Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2011 October 27

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.

October 27

At the time of when Islam was first arose...

Did we know of any other planets in the solar system? ScienceApe (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That would depend on who you talked to. Nevard (talk) 03:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The existence of five other planets has been known since at least ancient times, if not prehistoric, by pretty much everyone everywhere--at the very least Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and, I would think, Saturn. Mercury might have been harder to notice by prehistoric peoples everywhere, I'm not sure. I have never knowingly seen Mercury, but then I've always lived with urban light pollution. Anyway, see History of astronomy, Venus#Historic understanding, Mars#Historical observations, Jupiter#Ancient mythology, Saturn#Ancient observations, and Mercury (planet)#Ancient astronomers. Islam first arose in the early 600s AD, of course. What prehistoric and ancient people thought these planets were and why they moved through the sky the way they did is a different question. Pfly (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned here that the dawn of Islamic astronomy marked a real advance on earlier knowledge - an emphasis on empirical observation had long-lasting effects on the development of astronomy as a science. One should note that even today, many of the visible stars have names of Arabic origin: e.g. Aldebran, Deneb, Rigel, and all the other stars found in our List of Arabic star names. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

See classical planet - the Babylonians knew the planets and called them by sort of the same meanings under different names (i.e. Ishtar was Venus, Marduk was Jupiter, Nabu was Mercury, Nergal was Mars, Ninib was Saturn. I don't know how many of the correspondences in the roles of the deities with those of the Romans were invented or exaggerated after the fact by commentators. Wnt (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If a proton were the size of our sun...

How big would an electron be approximately? And if it were just one electron, about how far out would its probability cloud be if the proton were where the sun is? Just to be clear I'm aware that the bohr model isn't accurate. ScienceApe (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

An electron is a point particle, so it's unclear what is meant by the phrase "how big would an electron be". However, I can give an idea of some of the relative sizes involved. Expressing everything in the same units (picometers) for easier comparison, in increasing size, the charge radius of a proton is about 0.000877 pm, the classical electron radius (which isn't really the radius of an electron) is about 0.00282 pm, the Compton wavelength of an electron is 2.4 pm, and the Bohr radius is 53 pm. Multiplying those four numbers by the same constant gives 1 solar radius, 3.2 solar radii, 2,700 solar radii, and 60,000 solar radii, respectively. In comparison, 1 astronomical unit is about 215 solar radii, so divide those four numbers by 215 if you'd prefer to measure everything in AU instead of solar radii. Red Act (talk) 07:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The proton article gives a proton radius of 1.6 to 1.7 femtometers. The Bohr radius is 53 picometers. So we'd put the electron at 32000 solar diameters out. The solar diameter is 1392000 km, so that's 44 700 000 000 km = 299 astronomical units. Which oddly enough is close to Red Act's 280 despite the apparent difference in derivation. Wnt (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing particularly odd about it. The proton article gives the proton's diameter as 1.6-1.7 femtometers, which is roughly consistent with the 0.000877 picometer charge radius that I used, which is why our answers are roughly consistent. Despite your misspeaking above, you did actually use the 1.6-1.7 femtometers as a diameter in your calculation, not a radius, so that didn't create a discrepancy between our answers. Red Act (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I've been trying to do a very low calorie diet recently and for some reason these wrong word substitutions keep cropping up all over the place, despite a relative lack of other mental effects. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

See Electron#Fundamental properties. I don't pretend to know what it means, but after describing it as a point particle, it gives an "upper limit" of the electron radius as 10^-22 meters. —Akrabbim^talk 15:26, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That "upper limit" just means that with all experiments performed to date, it can be determined for sure that r < 10^-22m. Thus, experiment is consistent with the theoretical value of r = 0, since r = 0 and r < 10^-22m can both be true simultaneously. On the other hand, if an experiment some day were to find a strictly positive experimental lower limit to the electron's radius, that would be an inconsistency with the theoretical value of r = 0. Red Act (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Rods and cones in the male/female eye

I've noticed that my brother and I can usually see quite well in the dark, whereas many women I know have to strain their eyes to see things at night (like mountains) that I can see easily. This set me wondering, do females have less cones than males? If so, do they have more rods? And are the effects of this noticeable? Can females differentiate between colours better than males? Thanks, --T H F S W (T · C · E) 03:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure all of the specifics, but one key difference is that males are 16 times more likely to be colorblind than females, see Color_blindness#Genetics. My understanding is that a lot of color perception genetic coding is on the X-chromosome and consists mostly of dominant genes. In females, with two X-chromosomes, the presense of the recessive "color blindness" gene can be masked by the dominant gene on the second X chromosome. Males, with only one X-chromosome, don't have that second gene, so if they have the color blindness gene, it always manifests itself. I'm not sure what this means for general (non-defective) vision differences between males and females, but there may be something there. --Jayron32 03:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be stating your question backwards of how you're intending it. Rod cells are the ones responsible for night vision, and cone cells are responsible for color vision.

Number of rod cells would be only one potential difference that might affect night vision.

This study, at least, would seem to suggest that women might if anything tend to have better low-luminance visual acuity than men. Red Act (talk) 04:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this would be a hard comparison to make, because it takes a long time for night vision to reach maximum sensitivity. You would have to be sure that you were comparing males and females who had both been in the dark for equally long. Looie496 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Night vision may depend on eye colour. I believe I have read that people with blue eyes have better night vision than those with brown eyes. Some women are tetrachromatic, and do have superior colour discrimination.--Srleffler (talk) 17:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, got the rods and cones mixed up in my original question. I read the study, but since the youngest participant was 56 I think the results could have been because females' eye's don't go bad as fast as males' or something similar. And when I noticed this both the males and females had been in the dark for the same amount of time. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 17:25, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I would expect women to have better colour discrimination since I'm guessing they have more cones and less rods. But I'm wondering is if having better night vision probably means having worse colour discrimination, and vice versa. --T H F S W (T · C · E) 17:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Color vision also depends on the way you were raised, the language you speak etc. Count Iblis (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I looked for published papers about Himba color perception and found this one, which is linked from the Himba people article. Those researchers found that their Himba subjects' ability to recall colors was correlated with their color vocabulary (not just the basic color terms of the language they spoke, but each individual subject's vocabulary). I don't find that very surprising. If you're shown a color and later asked to pick it out of a lineup, you're more likely to succeed if you habitually use words like "magenta" and "violet". But if you're asked to match a color against a set of others, all presented together, your success rate isn't going to be any higher than someone who calls them all "purple", assuming you both have normal color vision.

The phenomenon shown in that BBC documentary, on the other hand, would be extraordinary and revolutionary if true, not to mention apparently at odds with the results of Roberson et al (all of whose subjects tested normal for color vision). Yet I didn't find a single paper about it. Serge Caparos seems to be a real researcher who has worked with the Himba, but his research seems to have nothing to do with color perception. That section of the "Himba people" article is marked [citation needed]. If you can find a published description of the experimental procedure and results, I'll read it. Otherwise I'm going to chalk this up to creative editing on the filmmakers' part. The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax is a good read. -- BenRG (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Laws of Physics

Is there any law of advanced physics that says that a body may travel from point A to B without actually having to cross the actual distance between these two points ( or any other possible path )?  Jon Ascton  (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are several features of quantum mechanics that pertain to your question. For one thing, at extremely small scales, objects don't really take any specific path from A to B, so much as take all possible paths from A to B; see Double-slit experiment. Also, objects can go from A to B by going through a region where the object would classically be prohibited from going due to energy considerations; see Quantum tunneling. Also, a qubit can be transmitted from A to B, without being transmitted through the intervening space; see Quantum teleportation. Red Act (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

That all only applies to quantum particles. For macroscopic objects, you're probably out of luck. Wormholes are probably your best hope. --Goodbye Galaxy (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There might be some scope in Brane cosmology#Brane and bulk if your body can exit the brane and travel through the bulk before reappearing in the brane. That, at least, is one possible (if unlikely) explanation for the rather speedy neutrons we've been hearing about recently. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You're only probably out of luck with macroscopic objects. Such objects obey the same physics as "quantum particles". There is a chance that they will tunnel or otherwise exhibit non-classical behaviour. That chance is simply extraordinarily small; small enough that events like that are not likely to occur even over the whole lifetime of the universe.--Srleffler (talk)

There are a lot of ways to interpret this question, but I think it's best to say no. Continuity and locality are extremely important principles of modern physics, "even" quantum mechanics. There's no relationship between distinct points A and B that doesn't involve points in between them. -- BenRG (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Heisenberg uncertainty principle dictates that the position and momentum of a small particle such as an electron cannot be simultaneously measured. Thus an observer cannot find the actual precise path, though this is different from having no path. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Night vision

Do people from the Far North tend to have better night vision than average? Seems to me that this would be highly advantageous, considering that it's dark for six months up there... 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This paper suggests that the high vitamin A content of Inuit diets improves night vision. The downside is that over-consumption of vitamin A can lead to some pretty nasty effects, including death in extreme cases. See Hypervitaminosis A and also Piblokto. SpinningSpark 11:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC) and 11:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The six months of Polar night is a common mistake. For example here in Cambridge Bay the polar night lasts from 1 December to the middle of January but there is a period of twilight, at least 4+ hours, each day. On the other hand somewhere like Alert, Nunavut, much further north than Inuit live, the sun does not rise from 15 October until 27 February and there is no twilight from 29 October to 13 February, just over three months of darkness.

I've never noticed that anyone has better night vision up here, in other words they may have lost the ability. However, that could be down to most people living in houses with electric lighting and street lighting the same as anywhere else in the Western World. Also today the diet includes a lot more Western food than in years gone by coupled with a reduction in traditional diets. Also there is the period from 20 May to 25 July (Cambridge Bay) when the sun does not set at which point the night vision wouldn't help. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was thinking more along the lines of genetic/congenital predisposition to better night vision. This is from my own personal experience -- I am originally from the Far North (although not that far north, where I used to live we didn't really have polar night in the winter) and when driving at night with only a crescent moon I can still see objects well beyond the range of my headlights (far enough that I can drive the daytime speed limit with complete safety, even on the freeway). But now I've been living in California for several years, and what I observe is that as soon as it gets dark everyone just starts driving so %#$@ing slow that it's downright maddening. What I was thinking about is whether there may be a link between the latitude of your birthplace and the ability to see well at night. But then again, maybe it's just me having the right genes for night vision? (BTW, I can also see just a tiny bit into the near infrared, which I found out when I first used a spectroscope in my high school chemistry class. Could there be a link between this and my night vision?) 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't explain it too well but that is what I meant. I couldn't find the exact quote but I did find this where hunters who should not and traditionally were not, dependant on the time of day were complaining about the lack of light. Of course they may have had better night vision in the past and the modern lack of it could be down to the change in diet and lack of vitamin A. See this and this. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. So, my being able to see by the light of a crescent moon might simply be a matter of eating lots of carrots? 67.169.177.176 (talk) 02:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

And in our case more liver. That second link to the "Age differences in vitamin A intake among Canadian Inuit." is correct in that younger people (I'm 55) don't eat liver much any more. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

How much heat can Asbestos withstand?

Pure or mixed with concrete or other materials. By withstand, I mean both how hot till it burns and how hot till whatever it's protecting gets significantly hotter. Thank you. Cliko (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Asbestos will not burn under any conditions, it will just melt if it gets hot enough. As for the second part, a sufficiently heavy layer of asbestos can protect human tissue against burns at temperatures of up to 1100 C or so (at least, that's what I've found so far). 67.169.177.176 (talk) 06:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, asbestos can burn, alright. Just introduce it to a sufficiently Lovecraftian chemical and stand well back! --Link ^(t•c•m) 07:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of a "normal" fire (oxygen as oxidizer), not ClF₃ or other suchlike exotica. (I presume that this was also the OP's intent, since he/she was asking about heat alone -- am I correct?) 67.169.177.176 (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The melting point of asbestos varies considerably depending on the type of asbestos, but can be above 1200C.[1] There are too many unspecified variables for the second part of the question to be answerable; about all that can be said is that the thermal conductivity of asbestos is about 0.126 W/(mK).[2] Red Act (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Egyptian battery powered lamp

Some time ago this year, I watched a program on Discovery channel and observed an Egyptian tablet that was discovered with various figures and signs on it. The one of very interest to me , is the one figure, if it is the correct term, was one indicating a light globe, showing light and connected to something that looked like a power source, can it be a ‘battery’? It will be very interesting if you can verify if it was a burning light? Jack Koopman Pretoria South Africa. [email address removed]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.62.33 (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the Baghdad Battery? The closest thing to expert consensus is that it may have been used for electroplating, but probably not for light. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There's also the Dendera light, which most experts believe is not depicting an electric light source, but which does bear a striking resemblance to modern light bulbs. Buddy431 (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems to bear a more striking resemblance to a surfboard, complete with the little cord keeping it connected to the surfer's ankle. A snake makes a cool decorative motif for a surfboard, but a lousy filament. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

not a science question, but...

Is the mathematics taught in Thomas' calculus enough to understand concepts presented in "principles of physics" (by Haliday)?--Irrational number (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

By "Haliday" I presume you mean Halliday, Resnick, and Walker. My recollection is that the book is designed to be used by students who have completed a basic calculus course such as Thomas. There might be some use of differential equations in Halliday, I don't remember for sure, but in any case I think you would be okay. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The old edition of Thomas I have, at least, does briefly cover ordinary differential equations, although not partial differential equations. Red Act (talk) 17:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think so. I don't actually have the Halliday book, but Thomas should be adequate as a mathematical prerequisite for pretty much any undergrad level physics textbook. You will need more math than what is in Thomas to understand all of undergrad level physics, but the additional math needed is in general presented within physics textbooks as it is needed. Not having actually looked at Halliday, I don't know for sure that that's the case with Halliday, but I would presume so just from the thoroughness suggested by the page count. Red Act (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Human pheromone, sextual attractant

A QUESTION TO WIKIPEDIA:

THIS EMAIL IS MEANT TO BE SENT MAINLY TO WIKIPEDIA FOR INFORMATION ABOUT TRUE RELIABLE STRONG HUMAN PHEROMONE SEXUAL ATTRACTANT. ALSO ANY HELP OR CONTRIBUTION TO ANSWER FROM KIND ; READERS IS HIGHLY RESPECTED; THANKS FOR EVERY ONE. PLEASE READ BELOW. PLEASE RESPPOND BY EMAIL: <email removed>

Sir/Madam; DEAR WILIPEDIA; My question is about: True -not gemmics- RELIABLE sexual attractant for both sexes, THAT REALLY WORKS.

In particular; I do kindly seek correct information about HUMAN PHEROMONE:

1- IS THERE A REAL TRUE HUMAN PHEROMONE THAT DO REALLY WORKS IN ATTRACTING OPPOSITE SEX? ATTRACTING FEMALES AND/OR MALES? PLEASE KINDLY RESPOND AND PLEASE STATE IF ANY TRUE PHEROMONE EXISTS AND DOES WORK TO ATTRACT FEMAL/MALE SEXES TO EACH OTHERS. IF ANY, PLEASE TO ADVISE OF THE BRANDS IN THE MARKET AND OR ANY PERFUME THAT HAS IN ITS STRUCTURE PHEROMONE SEX ATTRACTANTS FOR HUMAN. (I did have read the articles in wikipedia but eventually could not make an idea if there is any or how it is made or of any brand to buy.

2- Please to advise of how human sex attractant is prepared/made. please to advise of the steps and the ingredients and the sources; whether plants, animals, amino acids, wastes, sweat, urine.....................etc. PLEASE TO ADVISE OF THE SITES OR WIKIPEDIA PAGES - OR KINDLY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION- OF HOW TO EXTRACT IT IN STEPS. 2- PLEASE TO ADVISE ABOUT THE MOST REIALBE VERSIONS/BRANDS OF THE HUMAN SEXUAL PHEROMONE THAT ARE AT PRESENT EXISTING IN THE MARKETS FOR SALE. WHETHER BLENDED IN PERFUME/S OR BY ITSELF; OR IN LOTIONS, CREAM, SPRAYS, DRINKS, FOOD, PAPER TISSUES, HAIR PRODUCTS OR BLENDED IN CLOTHES MAKING AND OTHER HUMAN ITEMS.

3- RE THE ABOVE REQUESTS, PLEASE EIHTER 2 PROVIDE THE SOURCE/s for THE SPECIFIC REQUESTED INFORMATION; WHETHER IN WIKIPEDIA pages ( but please to be addressing specifcally the requested information, and not general information), and/OR FROM OTHER SITES OR FROM ANY OTEHR SOURECES ACCESSIBLE BY NAVIGAGTING MAINLY THE INTERNET; OR BOOKS,SELLERS, MAKERS....ETC IN ADDTION, PLEASE TO HELP TO ADDRESS SPECIFICALLY THE REQUESTED INFROMATION REGRDIING: MAIN RESOURCES INITIAL PRODUCTS TO EXTRACT/PREPARE, HOW TO EXTRACT AND/OR PREPARE IT, WHERE TO FIND IT, BEST REPUTED SELLERS, BEST BRANDS IN THE MARKET THAT TRULY WORKING FOR HUMAN, AND WHICH BRAND THAT WAS TRIED AND/OR TESTED AND HAS REPUTAION THAT IT IS TURLY WORKING, IN ADDITION TO THE FORUMS>( THE (CUSTOMERS USED IT; BUT NOT SELLERS AND PROMOTERS), WHO TRIED IT AND HAAPPY ABOUT THE RESULTS AND THEIR FEEDBACKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IF ANY.

SIR/MADAM;

I AM SEEKING WIKIPEDIA TO GET RELIABLE TRUE OBJECTIVE SCEINTIFIC INFORMATION. IN MY VIEWS, WIKIPEDIA IS THE ONLY SOURCE THAT WOULD PROVIDE RELIABE, BOJECTIVE, SCIENTIFIC UNBIASED INFOMATION REGARDING ITS TOPICS. BUT THE INTRNET AND SELLERS' WEBSITES SEARCH IS NOT THE BEST APPROACH TO FIND RELIABLE INFORMATION RE THE REQUESTED PRODUCTS. THIS IS BECAUSE MOSTLY ANY PRODUCT INFORMATION USUALLY FOCUSSING ON ADVERTISEMENTS AND FOR MARKETING AND PROMOTIONS TO MAKE SALES. ANY INFORMATION WIKIPEDIA MAY PROVIDE RE THE ABOVE IS HIGHLY RESPECTED AND VALUED. THANKS FOR UR PROMPT RESPONSE

ADAM

PLEASE CC EMAIL TO: <email removed> <email removed>

cheers

ps: Sorry for any POSSIBLE semantic, grammatical and/or spelling mistake/s; if any. I am from a non-English speaking background. what can I do? NOT MY MISTAKE....... SORRY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.2.26.145 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the e-mail addresses, which will only be used by spammer. We don't reply by e-mail on this board; if there is an answer, it will appear in the space below. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I removed the hatnote - capital letters are unusual but not a crime - some of us grew up in an age of the Apple ][. I've added some extra linebreaks, because in Wiki formatting they're ignored if there's only one, unless the line begins with one or more colons. If the capital letters are that hard on your eyes feel free to lowercase the text. Wnt (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to the question, the existence of pheromones seems to be a bit of a mystery - see [3] for an approachable reference. The best study I've seen is described in lay terms here [4].

I should add that I once worked around a colony of breeding mice now and then, and found the effect of their pheromones to be extremely distracting. They seemed to affect only female attractiveness, and particularly a sort of vaginal fixation which to me is quite atypical. Even women who were 100% not attractive to me were affected. I actually think that such pheromones might have a therapeutic function, because at the time I had had, for 30 years, the perception that women with east-Asian features were completely unattractive, but the pheromone made women like this attractive, and seemed to open my mind toward them permanently. I would love to see someone test these pheromones on pedophiles and see if they could be used to make them at least expand their preferences regarding age. Wnt (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Human sexual response to odors generally varies vastly more in proportion to the respondent's predisposition, mood, attitude, other emotional factors, other sensory input (e.g. appearance of stimuli) and for females, estrous cycle state, than the odor itself. The human olfactory system has about 1,000 separate receptor types, all of which attenuate. There are very few bona fide hormones released by human males or females, and those that are do not have a substantial effect on sexual response of the opposite sex. Whether general body odor is attractive depends also on nationality, upbringing, etc.; the same can be said for perfumes and colognes. Dualus (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

metric system

Hello

I am not familiar with your community, so please excuse my foolish question, that for sure was asked many times before.

For example Parasaurolophus like many other articles contains a lot of redundant information about length an weight in metric system and in short tons, feet etc.. That is disturbing by reading this article.

Why do you not use the metric system alone? You could display information in any other system by using javascript via mousing over a value. (small box by mouse over)

Please do not let me be misunderstood. I am in respect for short tons and feed and inch and miles and landmiles and gallons. But please understand in metric system every value has a strong logic relation to an other value. For example 1 kg Water is 1 liter and needs a cube of 1 dm. (Stone has a factor approximately by 2,1 no big deal)

So if I read about a bone 1 m and 25 kg, I can imagine a good picture about other values like density (in stone) or stability. Even if this values are not provided I can make myself a good estimation about the Object that you like explain to me. :-)

Further more it seems to me a question of writing style. Providing values in many systems is like a over-decoration in regards of "political correctness". But the whole world cannot understand it ...

2.213.212.216 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia. The US is a major English-speaking country, too big to ignore. Many people in the US don't understand metric units very well. Forcing the adoption of metric units is impossible, because whenever it is attempted, corporations make large campaign contributions to Congress critters, and the legislation is promptly watered down so that nothing happens. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. Whats about the javascript-solution that I proposed?

By the way, Wikipedia is not even a small entity. :-) YOU are in many aspects the unchallenged leading platform in science education in the world. Thats a responsibility I know. But it is also a chance to define standards. 2.213.212.216 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really a refdesk question, rather a WP:Village Pump kind of thing, but... It's not a matter of logic, but usefulness to the reader. For example, the air conditioners I've seen in the U.S. are rated in terms of BTUs. People who use them have their opinions about exactly how many BTUs they want to cool a given room. If you give a figure in watts, they won't be able to compare it to an advertisement or a product on the shelf - no approximate mental calculation is enough, they need the exact number. If they're going to need to make that mental calculation, it's only reasonable for them to post the results of it to the article in consideration of the next person. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, good point. :-) acclimatization. But it is also possible to acclimate to an other system. 2.213.212.216 (talk) 18:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If you'd think logically for a second, 2.213.212.216, it would be easier if you could acclimatize to the wikipedia convention that units tend to be specified in metric and imperial, than that you seek to get all those who prefer imperial to acclimatize to metric. Your reservations concerning style and readability pale into insignificance with the more important objective of immediate access to immediately comprehensible material and without javascript accessibility no-nos. You see? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Its not about the question "How much is it in inch". It is about the Question "Can I make myself a scientific imagination of a described object using a logic toolbox." In other words: "Can I provide a writing style that makes indulgence, enjoyment and scientific stringence at the same time".

Lets make a thought-experiment: What would be if Wikipedia would say: "We always use the metric system in all languages, starting 2012!" Just for imagination, what would happen? I really want to know your opinions. :-)) 2.213.212.216 (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If that was made a hard rule I think most Americans would stop using and contributing to Wikipedia, and seeing as Americans constitute the majority of users, editors and also donors, that would be the end of Wikipedia. Roger (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm ... Maybe you are right.

That's ridiculous. For science-related articles, the metric system is already predominant. Anyone with a scientific or technical background is likely to be competent in the metric system and aware of its advantages. The bulk of those who find it annoying are those who specialize in entirely non-quantitative subjects, i.e. humanities people like me. But that's soft opposition. As for honest-to-god ideological metrication-haters, they're already more likely to spend their time huddled together at Conservapedia, Fox News Nation, World Net Daily, etc. Most ordinary people wouldn't care, and would get used to whatever standard. LANTZY^TALK 18:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The advantages are somewhat overstated. The decimal stuff is useful for mental arithmetic in simple cases, but (i) other systems aren't that much harder, you just have to remember a few constants and (ii) most people don't do mental arithmetic anyway. For non-simple cases there's really no difference. Other advantages are things like not having to ask "now, is that a gram Avoirdupois or a gram Troy?" but those are somewhat marginal cases.

But the most important point is Wnt's below — Wikipedia is not a tool for reform. It's not anti-reform, just neutral. --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd entirely agree. I think anyone with a resonable education and knowledge of metric will know say 1680g is 1.68kg or 412 cm is 4.12m and these sort of things come instantly or very close to it and I don't think they are as rare as you suggest. Even if you're used to US customary or imperial, I'm guessing for most people if you ask them how much 22 ounces is it takes longer to figure out it's 1 pound and 6 ounces and even longer to figure out it's 1.375 pounds. Ditto if I ask about 53 inches. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks the People are loving this baby with all its peculiarity. :-)) *gg* But I am speaking as a german. People here would probably say "OK. If it is given as a hard rule we accept it. Enough for talking, lets go back to the workbench." 2.213.212.216 (talk) 18:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure if I understand your points. But I am absolutely sure that this WP is not only the best collection of information. Your system of work is the future of science and education. You are not only collectors. Just wait 20 years of manpower and development. You will become a very important voice in history and thats ... for right. 2.213.212.216 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The rule would be reverted after vigorous protests. I think, 2.213.212.216, you have seen too few of wikipedia's holy wars if you estimate that the gnomes would simply shrug and get on with their work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right. As I said I am not familiar with the indoor climate of Wikipedia.

But whats with small steps? The javascript-solution? Its fine. It makes things easy to editors ... every value is calculated automatically. And users can see how much is it in inch. 2.213.212.216 (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Unlikely to work well or smoothly with screen readers. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Styles_and_markup_options We already have templates which convert one unit into another and display both, so that advantages is already catered for. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I think if a usable solution is desired, someone will appear to realize it. :-)) If you only want it. Do you want to go a small step in this direction? Imperial (and others) as a additional Information provided via javascript. In every case a unit is used. Thats a benefit for many articles. 2.213.212.216 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

We try not to engage in magical thinking. We're content to follow screen reader technology, not provoke its extension. Really, this enthusiasm of yours is going nowhere. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The main thing is, Wikipedia doesn't have the purpose of improving how people measure things. It just prints what is known, as people know it. Get people to stop using non-metric units and Wikipedia articles will follow. Wnt (talk) 18:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

YOU are the most powerful entity in education. In my point of view there is absolute not reason to underestimate yourself. If you think something should be chanced by good reasons, you are the people who can do it. Nobody else could do it like explained above. Am I wrong with that? 2.213.212.216 (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong. The most easy thing would be for you to acclimatize yourself to wikipedias valid use of the metric (imperial) convention, than for you to seek to get wikipedia to acclimatize the views of millions of people who have one or other first preference. We are not here to proselytize your view of what would be best and don't agree the supposed benefit is worth the inconvenience to users. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It bothers me that our IP editor is being pushed in a certain direction because it would be the easiest path. Sometimes it's better to do the hard thing now to make the world a better place in the long term. Most of the world that was imperial successfully converted to metric during the last century by talking a long term view. Sadly, modern politics is built on the short memories of voters, so the USA probably won't metricate any time soon, but it's disappointing to see "take the easy path" becoming dogma in the world's most popular science resource. HiLo48 (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not about easy. We're not supposed to do it, period. This is part of WP:NPOV and is an absolute fundamental idea of the project. --Trovatore (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

If wikipedia were to decide to use metrics-only, it could trigger the mother of all edit wars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

What is your weight in Newtons? Wikipedia does well enough without trying to be entirely "metric" to be sure. Give then a centimeter and they will take a kilometer, as the adage goes. Collect (talk) 22:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm drifting off-topic here, but weight in that sense really means "mass". A person's weight, in the sense of how much force he exerts on what he's sitting on, has always been secondary except to chair-makers and so on; what has always mattered most is the quantity of matter, and this has traditionally been called "weight". Physics teachers somewhat arbitrarily insist on using weight to mean exclusively force, I think mostly to emphasize to their students that the gravitational force and the quantity of matter are not the same thing, but this linguistic distinction has no historical basis. --Trovatore (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The trouble with the thought experiment is it depends entirely on how it happens. If by some magic a consensus is reached to abandon imperial or customary units then I don't think the suggestions above are likely. There may be some opposition and people trying to edit war (likely leading to blocks) and some people will leave but the fact a consensus is reached is going to suggest most Americans aren't going to leave. As for donors, well it's difficult to say but while we may lose some I find it hard to imagine most will stop donating. However the chance of a consensus being reached to abandon imperial or customary as long as it has widespread use in the US is extremely unlikely. On the other hand if it's a foundation issues a directive to abandon imperial or customary it's easy to imagine it will cause quite a few people both from the US and elsewhere to leave, perhaps even a fork, or simply the board being voted out in the next election and the directive abandoned. If the foundation doesn't issue a directive but instead decides to organise a vote where a simple majority is enough to use metric exclusively and presuming the vote comes out yet (which I find hard to believe), again this is likely to be rather controversial and could cause quite a few people to leave. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick to God's units. Count Iblis (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cubits, talents, like that? --Trovatore (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually it would be fun to translate everything to the talent–cubit–day system and see how things shake out. What would the unit of capacitance be, for example? The farad is inconveniently large; who knows if this one would come out more reasonable. --Trovatore (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have an idea: 1 planck length = 1 splinter, 10⁹ splinters = 1 plank, 10⁹ planks = 1 pallet. Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Everything is dimensionless, but to make use of this fact one needs to correct for the fact that we've assigned units to quantities in an inconsistent way. Correcting for this amounts to switching to Planck units (up to some arbitrary overall scale factor). Count Iblis (talk) 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

A megasplinter! Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

On a more serious note, we really ought to use decimetres more- the centimetre, like its humanistic counterpart, the digit, is not appropriate for most of the uses it is put to. Nevard (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

In UK engineering, only metres and millimetres are used, to avoid confusion. BTW it's not just the US that still uses non-metric measure; we Brits still buy milk and beer in pints, have speed limits in MPH and road distances in miles, weigh ourselves in stones and measure our height in feet and inches (unless we're in hospital). Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I know young people who know their weight and height in metric. Also, I think we buy our milk and beer in multiples of 568ml, technically speaking. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The OP said the Parasaurolophus page contains a lot of "redundant information" in terms of metric and imperial measures. But looking at the page, I don't see any measurements except in the "Description" section, and there I count five total measurements in metric/imperial. While I've seen other pages with many more examples, this one doesn't seem so bad. Plus, the abbr=on parameter of the {{Convert}} was used (as it usually should be, I think), which greatly reduces clutter. So I don't see that page as being particularly troublesome, although I know there are other pages where the issue is more obvious. Still, I think it is in most cases helpful to provide measurements in both systems. An exception might be reasonable for very simple cases, like 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) (or the reverse), maybe. I tend to add convert templates to pages that don't display both measure systems, but not as much when it is simple and/or vague (eg, uses words like "about"), like "the waterfall is about a mile downstream from the bridge". Finally, on the idea that metric is superior to imperial, which this thread seems to have touched on--while the metric system has a number of obvious benefits, such as making many kinds of calculation easier, the imperial system is not without some benefits of its own, over metric. The one that has come up for me most often is when one is subdividing lengths into equal portions. There are 12 inches in a foot, and inches are subdivided into quarters, eighths, sixteenths, etc, and these subdivisions are clearly marked on rulers (both physical rulers and rulers in graphics software). The number 12 is highly composite, while 10 is not. And metric rulers do not show "division by two" very well--rather they show "division by ten" and sometimes "by five". In many cases, fractions like 1/4, 1/8, and 1/16 are easier to grasp and manipulate mentally than their metric equivalents, 0.25, 0.125, and...wait let me calculate half of 0.125... See what I mean? Pfly (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to our world, that's how we feel about imperial. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

With metrics, you don't end up with recurring decimals when converting halfs and fifths. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Just try dividing a meter by 3 and get back to me when you reach the last decimal. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, a different point - 1/2^k m can easily be converted into a decimal in centimetres with mental arithmetic. Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

True, but it gets harder and harder as k increases, whereas a pound of 16 ounces can be divided with less effort. Dbfirs 12:17, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but yyou end up with the same problem once you convert ounces to pounds. Besides, with metric you don't have to memorise how many increments there are in each unit of measurement. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many people don't know how many millimetres there are in one centimetre (not Wikipedia editors, of course). Dbfirs 06:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Metric is good for science, and scientists are comfortable with it. That does not necessarily translate to it being a superior system for the general populace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:41, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, we can agree on two things - firstly, in common use, neither system is inferior; secondly, in scientific use, metric is superior. Plasmic Physics (talk) 06:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Should not articles accommodate those of us who live by the FFF system? — Michael J 01:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)