Testing

Test...

AbE: More testing...

Edited by Percy, : Test.

Edited by Percy, : Performance testing...

Random text:

More than four years after light from supernova 1987A first reached Earth, radiation remains the key tool for investigating the hidden energy sources powering this exploded star. Soon after the supernova appeared, emissions of ultra-violet, infrared and visible light grew steadily fainter, following a predicted decay curve. But changes in the supernova's "light curve" over the past year now leave astronomers puzzled.

The changes hint at two dramatic possibilities: the abundance of elements in 1987A may differ widely from that in our solar system, or a new energy source -- perhaps a dense, spinning sphere of neutrons known as a pulsar -- lies hidden at the core of the object.

Some of the gammas excite atoms in the cloud of debris surrounding 1987A, causing the atoms to emit infrared and visible light observable from Earth. Based on the abundance of cobalt-65 as well as its half-life, scientists believe that until recently it provided the supernova's chief fuel.

But as observations of 1987A hit the three-year mark, little cobalt-56 remained, and the light curve flattened, reports Walker, Nicholas B. Suntzeff and their colleagues in the September ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL. The flatter curve matches the slower decay of another isotope, cobalt-57, which the supernova produced in smaller amounts, the group notes. Another team, at the European Southern Observatory in La Silla, Chile, reports similar results.

So far so good. But although the shape of the light curve mimics the decay of cobalt-57, the magnitude of the curve -- indicating the amount of light now emitted by 1987A -- exceeds that predicted by theory, both teams say. One way to explain the greater emissions, note Suntzeff and his colleagues, is to assume that the supernova produced a ratio of cobalt-57 to cobalt-56 five times the ratio typical in our solar system. They will report these results in an upcoming ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL LETTERS.

The unusual ratio may pose a problem, several astronomers assert, even though the turbulent environment of 1987A -- located 160,000 light-years from Earth -- differs from that of the solar system. While nuclear burning inside stars creates the lighter elements, researchers believe it requires the violence of a supernova explosion to produce the heaviest materials, such as radioactive nickel, which then decays to cobalt, and ultimately to iron. Over time, thousands of supernovas spew out their contents, thus determining the abundance of heavy elements in our galaxy and others. According to this model, the abundance of isotopes created by individual supernovas should not differ radically from the ratio found near Earth.

Suntzeff's team suggests another explanation for the new findings, one that no longer requires 1987A's ratio to conflict with our solar system's. A constant energy source lurking at the core of the supernova could also account for the larger light output -- perhaps a pulsar, long sought but never observed in 1987A, or a black hole. While such sources generally produce a totally flat light curve rather than the slowly declining one observed, Suntzeff says the latest data indicate 1987A's curve appears to be flattening.

Many astronomers caution that the findings provide only sketchy evidence for a pulsar. And absorption of the supernova's far-infrared emissions by Earth's atmosphere complicates efforts to measure the supernova's total brightness.

A study last month with NASA's Gamma Ray Observatory (GRO) may answer the cobalt ratio question, says Mark Leising of Clemson (S.C.) University. GRO measured the spectra of gamma rays from 1987A, which should allow researchers to calculate the amount of cobalt-57 produced by the supernova. In 1988, the Solar Maximum Mission satellite precisely calculated 1987A's quantity of cobalt-56. Comparing both isotopes will directly determine the relative abundance of cobalt-57. Very early results, Leising notes, suggest that GRO did not find the large increase inferred from the ground-based measurements.

--Percy

Added by edit: Test Test Test

Edited by Percy, : Performance testing...

Edited by Percy, : Performance testing...

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Testing editing while suspended.

Testing...

Testing...

Smilie test:

Edit test...

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

some are dashes, here are some others
Ken Miller’s website,

It’s “irreducible” and it evolved.

Reimer, Paula J. et al, "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 CAL KYR BP" Radiocarbon, Volume 46, Issue 3,

Siegenthaler, Urs et al. "Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene" Science 3

Stable Carbon Cycle�Climate Relationship During

This is a cut-n-paste from http://www.science-spirit.org/article_detail.php?article_id=128:

I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word "God," instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., "nobody knows") or an incorrect response (e.g., "by people"). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, "We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy." So it was wonderful when these children said, "Kamisama! God! God made it!" That was probably the most significant finding.

All the characters appear normal in the text box. Now I will do a preview...

All the characters appearl normal in the preview. Now I will submit this message, which will save it to the database.

Display of the message from the database was also normal. I will now try cut-n-pasting from Microsoft Word:

I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word "God," instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., "nobody knows") or an incorrect response (e.g., "by people"). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creationas an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, "We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy." So it was wonderful when these children said, "Kamisama! God! God made it!" That was probably the most significant finding.

This looks fine in the text box, I'll now preview it...

Looks fine in the preview, I'll now submit it and save it to the database...

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

I mostly use Chrome but saw your post and tried it in IE - I see the problem now.

No FF on the machine I'm using now - can someone take a look using FF?

Netscape and Safari are fine.

--Percy

Posting the same text, but from IE:

I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word "God," instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., "nobody knows") or an incorrect response (e.g., "by people"). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creationas an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, "We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy." So it was wonderful when these children said, "Kamisama! God! God made it!" That was probably the most significant finding.

Preview is screwed up with a series of three funny characters where the double and single quotes should be.

Posting now...

Editing in Chrome, where the text looks fine. So I'm still unable to reproduce the way that a message was posted with Unicode characters that display in Chrome as empty squares.

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

in·cor·po·real (in′kôr pôr′ē əl)

adjective

not consisting of matter; without material body or substance
of spirits or angels

“I tested both the Japanese and British children on the same tasks, showing them very accurate, detailed photographs of selected natural and man-made objects and then asking them questions about the causal origins of the various natural objects at both the scientific level (e.g. how did this particular dog become a dog?) and at the metaphysical level (e.g. how did the first ever dog come into being?). With the Japanese children, it was important to establish whether they even distinguished the two levels of explanation because, as a culture, Japan discourages speculation into the metaphysical, simply because it’s something we can never know, so we shouldn’t attempt it. But the Japanese children did speculate, quite willingly, and in the same way as British children. On forced choice questions, consisting of three possible explanations of primary origin, they would predominantly go for the word ‘God’, instead of either an agnostic response (e.g., ‘nobody knows’) or an incorrect response (e.g., ‘by people’). This is absolutely extraordinary when you think that Japanese religion — Shinto — doesn’t include creation as an aspect of God’s activity at all. So where do these children get the idea that creation is in God’s hands? It’s an example of a natural inference that they form on the basis of their own experience. My Japanese research assistants kept telling me, ‘We Japanese don’t think about God as creator — it’s just not part of Japanese philosophy.’ So it was wonderful when these children said, ‘Kamisama! God! God made it!’ That was probably the most significant finding.”4

test

test

Edited by Percy, : No reason given.

Edited by Percy, : Add quotes.

Edited by Percy, : Edit message with quotes in subtitle

http://wwwapps.ups.com/WebTracking/track?HTMLVersion=5.0&...

www.site.com/this/is/a/very/long/link/that/shou.../shortened

This long line of x's should get split into lines no longer than 180 characters:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx