| |
Main
Date: 07 Sep 2006 03:31:01
From: Republicans Retain Majority Of *BOTH* Houses Of Congress!
Subject: Nationwide *MANHUNT* For Anti-American Liberal Democrats!
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
TONIGHT ON FOXNEWS' Hannity & Colmes, one of their segments was
about a US National Guardsman who was out for a morning walk to
a local convenience store, on Tuesday August 29th, 2006 AD, near
Pacific Avenue and 138th Street South, in Parkland, Pierce County,
Washington State, when he was *brutally* attacked by roving gang
of radical left-wing Liberal Democrats who pulled up in a "black
Chevy Suburban-type SUV. The suspects are all white and some of
the men in their early to mid 20's were wearing red baseball caps
and red sweatshirts", quoting the Pierce County Sheriff's Office
spokesman, Ed Troyer.
Troyer went on to say, that although the "victim is black, our
suspects are white,...there was no mention made of any race issues.
We believe he was targeted due to wearing the military clothing and
the comment that were made were about war and about his military
activity and had nothing to do with race", end quote.
Apparently the rabidly Anti-American Liberal driver was wielding a
handgun, and jumped out with four other cowardly Liberal males who
began kicking the Guardsman to the ground, and started punching and
kicking him while he was down. Although Pierce County deputies are
offering a one thousand dollar reward for information leading to
the capture of these five extremely dangerous Anti-American Liberal
Terrorists, our beloved U.S. Military is looking forward to seeing
these Liberal Democrat pieces of inhuman garbage prosecuted to the
very MAXIMUM possible penalty under Federal Law against Hate-crimes.
So let's patriotic Republicans do everything we can to help the
authorities apprehend these Anti-American Liberal Democrats, so
they can be tried before a staunch conservative Republican judge
(hopefully who previously served in the military him or her self)
and hopefully an all-military patriotic Republican Jury--to boot!
Our beloved U.S. Military wants to catch these Liberal vermin and
make an *EXAMPLE* of them, to show every God-hating, Family-hating,
Country-hating, Terrorist-supporting Liberal in America the PRICE
they shall pay if they lift so much as one little finger against
our brave men & women who proudly wear the uniform! Once the police
catch these five rabid animals, they'll throw the BOOK at them! And
you can bet these five dangerously-violent left-wing Liberal insects
will begin to curse the day they were born: They're going to *Hell*! :-D
*VOTE* Republican!
Daniel Joseph Min
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRP+OkZljD7YrHM/nEQLPfACgnB4Am6RHTxJt1+fKCgJE1vyFO8QAn06+
Uk1L98vytGa5+IwnhqAYhwXM
=V/PN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 01:02:35
From: George Dishman
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
Margo Schulter wrote:
Margo, I'm going to trim severly and 'cherry pick'
your comments. Primarily this is because I have
given some thought to your alternative suggestions
and have gelled my own views a bit. The post was
getting rather long and I have no real disagreement
with the remainder of your comments.
> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > "Margo Schulter" <mschulter@web1.calweb.com> wrote in message
> > news:44fdea8e$0$84249$d368eab@news.calweb.com...
> >> In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
> Anyway, getting back to the IAU. From a diplomatic viewpoint,
> if I were trying to get supporters of 5A to consider a
> not-too-unfriendly amendment, I'd definitely choose "_major_
> planet" for something like 5B. Clearly one of their points,
> maybe the main one, is that Pluto definitely belongs in a
> category other than that of the eight major planets -- and
> likewise with 2003 UB313, as well as Ceres.
>
> Since I agree completely with the adopters of 5A that Pluto
> isn't a major planet but a dwarf planet, with dynamical
> dominance as the difference, I'd try to join with them in
> crafting language that affirms this point. The "classical"
> thing might obscure rather than clarify this dichotomy.
> ... My
> own approach would be to explain to people who ask "How many
> planets are there?" that there are eight planets of the
> familiar major type, likely a considerably higher number
> of dwarf planets (e.g. Ceres and Pluto, each at one time
> considered a major planet), and some ten thousand minor
> planets catalogued so far, if I'm correct.
...
> > I think the public view might be that Ceres and the larger
> > bodies might be justifiably called "minor planets" while
> > the word "asteroid" is more apt for assorted small rubble.
>
> Actually I like a minor-meso-major planet scheme like
> Asimov's, but with "mesoplanet" having Ceres and Pluto (or
> now 2003 UB313 or "Xena") as included rather than excluded
> bounds -- very much like the "dwarf planet" category. I'd
> say that the IAU criteria are good ones for the three
> categories, whatever we want to call them.
...
> Well, I guess we can each take another look and invite others
> to join in, as you have done.
...
> On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
> question, one possible reason for not including it in
> the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
> that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
> which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
> can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
> neighborhood.
My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
(a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
OK, here's my alternative. Consider first Ceres, Pallas
and the other largest main belt obects. If say the top
tem had merged and were collecting the rubble then
they would approach being classed as a planet albeit
of very low mass. We already have a name for objects
which subsequently merge to form planets, that being
"planetesimal". As a result of our discussion, I would
suggest that Ceres etc. should be classed as remnant
planetesimals.
If Ceres and Pallas at some time came close and
became a binary, that doesn't change their individual
nature so I would further suggest they should then be
classed as a binary planetesimal system.
Looking then at Charon, it appears that if it were not
associated with Pluto, it would also warrant being
classed as a planetesimal hence the Pluto/Charon
system should be considered a binary planetesimal
(with two moons).
The boundary between binary and object/satellite is
a bit more difficult but could perhaps be resolved by
the mass ratio or location of the barycentre.
Similarly the distinction between a satellite and a
moon is unclear but let me suggest as a minimum
that a planetesimal in orbit around a planet should be
called a moon. The terms satellite and moon relate
to orbital configuration rather than mass and shape
so it would be both a moon and a planetesimal.
Objects not meeting the 'nearly round' criterion would
still be "Small Bodies" and further sub-divided into
the usual myriad classes (TNO, KBO etc.).
The criteria used by the IAU would still be applicable,
hence there would be eight planets in the solar system.
The definition could be easily rationalised to allow for
extra-solar planets by replacing "the Sun" by "a star",
even with the proviso that the current definition is
limited to the solar system since AFAIK there is only
one star in it ;-)
I will try to find time to draw this up as a flowchart, but
I have very limited opportunity over the next week, and
perhaps also add a test for fusion to identify stars
(including brown dwarf stars), free-floating 'planemos'
and binary planemo systems.
I would appreciate your views on the this proposal, in
particular the criteria for distinguishing binary from
object/satellite and what should qualify a satellite to
be raised to the status of a moon.
Note that this would mean that many of the moons of
the planets would also be classified as planetesimals
so the precedence of being a satellite and other
definitions might be contentious.
George
|
| | |
Date: 10 Sep 2006 23:30:34
From: Margo Schulter
Subject: Re: Pluto is out from planet dictionary
|
In sci.astro George Dishman <george@briar.demon.co.uk > wrote:
>
> Margo Schulter wrote:
>
> Margo, I'm going to trim severly and 'cherry pick'
> your comments. Primarily this is because I have
> given some thought to your alternative suggestions
> and have gelled my own views a bit. The post was
> getting rather long and I have no real disagreement
> with the remainder of your comments.
>
Hi, George, and that's fine; selective quoting can make things
more readable and save bandwidth, especially when there's mostly
agreement.
>> On the "is not a satellite," apart from the Pluto-Charon
>> question, one possible reason for not including it in
>> the definition of "planet" (i.e. my "major planet") is
>> that it might be redundant: a dynamically dominant body
>> which "has cleared the neighborhood around its orbit"
>> can hardly be a "satellite" of another body sharing that
>> neighborhood.
>
> My point on that is that (d) is redundant because an
> object cannot be a satellite and also meet criterion
> (a) that it be in orbit around the Sun.
Yes, "directly in orbit around the primary, or 'fusor,'
or whatever we choose to call it."
> OK, here's my alternative. Consider first Ceres, Pallas
> and the other largest main belt obects. If say the top
> tem had merged and were collecting the rubble then
> they would approach being classed as a planet albeit
> of very low mass. We already have a name for objects
> which subsequently merge to form planets, that being
> "planetesimal". As a result of our discussion, I would
> suggest that Ceres etc. should be classed as remnant
> planetesimals.
That's certainly one usage of "planetesimal" with
precedent. Personally the term tends to suggest for me
more specifically something maybe around 1-10 km that's
assumed to be one of the bodies serving by accretion to
form some kind of larger planet -- in my terms, it could
be a major planet (the "Big 8" in our Solar System); or
a minor planet (dwarf or smaller). However, I certainly
agree that there's a usage where any kind of minor planet
(notably an asteroid) can be called a planetesimal.
Here we get to the question of set or subset definitions
versus the names to give. To me, "planetesimal" could be
both evocative and "cosmogonically correct" for lots of
the smaller minor planets -- "here we're seeing a living
fossil, as it were, of those 1-10 km planetesimals that
were the elementary building blocks of the larger planets,
major or dwarf, etc." It suggests to me something smaller
than a "gravito-spheroidal" planet, or "spheroidal" for
short, which has likely accreted from lots of planetesimals
in the narrower sense -- whether a dwarf planet, a major
planet, or even a larger Small Solar System Body (SSSB)
or "microplanet" as I call it, say Vesta, which isn't
quite massive enough to be (gravito-)spheroidal.
However, your usage seems to have lots of company, and I
realize that from a certain dynamical view, anything other
than a major planet (IAU "planet") could be viewed as
"uncleared rubble."
If I wanted to propose some term other than "dwarf planet"
or "mesoplanet" for the spheroidal minor planets, maybe
it would be "planetoid" (carrying some science fiction
associations, as has been pointed out) or possibly
"planetino." Then people who wanted could view this
term as referring to a type of planet, and others could
argue the analogy that a neutrino is certainly not a type
of neutron.
Again, it's a matter of taste -- and it seems that
"planetesimal," like "planet," can evoke lots of distinct
semantic preferences.
> If Ceres and Pallas at some time came close and
> became a binary, that doesn't change their individual
> nature so I would further suggest they should then be
> classed as a binary planetesimal system.
An interesting question, indeed! If the barycenter (my
provincial spelling, just to let everyone know I'm aware)
is outside the radius of either body, then a binary
planetesimal system -- or in my lingo "binary dwarf planet
or mesoplanetary system" -- would indeed seem correct.
If the barycenter is within the radius of one of the bodies,
then we have the "not a satellite" question -- does this
apply to satellites of minor as well as major planets?
If I were to propose a distinction, maybe based in part on
precedent (catalogued minor planets, it seems to me, should
stay minor planets, although they might also be satellites of
another minor planet), I might argue that maybe for one
minor planet to be a satellite of another in a belt environment
is a bit more subtle of a relationship than the contrast
between major planet and satellite. However, there's a problem
there, too: with minor planet (and more specifically mesoplanet
or dwarf planet) Pluto, Nixie, for example, is in a role much
like that of a satellite of a major planet.
Do we maybe use a mass ratio test, with Ceres-Pallas a "binary"
but Pluto-Nixie a planet plus satellite?
If the barycenter is between the two bodies, of course, then I'd
say "binary" is the right answer. This is a subtle line of
questions.
>
> Looking then at Charon, it appears that if it were not
> associated with Pluto, it would also warrant being
> classed as a planetesimal hence the Pluto/Charon
> system should be considered a binary planetesimal
> (with two moons).
Yes, and here I'm applying the barycenter test, which
suffices to yield this result.
> The boundary between binary and object/satellite is
> a bit more difficult but could perhaps be resolved by
> the mass ratio or location of the barycentre.
Yes, or some combination -- minor planet systems (other
than the well-noted Pluto-Charon situation) are one area
maybe illustrating that taxonomic schemes, including either
yours or mine, can have certain "knotty problems."
> Similarly the distinction between a satellite and a
> moon is unclear but let me suggest as a minimum
> that a planetesimal in orbit around a planet should be
> called a moon. The terms satellite and moon relate
> to orbital configuration rather than mass and shape
> so it would be both a moon and a planetesimal.
Yes, a "moon" would then be what I recall that Stern/Levison
(2002) call a "planetary-mass satellite" or the like, or what
I might call a "spheroidal satellite."
By the way, I'd guess that the major/minor distinction might
not apply for a satellite, since it's "circumstantial" as
Basri would put it -- unless someone wants to estimate
whether the satellite, if a planet in a comparable orbit,
_would_ have sufficient mass to "clear its neighborhood"
(if the major planet it is orbiting weren't there!). That
would get into "what-if" cosmogonic scenarios, I guess.
I'm developing a new typology which does address extrasolar
objects, as do your new ones, so maybe I'll have more coherent
views to present soon -- _relatively_ more coherent, anyway
<grin >.
> Objects not meeting the 'nearly round' criterion would
> still be "Small Bodies" and further sub-divided into
> the usual myriad classes (TNO, KBO etc.).
Sure, those "myriad classes" are still very useful!
> The criteria used by the IAU would still be applicable,
> hence there would be eight planets in the solar system.
> The definition could be easily rationalised to allow for
> extra-solar planets by replacing "the Sun" by "a star",
> even with the proviso that the current definition is
> limited to the solar system since AFAIK there is only
> one star in it ;-)
True, unless we want to get into the "Nemesis" hypothesis of
the 1980's (as I recall) when the whole mass extinction
connection with asteroid or comet impacts (especially
Cretaceous-Tertiary at around 65 Ma or "Mega-anni ago,"
to use a geological style) led to the hypothesis of an
"invisible companion" to the Sun which every 26 My ("million
years" as duration or interval rather than distance from
present) or so was diverting Oort Cloud objects or the like
toward the inner Solar System, including Earth.
That theory wasn't found persuasive, I guess -- the "Nemesis"
part, as opposed to the impact theory of the Cretaceous-Tertiary
or "K-T" mass extinction, which now seems generally accepted as
at least one main cause of the extinction (with the discovery of
an impact crater that fits the geological timing and the scale
of the hypothesized event).
> I will try to find time to draw this up as a flowchart, but
> I have very limited opportunity over the next week, and
> perhaps also add a test for fusion to identify stars
> (including brown dwarf stars), free-floating 'planemos'
> and binary planemo systems.
Those are neat charts!
> I would appreciate your views on the this proposal, in
> particular the criteria for distinguishing binary from
> object/satellite and what should qualify a satellite to
> be raised to the status of a moon.
For a major planet and a satellite, or for two minor planets
where the barycenter is between the two bodies, we might both
be comfortable with the usual tests, although tending toward
different names for some of the categories. With two minor
planets like Pluto-Nixie, object/satellite seems fine. The
harder situation might be when we have two minor planets
not too different in size with the orbit of one within the
radius of the other. Maybe we say, "Once a minor planet,
always a minor planet," and put a code like the letter "S"
for "satellite" after its minor planet number.
Thus it seems that we both find mass ratio relevant if the
barycenter test doesn't indicate a binary system.
> Note that this would mean that many of the moons of
> the planets would also be classified as planetesimals
> so the precedence of being a satellite and other
> definitions might be contentious.
How about planetisimo-satellite or the like? I would say
"spheroid satellite," or "gravitospheroid satellite" if
we want to make it explicit that the "near-roundness"
must result from self-gravity approximatinng hydrostatic
equilibrium.
The more I consider this, the more I lean toward a convention
where minor planets systems with the barycenter within the radius
of one of the bodies get classified as "planet/satellite," but
the satellite still keeps or gets its minor planet number, with
a code like "S," as I described above.
> George
>
Most appreciatively,
Margo
|
| |
Date: 06 Sep 2006 22:06:27
From: OsherD
Subject: Re: Nationwide *MANHUNT* For Anti-American Liberal Democrats!
|
>From Osher Dorow mdorow@comcast.net
Daniel Min's post is over-emotional and technically off topic, but he
basically has the right idea which could be converted to a form
relevant to sci.physics with a bit of effort. Here are some ways to go
about that, I think.
A. Washington State is home to the Microsoft Corporation (Seattle) of
Bill Gates, the richest man in the USA, and computers certainly relate
strongly to physics and mathematics and engineering (they eat up
remarkable amounts of research grants of a number of top physicists for
example, who seem to produce nowhere the amount of Creative ideas that
some people do for nothing on sci.physics).
B. What is the richest man in the USA doing in Blue State Washington,
which voted for Kerry and has voted for the left wing of Democrats for
recent decades? Is it possible that Greed Materialism is actually
related to the Democrats?
C. Even stranger, Seattle (of Microsoft) is even worse than San
Francisco in its Peace-At-Any-Price, Sexual-Choice-At-Any-Price,
Pro-Islamist-At-Any-Price orientations. Is Bill Gates happy there, or
does he like his environment? Does he give his money away to
underprivileged children because he produces them? How about some
money for Creative Ideas such as on sci.physics? In fact, how about
some money outside computers and engineering and underprivileged
children?
Hopefully, Min and the anti-Mins (Max's?) will try to learn unemotional
and focused ways of posting to sci.physics.
Osher Dorow
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 09:05:59
From: AM
Subject: Re: Nationwide *MANHUNT* For Anti-American Liberal Democrats!
|
OsherD wrote:
>>From Osher Dorow mdorow@comcast.net
>
> Daniel Min's post is over-emotional and technically off topic,
And sadly all to common and true.....
It is becoming common, or at least all to frequent
round the military bases in WA. Attacks on soldiers
off base is up, and becoming more a problem.
And it's always started by a group of locals.
Really says a lot on their low class status
in society, when these scum who go looking for
soldiers to beat up, have to do this
in groups. But then evidently Seattle is filled
with gen X losers...........
(it is the suicide capital of the US)
What a way to protest the war.......
My kid already told me about this last year, they go
nowhere except in groups, and are always alert.
Problem for him (them) is that soldiers in civilian
cloths look like well.. soldiers........
Still, he's po'd about it enough, he is wanting to
crack some heads now too...........
(same losers who do the group beatings, also show
up at soldiers funerals and say, have posters of horrible
things....)
--
AM
http://sctuser.home.comcast.net
CentOS 4.3 KDE 3.3
|
| | |
Date: 07 Sep 2006 19:18:56
From: benlizross
Subject: Re: Nationwide *MANHUNT* For Anti-American Liberal Democrats!
|
OsherD wrote:
>
> >From Osher Dorow mdorow@comcast.net
>
> Daniel Min's post is over-emotional and technically off topic, but he
> basically has the right idea which could be converted to a form
> relevant to sci.physics with a bit of effort. Here are some ways to go
> about that, I think.
>
> A. Washington State is home to the Microsoft Corporation (Seattle) of
> Bill Gates, the richest man in the USA, and computers certainly relate
> strongly to physics and mathematics and engineering (they eat up
> remarkable amounts of research grants of a number of top physicists for
> example, who seem to produce nowhere the amount of Creative ideas that
> some people do for nothing on sci.physics).
>
> B. What is the richest man in the USA doing in Blue State Washington,
> which voted for Kerry and has voted for the left wing of Democrats for
> recent decades? Is it possible that Greed Materialism is actually
> related to the Democrats?
>
> C. Even stranger, Seattle (of Microsoft) is even worse than San
> Francisco in its Peace-At-Any-Price, Sexual-Choice-At-Any-Price,
> Pro-Islamist-At-Any-Price orientations. Is Bill Gates happy there, or
> does he like his environment? Does he give his money away to
> underprivileged children because he produces them? How about some
> money for Creative Ideas such as on sci.physics? In fact, how about
> some money outside computers and engineering and underprivileged
> children?
>
> Hopefully, Min and the anti-Mins (Max's?) will try to learn unemotional
> and focused ways of posting to sci.physics.
>
> Osher Dorow
Thanks for setting out the issues so clearly. So there you have it,
sci.astro, sci.physics, sci.archaeology folks: Do you want your
off-topic right-wing crap "emotional" (Danny)? or "unemotional" (Oshy)?
Get those votes in now -- for Danny, hit "0"; for Oshy, hit "0" again.
Remember, voting is compulsory and there are NO other choices!
(c) American Asshole 2006
|
| | |
Date: 11 Sep 2006 16:32:01
From: Matthew Lybanon
Subject: Re: Nationwide *MANHUNT* For Anti-American Liberal Democrats!
|
in article 1157605587.627319.54370@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com, OsherD at
mdorow@comcast.net wrote on 9/7/06 12:06 AM:
>> From Osher Dorow mdorow@comcast.net
>
> Daniel Min's post is over-emotional and technically off topic, but he
> basically has the right idea which could be converted to a form
> relevant to sci.physics with a bit of effort. Here are some ways to go
> about that, I think.
>
> A. Washington State is home to the Microsoft Corporation (Seattle) of
> Bill Gates, the richest man in the USA, and computers certainly relate
> strongly to physics and mathematics and engineering (they eat up
> remarkable amounts of research grants of a number of top physicists for
> example, who seem to produce nowhere the amount of Creative ideas that
> some people do for nothing on sci.physics).
>
> B. What is the richest man in the USA doing in Blue State Washington,
>
Maybe Bill Gates founded Microsoft in the Seattle area because it's home.
His father was an attorney for the Boeing Corporation.
|
|
