Science desk
< August 30	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	September 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 31[edit]

Is there a way to help someone run faster?[edit]

Suppose a man and woman are both running away from a scary monster, and the man wants to help the woman run faster. This is a common scene in movies, and in said movies, the man usually holds the woman's arm to drag her forward. I've tried this before, thankfully without the monster, and it's an extremely uncomfortable way for both people to run. Neither person can swing their arms in synchrony with their legs, thus slowing both people down. Not only that, if the faster person pulls too hard, the slower person tends to fall forward instead of running faster. So, is there actually a way of helping someone run faster than she normally could? --99.227.95.108 (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being chased by a monster should do it. Emotional states and high adrenaline can cause people to outperform their own personal standards, but I don't know that there's a way, short of attaching rocket skates to her feet, for another person to aid her in running faster. --Jayron32 05:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that holding her arm won't work. But, if the man runs behind the woman, and with both hands on her sides, pushing her, she'll go faster. I've tried that and it works, balance is good, but there is a danger of feet contact, so the man has to run with his feet further to the sides. I should point out that my lady has longer legs than I do, so if there really was a scary monster, she most likely could outrun me. In any case, if the man is making the woman go faster by either towing or pushing, then he must be going slower than he could on his own. So, only do this if either a) you actually do love her, or b) you know for a fact that the scary monster only likes girls. I also point out that any test of strength, running speed, etc with girls is misleading. They do what they think will attract you, i.e., play the poor defenless female. Every girlfriend I've ever had has asked me to open jars etc. But they seemed to consume the contents just as much when I wasn't around. Wickwack121.221.84.138 (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of generalizing, this reminds me of the saying/song 'the female of the species is more deadly than the male' (especially if her offspring is in danger). I think they pretend to be helpless and defenceless but when the chips are down, they are just as (if not more) capable than men to help themselves out of socially perceived 'male-only' situations. I did a test a few months back... there was a faulty handle in the bathroom and I left a screwdriver and pliers in the bathroom, telling my wife how to use it if she couldn't get out. The first time she screamed hell and highwater and I had to let her out (save her from death by extended bathroom time). The second time I was not around and she screamed/cried a bit, then actually used the tools to make her way to freedom. I wasn't popular that week but I had proved a point to myself :) Sandman30s (talk) 08:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Wickwack and Sandman: That's because you actually tolerate women who pretend to be helpless and defenceless, like by refusing to open jars. Some people view that as disgusting, not attractive. --99.227.95.108 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. This aspect is culturally dependent. In Australia, if a girl asks you to do something, and you want the girl, do what she asks. I am aware that in Iran, for instance, no girl would dream of asking such things. Its a bit like opening doors for a lady. In Australia, a man opening a door for a lady is considered good manners. In some countries it may be an insult. Wickwack121.215.159.205 (talk) 10:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of running, women really do tend to be slower. It's not just due to shorter legs. Wider hips also make running less efficient, and a higher fat-to-muscle ratio means less sprinting power (although it might help in a marathon). StuRat (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skinny is good when it comes to marathon running. Sprinters should be 2.5% lighter than the average person while long-distance runners should be 15% lighter according to this article. Just look at these ladies. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly they can't be obese, as that would interfere with efficient running (fat thighs would have a similar effect to wide hips, resulting in more of a waddling motion, and loose, bouncing fat is bad, too). However, exactly how thin they should be would be affected by the precise conditions of the marathon. Specifically, cold weather runs (especially in strong rain and wind) without the ability to consume energy drinks along the way are conditions where having a bit more fat to burn might be helpful. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone burns fat during a marathon, whatever the weather. Top athletes now reduce carbohydrate intake to maximise fat burn Fuel On Fat For The Long Run. But the amount of body fat needed for this is really small and I've never seen an elite marathon runner who wasn't as thin as a stick. See Wilson Kipsang, Paula Radcliffe or Deena Kastor. But we digress. Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can help someone run faster without slowing yourself down by letting them run in your slipstream. It's not a particularly large effect for humans running (it's more important for lobsters walking along the seabed, and cyclists), but every little helps. --Tango (talk) 11:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for saving your g/f from a monster, how about getting the monster to chase you, say by throwing things at it ? Also, many shoes women wear are less than useless when it comes to running, so get her to kick off her stiletto heels before running. And, as a bonus, the monster may then decide she's no longer pretty enough to chase. :-) StuRat (talk) 08:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Throwing things at it assumes that the monster is too dumb to go for the easier target and then use her as a shield. Wickwack120.145.10.162 (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the initial sprint of a few hundred meters, pulling or pushing the slower person might not help. but urging them to kick off any inappropriate shoes and run like hell might speed things along. In movies. the woman usually falls down, to add suspense and an occasion for the film to show a view of the monster gaining on them. Similarly, in movies, the runners always stop occasionally and look back, for cinematic effect. In military and some sports training intended to build a team, the more fit runners actually do physically help the exhausted runner along once he/she is winded and unable to continue the pace. At that point, if they were ascending a grade, for instance, putting an arm around the tired runner could materially speed them along and keep them moving. So in the initial sprint its "Feets, do your stuff!" with some benefit from vocal encouragement, but when exhaustion sets in an arm around the person's back can help them move along. Edison (talk) 15:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In this YouTube video, exhausted soldiers are pushed, pulled and shouted at with varying degrees of success (from 5:40). Having an impressive moustache seems to help too. Alansplodge (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good-looking[edit]

Duplicate Ankh.Morpork 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What makes people good-looking; is there any objective criteria such as symmetrical features which influence people's perception?
Why are we predisposed towards selecting better looking people as partners? Isn't there an increased potential of infidelity?
Has people's perception of 'good-looking' changed over time? Ankh.Morpork 14:11, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we just answer this question above or on another desk? See physical attractiveness and the prior discussion. --Jayron32 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Count up 6 threads. It was asked yesterday. --Jayron32 14:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Corneal vs Cataract Transplants[edit]

Hello. How are opthalmologists able to determine whether a patient has had a cornea or cataract transplanted just by looking at the eye? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-expert with a dangerously small amount of knowledge I would suggest that following a cornea transplant there would be a detectable (perhaps under magnification) circular scar on the cornea. When a lens with a cataract is removed it does not require the removal of the whole cornea, just a small incision, usually near the outer edge of the iris, big enough to remove the damaged lens and (nowadays) insert a replacement. Richard Avery (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SR & QM unification[edit]

How plausible is it that the two theories have not been unified because of some minute error way back in the 1800 -1900's that has since been so baked into the equations and laws that it is virtually undetectible now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.212.189.187 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special relativity and quantum mechanics have been unified for ages; there is no difficulty there. The problem is with general relativity. Looie496 (talk) 16:56, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Quantum gravity describes quite well some of the issues surrounding the marriage of general relativity with quantum mechanics. As noted, special relativity has no such problems, because the sticking point is gravity, which is the domain of GR. Theory of everything and Physics beyond the Standard Model dontains some of the theories and development at the vandguard of this area. --Jayron32 17:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK General Relativity then, same question.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, same answer then. --Jayron32 17:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the part where you say how plausible my question is?165.212.189.187 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plausibility is not something we have the ability to provide references for. You can make up your own opinions about that, for anyone here to do so would be pure speculation. I have done what the mission of this page is for, which is to provide references to information. After reading about the difficulties that exist between marrying the two theories into a single cohesive theory, you can decide for yourself how plausible that marriage is. If you have any questions about the text of those articles, something you don't understand or need explained, we would be happy to help clarify or provide more references. But questions about how "plausible" something is are not answerable in the way this forum works. It is what it is, and the two theories have not been maried as yet. The articles already cited explain why. --Jayron32 18:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity wrong in back in time, and QM wrong in randomly , it should have united, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.91.170 (talk) 18:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hello water nosfim -- 203.82.95.168 (talk) 08:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our lack of knowledge of statistics comes from the movement during the time dimension, and it affects slightly on the wording theories, BELL talked little about causality and localty and it should incorporate . yes ? water nosfim , thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.91.170 (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the twin paradox we Supposed be solved through parallel universes and not relativistic time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.218.91.170 (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC) , thanks water nosfim .--81.218.91.170 (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Special relativity is basically just Lorentz symmetry. There's no minute error you can make in defining Lorentz symmetry; if it doesn't hold, its replacement will have to be something a lot more complicated. Quantum mechanics also has a very special form and it's either right or it isn't. There's more freedom in defining a relativistic theory of gravity. General relativity is a remarkably simple theory and it's still in perfect agreement with experiment, but it has always had rivals. Still, if there were any simple alternative to GR that led naturally to quantum gravity, I'm pretty sure quantum gravity researchers would have found it by now. So I would rate this as highly implausible. -- BenRG (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There actually isn't a real problem here, the issue is simply that the field theory you get is nonrenormalizable. Count Iblis (talk) 02:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ebola Carrier Found[edit]

I recall reading a story that bats were determined as the carrier of Ebola Virus. Apes, as well as indigenous natives apparently eat dead bats and get the virus in that manner. Why hasn't Wikipedia updated this latest scientific discovery into the Ebola web page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.226.55 (talk) 19:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see it in Ebola#Risk factors. Well I see about eating partially-eaten fruit, rather than eating the bats themselves. It's from references going back to at least 2007. If there is newer information available, someone would have to post the actual reference/citation to support it. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently on holiday on an island where even the restaurants have bat on the menu. Greglocock (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GOD, I hope for your sake your room doesn't smell of sulfur. See (or, better yet, don't see) Popo Bawa. μηδείς (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask for it to be "well done". Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for why Wikipedia is not expounding on "the great new scientific finding you just read about" is always either: A) No one has volunteered to do it yet; or B) the media totally overstated the significance of a recent finding. I'm sure if you post a link to the story you read, someone here will be happy to update the article, if appropriate. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:25, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]