If they aren't looking at the sun, or anything lit by the sun, they can see stars just fine. Your surroundings just need to be dark enough to let your eyes become dark adjusted.

You don't actually need Earth blocking the sun for you, you just need to look away from the sun and anything lit by the sun.

If you have access to a camera with manual exposure settings, here's an experiment: Setup the exposure for a properly exposed, sun lit daytime photo.

Without touching the settings, take the camera outside at night, point it at the sky, and snap a photo. What do you think you'll capture?

The answer is: nothing. The stars are far too dim, compared to sunlight, to show up in the exposure at all. Most space photography is done in sunlight, of things that are sun lit. The cameras are set to properly exposed these sun lit things, and the lack of an atmosphere doesn't change the fact that the stars are just too dim to show up in the same exposure.

Our orbital eccentricity would change slightly. I'm not sure the change would be large enough to even measure.

For us, essentially nothing. Some stars extremely close to the galactic core might have their orbits disrupted, but we might not even notice.

From 100ly JWST would see Earth as a single pixel dot, if it could seperate it from the sun's glare at all.

Here's a planet 25ly away from the Hubble Space Telescope:

https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/fomalhaut-planet.jpg

No, the black hole is an essentially insignificant portion of the galaxies entire mass. The galaxy is orbiting it's own collective mass not the black hole.

For reference, Sag A* is about 0.0007% of our galaxies mass. It's gravitational attraction on our solar system is completely insignificant compared to the rest of the galaxies mass.

Our solar system orbits the galaxy at about 230000 m/s. Sag A*'s escape velocity at our orbital radius is about 2090 m/s. If the rest of the galaxy vanished, we would go flying out into intergalactic space, since we aren't even close to being gravitationally bound to the black hole.

Not really. For interstellar asteroids you're looking at transit times between star systems measured in millions of years. Nuclear power isn't going to last that long. Frankly, neither is human technology. If people did somehow survive on an asteroid for millions of years, they wouldn't have any cultural memory left of how they got there or why and they would have evolved to be substantially different than humans on Earth - which they might find at their destination anyway, if Earth humans develop faster propulsion methods.

Asteroids are not traveling nearly fast enough to be useful to transit from one place to another.

Realize you're talking about transit times measured in millions of years.

Even at these slow speeds, we basically get one shot to intercept it before its out of reach. There is no time to slowly launch many smaller probes to it, or build up a base on it.

Landing a probe on one doesn't save any fuel, because the probe has to match the trajectory of the asteroid in the first place - which means its going wherever the asteroid is going already.

Quantum teleportation is the transmission of a quantum state from one location to another through a classical communication channel. What does that have to do with information transmission through entanglement?

The 2022 Nobel prize in physics did no such thing. It wasn't about information transfer at all. It also isn't new - Nobel prizes are awarded for important work, not new work. On average Nobel prizes are awarded about 15-20 years after a work is published, if that work proves to be important enough. This one did, but its not some breakthrough that we didn't understand until now - it was awarded for work in 80s and 90s that has been the status quo in quantum physics for decades - and that physics, including the physics the prize was awarded for - confirm that no information can be transferred through entanglement.

The most recent paper cited by the Nobel committee in their summary of the work the prize was awarded for was published in 1999.

If there is anything at all important to understand about entanglement it is that it does not transfer information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem

Why would redshift corrupt the data? It just changes the frequency.

If you watch the carrier frequency of a satellite broadcast using a radio spectrum analyzer as it goes overhead you can watch it drift up and down. Satellite comms work just fine.

Hallucinations have nothing to do with space-time.

It's just pressure. Gasses expand until the pressure is equalized. As the rocket gets higher, the exhaust gasses expand more as the ambient pressure gets lower.

Vertically launching rockets try to get out of the dense atmosphere as quickly as possible, so an air breathing engine wouldn't work for very long - Falcon 9 is above 30000 ft about 1 minute after launch, and above 50000 ft 20 seconds later. The added cost and complexity of another stage for such a short period of the flight aren't really worth it.

A planet near the black hole would experience time much slower, not faster. Being in a gravity well slows down time relative to a point far away from it.

Not a single professional in that thread said that manufacturing will move entirely into space.

Putting it in space makes it really easy.

Put the person in a black box. We don't care what happens in the box.

A bullet flies out of the box with momentum +p, the box must gain momentum -p. There is no way around this.

Voyager will be completely dead tens of thousands of years before it reaches the proximity of another star..

The scenarios look absolutely nothing alike once you consider any of the physics involved at all. It's one of those ideas that sounds great when you're stoned but doesn't really work.

The light from any such explosion would have arrived before they did and would be long gone by now.

You cannot travel faster than light. It is not possible for an object to travel from Andromeda to Earth faster than light does so.

There are tens of meteorites visible on any given night from any given location, only the most spectacular get any media coverage.

Black holes are too small, JWST doesn't have anywhere near the optical resolution to take a picture of one.

The Event Horizon Telescope has an effective angular resolution about 1000 times better than JWST.