Kerwood Floyd

I have absolutely no physics or math to back this up, but I suspect that you will suffer permanent hearing damage before you are close enough to incur other injury.

That's always been my theory

Phil Plait says it was real time. https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-perseverance-rover-sees-phobos-transiting-the-sun

Vowels and consonants are categories of sounds. 'W' is a letter, not a sound. Letters are used to represent sounds. Sometimes the sound represented by 'W' is best described as a vowel, rather than as a consonant. In the word 'down', the 'W' is not representing a consonant sound. It represents the second vowel component of a diphthong.

Quoting from the article: "When Columbus sailed to America, there were both better boats and sailors. But no one else did it. He did. All it took was three weeks. It was not difficult; it was fear that held everyone back. It was believed that one would fall over the edge of the earth. Or be eaten by sea monsters. He showed... that was wrong." Hoo boy. OK, there may have been better sailors, but no, there were probably not better ships (ships, not boats). It only took three weeks because Columbus vastly underestimated the circumference of the earth. He would have starved long before actually reaching Asia. He was just lucky the Americas were there. It wasn't fear that held everyone back; it was the knowledge that Columbus was wrong about Earth's circumference (OK, I'm vastly oversimplifying here). "You have to work hard, but you do not have to be very smart," Tina Sjögren added. Well, she's got that part down.

To be fair, I'm exaggerating for the sake of my parody of nut-ball conspiracy theorists.

Well, that's because no subs can do much more than that. All this nonsense about submarines being able to go 100s of meters down is just a huge lie the naval powers of the world have been telling us for over a century now. It obviously just isn't possible. (This is my personal version of 'the moon landings were faked', 'the earth is flat', 'birds aren't real', etc.)

So, to sum up: Q: what if the speed of light suddenly became infinite? A: nothing good

I used to know a guy who said "I'm not that tall really; I'm only six nineteen and a half"

I think it's worth noting that this planet is not yet confirmed. https://www.syfy.com/syfy-wire/bad-astronomy-proxima-centauri-third-planet-may-have-been-found

Neil Armstrong saving Gemini 8 ranks right up there

Well played, sir!

Which union represents matter? Has the union complained to the labor relations board about this?

Who did Alice pass on the road? Nobody.

There are two fundamental issues that any calendar/clock reform has to deal with: 1. Because the second is the central base unit of the SI, redefining the second requires redefining every* other base and derived unit in the SI. In practical terms, this means you cannot redefine the second. You can mess around with any larger units of time, but the second, at this point, is baked into so many other things as to be pretty much unchangeable. 2. The seven day week is here to stay until all three Abrahamic religions go away (which is not likely to happen for a very long time). I know that both of these points have been made up-thread, but I think they bear emphasizing. * Well, I guess not the mole.

Is Halon heavier than air? Is there anything comparable that is heavier than air? If so (and money is no object ). build a giant "bathtub", fill it with whatever, and land your rocket in the bathtub.

OK, I think we were both right and just not understanding each other. What difference does it make whether LUCY gains speed relative to Earth? If it gains speed relative to the Sun doesn't that get it to (the vicinity of) Jupiter faster than otherwise?

I don't think this is correct. The total speed and energy of the planet and the spaceship combined remains constant. But the spaceship can gain (or lose) speed or energy while simultaneously the planet loses (or gains) an equivalent amount.

I was getting ready to conclude that the render is, as you say, 'meh', on other grounds. Several of the interiors in those renders looked like they were designed for a 1 g environment, They either had a definite up/down orientation, or a lot of wasted volume for a 0 g environment. (I hope I'm making myself clear)

Well, that might just be a red herring.

Well, there's no way it survives re-entry. So, like @Elthy I think I'd put my money on staging. Like @Lukaszenko this is mostly to protect myself from too much disappointment.

Yeah, the tests you don't screw are the best (Sorry. I almost never call attention to simple typos, but this just seemed too good to pass up)

The vast majority of "rational" calendar reform founders on the fact that the Abrahamic religions will never give up on the seven day week. I believe there are proposals, however, that accommodate that.

OK, thanks for the correction

I may have read once that more massive black holes "leak" Hawking radiation at a higher rate than lower mass black holes. So, if you accelerate a black hole to a substantial percentage of the speed of light (easy, right?) its relativistic mass increases and it evaporates through Hawking radiation faster than it would otherwise. This approaches fitting the definition of "killing" a black hole. I'm sure there are reasons why this doesn't really work. For instance, (a) does relativistic mass count for this purpose?; (b) "faster than it would otherwise" may only apply in a frame of reference that isn't useful; (c) I'm an idiot; (d) ...