author: George Robbins

subject: Re: EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Allen J Michielsen) writes:

Most color displays have some attempt at shielding, most monochrome don't, be
they TV's or VDT's.  Older televisions used a separate piece of glass for
"implosion protection", newer televisions and VDT's typically have a heavy
duty or laminated faceplate.  It is also possible to use leaded glass to
minimize X-ray emission, but this form of protection isn't visible.

TV scan rates aren't much different from VDT's and since they typically have
larger screens, probably generate more energy.  High resolution graphics
displays may be a different matter.

Got one right at least...

Nonsense.  Most "commercial" grade equipment is made to better standards than
consumer equipment.  Most of the VDT's in commercial use aren't fly by night,
those are the ones bought for use with cheap clones for home use.  Most of these
require UL or similar testing to allow unrestricted retail sale.

If the belief was based something more than factoids and scare stories, then
I'd almost agree, but most of the anti-VDT noise is coming from labor groups
who have realized that doing drudge work in front of a CRT in a high pressure/
productivity oriented situation is a miserable way to make a living.  It's
probably not healthy either, but it's well to keep an open mind whether the
VDT is the cause of the problem, or simply the tool that enables this particular
form of workplace.


author: Henry Spencer

subject: Re: EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Nichael Cramer) writes:

TV program directors have spent their working lives intently watching
industrial-grade video monitors at very close range for 40-50 years now.
No abnormal health problems have been reported among them.

Differences in experience between TV program directors and, say, data-entry
operators probably have a lot more to do with stress -- the program
directors are decision-makers, not paid-by-the-keystroke slaves -- than
with the hardware environment.


subject: Re: EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
I'm not sure how this thread wandered off the subject of EMF
radiation to X-rays - I guess the fear is, it all Hertz.

The amount of X radiation from a CRT is a function of high
voltage potential, shielding, and brightness.  A Tek storage
tube (4014, etc.) uses hundreds of volts for the stored image,
not enough to produce X-rays.  Small CRTs, especially monochrome,
use a low enough HV that few X-rays are produced.

Large screen and projection televisions can produce enough
radiation to pick up on a Geiger counter.  Not enough to
sterilize potato salad, but don't let un-fixed cats sleep on it.


author: Allen J Michielsen

subject: WAS ... EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
In article <[email]> grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) writes:

This is slightly misleading, and the way I said it first was worse.  If
you intend to sell in the home/consumer market, you MUST meet a different
max level of emissions than if you CLAIM that you intend to market in the
industrial/business/industry market.  However, after meet the whatever
intended class certification, you can actually sell to anyone however you want.
There is no budget for inforcement/records/etc of this.  The same is true of
testing.  While home TV's are randomly tested to see that they meet specs,
there is no budget to check VDT's or ANY industrial classed items.  As a matter
of fact, the certification has often been done on 'custom' prototypes.  There
have been several cases (NEC & Hyundai & others) that were tested by
independent labs for professional publications.  It was discovered that
EVERY unit ever manufactured (of that model) exceeded the levels it was
rated for, because the certification unit wasn't a production unit.
The government regulatory agencies would NEVER have known if the publishers
hadn't inquired into it and published.  I remember hyundai removed the
remaining stock from the US (and destroyed it I bet).  Neither ever contacted
me (I owned both units and sent in the reg, cards) like the publications
claimed they would.
None of this is to say that EMF kills.  Hiding behind government backed
emission levels of anything is a dangerous sport.  The politics involved in
this country are so great that I would set my personal levels to about 1/10
of the claimed save exposures of ANYthing just to be safe.
There are studies (BY reliable labs, etc...) that are STARTING to indicate that
EMF can or does have long term and genetic effects.  I suspect that in 20 years
we will know much more than we do now.  Further I suspect that in 100 years
they will laugh at us and our stupidity on hundreds of things like this.
That is assuming that we last as a race or planet long enough...
al


author: John Moore

subject: Re: EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
In article <[email]> grr@cbmvax (George Robbins) writes:
]If the belief was based something more than factoids and scare stories, then
]I'd almost agree, but most of the anti-VDT noise is coming from labor groups
]who have realized that doing drudge work in front of a CRT in a high pressure/
]productivity oriented situation is a miserable way to make a living.  It's
]probably not healthy either, but it's well to keep an open mind whether the
]VDT is the cause of the problem, or simply the tool that enables this particular
]form of workplace.
I used to think the same thing, before I investigated a little bit. It turns
out that there is a significant body of evidence showing biological effects
of magnetic fields near the vertical sweep rate of VDT's, and with the same
amplitudes experienced by some CRT users. Furthermore, there is another
body of evidence that exposure to ELF magnetic fields leads to some
increased incidence of certain cancers.

It is unfortunate that this issue has been snatched up by activists and
Paul Brodeur. It means that reasonable people are apt to deny their claims
simply because the activists themselves have no credibility. However, just
because the claims are asserted by activists does not, per se,
make them invalid.

Also, note that the evidence applies ONLY to ELF magnetic fields. It does
not apply to electric fields, and does not apply to RF energy (unless
amplitude modulated at ELF rates).


author: John Beveridge

subject: Re: WAS ... EMF Radiation Kills !!!

text:
It should be remembered that VDTs and TVs aren't the only devices in use daily
that emit energy.  How about two-way radios?  Motorola includes a tag with
virtually each and every radio, warning of possible dangers.

Front of Warning Tag  [Motorola part # 54D84962K01]

-----------------------------------

   IMPORTANT
SAFETY INFORMATION
 FOR THE MOBILE RADIO
   OPERATOR

radio installer
please leave this tag attached

----------------------------------

The top half of the inside of the tag has the same message as the outside,
minus the instruvtions to the installer.

The bottom half of the inside looks like this.

---------------------------------

* General Safety Information

The United States Department of Labor, through the provisions of the Oc-
cupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSHA) has established an elec-
magnetic energy safety standard which applies to the use of this equip-
ment. Proper use of this radio will result in exposure below the OSHA limit.
The following precautions are recommended:

   DO NOT operate the transmitter when someone outside the vehicle is
   within two feet (0.6 meter) of the antenna

   DO NOT operate the transmitter unless all RF connectors are secure and
   any open connectors are properly terminated.

---------------------------

It goes on like this for a little bit more.  Mentioning blasting caps,m proper
grounds and service being done by qualified persons.

I think, however, that the important thing to notice is that this problem was
suspected as far back as 1970.

Anybody know anything for sure and certain?

.....jb

                               Who? Me? Never!
                                     -*-
                          - [email] -
                       - ists!gkcl.ists.ca!os9john -


subject: Re: Vote for the Greens if you want skyrocketing Petrol and Electric Prices, and increased Interest Rates.

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

Sorry, but the ozone hole is a BIG AS EVER!
It was a money-making scam!

Remembering The Ozone Hole....And R-12 At 68c/pound.

When the bastards at the EPA decided I was no longer going to be allowed to
buy Refridgerant 12 for 68 cents

(US) per pound (US) for my old Mercedes diesel cars, and it was replaced by
R-134a at around $8 for 12oz, or $US10.67/pound, instead to "save the ozone
layer" from complete destruction caused by the pound of R12 that

leaked out of my compressor seals in about a year and a half.

While doing a little research into PAST climate alarmism, I got to thinking
what has happened to the ozone hole over the poles since I was such a great
contributor to the hole and have mended my ways, at quite alarming expense,
to satisfy both the environmental alarmists and government bureaucrats bent
on telling me what I could put in my car and what I couldn't.

It's high time all of you thinking about the alarmist bullshit going on
thought about it, too.

Wikipedia has info and pointers, but I don't trust them.  But, the pointers
are valid, so the text may also be of interest, if but with a grain of salt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

As you can see from this picture of the ozone hole from 2006, taking my
cheap R-12 away has made the fucking hole MUCH LARGER, because my R-12 had
nothing to do with the ozone hole over Antarctica, whatsoever, which

is caused by the radiation from that big star lighting up the noontime sky
over your expensive R134a charged car at 12-15 times the price

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:160658main2_OZONE_large_350.png>

BUT WAIT, THAT WAS OLD!

IT GETS MUCH BETTER!!

I followed the links and found this of LAST YEAR's big Ozone hole covering
24 million square KM:

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/daily.php?date=2009-09-17

Now, as this "data" comes from the very same NASA that houses some of the
biggest noises in AGW alarmism, I guess we can dispense with all the "Oh,
that's just a skeptic's website" usual bullshit as this is right from the
horses ass....er, ah, mouth!

If this "data" has been "adjusted" like AGW data all seems to be at NASA and
other government warmie websites, I don't know.  The hole may be really
larger than it shows here.

But, what it DOES show is all that REFRIDGERANT ALARMISM of those years way
back....which, by the way, just HAPPENED (totally a coincidence, mind you)
to coincide by when Dupont's PATENT on R-12 ran out allowing any chemical
company to make the really cheap refridgerants....and the new R134a, of
course, had a NEW, most profitable patent attached to it to keep Dupont and
its politicians rolling in cash.....another curious coincidence, I'm sure.

Shortly put - WE GOT F**KED!

WE'RE STILL F**KED!

The science was FALSE!

THAT PICTURE PROVES IT!

Warmest Regards

Bonz0

"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."

Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville

"It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you
have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your
side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is
wrong. Period."

Professor Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in Physics

"A core problem is that science has given way to ideology. The scientific
method has been dispensed with, or abused, to serve the myth of man-made
global warming."

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Computer models are built in an almost backwards fashion: The goal is to
show evidence of AGW, and the "scientists" go to work to produce such a
result. When even these models fail to show what advocates want, the data
and interpretations are "fudged" to bring about the desired result"

"The World Turned Upside Down", Melanie Phillips

"Ocean acidification looks suspiciously like a back-up plan by the
environmental pressure groups in case the climate fails to warm: another try
at condemning fossil fuels!"

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/threat-ocean-acidification-greatly-exaggerated

Before attacking hypothetical problems, let us first solve the real problems
that threaten humanity. One single water pump at an equivalent cost of a
couple of solar panels can indeed spare hundreds of Sahel women the daily
journey to the spring and spare many infections and lives.

Martin De Vlieghere, philosopher


author: Glenn Brown

subject: A live videoconference by ASME on Selection, Design & Performance of Bearings and Seals

text:
Selection, Design & Performance of Bearings and Seals
11am - 3:45pm EST
Wednesday, May 22, 1996

Sponsor:  ASME Tribology Division
ASME Research Committee on Tribology
Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers (STLE)

Intended Audience:  Engineers engaged in the selection, design or
application of bearings and seals.  Technical managers wishing to learn
about potential lubrication problems and their solutions.

Program Description
Bearings are machine elements whose function is to promote smooth
relative motion between solid surfaces.  Careful selection and design of
bearings can not only save energy but eliminate wear, and costly
down-time.  In journal and thrust bearings, the contact area is large
and the pressure in the lubricant is small.  The deformation of the
bearing surface is unimportant and the bearings are said to operate in
the hydrodynamic lubrication regime.  Seals frequently rely on
hydrodynamic lubrication.  In rolling bearings and gears, the contact
pressures are high.  The elastic deformation of the surfaces and the
pressure dependence of the lubricant's viscosity must now be considered
by the designer.  These contacts are said to operate in the
elastohydrodynamic lubrication mode.  Six leading experts will discuss
the selection, performance and design of bearings and seals for various
industrial applications.  The presentations are designed for the
practicing engineer.  Educators and students are also welcome.

Benefits:
Learn how:
ï¿½ Good lubrication practices will increase reliability and promote
precision.
ï¿½ to decrease machine downtime and eliminate wear.
ï¿½ To improve leakage control in conventional designs.

About the Speakers:
Andras Z. Szeri (Moderator) is the Robert L. Spencer Professor of the
Mechanical Engineering at the University of Delaware.  He has worked at
the English Electric Co., Ltd, and for 15 years served as consultant to
the Applied Mechanics Division, Westinghouse Research Labs.  He is an
ASME Fellow and is a member on the Research Committee on Tribology.

Hooshang Heshmat is President and Technical Director of Mohwk Innovative
Technology, Inc.  While at Reliance electric Co., he was responsible for
developing high-performance and cost-effective industrial fluid film
bearings.  He was the recipient of several ASME and STLE awards,
including STLE's 1996 al Sonntag Award.  He is an active member of both
ASME and STLE and the Research Committee on Tribology.

Oscar Pinkus is Director of SIGMA, a consulting firm the area of
tribology.  Prior to this, he was with MIT, specializing in the area of
tribology, thermodynamics and energy conservation.  He was the Fairchild
Hiller for seven years working on viscous flow problems.  He is the
recipient of the 1996 STLE Annual Award and an ASME member.

Gordon Kirk is the Director of the Rotor Dynamics Laboratory Industrial
Affiliates Group at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University.
His area of responsibility includes liquid and gas seal influence on
rotor response and stability, dynamic stability of active magnetic
bearings.  He is a member of ASME and STLE and is a registered
Professional Engineer in Virginia.

Herbert S. Cheng was a research scientist at Mechanical Technology Inc.
from 1961-1968.  He jointed the faculty at Northwestern University where
he is now the Walter P. Murphy Professor of Mechanical Engineering.  He
is an ASME Fellow and as STLE honorary member.  His honors include IME
Tribology Gold Medal, ASME Mayo D. Hersey Award, NAE and STLE National
Awards.

Alan O. Lebeck worked for Shell Development and from 1971 to 1987 he
served as Professor and Chairman, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of New Mexico.  In 1987, he started Mechanical Seal
Technology Inc. (MSTI) which performs research and product development,
design, software development and consulting in mechanical seals.  He is
a member of STLE.

Course Outline:
11:00 - 11:15  Introduction/Moderator  Dr. Andra Z. Szeri  University of
Delaware
11:15 - 11:55  Introduction to Lubrication  Dr. Hooshang Heshmat  Mohawk
Innovative Technology, Inc.
ï¿½ Lean what the different types of lubrication are
ï¿½ Review the classification of bearings
ï¿½ Discuss the bearing selection
11:55 - 12:35 Journal and Thrust Bearings  Oscar Pinkus  SIGMA
ï¿½ Learn what the parameters of bearing performance are
ï¿½Learn what the design considerations are
ï¿½ Learn about lubricant and materials selection
12:35 - 1:05  LUNCH
1:05 - !:45 Bearings:  Rotor Stability  Dr. Gordon Kirk  Rotor Dynamics
Laboratory  Industrial Affiliates Group  Virginia Polytechnic Institute
& State University
ï¿½ Learn about "unbalance response" and "transient response"
ï¿½Learn about the factors involved in critical speed and stability
ï¿½ Review the instability mechanism in turbomachinery
1:45 - 2:25  Rolling Contact Bearings  Dr. Herbert S. Cheng
Northwestern University
ï¿½ Review the film thickness for the different lubrication regimes.
ï¿½ Learn what the types of bearings are
ï¿½ Learn about "fatigue life"; kinematics and contact stresses.
2:25 - 2:35  BREAK
2:35 - 3:15  Mechanical Face Seals  Dr. Alan O. Leback  Mechanical Seal
Technology,Inc.
ï¿½Learn about improved leakage control in conventional designs involving
material selection and surface roughness, control of radial taper and
circumferential flatness and the use of modern design tools.
ï¿½ Learn about the limits of passive lubrication; active lubrication and
leakage control
3:15 - 3:45  Recap:  Panel Discussion/Questions & Answers  Moderator:
Dr. Andras Z. Szeri  University of Delaware

Panelists:
Dr. Hooshang Heshmat, Mohawk Innovative Technology, Inc.
Oscar Pinkus,  SIGMA
Dr. Gordon Kirk, Rotor Dynamics Laboratory Industrial Affiliates Group,
Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State Univ.
Dr. Herbert S. Cheng, Northwestern University
Dr. Alan O. Lebeck, Mechanical Seal Technology Inc.

How to register

Telephone:  Call toll free:  ASME Information Central at (800)-THE-ASME

Fax completed registration form to:  (212) 705-7671

Mail completed registration form to:
American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Re:  "Selection, design and performance of bearings and seals
104-26-9605-3602, John Beck
ASME Information Center
22 Law Drive, PO Box 2900
Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900

Downlink site registration fees
ASME Sections			$750
Educational/Non-Profit		$750
Government			$850
Corporations			$1500

Additional Cost:
In-House, on-site taping rights:	$250
Multisite rates are also available

Purchase of Videotape
ASME Sections			$825
Educational/Non-Profit		$825
Government			$925
Corporations			$1575

Attending the broadcast at the University of Maryland:  Cost $100
To attend this broadcast live at the University of Maryland, College
Park, please register by e-mail at   [email]

When you register by e-mail, here is what we need from you.
Name, Company, mailing address, phone, fax.   When we receive this
information, we will mail you parking passes and maps on how to reach
the ITV studio.  You may pay at the door by check, money order, VISA,
Mastercard, Discover, American Express and Diners Club cards.  Indicate
on checks and purchase orders the telecast program's name and broadcast
date.

Check-in is held one hour before the telecast begins.  A complete set of
course notes is included.  Lunch will be provided.  If cancellation is
necessary, you must notify UMD at least seven (7) days prior to the
broadcast to receive a full refund.  You can send an alternate without
forfeiting the fee.  Please call:  Instructional Television Marketing,
University of Maryland, College Park, MD at (301) 405-4905.   Fax:
(301) 314-9639


author: John M

subject: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
All,

I am looking for an efficient hashing algorithm that can be easily
translated to an FPGA.  The hash does not have to be cryptographically
secure, as I am just using it for a hash table lookup.  Instead, I
need it to run very fast (~25 Million hashes per second).  Does anyone
know of any resources where I could find such an algorithm?  I have
found a couple CRC-based algorithms, but I am concerned they will
result in too many collisions.  Thanks for your help.

John


author: Ben Jackson

subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
In article <[email]>,
John M <[email]> wrote:

Hash over what data?  A 32 bit word?  A variable length string of data?


author: H. Peter Anvin

subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
Followup to:  <[email]>
By author:    [email] (John M)
In newsgroup: comp.arch.fpga

Use a wider CRC?  What is your collision metric?  For statistically
collisionless hashing, you need to keep in mind the birthday paradox,
which states that if you have N items, you have ~50% chance of
collision with N^2 hash values; this is functionally equivalent to
saying that if you have 2^n items you want >> 2n bits of hash.

	-hpa


author: Kolja Sulimma

subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
[email] (John M) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

The hash function used in Java of strings multiplies each byte by
31^n.
A multiplication by 31 requires just one adder this means that you can
implement it using only one adder in n clock cycles for n input words.

Kolja Sulimma


subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
[email] (Ben Jackson) wrote in message news:<07E8d.206436$3l3.200253@attbi_s03>...

I need to hash over variable sized keys (from 72-288 bits) and produce
a hash that is 20 bits.  The bits would be presented in 32-bit words.
I do have access to a sample data base that can be used to determine
how well a hash will perform in terms of collisions.  I can't really
say what type of data it is, other than it is not text.  Thanks for
everyone's help so far.

John


author: bh

subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
The hardware implementation would be greatly simplified if
you can be sure there are no collisions. However, this is only
practical if you know a 'worst case table', for example
something like a word list. If you do, there are things called
"perfect hash function generators". These create a hash function
that is guaranteed to hit first time on each hash. You need to
give an input table, a hash table size, and lots-o-cpu to calculate
the function parameters. Take a look at the Gnu Perfect
Hash generator (gperf) as an example:

http://mirror.sit.wisc.edu/mirrors/gnu/Manuals/gperf-2.7/text/gperf.txt

-bh

"H. Peter Anvin" <[email]> wrote in message
news:cjvhc9$ven$[email]...


author: glen herrmannsfeldt

subject: Re: Hash algorithm for hardware?

text:
John M wrote:

(snip)

With a 20 bit hash, you will have a reasonably collision probability
at 1000 keys.  The number of key pairs is N*(N-1)/2.

CRC's are fairly easy to compute in FPGAs, even much larger than
20 bits.   I did a 64 bit CRC (in software) once when N was in
the millions to get the collision rate reasonably close to zero.

-- glen


author: Richard DeLuca

subject: Equatorial mount for TeleVue NP101 ?

text:
Hi,

I've been looking for a good small refractor for some time, so while at
Chiefland last week I sprung for a TV NP101.  I assumed that buying a
mount for same would be an easy task.  Unfortunately, I haven't found
this to be the case.

I'm looking for something heavy duty and nice, with dual-axis control,
maybe even GOTO.  I haven't looked at much, but the only thing that
really impresses me so far is a VIXEN Great Polaris DX with wooden
tripod.  Anyone have any advice/experience they are willing to share?

Thanks,
Rich


subject: Re: Equatorial mount for TeleVue NP101-DECISION MADE

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Richard DeLuca <[email]> wrote:

Thanks everyone, for the imput.  We've decided to buy a Vixen Sphinx
when they become available.  Bill at Vixen USA says they expect their
first shipment sometime inj January.

Starry Skies,
Rich


author: scott

subject: Re: Equatorial mount for TeleVue NP101 ?

text:
Rich,

I've been very happy with my Losmandy GM8 mount used with a TV102.

Scott


author: Alan W. Craft

text:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:47:20 GMT, Richard DeLuca <[email]> ...reflected:

        Please forgive, but why the TeleVue NP101 @ $3595 when you
might've had a Takahashi FS-102 @ $1895 instead, that is, if you
bought the TeleVue new?  Also, if the TeleVue possesses some
clear advantage over the Takahashi, that I do not see so readily,
is it still worth the extra $1700?

Prying minds want to know.

        I have that exact same mount and tripod.  The wooden legs are
precisely the ones TeleVue employs on their mounts.  I was torn
between the Losmandy GM-8 and the Vixen GP-DX at the time of
purchase.  I find the GP-DX's latitude adjustment to be so very
substantial and of an excellent design.  Also, the mount has few
moving parts; the fewer the better, and the tracking accuracy is
reputed to be better than the GM-8, and even better than the
G11, although that last claim would need to be investigated
a bit further before making a final assessment.  Also, the
GP-DX is machined to twice the accuracy of the standard
GP.  The real test of my own GP-DX, however, will be via
observations in conjunction with my Parks 8" f/5 Newtonian,
once I get a set of satisfactory tube rings.  I will then be placing
two 11lb. Celestron counterweights on its shaft instead of only
the one.

        As far as GOTO is concerned, Vixen's 'SkySensor 2000'
has legions of followers, as I've read of nothing but accolades
in its favor, though I'm entirely satisfied with just a JMI RA clock
drive, and at 1/12th the price.

Alan


author: Chuck

text:
The Vixen Sphinx just came out and looks gorgeous. The Takahashi mounts are
lovely and of course a used AP 400 GTO would be nice as well.
"Richard DeLuca" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Joe Bergeron

text:
In article
<[email]>, Richard
DeLuca <[email]> wrote:

Looks like your "no new toys" phase has come to an end, eh?


text:
Please let us know your impressions of the mount when you get it...

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


author: Jeffrey

text:
Hi,

I purchased an NP101 in July and a Losmandy GM8 the next month.  From
my experience, this mount is an absolutely perfect fit for this scope.
 It is super stable, tracks perfectly, and is fairly light.  Also, it
does not have RA or Dec lock levers.  When you want to move the scope
to a different object, you just move the telescope without undoing any
locks and it starts tracking
again.  This is a truly great feature.

I highly recommend this mount and hope you are happy with whatever
mount you choose.

Clear skies,
jeff

[email] (scott) wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: clyde crewey

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

Alan,

These scopes are different animals.  You'll note the poster stated
he'd been looking for a good "small" refractor.  While only a 4"
scope, the Tak 102 is hardly small.  It's huge for a 4 incher, easily
bigger than the TV102 and much bigger than the NP101.  The NP101 is a
much faster scope  and according to Alan Dyer, shows zero color.  Both
the Tak 102 and TV 102 will show slight color, though certainly not
enough to bother me.  I've used a friend's Tak 102, though only once.
Great scope and I loved it,  And while it bested my TV85, the margin
was not nearly as large as I would have thought.  We were both
surprised when my $350 6" f/8 Dob clearly beat the Tak on Saturn,
though  Jupiter was too close to call.

Clyde


text:
In article <[email]>, Alan W. Craft
<[email]> wrote:

Does the Tak come with a nice 2" diagonal, a case, an eyepiece, and
tube rings? If not, that surely adds a few hundred to the value of the
TV.


author: Roger Hamlett

text:
"Alan W. Craft" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
<[email]> ...reflected:
At this level, it is a choice between 'extremely good', and 'superb'. The
FS102, is longer focal length, and a much bulkier assembly. It displays very
good colour correction, but does still show a tiny 'edge' on some very
bright objects. The NP101 is about as close to 'perfect', as you can get,
and is small enough to be a really 'toolbox' assembly. In a sense, it is
perhaps a bit like the difference between a Ferrari, and a Porsche.
I own an FS102, and consider it a very good scope. This didn't stop me from
drooling gently over a NP101 the other day, or thinking that 'if money was
no object', I'd get one with a good compact mount, as the perfect 'mobile'
scope.

Best Wishes


text:
In article <q8xyb.583$[email]>,
 "Chuck" <[email]> wrote:

Thanks Chuck,

My wife noticed the VIXEN Sphinx in this month's issue of Sky & Tel. She
would really like GOTO on our next scope, so I may spring for the
option.  Funny, from the pictures and the VIXEN web pages, I think the
Sphinx looks like a toy.  Maybe I need to see one in person.

If I could find one, I'd buy a minty AP 400 GTO.

Rich


text:
In article <[email]>,
 Joe Bergeron <[email]> wrote:

Mary's new scope, actually.  But you don't know the half of it.......;->


text:
In article <Pcbzb.2505$[email]>,
 "Chuck" <[email]> wrote:

I'll review it here- thanks Chuck.


text:
On 3 Dec 2003 16:07:08 -0800, [email] (Jeffrey) ...reflected:

        Yes, as it embodies clutches, and while convenient they also consist
of more parts to wear out, which is one of a few reasons why I went with
Vixen's GP-DX, which, incidentally, has a greater tracking accuracy, that is,
if one eventually wishes to dabble in astrophotography.  Though, admittedly,
I have secretly wished that I had chosen the Losmandy instead, but only
because it was the other half of the cake.

Asidedly, if one simply properly balances the telescope upon the GP-DX, it,
too, will remain in any position, but of course the clamps would need to be
locked in order to track.

The GP-DX's latitude adjustment, also, at least appears to be superior to that
of the GM-8, if not actually so.

<snip>

Alan


text:
On 1 Dec 2003 13:19:23 -0800, [email] (clyde crewey) ...reflected:

       I've yet to see any false color in my FS-102, but I also haven't
observed with it long enough to perhaps eventually notice, and
that combined with my not being a skilled observer to begin with
leaves me no choice but to acquiesce in your favor; well, almost.

       Ah, so you had been pre-seduced by the magic that is...Takahashi!
For when it comes right down it, one is nonethemore an 85mm and the
other a 102mm, and regardless of brand or marketing.

       Isn't that the way?

Alan


author: Bill Meyers

text:
You  wrote:
 We were both surprised when my $350 6" f/8 Dob clearly beat the Tak on Saturn,though  Jupiter was too close to
call.

    I have seen this kind of thing often.
    Take a look at Jay Reynolds Freeman's FAQ on telescopes. You can get to it through the TAC web site I
believe,
Cheers,
Bill Meyers


text:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 19:40:41 GMT, Joe Bergeron <[email]> ...reflected:

       According to TeleVue, and Anacortes, it does not come supplied
with an eyepiece, though the stock photo does show one in place,
but obviously for illustrative purposes.

Alan


text:
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 02:02:32 GMT, Richard DeLuca <[email]> ...reflected:

        To me, the 'Sphinx' looks quite the opposite, and an obvious marketing
attempt by Vixen to attract the interests of those contemplating a premium
mount.  It is a polished GP-DX, and with the exact same load-bearing
capacity.  It also has its own motors built in, if I'm not mistaken.

Alan


author: Pierre Vandevennne

text:
Richard DeLuca <[email]> wrote in news:odyssey-
[email]:

The sphinx apparently comes with an 180 tooth worm gear, if that is the
same as the one put in New Atlux, it should really provide a very good
native PE in that price range -/+7"...

I am eager to know.


text:
Hi,

I have never used any of the Vixen mounts so I cannot comment on how
good they are, but I am sure they are excellent as many people seem
happy with them.  However, when I was choosing a mount for my NP101,
the ability to not have to unlock and lock the Dec and Ra levers was
very important to me.  Now that I have the mount and use it, that
feature is terrific and is one of the features of the mount that you
really aprreciate as you point to different objects in the sky.  There
is no trying to find the locks when you want to move the scope.  As
for the Declination adjustment, well, for most people that has to be
adjusted one time and was very easy to do on my GM8 due to the built
in latitude feature.  My mount tracks great and is very easy to use.

Jeff

Alan W. Craft <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...


text:
There's a little color there, but certainly not much.  There's some in
my TV85 on Sirius and sometimes the limb of the moon at around 200x.
Barely noticable.  When I got together with the Tak owner, I was quite
a newbie and didn't see color in my TV85 or either of his Tak's, the
FS78 and the 102.  He showed it to me.  Least amount in the FS78, but
not enough really matter in the other two.

Sort of.  I had heard so much about how a 4" APO would beat such and
such, that I was expecting more I guess.  Fact is, there wasn't enough
difference between the TV85 and the Tak 102 for me to get the bigger
scope in my observing situation where I have to travel up and down
stairs to get to my roof.  The Dob and TV85 are both easily carried
fully assembled in one hand.   If I lived out in the country, it would
be different.

Well, sometimes.  I had an 8" f/6 Dob before this 6" f/8.  Same
company.  I must have gotten a sub-par mirror on it as this 6" f/8
beats it on lunar/planetary easily.   My buddy said my 6" f/8 is very
sharp so I got lucky.

Clyde


author: Pentcho Valev

subject: THE GENESIS OF DOUBLETHINK IN EINSTEINIANA

text:
Exceeding the speed of light without actually exceeding it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGj5rlOaTIg
"Dr Michio Kaku reveals how we really could one day build a warp drive and set out on our own star trek."

Needless to say, Michio Kaku just practices doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. (...) ...with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

When did doublethink start in Einsteiniana? From the very beginning: Einstein's 1905 papers implied that the speed of light both depends and does not depend on the speed of the light source:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

The lie (the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source) was all along one leap ahead of the truth (the speed of light depends on the speed of the light source) so the truth only showed up two times in Einstein's writings - in 1909 and in 1954:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
Albert Einstein (1909): "A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

Clues showing that the departure from the field concept of light is tantamount to a departure from Einstein's 1905 light postulate and an adoption of the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

Doublethink nowadays:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/l720v8hv51p290gt/
Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) A relativistic optics of moving bodies: a corpuscle of light is subject to Galilean kinematics, and thus to its principle of relativity as well as to the corresponding theorem of the addition of velocities. (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

Pentcho Valev


subject: Re: THE GENESIS OF DOUBLETHINK IN EINSTEINIANA

text:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

A joke? No. Steve Carlip is more than serious - this is exactly what Divine Albert's Divine Theory predicts:

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured. (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential phi would be c(1+phi/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

So we have doublethink in Big Brother's world but triplethink in Divine Albert's world: In a gravitational field the speed of light is (1) constant, (2) just as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects and (3) twice as variable as the speed of ordinary falling objects. (3) has already been demonstrated; here are some examples of (1) and (2):

(1) In a gravitational field, the speed of light is constant:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
Dr. Eric Christian: "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant."

http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/dkiley/Physics161GravRedshift.pdf
"The frequency depends on the acceleration, which we have chosen to be a = g, the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. If we ignore the derivation of this equation, and just look at the result, then we would be led to believe that a beam of light just traveling upwards in a gravitational field would lose frequency! This is, in fact, completely true. Light is affected by gravity, and as light tries to escape from a gravitational field it experiences a redshift, causing its frequency to decrease (hence becoming redder). We can think of this in another (classical) way. When we throw a ball up into the air, it slows down, using it's kinetic energy to do work against the force of gravity. Light has to do work against gravity, too, but it can't change it speed. Therefore it has to lose energy, not by losing speed, but by losing frequency, since the energy of light depends on its frequency. This follows directly from Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which says that acceleration and gravity are equivalent."

http://www.oapt.ca/newsletter/2004-02%20Newsletter%20Searchable.pdf
Richard Epp: "One may imagine the photon losing energy as it climbs against the Earth's gravitational field much like a rock thrown upward loses kinetic energy as it slows down, the main difference being that the photon does not slow down; it always moves at the speed of light."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

(2) In a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly like the speed of ordinary objects:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm
Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein.pdf
"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

Both (1) and (2): In a gravitational field, the speed of light is both variable and constant, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity."

Pentcho Valev


text:
Advanced doublethink in Einsteiniana:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

So "light falls" and "its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping". This means that light just speeds up, like any falling body:

http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf
Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

However Cox and Forshaw know that the lie should always be "one leap ahead of the truth". Light does fall like material bodies, its energy does increase in an analogous manner, but its speed does not increase, only the speed of material bodies increases, the speed of light does not change at all, no it doesn't, how could it change, why should it change, who says it changes, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev


text:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) ...with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth."

So the truth does show up behind the lie from time to time - this makes doublethink much more efficient in confusing people's minds than simple lying. Here is the Albert Einstein Institute admitting that the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with both the speed of the observer and the gravitational potential, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: (...) By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev


author: Frederic Faure

subject: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
Hi,

1. Usenet
I'm using FreeAgent 1.21 on US W2K Pro.
- NJWin is available only as a 30-day trial
- MView doesn't decode JIS messages, but that could be because I'm
using the freeware version of Agent.

=> What are my current options to view messages in sci.lang.japan? I'd
rather stick to Agent (possibly upgrading to the commercial version)
or Gravity, but would rather not use Netscape or Outlook Express

2. Anybody knows the answers to adding Japanese support in Ctrl Panel
| Keyboard?

- Diff between Input Locale and Keyboard Layout? Any issue if using
France as Locale, and Japanese as Keyboard Layout?
- In Keyboard Layout, diff between Japanese and Japanese Input System?

Thx
FF.


author: Jean-Marc Desperrier

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
Frederic Faure wrote:

It should work Frederic, I have a page that explain how to set it up, even
if it's more oriented toward how to use it to read utf-8 messages (utf-8
has the advantage that you can freely mix french and japanse with it).
Here it is : http://perso.club-internet.fr/jmdesp/news/agent.htm
The page is in french.

But MView too will stop working after a time in the non registered version
(except if you can find the old version 2).

Unfortunately, only Netscape or Outlook Express have really good
international support.
Agent could be good, but fails for asiatic languages, and Gravity is not
able to do anything good in this regard.
Or you could try Emacs with GNUS, if you're brave enough.

It just works.

You need the Japanese Input System to be able to type.
I'll check how this is setup on my system with w2k pro and the japanese
IME, but I believe I have the two together, and don't know exactly what it
changes if you try to mix.

PS : It will be easier to find answers to such questions on the group
fr.lettres.langue.japonaise


author: Don Kirkman

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Frederic Faure wrote in article
<[email]>:

For displaying CJK with NJWin or MView Free Agent works the same as
Agent.  I've used NJWin for years with both programs.

For built-in language ability, commercial Agent has it but Free Agent
doesn't.  I have never taken the time to really test if I can do
Japanese with Agent's own language capability; my impression is that it
works for European languages but Asian languages may have problems.
That may be different when version 2.0 comes out sometime (late?) next
year, since many applications are moving toward Unicode.


author: Dave Fossett

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
"Frederic Faure" wrote...

I recommend checking out the Japanization faq (see below). This should
answer some or all of your questions.
http://www.rhialto.easynet.co.uk/jwinfaq/jwinfaq.txt


subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 17:32:27 +0200, Jean-Marc Desperrier
<[email]> wrote:

Thx for the tip. NJWin works fine, although the font is butt ugly. But
I'm just too used to FA to switch to Netscape or OE just for this.

FF.


subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
Don Kirkman wrote:

I believe I've heard the support for asian languages will be in the version
1.9 that should be out quite  soon now.


subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
On Thu, 16 Aug 2001 10:57:22 +0900, "Dave Fossett" <[email]>
wrote:

Thx! Looks the easiest/cheapest is to find NJWin 1.60, which, unlike
the current 1.80, doesn't expire after 30 days. The font is bitmap, so
pretty ugly, but it works.

Thx
FF.


author: Fabian

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
"Dave Fossett" <[email]> wrote in message
news:ULFe7.865$[email]...
I'd

Is that site still up? I thought they closed that account of mine many
moons ago.

It had been on lineone.net, but a recent spat with that isp (they
deleted slj from their news server) meant that I closed that account
too. It's not currently got an official home, except in the google
archives.


subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Jean-Marc Desperrier wrote in
article <[email]>:

Definitely not.  That is only bug fixes and the already-distributed fix
for MSN SMTP changes.  1.9 should be out in a month or two, probably.


author: Trinker

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
Fabian wrote:

Fabian, I'm in the process of updating the website that my partner
and I run right now, and so I'd be happy to host the Japanization
FAQ, or at least to act as a mirror site.  If this sounds good to
you, I'll just post the .txt version I've grabbed from the rhialto
address (which is working as of today) and I'll share the URL here.

If people are interested in a hypertext version, I can do a version
with links, as well.


author: Jim Breen

subject: Re: How to view Jpese-encoded messages?

text:
Fabian <[email]> dixit:

I still have the lineone.net site linked. What should I change it to?


author: Wayne Manzo

subject: New Human NASA Director!

text:
Since Dan "I'm an Agency Puppet" Goldin is leaving NASA(finally),
I request that the position of NASA Director!

Why me?

Because as a student engineer working at NASA-Lewis back in
1988 I was framed by the "RACE", attacked by the "RACE", and
then kept on the streets and tortured since 1993!

I have been conducting research on the "Alien Race" and
its EFFECTS on human society since 1994 and have the only
real investigative news magazine on the internet that exposes
the "RACE" and the problems the race is causing to human
society and America.

Dan was and is a "Puppet Administrator" and NASA has had
no direction because of this. Dan is "RACE" and he has
helped in making NASA a comfortable place for
collective, telepathic, aliens and a very hostile
enviroment for human beings who love science and
who really give a damn.

The aliens are turning back the clock on human society,
while their race is becoming more  and more high tech.

American, human, infrastructure is more like the 1950s
even though we have laptop computers that can calculate
the entire viscious shock structure on the space shuttle
orbiter during re-entry.

Why is that? Leadership! Those in power are "RACE" an
are not leaders. They are loyal to the "Alien Agency" and
not America.

Make me director and I can guarantee a real space program and
a real moon base with-in a few years, a re-knewed interest
in science within the public school systems, an open policy
about the "Alien Race" and its agenda,
a new space shuttle fleet of scaled up "Moon" orbiters,
and a real space station as opposed to the space junk
that is currently orbiting the Earth.

Also, a real alternative energy program that would
put "electric vehicles" back on the streets and no
"diesel buses" in the major cities.

These programs are easy to implement but with
"Agency Puppets" in power all you can expect is
their people getting high paying jobs and very little
advancement of science in human society.

If you want to sponsor my research or are interested in what
I have found out about the "Alien Race" then please try
and access my investigative news magazines:

America's Line: The Truth is Here!
http://www.mansue.com/menuneutral.html

and

The American Resister
http://aresister.tripod.com

America needs leaders and only "human beings" have
the strength and ability to lead this nation away from
"Alien" control and towards a progressive, scientific
society____I'm the human for the NASA Director position!

I give a damn!

Thank you,

Wayne "The Publisher, and Plaintiff" Manzo,


author: Mike Speegle

subject: Re: New Human NASA Director!

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

    Hee, hee!  Best laugh I've had all week!  ;-)


subject: Re: New Human NASA Director!

text:
Perhaps your grin is the result of knowing that NASA has had no
space program for nearly a decade and has been utilized as a
convenient way of distributing large amounts of tax dollars
to the "Alien Race". Hmmmmmm? Where is the NASP? What happened
to manned flights to the moon? Why is that space junk orbiting the
Earth referred to as "A Space Station"?

Hmmmmmm? Where did all the tax payers money go? To the "Alien Race" in
order to keep them comfortable and to continue their agenda of assimilating
and exterminating humans like me!

http://www.mansue.com/menuneutral.html

The Truth Shall Set "Americans(Humans)" Free!

"Mike Speegle" <[email]> wrote in message news:<vW_B7.1232$[email]>...


author: Nomen Nescio

subject: Sanford Wallace, Criminal-Type!!

text:
Yep!!!  It's true.  S. Wallace is a die-in-the-wool psychopath.
Sanford Wallace, a clear criminal-type.

I shall now quote a post indicating "Taylor's" statement that he is
doing this to punish Brad (or someone his thinks is Brad) for posting to Usenet. He simply demands that Brad (or anyone who seems to support or be
Brad) just completely stop using Usenet.

I shall follow the quote of that post by a a copy of all the three emails
which engage in terroristic threats.
(This email include some terroristic threats -- right after 9/11 !!!)
Then some of the clear connections
"Taylor" (actually Sanford Wallace) has with forgeries and email harassment

Evidence of use of abusive page for extortion to censor Brad
from posting to Internet newsgroups:

----
Other earlier (but associated anon threats):

Now, the sort of email abuse of Brad after
Brad contacted him as a "domain admin."  Sanford Wallace is PROHIBITED BY A
COURT FROM DOING EMAIL ABUSE.  HE SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITIES SHORTLY.

  This has to do with the way this
"domain administrator" revealed Brad's email address publicly to abusive people,
IN ADDITION to emailing Brad in a harassing manner, just after Brad wrote to
him to complain about the libelous and personal and abusive web site of his,
http://www.lart.com/brad .

"Taylor" Jimenez did apparently post Brad's email address using
x-no-archive
and also he posted it using aliases (that looked like forgeries from Brad
himself).

STILL, we are able to provide some record of the postings he did to solicit
abuse on Brad at my previously unknown email address by quoting posts that
quote his "forgeries" of Brad giving out Brad's address   The email address
show the exact strange forms of Brad's email address available to
"Taylor" in the headers he obtained via official complaints to him as
"domain administrator".

The forgeries by "Taylor" **appear quoted** in the following posts:


author: Iceman

subject: Re: Sanford Wallace, Criminal-Type!!

text:
On Sun, 14 Apr 2002 20:20:16 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<[email]> wrote:

I sure hope you are not threatening. You did not say "may" etc. you
said "Shall" therefore if you do not follow up on this it will be
intimidation and threatening.

After all your latest rants, and kook posting you will be dead meat
within hours of reporting what you purport.

I look forward to your demise with pleasure.

/methinks you will coward out, once again.


author: Anonymous

subject: What Sanford can EXPECT

text:
I think Sanford Wallace can expect any and all measures to be taken if
he does not become in compliance with the very rules of decency THAT
those he serves put forth.  Perhaps he should check with the
psychologist(s) and Peter that he serves here and find out what their
norms of decency (officially) are. I KNOW, AND I SUBSCRIBE TO THEM
COMPLETELY whenever they do.
If he simply subscribes to those, all will be well for all. Everyone, I
have
NO DOUBT, WILL RECIPROCATE.  The problems that continue here are ALL
of psychologists own making.  They solicited and used abusers who
started using tactics that (supposedly) violated their norms of decent
Usenet behavior -- though there is a lot of evidence they supported
hoodlums and hoodlum activity .
(THIS HAS BEEN TRUE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.)  STILL TOTAL AND INSTANT
PEACE IS POSSIBLE WITH FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. On the other hand:
If Sanford cannot be decent and fair, all of the following could and
likely will happen:

  ** Sanford can be reported for all his activities involving
     inappropriate email uses -- any court that might care (and
     this information is NOT hard to find)

  ** Sanford can be expected to have all police sources notified
     of his real identity (several reports have been filed against
     "Taylor Jimenez" that just wait to be updated, like with his
     real identity)

  ** Sanford can expect to loose privacy.

  ** Sanford can expect lawyers working for others against him
     to be informed of all the above and of all civil matters

  ** Anything else friends of Brad's friends might think of (within
     the bounds
     of the law).

All that anyone asked of Sanford is that he subscribe to the same
standards of Usenet behavior as those he support supposedly do.  The
favor will
no doubt be completely returned.  THIS HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR A VERY LONG
TIME.  Problem is, Sanford wants power and wants to control people.
He wants to ban people totally from Usenet.  He is not 'happy' with
reasonable norms.  He wants to "win" in the following sick way:
  He wants to do onto others what
he trys to prohibit they do onto his friends PLUS.  And, he wants others
to bow down to his "power" to do just that.  That will not happen.

Sanford can choose peace and reasonability and fairness OR continue
to be a total asshole and suffer all possible consequences.

I personally would like to see:

** ALL remain on Usenet and nothing off of Usenet.  Keep Usenet on
   Usenet.

** Remain on-topic, relevant and current (no personal posts that are
   not content related to CURRENT *on-topic* discussions AND no old
   history).

** Absolutely NO purely personal attacks whatsoever.

** Absolutely NO completely off-topic posting.

** Of course the above means: NO personal FAQs anywhere.  Debate on
   Usenet.  Usenet is THE forum for debate and debate should remain
   their.  Illegal or unethical activities may (of course) be reported
   to the appropriate authorities (this goes without saying in a
   civilized society).

I subscribe to all this.  I would be willing to give Sanford a free
pass, even though he has abused more than one friend of mine for years
on Usenet. I would be willing to instantly forgive ALL and bring up
NO past that is not directly relevant and on-topic to this newsgroup
(such an eventuality would be non-existent or very rare).

Without reasonable cooperation (and the end to the serious
hypocrisy), I also would be willing to thump and thump and thump
Sanford (and DO have the means -- Mark Morin certainly NOT withstanding).


author: Dan Rogers

subject: Re: What Sanford can EXPECT

text:
"Anonymous" <Use-Author-Supplied-Address@[127.1]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The only thing you subscribe to is"Little Pansies on Parade in
Kindergarden."

HARFUL!!

Dan R.
Master of Card XII
Order of the detrevnI Buckyball
Certified Nerhoodlum


subject: The rotational dynamic behind plate motion

text:
There is an acceptable logic which brings the rotating interior of the
Earth in line with other rotating celestial objects which have a
composition in a molten/flexible state -

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/images/chap11/rotation.gif

The dynamic which causes the Earth to deviate from a perfect sphere
also provides the dynamic which causes the fractured crust to move
which in turn generates,some of the largest known surface features.

As differential rotation of the interior of the Earth is more suitable
for explaining evolutionary geology than the mechanism of thermal
convection,it is no great leap to combine the shape of the planet and
crustal tectonics under a common rotational mechanism.


author: JHR

subject: Re: The rotational dynamic behind plate motion

text:
Thanks. As I see, this concerns the sun. I have integrated it.

To the internet: once it became priorly a place of commerce, public
conversation became easily drowned out - at least, that was my
impression. People for instance have to ward off 80% of commercial
spam in their private e-mails nowadays, and that puts them off.
However, this is something useless to discuss as long as there is no
remedy.


text:
oriel36 wrote:

I too think that there is a greater movement in the equatorial than
the polar regions, if I understand you right in this. In fact, this
was my first result, as shown in http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/trace.html#view.
I added to this the idea that the core is (also? therefore? as a
cause?) moving faster than the surface; ten years later this was
apparently measured indeed to be so. Well, eureka. But why this is so,
I really do not know, and I certainly cannot calculate it in any way.
That is for others, far more learned, to do. However: AFAIK (as far as
I know) the greater movement in the equatorial region has not been
measured yet, and again, I suppose because no-one has bothered to look
at the long-term data properly.

No, I shall put that differently: I suppose it HAS been measured,
because it is there; but nobody has evaluated the measurements yet. I
still suppose it is there, as I presume you do, albeit maybe for
different theoretical reasons- although that difference may not be so
great once one starts looking at the mechanics and calculations of
rotational dynamics of stellar objects. But that kind of computing is
way beyond my scope.

However, my own work on this is far from finished. If you look closer
at the details, it seem that things are a bit more complicated. If you
take the evidence put forward seriously, the greater equatorial
movement on this planet seems not to be straightforward, but to form a
sinus wave. This had me completely stumped until I found this wave to
follow the ecliptic (see http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/flow.html#Pic1).
What this really means, if it is so, and not just a coincidence of
time, I have no idea. I can only speculate this may be the pull of the
sun. I have to repeat: scientific calculations of this kind are far
beyond me.

In future, I may start messing around with this idea again, to make a
better, and more precise, representation of it. That will take time.
But at the moment, I am preparing for the Christmas holidays, so merry
Christmas, everyone.:-)

JHR


text:
On 21 Dec, 13:11, JHR <[email]> wrote:

The way I approached the matter was in determining that the shape of
the planet constituted a geological feature as the fractured crustal
plates follow the profile of the Earth and its slight deviation from a
perfect sphere.As everybody knows that rotational dynamics are
involved in generating the 40km deviation from a perfect sphere,I
noticed that there are no good descriptions of that dynamic,merely an
arrow pointing vaguely (and pathetically)  out from the center of the
Earth -

http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Srotfram1.htm

I still feel the best way to approach the matter is to turn to the
difference between rapidly rotating bodies and ones with lesser
Equatorial speeds in terms of geometrical deviation ,the difference
between our Sun and Vega for instance -

http://www.solstation.com/stars/vega2sol.jpg

Vega is no  different from the Sun in terms of differential rotation
between Equatorial and polar regions and as even the luminosity
gradients support this, then with almost total certainty,it is
possible to determine that the rotational dynamics which condition
shape are perpendicular to the axis of rotation.In short,in rejects
these arrows pointing out from the center of the rotating celestial
object and places the rotational mechanism and its effects in proper
physical context.

So what to do with the Earths shape -

http://www.see.leeds.ac.uk/structure/dynamicearth/internal/shape.gif

As the tectonic plates move along the planetary profile which is not a
perfect sphere ( setting aside the internal mechanism for a moment )
there should hardly be any argument as to the distortion of surface
features via this factoir alone.

The rotational dynamics of stars is only a generalised set of
principles,in other words,it provides a strong case for diffferential
rotation in the Earth's interior .It does not attempt to explore the
viscosity,composition,heat or any other factors involved ,simply to
observe that it is nearly impossible to make the Earth an exemption
from differential rotation if it is not only observed in other
rotating celestial objects but also,the degree of deviation from a
perfect sphere is contingent on the max Equatorial speed.

I would be biting off more than I can chew if I went beyond the bare
outlines,I can venture into all sorts of intersecting parameters and
correlations but they tend to weaken the force of the  major point in
grafting rotational dynamics into crustal motion and from there into
evolutionary geology.

I abandoned that line of reasoning when it became clear that the links
were too feeble,the original working mechanism was based on a
difference between constant axial rotation and variable orbital
motion.I have to be my own disciplinarian and even if the external
influences between axial and orbital motions were influencing
evolutionary geology,the emergence of a rotational internal mechanism
linking planetart shape with tectonincs was too appealing .I simply
dropped the orbital influence and concentrated on rotational alone.

I do not know what geologists are waiting for,rotational dynamics
influencing the planet is not exactly a secret nor has it been a
secret for many,many centuries and we are grownup enough to know that
the planet itself is made up of shifting plates like broken ice on a
river as you so wonderfully put it.It sometimes happens that
familiarity and the need to arrive at conclusions on their own terms
is behind the continuation of 'convection cells' as the primary
mechanism,still,it would be nice to see if they are misinterpreting
differential rotation bewtween cores for the more productive
differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions.

I too am preparing for Christmas,I am a Christian and although things
are now too commercial,I go along with nonsense and still enjoy the
feast on its own terms.

A happy Christmas to you and all here.


text:
oriel36 wrote:

Yes. When I started out on this quest back in the 80ies and 90ies of
the last century, I found that everyone had agreed on plate tectonics
and had come up with thermodynamics (heat convection) as the supposed
driving force behind it. However, after comparing some books and
magazine articles on the subject over the years, I also found that
maybe everyone agreed on convection cells, but no two descriptions
agreed on where these cells were and how they worked on a global
scale. In fact, it was usually the simplest drawing of the Atlantic
ridge near the equator, or the Rift Valley, carefully avoiding
comparison. Nobody could explain why convection should form a ring
around the African continent in a three- dimensional planet, or why
there were Andes mountains in America, but not in Africa, or why
upwelling should be symmetric, downwelling sometimes symmetric
(Atlantic), sometimes asymmetric (Pacific) and so on. Most put the
center of upwelling below the ridges, some below the continents, to be
able to explain why continents break up (as in Rift Valley). I found
that nobody seemed to know, and everybody was just guessing- worse:
nobody had really researched the subject. So I did what I did and
found that the continents were being compressed in the west and torn
apart to the east (Atlantic, Rift Valley, Indian Ocean... ) on a
global scale.

http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/trace.html#view

I posted this idea around by e-mail; but nobody was really interested.
So I converted my e-mail into a website and received some very nice
response from around the world until the internet turned commercial.

I suppose the idea of convection was formed by someone watching lava
boil in a volcanic crater. Indeed, as the surface cools, patches form
on it resembling continents, with very impressive "fire rings" around
each one. But these hardly move, only sink into the molten lava again
as they become heavier by cooling. One forgets that cold basalt is
heavier than molten basalt, but continental (or marine, for that
matter, meaning sediments et al) lithosphere material is lighter and
floats on magma as scum or ice floes floats on water. Now add a river,
and you have movement - or the other way around. That was it.

JHR


text:
On 20 Dec, 16:07, JHR <[email]> wrote:

There is something extremely pleasing about the graphics that I have
yet to put my finger on,the tendency of the continents to drift apart
seems natural and this without any reference to the internal
mechanism.In some ways JHR i am pleased to set the internal mechanism
aside and watch the different flow of ideas concerning how the
continents look like a jigsaw puzzle and I suppose this is why,in the
first place, I admired  Wegener's proposal so much in outlines.

Yes,I remember when the usenet was an incredible place for
discussion ,in some ways just like the one we are having now .I have
no entrenched ideology to defend at all costs and besides,intelligent
discussions are hard to come by now.Least I appear as some sort of
self-assigned 'authority,I willl say no more on this matter,only that
I enjoy the honesty.

In order for plate tectonics to flourish I realise,and I am sure you
do too, that they had to come up with some sort of internal
mechanism,even a flawed one like 'convection cells' but now I think
that mechanism is now diluting the reasoning which went into the
plate tectonics itself.

It is a different world JHR, I know all too well that evolutionary
geologists are aware just how weak the internal mechanism is and even
though  your analogies of floating ice are spot on I have never known
one person to acknowledge that something new or productive has been
said .I have seen people assimilate an analogy or an actual principle
for their own agenda and conclusions but I suppose this is human
nature.

I looked at your conclusion -

"My idea now is that the continents are being carried along by an
eastward equatorial stream in the earth's mantle, driven by the
earth's core rotating faster than the surface. "


author: don findlay

text:
JHR wrote:

http://www.physics.hku.hk/~nature/CD/regular_e/lectures/chap11.html


text:
I apologise for the delayed reply as external circumstances intervene.

On 17 Dec, 12:47, JHR <[email]> wrote:

It was more simple than that for me,if the mid-Atlantic ridge  defines
the geographical boundary for the emergence of a convection cell,it
looks grotesque when you take the localised picture and expand it out
to a global view of the ridge -

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/activities/p_number10.html

http://www.washington.edu/burkemuseum/geo_history_wa/The%20Restless%20Earth%20v.2.0_files/image010.jpg

I have presented the reasons for replacing the internal convection
cells mechanism with a more productive mechanism borrowed from
rotational dynamics but after that,if I start making correlations with
surface features at this stage ,I am on a slippery slope.

There is no reason why differential rotation between cores is excluded
and congratulations for arriving at the conclusion from a different
perspective,I well understand your exhaustion but that comes with the
territory.

I apologise for cutting this response short and I will most certainly
look at the motion of the fractured crust from your perspective.


text:
oriel36 wrote:

Hi. Thanks for the answer. I, too, feel that science things should be
explored, not believed in. That was what prompted me so many years
ago. I felt that, amongst other things, the them-widespread convection
cell theory could not explain the obvious asymmetry of topography of
our planet's surface, which, on the other hand, does show a quite
strict order of some other kind (triangular shapes, few antipodes...
etc.). Why were there no mountain ranges, why was there no "fire-ring"
surrounding the Atlantic Ocean? No mountain ranges bordering Africa?
No island chains west of anywhere? To me, the convection cell theory
could either explain the shape of the Pacific, maybe, or of Africa;
but not of both at the same time.

So I took some maps, cut them up, pasted them together again and came
up with what I show on my website. The flowing effect was there, right
away, and I could not get it to move otherwise. However, I simply
could not explain the driving force behind it, until it dawned on me
that a superrotating core must be dragging the surface along. The idea
of a superrotating core was pure theory, come to by conclusion alone,
until ten years later, around the year 2006, it came to my attention
that the superrotation of the earth's core in relation to the surface
had been, as it seems, scientifically measured - which, of course,
made me fell very happy (and, just a bit, exhausted :-)).
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050825_earthcore.html

However, this does not necessarily prove I was right in my conclusion
that this has an effect on the surface and moves the continents. And
it does not necessarily stop others from being right as well. That the
sun and other rotating gaseous celestial objects show a marked
rotational movement in their equatorial region relative to their
poles, and, indeed, a centrifugal bulge, is probably of great
importance in explaining these things, since an quasi- liquid
celestial body such as the earth will (and does, to my mind) show a
similar effect.

The question is, why is this so... I simply suppose that, by the laws
of mechanics and gravity,  ALL rotating gaseous or liquid celestial
objects rotate faster on the inside than on the outside, and this
causes the equatorial region to be dragged faster along through the
greater friction (and, if the ratio is right, form "arms", as galaxies
sometimes do). This would not count for solid objects, of course...

However, this is just my idea, which, together with the strange but
marked triangular partitioning of this planet caused me to put
together what I show on http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/vogel2.html.
What I try do here is simply to draw attention to some observations
other people sometimes seem to miss or want to ignore.

The most important thing to me, perhaps, is that, of course,
thermodynamics will have a great effect on liquid (or gaseous)
celestial bodies hotter on the inside than the outside- this will
always be so, and, indeed, thereby forming convection cells and all;
but that rotational forces and gravity obviously seem to have a much
greater effect in and on the shape, form and surface of celestial
bodies than perhaps previously assumed.

I believe that in physics, things are as they are, not because two or
more people agree upon them, but because they are that way. It is for
us to observe, draw conclusions, and recognise. This often will be
forgotten. All we can agree upon is an explanation, or a conclusion,
or any part of one or the other. It need not even be completely.

JHR


text:
On 15 Dec, 08:28, JHR <[email]> wrote:

Your honesty is refreshing and I will most certainly look at those
aspects which are new to me and I am sure new to many others
here .Considering that you spent many years putting this concept
together it would be unfair to judge the work at this stage but where
it intersects with my proposals of a common mechanism for planetary
shape and the motion of the fractured crust it comes into conflict at
the main conclusions just as the convection cell mechanism does.

Do not be put off by this,I do not require an internal mechanism to
correlate crustal motion with the evolution of surface features to
their present state,I only remark that the observed generalised
dynamics for rotating objects in a molten state generate a deviation
from a perfect sphere,this deviation is not due to differential
rotation between cores but differential rotation  in the homogenous
composition nearest the crust.Of course it does not excluse
differential rotation between cores,only that direct  observations
from stellar rotation indicate a correlation between speed of
composition and the deviation from a perfect sphere expressed as
differential rotation between Equatorial and polar regions -

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_Of_Michigan_Astronomers_Capture_The_First_Image_Of_Surface_Features_On_A_Sun_Like_Star_999.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/07/010727094638.htm

Not to descend into hypothesis at this stage but if the Earth rotated
faster,it would have both a greater Equatorial bulge and greater
tectonic activity.I avoid drawing conclusions as much as possible,only
to express the productive convenience of working in outlines with
planetary shape and crustal tectonics under a common rotational
mechanism,this mechanism is borrowed from observing stellar
rotational  dynamics rather than speculation about the internal
dynamics of our planet.

Again,I am interested in all the surface correlations and you have
expressed those correlations in terms of rotational
orientation,something many here have yet to get around to.Thank you
for asking but remember that I too am an explorer of thses things.


text:
oriel36 schrieb:

And so say I! View details on http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/trace.html.

Please tell me: What website /lecture is the above picture from,
exactly?

JHR


text:
oriel36 schrieb:

Hi.

Have a look at http://home.pages.at/jhinrichs/trace.html and tell me
what you think


author: josephus

text:
oriel36 wrote:

you are as crazy as the EE crew.  you make even less sense than thay do.

josephus


text:
On Nov 26, 5:29 pm, josephus <[email]> wrote:

I am delighted to see that the thermal  'convection cells'  mechanism
for crustal motion  make sense to you,I truly do.

It would be nice to see intelligent poeople pick up on the generalised
principles associated with rotating celestial objects as regards shape
and differential rotation never mind the extension as a mechanism for
crustal motion and I am content that you are not one of them.You go
chat away with the ee guys where you do an excellent job.Thank you.


author: [redacted]

text:
On 26 nov, 18:40, oriel36 <[email]> wrote:

Okay then, what is the driving force behind those rotating celestial
objects ... question of course to both of you, Mates.
By the way Josephus, there is NO mass generation in the model of PE
( Planerary expansion ) in True Geology terms. EE is only a special
case of PE as I have told you as well, I believe.
Best
 jpturcaud


text:
On Nov 27, 4:49 am, [email] wrote:

Nobody is required to know why the Earth is spinning on its axis,that
it does is enough to carry the arguments for the rotational mechanism
which generates the Earth's shape and moves the fractured crust
thereby generating many surface features.

If somebody cares to re-interpret the data of differential rotation
between cores to differential rotation in the homogenous composition
in immediate contact to the crust then the first steps  towards
putting together some many parts of the geological puzzle will begin.-

http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/14017.html

The conclusion that the Earth's shape and crustal tectonics have a
common mechanism  borrowed from rotational dynamics is almost a
certainty and especially as one looks at the mid-Atlantic ridge and
its orientation. among many other factors.


text:
oriel36 wrote:

And once this is recognised then it follows axiomatically that the
Earth is getting bigger, ..for both aspects of spin and enlargement
are described by the same structures.  It is a 'lay-down misere'.


text:
On 27 nov, 12:23, oriel36 <[email]> wrote:

Are you amongst the referenced authors of those publications ?

If so it appears that you as well as your other scientific friends
ignore competely the driving force behind Earth spin ...  how can you
understand the rest then  ?
It looks to me anyway as speculations of bored stiff "Petits
Bourgeois" ... a good name for all such clueless physicists, who not
only ignore the reason of Earth spin ( and other planets spins ) but
as well that force behind the solar system revolution ...

By the way your argument concerning the mid-Atlantic ocean ridge falls
fla,t since Earth rotation a mere 12000 years ago was at 90°of what it
is no ... and with no deviation of the Axis ! ...normal to the
Ecliptic indeed.

Just one question in passing,  are you by any chance one of those
Glaciationz Believers ... well there was no Glaciationz ever my dear
friend, and I am afraid the rest of Geology teaching is of the same
standard

Good try anyway

 jpturcaud
Founder of the True Geology

PS Don, did you mean Lay down "Miserere" , if so,  there is great pity
over the Kingdom of Denmark !


author: Torsten Brinch

subject: Re: GM food engineering other entity (Was: Re: genetic  engineering        difference)

text:
Marty Sachs skrev i meddelelsen ...

The burden of proof is on you, don't try to shift it.
(You were the one making the positive statement
that this paper  supports your assertion.)

Best regards,

Torsten Brinch
Email: interpret dot in domain name


author: Tracy Aquilla

subject: Re: GM food engineering other entity (Was: Re: genetic   engineering        difference)

text:
Torsten Brinch wrote:

And Marty has successfully carried that burden.  In particular, he has
shown by convincing evidence that "breeders have been 'playing around' by
using novel promoters for thousands of years." Now the burden lies with
those who would disprove Marty's statement. Yet, so far, no evidence has
been offered to disprove Marty's assertion.
Tracy


author: Marty Sachs

text:
In article <LE_T5.356$[email]>, "Torsten Brinch"
<[email]> wrote:

Yes, I agree that the burden of proof is on is on me.  However, I simply
want to understand how you feel this paper doesn't support the
assertion, so that I can defend my assertion.  To me, it is as obvious
as saying that people purposely built Stonehenge.  If you feel
differently, please explain why so I can discuss this with you.

   -Marty Sachs