Airbrush

RIP Tabby Diamond

Trump let loose a huge Freudian slip when he said this to Judge Jeanine Pirro on Sunday, March 13, in regard to Putin waging war on Ukraine. This is from the Newsweek story and would love to find the actual interview on Youtube, anyone know? Trump's word salad with Russian dressing, about Putin waging war on Ukraine: "You say, what's the purpose of this? They had a country. You could see it was a country where there was a lot of love and we're doing it because, you know, somebody wants to make his country larger or he wants to put it back the way it was when actually it didn't work very well," Trump said. Trump Says 'Lot of Love' Behind Putin Wanting to 'Make His Country Larger' (newsweek.com) Trump explained the "purpose" of this war on Ukraine was Putin wanted to make his country larger. But Trump referred to Putin waging war on Ukraine as "we're doing it." "Doing IT" means waging war on Ukraine, and the pronoun is first person plural (Putin and Trump) plotting together. Whoops!! 😁

If anyone understands these 6 constants, please summarize them for us. I think Michio Kaku said the apparent fine-tuning suggests a multiverse of universes with all the wrong parameters, but OUR universe is the lucky one! Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia "Martin Rees formulates the fine-tuning of the universe in terms of the following six dimensionless physical constants.[2][17] N, the ratio of the electromagnetic force to the gravitational force between a pair of protons, is approximately 1036. According to Rees, if it were significantly smaller, only a small and short-lived universe could exist.[17] Epsilon (ε), a measure of the nuclear efficiency of fusion from hydrogen to helium, is 0.007: when four nucleons fuse into helium, 0.007 (0.7%) of their mass is converted to energy. The value of ε is in part determined by the strength of the strong nuclear force.[18] If ε were 0.006, a proton could not bond to a neutron, and only hydrogen could exist, and complex chemistry would be impossible. According to Rees, if it were above 0.008, no hydrogen would exist, as all the hydrogen would have been fused shortly after the Big Bang. Other physicists disagree, calculating that substantial hydrogen remains as long as the strong force coupling constant increases by less than about 50%.[15][17] Omega (Ω), commonly known as the density parameter, is the relative importance of gravity and expansion energy in the universe. It is the ratio of the mass density of the universe to the "critical density" and is approximately 1. If gravity were too strong compared with dark energy and the initial metric expansion, the universe would have collapsed before life could have evolved. If gravity were too weak, no stars would have formed.[17][19] Lambda (Λ), commonly known as the cosmological constant, describes the ratio of the density of dark energy to the critical energy density of the universe, given certain reasonable assumptions such as that dark energy density is a constant. In terms of Planck units, and as a natural dimensionless value, Λ is on the order of 10−122.[20] This is so small that it has no significant effect on cosmic structures that are smaller than a billion light-years across. A slightly larger value of the cosmological constant would have caused space to expand rapidly enough that stars and other astronomical structures would not be able to form.[17][21] Q, the ratio of the gravitational energy required to pull a large galaxy apart to the energy equivalent of its mass, is around 10−5. If it is too small, no stars can form. If it is too large, no stars can survive because the universe is too violent, according to Rees.[17] D, the number of spatial dimensions in spacetime, is 3. Rees claims that life could not exist if there were 2 or 4 dimensions of spacetime nor if the number of time dimensions in spacetime were anything other than 1.[17] Rees argues this does not preclude the existence of ten-dimensional strings.[2] Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

That is interesting. It looks like the lower the mass, the easier it is to build and use. Too difficult on Earth, maybe even Mars, but the moon and asteroids are possible places to park a one-g space station with an elevator attached to the moon or asteroid. "Because of the Moon's lower gravity and lack of atmosphere, a lunar elevator would have less stringent requirements for the tensile strength of the material making up its cable than an Earth-tethered cable. An Earth-based elevator would require high strength-to-weight materials that are theoretically possible, but not yet fabricated in practice (e.g., carbon nanotubes). A lunar elevator, however, could be constructed using commercially available mass-produced high-strength para-aramid fibres (such as Kevlar and M5) or ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene fibre. "Compared to an Earth space elevator, there would be fewer geographic and political restrictions on the location of the surface connection. The connection point of a lunar elevator would not necessarily have to be directly under its center of gravity, and could even be near the poles, where evidence suggests there might be frozen water in deep craters that never see sunlight; if so, this might be collected and converted into rocket fuel." Lunar space elevator - Wikipedia

I don't see why you could not add living modules 2 at a time. It would be like constructing a merri-go-round while it is spinning. The tethers between two sets of balanced modules intersect at a hub point. At the hub the length of tethers may be adjusted to perfectly balance the 2. I like the idea of hollowing out an asteroid. You are creating a habitable void inside as you extract valuable minerals and water-ice. Then after you build a base inside the asteroid you have retro rockets get it spinning so those living inside would have one g as they stand with their heads pointing towards the center of the asteroid, AND they are protected by rock shielding.

"A space elevator is a proposed type of planet-to-space transportation system.[1] The main component would be a cable (also called a tether) anchored to the surface and extending into space. The design would permit vehicles to travel along the cable from a planetary surface, such as the Earth's, directly into orbit, without the use of large rockets. An Earth-based space elevator would consist of a cable with one end attached to the surface near the equator and the other end in space beyond geostationary orbit (35,786 km altitude)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator If a space elevator could be constructed on Earth, it could also be done on the Moon, Mars, or any other moon in our solar system. If the space station was parked near an asteroid, with a tether between your one-g rotating space station, the gravity is so low that transport between work and home would be a short commute.

That sounds like a good idea. You start with "two balanced units, with a 224 meter tether." Then you can add more balanced units, two at a time. Over time many more pairs of balanced units can be added. It would be nice to park your rotating space station near an asteroid that has water ice, to create air, water, and fuel. The crew work an 8-hour shift in zero g, then take a space elevator to the space station, where they can sleep and recreate in one g for 16 hours. Even exploring Mars or the Moon, it would be better to have living quarters in a space station, orbiting the planet or moon.

This is the sweetest version I've heard, better than Led Zeppelin's version. Interesting instrument!

Is L2 a good place to have one or more telescopes dedicated to scanning for threatening NEOs and bolides? Or orbiting the moon?

Everything you need to know about L2.

Does that mean that if we could actually see a certain number of stars in a given patch of our galaxy, or a nearby galaxy, the JWST would be able to see 100 times as many stars? Also will it be able to detect 100 times as many distant galaxies on the edge of the observable universe? Yes, a little further back in time, not 100 times as far back. I thought "JWST is 100 times as powerful as Hubble" meant that a JWST photo will have 10 times as many pixels along the horizontal and 10 times as many along the vertical (10x10=100), compared to a Hubble photo of the same region of space. But as said above, 100 times as powerful means able to detect light that is 1/100 as bright as Hubble is able to detect. If the JWST was focused on Pluto, will it be able to resolve 100 times as much detail as the Hubble could?

What boggles my mind about JWST is that it is located four times the distance to the moon. That seems very, very far away. 😀 Once again I ask does anyone know what it means to say JWST is 100 times as powerful as Hubble"?

My experience is nothing was ever mentioned about the voting process, how ballots are transported, tallied, and kept secure from sketchy "employees." Also, they should explain what voter fraud is, how people try to commit voter fraud, what is the punishment if you get caught, etc. I've heard that real voter fraud is very rare is most commonly done by impersonating someone you knew that died.

Does anyone think that people should understand the voting process for their individual county? It seems to me that in high school, in the 12th grade, just before voters are 18 years old and can vote, they should take a civics course that explains, among other things, the voting process in their own county. Maybe this already exists in high school, anyone know? I still don't know exactly what happens to my mail-in ballot after I drop it in the box. What security methods are used to ensure nothing funny happens with the ballots? What will happen when the handling of the ballots is controlled by a certain party?

My question is about the "power" of JWST compared to Hubble. I've heard from a couple of scientists that JWST is 100 times as powerful as Hubble. What exactly does "100 times as powerful" mean? My guess is that it means if you took a picture of the same region using Hubble and JWST, the JWST will have 10 times as many pixels along the horizontal, and 10 times as many along the vertical, and 10 x 10 = 100. Is that correct? Interesting to note that the GAIA team reported this to the JWST team way back in 2014, but it has never been mentioned in recent JWST news to my knowledge. Has anyone heard of any steps taken by the JWST team to avoid some of these collisions with micrometeors? They obviously decided to not use any kind of shield but rather totally exposed the mirrors to space.

They designed the JWST to be capable of being refueled robotically, just in case anyone gets around to financing such a mission in 10 or 15 years. If the JWST performs outstanding, maybe that performance will change some minds, and they would extend its' life thru a refueling mission. "...modest efforts being made to make JWST “serviceable” like Hubble, according to Scott Willoughby, JWST’s program manager at Northrop Grumman Aerospace Systems in Redondo Beach, California. The aerospace firm is NASA’s prime contractor to develop and integrate JWST, and has been tasked with provisioning for a “launch vehicle interface ring” on the telescope that could be “grasped by something,” whether astronaut or remotely operated robot, Willoughby says. If a spacecraft were sent out to L2 to dock with JWST, it could then attempt repairs—or, if the observatory is well-functioning, simply top off its fuel tank to extend its life." refueling - Is it possible to refuel the James Webb Space Telescope? - Space Exploration Stack Exchange

Why are the scientists so sure that the JWST can never be serviced again? Maybe in 10 years from now, as the Web is doing a great job, and we don't want to lose it. They already spent $10 Billion on it. Could they not plan a mission to service the Web and thus extend its' life indefinitely?

Like any wildlife photographer, you hide from your subject, so you don't mess up your observations. My theory is that they are so omniscient, (IF they are here) that they know the current state of our technology, so they can avoid being "too captured" by it. By that I mean the best evidence the Nimitz pilots could capture looks stupid. They have lots of video of small blurry objects traveling in a straight line at constant speed. Why not the physics-defying maneuvers? The aliens know that poor evidence will convince few enough people, so they can continue business as usual, unhampered by humans. 🙂

1. Have we found few because there are few, or because detecting them is difficult? Last I heard 3/4 of local stars are red dwarfs that have mega flares and their habitable zone is so close to the red dwarf that they would be tidally locked. Super-Earths are very common, could a super-earth around a red dwarf support intelligent ETs? I just read an article that said mega flares from red dwarfs blast out closer to the poles of the red dwarf than from the equator, which would less of a threat to life on tidally-locked super-earths. https://earthsky.org/space/red-dwarf-stars-superflares-red-dwarf-planets-habitability/#:~:text=Bottom line%3A Planets orbiting red dwarf stars could,on fully convective stars occur at high latitudes 2. Like all humans are fascinated by e.g. bugs? Or is it that a few of them would be fascinated by us, and the rest are just going about their duties. If intelligent, technological life is VERY rare, we would be very interesting to any other that had the ability to travel here. 3. No? Where do they get their resources, then? They can get their resources from the Kuiper belt and asteroid belt much easier than from Earth.

It seems to me, considering the very few earth-like planets we have found, it might be that intelligent, technological ETs are rare. So if, or when, ETs ever stumbled upon us, it is most probable that they arrived here a long ago. Perhaps they had plenty of time to figure out Earth languages. We have stealth, they must have better stealth, so they can easily abduct people and take their cell phones and other technology, to be disassembled, analyzed, and thoroughly understood. What is the likelihood that ETs, that can perform interstellar travel, that arrived here a long time ago, and had a long time to analyze our languages and read ALL our news, ALL our science, would they know more about Earth than we do, and know more about us than we know about ourselves? They must be fascinated by us! They don't need our resources. They don't want to eat us. They would like to monitor us. They are sophisticated and think Earth is the best circus within a thousand light years. Be proud to be an Earthling.