asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Nov 9, 10:35*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
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

So, what about the image at .85 LD?

What about stacking frames and PhotoShop resampling?

On Nov 9, 10:20*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
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).

Wow. So if a majority, or even a ruling minority, decides that the
"societal norm" should be that slavery is allowed, then in your little
mind, that would make slavery "ethical." That certainly removes any
actual meaning from the word "ethical" does it not?

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.

Show us an example where eugenics has NOT been a human rights
violation.

The fact that we lack the
societal maturity and scientific knowledge to practice significant
genetic manipulation on ourselves

Feel free to practice such "genetic manipulation" on yourself, but
leave everyone else out of it.

today does not mean that will always
be the case; one day, our survival as a species may enen depend on it.

It is much more likely that such tinkering will lead to our downfall.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:36:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Wow. So if a majority, or even a ruling minority, decides that the
"societal norm" should be that slavery is allowed, then in your little
mind, that would make slavery "ethical." That certainly removes any
actual meaning from the word "ethical" does it not?

No, that IS the meaning of ethical. Do you seriously believe that
throughout most of history, the majority of the human race was
unethical? That's what removes any meaning from the word!

Show us an example where eugenics has NOT been a human rights
violation.

As usual, you totally fail in hearing what was said, and responding
intelligently.

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:30:32 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

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.

Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you are about optics.

On Nov 9, 6:03*pm, palsing wrote:
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

Where's the 0.85 LD radar obtained image of YU55?

If Spitzer can spot a little WD along with its 2500 AU distant brown
dwarf that’s 63e6 ly from us, with resolution to spare, imagine how
much better resolution the Spitzer telescope would have of the 63
million light year closer Sirius(B).

Then consider images of YU55, or especially that of our physically
dark moon (even via earthshine illumination), and yet still we have no
clue as to the density and subsequent mass of YU55. How can such a
massive and nearby asteroid like YU55 remain a mystery as to its
metallicity?

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

On Nov 10, 6:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:30:32 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
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.

Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you are about optics.

There are amateurs with not 1% the optics, offering better resolution
images of our physically dark moon, than Keck. Ever heard of using
reduced aperture and projection optics?

If Spitzer can spot a little WD along with its 2500 AU distant brown
dwarf that’s 63e6 ly from us, with resolution to spare, imagine how
much better resolution the Spitzer telescope would have of the 63
million light year closer Sirius(B).

Then consider images of YU55, or especially that of our physically
dark moon (even via earthshine illumination), and yet still we have no
clue as to the density and subsequent mass of YU55. How can such a
massive and nearby asteroid like YU55 remain a mystery as to its
metallicity?

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

On Nov 10, 8:52*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Nov 10, 6:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:30:32 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth

wrote:
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.

Sorry, I forgot how ignorant you are about optics.

There are amateurs with not 1% the optics, offering better resolution
images of our physically dark moon, than Keck. *Ever heard of using
reduced aperture and projection optics?

If Spitzer can spot a little WD along with its 2500 AU distant brown
dwarf that’s 63e6 ly from us, with resolution to spare, imagine how
much better resolution the Spitzer telescope would have of the 63
million light year closer Sirius(B).

Then consider images of YU55, or especially that of our physically
dark moon (even via earthshine illumination), and yet still we have no
clue as to the density and subsequent mass of YU55. *How can such a
massive and nearby asteroid like YU55 remain a mystery as to its
metallicity?

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

Once again, Brad, you continue to mangle the actual facts. The little
WD is not 63 million light years away, it is just 63 light years away.
You only missed by a factor of a million!

On Nov 10, 9:50*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 02:36:37 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Wow. *So if a majority, or even a ruling minority, decides that the
"societal norm" should be that slavery is allowed, then in your little
mind, that would make slavery "ethical." *That certainly removes any
actual meaning from the word "ethical" does it not?

No, that IS the meaning of ethical. Do you seriously believe that
throughout most of history, the majority of the human race was
unethical?

If it turns out that most of them condoned the practice of slavery,
then one could reasonably assume that to be the case. If it were the
case that most of them did NOT condone the practice, but only put up
with it out of fear of severe consequences for speaking or acting
against it, then those particular people, at least, could be
considered to be ethical.

That's what removes any meaning from the word!

The word has no meaning UNLESS "ethical" = "right" and "unethical" =
"wrong." If one lived in a slave-owning society that had a fugitive
slave law, would it be unethical to help a slave escape? Would it be
"ethical" to return the slave to his or her "owner."

Show us an example where eugenics has NOT been a human rights
violation.

As usual, you totally fail in hearing what was said, and responding
intelligently.

You have failed to provide an example. One can therefore assume that
you have failed to understand, have no examples to provide, and that
you are incapable of responding intelligently.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:14:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:
The word has no meaning UNLESS "ethical" = "right" and "unethical"
=
"wrong."

By definition, ethical is of course "right" and unethical is "wrong".
But how do you define "right" and "wrong"?

We consider some past common practices, e.g. slavery, to be unethical
and wrong. Likewise future generations will consider some of our
common practices to be unethical and wrong. Which practices these are
won't be known until we get there.

"Paul Schlyter" wrote in message
.. .
| On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:14:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:
| The word has no meaning UNLESS "ethical" = "right" and "unethical"
| =
| "wrong."
|
| By definition, ethical is of course "right" and unethical is "wrong".
| But how do you define "right" and "wrong"?
|
| We consider some past common practices, e.g. slavery, to be unethical
| and wrong. Likewise future generations will consider some of our
| common practices to be unethical and wrong. Which practices these are
| won't be known until we get there.
|

I'm sure asteroids know it is unethical to closely approach the Earth.
Immoral, even. It may even be immoral to discuss the behaviour of
asteroids in sci.astro.amateur when human behaviour is so much
more important.