asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Nov 27, 10:18*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 21:51:10 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
I have lots of 3.5 to 4.5 g/cm3 basalt samples. *Wonder how they got
here.

Quite common for ordinary terrestrial basalts. Just because the
average is around 3 doesn't mean there isn't plenty of denser (and
less dense) basalt around.

How about carbonado from our moon?

Not likely.

Terrestrial basalts of 3.1 g/cm3 are relatively uncommon.

Are you suggesting that our moon was only recently captured?

Are you saying the moon doesn't have any carbonado (aka black
diamond)?

From that absolutely terrific 2500 km crater, where the hell did the
bulk of that lunar basalt and shards from the impactor go?

On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:01:25 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Terrestrial basalts of 3.1 g/cm3 are relatively uncommon.

Actually, the mean density for terrestrial basalt is 3.0. So basalt
with a density of 3.1 is very common. It is only when you get above
3.5 that it becomes a bit harder to find. But there is still lots of
it. That is hardly surprising, given the broad definition of basalt,
and the wide range of materials it can incorporate.

Are you suggesting that our moon was only recently captured?

It is doubtful it was captured at all.

Are you saying the moon doesn't have any carbonado (aka black
diamond)?

Who knows? It can probably be produced by shock, so on a cratered body
like the Moon, you'd likely find some. I'm sure it's pretty rare,
though. Just another trace mineral.

From that absolutely terrific 2500 km crater, where the hell did the
bulk of that lunar basalt and shards from the impactor go?

Which crater is that?

In any case, you'd expect the bulk of the material to come back down
onto the surface. Very little is likely to achieve escape velocity.

On Nov 28, 4:48*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 06:01:25 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
Terrestrial basalts of 3.1 g/cm3 are relatively uncommon.

Actually, the mean density for terrestrial basalt is 3.0. So basalt
with a density of 3.1 is very common. It is only when you get above
3.5 that it becomes a bit harder to find. But there is still lots of
it. That is hardly surprising, given the broad definition of basalt,
and the wide range of materials it can incorporate.

Perhaps less than 1% of accessible basalt that's purely terrestrial is
near 3.5 g/cm3.

Are you talking about 10+ km deep TBM excavated basalt? (because that
could fit)


Are you suggesting that our moon was only recently captured?

It is doubtful it was captured at all.
Your purely subjective doubt is noted.

Here’s an extremely simplistic simulator package that has a little
something for everyone.

Obviously aerodynamic drag that should have been much greater before
we had that moon, as well as lacking important other factors of the
lithobraking impact(s), loss/transfer of whatever ice and rock mass
plus other tidal forces of the sun and possibly Venus are not involved
within this simulation, but none the less it’s a good enough example
of how a capture might actually be easily accomplished when the
approach angle and velocity are just right.

http://isthis4real.com/orbit.xml

Launch angle / Launch force
*** -128 6.2~6.15
*** -129 6.0
*** -142 4.8
*** -126.35 6.7
*** -126.34 6.71
*** -126.335 6.71
Just for fun, go with whatever launch angle and initial force.

How about the complex tidal capture of Cruithne?

Of course retro moons are still considered as most likely captured,
and items like Sedna seem unlikely as original equipment.

Only thus far have 540,000 some odd asteroids and small planetoids
been identified, and those could represent 10% of what's out there,
not to mention the Kuiper belt and Oort cloud of whatever Sirius
should have to offer.


Are you saying the moon doesn't have any carbonado (aka black
diamond)?

Who knows? It can probably be produced by shock, so on a cratered body
like the Moon, you'd likely find some. I'm sure it's pretty rare,
though. Just another trace mineral.
Carbon isn't very rare, nor are those heavy metallicity elements.

Are you suggesting that the vast majority of asteroids are made of
wussy density and of only poor metallicity, and thereby of practically
no value?


From that absolutely terrific 2500 km crater, where the hell did the
bulk of that lunar basalt and shards from the impactor go?

Which crater is that?
South pole crater, as mostly filled back in but having hundreds of
other big, medium and small craters within. "The Aitken Basin is 2500
kilometers across"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_P...3_Aitken_basin


In any case, you'd expect the bulk of the material to come back down
onto the surface. Very little is likely to achieve escape velocity.
I believe it kind of depends on the impact velocity and its angle of
contact. Glancing blows would certainly allow greater amounts of
impactor shards and crater mass ejection to exceed 2.4 km/sec.

Then where did all of that crater displaced and/or ejected material
go? (because our NASA/Apollo missions found hardly any, and most of it
was a pastel gray or kind of guano off-white monochromatic material
that wasn't even the least bit UV reactive, as well as they never even
brought back any sodium or hardly a speck of any heavy elements, as
though our moon that's supposedly made from Earth is inert)

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

On Nov 24, 4:12*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 23/11/2011 15:01, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:45:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Lions will kill innocent cubs of other lions, steal prey, eat prey
that is still alive, and eat you. *"Might is right" is certainly not
fair, is it? *What "sense of fair play" does a lion demonstrate?

Adult lion on adult lion they do not normally fight to the death.

Adult humans do not normally kill other humans of any age...were you
trying to make some sort of point?

Lion
on other preditor species like tiger they will. And you cannot blame an
obligate carnivore for killing other animals or eating fresh meat.

No one blames them, but because they respect no rights, and have no
concept of rights, they have no rights.

They do follow the "Might is right" philosophy - a trait they share in
common with most dictators and power hungry politicians.

Who, having violated the natural rights of so many others, eventually
find out that they have lost claim to most if not all natural rights.
Think Gaddafi.

How is that different from human behavior? Throughout most of history,
and in some societies today, it is considered the right of the father,
and sometimes mother, to kill their offspring. It has been considered
the right of the strong to take from the weak. "Might is right" has
been (and in truth, still is) considered the natural order of things,
and not connected to fairness.

Indeed. You only have to look at all the stories involving wicked
step-mothers in fairy tales and pantomimes to see that human society has
historically rather similar behaviour. Most of these narrative tales
have a certain amount of truth in them.

Those sorts of tales portray the acts of a small minority of "wicked"
characters. The real, normal, peaceful people who recognize right
from wrong, and respect natural rights, do not generally inspire any
stories.

Infanticide is still practiced
and *skews the sex ratio in certain countries even today. In the past
female life expectancy was lower because of childbirth and fathers
remarried more often - modern medicine has reversed that.

What you and Peterson seem to be utterly unable to grasp is that just
because natural rights are sometimes violated, that does NOT mean that
natural rights do not exist.

You're viewing the world through rose colored glasses if you think
otherwise!

Nature is red in tooth and claw.

Humans are unusual in that we have codified rules of good behaviour and
developed written culture. No other animal has made that leap.

We wrote down the natural rights, but they existed anyway.

Though plenty of species have developed societal learned behaviour
passed down generations like songs, or particular ways of exploiting
resources. Corvids now appear to be a lot smarter than people thought
and are quite clever at learning to use tools.

Learned calls and tool use by animals don't have anything to do with
the natural rights possessed by humans.

On Nov 23, 9:58*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 03:44:06 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The behavior seen in the "research" of which you speak can be
attributed to conditioned responses, instinct, wishful thinking and
anthropomorphism...

It can be. And if you'd read any of the research,

A whole lot of soft science, open to interpretation.

you'd know that
these matters are discussed. And controlled.

Hand waving.

Which means that there is
good reason to think that the researchers are actually seeing what
they appear to be seeing.

Wishful thinking, which has no bearing on the fact that humans have
natural rights and animals do not.

For example, monkeys might share food, but that is
due to some survival value for the species than to any concept of
fairness or justice. *Certainly lions, which kill cubs of other lions
and which have been seen eating prey that is still alive, have no
concept of "rights."

That is not certain at all. It is possible. But it is certain that
animals other than humans have culture, and it is virtually certain
that animals other than humans have consciousness and self-awareness.
It is also certain that human behavior stems from issues of survival
value, just like all other animals. So logically, it would be
extraordinary if we DIDN'T see parallels to complex human behavior in
other animals. And it strongly appears that we do.

None of that, even if it were true, has any bearing on a human being's
natural rights. You use the word "logically" but your statements have
no logic.

It increasingly appears that the differences between humans and other
animals is a matter of degree, not fundamental quality.

What a meaningless statement, bordering on tautology.

Hardly. It is an increasingly mainstream viewpoint of both
anthropologists and animal behaviorists.

Soft science.

You are guilty of allowing your PHILOSOPHY to alter your
interpretation of SCIENCE.

So far you have offered absolutely no evidence at all that animals
have a concept of rights.

On Nov 23, 10:01*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:45:59 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Lions will kill innocent cubs of other lions, steal prey, eat prey
that is still alive, and eat you. *"Might is right" is certainly not
fair, is it? *What "sense of fair play" does a lion demonstrate?

How is that different from human behavior? Throughout most of history,
and in some societies today, it is considered the right of the father,
and sometimes mother, to kill their offspring.

Can we assume then that you would be the sort of person who would go
along with that?

It has been considered
the right of the strong to take from the weak.

Where the blazes does THAT "right" originate???

"Might is right" has
been (and in truth, still is) considered the natural order of things,
and not connected to fairness.

So if your neighbors come over and steal your horses, that would be
OK, then?

You're viewing the world through rose colored glasses if you think
otherwise!

Might is not right, and never has been.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:22:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

So far you have offered absolutely no evidence at all that animals
have a concept of rights.

And you have shown none that suggests they don't. Or more relevant to
this discussion, any evidence supporting the existence of natural
rights for humans.

Your position is philosophical, and not particularly rational. In the
absence of evidence for something, a rational person will take the
simpler view that this "something" doesn't exist. You choose to
believe in something that lacks support, I choose to treat it as not
existing. There's a big difference, there. Perhaps you were raised to
believe in religion as a child. That is usually enough to ruin a
person's mind for the rest of their life.

On Nov 23, 10:14*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 04:16:34 -0800 (PST), wrote:
One doesn't usually see children committing murder. A child will (as
we would normally expect) mature and recognize right from wrong, but a
lion will never do so.

One doesn't usually see a lion cub committing "murder".

So what is your point?

Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, so the term
doesn't apply here.

Earlier it had been suggested that killing an animal might someday be
considered akin to murder. So which is it?

What you should be discussing is killing, and in
most species, the killing of one member of a society by another member
of that same society is fairly rare.

It happens all the time among newly hatched birds.

And that's not surprising, given
that there are obvious evolutionary reasons that such behavior would
be uncommon.

You need to study some evolution.

There are also many cases where killing does occur, both in human and
animal societies.

In neither case is much of this connected to any sort of concept of
right or wrong.

NO, we consider the killing of innocent humans to be wrong.

Natural rights to which we are all entitled, even if some of us (you
included) want to use some different system.

Sorry, you have still failed to demonstrate in any way that this
concept has any meaning. Again, you are allowing your PHILOSOPHY to
blind you to actual evidence.

Natural rights exist, even if your particular side branch of the human
family tree hasn't evolved enough to understand them.

It is possible that natural rights exist, just as it's possible that
some natural rights giver exists.

Now you are trying to tie the concept to religion. That is a very
illogical and deceitful strategy on your part.

But in the absence of evidence for
either, I prefer the intellectually honest route of not believing in
something for no reason other than the warm and fuzzy feeling it might
produce.

There is really nothing intellectually honest about you. The
intelligence and insight required to be able to understand natural
rights is not something you possess.

Your natural rights remain, so long as you recognize that other humans
have the same rights. *A stable and just government is not possible
without the recognition of and respect for natural rights.

Nonsense. Most stable governments have done just fine without any such
recognition. And "just" means nothing more than what most people in
that society choose to make it mean.

Stable AND just government, not stable OR just government. Learn how
to read.

No. A relatively small percentage of people in most societies were
actually slaves and an even smaller percentage were slave owners.

Irrelevant. Most societies have considered slavery normal and right.
The relative number of slaves to slave owners doesn't matter.

Ok, let's see. Most people recognize the existence of natural rights
and abide by them. A small number of people do not, thereby, in your
small mind, negating the possibility of natural rights.

It was hardly the norm in most societies. *And I doubt very many of the
slaves were happy about it either.

Not only was it the norm, but most historical evidence suggests that
slaves considered their status normal. "Escape" wasn't normal, and
slave societies often had their own hierarchies.

So if slavery were legal, you would not have any problem with that?
If someone decided tomorrow to seize your property and send you to a
"work camp" you would have problem with it? I mean, after all, such
things are the historical "norm" according to you.

Haven't read much history, have you?

I doubt you have read any at all. Even if you did, you sure didn't
understand much of it.

On Nov 29, 7:32*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:22:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:
So far you have offered absolutely no evidence at all that animals
have a concept of rights.

And you have shown none that suggests they don't. Or more relevant to
this discussion, any evidence supporting the existence of natural
rights for humans.

Your position is philosophical, and not particularly rational.

It is perfectly rational. YOU are irrational.

In the
absence of evidence for something, a rational person will take the
simpler view that this "something" doesn't exist.

A rational person understands that natural rights exist.

You choose to
believe in something that lacks support, I choose to treat it as not
existing.

If you choose to deny the existence of natural rights, then you would
have to rely on a government or "society" to tell you not to kill or
steal, and to keep others from killing you or stealing from you.

There's a big difference, there. Perhaps you were raised to
believe in religion as a child.

You really should not have gone there, Peterson. If you think that
right and wrong are determined by governments and society, you now
need to explain away the fact that religions are often largely
concerned with concepts of right and wrong. If you don't think that
natural rights exist, and you deny the value of religion, then how do
the concepts that lead to laws against murder, slavery and theft
arise? Count yourself lucky that even though you have no belief in
natural rights, most of those around you do. Your life would be much
harder otherwise.

That is usually enough to ruin a
person's mind for the rest of their life.

I would suggest that since you do not already understand the concept
of natural rights among human beings, that perhaps you are not a human
being. Or perhaps you are -almost- genetically human, but lack true
humanity. Or perhaps you are a 'bot or maybe something even worse.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:44:38 -0800 (PST), wrote:

If you choose to deny the existence of natural rights, then you would
have to rely on a government or "society" to tell you not to kill or
steal, and to keep others from killing you or stealing from you.

That is not a logical conclusion.