Science desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	Current desk >

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

December 14[edit]

Testicular Damage Question[edit]

this is the same sort of requests for medical advice we've been getting for years from the same person regarding the same issue. Please do not entertain them further --Jayron 32 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

How much damage is there going to be to human male testicles and the tubes next to them (epididymis, vas deferens, spermatic cord, et cetera) if they are squeezed extremely tight nonstop for several minutes or maybe even a little bit more than that?

Also, is any of this damage actually going to be permanent? Futurist110 (talk) 02:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the ischemia caused, generally not much. Should check with the urologist for examination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.226.237 (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What would be required to create a large amount of ischemia? Futurist110 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is bordering on Selfharm.

Yes, see your doctor if you're concerned. But why would you want to do that anyway? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt to trigger testicular pain in order to get approved for a bilateral epididymectomy is one possibility. Futurist110 (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ischemic injury to testis is indication for orchiectomy not epididymectomy.

It sounds like you're asking us to help you commit fraud. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm closing this down. Futurist110 has spent years trying to seek advice regarding his own reproductive health. Please stop asking questions of this nature in this venue. Talk to an actual doctor regarding these issues. --Jayron 32 13:48, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If dinosaurs became extinct due to asteroid or extreme cold then how other animals survived[edit]

Dinosaurs are shown as very strong. If the reason which made them extinct that would have erased other life forms also. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abiyt (talk • contribs) 05:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing personal, but this is basically argument from incredulity. Also, some dinosaurs did survive; now we call them birds! Dinosaurs are/were enormously diverse, while "strong" is a very vague description. "Strength" doesn't have much to do with starving to death because the planet is darkened by an impact winter, which is what scientists now generally agree happened at the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction. No plants growing meant things dependent on them, directly or indirectly, starved to death. The life that survived either was able to make do with what remained, as with detritus-feeders like crocodilians, or wasn't dependent on plants for primary production, like hydrothermal vent dwellers, which don't give a toss what happens way up at the surface. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all groups of animals suffered extinctions at KT boundary. For instance, over 90% of all mammals went extinct. Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One theory is that anything above ground was toast by way of extreme heat. Only things that were underground, perhaps in burrows, or under water, survived. Those big dinosaur animals were cooked or starved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If "strength" mattered, the Northern white rhinoceros wouldn't be effectively extinct. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even today, animals rarely become extinct because they've all been killed off, but rather because their environment has been disrupted to such a level that their particular habitat is no longer viable. This may be a lack of food sources, or a lack of whatever else they depend upon for survival. That could be as simple as an adequate ambient temperature, if we follow a (now somewhat challenged) view of dinosaurs as cold-blooded. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Different features provide different advantages at different times. And being big, although it's a plus in a confrontation, it's not a desirable trait when you food is scarce. C est moi anton (talk) 06:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This can actually vary. As dinosaur discusses, the gigantism of some dinosaurs was likely driven more by the resulting ability to digest lower-quality food sources than by protection from predators. It's true that a larger animal requires more nutrients, all else being equal, but things like metabolic rate are also important. And also, a larger animal loses heat much less rapidly to the environment, thanks to the square-cube law, which means getting larger actually can result in a lower net energy expenditure in some environments. For illustration, giant dinosaurs' distant relatives, the hummingbirds, have to eat nearly constantly, because of both their sky-high metabolic rates and small size, which results in rapid heat loss. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinematically coherent?[edit]

Please define the phrase "kinematically coherent" in laymans terms with a view to verifying its use on Monoceros Ring ~ R.T.G 06:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It means the pieces move together (not together meaning "towards each other", but the "as a set" sense...all having the approximately same speed) rather than dispersing.[1] So in that article, one option is that there was some previously-existing ring ("progenitor") that is in the process of evolving into the Monoceros Ring, whcih would presumably mean their motions are not truely independent of one another. The other option is that they are two separate rings, each of which has its own independent motion (but of course any one ring has a unified motion as a ring...each is "kinematically coherent" itself else it would not remain in a ring formation). DMacks (talk) 08:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding but failing to describe it. It's sort of jargon, but if I can't describe it without a pamphlet... I'm pretty sure there's a word to do with connection or origin... Mind keeps saying "synchronised parallel motion" but that's not even accurate. Thanks DMacks o/ ~ R.T.G 10:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Something about "the particles that comprise the ring remain together as the ring moves, rather than dispersing or exchanging with an adjacent ring"? DMacks (talk) 10:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it's about the possible relation to the origin. If it is tied in motion to one thing or another. Not linked motion, but trajectory linked because they share a common origin. That's probably accurate but doesn't fit the sentence. It's says in my words, the study of the trajectory may suit a theory about another galaxy in "kinematic coherence". And I was left going... in... in... in... trying to get a commonly used phrase out. I wanted to put a word in parentheses (brackets) like that. Awk, if it's accurate and I can't be certain, I'm sure it will be okay :P~ R.T.G 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about ' a group of particles whose motion can be described using one 3 dimensional translational vector and one 3 dimensional rotational vector' , ie they behave as if they were a point cloud on a rigid body. Greglocock (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Translational" is quite technical in this context. One of the things it requires, apparently, is the motion to be in a non-rotational manner, which just isn't going to apply to the Monoceros. According to Wikipedia, "coherence" in physics is always about quantum studies, but "kinematically coherent" gets 4,000 hits on Google, seeming to be used just as widely in astro physics in that context, so a change is up in that area. ~ R.T.G 07:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

which type of wood this is ?[edit]

This wood was bought from Sargoha,Punjab, Pakistan. Which type of wood it is? It some thorn-like structure under the bark. https://i.ibb.co/4ggphWz/20191213-151627.jpg https://i.ibb.co/StQpFg6/20191213-151623.jpg https://i.ibb.co/p25txZc/20191213-151503.jpg https://i.ibb.co/d0ZCSRY/20191213-151449.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.194.226.237 (talk) 10:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The form and association with water suggest to me a type of mangrove. Wakari07 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]