Raider5678

With modern technology, do you think it'd be possible to begin creating the first simulated universe with "AI"? Would a simulated universe be helpful to developing A.I.? Also, note, with this universe I'm talking really basic mechanics. Maybe even only 2D.

If Earth had the right conditions for life to form, then if there were more planets similar to Earth there'd be more life.(speculation) Less life means it points to fewer planets like Earth.(speculation) Either way, this has gotten off track from the Exoplanet discoveries.(Not speculation)

I do not. But that's for other reasons. This is one of the main reasons I lean more towards the rare Earth Hypothesis. Simply because, in my opinion, if life was common, then surely there are more advanced aliens then us.

I meant this, yes. Additionally, while that link is interesting it's still a far cry from conclusive evidence, obviously. My theory vs your theory on how many planets may contain complex live are both speculations. We've only ever observed one planet extensively, and two if you count Mars, which in my opinion we've barely been able to study as much as Earth for obvious reasons. That, in my opinion, is too small of a sample to make a conclusive proof. Just two planets. Now really neither of our theories necessarily mean anything until we can prove it. My theory can't be proven until we've covered several thousand Earth-like planets, if not tens of thousands. Your's can be proven by just finding life once in less than 10,000 prospective planets(10,000 earth like rocky planets/moons is just where I personally draw the line for "rare", and this is up to debate). Also, what slight hints do you have that there are planets more suitable for humans than Earth? I didn't see that and that'd be interesting.

I, like others, believe in the rare earth Hypothesis. So yes, unique, however probably not the only one.

Better question, what's its battery life? This is an important question in my opinion. Solar Panels are heavy, additionally, we can't guarantee how much power they'll generate around another planet. We only have so much plutonium.

Makes sense. So the receiving end would continue to receive the signals every second?

Alright, say a rocket was sent towards Mars, at a point it's delay of radio signals was 12 minutes. Every second it sent back a short radio signal signalling the second. So: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. As it got farther away, I have a question. Would the signals stop reaching earth every second and start having longer and longer periods of time between them? Or what exactly would happen? Would it maintain every second signal, but the signal you're getting was sent 12 minutes ago?

I was mistaken.

Perhaps. I think of 3D space as directions in XYZ. I'm fairly certain this is correct because nobody disagrees. The big bang was a rapid expansion of something we don't know. I assumed that matter would expand evenly in every direction of XYZ. So up, down, left, right, forward, and backward. Yet those are all respective. My thoughts are that the universe is a lot like the bottom one. Not that it'd 2D, but that it's flat in the sense of 3D. It has height, but the height is smaller than the width. If the universe expanded from a single point, I thought the universe should look like the top one, where matter is spread evenly from the central point in all directions. Hence, big bang = spherical distribution of matter. The solar system, for the most part, lies on a plane. Other then asteroids orbiting the sun at odd inclinations, all of the planets inclinations are less than 4 degrees. Which I consider flat(ish). While it's 3d, most of the matter is spread in a flat(ish) manner. The milky way is the same, at 100,000 light-years wide, and 1,000 lightyears thick. Somewhere along the way, I got the notion that the universe is the same way. I was mistaken. I thought it meant: "We SAY that the universe is flat, and this means that parallel lines will always remain parallel." But just because we SAY it doesn't mean it's true. I thought the whole point of this link was that the universe is not flat?

Yeah, I really can't understand any of this. Basically, the universe is not flat it's curved, and we just can't see it, measure it, test it, or prove it. Additionally, that's not what I was wondering. You guy's have proven that two parallel lines will not stay parallel. At least according to the second link swansnot gave me. Why are there not galaxies and stars in every direction, instead of simply sideways?

Alright.

What is the locally flat part then?

But what will happen to the lasers? How far will they go before they reach the end of the observable universe? Will they all travel an equal distance?

Okay. My bad. So if you were to stand anywhere on earth, from the equator to the south pole, etc. And shine an infinitely powerful laser that would get through the atmosphere without any disruption, and go infinitely, ignoring gravitational curvature, would all the lasers keep expanding into the observable universe? As in all three dimensions, XYZ? Because I feel like thinking of the universe as a surface doesn't really work. The big bang caused the universe to expand from a single point, why would there be a "surface"? OR Does the curvature of 4D space only make the universe look flat? In which case could you explain. Because I clearly have no idea what I'm talking about. OR Are you saying that the big bang happened. All the matter in the big bang expanded FROM that single point, but it went away from the original spot. Meaning there's no matter at the big bang. As it kept expanding farther and farther away, there was a sphere of matter expanding away from it. However, the two sides of the sphere are separated by a massive expanse of emptiness, because of the big bang. And we can't see if the observable universe is curved because we can't detect the curvature simply because of how large it is. Is this right?

Okay. In this sense, why is the observable universe shaped like a rectangle rather than a sphere?

Okay, so I couldn't understand why the universe is flat after the big bang theory. Because obviously it should be shaped like a ball. So I did good old fashion googling and found that the answer is: "Technically we only know the observable universe is flat." But why is the observable universe flat? I mean, we can see for 46.6 billion lightyears in either direction of the XY coordinates. Why can't we look "up" figuratively, and see for another 46.6 billion lightyears? If we only know the observable universe is flat, wouldn't it be pretty easy to look up and figure out really quickly that it expands just as far up and down as it goes sideways? Please don't say that flat is relative. I understand the universe is not 100% flat, that it's 3D, but over 46.6 billion lightyears I'd expect slightly more "roundness" to it. It's relatively flat in comparison of width to height. Why?

Yes. You can try "nslookup www.scienceforums.net" and it'll give you the I.P. Adress of the site. From there, it's literally a matter of port testing and you can pop right through. Don't worry though. Scienceforum's ports are all secure, as almost every website is. However, a few aren't. Often conspiracy websites, etc.

For the quality of life link, New Zealand got tenth because due to it's small population there is a massive demand for jobs. Considering the United States is much bigger then New Zealand you could also argue that you should split the United States into multiple countries to increase their quality of life. The Netherland's got 8th because they are the most tolerant nation in the world in terms of what's legal and what's not. In the United States that heavily varies by state, again, a massive disadvantage simply because of our size. Sweden got 6th because it has a 99.77% in water sanitation, something that is considered rare for most of the world. And once again, considering how massive the United States is, as well as different state law's, it can be hard to consider it the best in anything. I'm curious if you'd look at individual states. Finland has 5.49 million people, Pennslyvania alone has 12 million. I'd think it'd be fair to look at these from a state by state to country level, wouldn't you? Finland scores virtually perfect in every single field. But then that make's me wonder how accurate this scale is because while I don't really doubt Finland is a better place to live compared to most of the world, it's also as you said, relative. The United States has so many more people than Finland, and our law varies so much from state to state I'm curious as to how they managed to measure it. Now for life expectancy, while also more easily measured, you have to note Iceland comes in first for men's and doesn't even rank in the top ten for women. Spain ranks 2nd in women and doesn't rank in the top 10 for men. Which I found weird. Anyways, the US is clearly beaten in that area. As for happiness, if you go to the actual report: http://worldhappiness.report/ You can open chapter 7, which outlines why America fell behind in happiness. It's not due to economic reasons. Either way, it's still relative. How was this survey given? Dude. Just no. Not even close.

I'm sure you'd agree America is powerful. Economically, we have the largest GDP. Militarily, we have the most advanced military. And in my opinion, probably one of the best due to how much we spend on it. Politically, throughout the world, America definitely has influence. A lot of it. We're a world leader because we have more say in global matter's then most countries. But we're not the only world leader either.

Okay? That's not what I said. America is a world leader because they're powerful. I didn't say they're good, I said they're a world leader. Additionally, while our poor do struggle, they're definitely a lot better off compared to the majority of the world. I've been to countries like Brazil, and they have a lot more poor people then you can possibly believe. I saw children running around in dumps(literal, actual, garbage dumps.) barefoot trying to find food. They don't stay in the cities because the police drive them away, another thing that is common over there but isn't really talked about much. And their wealth gap? 6 men have more money then the lower 50% of all of Brazil. America is definitely not the number 1 country, again. However, it's still well above most of the world.

Actually, to everyone in the known world. No matter how much you yourself might refuse to accept it, America is definitely a leader in military and economic terms. Maybe not the #1 leader, but then again no country is number 1.