subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
greywolf42 <[email]> writes:

[ CM: some reformatting and snipping below ]

However, the abstract you were quoting from (Eckart et al 2002) says:
"Our analysis differs in three main points from Ghez et al: (1)
... (2) ... (3) ...," which are the three points you listed above.
The mere fact that the Eckart paper contains different analysis from a
previous paper does not make it questionable.  Indeed, it is usually a
sign of original research.

You do not substantiate your claims of "questionable manipulations."
Merely claiming the above to be questionable does not make them so.
In particular,

  (1) the mixing of the two data sets is reasonable, since it
      increases the time baseline, thus increasing the sensitivity to
      stellar accelerations; you have provided no factual basis to
      claim that such combination would be incorrect or biased.
  (2) 2D projection effects are a fact of our natural world.  They
      must be corrected for, in order to infer physical accelerations.
  (3) Filtering of data can be a concern.  However, whether or not
      star "S8" is retained does not change the conclusion that there
      is a supermassive compact object at Sgr A*.

[ ... ]

What you care about is irrelevant.  It is certainly a fact that once
measured, a Keplerian orbit determines the central object mass and
minimum mass density.

[ ... ]

What I need is also irrelevant.  It is ironic that you are carefully
"picking and choosing" the studies that you will discuss.  The fact is
that the Genzel 2000 paper is directly relevant to the question of
stellar velocity dispersions in the galactic center region, for which
you directly asked for "follow-up papers."

Borrowed from a different thread:
  Rieke & Rieke (1988) is largely outdated, and so your reliance on it
  is unfounded.  Their study used an imager with ~1 arcsec seeing, and
  did not resolve any stars within 1-2 arcsec of Sgr A.  In contrast,
  the works of Genzel et al ([2003]) and Ghez et al (2000) are able to
  resolve stars within 0.1 arcsec, and many more fainter stars.  There
  are of order ~50 such stars [within 2 arcsec].  Furthermore, the
  work of Genzel et al ([2000]) demonstrates that there is indeed a
  velocity cusp, with a central velocity dispersion of 280-350 km/s.
  Which is consistent with the measurements of gas motion of order 300
  km/s.
[some changes entered in brackets]

In short, the study of Genzel (2000) is far more statistically
complete than Rieke & Rieke.

[ .. reordered .. ]

You must have me confused with someone else.  This is my first reply
to this thread in s.a.r, and I did not "proffer" up the first set of
studies.

CM

References
Eckart, A. et al 2002, MNRAS, 331, 917
Gehz, A. M. et al 2000, Nature, 407, 349
Genzel, R. et al 2003, ApJ, 594, 812
Genzel, R. et al 2000, MNRAS, 317, 348
Ghez, A. M. et al 2000, Nature, 407, 349
Rieke, G. H. & Rieke, M. J. 1988, ApJL, 330, L33


subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
Craig Markwardt <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
2002
with the
the

It was not the fact that it was 'different' from a prior study that (to my
mind) makes the study questionable.  It is the specific methods used (1.
Mixing data types, 2. 'Adjusting' data, 3. Dropping contradictory data) that
makes the study questionable.

True.  However, I identified why *I* found the study questionable.

It is not the mixing of two data SETS but the mixing of different TYPES of
data: "Combines the high precision but shorter time scale NIRC/Keck data
with the lower precision but longer time scale SHARP/NTT data set."

The observable universe is 3D.  2D 'projection' normally is the result of
theory or of limited representation.  In this specific case, we have
'statistically corrections' to the 'observed accelerations' for 'theoretical
projection effects.'  A 2D-3D correction would not be statistical.  A theory
of some kind has been imposed onto the data.  This makes the result
questionable.

It changes the conclusion, because it is contradictory data.  S8 is moving
'too slowly' to allow for the supermassive object inferred by the 'primary'
object.  That is why S8 was 'filtered.'  That's why I find the study
'questionable.'

such an
VLBI and
was
don't seem

It is not that *I* care about data.  It is the fact that one cannot pick and
choose data in the scientific method.

Even if you only have one star, and if you first assume a theory of the
forces (to 'call' it 'Keplerian') -- it is still not a 'fact.'  Observations
are facts.  Conclusions are not.

And even then, it is not even correct if other stars in the same region
contradict the conclusion.  And that is why the conclusions are
questionable.

selected
following
mass within
there is
there is
pc ... is
letter is
observed
is

I'm addressing the three papers first proffered as evidence.  I
consider all three papers lacking at a very basic, fundamental level.  I
have no desire to discuss other papers until these three are 'disposed of.'

I am trying to make a point, here.  I am trying to point out to you the
slender
theoretical threads upon which you are hanging your arguments.  And you keep
changing the focus of your arguments.

I'm attempting to induce at least a minor acknowledgement of doubt inherent
in such arcane, theory-filled and data-selected studies.  The conclusions of
such studies are not 'facts.'

No, it is not.  And it is not a direct followup because it doesn't address
either the observations, or the stars addressed in Rieke.  That it
contradicts Rieke does not mean that Rieke is 'wrong.'  (It is likely that
one or the other are wrong -- or both)  Nor does the fact that it is done
later mean it is a 'followup' study.

found a
the

This merely repeats the logical fallacy that if it is 'old' it must be
wrong.  Scientific observations are NEVER 'outdated'.  An observation may
later be found to be erroneous -- due to a specific finding of a flaw used
in the instruments or methods.  At which point the study or experiment is
superseded.  But it is never superseded simply by having somebody else use
different methods that come to different conclusions.

And this statement is relevant, how?

Your point would be what?

However only one is used in the main study.  IIRC, a half dozen are selected
for one of the followups.  Had they used all 50, their answer would have
been different.

And contradicts the findings of Rieke.

Excuse me, but on what do you base your claim of 'statistically complete'?
Genzel only used one star in one study, and half a dozen in another.

I'll still pass on bothering with these two issues until Rieke and Rieke is
actually addressed -- not just ignored or claimed 'obsolete.'  I missed the
author change, but it matters not *who* is proffering the arguments.  If you
advance the argument, I presume you are standing behind it.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


author: Craig Markwardt

subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
greywolf42 <[email]> writes:
[ ... snip for brevity ... ]

Referring to the Eckart et al (2002) paper, you are apparently
erroneously presupposing that the NIRC/Keck and SHARP/NTT are of
different type, when clearly they are both imaging data, taken with
comparable near-infrared speckle cameras, on large telescopes.
Questions of precision are handled properly in the analysis.
Furthermore, you have not described how the act of combining two
different data sets would improperly bias the results of Eckart et al.

Clearly an optical 2D image of the galactic center, made by an
earthbound telescope, is a limited representation of the 3D
environment there.  Therefore, to make any reasonable statements about
the 3D accelerations of stars, one must account for the projection
effects.  Some assumptions must be made: however, Eckart shows that
their results are robust over a wide range of assumptions.
Furthermore, you have not challenged any of the assumptions.

This is a fair point.  However, considering that the galactic center
has a much higher density of stars than our solar neighborhood, it is
not unreasonable for a steller interaction to occur.  One aberrant
star does not necessarily invalidate the others.

... snip for brevity ...

This is a fallacy.  Of course scientists pick and choose the data.
Would you say that scientists should use their uncalibrated data?
Observations taken with the dome closed?  taken when the sun was up?
Of course not.  The point is that observations must be chosen on an
objective basis.

The Sch\"odel et al (2002) paper chooses the particular star "S2"
precisely because nearly one complete orbit is detectable, which is
untrue for any other known star near the galactic center.  And your
pick-and-choose argument is further fallacious because many stars with
*some* or *marginal* curvature in their proper motions are discussed
by the same authors in Eckart et al (2002).  And further, Genzel et al
(2000, 2003) treat the ensemble of *all* known stars in the galactic
center region.  So the facts demonstrate quite the opposite: the
Genzel group has consistently examined a broad spectrum of evidence.

It is a fact that the measured trajectory of star "S2" is consistent
with a Keplerian ellipse.  It is also a fact that the measured time
profile of the motion of star "S2" is consistent with Keplerian
motion.  It is a fact that the central mass inferred from the
Keplerian solution is consistent with other mass determinations.
Finally, it is a fact that the position of the central attractor of
"S2" is consistent with Sgr A* to within the estimated 2 sigma errors.

How one interprets these facts is another matter.  However, the
signatures of Keplerian orbits are very distinct.  I am unaware of any
alternate interpretation -- by you, or another -- which is consistent
with the data.

No one piece of evidence will clinch or refute the conclusion that
there is a supermassive black hole associated with Sgr A*.  However,
the S2 orbit appears to be an extremely strong piece of evidence in
favor.

... snip for brevity ...

Interesting.  Your original request was for "any followup papers," not
just for direct follow-ups.  The papers being discussed certainly
follow up on issues connected to the Rieke & Rieke (1988 == RR) work.

Very well, let us examine the RR paper in more detail.  They make
several disclaimers about their analysis, one of them being an
assumption about the core radius of the stellar distribution.  More
recent results (Genzel 1996) have demonstrated that the actual core
radius (0.34 +/- 0.1 pc) is significantly broader than the
no-hidden-mass conclusion by RR.

Also, in RR's Table 3, the enclosed mass at 0.5 pc, 2.4 - 6 M_sun, is
consistent with the more recent central mass determinations by other
techniques.  There is no heavy contradiction there.

McGinn et al (1989) failed to confirm the result of RR by examining
the integrated starlight near Sgr A*.  McGinn found a velocity
dispersion increase with decreasing radius, as expected for a central
compact object.  As they point out, "Small number statistics [ in the
Rieke & Rieke study ] may particularly mask a radial gradient in the
velocity dispersion of the bright stars, since only ~10 stars
contribute to its determination in each radius bin."  [ Incidentally,
RR does not provide error bars for their measurements. ]

McGinn continues, "It is also possible that bright sources have a
truly different velocity dispersion."  Indeed, when performing
flux-limited studies, one is highly susceptible to Malmquist-type
biases (i.e. the brightest objects are typically also the most
aberrant).  RR's reliance on only the brightest stars, based on their
spatial resolution limitations, may lead to significant systematic
biases.  More complete studies, such as Genzel et al (2000, 2003),
incorporate far more fainter stars, and are thus freer of Malmquist
biases.  Of course the Genzel papers *include* the RR stars, plus a
whole lot more.  Finally, it's worth noting that RR did not survey
stars within about 5" of Sgr A*, and this is precisely the region
where the velocity dispersion effect would be largest.  Follow-on
studies such as the Genzel ones, cover this region more completely,
and are thus far more sensitive to the effect.  And in fact, Genzel et
al (2000) find a strong central peak in the velocity dispersion.

Finally, rather ironic that while you criticise the Eckart paper for,
(1) combining data, (2) adjusting data, and (3) excluding stars, it is
true that RR are "guilty" of the same "offenses."  Namely, velocity
data from previous studies was combined; they perform various
statistic adjustments to the data based on a number of theoretical
assumptions (eqn 1; Table 3); and they exclude at least one star.

You must be mistaken.  Genzel et al (2000) consider approximately 300
stars within 23 arcsec of Sgr A*, all of which have either measured
proper motions or radial velocities.

CM

References
Eckart, A. et al 2002, MNRAS, 331, 917
Gehz, A. M. et al 2000, Nature, 407, 349
Genzel, R. et al 2003, ApJ, 594, 812
Genzel, R. et al 2000, MNRAS, 317, 348
Genzel, R. et al 1996, ApJ, 472, 153
Ghez, A. M. et al 2000, Nature, 407, 349
McGinn, M. T. et al 1989, ApJ, 824, 840
Rieke, G. H. & Rieke, M. J. 1988, ApJL, 330, L33


author: Joseph Lazio

subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
g> Craig Markwardt <[email]> wrote in message
g> news:[email]...

g> The observable universe is 3D.  2D 'projection' normally is the
g> result of theory or of limited representation.  In this specific
g> case, we have 'statistically corrections' to the 'observed
g> accelerations' for 'theoretical projection effects.'  A 2D-3D
g> correction would not be statistical.  A theory of some kind has
g> been imposed onto the data.  This makes the result questionable.

I think we will all agree that the Universe is 3-D.  At the risk of
stating the obvious, the sky is not 3-D.  If one watches an object in
orbit and sees that it describes an elliptical path, does this mean
that the orbit is intrinsically elliptical or that the orbit is
circular and inclined to our line of sight?

(It's a similar argument to why don't all spiral galaxies look
circular?  Because their disks are inclined to our line of sight.)

g> This merely repeats the logical fallacy that if it is 'old' it must
g> be wrong.  Scientific observations are NEVER 'outdated'.  An
g> observation may later be found to be erroneous -- due to a specific
g> finding of a flaw used in the instruments or methods.  At which
g> point the study or experiment is superseded.  But it is never
g> superseded simply by having somebody else use different methods
g> that come to different conclusions.

g> And this statement is relevant, how?

Because of a reason you don't cite above.  Scientific observations can
be superseded by improvements in technology.  That doesn't mean the
old observations were "wrong," they are just not as useful.  If you
are trying to study the motions of stars in the central region of the
Galaxy, angular resolution is vital, the more the better.  At 1 arcsec
resolution one has to worry about confusion (two stars being so close
together that they appear as one).  Moreover, 1 arcsec at the distance
of the Galactic center corresponds to about 0.04 pc.  Current
observations can probe well within this region while older ones,
because of their limited angular resolution, could not.


subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
Craig Markwardt <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

of

I wasn't presupposing.  I was quoting from the paper (see quotation marks).
Apparently, you are the one presupposing.

How do you know?  It's not described in the paper.

There are several possibilities.  But I would be speculating, because the
method of combing the two types of results is not described in the paper.

My point is that there were several questionable procedures in the paper.
This is one of those questionable situations.

of
'theoretical
theory

True. However such theoretical adjustments would apply to all measurements.
Hence it would not impact the 'statistical' data that Eckart et all
described.

moving
'primary'

I didn't claim absolute certainty.

{snip for brevity}

and

No, its the one of the fundamental requirements of the scientific method.

People holding PhD's might do this.  But they wouldn't be scientists.  By
definition.  It matters not what their job title is.

Good scientists don't use uncalibrated instruments.

Your straw man is specious.  If you can't see an object, one obviously
cannot have an observation.

Science requirest that all observations be explained.  Now, if one later
finds out that the power supply spiked during the measurement, or the
measurement can't be repeated -- then one can lower the weight of the
observation.  But only for objective, physical failures of the measurment --
NEVER for theoretical preferences.

That is indeed the theoretical interpretation.  But 'S8' -- measured with
the same instruments -- contradicts the theoretical conclusions of the
paper.

Science requires them to use *all* stars that they measure.  Not just one or
a selected 'many'.

Since you snipped my reply to your earlier attempt to bring Genzel in to
justify Eckart, I'll replace this part of the snip here, instead of later.
==========================================
gw:
This paper is not the three provided, above, and under discussion.  What is
the need for constantly proffering different studies?  Can't you just
address the issue, above?

CM:
"What I need is also irrelevant.  It is ironic that you are carefully
'picking and choosing' the studies that you will discuss."

gw:
"I'm addressing the three papers first proffered as evidence.  I consider
all three papers lacking at a very basic, fundamental level.  I have no
desire to discuss other papers until these three are 'disposed of.'"

" I am trying to make a point, here.  I am trying to point out to you the
slender theoretical threads upon which you are hanging your arguments.  And
you keep changing the focus of your arguments."

"I'm attempting to induce at least a minor acknowledgement of doubt inherent
in such arcane, theory-filled and data-selected studies.  The conclusions of
such studies are not 'facts.'"
==========================================

Observations

The above are all theoretical conclusions.  Not bad ones, necessarily.  But
not facts.

Such is not needed to identify the study as questionable.

And the orbit of S8 a piece of evidence contradicting it.

data.
is

{Snip replaced, above}

address
that
done

Not unless they address R&R.

Again, you are assuming that a later paper invalidates the result of a prior
paper, simply because it is later.  (i.e. that Genzel reaches different
conclusions than RR does not, per se, invalidate either paper.)

But you were unclear about whether your think RR's 'core radius' is an
assumption (your second sentence) or a conclusion (your final sentence).

I agree that apparent enclosed mass is not a point of significant
contention.

Now McGinn is a followup study to Rieke and Rieke!  Had you presented McGinn
before Eckhart, etc, we would have avoided a lot of effort.

True, but specious.  There are no 'error bars' on the *data* given in Table
1.  However, the errors are discussed in detail in section III.  And there
are error bars are provided in Table 3 (conclusions).

That, indeed, was one of the conclusions of R&R's paper.  That gas and stars
move differently.

It was also one of my early points.  That O and B stars do not necessarily
move like later-type stars.

However, the point then would be to explain why brighter stars move
differently than dimmer stars.  Merely noting that this *MAY* be a
difference between M&M and McGinn is not sufficient.  However, since McGinn
used 'integrated starlight' instead of specific stars (as in MM), there is
yet another difference in analysis to complicate the issue.

Not if they're fundamentally the same (i.e. O and B stars instead of just
O).

It would be interesting to see the measurements Genzel obtains for the RR
stars.  Since 43 stars is not a statistically insignificant sample.  (It's
far larger than the sample of 1 star or 6 that you tout for Eckart).

And regions within .0005" of SgrA* would be even stronger.  So what?  R&R
evaluated motions from .36pc to 6 pc.  And their data was suffienctly
precise to measure the predicted dependence -- but it was not found.

And a followup study would compare the results to MM.  And explain the
difference.  Merely noting that more stars were measured does not
necessarily explain the difference in conclusion.  Becuase MM had quite
sufficient measurment numbers and precision to see the predicted effect --
and didn't.

I did not criticize Eckart for combing data, per se, but for combining
different TYPES of data.  R&R do not combine different types of data.

R&R do not adjust DATA.  They adjust their CONCLUSION of mass estimates.
And they do this for two assumptions to choose between the two conclusions
(dominant central mass and self-gravitating mass).  They represent the
"extremes the actual mass distribution may take."  Eckart actually 'adjusts'
the data.

R&R do not exclude any star from the data or the statistical analysis.  What
they do is examine the probability that one of the stars is an interloper
(prob 0.4) and then assume that they have actually caught 2 interlopers.
They then examine the effect on the results of being 'tricked' by
interlopers.  (No net effect.)

complete'?

Sorry, I didn't notice that you had again gone back to Genzel -- since our
discussions were on Eckart.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
Joseph Lazio <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I thought all orbits were elliptical, since Kepler.  ;)  (Sorry, couldn't
resist.)

The inclination of the orbit is one of those things that it is very
difficult to determine in astronomy.  We can't tell -- just by looking --
whether we're looking nearly edge-on or straight down onto the plane of the
orbit.

However, we expect all disk galaxies to be roughly circular.  Whereas
stellar orbits are expected to be elliptical -- sometimes highly so.

But I *did* discuss this earlier in the thread (you snipped it).  And I
pointed out that such a view was incorrect and unscientific.

Later publication still does not invalidate prior observation.  Only if you
can explain -- from fundamental causation -- why earlier observations were
'wrong' is the prior work invalidated.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


author: John Chandler

subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
greywolf42 <[email]> wrote:
: I thought all orbits were elliptical, since Kepler.  ;)  (Sorry, couldn't
: resist.)

: The inclination of the orbit is one of those things that it is very
: difficult to determine in astronomy.  We can't tell -- just by looking --
: whether we're looking nearly edge-on or straight down onto the plane of the
: orbit.

Actually, Kepler gave us more than the elliptical shape of orbits.
He also discovered that the body treated as "at rest" occupies one
focus of the ellipse and that the angular velocity varies inversely
with the radial distance.  Using those two additional properties of
orbits allows us to tell what the inclination is.


subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
John Chandler <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Historically, the latter is Newton, not Kepler.  Kepler discovered that
planets sweep out equal areas in equal time.  Similar, but not the same.

The problem is that we don't know the 'angular velocity' of the orbit.  We
can only directly measure the radial portion of the speed projected in our
direction.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas


subject: Re: Galaxies without dark matter halos?

text:
greywolf42 <[email]> wrote:
: The problem is that we don't know the 'angular velocity' of the orbit.  We
: can only directly measure the radial portion of the speed projected in our
: direction.

Not so.  Nowhere in the discussion was there any stipulation that
astrometric data would be somehow excluded from consideration.  With a
combination of radial velocity and astrometry, the 3-D orbit can be
determined directly.  Indeed, the astrometry can do the job all by
itself, without the help of radial velocities.  (This is in the
context of Keplerian motion, where the eccentricities are "proper"
instead of caused by outside perturbations.)  Of course, it's a
different matter to determine the inclination of a disk galaxy.  To
put it mildly, it's very tedious to watch a galaxy long enough to map
out the orbits astrometrically, and most graduate students are
unwilling to take on a research project that will last millions of
years (heh, heh). Nonetheless, it's possible to substitute finesse for
brute force -- high-precision proper motions will do the job, too.
The real problem is that it's so easy to measure the aspect ratio of
a disk galaxy that it hardly seems worthwhile to determine the
inclination independently.


author: Peter T. Daniels

subject: Re: correcting my son's grammar?

text:
On Oct 26, 9:36 am, Christopher Culver
<[email]> wrote:

Though now that she _has_ cross-posted to sci.lang, maybe Brian Scott
will explain how he ended up "talking like a book," since that's
apparently the fate she wants for her son.

She'll probably need to lay in a good supply of Band-Aids and Bactine.
(Do they still make Bactine?)

Leslie Danks's attitude is Neanderthal at the latest.


author: Athel Cornish-Bowden

subject: Re: correcting my son's grammar?

text:
On 2009-10-26 14:58:41 +0100, "Peter T. Daniels" <[email]> said:

In the absence (so far) of a contribution from Brian Scott, maybe I can
comment on the development of my daughter -- now a fully trilingual
adult -- who grew up in France with one English-speaking and one
Spanish-speaking parent. I wouldn't say she spoke like a book when she
was ten, but she certainly spoke like an adult. For a long time her
only native model for English was me (not 100% of the time, but a large
part of it), and, not surprisingly, she used very few childish
expressions in English and a lot of words that one normally hears only
from adults. However, it only took a day or two of exposure to
English-speaking children for her to adopt a way of speaking more usual
for her age. Her development in Spanish was quite similar, whereas in
French she followed exactly the course you'd expect for someone mixing
all the time with French children.


author: Brian M. Scott

subject: Re: correcting my son's grammar?

text:
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 06:58:41 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<[email]> wrote in
<news:[email]>
in sci.lang,alt.usage.english:

[...]

Largely inclination, I suspect.  I also read voraciously
from an early age, had educated parents whose everyday
English was for the most part prescriptively correct,
preferred adult company, and outside of school by choice
spent little time with children my own age.  The children
with whom I did spend some time were those with academic
inclinations.

[...]

Brian


author: Leslie Danks

subject: Re: correcting my son's grammar?

text:
Peter T. Daniels wrote:

[...]

Yeah. That's probably why your ancestors ate them.


author: erilar

subject: Re: correcting my son's grammar?

text:
In article <srqy1xsagvxo$.1c4my86i51sbn$[email]>,
 "Brian M. Scott" <[email]> wrote:

I've also been accused of talking like a book 8-)  I also have always
read voraciously and had educated parents.  I did have some friends my
age, but sometimes we had next to no neighbors at all, so--more reading
8-)   When I was young, however, I never heard the kind of language I've
been hearing from children and teenagers in recent years ANYwhere.


author: jan plessers

subject: likert scale and kendall tau b

text:
Hello,

I'm using data from a 37 items likert-scale. It should be an unidimension
scale (I suppose that is always with a likert). I did an Kendall-Tau b
correlation on the data and found some negative correlations. I have some
statements about it, and I would like your oppinion

1. because you'r finding negative correlations, it seems like this
instrument is not measuring unidimensional.

2. Just drop the negative correlations

3. Cronbach's alpha has the assumption that all the iter-item correlations
are possitive ! So I should drop the negatieve correlations

Thanks,
[email]


author: jim clark

subject: Re: likert scale and kendall tau b

text:
Hi

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, jan plessers wrote:

No, whether or not the instrument is unidimensional depends on
the content of the items, not on using a Likert scale.  Many
multi-dimensional instruments involve a common rating scale
(e.g., self-ratings of how true statements are of the subject).

 I did an Kendall-Tau b

The first thing I would check is that some of the items are not
reverse-worded.  It is common in many domains that use Likert
scales to include positively (e.g., I am very happy) and
negatively worded (e.g., I am quite sad) items to reduce some
problems of response bias (i.e., yes-sayers, no-sayers).  If some
of your negative correlations are sizable, this might be the
reason why. If so recode the ratings for the reversed items (1=7,
2=6, 3=5, 5=3, 6=2, 7=1, for example).

If reversing negative items, as described above, is not
appropriate or does not solve the problem, AND you have enough
subjects, another option is to determine empirically the
dimensionality and orientation of the items (e.g., using factor
analysis).  To my knowledge, Cronbach's alpha doesn't assume
anything.  However, including negative items in a common scale
will reduce the variability in your final scores, and will give
you a lower alpha statistic than omitting or reversing negative
items.

Best wishes
Jim

============================================================================
James M. Clark				(204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology		(204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg			4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba  R3B 2E9		[email]
CANADA					http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================


author: Art Kendall

subject: Re: likert scale and kendall tau b

text:
It depends on the size of the negative correlations.
if they are trivial -.03, -.08, etc  and few in number, you might just ignore
them.

*** Most likely you forgot to reflect the negatively keyed items.***

Read two of the items that have a negative correlation. Does it make sense
than the high score on one item goes with the low score on the other?

On your RELIABILITY output look at the squared multiple correlation if it is
high for items with negative correlations that is another indication that you
forgot to reflect.

The following article applies even if you only have a low alpha and some
negative correlations.

http://www.spss.com/tech/stat/articles/negalpha.htm

jan plessers wrote:


author: john v verkuilen

subject: Re: likert scale and kendall tau b

text:
"jan plessers" <[email]> writes:

Thirty-seven(!) five-point items are unlikely to be unidimensional
representing one latent construct in pretty much any circumstance you care
to name, unless they're exceedingly redundant.  You need to be very careful
about screening through the data picking out items that "don't fit"
unidimensionality and then concluding at the end of the specification search
that you "have a scale that fits the hypothesis of unidimensionality."  You've
got no such animal, unless you leave some data back to test on (even then,
replication out of sample might well be... disappointing).  It's a standard
practice to do this, but just like a number of standard practices, it's not
really all that great an idea.

Whether the multidimensionality is a problem is a separate question.

Jay


author: lgouveia

subject: HPLC electrochemical detection - high variability

text:
Hi,
I'm trying to quantify the potency of tablets, using a HPLC (amperometric
detection) USP method.  I have a fairly good experience with HPLC methods
(UV-VIS and Fluorescence) but none with amperometric detection.
My problem is that I am getting a too high variability between days and
mobile phases.
The slope of the calibration line presents variations of up to +/-50% just
by using a freshly prepared mobile phase (Acetronitrile, MeOH, buffer ph 10)
or by changing to another independently prepared (by someone else) mobile
phase.
Within the same day (same mobile phase) I get peak areas (injection of
standard solutions) that differ among them by more than 20% (there is a
trend along the session, ie, the peak areas sometimes get higher, sometimes
get lower within the same analytical session).
Between days, the calculated potency of the same solution (sample and/or
standard) shows a high variability,  (rsd aprox. 4%, and a difference up to
10%).  Repeatability (six sequential injections, same solution) is
acceptable (rsd aprox. 1.5-2%) although I'm used to get a lower variability
with other HPLC methods.
I've changed the column to a new one, re-validated the autosampler injected
volumes and the observed variability remains the same.
The detector (HP 1049A) was used only for a couple of days, about 2 years
ago, and never again since then.
I'm at a dead end.  Can't figure out what or where is the problem.
Am I missing something?
Can someone give me some clues on how to solve/overcome this problem.

Thanks in advance
LGouveia


author: Klaus Belsner

subject: Re: HPLC electrochemical detection - high variability

text:
lgouveia wrote:

Hallo,
some additional questions :
What is the molarity of the buffer, and which composition has it?
Which electrode material is used (gold, glassy carbon ...)?
What is the mode of the detector (oxidation - reduction)?
Which functional group of your analyte is used for the detection reaction?

Klaus


author: Andrew Portess

text:
You could either recalibrate for each batch of mobile phase since this is
causing a great deal of variation, this would be laborious if you use a lot
of mobile phase, or introduce an internal standard to your technique.

Some shots in the dark since I am not familiar with the type of detector you
describe;

i)    Does the detector have some sort of temperature control, if so set
this to about 5 degrees C above the normal room temperature of the lab.  I
say this since         you talk about variability throughout the day.  Also
temp control of column compartment.

ii)    Are the sample concentrations too high, fouling the detector.

Andy

"lgouveia" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
10)
sometimes
to
variability
injected


author: Monte Davis

subject: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
We all know the timeline from Peenemunde via White Sands, Kapustin Yar
etc. to Canaveral and Tyuratam, and then to space. If the German army
of the early 1930s hadn't wanted the long-range artillery denied it by
the Versailles treaty, no job for young Wernher von Braun, no major
effort leading to the V-2 in time for WWII. You'd still have GIRD in
the USSR, Goddard and GALCIT etc. here... parallel efforts in other
countries, JATO and surely some anti-aircraft missile work. But you
wouldn't have that stunning summer 1944 realization that the V-2,
however inaccurate and non-cost-effective, was an *unstoppable*
weapon.

Similarly, even *with* the V-2 but without the A-bomb, you might have
seen considerable work on military missiles... but with only
high-explosive warheads, the bang/buck payoff would have been much
less, and the progress much slower. It was the *combination* of
ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads -- especially the
fast-shrinking H-bomb, powerful enough that you could afford to be a
few miles off target -- that kicked off the big spending, and headlong
progress towards ICBMs, in the early 1950s.

OK -- assume that impetus hadn't existed. In 1952 the Lord writes in
letters of fire in the ionosphere: "No ICBMs, OR ELSE!!!" and afflicts
von Braun, Korolyov et al with leprosy and boils just to get the point
across. Cold War, yes... Eisenhower and Khrushchev and Kennedy, yes...
but no ICBMs.

In that case, when do you think the first satellite would have reached
orbit? The first human? Where would we be today in space?

Or to put it another way: just how strong -- in terms of funding and
engineering effort -- would our desire to get into space have proved
*in the absence* of huge military missile programs?


author: Henry Spencer

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
In article <[email]>,
Monte Davis  <[email]> wrote:

Bear in mind that there are other types of weapons of mass destruction.
The British were immensely relieved when the warheads of the first V-2s
turned out to be just high explosive; they'd been worried about gas or
germs or radioactive isotopes.

(And the Germans actually had a good non-nuclear payload for even fairly
inaccurate missiles, since they'd discovered the first nerve gases.)

Note that this isn't the same as no V-2s.  The feasibility of large
liquid-fuel rockets still gets established, even if heavenly intervention
precludes their most obvious use.

Also, you have to assume that the heavenly grounding order includes
IRBMs as well as ICBMs.  Thor saw as much use as Atlas in the US space
program; the Mercury capsule was originally going to fly on a Thor with
a new upper stage.

With V-2s but no ICBMs, the first satellite probably happens in the late
1950s, just like it actually did.  The early US satellite launchers were
derivatives of sounding rockets and tactical missiles.  And quite apart
from scientific applications, spy satellites would remain of intense
interest to the Cold War US military, preoccupied with trying to assess
the capabilities and activities of a secretive enemy with a closed,
tightly regimented society.  The absence of ICBMs would make spysats a bit
less urgent, though.

Whether the Soviets would be in a position to beat the US to the first
satellite (or the first manned spaceflight) is a better question.  Most
likely not.

I would expect strong military interest in a Thor-Agena class rocket as a
way to orbit spy satellites -- Jupiter-C and Vanguard wouldn't be enough
for that -- although development wouldn't be done at the breakneck pace of
the real late 50s.  That rocket with a heftier upper stage might well
suffice for Mercury-class manned flights and early planetary probes,
perhaps in the late 1960s.

Still larger rockets would be slow to appear, and their developers might
well value reusability and low cost over rapid development.  They would
probably benefit from a more extensive hypersonic-aircraft technology
base, since the cancellation of projects like the B-70 and the F-103 owed
a lot to competition from ICBMs.  For a guess, you get a big reusable
orbital ferry rocket circa 1980.  It wouldn't resemble the Shuttle much --
the payload would be smaller, the engines probably wouldn't burn LH2, and
there would be much more emphasis on low operating cost.

Military manned spaceflight might be stillborn just like it was in the
real world, killed by competition from unmanned spysats... although with
things happening more slowly, there would be time to build up more
momentum, and you might see military Mercury flights and experiments with
rendezvous as a way to build a small MOL-class military space station.
Possibly the ferry rocket would be partly or entirely a military project.
If so, military manned spaceflight might well continue, with much-reduced
costs and stronger institutional commitments acting to preserve it despite
the unmanned competition.

Whether anything like NASA would be created, and when, is a good question;
it was motivated partly by the urgency of the Space Race.  Possibly it
might appear as the government's chosen vehicle for manned beyond-LEO
exploration, with the ferry rocket starting to make that practical (using
orbital assembly) and the military not very interested.  Like pre-Sputnik
Vanguard, it would have been much hyped but not very well funded, so
progress would be slow despite the large advantage conferred by having
an off-the-shelf ferry rocket and off-the-shelf technology for small
space stations and orbital assembly.

So, where would we be today?  As a wild guess...  We'd be celebrating the
tenth anniversary of the first lunar landing.  The expedition that will
plant the first permanent lunar base is in final assembly at NASA's
orbital operations base; they'd hoped to have it done for the anniversary,
but funding was tight and it ran late, despite the reduction in costs when
NASA started accepting commercial fuel deliveries at the ops base.  The
second space hotel is in construction, and people are hoping that some
real competition will bring the first one's prices down.  The military and
NASA are still flying their first-generation ferry rockets, which are
looking pretty dated despite numerous incremental improvements along the
way; with the Cold War over and commercial second-generation ferries now
flying, Congress has balked at funding a new government design.  There is
talk of commercial lunar flights and even a non-profit private Mars
expedition, which NASA is not pleased about (but its own Mars plans, not
very far along, lost most of their funding recently, after the NSF's
Viking landers found no signs of life).


author: Proponent

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Monte Davis wrote:

I suspect that although there were no formal long-range missile
programs in the immediate post-war period, a major motivation for
upper-atmosphere research was the possibility of developing long-range
missiles that would fly through the upper atmosphere.  Thus, I suspect
that the V-2 indirectly stimulated Aerobee and Viking.  Hence, without
the V-2, large sounding rockets would have come much later.

On the plus side, without the German Army's interest in the V-2,
Germany's amateur group, the VfR (Verein fuer Raumfahrt, i.e., Union
for Space Travel), would have retained Wernher von Braun and its own
accomplishments would probably have been more extensive, although
high-altitude sounding rockets would still have been unlikely.

It strikes me as unlikely that communications satellites by themselves
would have justified the expense of developing orbital launch vehicles.
 Spy satellites seem a much more likely motivation, since, being
military, they could draw on large budgets.  Without nuclear weapons,
however, the Soviet Union probably would not have seem frightening
enough to warrant satellites.  And the Soviets would probably not have
bothered to develop spy satellites either, since they had many more
opportunities for traditional, on-the-ground intelligence gathering.

With commercially-viable uses of space other than communications
satellites being for the most part economically marginal today, even
after decades of governments covering sunk costs, I doubt that any
other commercial application would have yet spurred the development of
orbital technology.  That leaves pure scientific research as the likely
motivation.  The question is then at what stage would US GDP have grown
sufficiently that satellites would have been affordable in the context
of a government willing to spend x percent per year on pure research.

In this regard, what was the total cost, excluding sounding rockets and
satellites, of the US contribution to the IGY?  How much money was
spent on pre-IGY antarctic research?  What was typical US government
spending on astronomy in the late 50s?


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Well, who knows?

I could argue that, if the Cold War had developed more or less as it
did sans ICBMs (but with intercontinental bombers), the US would have
been driven to develop reconnaissance capabilities similar to the U2 -
CORONA succession anyway.  The crux of this is that the US had pretty
much zip in the way of other intelligence capabilities that would allow
militarily useful reconnoitering of what was going on in the interior
of the USSR and, more importantly, where to send the bombers if it came
to such a pass. SIGINT was important, but generally not adequate for
the purpose. HUMINT didn't come close.

Or not. As said, quien sabe?


author: Rand Simberg

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 19:28:03 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

An interesting notion for an alternate history, but there are, of
course, multiple versions.  Short answer, probably much later, and it
may have been done privately first.


author: Jim Oberg

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Well, the Vanguard rocket used a Navy 'Viking'
missile, but it certainly also was buoyed up by
rocket science from parallel projects. 'Scout'
rockets also were big stacks of solids that
could have come along as sounding rockets,
then orbital vehicles.


author: Greg D. Moore (Strider

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
"Monte Davis" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

About  8-12 minutes.


author: hop

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Rusty wrote:
Also, without ICBMs, it seems fair to suppose that much of the money
would have gone into the development of supersonic/hypersonic bombers
and cruise missiles.

Having the first stage available makes things like blackstar or spiral
50/50 a bit more attractive.


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
[email] (Henry Spencer) wrote:

[very thoughtful responses]

Thank you very much!


author: Pat Flannery

subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Henry Spencer wrote:

They checked out the first V-1 impact site with a Geiger counter for
just that reason.

They got as far as designing a chemical warhead container for the V-1;
this was to be designated the Fi 103 D-1 version.
They were never deployed, whether for Hitler's distaste for using
chemical weapons for warfare, or the fact that a lot of V-1's crashed
almost immediately after coming off their catapults is a good question.
One reason the Germans never used nerve gas during the war is that they
were wrongly convinced that the Allies had such weapons also.

Pat


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
[email] (Rand Simberg) wrote:

Maybe communications satellites as the driver? Boy, would *that* have
made Arthur C. Clarke proud.

Or possibly spy satellites first anyway? Even without missile-gap
worries, the Cold War powers would have wanted to keep an eye on each
other's airfields and naval bases.


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
In article <cQ%Lg.13682$[email]>,
Jim Oberg <[email]> wrote:

Without missiles, I doubt that the technology for high-performance solid
rockets would have developed.  The real incentive for solids was things
that had to sit in a magazine or a silo for years, and then be ready to go
on a moment's notice.

Of course, "missiles" doesn't have to mean *ballistic* missiles.  Rockets
were in active development, and in some cases in use, for various tactical
military roles late in WW2.


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
On Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:20:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, Monte
Davis <[email]> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Yeah, that's what I was thinking, though that wouldn't give low costs.

That, too, but it still wouldn't have provided low costs.  On the
other hand, it might not have occurred to anyone to throw the launch
vehicle away if they didn't have the ICBM model to work from...


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Monte Davis wrote:

Vanguard was developed from civilian rockets (Aerobee and Viking) and so one can picture space exploration coming about even in a ICBM-free world.

Pat


subject: Re: How long to space w/o ICBMs?

text:
Henry Spencer wrote:

Scout's first stage was a direct outgrowth of work on the Polaris project.

Pat


author: Mo

subject: stars are closer than we think

text:
Ether exists and consists of particles in motion which
produces an ether pressure. Between stars is a region of
lower ether pressure. The speed of light depends upon this
ether pressure.
      As light from a star approaches the Solar System at
an angle then this light is bent by a refractive-type effect.
This bending of light is not taken into account when
calculating the distance to that star. Consequently this
distance is over-estimated.
        Mo


author: Freiddie

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Wait, but G M m / r^2 indicates that light is not bent by any gravity
(in Newtonian mechanics only) whether it's travelling at infinite
speed or not, since m = 0 (photons are massless). So Newtonian
mechanics doesn't actually tell us that light is bent by gravity in
any way.

Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/
http://freiddy.blogspot.com/
http://crazibe.blogspot.com/


subject: Re: stars,heavens,ect.

text:
Just what is/ out there at the far edge of the universe?  What is behind
a black hole?  Does everything stop at a certain point? If so, what is
behind that?

Something is the "glue" that binds everything together.

Charles


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
On Mar 24, 7:51 pm, "Greg Neill" <[email]> wrote:

Good point. Now I agree. But do you think people at Newton's era knew
about the mass of photons (if they even called it photons)? (No, it's
just a thought, I'm not arguing in any way.)

Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/
http://freiddie.blogspot.com/
http://crazibe.blogspot.com/


author: Saul Levy

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Wrong.

Saul Levy

On 22 Mar 2007 17:41:55 -0700, "Mo" <[email]> wrote:


author: Peter Webb

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
That this has been suppressed is clear evidence of a plot by the
military-industrial-astronomical complex to suppress the truth, possibly
acting on the instructions of the Freemasons and their masters, Jewish
Bankers.

The truth shall set us free.

"Mo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
On Mar 23, 2:05 pm, "Autymn D. C." <[email]> wrote:

       Do astronmomers allow for the curvature light gets
when it passes the Sun ?  Is the bending of light at the
distance of the Earth from the Sun insignificant when it
comes to measuring parallax ?  ie does light from a star
coming to Earth bend because of the Sun ?
        Mo


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Thanks George. It is just those monster flares on nearby
stars that just seems too big too often. Smaller distances
and all is much easier.
           Mo


author: Uncle Al

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Mo wrote:

   1) Local:  Michelson-Morely experiments on a spinning orbiting
platform - the Earth - plus star positions:  No aether.

Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)

   2) Celestial:  Hipparcos star positosn *not* on a spinning,
orbiting Earth.  No aether.

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=20

   3) Cosmic:  No vacuum refractive index, linear or circular
birefringence from radio to UV wavelengths.  No aether,

   3) Empirical conclusion:  No aether, you fucking imbecile.

Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
 No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
 No Lorentz violation


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
On Mar 23, 2:41 am, "Mo" <[email]> wrote:

PLEASE! Ether is an obsolete theory. It no longer exists, okay?????
Don't bring up unproven, discredited and most of all home-brewed
theories.

Freiddie
http://fei.yuanbw.googlepages.com/


author: Androcles

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Mo" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Your intelligence is over-estimated and your ignorance under-estimated.


author: Autymn D. C.

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
On Mar 22, 5:41 pm, "Mo" <[email]> wrote:

You mean gravitational refraction?


author: Greg Neill

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Mo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Oh joy, an empirical idiot.  We await your next
pronouncement with great anticipation.


author: The Ghost In The Machine

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
In sci.physics, Mo
<[email]>
 wrote
on 22 Mar 2007 17:41:55 -0700
<[email]>:

Good luck.  Parallax is used to measure the nearer stars.
Since we know how far those nearer stars are, and their
general spectral type, we can assume that stars farther away
with a similar spectral type are just as bright in terms
of absolute magnitude, and therefore estimate their distance
from their apparent brightness.

Cepheids make it even easier.  :-)


author: George Dishman

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Freiddie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

But f = m*a so a = f/m and if m=0 ....

The solution is

 f = G * M * m / r^2

so

 a = G * M / r^2

and the acceleration is independent of the mass of the
object (photon in this case).

The deflection depends on the change of speed transverse
to the direction of motion and dv = a * dt so at infinite
speed the photon is accelerated for zero time - no
deflection.

George


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Freiddie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The acceleration is given by a = G*M/r^2.  Note that
the 'm' has disappeared from the equation in the way
that all good test masses do.


subject: Re: stars,heavens,ect.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

More of the same, there is no edge.

Another figment of a crazed imagination. There are no black holes.

No.

More of the same.

The universe is not "bound together". Escape velocities
exist to overcome gravity. A man on the Moon does not fall
to Earth or to the Sun.


subject: Re: stars,heavens,ect.

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

More of the same. The univserse appears to be homogenous
and isotropic on large scales, so a scientist in a galaxy
13 billion light years away would see pretty much the same
as us, different galaxies but about the same density and
types as us.

I think you mean inside. Just vacuum done to a hypothetical
point in the centre called a signularity.

Nope, it just keeps on going.

Things aren't sticking together, the universe is expanding.
Gravity holds clusters of gravity but get far enough apart
and it is too weak.

George


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Freiddie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

During Newton's time the majority was of the opinion
that light consisted of waves.  It was Newton who
reintroduced the concept of light as particles.  But
I don't think that anyone had any idea of light having
mass (which it turns out it doesn't; no rest mass at
any rate).


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
In sci.physics, Peter Webb
<[email]>
 wrote
on Sat, 24 Mar 2007 15:23:52 +1100
<4604a7e7$1$15781$[email]>:

Isn't there supposed to be a gray, a tinfoil hat, and
a member of the Illuminati (Bavarian or otherwise) in
there somewhere? :-)


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Mo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yes, it bends a bit. Light passing a million miles from
the Sun (remember we are 93 million miles from it so that
is quite close) is bent by about 763 milli-arcseconds if
I haven't made a mistake with the calculator. The Hipparcos
mission measured the parallax of stars with an accuracy of
around 2 milli-arcseconds so correction for bending was
essential even for measurements made when the star was at a
large angle from the Sun.

Comparing the apparent location of the same star as the
Earth moved round its orbit also allowed the equations used
for that correction to be confirmed.

George


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Mo" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Of course astronomers allow for the bending of light
as it passes the Sun.  Take a look at the results from
the Hipparcos mission.  The bending was measured up for
angular distances up to 90 degrees from the Sun.

Note that the amount of bending involved is very tiny,
even for light passing very close to the Sun.


author: Sam Wormley

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Uncle Al wrote:

   Original poster--take special notice of these that Uncle Al posted!


author: Art Deco

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Forwarded to the Flowing Space Nonsense saucerheads who infest
alt.astronomy:

Uncle Al <[email]> wrote:


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

   Erm... spectral type alone is not sufficient to infer distance
   as can be seen from an HR diagram
     http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.18-19/HR_diagram.b.gif

   Distance Indicators
     http://edu-observatory.org/mcc/homework/homework.ch.24-25/23f23.gif


author: G. L. Bradford

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"George Dishman" <[email]> wrote in message
news:eu3k1d$4a1$[email]...

  But you've got to ask yourself what is "infinite speed", other than any
speed that is simply "not relative to the observer"? It is certainly slower
than instantaneous transfer or displacement, but what is it greater than,
other than any and every -- all -- "relative velocity"?

GLB


author: Paul Schlyter

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
In article <eu2pk3$hl6$[email]>,
George Dishman <[email]> wrote:

Note though that also in Newtonian physics, a body moving at
light speed (such as a photon) will be subjected to some
deflection due to gravity.  The "orbit" will of course be
strongly hyperbolical and the deflection very slight - but
only a particle moving at infinite speed would be able to move
in a perfectly straight line when passing near the Sun.  Again,
this is according to Newtonian physics.  At Newton's time,
light was generally believed to move infinietly fast though.

In relativity, the gravitational deflection of light passing
near the Sun is approximately twice as large, compared to
Newtonian physics.


author: Hagar

subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"Art Deco" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
 Usually one uses Raid to get rid of roaches, but for you homo k00kers I
think we need to get a large tube of K-Y Gel. That'll keep you occupied with
each other's anatomy for a while.


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<[email]>
 wrote
on Fri, 23 Mar 2007 15:12:57 GMT
<Z7SMh.3404$oV.1975@attbi_s21>:

Oh pooh.  Still, I think we've got reasonable guesstimates
for at least the stars in our galaxy, and we're probably
not that far off for the nearer galaxies.


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
"G. L. Bradford" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

No, I specifically meant a speed such that any finite
distance can be traversed in zero time.

"instantaneous transfer" is exactly what is meant by
the term. I think it was just a caveat by the previous
poster to avoid nit-picking by pedants.

George


subject: Re: stars are closer than we think

text:
Hagar <[email]> wrote:

Your bigoted kookfroth is hereby APPROVED.  Please continue.


author: John "C"

subject: Gay couple play "alien probe" games...Film at 11.....

text:
"Hagar" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
with
Art and Gay Duckie take turns pretending to be the "alien" and one anally
probes the other.

HJ


author: George

subject: Subject: help!!! a patient of cancer

text:
Friends,

My mom got "carcinoma of cecum" which is a kind of cancer.  She just
after an operation.
The situation is poor differentiation and unseen diffusion now. Maybe
treatment now is something such as chemotherapy.

Can you help to find if there is any good treament such as something
can kill cancer cells and does not injure normal.

My mon is a vegetarian, just as she think of me as I am in abroad. I
am regret i am not live with my mom together.

I need know how to make better treatment about my mom, please help me
to save my mom live longer. Thank you very much!

George Cao
Email: [email]
Tel:   1-613-565-2956

PS. My mom in Shenyang, China. I am in Ottawa, Canada.


author: Poe

subject: Re: Subject: help!!! a patient of cancer

text:
I can't help you, but I wish you all the best.

George wrote:


text:
Obtain Ann Wigmore's book called 'The Wheatgrass Book'.
Patients have been cured of cancer do to the fresh high chlorophyll the body
needs for oxygen. Cancer cant live in oxygen. Wheatgrass builds hemoglobin
regenerating blood cells filling and oxygenating the entire body. ONLY fresh
made wheatgrass will do regardless of those who tell you about dried or
processed wheatgrass!
What have you or she got to loose by trying wheatgrass?
Chemotherapy 'kill's the body's mechanisms to repair itself.
Wheatgrass 'also' can and does repair to a certain extent the sideeffects of
radiation. AT LEAST make her take this stuff for this reason alone if she
does get radiation treatments!
You MUST and your mom MUST enquire about wheatgrass.
Studies have indeed been proven that within a 24 hour period wheatgrass
elevates the hemoglobin in the body as well as going right to work 15
minutes after drinking it.
Many things it DOES help and or cure and you and she should most certainly
check The Wheatgrass Book 'BY ANNE WIGMORE out!
Among the many things it does do, it 'really' repairs dental cavities and
any mouth diseases or problems related to gums etc. I know, I have been
using it and indeed it DID completely repair the rotted dark cavity from the
tooth that was affected though it took a couple or more weeks of swishing it
around for five minutes in the mouth each day a couple times for a couple
weeks. I only mention this to prove it DOES work.

It 'definitely also 'energizes the body along with helping to sleep well,
but most important is that it must be home grown and made fresh and drinking
immediately after juiced in a wheatgrass juicer. Visit
www.wheatgrasskits.com to buy the juicer and or kit if you choose to try
this out. ITS MORE THAN WORTH IT. I hope you can get this to your mom right
away and or start her off on it right away.
It has every known vitamin,mineral,enzyme,and amino acids and or proteins
known to man so far in its exact proportion 'natural' measures!
PLANTS contain the chemicals in their right proportions so don't depend on
processed vitamins except for the plant form itself made FRESH from
wheatgrass itself.
This and a genuine regular actual prayer for her good health and well being
is crucial for a radical turnabout for the better though it will probably
take a little while to see significant effects. though a rise in energy will
be seen immediately.Six months of a wheatgrass diet should do the trick
though.
May your mom be healthy and well soon.
God Bless her and educate her about this after you educate yourself about
this stuff.

Buy the book and send it to her right away though! Or translate it for her
though possibly the Anne wigmore website may have a translation already in
this language, I don't know.
'She' alone is the first one you should consult in regard to the Anne
wigmore institute who treats people with these kind of problems. And don't
let ANYONE try to discourage you about this wheatgrass OR Ann's discoveries
what so ever!
There are people at the institute who can give you far more information than
I have here about it. You should definitely contact them. Anne herself died
in a fire along time ago but those who know of her and the REAL affects
wheatgrass produces carried on her institute.

God Bless!
This info is a little kind of prayer for her and you caring for her too.

"Poe" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Herman Rubin

text:
In article <[email]>, Poe  <[email]> wrote:

In SOME cases, this can be done to SOME extent.  The one
finding how to do even a fair job here is a strong candidate
for a Nobel prize, and probably more.  There are good
biological reasons why this should be difficult.


author: Steph

text:
"-" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
body
fresh

Ah, another graduate of the Watchman Medical School.........................


author: Wayne Alan Simon

text:
the premise that cancer is aneroebic and aerophobic it seems to me is a
false premise.


author: Glenn Gilbreath Jr.

text:
In article <dMDc8.74796$[email]>,
   "Steph" <[email]> wrote:

Hehe, I also like the part that ONLY FRESH stuff
will do...like we all ahve access to a wheatfield??
Anyway, as with everything else I've heard/read/seen
regarding cure for cancer..."caveat emptor".  The
only instances I've seen where "fresh" was really
better than prepared/dried/harvested is in the
area of the taste of herbs used in preparing meals.
And even then it's a matter of personal preference,
and what you have available.  However, i'm not going
to stop people from grazing in the wheat fields of
my neighbors alongside the cattle...if they want
to chew a cud because they think it cures something,
let it be.
See you later!
Glenn

Wizard57M
Glenn Gilbreath Jr. R.Ph.
[email]
http://members.surfbest.net/[email]/index.htm


author: Jeff Novotny

subject: protein metabolization

text:
Hello,
I've read that ingested carbohydrates are easily converted to fat if
not burned for energy.  Does the body metabolize protein differently?
Is protein not as easily stored as fat?
So, if you ate 1000 calories of carbohydrates vs. 1000 calories of
protein, would the body treat these differently?

Thanks!
Jeff


author: Mooshie peas

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On 18 Aug 2003 21:47:09 -0700, [email] (Jeff Novotny)
posted:

Very slightly on balance. The protein in excess has about 4 cal per
gram, and after the nitrogen is stripped off and excreted, these
calories can be stored as fat. Same with excess of any calories.


author: tcomeau

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
[email] (Jeff Novotny) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Good question. I asked the same thing months ago. Didn't get an
adequate answer then and suspect you won't get one now.

Here another way of looking at it: Is 1000 kcals of fat the exact same
as 1000 kcals of carbs and the exact same as 1000 kcals of protein, in
terms of human metabolism? The calorie theory says it is. I think that
it is absurd to believe that they are the same. It is not as simple as
that. It may be the same in a bomb calorimeter, but it certainly isn't
the same in the human body.

The body is not a static vessel, it does not metabolise the three
macro-nutrients the exact same way. Also, the macro-nutrient make-up
of the diet, the amounts consumed and the frequency and time between
meals all affect how the body uses the available nutrients in very
significant ways.

Here is one site I found on protein metabolism:

http://www.zonehome.com/met/metprotnit.htm

TC


author: MattLB

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
Jeff Novotny wrote:

Protein is digested to amino acids which when absorbed into the
bloodstream either go to make new protein or go to the liver where they
are converted to something else. That something else maybe glucose, or a
non-energy related substance. The more the protein consumption exceeds
the protein requirements of the body the more of the amino acids that
will end up being converted to glucose. There is no protein storage
system as such.

As far as I know fat tissue can't convert amino acids to fat, but it can
convert glucose to fat. Any dietary  protein that is going to end up as
fat will have to be metabolised by the liver first into glucose and then
fat which will be transported to adipose tissue by VLDL.

Getting too hung up on the calorific value of them probably isn't
helpful. For one thing protein rich foods tend to require more energy to
digest, both in more chewing and more stomach churning, so straight away
the calorie consumption is increased.

MattLB


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On 19 Aug 2003 08:43:01 -0700, [email] (tcomeau) posted:

Read: "didn't get the answer I WANTED"   :)

No it doesn't. You have a comprehension disorder. All these have the
same amount of chemical energy. The body deals with them in different
ways. Every calorie more than required for energy for tissue building
and muscular activity contributes to fat storage at nine calories for
every gram of fat stored.

Well you ARE absurd, remember?    :)

A chemical reaction is a chemical reaction wherever it occurs, and
each one has an exact amount of energy involved.

Of course not. This only happens in your fevered imagination.

Yet you can't show us any valid evidence for this?
Despite all the silly things you come out with, you keep persisting
with the silliest,  that you apparently don't have to account for
EVERY calorie involved. You do!

And? Do you understand this? Seems not.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:20:59 +0100, MattLB
<[email]> posted:

But not by enough to use this phenomenon for a weight loss strategy.


author: MJ

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
"MattLB" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3F424E6B.F58447FA@

Matt,

Is that fact taken into account when the 'calorie count' of particular foods
is worked out? Seems like it would be an important thing to allow for....!!

BTW, I really appreciate your input into this n/g. Thanks for spending the
time on our queries!

MJ


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
Mooshie peas wrote:

You've not heard of the jaw-ache diet then? As I said before I don't
know what sort of figures you could put to it, but even a small increase
in calorie expenditure associated with the process of digestion will
have an effect if it happens at every meal (just as a few calories over
your needs per meal, every meal, will eventually result in obesity over
a lifetime). Also if your jaw tires out you'll have to stop eating and
so automatically be on a lower calorie diet. The extra effort required
to digest the protein is far more significant than the chewing of
course, because it can last for hours.

MattLB


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 22:24:01 +0100, "MJ" <[email]>
posted:

Depends how big it is.

Ditto for me too, Matt. Thanks.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
MJ wrote:

No it's not, it's purely the calorie content of the food itself. The
calorie value is the heat liberated when a food is totally converted
(burned) to carbon dioxide and water in a bomb calorimeter. The same
amount of energy is released/consumed when your body converts that food
to carbon dioxide and water - it just isn't all released as heat, and it
isn't all released in one go. This lag between calorie acquirement and
calorie expenditure is another complicating factor.

At the simplest level if the calories you eat exceed the calories
consumed by everything your body does you gain weight. Working out the
precise calorie value for everything your body does is *very* difficult
however, so crude guesses are made based on size, activity and so on.

It would therefore be true to say that if you ate nothing but easily
digested foods requiring little chewing (that's snack food) your calorie
expenditure would be *less* than if you ate nothing but unrefined, chewy
foods that take a long time to digest. I can't put figures on the
difference in energy expenditure, but the difference is there. Snack
foods are made worse by the fact they are unusually calorie dense (due
to lack of fibre) on top of requiring less energy to digest.

The ramifications of the digestive process are often overlooked when
considering diets. Along with the energy required differing depending on
what you're eating, the number of calories that are put in the mouth
don't usually equal the number of calories that actually end up in the
body.

You're welcome.

MattLB


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 10:34:45 +0100, MattLB
<[email]> posted:

Good one, Matt, "jaw ache diet  :")

BTW, a few calories over per meal? Make that 10 per day. That adds up
to 3650 per year, or about 400 grams or less than a pound. (of fat)
Ten ponds per deacade. Just shows how constant over or under eating
just a little can affect your weight.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
"MattLB" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3F4B29B5.491624D6@

Not that this point is necessarily significant, but when I worked in a large
corporation I once spent a few days keeping a note of who was a 'fidget' in
the office and who wasn't - you know, people swinging their legs from side
to side all the time, jiggling their ankles while they worked, that sort of
thing. And overwhelmingly it did seem that the fatter people sat absolutely
still most of the time, while the thin people were always slightly in
motion. As you say, add this sort of thing up over a period of time, and the
used calories total...maybe one large bun per month..?

IANAE, though...

BTW, I originally typed 'one large bum per month'. But I didn't mean to.
Probably.

MJ


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:01:19 +0100, MattLB
<[email]> posted:

Chewing requires minimal calories, and fibre often takes nutrients
right through to the porcelain, no?


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
"MattLB" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3F43630F.50DF9921@

Isn't there *another* complicating factor in that not everything we eat is
even converted all the way down to CO2 and H20: faeces can be dried and
burnt - there's still lots of energy locked up in it!

What we need is figures allowing for 'unused' calorific value that 'passes
right through' - and that figure might even be different for diferent
people!! N'est-ce pas?

Thanks again.

MJ


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
MJ wrote:

It's quite a common occurence that thin people who eat normally or like
the proverbial horse, burn off the excess calories by subconsciously
increasing their activity. The best way to burn fat (specifically as
opposed to just using up calories) would be to continually be moving,
with the minimum of effort - which is pretty much what fidgeting is. In
the olden days it would be going out on the hunt.

MattLB


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 13:22:16 +0100, "MJ" <[email]>
posted:

But that's never "entered the body" physiologically.

Absolutely. There seem to be two mechanisms to explain the skinny
person who eats like a horse continually. My son and a sister-in-law
are classic examples. They are both hyperactive "itchy asses" who
can't sit still for a second, and I'll bet they absorb only a fraction
of all they actually put in their mouths.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
"MJ" <[email]> wrote in message news:<3KJ0b.15836$[email]>...

Yep, that is a problem. I've made this point many times in this group
and most "calories-are-everything" advocates conveniently ignore it.

The first law of thermodynamics says essentially that in a closed
system, no energy is lost and no energy is created. Preservation of
energy is fundamental. It all is accounted for in the end. What energy
goes in must come out.

But, and this is a huge "but", the human body is *not* a closed
system. It is not a static system either.

The body does not use all its nutrition strictly for energy, some is
used for energy, some is used for rebuilding tissues, some are used in
body processes and some just goes thru the system and out the back
end.

To complicate matters, varying states of the body causes it to react
and change how it uses its nutrition. This can change from minute to
minute. For example, you are hungry, your body adjusts its metabolism
accordingly, then you eat a meal, you are no longer hungry and the
metabolism changes accordingly. You eat a low-gi-load meal and your
body adjusts accordingly, conversely, you eat a hi-gi-load meal and
your body adjusts accordingly. These various adjustments in metabolism
occurs from various hormonal balances, one being the insulin-glucagon
balance.

The calories-is-everything concept cannot be applied in any practical
way for weight management. It fails in 98% of cases.

TC


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
MJ wrote:

That's what I was alluding to with the "calories in the mouth is not
calories in the body" line.

It almost certainly would be. This is one situation where two people
could be eating exactly the same amount, but one gets fat and the other
stays slim. The fat person has a more efficient digestive system and
gets every calorie out of the food, whereas the slimmer person loses
more down the toilet or to bacteria. Alternatively, the slimmer person
gets out the same amount, but has used up more energy doing so (due to
less efficient physiology) leaving less energy to be stored as fat.

MattLB


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On 21 Aug 2003 08:16:56 -0700, [email] (tcomeau) posted:

Calories that go "straight through" have NOT gone IN. Have you not yet
cracked open a phyiology text? Everyone else takes this into account,
but you seem to have just realised it.

Never been shown to be otherwise. We await the evidence for your
contrary claim.

Makes NO difference. Do you understand what a "closed system" is in
thermodynamics" It is the process inside the circle that you are
studying. You can put the circle anywhere. ALL calories MUST be
accounted for.

The latter has NOT gone "IN" so is not counted.

Can you show that the former do not result in energy = weight, and/or
heat?

Makes no nevermind. Burn calories, store them, or excrete them, you
have NO other choice.

So show us how there is ANY change from burning, storing or excreting.
If you eat 2000 calories (for argument sake) and only 1500 are
absorbed into the bloodsteram, and 1000 of these are burnt, there is
500 over, so where can these go if not stored as 55 grams of fat and
the associated water. You are proposing a variation from this. Please
explain.

You are sounding as silly as the idiot whose name will not be uttered.
Repeating stupid "dumb insolent" inanities does NOT do your case any
good.

Low calorie diets succeed 100% if compliance is 100% and it does NOT
matter what the macronutrient ratio is (assuming healthy individual
without syndrome X)


author: Eric Bohlman

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
[email] (tcomeau) wrote in
news:[email]:

You're just throwing around impressive-sounding terms that you don't
understand.  What you're mis-stating as the first law of thermodynamics is
actually the law of conservation of energy, which has absolutely nothing to
do with distinctions between "closed" and "open" systems (neither does the
first law of thermodynamics; it's the *second* law, dealing with the
tendency of entropy to increase in closed systems, that does).

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can be neither created
nor destroyed.  Period.  From the "can't be destroyed" part it follows that
any calories consumed must either be burned, converted to tissue (which
includes fat), or excreted.  With the exception of fiber, only minuscule
amounts of caloric macronutrients are found in the urine and feces except
under pathological conditions.  Under those conditions, you experience
polyuria, diarrhea, or both.  And from the "can't be created" part it
follows that the body cannot create tissue (which includes fat) if the
intake of calories doesn't provide sufficient energy to do so.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:15:47 +0100, MattLB
<[email]> posted:

Yep, many have mentioned it here Matt. TC has only just discovered it,
unfortunately.

And then there is the "itchy arse" who can't keep still for a second.
My 32 year old son is a case in point. He doesn't eat much at one
sitting, but he has a lot of sittings. It's almost as if he has had
stomach stapling. And he can't stop fidgetting, fiddling or on the
move. Perhaps he has worms   :)


author: John the Man

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Where did you get that hog wash from, Matti Boy?


author: Alf Christophersen

subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2003 09:07:41 GMT, Mooshie peas
<[email]> wrote:

Increase size of your body by increasing number of cells and size of
organs etc, or exchange old molecules with newer ones (the old
molecules are converted, excreted or made into energy)


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On 21 Aug 2003 18:38:28 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email]>
posted:

Good post, as usual, Eric. Just one little addition: I've recently
read where some foods, like nuts, can pass considerable calories if
not chewed well. Just as an example, when looking behind in the
morning, as one should, have you noticed the odd pea and sweetcorn
piece in your offering to the porcelain god. Under the microscpe,
beside much bacterial detritis (containing significant energy) there
are many meat muscle fibres evident.

Just a little point that occurred from your last sentence, The energy
to "create" fat is needed in the chemical energy stored in the
chemical bonds of the fat molecules.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
Eric Bohlman  Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

That law is good in physics class, but is Ha, ... Hah, Ha! on this ng.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 18:17:33 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

Of course these are but subsets of the three options I gave.
There are even more subsets of these, and then subsets of those in
turn, and so on.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
Mooshie peas <[email]> wrote in
news:[email]:

My understanding is that with corn and peas, all that goes through is the
outer cellulose covering; the starchy center pops out of the kernel or pea
during chewing and gets digested, but the shape of the cellulose casing
remains intact.  I'm wonder if the meat fibers are made of proteins that
are simply resistant to the usual peptidases, in which case they should
really be treated like dietary fiber.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 07:27:08 GMT, Mooshie peas
<[email]> wrote:

Never seen a calorie around :-) How are they looking alike?? Like some
Martians??


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On 25 Aug 2003 04:11:46 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email]>
posted:

I'm sure this is the fate of most, but some don't actually get chewed.
I've seen some that look awfully whole and original coloured. Not
many, mind, but who knows the proportion in different folks.

Of course, but the pertinent point is that we don't know what
percentage goes right through. It will surely depend on transit times
and chewing thoroughness. Notice how dogs can swallow a whole steak
without it touching the sides? Well I've seen some humans with this
trick  :)

Almonds are ~50% fat and if not chewed well, I'll bet considerable
calories go straight through to the keeper.

Starch inside intact cell walls probably goes straight through as
well.


subject: Re: protein metabolization

text:
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:00:02 +0200, Alf Christophersen
<[email]> posted:

I've never seen an electron either, but I sure can see their effects:)


author: Scott Ferrin

subject: Re: ..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself

text:
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:19:29 -0500, "Jonathan" <[email]>
wrote:

ROFL!  Your post sounds like it was written by a sterotypical
conspiracy freak.

Maybe you could give us a rational explanation of the so-called
connection between returning to the moon and missile defense?


author: Scott Hedrick

text: You clearly don't understand the science- so which are *you*?


author: Pat Flannery

subject:
Re: ..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating
 Itself

text:
Scott Ferrin wrote:

Remember, this is the guy who thinks that if you wait around long
enough, rocks will come alive all on their own.
If they don't have some sort of giant popular uprising during the
Beijing Olympics, his whole world view is going to fall apart.

Pat


author: Della

subject: Manechau

text:
Hello,

I've run across the expression "マネちゃう" many times, but never
managed to find out what it means. Does it stem from 真似る?

Here are some examples from Google:
そのままマネちゃえばいいんです
無意識でマネちゃうんですよね
マネちゃめーヨ!!
今度マネちゃいます
隣の子だけはマネちゃダメ！

Any idea what it means?

Della


author: B. Ito

subject: Re: Manechau

text:
"Della" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
----------------------------------------------ーーーーー---
そうですよ。
「まねちゃう」は、「真似る　＋　してしまう（やってしまう）」ですから
その通りです。

ただし、
はちょっと、ここ２０−３０年耳、目にしたことがないのですが、ちょっとした
typo　がからんでいるんでしょうか。

たとえば、
「マネちゃ、（い）やーヨ」、「マネちゃ、ダメーヨ」、「マネちゃ、ヤベーヨ」、
でいずれも"Don't imitate someone, something etc." ですけどね。

あるいは、ごろっとニュアンスを変えて、「まねじゃ（ぢゃ)ネーヨ」
"I'm not imitating anyone." でしょうか。

ひょっとすると、「マネちゃエーヨ」（マネちゃえよ）(Try imitation.)、
「マネじゃイーヨ」（I won't ask you, if you imitate someone. or
Forget imitation.)ではないでしょうね。

ーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーーー
Ｂ．Ｉｔｏ


author: Danny Wilde

subject: Re: Manechau

text:
"Della" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Hallo.

Yes, that's right.

It's a contraction of "manete simaeba".

"manete simau"

Possibly "manete wa dame" -> "manechame"

"manete simaimasu"

"manete wa dame"

It usually means impersonate or copy.

Have a nice Saturday.

Danny.


author: Jodok the bulbous ghoul-disputer

subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
Ingeborg, ye tardy-gaited knot of damned bloodsuckers, bite my arse I
prithee, ye secreted:

<snip>

You fucking tard.


author: HF

subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
Try Partition Magic.
"Jodok the bulbous ghoul-disputer" <[email]> wrote in
message news:92h0ty$gax$[email]...


subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
Another idea ??Delete the partition. Create a partition and use a 9x boot
disk to format it fat32
"Jodok the bulbous ghoul-disputer" <[email]> wrote in
message news:92h0ty$gax$[email]...


author: Jirg the liechtensteiner yeti-stroker

subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
HF, ye reeking whoreson zed, I was seeking for a fool when I found ye,
ye nagged:

And you are telling me that because, you fuck-brained oaf?


author: Damian

subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
HF wrote:

<snigger>   Dumb. Try bottom posting so you can read what has been posted;
maybe it will be something you can grasp if you re-read everything.


author: marika

subject: Re: Reformat USB2 HDD back to FAT32?

text:
"Jirg the liechtensteiner yeti-stroker" <[email]> wrote in
message news:qt3asq$gzr$[email]...

he's trying to spread happiness and cheer to which you are immune, having
developed antibodies

how's your hot flashes coming along, I hear soy is good for that

mk5000

Happiness spreads socially, study finds

Dec. 4, 2008
Courtesy Harvard Medical School
and World Science staff

Chrisï¿½takis and Fowlï¿½er have been minï¿½ing daï¿½ta from the Framï¿½ingï¿½ham Heart
Study, an onï¿½goï¿½ing, mulï¿½tiï¿½-decade carï¿½diï¿½oï¿½vasï¿½cuï¿½lar study that has
genï¿½erï¿½atï¿½ed reams of daï¿½ta on parï¿½tiï¿½ciï¿½pants' health and relaï¿½tï¿½ionï¿½ships.
The anï¿½aï¿½lysts atï¿½tempted to reï¿½conï¿½struct the soï¿½cial fabï¿½ric in which
inï¿½diï¿½vidï¿½uï¿½als were enï¿½meshed and asï¿½sess the relaï¿½tï¿½ionï¿½ship beï¿½tween
soï¿½cial netï¿½works and health.

The reï¿½searchï¿½ers unï¿½earthed what they called a treasï¿½ure trove of daï¿½ta
from arï¿½chives datï¿½ing back to 1971. All family changes for each study
parï¿½tiï¿½ciï¿½pant, such as birth, marï¿½riage, death, and diï¿½vorce, were
recorded. Parï¿½tiï¿½ciï¿½pants had alï¿½so listï¿½ed conï¿½tact inï¿½formaï¿½tï¿½ion for
their closï¿½est friends, coworkï¿½ers and neighï¿½bors. Coï¿½inï¿½ciï¿½denï¿½t, many of
these friends were alï¿½so study parï¿½tiï¿½ciï¿½pants.

Foï¿½cusï¿½ing on 4,739 inï¿½diï¿½vidï¿½uï¿½als, Chrisï¿½takis and Fowlï¿½er obï¿½served over
50,000 soï¿½cial and family ties and anï¿½aï¿½lyzed the spread of hapï¿½piï¿½ness
throughï¿½out this group. Usï¿½ing the Cenï¿½ter for Epï¿½iï¿½deï¿½miï¿½ogï¿½iï¿½cal Studï¿½ies
Deï¿½presï¿½sion Inï¿½dex, a quesï¿½tionï¿½naire comï¿½pletï¿½ed by parï¿½tiï¿½ciï¿½pants and
deï¿½signed to measï¿½ure satï¿½isï¿½facï¿½tion in life, the reï¿½searchï¿½ers found that
when someï¿½one beï¿½comes hapï¿½py, a friend livï¿½ing withï¿½in a mile enï¿½joys a 25
perï¿½cent highï¿½er chance of beï¿½comï¿½ing hapï¿½py. A co-resident spouse
exï¿½peï¿½riï¿½ences an 8 perï¿½cent highï¿½er chance; sibï¿½lings livï¿½ing withï¿½in one
mile, 14 perï¿½cent higher; next door neighï¿½bors, 34 perï¿½cent.--


author: [redacted]

subject: The Other Prostate Problem

text:
Recent Columns:
The Other Prostate Problem
Jan 14, 2002

It has been called "the forgotten prostate disease." Yet prostatitis
leads to more than 2 million visits to doctors' offices in the United
States each year and is the most common urological problem among men
younger than 50, though older guys can develop it too.

The medical establishment has paid far more attention to prostate
cancer and enlarged prostate in recent years, but that situation is
beginning to change. That is, in part, because of a new federal study
of men with prostatitis that may yield valuable information about how
best to treat this mysterious and often frustrating disease.

Prostatitis is a blanket term for several related conditions with
similar symptoms. Some sufferers develop a frequent and urgent need to
urinate, which is also the key characteristic of an enlarged prostate,
also known as benign prostatic hyperplasia, or BPH. Other symptoms,
such as a burning sensation while urinating and erectile dysfunction,
can occur too. The hallmark symptoms of prostatitis, however, are pain
and discomfort in the pelvic area, groin or lower back. In some cases,
the discomfort is merely annoying, like sitting on a golf ball. For
other patients, though, prostatitis means sheer anguish. "Some men
describe it as feeling like they've been impaled on a spear," says
Clark Hickman, an associate dean at the University of Missouri-St.
Louis. Hickman, a prostatitis sufferer who runs a telephone support
group for the illness, says prostatitis pain can be so debilitating
that some men end up on work disability.

In a small minority of cases, men complaining of prostatitis symptoms
turn up in doctors' offices with severe fever too. That's a sure sign
of acute prostatitis, which is caused by an infection and is easily
treated with antibiotics.

However, the majority of men complaining of pain down under don't have
a fever, and they test negative for bacterial infections. Yet many
doctors in this country nonetheless treat these cases of chronic
prostatitis with antibiotics, which are designed to fight infections.

Not surprisingly, antibiotics often prove to be worthless in relieving
prostatitis, though many men with the condition end up taking them for
years anyway, risking side effects that can include gastrointestinal
problems and headaches. "[Prostatitis] is often treated as an
infectious disease because we really don't know what else to do," says
University of Maryland urologist Richard Alexander. He adds, however,
that doctors keep prescribing antibiotics to men with chronic
prostatitis because a portion of them feel better if they take the
drugs, even though they don't have an infection.

That may be because the antibiotics act like anti-inflammatory drugs,
says urologist Scott Zeitlin of the UCLA School of Medicine. Indeed,
many prostatitis patients have clear signs of inflammation in their
prostate fluid, which isn't surprising (the suffix "itis" refers to
inflammation). Yet other men experiencing pelvic pain and other
symptoms reveal no signs of inflammation.

Don't worry if you're confused. "The cause of this condition is
unknown," Zeitlin says. While many theories have been proposed, no one
is sure why men get chronic prostatitis in the first place, he says.
"This all makes chronic prostatitis a very difficult disease to
explain to a patient, and to treat."

Zeitlin and his colleagues at UCLA are conducting a nationwide,
multi-center study, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, to
measure the value of two drugs commonly used to treat chronic
prostatitis. One is Flomax, a medication that's better known as a
treatment for urinary problems linked to BPH. The other drug--the
antibiotic Cipro--became a household word since it's considered the
therapy of choice for anthrax infection. Men with prostatitis who
participate in the study will be given Flomax, Cipro, a combination of
the two drugs or an empty placebo pill for six weeks, then followed
for six weeks to determine whether their symptoms improve.

In addition to other drugs (such as pain relievers), doctors recommend
a wide range of remedies and preventive measures for chronic
prostatitis, though none is guaranteed to work. Sitz baths (sitting in
a tub of warm water) help some men, while some doctors suggest that
men perch on a cushion if they plan to sit for a long period. Avoiding
spicy foods or alcohol and caffeine--all of which can cause flare-ups
in some men--is sometimes recommended.

Ejaculation brings relief for some men, while worsening prostatitis
anguish in others. A technique known as prostatic massage, first
popularized in the early 1900s, appears to be making a comeback. A
doctor inserts a gloved finger into the patient's rectum and rubs the
prostate. The goal is to empty ducts within the gland, which, if
clogged, can cause pain.

This method might be a tough sell to men who freak out when it's time
for the annual digital rectal exam, especially because several
massages per week are necessary (some men even learn to self-massage).
But Zeitlin and urologist Daniel Shoskes of the Cleveland Clinic in
Weston, Fla., found in one study that about 40% of difficult-to-treat
prostatitis cases improved with a combination of massage and
antibiotics.

Zeitlin and Shoskes also found in a 1999 study, published in the
journal Urology, that 82% of men with prostatitis who took a dietary
supplement called Prosta-Q (whose main active ingredient is the plant
nutrient quercetin) experienced at least a small improvement in
symptoms.

However, other clinicians are skeptical. "No one really knows what's
in this stuff but the people who make it," says University of Maryland
urologist Richard Alexander, noting that the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration doesn't regulate the content and purity of dietary
supplements.

Alexander is a leading proponent of the theory that chronic
prostatitis may be an autoimmune disorder, which occurs when the
body's immune system attacks its own organs or tissues. He is studying
whether men with chronic prostatitis benefit from the drug Enbrel,
which is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, another autoimmune
disease. However, Alexander adds, there's often no accounting for how
prostatitis patients will respond to various therapies for this
baffling condition.

You can write the Prostatitis Foundation for more information at 1063
30th St., Smithshire, IL 61478, or visit the group's Web site at
www.prostatitis.org. Men in the L.A. area who are interested in
enrolling in the study should contact Yining Xie at Harbor UCLA
Medical Center ([310] 222-3819) or Maryellen Raimo at Charles R. Drew
University of Medicine and Science ([310] 668-4545).

*

Massachusetts freelance writer Timothy Gower is at tgower@media
one.net. The Healthy Man runs the second Monday of the month.

This article contributed by http://www.prostate-healthcare.com. to
advance discussion


author: Leonard Evens

subject: Re: The Other Prostate Problem

text:
In article <3c4569d1.14071420@news-server>, "kevin"
<[email]> wrote:

I hardly think there is a competition among diseases in urological
practice.   Prostatitis is quite common, as you point out, and urologists
see it quite a lot.   It is good that there is more research on it, but
it is not as though urologists have been ignoring it all these years.


author: Joe

subject: Re: The Other Prostate Problem

text:
It is called "the forgotten prostate disease" because so few investigators
have taken a look at...and if Uro's have been working so hard on it, then
why isn't the knowledge base more complete?

If they haven't been ignoring it then they have MORE TO EXPLAIN for
themselves...

There is strong competition amongst researchers for funding $$$ and the hot
topics (read politically correct) get the funding (e.g., breast cancer).

By the way, does anyone know what the campaign slogan was for the prostate
ribbon campaign? It was "US TOO!"

"Leonard Evens" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Rhemium

subject: Re: The Other Prostate Problem

text:
What?  QUERCETIN, buddy!!  THAT'S what's in it!

What a callous comment.  Listen to the patients, Doc, not the FDA and fellow
narrow-minded uros.

Ask me.  Ask Rob.  Ask Anon.  Ask a lot of us.


author: Kelly Ace Gomas

subject: Re: The Other Prostate Problem

text:
You get my vote. This disorder does not get the attention that "service to
humanity" would dictate. IMHO the solutions are not what one would
characterize as ROBUST. I think there are really two issues here. First is
on the theory and research and second on the application. On the application
side I think uro's are concerned and apply the solutions that they have at
hand. But they can only use, what they think is best, of what solutions
exist. The weakness clearly is in research. JMHMO
"Joe" <[email]> wrote in message
news:rXq18.117$[email]...
hot
cancer
with
treat
urologists


author: "Harry Muscle"

subject: Automated variable resistor

text:
Is it possible to create a resistor that will increase or decrease in Ohms
by itself.  My scenario is that when I push a button (closing the switch) I
need a resistor to start increasing in Ohms from 0 Ohms to 50K (these values
aren't important to me at the moment, I'm just trying to see if something
like this is possible), when 50K is reached it just stays there.  However,
when the switch is open it goes down from 50K (or whatever position it was
at when the switch opened) down to 0 and stays there.

I'm guessing I'm gonna need some sort of counting IC and interface it with a
variable resistor, but I've got no clue what keywords to even start
searching under to find the right parts.

Thanks,
Harry

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: John Fields

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:51:09 -0500, "Harry Muscle" <fake@[email]>
wrote:

---
A neat old-timey way would be to drive a 50k pot with a reversible
motor.  Also, you could use a Vactrol, but zero ohms would be a
problem.  Also, you could drive a resistive ladder with an ADC.

What are you trying to do?  Do you really just need a resistance
change or is that part of a larger scheme?


author: Boris Mohar

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:51:09 -0500, "Harry Muscle" <fake@[email]>
wrote:

 Digital pot.


author: Spehro Pefhany

subject: Re: Automated variable resistor

text:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2003 09:51:09 -0500, the renowned "Harry Muscle"
<fake@[email]> wrote:

Look at digital pots, you may be able to cob something together with
one of those and a 555 or something.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany