Airbrush

How is it true for a universe that has a finite size, finite length, width, and height?

That is only true if the big bang is infinite in size. That is the only way it can reach ALL SPACE. If eternal inflation and the multiverse theory is true, then each big bang, or "budding universe" has a finite size and therefore has a center point. Since your topic title is empty of any clue about it, I would suggest a more descriptive title, such as "Location of the Big Bang."

What wrong use of commas are you referring to? Please explain since I didn't notice the error. Maybe I was making the same error.

"In late 1958 to early 1959, it was realized that the smallest practical vehicle would be determined by the smallest achievable bomb yield. The use of 0.03 kt (sea-level yield) bombs would give vehicle mass of 880 tons. However, this was regarded as too small for anything other than an orbital test vehicle and the team soon focused on a 4,000 ton "base design". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) The smallest achievable bomb yield is given at 0.03 kt, which means 30 tons of TNT per bomb. The Davy Crockett yields 15 tons of TNT and the bombs weigh only 51 pounds rather than the 6" diameter 300 pound bomb pellets. Maybe the Davy Crockett is newer technology? The 880 ton vehicle was considered too small for interstellar travel. Maybe a smaller, less costly vehicle, maybe 100 tons, could achieve 10%c and also decelerate upon arrival so the probe can study the alien solar system for a long time? "Dyson calculated that the properties of available materials limited the velocity transferred by each explosion to ~30 meters per second independent of the size and nature of the explosion." Does that mean that each nuclear explosion accelerates the vehicle by another 30 meters per second? The article mentions a pusher plate miles across. Could a pusher plate be a thin metal foil stretched across a web of supports so it could by miles across and yet not very massive?

BLUENAMI !

Pissed Away with Obama is a hard act to follow. Here is Ziggy Marley: JAH BLESS....JAH BLESS JAH BLESS THE JOBLESS God bless all our brothers and sisters that recently went JOBLESS...JOBLESS...JOBLESS

"A preliminary design for a nuclear pulse unit was produced. It proposed the use of a shaped-charge fusion-boosted fission explosive. The explosive was wrapped in a beryllium oxide channel filler, which was surrounded by a uranium radiation mirror. The mirror and channel filler were open ended, and in this open end a flat plate of tungsten propellant was placed. The whole unit was built into a can with a diameter no larger than 6 inches (150 mm) and weighed just over 300 pounds...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) Imagine that each little bomb is only 6 inches across and weighs 300 pounds! The smallest example given for an Orion vehicle is 880 tons. I was hoping for a much smaller design for an unmanned probe, maybe 100 tons, but perhaps that is not possible? The article talks a lot about the difficulties of launching from the Earth's surface. Certainly such a vehicle should begin pulsing nuclear bombs FAR away from Earth. It should be constructed in orbit. A safer form of propulsion can push it far enough away from Earth before it starts pulsing nuclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)#/media/File:Project-Orion_propulsion-module_section.png Does anyone agree that an unmanned vehicle to Alpha Centauri should have a streamlined shape? Who knows what size of particles are floating around between stars. They will all be battering the space probe at 10%c. There could even be some micro-black holes between Earth and Alpha Centauri with the mass of Mt Everest compressed into a tiny speck. That will punch a hole clean thru any space craft.

Ok then, how about "national champion con artist"?

I was trying to get a ratio of TNT yield per pound of device. For example, the Davy C can yield 15 tons (30,000 pounds) of TNT, and the device weighs 51 pounds. So that means 588 pounds of TNT per pound of device (30,000/51=588....that doesn't sound right). My next question is how much of an impulse will an explosion of the Davy C at the ideal distance from the pusher plate? What can you accelerate the 100-ton mini probe to with such an impulse? The first pulse will occur far away from Earth of course. I need to know how many Davy C's you will need to accelerate your 100-ton probe to 10%c and yet not exceed a mass limit of 100 tons.

Right, he is able to fool 1/3 of Americans ALL THE TIME. That merits the very excellent moniker "world-class con artist."

Thank you Curious Layman, you get a +1 for that. The theoretically possible 19 kg is about 42 pounds, only 10 pounds lighter than the Davy Crockett. Smaller than that is probably not cost effective, according to your article. The Russian SADMs may have a yield of up to 2 kilotons, or 2000 tons, or 4,000,000 pounds of TNT yield, and it is "man-portable". Compare that to the Davy C at only 15 tons, or 30,000 lbs of TNT yield and weighs 51 lbs. The Davy C calculates to 588 pounds of TNT per pound of mass (30,000lbs/51lbs) . The SADM calculates up to 40,000 pounds of TNT per pound of mass (4,000,000lbs/100lbs= 40,000). I suppose a guy could carry a suitcase weighing 100 pounds. Something is not adding up. How can the Russian SADMs be man-portable (100lbs) and also be 68 times the yield per pound (40,000/588=68) as the Davy C? Where is my math wrong?

Thank you. On your list the Davy Crockett is the lightest weight. Anything smaller would probably be top secret, right?

Figuring him out includes judging his actions. Mary Trump judged his actions. 39% of Americans "figured him out" by approval, and 58% figured him out by disapproval, on July 8. I would like to see a study of how much correlation there is between fans of Trump and fans of pro wrestling. He is obviously the pro wrestler of US politics. Entertainment is the primary factor with WWE and Trump's fans. "Professional wrestling also incorporates drama.... The characters in professional wrestling have large egos, flamboyant personalities, and turbulent relationships, which are scripted like the fights." "...wrestlers began choreographing their matches (worked matches) so as to make the matches less physically taxing, shorter in duration, and more entertaining for spectators. This allowed the wrestlers to perform more frequently and attracted larger audiences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional_wrestling Is my estimate far off when I speculate that of the 40% approval, not all of them really like Trump? But I think most of them do, and a smaller number don't but think he is good for the economy, or at least WAS good for the economy. "Overall, Rasmussen said he recorded the lowest level of approval he has seen for Trump, at just 39 percent nationwide [July 8th]. Of that total, only 27 percent said they strongly approve. At the same time, 58 percent of respondents said they disapprove of the president, while 47 percent said they strongly disapprove." "Now, Rasmussen's latest polling, which was published Tuesday, shows that Trump's support among Republicans has declined by 4 points since mid-June. It now stands at 80 percent, down from 84 percent." https://www.newsweek.com/trumps-approval-rating-among-republicans-drops-poll-five-pull-out-rnc-1516298 Not a waste of time for me, or many news commentators, or Mary Trump and a number of other authors. To me it is fascinating. I'm retired with lots of time to kill. Leave this topic to me. You have better things to do. At the beginning of his presidency Trump claimed he was going to be great for the ratings of cable news. He was right, but it is a horror story. Horror is entertaining and compelling. I watch lots of cable news every day. I liked Obama because I didn't need to watch cable news from worrying. Obama always made sense and had good reasons for his actions. Trump doesn't. Also Trump always sounds like the villain in the movies, and yet many people like that. But many people also like pro wresting, boxing, and MMA. There must be a correlation.

Does anyone know how small a nuclear fission explosion can be for nuclear pulse propulsion? It seems that you would want a "tiny bomb" with the smallest mass possible. You want to give enough push to your pusher plate but you don't want the tiny bombs to add too much weight to your space probe. The smallest I could find is the Davy Crocket: "The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System was .... one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built, with a yield between 10 and 20 tons TNT equivalent [1/1000th Hiroshima]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) ONE of the smallest? What are the others? By now there must be smaller ones, after 70 years of improved fission technology. Are there "suitcase nukes?" The Davy Crocket weighed 51 pounds. Maybe this yield of 10 to 20 tons TNT is practical for pushing a probe to Alpha Centauri at 10%c? How many pulses of a Davy Crocket bomb does it take to get a probe with a total mass of 100 tons going 10%c? I think the science payload can be a few tons and most of the mass would be a robust frame, a huge pusher plate, and the fuel bombs. When an unmanned probe is moving 10%c do you think it should have a streamlined shape to minimize contact with bits of matter of various sizes, that may exist between us and Alpha Centauri?

I disagree. I think we should ALL try to figure him out, like his niece Mary Trump, a psychologist, did in her recent book "Too Much And Never Enough." I don't "pretend" to know what he is thinking, nobody "knows." I don't have any degrees in psychology. Maybe Putin and other world leaders, with the help of their best psychologists, know more about his thought process. So they can manipulate him better. His mind is simple as a spoiled 8-year-old, and yet complicated as an intuitive, world-class con artist. I had a boss that acted like Trump, so I could see parallels. I saw some of my speculations confirmed in my narcissistic boss. Also everything he says is directed at his BASE. Dems are just human scum in his mind.

Does anyone know how small a nuclear fission explosion can be for nuclear pulse propulsion? It seems that you would want a "tiny bomb" with the smallest mass possible. You want to give enough push to your pusher plate but you don't want the tiny bombs to add too much weight to your space probe. The smallest I could find is the Davy Crocket: "The M-28 or M-29 Davy Crockett Weapon System was .... one of the smallest nuclear weapon systems ever built, with a yield between 10 and 20 tons TNT equivalent [1/1000th Hiroshima]." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) ONE of the smallest? What are the others? By now there must be smaller ones, after 70 years of improved fission technology. The Davy Crocket weighed 51 pounds. Maybe this yield of 10 to 20 tons TNT is practical for pushing a probe to Alpha Centauri at 10%c? How many pulses of a Davy Crocket bomb does it take to get a probe with a total mass of 100 tons going 10%c? I think the science payload can be a few tons and most of the mass would be a robust frame, a huge pusher plate, and the fuel bombs. When an unmanned probe is moving 10%c do you think it should have a streamlined shape to minimize contact with bits of matter of various sizes, that may exist between us and Alpha Centauri?

I agree. In the same article it said Trump's statement was a reaction to Biden saying the following: "The president is like a child who can’t believe this has happened to him — all his whining and self-pity, .....Well, this pandemic didn’t happen to him. It happened to all of us. And his job isn’t to whine about it. His job is to do something about it. To lead." Now it makes more sense to me. Saying Biden will win is sarcasm or even a threat. "You may elect the wrong guy! I'm just doing my job!" He would never consider that he may lose the election. It is too unpleasant a thought. That is the furthest thing from his mind. In his mind he will win the election no matter what. But if he loses the election he will certainly cry foul and cast doubt on the election results.

This story is dated June 26. "In a seeming slip of the tongue, President Donald Trump said Friday that his opponent Joe Biden was "going to be" elected president in November — a rare acknowledgement of the difficulty he faces seeking re-election. "Trump's disapproval hit a high this week, according to a new poll from NPR, PBS News hour and Marist that shows his approval at 40 percent overall and a 58 percent disapproval rating." https://people.com/politics/trump-says-biden-going-to-be-your-president-because-some-people-dont-love-me/ Trump speaking to Sean Hannity: "I don’t want to be nice or un-nice, okay? But I mean, the man [Biden] can’t speak," Trump said, falling back on one of his repeated critiques of Biden. "And he's going to be your president 'cause some people don't love me, maybe, and you know, all I'm doing is doing my job." He is just doing his job. Here is an example of Trump being transparent. It slipped out by accident. But for Trump to say about Biden "the man can't speak" is the best example of psychological projection I have seen since "Crooked Hillary." With Trump's approval at 40%, my estimate is that about 30% of Americans approve of Trump simply because they LIKE him. It doesn't matter what he says or does. They like his grandiose act and think he is cute. Above all, he entertains them. Entertainment is important among those 30% who would like him to become dictator for life. The other 10% are just WITH him, not because they like him, but they think he is good for the economy. They may hold their noses while they vote for Trump in November. The way Trump was "good for the economy" was in how he shocked the hell out of most Americans. Trump's base were walking on clouds when Trump won the 2016 election. That was a boost to the economy. Then along with tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, and deregulation, 58% of Americans were running scared, and that fear was also a boost to the economy.

Do you think that any aliens that could detect mini-nuke blasts from an interstellar probe, would probably already have detected full-scale nuclear tests on Earth? Because there have been many multi-megaton blasts, including Tsar Bomba at 58 megatons. There is a way we can mask our location. Start the probe in one direction, then change course before accelerating to cruising speed. That way the aliens cannot align the nuke blasts to trace back to the location of Earth. A nuclear pulse probe should use the smallest nuclear blast possible. If the Davy Crocket was 1/1000 of a Hiroshima blast, that seems quite small and useful for nuclear pulse propulsion. How many of those would it take to reach 10%c, assuming a rocket total mass (including fuel pellets) of a few hundred tons? Why not use multiple methods of propulsion in a single probe? For example, get up to a high speed using nuclear pulses, then switch over to a propulsion method that scoops up interstellar hydrogen as fuel.

Also that is a great way to announce to every intelligent ET in a thousand light years that we are traveling at 10%C with nuclear explosions pointing directly to Earth. That way they know how to find us to take our planet.

"...According to Catholic doctrine, Jesus' death satisfied the wrath of God, aroused by the offense to God's honor caused by human's [Adam & Eve's] sinfulness." "...In Protestant theology, Jesus' death is regarded as a substitutionary penalty carried by Jesus, for the debt that has to be paid by humankind when it broke God's moral law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity This sounds like man created god according to man's own image and likeness, including wrath and offense to God's "honor."

Does anyone know how small a nuclear explosion can be? The smallest I could find is the Davy Crocket. "The smallest, known deployed nuclear bomb was the W54, which had a blast yield equivalent of between 10 and 20 tonnes of TNT (in the neighborhood of 1/1000 the power of the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki)." Is it possible to scale this down even more so you have tiny nukes that don't weigh very much but they can put a huge impulse on a pusher plate of a small, unmanned, interstellar probe? "Daedalus would be constructed in Earth orbit and have an initial mass of 54,000 tonnes including 50,000 tonnes of fuel and 500 tonnes of scientific payload. Daedalus was to be a two-stage spacecraft. The first stage would operate for two years, taking the spacecraft to 7.1% of light speed (0.071 c), and then after it was jettisoned, the second stage would fire for 1.8 years, taking the spacecraft up to about 12% of light speed (0.12 c), before being shut down for a 46-year cruise period." "Daedalus would be propelled by a fusion rocket using pellets of a deuterium/helium-3 mix that would be ignited in the reaction chamber by inertial confinement using electron beams. The electron beam system would be powered by a set of induction coils trapping energy from the plasma exhaust stream. 250 pellets would be detonated per second, and the resulting plasma would be directed by a magnetic nozzle." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Daedalus Can this be miniaturized? It seems that IF you can reduce the mass of the probe, and the size of nuclear explosions, and maybe even use shaped-charge nukes, and scale down the cost of the tiny bombs, we could send MANY mini probes to MANY nearby stars. How much mass does the science payload need in order to study the destination star and planets, and then relay the info back to Earth? Maybe the "Golden Age" of exoplanet study will begin when the first such probes start reporting back to Earth in 50 to 100 years. "Unlike Daedalus, which used an open-cycle fusion engine, Longshot would use a long-lived nuclear fission reactor for power. Initially generating 300 kilowatts, the reactor would power a number of lasers in the engine that would be used to ignite inertial confinement fusion similar to that in Daedalus. The main design difference is that Daedalus also relied on the fusion reaction to power the ship, whereas in the Longshot design the internal reactor would provide this power.[1] "The reactor would also be used to power a laser for communications back to Earth, with a maximum power of 250 kW. For most of the journey, this would be used at a much lower power for sending data about the interstellar medium; but during the flyby, the main engine section would be discarded and the entire power capacity dedicated to communications at about 1 kilobit per second. "Longshot would have a mass of 396 tonnes (873,000 lb) at the start of the mission including 264 tonnes of helium-3/deuterium pellet fuel/propellant. The active mission payload, which includes the fission reactor but not the discarded main propulsion section, would have a mass of around 30 tonnes. "A difference in the mission architecture between Longshot and the Daedalus study is that Longshot would go into orbit about the target star while the higher speed Daedalus would do a one shot fly-by lasting a comparatively short time." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Longshot In theory, if you can miniaturize the science payload and the fuel supply, you could accelerate a probe to 10% light speed, and also slow down to orbit the destination star. If we could send out a large number of these probes to possible earth-like solar systems, we would have another reason to survive to see the results of a multitude of probes that would start reporting back to earth in about 50 to 100 years. As technology improves we can send out more and more, cheaper and more capable probes every year into the future.

Then would nuclear pulse be suitable for unmanned probes to other stars? If the entire science payload is rather small, most of the payload could be tiny nuclear bombs.

Don't you remember this? "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him will not perish, but have everlasting life." Aramaic Bible in Plain English: "For God loved the world in this way: so much that he would give up his Son, The Only One, so that everyone who trusts in him shall not be lost, but he shall have eternal life." https://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

Then would you please do me a favor and forget about the literal, and convert the following statement into a sensible framework? Thank you. God the father was so upset by A&E's sin of disobedience, that He barred all people from heaven, until His own son would be born and die a hideous death to please Himself. This is comparable to the Mayan, Aztec, and Incan belief in blood lust of their gods, who craved human sacrifice.