Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Addition Reaction of Alkynes to Alkenes

https: //mander.xyz/pictrs/image/12b51d24-e090-4a6b-9cf7-b6ec674d99c3.jpeg What is this stuff? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 12:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:Eagle's minimal essential medium. Not sure about the joke though. I assume it's a single node in some gigantic meme-based causal network i.e. you had to be there. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:The image is a cut-out of a [https://c8.alamy.com/comp/KGGH7B/young-male-scientist-and-laboratory-refrigerator-KGGH7B.jpg stock photo]. The fridge itself is a household fridge, not a typical lab fridge, even though the image is used by a provider of refrigerators that comply with laboratory standards. The posting (of May 19) is on Facebook [https://www.facebook.com/mouthspipettes here]. I don't get the joke, but many of the jokes on the user's page are super nerdy, supposed to appeal to people working in biochemistry labs.  ​‑‑Lambiam 16:00, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks all, I suspect none of us are really missing much. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 17:39, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:It probably is a joke about men consuming protein powder to build muscles, but here using an enhanced amino acid growth medium instead. A man is not merely reduced to a body full of muscle, but now to a collection cells. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

The universe is supposed to be 13.8 billion years old, while the observable part has estimated radius 90 billion light years. The discrepancy is explained by the expansion of space, particularly during the inflationary period. I'm not asking about the explanation right now. I'm just wondering whether the apparent contradiction has a name, like "so-and-so's paradox". I couldn't find anything about it by clicking in some of the relevant articles. Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:A690:D665:179B:79F0 (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

:You can read comoving and proper distances. Ruslik_Zero 20:35, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 25 =

I've been reading Abiogenesis and unless I'm mistaken it doesn't answer the question, or maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff. Non-philosophically speaking, is there a point for life in the Universe or it's an unanswerable question? As in, do habitable planets possibly exist for an objective reason? Matt714931 (talk) 13:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:I wonder whether you might be interested in Blaise Agüera y Arcas's work and his book, [https://whatisintelligence.antikythera.org/ or the first part] anyway. Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:33, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:It's a question that science can't answer, because there's no way to test any hypotheses about it. Science answers "how", not "why" -- questions of causality, not intent. (When science answers a "why" question like "why is the sky blue?" it's really answering the question of "due to what mechanism", not "for what purpose".) Plenty of people have speculated about the purpose of life, but that's philosophy, not science. -- Avocado (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::One of the few things philosophers and scientists agree on is that asking for the meaning of life, the universe, and everything, is not within the province of science. This applies not only to the question, "what does it all mean?", but even to the question, "does it mean anything?".  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Matt714931. Unfortunately we don't yet have a philosophy reference desk, and we are not supposed to speculate here, but we do have an interesting article on the meaning of life. Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:52, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, the Humanities desk is supposed to cover philosophy anongst other areas, but of course it's for answerable questions, not extended discussions of unresolved ones. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.154.147 (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

::As I stated I was looking for an "non-philosophically speaking" (and especially anthropocentric) answer. Maybe I didn't phrase it correctly, I'm more looking into finding out theories as to why there is life at all, when it does not seem to change anything (no relationships) from the standpoint of Existence, i.e. the Universe. Things were around before the Earth was habitable and things are going to be around after. The conumdrum is even bigger if we're indeed a biological rarity. Whether the Earth is a barren crater or not doesn't seem to change anything. Matt714931 (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You might as well ask "what is the point" of the universe itself. There's nothing in science that requires there to be a "point" for the existence of something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Why there is life at all could be because it is inevitable. At the very least, it changes the amount of computation and complexity, locally anyway. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, you said anthropocentric ... there's the Anthropic principle which says that we can't observe the absence of life since that would entail the absence of us. Physics presumably doesn't entail life, so far as we know. This depends on how likely life is, which is an open question.  Card Zero  (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The deeper question is Why is there anything at all?. DMacks (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

: The Creator is uber-Trumpian in his Supreme Narcissism. He requires there to be sentient beings to adore and worship Him forever. Rocks and gases can't do that, so we're the next cab off the rank. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

::The purpose of life is to keep the Supreme Fascist’s "score" low by acting in good conscience.^{[https://jewishcurrents.org/september-20-paul-erdos-world-mathematician]}  ​‑‑Lambiam 21:43, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

:Abiogenesis (the origin of life) remains a mystery, and the mechanisms of how organisms arise naturally from non-living matter remain controversial. Scientists are generally believed that life on Earth originated from a series of chemical reactions that gave rise to complex molecules, which then evolved into self-replicating systems and eventually cells. If this process can occur on Earth, then it should be able to occur anywhere in the universe given the right conditions. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:30, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 29 =

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hd2XrjFBXW0

The research mentioned appears to relate to using direct stimulation of cones.

Does anyone have a direct citation for the relevant paper ( if published) ?

: The approach also got me thinking, various anecdotal accounts of the impacts of pharmacological effects of certain psychidelics have allegedly included increased or more vivid colors. What papers constitute a reasonable basis for explaining this mechanism, that could be used as a basis for determining if pharamocological influences, can create an enhanced cone simulation or response, simmilar in effects (although not mecahnism) to the laser 'microdose' technology developed by UC Berkely?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

:"Novel color via stimulation of individual photoreceptors at population scale".^{[https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adu1052]}  ​‑‑Lambiam 19:30, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

= May 31 =

Is there any substance to recent reports that Amelia Earhart's plane allegedly may have been found? In other words: did they actually find any plane debris at all, and if so, what type of aircraft did they find? (I'm asking this because I've seen a number of recent videos alleging to have found Amelia's plane, but all of those videos showed planes of the wrong type -- for example, one showed the remains of what looked to me like a Junkers 52, and another showed a largely intact plane which could be an Ilyushin Il-14 or Saab 90 Scandia or similar, but was in no way, shape or form even remotely like an Electra 10-E!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:20FE:78DB:A092:17F4 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The rumors are based on [https://www.instagram.com/p/C2nFP3lLfb0/ this Instagram post] of January 27, 2024 by deep water exploration company Deep Sea Vision, who spotted an anomaly said to be shaped like the Lockheed Model 10 Electra, at a location that is not implausible under [https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-happened-to-amelia-earhart a new theory of a navigational error]. [https://www.historynet.com/amelia-earhart-found/ In this article] we can see (in the last illustration) an image of the anomaly next to a representation of the Lockheed. Personally, I find the similarity less than convincing.  ​‑‑Lambiam 10:14, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::I agree. It looks more like Earhart's jet, the one with swept-back wings. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I concur -- the image looks to me more like a Chance-Vought F7U Cutlass or a Grumman F-9 Cougar, which BTW both happen to be about the same size as the Electra -- and given that our Navy has always (since at least the 1930's) performed carrier operations pretty much everywhere in the Pacific Ocean, and that carrier operations are inherently dangerous, it's very plausible that they might have lost one of those in that area! (In any case, I'm pretty sure there are more than enough aircraft of all kinds on the bottom of the Pacific to start an undersea airline!) 2601:646:8082:BA0:1DA0:4169:3D3F:16BA (talk) 21:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The aircraft is unlikely to be completely intact, regardless of what it is. It would have to have survived a controlled ditching (at best), followed by impact with the seabed when it sank, and then all the effects of corrosion etc that lead to breakup of objects in the sea. The apparent 'sweep' could be the result of any of that. Certainly the image lacks anything like the detail to say for sure that is an Electra, but likewise, taking into account the likely damage, it would seem unwise to say definitively that it isn't. Anyway, we aren't being asked to pay to send an ROV down to take a look. If anyone does, we'll find out one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Could be, but it seems unlikely. It would have to be just in the range of bend, but not break (off) and roughly equally on both sides. Googling pictures of underwater aircraft show perpendicular wings still perpendicularing when they're attached. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::[https://www.instagram.com/deep.sea.vision/p/DCDAxFRhajT/ Here] is a sharper image.  ​‑‑Lambiam 04:58, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It looks like an anchor. DuncanHill (talk) 07:48, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::According to the text associated with that photo: "After 11 months the waiting has finally ended and unfortunately our target was not Amelia's Electra 10E (just a natural rock formation).. As we speak DSV continues to search - now clearing almost 7700 square miles... the plot thickens with still no evidence of her disappearance ever found... let us know what you think - did she run out of gas near Howland Island?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:20, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::The human brain tries to make sense out of random objects. Hence the story about a "face" on the surface of Mars. Or for that matter, the Old Man of the Mountain, and the Man in the Moon. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:36, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Earth_heat_balance_Sankey_diagram.svg illustrating a balanced example of Earth's energy budget. Line thickness is linearly proportional to relative amount of energy.^[18{{)!}}]]

The flow diagram I once drew shows that the energy arriving at the Earth balances the energy leaving, as per its references.

As the Earth produces its own heat through radionuclide decay, shouldn't there be a flow coming in from elsewhere to join the flow "Radiated to space"? Is it negligible, or already lumped into "Absorbed by ground"?

Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 08:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The total solar irradiance is about 1361 W/m². To get the incoming energy from the Sun, this needs to be multiplied by the cross-sectional area of Earth, about 127×10¹² m², giving about 173×10¹⁵ W.

:According to our article Earth's internal heat budget, the flow of heat from Earth's interior to the surface (which comes in roughly equal amounts from the radiogenic heat and the primordial heat left over from the formation of Earth) is estimated to be no more than 49×10¹² W. This is less than 0.03% of the total budget, indeed a negligible fraction. It is, however, significant on the Earth's energy imbalance of about 460×10¹² W, although, AFAICS, not accounted for in ref 1 of the article Earth's energy budget.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:46, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks very much for doing the maths, Lambiam. Guess no change is needed to the diagram then. cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 09:42, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

If you know about Butia palms, please see :c:Commons:Village pump#Butia_odorata_or_Butia_capitata. :File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg is titled and captioned as Butia capitata, but it is presented on Butia (and :commons:Category:Butia odorata any many other pages) as Butia odorata. I wasn't sure where the best place to report this was, so I've gone with reporting it on Commons and posting this notification here. -sche (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:A possibly relevant comment from 2018: {{section link|Talk:Butia capitata#This article is actually about another species}}. Note, though, that :File:Butia capitata Madrid.jpg was not used on page Butia capitata, but :File:Butia capitata, Tresco.JPG – which the commenter replaced with the current image.  ​‑‑Lambiam 05:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 2 =

I can understand why surgery can’t be done in all cases, but is there reasons for not attempting vagus nerve stimulation when drugs don’t work ? Are there cases where peoples end up in a wheelchair for the remaining of their lives because of too much frequent seizures in their legs ?

To be clear, I’m not talking about seizure induced permanent brain damage, but about seizures happening so frequently in legs and arms that it’s impossible to walk between 2 rooms.2A01:E0A:ACF:90B0:0:0:A03F:E788 (talk) 14:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

:It appears you are referring to myoclonic seizures, which exist in a variety of types and forms. Vagus nerve stimulation has proved effective in many cases,^{[https://nyulangone.org/conditions/epilepsy-seizure-disorders/treatments/vagus-nerve-stimulation-for-epilepsy-seizure-disorders]} but to what extent it can be expected to help in a given individual case should be discussed with a specialist.  ​‑‑Lambiam 07:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 3 =

My goffin cockatoo sometimes likes to sleep on her back with her feet in the air, especially if she's laying on her favourite blanket, or on my laptop (above the warmest part), or on my belly. I've seen videos of other parrots doing similar. Have birds ever been observed doing this in the wild? 146.200.107.90 (talk) 23:21, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{small|Only when riding rhinoceri. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}

::Or perhaps when pining for the fjords. (I'm impressed that's a Wiklink!) HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:I assume it's pretty common in the wild, at least when there's fermented fruit available. I've seen lots of parrot-like birds in Queensland sleeping that way. Sean.hoyland (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Because they were drunk? Stanleykswong (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I guess. I should add, this wasn't the occasional individual bird, it was flocks of birds, many parrot-like birds all sleeping scattered around on the ground (can you still call a group of birds on the ground a flock even though it starts with fl like fly?) Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:11, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::{{small|Note that flop, flounder and flump also start with fl.  ​‑‑Lambiam 18:22, 4 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:::::{{small|These are all excellent candidates for new collective nouns for groups of drunk parrot-like birds on the ground that could be injected into social media to smuggle into the English language. Sean.hoyland (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)}}

:Sleeping upside down is a vulnerable position for birds. I believe this only occurs when domesticated birds are relaxed (e.g. laying on her favourite blanket), trusting (e.g. she trusts you), and comfortable (e.g. on your laptop, it's warm). This does not happen in the wild because sleeping upside down makes it harder for them to fly away quickly if attacked. Stanleykswong (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::Likewise for cats, except for the flying part. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, domestic cats will often sleep on their backs and belly up when they feel comfortable, secure, and trusting.

:::I once had a cat that had been abused by its previous owner. After being brought home, it refused to interact with me or anyone else in the house and always slept on its side. It took her several months to sleeping with her paws covering her head and eyes. Now she always sleeps on her back. Stanleykswong (talk) 08:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 5 =

Obviously humans walk on two legs, and many other primates can do that too, if they choose to. Also kangaroos and pangolins. Birds always walk on two legs. But aside from that, what other animals can walk on two legs for extended periods of time? I've seen videos of bears and dogs doing it, and also octopuses (when they're carrying something over their heads with the other 6). Are there many more? I'm not talking about animals that can just do it for a few seconds to reach high up for something - I mean prolonged walking. 146.200.107.90 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::Kangaroos don't/cannot walk. They hop. HiLo48 (talk) 00:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::According to this video,[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWiLyIqcK24] they can sort-of walk, but they use their front legs in the process. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:Our article Bipedalism should give you a good start. DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:Rhinoceri giving it the old college try. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Can hippopotami and opposa also walk to two legs, I ask you? 146.200.107.90 (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Opossibly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:44, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:I've seen goats reach up on 2 legs to eat leaves from Acacia trees then (somewhat unexpectedly) walk on 2 legs rather than 4 legs to neighboring trees to continue to eat. Not sure whether that counts as prolonged. I guess it fits in with the sentence "A number of mammals will adopt a bipedal stance in specific situations such as for feeding or fighting." in our article. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::I just found [https://youtube.com/shorts/h2ywEsUOIqo?si=giOCGRNkZQW-Kt3T this] video of a goat walking around on two legs, FWIW. It looks as though it's hurt one of its front legs though. Or maybe it's the Baphomet. Can't be certain. 146.200.107.90 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

= June 6 =

{{hatnote|Trigger warning for vampires. This discussion may induce acute neurogenic pain.}}

I'm curious about how the body processes garlic. If we already have an article about this subject, please point me to it. Last night, I made a fresh pizza and topped it off by crushing a massive clove (the size of two or more). I got everything just right (temp, mix of ingredients) by accident and the pizza was one of the best I've made in years. Even the garlic was cooked to perfection. I'm vaguely aware that health scientists recommend using only one clove and not going overboard on garlic for various reasons, and I think we've discussed those things here before. My question is somewhat different this time. Because I used slightly too much garlic, the next day after eating it (today), it's coming out of every pore in my body. I've taken a shower, flossed and brushed, and I can still smell it everywhere. Not good. So what exactly is happening from a biochemical POV here? And why doesn't this usually happen with any other food? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:It does, asparagus for example. Both contain fructan. "I'm vaguely aware that health scientists recommend using only one clove" got a ref for that? I often cook 40 clove of garlic chicken. Greglocock (talk) 04:40, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Possible confusion of clove with bulb? I used to mix those up, until somebody suggested I eat a raw clove for the good of my health, and ate the whole bulb instead and had a few hours of gastrointestinal excitement. Chemicals can go in through the skin as well as out, which is why transdermal patches work. DMSO does this so effectively that if you touch it, you can taste it, or at least taste its metabolic products. The flavor is garlicky.  Card Zero  (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's a new one on me. I've never heard of anyone confusing the bulb with a clove. Glad you're ok, that's sounds frightening. Hard to know if Greglocock is serious about 40 cloves or what they are referring to here. Every recipe says 1-2 cloves per portion of food. One thing to keep in mind is that there is a size difference in fresh cloves. The ones I was using were extra large. If you are talking about pre-peeled cloves, that's an entirely different discussion. Those are small and not potent enough for any kind of authentic dish. Another thing: I wasn't cooking with garlic cloves when I made the pizza, I was baking, which is possibly where the confusion lies. I can't imagine anyone pressing 40 fresh cloves for a pizza and eating it. It would be thrown in the garbage and anyone who actually ate it would be violently ill. I think there's some serious miscommunication going on in this discussion. Perhaps Greglocock means that the garlic they cooked with wasn't actually eaten but used to flavor the chicken instead. That would make much more sense. Viriditas (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Ah, looking farther and deeper into this, apparently some bulbs are extremely small and the cloves are even smaller. It looks like the best explanation for what Greglocock is describing is 2-4 bulbs containing 10-20 cloves. I'm dealing with bulbs and cloves much, much larger than that, with cloves the size of 4-8 small ones. That probably explains the disconnect. Some bulbs have tiny cloves. To give you an idea of the size I'm using, a single clove can't fit into a garlic press; they have to be cut into fourths. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Giant garlic isn't as garlicky as normal garlic. Same with onions. DuncanHill (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That might be true if it's elephant garlic from Hawaii, which it might have been, but I'm pretty certain it wasn't and was normal size with extra large mutant cloves (undifferentiated?) from either California or Mexico. I will attempt to confirm at the store tomorrow. Just looking at the images on commons tells me it wasn't elephant. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)