Science desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	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.

October 13[edit]

Tessalate a sphere with magnetic frusta[edit]

If I had a load of appropriately shaped frusta magnetized with their North poles on their bases which I then assemble into a hollow sphere, what would the magnetic field lines look like? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:8089:C4C5:1392:7CE8 (talk) 19:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I am understanding your question, it would look similar to that shown in sextupole magnet, just extended to a sphere. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

that sextupole has alternating North and South poles. The configuration I'm thinking of covers the entire surface of the sphere with North poles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:8089:C4C5:1392:7CE8 (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gauss's law for magnetism states the net magnetic flux through any closed surface is zero. Mathematically, it is written in the integral form as: ∬ B → ⋅ d A → = 0. The consequence is that magnetic monopoles cannot exist. Magnetic field lines form closed loops and there can be no such loops external to the magnetized pieces that the OP assembles into a complete sphere. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 18:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So the magnetic field would simply disappear as soon as the sphere was assembled?

Yes. As the assembly nears completion the magnetic field intensity through the remaining gaps increases. Do not attempt this assembly with strong magnets without the precautions you would take when handling a fragmentation grenade. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 11:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the field intensity through the gaps increases as the gaps get smaller but at some point (as the gaps close presumably) a limit is reached, other effects take over, and it drops to zero? Is that it? What are those other effects?

The external magnetic field is suppressed as you do the work of pushing the last magnet into a hole where it doesn't want to go. Please sign your posts. 84.209.119.241 (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Scientific principles behind dating coaches[edit]

Is there any scientific evidence or basis behind what pick up artist and dating coaches say? 90.192.96.214 (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Dating coach? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? That article doesn't seem to address the question at all. 2003:E8:B726:D00B:C855:136D:9C9C:94E6 (talk) 11:11, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one who wants to know. The OP gave no indication of having read it. If they had, they would have discovered that these so-called dating coaches are often unlicensed. So their scientific principles are liable to be just as good as any other unlicensed profession's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also don't follow: the question was whether there are any scientific principles behind this practice but clearly the article doesn't address it at all. And the point about licensing is fully irrelevant because if a profession needs or not a licensing has nothing to do with its scientific fundaments. So you didn't say a single word helping to answer the question. 2003:F5:6F11:9700:C4E2:290F:31BC:51B2 (talk) 13:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

Don't let that stop YOU from finding evidence to support it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all of the science is mentioned in the article's lead and the OP's question would be best pursued by s/he going down whichever of the links there seems closest to their interest. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, please don't try to make an editor look stupid by removing the comment (s)he replied to. As those links indicate, some health professionals are licensed, which indicates they have a minimum standard of knowledge. They also say that some coaches have no formal expertise. On the subject of unlicensed practitioners generally, there is a certain risk. After a session with an unlicensed chiropractor who had been manipulating his neck a man called out to his wife "I can't move!" and died shortly after. 92.27.12.232 (talk) 15:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banned users are not allowed to edit. Following VW's lead on another page.[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another example - a woman had a session with a masseuse. She was asked to lie on a table, and the masseuse without warning dropped the top half of the table six inches to get a better position. The woman broke her back. 92.27.12.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's your source for that claim? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:21, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Florists are licensed in some states; does that mean flower-arranging is more scientific there than elsewhere? —Tamfang (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To get back the question, it's obviously impossible to answer without knowing what they say. Do they all say the same thing? Of course not. Some of them might well be basing what they say on solid scientific evidence. Doubtless many are not.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It never occurred to me that dating was a scientific subject. There are basic social skills involved. Some people lack those skills and can be helped by coaching. As a simple example, bathing regularly anecdotally improves one's dating prospects, but I doubt that anyone has done an RCT. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 08:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the "science" aspect refers to the possible testing of the methods rather than something being innately scientific about dating or casual sex. Human interactions are horribly difficult to parse at that kind of specific level. A method that worked for Leonardo DiCaprio might not work as well for an ugly schlub like me, but even that would depend on a host of other factors. I get the sense that many pick-up "artists" resort to a No true Scotsman explanations. "I tried X and it didn't work." "Well then you really didn't try it properly." Matt Deres (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having a lot of money helps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When women are asked for what they look for in a husband it basically boils down to "being rich". 2.31.65.97 (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]