?
4. If it does, then is photon energy somehow conserved in a specific reference frame within general relativity, and the apparent loss of energy due to considering the photon from different reference frames?
Or is it something else altogether?
JMatopos ( talk) 13:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Suppose, I'm filming a glass of vodka (or, generally any alcohol). How can I prove to the audience that this is vodka, not water? A litmus paper? -- 85.132.14.38 ( talk) 13:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can the aurora borealis be seen from space? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 13:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
What is the explanation for the length of the magpie's tail. It must be an adaptation to something, but to what? Since both sexes have the same tail length it cannot be sexual selection. 217.42.89.22 ( talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Who invented a machine that destroyed itself on purpose? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Are the airport security system x-rays the same in strength at those at the dentists? If so, why do the dentists run out of the room when they use the x-rays but the airport staff are next to them all day long? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Does the average airport security system x-ray the contents of your stomach? For example if you were hiding something illegal in there would they find it? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Can i use rechargeable batteries in television remotes? The instruction manual says not to use them. What damage would it cause? Mr Beans Backside ( talk) 14:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The following is on the misc desk. Doesn't seem to work there, so I copied it here: (don't know how to move stuff) 71.236.23.111 ( talk) 16:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Which method would be more reliable to measure soil moisture: resistance or capacitance? Does different soil type contribute much to the measured resistance/capacitance? Does capacitance method still work at freezing temperatures? I'm working for a automatic watering controller using soil moisture measurements and the accuracy doesn't have to be very high, but I do want it to work reliably between different soil types. --antilivedT | C | G 07:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
... in which the male is far tinier than the female, and ends up living parasitically inside her vagina (or fishy equivalent)?
thanks, Adambrowne666 ( talk) 17:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a gene sequence around its transcription start-site, so I'm using this Japanese website: http://dbtss.hgc.jp/ - I am interested in the TJP1 gene: http://ensembl.genomics.org.cn/Homo_sapiens/geneview?db=core;gene=ENSG00000104067
When, on the Japanese database page, I set the category to Ensemble(ENST), and insert the code ENSG00000104067, I get the message: Sorry, there is no hit data. Your search keyword is 'ENSG00000104067'. Is there an alternative to way? ---- Seans Potato Business 20:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I use this site for all of my searches. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
What was the natural habitat of the seagull before humans started interfering with the environment and encouraged them into towns and cities? Are there any seagulls left that still live as nature intended? -- 62.136.203.112 ( talk) 23:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)