Re: State of Science was: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Hi Bob, I am sure everything you say is true. I think the term wobble, in reference to stars, was probably coined by astronomers themselves as a short-hand method of referring to the phenomena. My point still is... Today the trend in the scientific community seems to be increasingly towards stating theory or opinion as proven scientific fact. It is a case of draw a conclusion, look for evidence to support it, ignore evidence to the contrary. Essentially the reverse of the true scientific method. Witness the Martian meteorite ALH 84001. In 1996, it was postulated that it might contain a microbe, a fossilized piece of primitive life. Five years later (about a month ago), headlines read something like "Martian Microbe Confirmed as Early Life". It turns out this was the opinion of one research team. There is a whole slew of astro-biologists that are not ready to stick their necks on the line. It was amazing, back in 1996, that the original announcement was made during the same week congress was considering funding for more Mars projects. Coincidence? I'm not saying they shouldn't be funded or it's a bad use of money. What I am saying, is that the difference between conclusions drawn by direct observation Vs. what is more or less circumstantial evidence, leaves room for doubt. I would like to read more "we think", "mights" and "maybes", as opposed to "scientific dogma". Science has been wrong countless times in the past. The more we learn, the more we realize we don't know. Tom C. - Original Message - From: "Bob Blakely" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 9:30 PM Subject: Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions The general laws of motion for heavenly bodies was developed by Kepler (1571-1630). Newton's (1642-1727) law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, further he developed the law of gravity, acceleration as a function of combined mass and distance. This mathematics, along with the calculus, proved gravity the natural force that defined Kepler's equations. Today, we see some stars move back and forth with definite period when plotted over some time. Since they move, acceleration is taking place. If acceleration is taking place there must be an equal and opposite reaction somewhere. We see this movement with binary stars, but with the observation we are discussing, no second star is seen. Whatever it is that is supplying the mass necessary to produce this phenomena is dark. From the period, size of displacement, and the estimated mass of the observed star (from brightness, temperature, etc.) a size (mass) may be estimated for the dark mass (planet). From the accuracy of the instrumentation and from the verified statistics of other observations, an accuracy for this mass estimate can be determined. Over time (your 20 years) the accuracy of measurements has increased dramatically to make the mass estimates sufficiently tight to identify a planet. Since we have all observed the dramatic advances in technology in the past 20 years (what computer were you using in 1981?), it is not surprising that what was once an educated conjecture has now been verified. All this sounds quite well grounded in science and mathematics to me. In other words, it IS scientifically based. FYI, most of the measurements are made using photography (and a clock and calendar). I have no idea where this word "wobble" came from, but can only assume it was used by someone in an attempt to reference the phenomena for those ignorant in astronomy and it somehow stuck. The star is NOT wobbling. It is moving back and forth in relation to the background stars. Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. From: "aimcompute" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was one of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble effect across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post was probably a poor one... It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20 years ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today is headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the conclusion that are drawn now versus then. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Hi Steve, I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was one of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble effect across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post was probably a poor one... It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20 years ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today is headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the conclusion that are drawn now versus then. Granted, extra solar planets can not be resolved with the telescopes we have, but when a star wobbles on its axis, something has to cause it. Luminosity is achieved only with a mass large enough for atomic conversion, so if there is no luminous mass visibly close enough to make a solar disk wobble, chances are high that it is of planetary origin causing a gravitational wobble. That`s the wonderful thing about science, if you make a discovery, they are going to try so very hard to prove you wrong. That's the other wonderful thing about this kind of science. It's very hard to prove something is wrong when you cannot as yet prove it as right. g Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Tom C. wrote: Hi Steve, I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was one of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble effect across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post was probably a poor one... It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20 years ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today is headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the conclusion that are drawn now versus then. I see your point. That's the other wonderful thing about this kind of science. It's very hard to prove something is wrong when you cannot as yet prove it as right. g Armchair theories do get you thinking though. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
The general laws of motion for heavenly bodies was developed by Kepler (1571-1630). Newton's (1642-1727) law says that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, further he developed the law of gravity, acceleration as a function of combined mass and distance. This mathematics, along with the calculus, proved gravity the natural force that defined Kepler's equations. Today, we see some stars move back and forth with definite period when plotted over some time. Since they move, acceleration is taking place. If acceleration is taking place there must be an equal and opposite reaction somewhere. We see this movement with binary stars, but with the observation we are discussing, no second star is seen. Whatever it is that is supplying the mass necessary to produce this phenomena is dark. From the period, size of displacement, and the estimated mass of the observed star (from brightness, temperature, etc.) a size (mass) may be estimated for the dark mass (planet). From the accuracy of the instrumentation and from the verified statistics of other observations, an accuracy for this mass estimate can be determined. Over time (your 20 years) the accuracy of measurements has increased dramatically to make the mass estimates sufficiently tight to identify a planet. Since we have all observed the dramatic advances in technology in the past 20 years (what computer were you using in 1981?), it is not surprising that what was once an educated conjecture has now been verified. All this sounds quite well grounded in science and mathematics to me. In other words, it IS scientifically based. FYI, most of the measurements are made using photography (and a clock and calendar). I have no idea where this word "wobble" came from, but can only assume it was used by someone in an attempt to reference the phenomena for those ignorant in astronomy and it somehow stuck. The star is NOT wobbling. It is moving back and forth in relation to the background stars. Regards, Bob... Give blood. Play hockey. From: "aimcompute" [EMAIL PROTECTED] I remember in the 70's (maybe before that) when the star Aldeberan was one of the first stars suspected if having planets because of it's wobble effect across the sky. My choice of the word observation in my earlier post was probably a poor one... It is this wobble method of detection that I was referring to, that 20 years ago was only strong enough to be considered possible evidence, but today is headlined as proof. So, I don't doubt that the wobble method is scientifically based. I am just perplexed by the strength of the conclusion that are drawn now versus then. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Hi Tom, [snip] Another pet-peeve for me is the hogwash in the realm of astronomy and cosmology. While I don't doubt that there are extra-solar planets, the main method of proof for the almost weekly proclamations of discoveries, is not too different from 20-30 years ago when the evidence was viewed as only "possible proof" and tentative. Much of astronomical discovery is not based on direct observation but on 50% observation and 50% hypothesizing. How many details can you really tell about an object when you're thousand, millions, billions of light years away? A close up look may tell a very different story. Granted, extra solar planets can not be resolved with the telescopes we have, but when a star wobbles on its axis, something has to cause it. Luminosity is achieved only with a mass large enough for atomic conversion, so if there is no luminous mass visibly close enough to make a solar disk wobble, chances are high that it is of planetary origin causing a gravitational wobble. IMO, the need for funding is driving the discoveries, not the quest for knowledge. Theory is warped into fact. That`s the wonderful thing about science, if you make a discovery, they are going to try so very hard to prove you wrong. I feel sick now so I'm going to gather up some leeches. g Don`t those things hurt? Tom C. Steve Larson Redondo Beach, California - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Sorry to post this, but since the COW posts I have become more aware of how much of an issue this is... and you know me... I always know when to quit. I jokingly linked Bovine Growth Hormone to lesions on cattle. The article linked to below states that BGH given to cows to increase milk production produces lesions when fed to rats... http://www.msnbc.com/news/549280.asp Makes me think of a new advertising slogan: "Want Lesions? Get Milk". Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, aimcompute wrote: The article linked to below states that BGH given to cows to increase milk production produces lesions when fed to rats... I have just one thing to say about all these threads: Talk about MacDonald's makes me hungry. This week, I ate there twice, only because of all the mentions of McD's here in this list. Now you're making me want to go for a milkshake. So, for you amateur activists out there, keep this in mind in future posts. You're just making some of us consume more of all that tasty stuff. :-) -- - Juan J. Buhler | FX Animator @ PDI | http://www.crosswinds.net/~jbuhler - - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Juan J. Buhler laments: I have just one thing to say about all these threads: Talk about MacDonald's makes me hungry. This week, I ate there twice, only because of all the mentions of McD's here in this list. Now you're making me want to go for a milkshake. McD's (Chez MacDo) doesn't server milk shakes. They do have shakes, but as far as I know, they contain no dairy products at all. I hope that makes you feel better about your uncontrollable urges. :) Cheers, Gerald - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Subject: Re: OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
I have chosen to remain out of this thread, however, in his last post, Juan Buhler said: "I have just one thing to say about all these threads: Talk about MacDonald's makes me hungry. This week, I ate there twice, only because of all the mentions of McD's here in this list. Now you're making me want to go for a milkshake." I just wanted to say that Juan, I hope your medical insurance is up to date, cause if you keep eating that much Macca's, you are going to be needing itEver heard of the term "high cholesterol"? ;-) Personally, as I have mentioned previously, I won't eat meat from Macca's and will only eat the occasional chicken nugget, however, my kids love it and we limit their visits to one per fortnight (pay day!) when they view it as their "treat" for being "good boys"Any more frequent visits than that, I would definitely view as a health risk though :-) Tanya. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Re: Subject: Re: OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
Dietary fat and cholesterol have almost nothing to do with serum cholesterol levels. I eat only meat, eggs, cheese, and green vegetables. No starch, no sugar. My total cholesterol is 130. My good cholesterol is 90. My doctor says that it's the best ratio she has ever seen in 30 years of practice. The health nazis will try to tell you that fats and dietary cholesterol can screw up your serum cholesterol levels, but it's bullshit. High blood cholesterol levels are something you're born with. You're not going to get there by eating cheeseburgers. (But do throw away the bun. And no fries. The starch is bad for you. You can have the oil if you want, but no potatoes. And don't put ketchup on the cheeseburger. The sugar they put in that stuff can kill you.) Paul Tanya Russell Mayer wrote: I have chosen to remain out of this thread, however, in his last post, Juan Buhler said: "I have just one thing to say about all these threads: Talk about MacDonald's makes me hungry. This week, I ate there twice, only because of all the mentions of McD's here in this list. Now you're making me want to go for a milkshake." I just wanted to say that Juan, I hope your medical insurance is up to date, cause if you keep eating that much Macca's, you are going to be needing itEver heard of the term "high cholesterol"? ;-) Personally, as I have mentioned previously, I won't eat meat from Macca's and will only eat the occasional chicken nugget, however, my kids love it and we limit their visits to one per fortnight (pay day!) when they view it as their "treat" for being "good boys"Any more frequent visits than that, I would definitely view as a health risk though :-) Tanya. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:12:03 -0700, aimcompute wrote: The article linked to below states that BGH given to cows to increase milk production produces lesions when fed to rats... So what does it do when given to dairy cattle? BG Very, Very OT: That's one of my pet peeves about laboratory testing. I really couldn't give a flying flip what it does when fed to rats, only what it does when fed to dairy cattle the output of which are consumed by humans. Now, I'm not stupid enough to believe that the two might not be different, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe that they might not be the same. But I really get sick of the hyperbole. Of course, hyperbole is about the only defining characteristic of the dawn of the 21st century. TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
OT: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 14:40:57 -0800 (PST), Juan J. Buhler wrote: So, for you amateur activists out there, keep this in mind in future posts. You're just making some of us consume more of all that tasty stuff. Rah, Rah, Rah! You d' man, Juan! ;^) TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
REALLY OT Re: Bovine Growth Hormone, Bad Milk Lesions
This probably doesn't have much to do with anything, but I heard somewhere that with all the preservatives in our food, our dead bodies last an average of 2 years longer than normal! Live fast, die young and leave a good-lookin', well-preserved corpse. :) Now if only those preservatives would delay aging ... I also heard that fetal stem cell research will soon be a moot issue since they found they can get the stem cells from regular human fat. Now THERE's an issue I can get behind, or rather, get my behind, behind! Bring on the McDonald's! (I've had a LONG week) aimcompute wrote: The article linked to below states that BGH given to cows to increase milk production produces lesions when fed to rats... So what does it do when given to dairy cattle? BG Very, Very OT: That's one of my pet peeves about laboratory testing. I really couldn't give a flying flip what it does when fed to rats, only what it does when fed to dairy cattle the output of which are consumed by humans. Now, I'm not stupid enough to believe that the two might not be different, but I'm also not stupid enough to believe that they might not be the same. But I really get sick of the hyperbole. Of course, hyperbole is about the only defining characteristic of the dawn of the 21st century. TTYL, DougF - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
