WestAir

A uniform night sky will be brighter than a fractal night sky. I'm not an astronomy student, but I could easily imagine two stars 1 AU apart will appear brighter than two stars with one slightly hidden behind the other. Fractal clusters hide a lot of light sources behind other sources in a way that a uniform distribution wouldn't need to, and that means less luminosity reaching us.

So right now, in reality, we weigh more at the poles than we do at the equator because of the Earths spin?

There are a whole bunch of nifty things an airplane can do that seems strange inside the cabin. Check out Bob Hoover. If it were night time or you weren't looking out the window you'd have no idea the plane were even upside-down. Zero G is equally interesting, though it's more like the top of a roller coaster than real zero g. In fact, it's really exactly the same.

Slightly off topic, I once read it was possible for life to be plasma-based on grand scales, like within a star nursery or nebula. I don't know where I read that, but can anyone elaborate on the possibility of large DNA like structures being formed in a plasma or Nebula?

The end of us, or the beginning? Let's face it, as it stands now, computers are on a set path to outmatch man in everything from efficiency to capability to intelligence. Given the possibility of a technological singularity occurring, humanity may well be on the fast track to becoming obsolete in the wake of artificial intelligence. Let's look at reality here: Over the next century, about 8 in every 10 jobs will be replaced by mechanized workers. Most of these are in the military sector: Pilots, crew, infantry. In the private sector we have similar chop-block industries: vehicle operators (boats/planes/trains), clerks and other defining service-based duties. It's not that people can't do these things well, it's that machines can do it better at no pay, no sick days, 24/7, and they never cause arguments or fights. They're also faster - in the case of the military a drone air superiority aircraft can handle dozens the magnitude of G forces a human can. An automated system for trains will never miss a red signal and cause a train crash, and the assembly line machine doesn't need health insurance, retirement, or 3 weeks of leave every year. If mechanized workers were to hit a technological singularity, they'd also be able to invent and design better computers and buildings and technologies than our best scholars, with one computer matching the entire processing power of the entire human race. I'll quote I. J. Good on this one, That said, the only way mankind would be able to compete with artificial intelligence is through transhumanism. If we can use synthetics, carbon-nano-tube bones, etc etc, we may stand a chance of staying relevant into the coming centuries.

If it would let me play KSP while I'm at work, in my head, then sure. If it would just let people hack my brain like some bad rendition of Ghost In The Shell, then no. If it were a combination of the above, I'll take my chances.

Earth might simply be destroyed. A Supernovae that launches protons and particles at us at what would have been relativistic speeds, but thanks to the lower energy requirements (linear acceleration) is now traveling hundreds of millions of kilometers per second faster than C would hit the Earth. The molecules in the atmosphere wouldn't have time to get out of the way of these faster-than-c particles and would fuse with the atoms and particles from the super nova, each collision releasing huge bursts of gamma rays and even more post-luminal scattered particles. Those gamma rays and fusion explosions would turn the atmosphere from space to the surface into a huge ball of plasma before disappearing through the crust with no chance of being stopped due to their crazy speeds. Not only would it probably have enough momentum to knock Earth from its orbit, it'll probably have enough speed to out-power the Earths gravitational binding energy and scatter the Earth across the Universe like it were a supernova of its own. Finally a Hollywood movie worth watching!

What would the implications to both space travel and physics be if there were no speed of light? What if universal contraction, time dilation, and relativistic effects didn't exist? If light were literally instantaneous (The light from the stars of the Andromeda Galaxy took 0 seconds to reach Earth), if all reference frames saw all events occur at the same time (rather than being relative and separate), and if acceleration were perfectly linear (The energy required to accelerate from 0km/s to 10km/s were the same as the energy required to accelerate from 10km/s to 20km/s). What would change for space flight? For physics?

Okay, so I now have three people telling me that I'm wrong. Obviously, that means either I'm really smart, or have no idea what I'm talking about. In this case, the later is true. I looked up some scholarly information on the subject and got to some information written by Nathan Gasser from the University of Tennessee. He gave a pretty detailed answer to the OP's question. Here's the link: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/coriolis.html The most relevant quote here is this one: Indeed I had no idea what I was talking about. Winds would flow from the poles to the equator because the warm air will rise and leave a low pressure area the colder air will flow to along the surface. I really apologize for that one K^2 & GROOV3ST3R. You both were perfectly right.

It was a tongue-in-cheek joke. Just like my post said, the lack of a Coriolis effect would remove the existence of the westerlies and drastically change the currents (both sea and air) and the jet stream. Other way around. If the Earth didn't rotate (but day-night cycles and the moons relative orbit didn't change) the winds would flow from the equatorial regions towards the poles. I know what you're originally thinking, that because warm air rises the air at the equator would rise up, sucking colder air from the poles towards it, but if you look at a map of the westerlies you'll notice that winds actually start out blowing away from the subtropical ridge and towards the mid-latitudes. They are obviously then turned by the Coriolis effect (So they blow from the southwest in the Northern Hemisphere and from the northwest in the Southern Hemisphere.) If you're referring to the fact that the winds at the poles would initially move towards the equator, they already do now - check that map of the westerlies one more time. In that regards, nothing would change. I imagine the OP meant "what if the Earth stopped rotating, but the day/night cycle and the gravitational effects caused by the moon remained unchanged." At least that's what I assumed. Could totally be wrong though!

I'd imagine it would be relatively the same short of the effects caused by the coriolis(so) effect and centrifugal force.

You forgot the download link, sir.

What happens if we learn one day that organic matter is far more efficient at cognitive processes than electronic matter? If we learn that we can design and grow neurons in a lab that are better than both our own neurons and the best processors imaginable. What would happen to the above scale?

No, but I did kill a roach the other day for no other reason than it was between me and the door to my house. You must see how we are, by sheer definition, a threat to non-intelligent alien life. Not an entire species obviously, but on an individual alien basis we do threaten the life of aliens. For example: If we were to dig a hole in the Martian ice-caps and find pools of life living in ice-water, what would we do? Take some of that life back to Earth to dissect and study. We'd kill some of the sample so we could study it. As far as the unintelligent alien life-forms are concerned, that's violent murder, regardless of the reason. Obviously my example doesn't dispute your point, because you were arguing against the concept of us invading an alien world that had buildings or civilization, which we obviously wouldn't do. But on the case of non-intelligent life, we pose at least a small risk to life.

How do you define "within"? Matter certainly can't occupy the same point in spacetime as other matter. An infinite amount of matter means no end, literally. That there would be no edge to the universe. The universe in KSP for instance is a flat and infinite universe - you can run your game forever with any velocity and never reach the "end". Is the KSP universe within a multiverse? No, because something that's infinite in size can't be within something else. That said, a multiverse could just exist. Taking KSP for instance - kerbals would be surprised to realize that there are thousands of other "copies" of KSP out there with equally infinite size. (Your HardDrive, my Harddrive). They'd also be surprised to learn that they are within a sort of "soup" of data that holds a bunch of extremely different and equally infinite universes. (If you have SpaceEngine or Orbiter on your Harddrive, for instance). The KSP.exe universe isn't "within" any of those - the others just exist separately. Would that make the sum total of the data on your HDD a multiverse? Then what about the sum total of the virtual universes in the internet all together?

At what point would a computer be a person? If you "uploaded" someones brain into a computer, and their entire neural network was perfectly simulated and maintained within that computer - and that simulation for all intents and purposes was the person whose brain was uploaded, would they be a person? When you share hilarious jokes, stories, see the uploaded mind cry and create bonds and friendships - is it a person, or just a computer? If you establish everything that doesn't qualify one as a person, you're left with what does.

NASAFanboy, No on is disagreeing with you because you are questioning Einstein. Everyone questions Einstein - modern scientists have done it every day for the past 50 years, and will do it every single day into the foreseeable future. The difference, however, is most people who question Einstein do so with a hypothesis, or to prove their new discoveries valid. You are questioning Einstein simply because history suggests everything we know will be found to be incorrect as time goes on. I feel like that's the wrong reason to question Einstein.

MBobrik, Don't take my comments so personally. I understand where you are coming from and I understand how frustrating it is when people with the power to make Mankind better refuse to do so because of selfishness or ignorance. My comments were an observation on the present structure of socioeconomics. My comments never represented my personal opinion on what we should do with our money and resources; In fact, I would vote yes and pay higher taxes right now if it meant we'd start a colonization program today. That, unfortunately, isn't how the world works and my comments were a simple observation on that. I'm sorry if I offended you.

No I don't.

Not really relevant to today's issues stemming from globalization of resources and socioeconomics to international commerce. You go ahead and tell a coalition of politicians and CEOs and investors why "leaving the savannah" is a great use of their assets. Let me know if they agree.

I'd say it were more optimistic. There's absolutely no benefit to interstellar journeys. 1. The resources spent to research, build, and man an interstellar journey is NOT an investment, it is a loss, because those resources are being sent outside the system and outside of circulation. 2. The same goes with the people. We're losing intelligent and capable people and machines with NO direct benefit or return to society. 3. Extreme risks involved with colonizing new solar systems make it even more illogical to attempt. Why spend 1,000 + years traveling to some star when Titan, Ganymede, Mars and Callisto are right around the corner and can actually help and improve Mankind directly? To be honest, any colonization past space itself is a stretch. A space station is the most capable vessel we could ever inhabit. We can control its climate, we can move it to avoid disaster, it's easy to expand upon (and can grow with the population by adding more modules and what not, allowing for endless population control), it has no hazardous terrain and the Delta-V required to leave and dock with it is almost null. I'd take a space colony over Callisto or Titan any day every day.

Is $17,800,000,000 every fiscal year really too little to operate a Space Administration? India has less but they have a planned mission to the moon next decade.

Kerbal Space Program gives us one opportunity to play leader of a Space Administration. But here's the question we're all wondering: What if you woke up one day, and someone handed you the keys to NASA? If you awoke to be proclaimed Administrator of NASA and Senior Space Science Adviser to the President of the United States? What would you do? Would you re-instate the Apollo program and shoot for the moon? Send an armada of probes to Callisto and Titan? Or use your nearly $20billion annual allowance to construct the Death Star? Me? ? I'd put a rover on each capable Jovian moon in the first 5 years of my term, then I'd shoot beyond the International Space Station and try to create the worlds first Stanford-Torus Space Station with a 50 year multi-national, joint, year round-the-clock expedition plan to provoke intense cooperation between current and future space giants like China, SK, India, etc. Before I left office I'd probably try and write down that the Torus must be the first self-sustained extra-terrestrial facility ever built. Lots of plants, lots of new inventions. You?

Is Mars, Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, or an extra-LEO orbital colony any better at all? You still won't be able to leave those colonies to explore the outside environment without a space suit. Radiation is still a problem on all of the above. Return to Earth will be excessively difficult (more-so than return from the moon), and all of them have pretty bland things to see: Rocks, stars, mountains. Seems about the same anywhere you go, tbh.

I honestly dislike the oppositions "cost-effectiveness" argument. Not only is space never going to be cost-effective, but the economy will always be in a position where wasteful spending is wasteful. The Apollo program, for instance, happened during a time where people spent thirty + minutes waiting in long lines to fuel their cars. Money was scarce then, it's scarce now, and it will by definition always make "adventures" a bad financial endeavor. If we wait until we have enough money to not care about how we spend our money, we'll have the same technology and the same city sky-lines for the next few thousand years. Venture capitalists are risk takers for this very reason.