asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Nov 8, 9:37*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 8 Nov 2011 03:23:11 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The "policy skills" to which you seemed to have alluded are inherently
unethical and would always be unwise.

Precisely the immature viewpoint that demonstrates our societal
weaknesses!

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance and naivete. Any "policy"
that advocates the control or guidance of future human evolution is
merely eugenics in disguise. Inevitably, the rights of some people
would be violated. At least BT included a mild disclaimer when he
mentioned the idea. You weren't even smart enough to do that.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 02:53:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Your statement demonstrates your ignorance and naivete. Any "policy"
that advocates the control or guidance of future human evolution is
merely eugenics in disguise. Inevitably, the rights of some people
would be violated.

There is nothing inherently absolutely about eugenics, just as there
is nothing absolutely unethical about anything. Ethics are determined
by societal norms (remember, for most of history slavery was
considered perfectly ethical, as was arbitrary execution by rulers who
were equated with deities).

To suggest that any society that practices eugenics will automatically
violate individual rights is to display precisely the lack of
imagination that prolongs dark ages. The fact that we lack the
societal maturity and scientific knowledge to practice significant
genetic manipulation on ourselves today does not mean that will always
be the case; one day, our survival as a species may enen depend on it.

On Nov 1, 12:35*pm, wrote:
The article at the link below indicates a forthcoming asteroid
approach by 2005 YU55 to within 325,000 km of Earth and states that
the object is about 400m across. I would imagine that such an object
would be quite bright! How bright will it get, and which hemisphere is
favored observation-wise?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/po...d=asteroid-pla....

That imaging opportunity of YU55 was certainly a big disappointment.

Good thing that much like our physically dark moon, whereas each
giving off a great deal of IR is what made the little fuzzy dot via
KECK materialize. They must have been utilizing their very least
possible magnification, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared to what
KECK has previously demonstrated. However, it does demonstrate just
how physically dark items like YU55 and our moon really are.

Perhaps those radar images of 2 meter resolution will eventually
surface and get resampled for their best interpretation of YU55.
Instead they give us crappy movies of it that cuts the resolution
potential down by a good 10:1, instead of frame stacking and PhotoShop
resampling, and there's still nothing of gamma spectrometry to speak
of, as well as no better determination of its mass.

Of course this means that those Muslim ETs could just as easily hit us
with a full blown WMD km sized black rock of 8+ g/cm3 density, and at
best our crack team KECK would only detect a little fuzzy IR imaged
dot as of the same day as the impact would take place.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Nov 2, 4:46*pm, StarDust wrote:
That's about the Moon's orbit, so not very close.

It passed near 16% closer than the moon.

That most recent imaging opportunity of YU55 was certainly a big
disappointment.

Good thing that much like our physically dark moon, whereas each of
these items giving off a great deal of IR is what made the little
fuzzy dot via KECK materialize. They must have been utilizing their
very least possible magnification, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared
to what KECK has previously demonstrated. However, it does a good job
of demonstrate just how physically dark items like YU55 and our moon
really are.

Perhaps those radar images of 2 meter resolution will eventually
surface and get sufficiently stacked and resampled for their best
interpretation of YU55. Instead they give us crappy movies of it that
cuts their resolution potential down by a good 10:1, instead of proper
frame stacking and PhotoShop resampling, and there's still nothing of
gamma spectrometry to speak of, as well as no better determination of
its mass, so it must be a heavy sucker that we outsiders are not
supposed to know anything about.

Of course this means that those Muslim ETs could just as easily hit us
with a full blown WMD of a km sized black rock of 8+ g/cm3 density,
and at best our crack team KECK would only detect a little fuzzy IR
imaged dot as of the same day as the impact would take place.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On 11/9/11 12:21 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
That imaging opportunity of YU55 was certainly a big disappointment.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap111109.html

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:32:55 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Good thing that much like our physically dark moon, whereas each of
these items giving off a great deal of IR is what made the little
fuzzy dot via KECK materialize. They must have been utilizing their
very least possible magnification, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared
to what KECK has previously demonstrated.

The term "magnification" means nothing in this context. The telescope
was used at its highest possible resolution. The IR in this case was
near IR, not long wavelength (thermal) IR. The asteroid is not IR
bright at this wavelength; near IR is used by Keck for adaptive optics
because of the physics behind the process.

On 11/9/2011 1:48 PM, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:32:55 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Good thing that much like our physically dark moon, whereas each of
these items giving off a great deal of IR is what made the little
fuzzy dot via KECK materialize. They must have been utilizing their
very least possible magnification, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared
to what KECK has previously demonstrated.

The term "magnification" means nothing in this context. The telescope
was used at its highest possible resolution. The IR in this case was
near IR, not long wavelength (thermal) IR. The asteroid is not IR
bright at this wavelength; near IR is used by Keck for adaptive optics
because of the physics behind the process.



Just curious did you get any images of this asteroid ?

I check your web page every meteor shower and for new images. Have not
seen any new images from you in a while except for meteors.


--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

http://www.novac.com

On Wed, 09 Nov 2011 16:27:57 -0500, AM wrote:

Just curious did you get any images of this asteroid ?

No, I was out of town last night. Had I been home, I might have tried-
just for kicks, mainly.

I check your web page every meteor shower and for new images. Have not
seen any new images from you in a while except for meteors.

I got bored with aesthetic imaging, so I don't do much of it lately.
Besides the meteor work, most of what I do now is photometry, and I
haven't been posting that work.

On Nov 9, 10:21*am, Brad Guth wrote:

That imaging opportunity of YU55 was certainly a big disappointment.

From some of the local amateurs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u25iC...ature=youtu.be

On Nov 9, 10:48*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 10:32:55 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
Good thing that much like our physically dark moon, whereas each of
these items giving off a great deal of IR is what made the little
fuzzy dot via KECK materialize. *They must have been utilizing their
very least possible magnification, as almost a wide-angle FOV compared
to what KECK has previously demonstrated.

The term "magnification" means nothing in this context. The telescope
was used at its highest possible resolution. The IR in this case was
near IR, not long wavelength (thermal) IR. The asteroid is not IR
bright at this wavelength; near IR is used by Keck for adaptive optics
because of the physics behind the process.

It was a good one of proving just how physically dark our moon
actually is. KECK could have accomplished at least ten fold better
resolution, but that would have been problematic for NASA.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”