Jump to content

Airbrush

Senior Members
  • Posts

    3062
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Airbrush last won the day on July 25

Airbrush had the most liked content!

1 Follower

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://john-kaelin.pixels.com/

Profile Information

  • Location
    SoCal
  • Interests
    Surfing, Artwork, Science
  • College Major/Degree
    CSULA BA Art (1979) & BS Accounting (1989)
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Astronomy & Cosmology
  • Occupation
    Bookkeeper - Retired

Retained

  • Molecule

Recent Profile Visitors

24032 profile views

Airbrush's Achievements

Scientist

Scientist (10/13)

239

Reputation

  1. Wonder why politician them won't go way...
  2. Anyone else notice the connection? For the Trumper crazies, it's a tough job to NOT hit Pelosi with a hammer. Someone tried to follow McCarthy's advice, but instead hit Pelosi's husband with a hammer. "The crazed man who allegedly attacked the husband of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with a hammer was charged with attempted murder by the San Francisco District Attorney on Monday. David DePape, 42, was also charged with assault with a deadly weapon, elder abuse, false imprisonment of an elder, residential burglary and threats to a public official and their family, according to District Attorney Brooke Jenkins." Attempted murder charge filed against David DePape (nypost.com) House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy joked at a Saturday night event that it “will be hard not to hit” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi with the speaker’s gavel if Republicans take control of the chamber in the 2022 midterms and he becomes speaker. “I want you to watch Nancy Pelosi hand me that gavel. It will be hard not to hit her with it,” McCarthy said in audio posted to Twitter by a Main Street Nashville reporter. Kevin McCarthy says 'it will be hard not to hit' Pelosi with gavel if he becomes House speaker | CNN Politics
  3. Thanks for the info! Great man with the Drake Equation. The physicist/musician Brian Cox, regarding the Drake Equation, thinks ETIs may be very rare, there may be only one or two intelligent ETIs per large galaxy. That is the Rare Earth Hypothesis. Does anyone know what Frank Drakes final estimate was on communicating ETIs? Has anyone heard of any other Drake Equation estimates?
  4. Maybe there are places in the world where you may predict, according to climate change, that will likely have EXCESS water in the future, and other areas that will likely have a water SHORTAGE in the future, that are not too far separated, that water could be transported from one area to the other using mostly gravity, but also a few water pumps to get the water over humps. I was thinking of half pipes to transport the water with a thin cover. My question is, since I live in Southern California, could water be transported from the wet north to the dry south? My water cost is only one penny per gallon. When will my water utility start taxing my water usage in order to build future infrastructure (as well as maintain the current infrastructure) to save or channel water?
  5. Has anyone ever heard of any plans to transport water from flooded areas to drought-stricken areas? What would it cost to transport huge quantities of water a thousand miles? Maybe cheaper than desalinating sea water? The experts always stress conservation and water recycling. Every drop of rainwater needs to be saved. Every house in drought areas should be designed to channel rainwater down drains around the house for storage under the house. Parking lots, streets, and sidewalks in cities could also channel and save rainwater in underground storage. "But moving vast quantities of water is not simple or cheap, and thus not realistic, experts say. Mostly, it's too costly and political. However, these dreamed-up concepts show that a quiet water crisis is getting more desperate." Too wacky? Moving water from flood to drought (phys.org)
  6. To answer my own question, after watching the following Youtubes, I think Graham's number is vastly larger than googolplex, raised to a googolplex power, a googolplex number of times. That means Graham's number is vastly larger than a power tower of googolplexes, a googolplex high.
  7. I posted this in Other Sciences, but this will probably get more attention in the Lounge. Anyone familiar with very large numbers and very small things? My questions was: suppose you could fill a volume the size of the observable universe (less than 100 billion light-years in diameter) with a tiny sand that is so tiny that each sand grain is one Planck Length in diameter. Could you fill that volume with Graham's number of Planck-sized sand? My guess is yes you could fill the observable universe with Planck-sized sand. You could probably fill a volume you cannot even comprehend how large with Graham's number of Planck-sized sand. This is what I found in Wikipedia: "... the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers ...." Graham's number - Wikipedia Next question. Is Graham's number larger than a googolplex, raised to a googolplex power, a googolplex number of times? (That means you keep raising the number to a googolplex power, and you do so a googolplex number of times.)
  8. "Does cosmic expansion ever end?" From the way it looks in this region of the multiverse, it doesn't ever end. All matter and black holes will evaporate into low-energy photons before expansion ends.
  9. Anyone familiar with very large numbers and very small things? My questions was: suppose you could fill a volume the size of the observable universe (less than 100 billion light-years in diameter) with a tiny sand that is so tiny that each sand grain is one Planck Length in diameter. Could you fill that volume with Graham's number of Planck-sized sand? My guess is yes you could fill the observable universe with Planck-sized sand. You could probably fill a volume you cannot even comprehend how large with Graham's number of Planck-sized sand. This is what I found in Wikipedia: "... the observable universe is far too small to contain an ordinary digital representation of Graham's number, assuming that each digit occupies one Planck volume, possibly the smallest measurable space. But even the number of digits in this digital representation of Graham's number would itself be a number so large that its digital representation cannot be represented in the observable universe. Nor even can the number of digits of that number—and so forth, for a number of times far exceeding the total number of Planck volumes in the observable universe. Thus Graham's number cannot be expressed even by physical universe-scale power towers ...." Graham's number - Wikipedia Next question. Is Graham's number larger than a googolplex, raised to a googolplex power, a googolplex number of times?
  10. I should have started with "Did anyone catch this interview? Do you have an opinion on this GOP technique to perpetuate doubt about the 2020 elections?" Or anyone is free to challenge me that this interview is bogus.
  11. This interview illustrates the bogus argument Trumpers often use to argue the "election was stolen." They get into the details of court cases in PA, WI, and NV, and pretend they were never thrown out of court. Bill Maher = B Sean Spicer = S B “What do you think about the “election was rigged” and Trump really won?” S “I think there were some serious problems [with the 2020 election]. When you look at PA, WI, and NV, the idea we changed rules running up to an election, in terms of how it was counted. The PA Dem governor, in 2019, Act 77 was signed by Gov. Wolf, so that all ballots had to be in by 8:00pm.” (These 3 cases, along with over 50 others, are baseless claims already thrown out of court for no real evidence of voter fraud.) B “There was a pandemic, that’s why.” S “So change the law.” B “There was no time to do that.” S “There was plenty of time to pass legislation in all these other areas.” (This is irrelevant to the fact there was NO time to change election laws for the pandemic. There was “plenty of time in all these other areas” at a different time.) B “This is the rabbit hole you want to go down?” S “I do” B “Avoid the question?” S “No” B “Did Trump win or lose the election?” S “I don’t know.” (This is an absurd claim, since the strategy of Trump and company is to pretend to believe the election was rigged and insist Dems must prove the election was NOT stolen, which is absurd.) B “There you go, because the world does know.” (Everyone in a position of knowledge about the elections knows the election was not stolen.) S “No wait, first of all, tell me how many votes that got cast ILLEGALLY and not according to the system [unintelligible].” B “This was litigated in courts, even Republicans that were in charge of the vote came down on the side this election WAS FAIR. You said after the election when I asked you about fraud, you said you have seen no evidence.” S “I haven’t, but what I have seen is a state…There is a difference…” (Spicer is babbling nonsense) B “There is imaginary evidence?” S “No no no…there is a difference. PA supreme court did what WI courts did. They let people…WI does not have a provision in their law to vote early in person. It has an absentee ballot provision. People set up tables in parks in Madison WI, allowed people to come without ID. In PA they were allowed to vote without ID. No post mark on the ballot, in violation of Act 77, signed by a Dem governor in 2019, and the answer is “don’t worry about it because there was a pandemic.” What’s the next thing you can just blow away? A law is a law, until it is changed. You don’t get to pick what law you want to follow, depending upon what’s happening outside.” (Again, courts have already thrown out these cases) B “Again, this was looked at exhaustively. (Bill Barr and Pat Cipallone, devoted Trumpers, could find no evidence or substantiate any claim for the kind of voter fraud Trumpers claim.) S “It’s not. That’s not true though. What was looked at, for example, in WI, the court ruled 4 to 3.” (This was totally irrelevant material, inserted to make him sound knowledgeable.) B “Ok Sean, I get it. You know what?” S “You accuse me.” B “You said your piece. You are like that kid in school.” S “Who is right!” B “Who has to answer about a book report. So he reads one page, very carefully, that nobody else has read. We don’t know what you are talking about.” S “You do….It’s your show” B “What I do know is this was looked at by people of BOTH parties and they came down that Trump LOST this election, but you wson’t say it. Either your part of a big lie or your part of a conspiracy” S “It’s not a big lie. The WI audit committee just released a report. I have it here.” (This was already thrown out of WI court) B “You are afraid of Trump” After that Spicer goes back to repeating his earlier claims about the states of PA, WI, and NV, which were already rejected by the courts.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.