asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Dec 7, 2:56*am, wrote:
On Dec 3, 12:13*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 08:44:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
BZZZZT... Sorry, wrong answer. *The answer we were looking for is "The
natural right to life and to not be injured."

So you were looking for the wrong answer. Nothing I can do about that.

No, we were looking for the correct answer, which I gave after you
made an incorrect statement.

Assuming that you didn't start the fight and attack the other person
with deadly force, we can conclude that he is up to no good, ie, out
to violate your natural rights. *Maybe he is out to steal your
property and doesn't want any witnesses.

If he is stronger than me, he has something like a natural right to
take my property.

Bzzzt! Wrong again.

That's pretty much how nature works. I have no
"right" to protect myself.

Civilized, rational humans would recognize you right to defend
yourself.

I'm as much violating his "natural right"
to take my stuff as he is violating mine to trying to take it.

He has no natural right to steal.

Might makes right.

Did your parents teach you that?

But it doesn't make "rights". People do that.

Natural rights exist, but people must learn to recognize them. *You
have much to learn.

So, what is YU55 made out of?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 02:56:53 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Natural rights exist, but people must learn to recognize them. You
have much to learn.

I fear you learn to much from churches and other sources of unreason.
If you actually thought about these things reflectively, I think you'd
be much less certain of your views.

Like I said before... I'll restrict what I actively believe in to that
for which there is at least an iota of evidence. No evidence, no
belief.

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 06:45:23 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

So, what is YU55 made out of?

Silicates (rock).

On Dec 7, 7:47*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 06:45:23 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
So, what is YU55 made out of?

Silicates (rock).

Was that guess via gamma spectrometry?

Where's the science?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:48:46 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Was that guess via gamma spectrometry?

No, it's an EDUCATED guess based upon the known distribution of
composition of asteroids and asteroidal material. Statistically,
there's better than a 95% chance that the asteroid is composed
primarily of silicates. There's a slight possibility given its size
that some differentiation occurred, meaning it could have a higher
iron content near its center.

Since there is nothing unusual about this asteroid, there is no reason
to think that it is compositionally different than most other
asteroids.

On Dec 7, 8:55*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 08:48:46 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
Was that guess via gamma spectrometry?

No, it's an EDUCATED guess based upon the known distribution of
composition of asteroids and asteroidal material. Statistically,
there's better than a 95% chance that the asteroid is composed
primarily of silicates. There's a slight possibility given its size
that some differentiation occurred, meaning it could have a higher
iron content near its center.

Since there is nothing unusual about this asteroid, there is no reason
to think that it is compositionally different than most other
asteroids.

What's unusual about YU55 is that our spendy NASA/JPL still doesn't
have any clue how much mass it represented. For all we know, it could
have had a density of 16+ g/cm3.

Are you suggesting that heavy elements other than found on Earth do
not exist?

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:16:20 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

What's unusual about YU55 is that our spendy NASA/JPL still doesn't
have any clue how much mass it represented.

How do you propose determining its mass from the available data?

For all we know, it could
have had a density of 16+ g/cm3.

For all we know it might be made of green cheese. But why would you
assume that. Do you assume that when you see a boulder lying some
distance away, it has a density of 16 g/cm^3?

Are you suggesting that heavy elements other than found on Earth do
not exist?

Heavy elements represent a small percentage of the total. For the most
part, they are found in trace quantities. There is no mechanism that
could explain a large body being composed mainly of heavy elements.
There is no reason to think such things exist.

On Dec 7, 9:47 am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 09:16:20 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
What's unusual about YU55 is that our spendy NASA/JPL still doesn't
have any clue how much mass it represented.

How do you propose determining its mass from the available data?
A radio astronomy look-see at it's gamma secondary/recoil photons
would at least suggest what raw elements are on or near its surface.

A close gamma spectrometer fly-by would of course be a whole lot
better.

How much did YU55 perturb our moon or any nearby satellites?


For all we know, it could
have had a density of 16+ g/cm3.

For all we know it might be made of green cheese. But why would you
assume that. Do you assume that when you see a boulder lying some
distance away, it has a density of 16 g/cm^3?

GW Bush, Dick Cheney and Kissinger insisted that Muslims had WMD, and
you bought that without any stitch of objective evidence..


Are you suggesting that heavy elements other than found on Earth do
not exist?

Heavy elements represent a small percentage of the total. For the most
part, they are found in trace quantities. There is no mechanism that
could explain a large body being composed mainly of heavy elements.
There is no reason to think such things exist.

You're saying the universe has strict geology physics rules, and
doesn't try to sneak anything past us?

NASA could have used it for a little target practice, which indirectly
would also have told us something about its mass or composition. It’s
not like they didn’t have enough trajectory and/or orbital data to go
by.

You do realize that just in wandering/rogue planets and planetoids
there’s way more than stars to pick from. Of nasty killer asteroids
there has to be at least a million fold more of those than stars.
Then we have a few percent as wandering/rogue NSs and WDs to contend
with.

Good thing our solar system is not near any clusters of stars, and
we’re not about to get nailed by another molecular/nebula cloud of
metallicity like the one which created those nearby Sirius stars..

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

On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:35:57 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

How do you propose determining its mass from the available data?
A radio astronomy look-see at it's gamma secondary/recoil photons
would at least suggest what raw elements are on or near its surface.

A close gamma spectrometer fly-by would of course be a whole lot
better.

Neither of which provides the mass. Nor much more information than we
can get optically.

How much did YU55 perturb our moon or any nearby satellites?

Far, far less than our ability to make the measurement. That would be
true even if its density was 100 g/cm^3.

You're saying the universe has strict geology physics rules, and
doesn't try to sneak anything past us?

If the Universe doesn't have strict rules of physics, all bets are off
for understanding anything. But there's no evidence of that. We might
not understand all the rules yet, but I think we understand enough
about the chemistry of our own solar system to have a pretty good idea
about what most things- including asteroids- are (or can be) made of.

On Dec 7, 2:43*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 13:35:57 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
How do you propose determining its mass from the available data?
A radio astronomy look-see at it's gamma secondary/recoil photons
would at least suggest what raw elements are on or near its surface.

A close gamma spectrometer fly-by would of course be a whole lot
better.

Neither of which provides the mass. Nor much more information than we
can get optically.
Optical evaluations (especially those of monochromatic gray-tones),
can't possibly suggest the density and mass of anything, unless it's
printed on the boiler plate.

However, your total lack of any gamma spectrometry expertise is
noted. Do you even know what a secondary/recoil photon is?


How much did YU55 perturb our moon or any nearby satellites?

Far, far less than our ability to make the measurement. That would be
true even if its density was 100 g/cm^3.

You're saying the universe has strict geology physics rules, and
doesn't try to sneak anything past us?

If the Universe doesn't have strict rules of physics, all bets are off
for understanding anything. But there's no evidence of that. We might
not understand all the rules yet, but I think we understand enough
about the chemistry of our own solar system to have a pretty good idea
about what most things- including asteroids- are (or can be) made of.

And yet there's not a clue as to the density and mass of YU55.

SWAGs and subjective interpretations really don't count for much.

I interpret that our NASA and JPL are each holding out on us, but of
course you'd never accept that we're being systematically snookered by
those of our own kind.

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