asteroid close approach, 2011 Nov 08

On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:14:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Apparently you are a moral absolutist- somebody who believes that
there are "natural" rights or "natural" ethics that are universal.

My view is that most of the negative things that have happened
throughout history are the direct consequence of such thinking.

On Nov 10, 9:50*pm, palsing wrote:
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!

Good one. I must have picked up on some misprint or typo, not that I
haven't made a couple mistakes or three and more than my fair share.

BTW; what is YU55 made of?

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 such a little WD along with its 2500 AU distant
brown dwarf that’s 63 ly from us, with resolution to spare, imagine
how much better resolution the Spitzer telescope would have of the
54.4 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 such a mystery as to its
metallicity?

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

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 63 ly from us, with resolution to spare, imagine how much
better resolution the Spitzer telescope would have of the 54.4 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 11, 12:29*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 03:14:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Apparently you are a moral absolutist- somebody who believes that
there are "natural" rights or "natural" ethics that are universal.

Let's start with these:

Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (inalienable
rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)

The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution

For earlier examples demonstrating that humans tend to recognize the
there ARE natural rights:

The Ten Commandments

The Golden Rule

and perhaps even the Code of Hammurabi


My view is that most of the negative things that have happened
throughout history are the direct consequence of such thinking.

ROTFLMAO! Give us some examples. While you are at it, give us an
example of some implementation of eugenics that did NOT violate
someone's rights. We have been waiting patiently for your answer for
long enough.

BTW, proper etiquette dictates that you should indicate the you have
snipped out another's comments and not post anything that is a mis-
attribution. You failed on both counts in your response. Perhaps it
was an oversight or perhaps you have no ethics. You choose. If the
former, we await your apology.

On Nov 11, 10:05*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
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 start with the concepts of a right to life, liberty, property,
etc., and build on that.

At some point things can get complicated. Recently, I heard a news
story that a bank had been processing the largest checks written
against accounts first, and the smallest checks last. This had the
effect of generating the largest number of overdraft charges to
accounts. If done by the bank for that purpose, it would be
"unethical" if not exactly illegal. It would also be unethical and
possibly illegal to -knowingly- write a check against an account with
insufficient funds.

We consider some past common practices, e.g. slavery, to be unethical
and wrong.

There were always plenty of people who were against slavery in the
past, so we can conclude that they believed slavery to be wrong and an
unethical practice.

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.

We can probably figure out which ones they are now.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:19:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:

Let's start with these:

Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (inalienable
rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)

Nope. There are no such rights, except as defined by men, and for men.
And except as defended by those who choose to assert them for
themselves. Nature certainly doesn't provide any "rights"! You're
living in a fantasy world if you believe that.

The Ten Commandments

Mostly crap, of course. Two or three reflect idea that are found in
most societies, and are therefore somewhat universal. But not as
stated, of course. For example, while almost every society considers
it unacceptable to kill within that society, there are always
exceptions. Virtually every society considers it acceptable to kill
under certain circumstances, even while mouthing "thou shalt not".

The Golden Rule

Is a useful tool for keeping a society stable. It certainly isn't a
right, nor a universal ethic.

and perhaps even the Code of Hammurabi

Just a set of rules, made by men, for men.

My view is that most of the negative things that have happened
throughout history are the direct consequence of such thinking.

ROTFLMAO! Give us some examples.

Every war. All the deaths due to religion. Capital punishment. The
lack of care for the sick. Social conservativism. Racism. Slavery.
Most crime. The only good people are those who reject the idea that
there are universal truths. They reject the crap spouted out by
religion and politicians for the purposes of controlling the masses,
and reflect on what really works, and what maximizes happiness. Those
who simply believe a set of rules without thinking (like the biblical
commandments, for example) are not moral people.

On Nov 12, 3:49*am, wrote:
On Nov 11, 10:05*am, Paul Schlyter wrote:

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 start with the concepts of a right to life, liberty, property,
etc., and build on that.

At some point things can get complicated. *Recently, I heard a news
story that a bank had been processing the largest checks written
against accounts first, and the smallest checks last. This had the
effect of generating the largest number of overdraft charges to
accounts. *If done by the bank for that purpose, it would be
"unethical" if not exactly illegal. *It would also be unethical and
possibly illegal to -knowingly- write a check against an account with
insufficient funds.

We consider some past common practices, e.g. slavery, to be unethical
and wrong.

There were always plenty of people who were against slavery in the
past, so we can conclude that they believed slavery to be wrong and an
unethical practice.

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.

We can probably figure out which ones they are now.

Those in charge (above whomever we elect and/or appoint) are not going
to give an inch without a great deal of our blood-letting, especially
when it comes down to revising history or telling us who's really in
charge. Those Rothschilds do not give interviews, much less permit
investigations into their methods and ways of going stuff, and our
Federal Reserve isn't much better.

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

On Nov 12, 7:48*am, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 03:19:39 -0800 (PST), wrote:
Let's start with these:

*Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (inalienable
rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence)

Nope. There are no such rights, except as defined by men, and for men.
And except as defended by those who choose to assert them for
themselves. Nature certainly doesn't provide any "rights"! You're
living in a fantasy world if you believe that.

*The Ten Commandments

Mostly crap, of course. Two or three reflect idea that are found in
most societies, and are therefore somewhat universal. But not as
stated, of course. For example, while almost every society considers
it unacceptable to kill within that society, there are always
exceptions. Virtually every society considers it acceptable to kill
under certain circumstances, even while mouthing "thou shalt not".

*The Golden Rule

Is a useful tool for keeping a society stable. It certainly isn't a
right, nor a universal ethic.

*and perhaps even the Code of Hammurabi

Just a set of rules, made by men, for men.

My view is that most of the negative things that have happened
throughout history are the direct consequence of such thinking.

ROTFLMAO! * *Give us some examples.

Every war. All the deaths due to religion. Capital punishment. The
lack of care for the sick. Social conservativism. Racism. Slavery.
Most crime. The only good people are those who reject the idea that
there are universal truths. They reject the crap spouted out by
religion and politicians for the purposes of controlling the masses,
and reflect on what really works, and what maximizes happiness. Those
who simply believe a set of rules without thinking (like the biblical
commandments, for example) are not moral people.

Religion is at least second in command, although at times it seems the
Zionist/Jews have been first in command. Just interview and/or
otherwise ask Kissinger, worse yet when we're up against a born-again
Jesus-freaks like GW Bush and Dick Cheney, because they'll always
insist that God has been entirely on their side.

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

On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 08:16:22 -0800 (PST), Brad Guth
wrote:

Religion is at least second in command, although at times it seems the
Zionist/Jews have been first in command...

So in addition to being scientifically ignorant, you're a racist,
antisemitic piece of human dung. Your viewpoints, as well, stem from a
lack of reflection, and a willingness to accept the views of others,
without question.