I used to be a stranger

This post has been redacted by the author.

http://distinguishedbagel.tumblr.com/video_file/132233529224/tumblr_nx1zyt0Qd51upcwcv/480

I want to, uncle sans. But I uninstalled all of my games in anticipation of the workload I'm going to have now that my school semester has started.

Half Life Team Fortress 2 Star Wars (tentatively) Star Trek: The Next Generation Steven Universe Gravity Falls Wander Over Yonder Civilization V Kerbal Space Program Though all of these vary wildly in terms of actual "practice" or expression.

So you're saying "it's open to interpretation because obviously the show doesn't care about the nitty gritty of population science just like it doesn't care about cake shipping logistics, waste management, power generation or the ontological effects of magic". Which means you simply want to explore this particular aspect of the show from a worldbuilding view as-to-realism, and not necessarily from a narrative viewpoint (where the rule of Chekhov limitation applies). In which case, you can't really say "Equestria IS this way"; only that "Equestria is this way in my headcanon", where your headcanon applies a harder and more realistically defined worldbuilding logic. There's nothing wrong with that interpretation. I'm just pointing out this stuff because it sometimes annoys me personally when people state interpretive inference as fact.

I made this nearly four years ago, and I made sure I didn't count cloned characters. As far as I know, there is no corresponding version of this which has more detailed information since Season 5.

I think it might be selective perception on your part, @@ggg-2. I doubt it's actually the case. But even if it is, type-casting the male member of a couple as the dumb strength vs. the smart planning one is a common trope when playing up the characteristics of a marriage. When done to ridiculous extremes we get Peter Griffon and Homer Simpson. (Problems arise when this is perceived as normative.)

Smartphone (Can be used to Call, Text, Search or Flashlight. +2 Intelligence, +1 Charisma, -2 Perception) Wallet (Increases Inventory. Requires 2 Inventory slots.) Jackknife keychain (+Handyman bonus, +Jangle sound)

This post has been redacted by the author.

"Halt, in the name of Lord Hater!"

Fire & Conquest Pub and Comedy Club no minors

This one time I ate a jalapeno the size of a banana, as part of some kind of Fiesta. 4/5 would recommend as a great way to prove your toughness, would not recommend for getting a date.

Anyone seen The Prince of Egypt? I know it's not the most rigorous or accurate movie to portray contents of the Bible... But as a person who's studied animation, I can say confidently that it remains probably one of the best animated films ever.

John Dies at the End beat you to the punch. Furthermore, isn't your Master's Dissertation titled "hOI!!!!! i'm tEMMIE!!!! An exploration of cosmogenic axioms based upon individual experiences and praxis for modern society"?

Why exactly is this in the debate pit? And why does anyone like Danny Pink? He seems weird and annoying, and I only started liking him when he became a Cyberman.

"Words I Probably Said" - a novel

Star Wars vs. Star Trek, though in the past 10 years it's probably become a thing that most members like both. Whatever conflict there was has been thawing ever since the advent of new canon and the internet. There's probably lots of intra-fandom conflict though. Cochrane vs. Janeway, or the validity of the Lucasian Prequel Trilogy for example.

Energy is never created or destroyed. By reacting materials, you are simply taking advantage of energy that is already there. When you burn gasoline, you're taking advantage of the energy stored in the bonds between carbon and hydrogen. When you react matter and antimatter, the annihilation is releasing energy in the form of particle neutralization (though the majority of that is lost in the formation of unrecoverable neutrinos). it's not creating anything. Converting matter directly into energy aka squishing quarks until they're electrons, is horrendously inefficient. It would be an incredible miracle to convert even a microgram of anything into energy at an efficiency of 0.0001%. (That is, 99.9999% loss due to waste radiation, friction or other things.) But the problem is real world efficiency of such an attempt would be even lower. it would probably be so inefficienct (like 1*10^-20 %) that it would be questionble to even attempt a postive return. The cores of neutron stars are probably composed of quark-gluon plasma, and even that doesn't burn hot enough to turn matter into energy. (This is to say, proton destruction is a seperate energy release mechanism than antimatter-matter annihilation; it's much harder to do.) The simple fact is its cheaper, easier, smaller, more efficient and in all practical ways better to do nearly anything else than direct matter-energy conversion. Fusion and Antimatter annihilation for example. Back to antimatter annihilation. The specific impulse of antimatter annihilation is fantastic compared to any other fuel. (Gunpowder has an ISP of about 60, ammonium perchlorate ~270, liquid oxygen and H2 ~390, hot uranium and hydrogen ~1200, ion-xenon 3500, ion-argon 4000, airbreathing external combustion steam-power ~6000, airbreathing internal combustion petroleum ~10 000, airbreathing Jet A1 turbines ~30 000, airbreathing SCRAM-Jet ~70 000, antimatter-matter annihilation ~250 000.) However the biggest problem within our lifetimes is going to remain the fact that antimatter is difficult to manufacture-- it can only be made in particle accelerators, so far. The largest amount of it we've ever had was about 1000 atoms of antihydrogen at once. That's less than a sexillionth of a microgram. Another problem with antimatter beyond being able to make it, is storing it. Antimatter has a habit of exploding when it comes in contact with matter, which means it must be suspended by high energy magnetic fields. These fields are not easy to generate; they take expensive equipment and high electrical demands, which is going to make resource extraction expensive, storage even moreso, and make your spaceship very heavy with the addition of a pretty beefy power generation system (whose absence will make your spacecraft explode due to propellant containment failure). With the Large Hadron Collider working at full power for a century, we would drain the world's oil reserves three times over and make a few tons of antimatter. This might be enough delta-V to put a spacecraft anywhere in the Solar System within a few months (which would be incredible) but it's still piddle compared to large fractions of lightspeed. Also remember that however fast you intend to go, you'll need quadruple the initial fuel requirement and more: 1 ration for the initial acceleration, 1 to slow down again, and 2 more for the return journey, plus a bunch more to account for the weight of those four rations, plus a bunch more to account for the weight of that first accounting ration, plus more for the second accounting ration... All in all, you're going to need either more efficiency than what antimatter can produce, or a very clever way of making or gathering antimatter. You could harvest it from the sun using a massive space station near Venus or something, but that's going to be expensive and time-consuming to built too. Simply put, there is no way of squaring up the logistics easily. One can ignore them but to do so is to firmly plant your foot in science fiction away from the hard direction and on the soft side of the wall. There's no problem with being in soft science fiction. Star Wars is soft science fiction, where lasers can blow up planets and spaceships have artificial gravity that makes their internal reference frames feel like cars, ships, busses or airplanes. But when talking about the nitty gritty of distances, travel times, speeds and so on, physicsts beat you to the punch 50 years ago because they were paid to crunch the numbers on exactly what you're thinking about-- who were thinking about it for the same reason you want to, except they went to university for years in the pursuit. Don't think you can outsmart them in an afternoon.

You would need to be going extremely close to the speed of light to experience time slippage that drastically. Like, more than what you get on planet Miller in Interstellar. In the order of 0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999c. In the order of you need more energy than what exists in the galaxy to accelerate an object that fast. Relativity is the reason why GPS satellites experience Earth-years 4 seconds faster than people on the surface, and require un-leap-seconds to keep their internal clocks coordinated. This is because they're constantly travelling at 22000 km/h. The faster you're moving, the slower time progresses for you. We normally ignore this fact and didn't even think it was a thing until 1940 because the difference speed makes only becomes appreciable when you're moving at a noticable percentage of the speed of light. This relativity stuff is not a theory, it's a plain practice component of engineering for spacecraft design. Mission Controllers and Astronauts must account for differences in GET (ground elapsed time) and MET (mission experience time), because the International Space Station is constantly moving at 8.1 kilometers per second. While this isn't much compared to lightspeed (300 000km/s) it's a hell of a lot more than anything a skateboard or fighter jet can do. If you accelerated to 0.5c (that is, half the speed of light), coasted for three lightyears until you reached Alpha Centari, and then decellerated, the whole trip according to the adventurer's watch would have taken probably 10 years. For outside observers, it would have taken 12 years. (And we'd only know about it after the receiving signal got back from Alpha Centari over the distance of 4.9 lightyears, thus taking 4.9 years to arrive. So we'd only known he safely arrived 16.9 years after he left.)

The EM Drive so far is likely to be invalidated by future testing, but is the first stepping stone towards an Alcubierre engine. Which means EM Drives probably are not in the future, but that doesn't spell doom for spacetime-warping technology. (Alcubierre engines do not accelerate objects, they translate their location in spacetime at an effective rate greater than lightspeed. This means that when you turn it off, you "arrive" with the same relative velocity as when you left. This complicates orbital mechanics significantly, and places an extremely high demand on conventional thrusters in addition to building the Alcubierre system) It has already been predicted that it is unlikely any interstellar propulsion of any kind will be completed in this century. The most obvious candidate for any sublight-speed system would be Alpha-Proxima Centari since it is the closest. We are hoping to catch a glimpse of whether or not that system has any planets with successors to Hubble and Keppler (like the James Webb Space Telescope) but as it stands we still don't know.