explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

3050: Atom

2025-02-15T13:47:34Z

141.101.104.79: /* Explanation */

{{distinguish|1490: Atoms}}
{{comic
| number = 3050
| date = February 12, 2025
| title = Atom
| image = atom_2x.png
| imagesize = 281x385px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = What's weirder is that muons turned out to be INCREDIBLY cute.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a wobbly and wet BOT - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
Atoms are typically very, very small, and [[1490: Atoms|generally]] cannot be seen with the naked eye nor individually discernable with human hands (despite almost all things that they can touch, and even themselves, being ''made'' of atoms). The humor here comes from the fact that atoms, normally intangible in a singular form, have been given a large physical presence that apparently feels gross and nonsensical. The characters in the comic have found this out using a so-called "quantum expander device" which would be a huge advance in modern physics (and possibly quite dangerous) if it existed, but unfortunately/fortunately it does not.

Although electrons are often depicted as orbiting an atomic nucleus very similarly to how planets orbit the Sun, this is an extremely simplistic model of how the electrons are positioned. Students are often taught a succession of more complex models over several years of schooling. In reality, [[2100: Models of the Atom|current understanding of]] the behavior of electrons is ruled by quantum mechanics and {{w|Uncertainty_principle|Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle}}. An electron doesn't have a single exact location relative to the nucleus; rather, its location is probabilistic. It can be considered to be "smeared out", with specific locations in space having higher or lower concentrations. This is often visualized to be similar to how a meteorological cloud can be dense or thin. It's often depicted by showing the shapes of the electron density patterns with varying intensities of color, or densely-packed dots vs. spread-out dots. This is sometimes referred to as the "electron cloud model", though electrons aren't ''really'' composed of tiny droplets. A cloud in the sky contains water, [https://gpm.nasa.gov/resources/faq/what-are-clouds-made-are-they-more-likely-form-polluted-air-or-pristine-air] and is often assumed to be wet, but could be anything from vapour to ice-crystals. The feel of wetness is also a lot more complicated than we might think. Everybody knows what something wet feels like,{{Citation needed}} but there are no "wetness"-detecting cells in the skin. Apparently the brain uses various clues like temperature and pressure, along with past experiences, to determine when something feels "wet". [https://issuu.com/university_of_southampton/docs/reaction_magazine_winter_2021/s/14454287]

There are mathematical techniques known as "quantum expanders" which reveal more detail and better understanding about the statistical probabilities of the "quantum cloud". The joke is that someone created a device that actually expands the atom to a scale that it can be held in one's hands and the electron cloud could be felt.

Scientists generally wear latex gloves when touching certain subjects of study, certainly those that are expected to be damp, and perhaps [[Ponytail]] and [[Cueball]] should be doing that here.

The size of a mid-sized atom can be estimated as between 100 and 200 picometer ({{w|Atomic radii of the elements (data page)|full data table}}). Assuming an iron atom of ~150 pm size, to enlarge it up to a ~60-70 cm size as it is displayed in the comic, one would have to enlarge it by a factor of ca. 4 trillion. Doing the same enlargement with a ~2mm diameter peppercorn would enlarge that seed to a planet rivaling the Earth.

The title text expands on this, claiming that muons, a type of subatomic particle, apparently are "cute" despite ordinarily being subatomic particles with a mean lifetime of 2.2 microseconds, [[3043: Muons|give or take]]. Muons might be considered cute because they're small — like electrons and tau particles, they are considered to be point phenomena at the quantum level with no practical physical size (at or below {{w|Planck units#Planck length|subatomic Planck-scale}}), although ''possibly'' that (and the time they last) changes as a function of the quantum expander being applied to them. It might possibly also reference a certain way of pronouncing "muon", which starts with a "mew" sound, which in turn is associated with kittens (and {{w|Mew (Pokémon)|a fairly cute Pokémon}}).

In reality/practice, touching oversized electrons is not recommended - as that may result in electric discharges - or protons being "ripped" out of your body and falling on the oversized electron, while normal electrons are "ripped" out of your body and scattered elsewhere (due to the oversized electron having proportionately bigger attraction and repulsion compared to normal-sized particles). In other words - you will be disintegrated and electrocuted, and a giant explosion will occur. Oversized electrons may also behave like [https://what-if.xkcd.com/140/ piles of densely packed electrons]. Oversizing a proton would also be dangerous for roughly same reasons - except this time, electrons wold fall on oversized proton, while normal protons would get scattered. Presumably, it's advisable to practice Quantum Expanding with neutrons instead, as it shouldn't react as violently to normal-sized particles.

However, a free neutron decays with a mean lifetime of about 14 minutes, converting part of its mass to 0.78 MeV energy. If the neutron was scaled up to the mass of a tennis ball, it would weigh about 57 grams. If the decay energy was scaled up by the same factor, it would release about 25 orders of magnitude more energy upon decay: 1kT TNT equivalent or half the force of the 2020 Beirut explosion.

Upscaling muons or quarks to size of watermelon may be utterly disastrous - even more so than packed electrons - as they are the very foundation of physics laws; potentially, it may destroy entire Universe. On top of that, upscaling quark to size of watermelon will ruin color symmetry - as 2 quarks are now left without third quark, and big quark is now alone. That was explained in [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Fridge/HarryPotterAndTheMethodsOfRationality HPtMoR chapter 119] and [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/GameBreaker/TheWorldOfDarkness particularly munchkinish build of World of Darkness vampire mad scientist]. Possibly, such destructive capacity of oversized muons (despite their "cuteness") may be part of the joke - as {{w|Mew (Pokémon)|a fairly cute Pokémon}} in question was powerful "legendary Pokemon".

==Transcript==
:[Cueball is holding in one hand, away from himself, an atom approximately the size of his head with shaky lines drawn around the atom. Ponytail has her hand near the atom and her other hand above her chin. Lines near the edge of the atom near her hand indicates the atom is wobbling. Hairy stands to the right of Ponytail.]
:Cueball: Ugh, the electron cloud is so weird and wobbly! I hate it!
:Ponytail: Why is it so wet? How can it even ''be'' wet?
:Hairy: I don't want to do physics anymore.

:[Caption below the panel:]
:When our lab was building the quantum expander device, we didn't expect our first discovery to be "atoms are really gross."

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Comics featuring Cueball]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Ponytail]]
[[Category:Comics featuring Hairy]]
[[Category:Physics]]
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Comics sharing name|Atom02]]

2956: Number Line Branch

2024-07-11T00:28:04Z

141.101.104.79: symbol descriptions as letters are a big stretch; info about Boston express trains is tangential at best

{{comic
| number = 2956
| date = July 8, 2024
| title = Number Line Branch
| image = number_line_branch_2x.png
| imagesize = 469x235px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Attention all passengers: This is an express sequence to infinity. If your stop is not a power of two, please disembark now.
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a SECOND BOT TO REDUCE CONGESTION - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic likens the {{w|number line}} to a line of a railroad or subway system. These often have branches where different trains continue on to a different destination, with different stops along the way. In the number line, one branch (presumably the original) contains ordinary numbers, while the newly opened branch consists of some completely different numbers, denoted with various symbols as an analogue to those we use as digits. The branches seem to split at π. The new branch proceeds slightly more quickly than the traditional numerical branch.

The sequence ending with a bold mark at Δ (whereas the original number line fades out) suggests that it is the end of this branching sequence. Mathematicians, apparently, could only afford to construct 5 additional numbers, or their research hasn't yet found other numbers.

The title text makes a parallel between a train stopping at a station and a numerical sequence "stopping" at a number – that is, taking it as a value. It's a spoof of announcements that are typically made on trains, so that riders can confirm that they're on a train that goes to their desired station; an "express train" typically makes fewer stops so it can serve the most popular stops and reach its final destination sooner. In this case, the express train only stops at powers of 2; presumably the "local" stops at every integer. Powers of 2 are 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and so on, such that the interval between stops grows exponentially larger.

Mathematically, an express train like this would get to its scheduled stops much faster, but it would not actually have any fewer stops overall. Mathematicians that study infinities generally regard all "countably" infinite sets as being the same "size." Infinity is not a fixed value, rather it's the concept of "does not end," so it's paradoxical to try to take a train to a destination that is, by definition, not a single destination. By way of analogue, it's akin to promising to stop hitting your little brother only after you've done so forever.

A fictional number was previously shown in [[899: Number Line]] ("gird"), and fictional ''numerals'' were shown in [[2206: Mavis Beacon]]. And similar treatment of mathematics as public infrastructure was seen in [[2735: Coordinate Plane Closure]].

==Transcript==
{{incomplete transcript|Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
:[The number line for natural numbers, going from 0 to 10 and trailing off, with a marker at 0 to indicate that it is the start of the sequence. At about pi, the line branches off into a second line, which contains five odd-looking symbols, and stops at the fifth one. The first, below 4, is a square, the second is a pi rotated 90° counterclockwise, the third resembles a closed phi, the fourth is a spiral, and the fifth is a triangle.]

:[Caption below the panel:]
:Good news!
:After thousands of years, mathematicians have finally opened a second branch on the number line to reduce congestion.

{{comic discussion}}

[[Category:Math]]

Talk:2696: Precision vs Accuracy

2024-02-21T13:07:38Z

141.101.104.79:

87.532% of all statistics are just made up. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.220|172.70.178.220]] 11:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is 'Barack Obama is 6'1"' and 'Barack Obama has 4 legs' medium precision? It seems to give exact value, so high precision. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 11:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
: OK, I get it. 6'1" means something between 6'0.50" and 6'1.49". For height it's OK, but when counting legs, it seems like a stretch. [[User:Tkopec|Tkopec]] ([[User talk:Tkopec|talk]]) 12:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: The four legs are probably considered to be only medium precise, not because of the number but because of the imprecise term "leg". While humans can walk on all four extremities, thereby using them as legs, the upper two are commonly referred to as arms. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:: (ECed by Bischoff) Plus a person's height (excluding differences to footwear and perhaps hairstyle) varies by an inch or so over the course of a day, as the spine compresses whilst mostly upright (would depend a bit upon your daily activities, but "an inch" or 2-3cm is the typical quoted value, with all the questions about precision ''as well as'' accuracy). Within an inch of such a foot-and-inch value is basically between slightly over a percentage point of drift across a continuum of ultimately non-integer values.
:: The number of legs is ''generally'' a whole number (perhaps lower-limb amputees could claim "half a leg", but is that for above the knee or below or... that's beyond my wish to define, I would leave it up to the individual amputee to finesse to their own liking) and assigning decimals, even .000(recurring), would be ''over-''precise. A definite plain figure (however inaccurate) being the happy and acceptable medium between that and the vague imprecision (never mind inaccuracy) of the kind in the cell below. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::The medium is because it says most, and not all! --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::::It says "most cats", indeed, but the above was about Obama, singular. Though I think it's covered anyway... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::All the statements about 'Barack Obama' ought to be medium precision at best, because there could be more than one Barack Obama, and it doesn't give any further contextualisation to identify, for example 'the Barack Obama who was president of the United States of America'. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.157|141.101.107.157]] 09:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
: Compare with 6'1"1/50 or 4.0000 legs, both of which would imply a higher degree of certainty.--[[Special:Contributions/162.158.126.204|162.158.126.204]] 08:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Someone should add an explanation of the difference between precision and accuracy. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 13:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:Tried it myself. Maybe made it too compact, but I often go on too long so I tried made it as brief and snappy as I felt I could. Over to other editors to rewrite or replace. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
::That there is confusion over this was a bit of a surprise to me, about 20 years ago, when I worked (as I did for many years) in the outdoor pursuits trade. GPS units would give a 12-character grid reference (1m<sup>2</sup>), but couldn't be relied upon to that level. I would tell people they're more precise than they are accurate, until it became apparent that they were waiting for me to complete the joke they thought I'd begun, as I was so clearly contradicting myself, what with the two words meaning identical things.
::Having gone on to explain the difference between the words, the neat brevity I'd sought was lost.
::Obviously they can be used sort of interchangeably in casual conversation, but I thought the difference was well enough known that, when talking about a navigational instrument, it would be obvious what was meant.
::Nope. [[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 20:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:::I deal with OS Grid References a lot, in a similar context, and a number of people who give 10-digits or more (2x5, for 1m res) from devices that typically don't ever settle down to less than 3m, and provably can be tens of metres off if there happens to be a small tree or shrub nearby.
:::(In fact, the other day I was geohashing myself, and my device was insisting I was in a totally different bit of the open field, 50m or so, no matter how much I sat it down at the provably correct point and wandered away so that even ''I'' wasn't obscuring its view of the sky. But it was good enough for me, which was all I do it for, so after giving it 5 minutes I counted it as done.)
:::And, in yet another activity, the publicised information for an event included a 12ish-DP reference for the starting area (vaguer than that), but just the ''postcode'' for the HQ (a very definite building that you could bullseye on a map), in a rural area where it covered half the valley! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 22:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

How is 17.082 palindromic? [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
:My error, I meant an anagram! (Was going for "anagramic", and my brain clearly rebelled.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.137|172.71.178.137]] 15:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

High Precision High accuracy, Randall Munroe misses when Obama was president. Low precision Medium-rare accuracy, so do we, Randall, so do we. {{unsigned ip|172.70.130.154 }}

It is so annoying that the US uses . and , to mean the opposite of what most European countries (including Denmark where I live). So when I read this it states that Obama was president less than 3 days (70 hours) but it more than 70000 feet tall. :-) Of course I now the difference but I have to think about it more than if everyone used the same standard. Also height should use SI units as everyone should ;-) (weight given in number of cats is the new SI unit as far as I know, but don't use inches and feet ;-D ) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 08:17, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Well, as a UKian, I was happy enough. Tell you what, though, let's develop a [[927: Standards|new and mutually-acceptable standard notation]]... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 09:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
::Good idea. Lets meet on [[2562|11/12/22]] to discuss the details. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 13:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I think Randall missed an opportunity to clarify how high precision can make something inaccurate. He could have said that Obama is 6’ 1.02173” tall, which would clearly be very precise, and also clearly inaccurate, simply because of the excessive precision. [[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 15:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:Saying 6'1.0278 would have been more in theme, there. And it would be not really more inaccurate (might even be closer to the truth...) but would convey a false precision.
:Interstingly, when Andrew Waugh measured Mount Everest (before it was so named) he got a diffraction-adjusted figure of 29,000 feet, but decided to announced that it was 29,002 so that it didn't just like a rough figure rounded to the nearest hundred or even thousand feet. This made him the first person to put two feet on the top of Everest!
:(...The actual error was not bad, given his measurements had to be made from hundreds of miles away. Current official measurements with on-the-spot modern GPS say 29,031.7 feet (for the snow-peak, which is all that Waugh could mention), after 170ish years of (by some estimates, but contested) about a foot of extra height per decade through the continuing techtonic raising of the Himalaya. And any unknown differences in snow-depth. Certainly it was within tens of feet, i.e. a dozen or so metres. With a bit of an error-bar, but not really that big when you consider it...)
: So, arguably, that case was a deliberately false accuracy to help convey the true precision. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.3|172.70.90.3]] 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
:I don't get your point? Unless you just made up everything after the decimal point: How would it be less acurate? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::The only thing I can imagine is, that these kinds of numbers happen due to conversions. E.g. 6ft1in would be 185.42cm (according to the first calculator I found), but it is unlikely that 6ft1in was as precise as a cm-value with 2 digits after the decimal point would be. And in the other direction 185cm (which would be the usual precision of a height in m or cm - while 186cm could still be correct as it would be 6ft1in in the "usual precision") would calculate as 6ft and 0.83in --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 10:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::If Obama's height is provided with this much precision, you can assume that the numbers are made up. 0.0278 inches are - in real measure units ;-) - 0.07mm. That's the diameter of a strain of hair. Nobody's height gets measured to that kind of precision. [[User:Kimmerin|Kimmerin]] ([[User talk:Kimmerin|talk]]) 08:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the current explanation's claim that 'being too precise usually decreases accuracy' is, er, accurate (or perhaps it's just imprecise). It might be reasonable to claim that increasing precision tends to decrease accuracy relative to the level of precision, but not so much in absolute terms, or even necessarily relative to the size of the thing being measured.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.156|141.101.107.156]] 09:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:I think it's badly phrased. The assumed accuracy can be degraded and disadvantageous.
:For example, to use someone's figures from just above, looking for an individual with a height of 185.42cm might seem to rule out the one that you find is 185.57cm tall, though they are indeed the one initially measured/estimated at 6'1" and would definitely be within an inch or so in this latest attempt to match them.
:An old phrase that I grew up with is "don't try to be accurate over inaccurate details" (courtesy of a chemistry teacher, where we frequently used mmol-like measurements in analyses like titrations). The number of articles that say "the probe flew past the asteroid at a distance of about 20 miles (32.187 kilometres) ...", where clearly the accuracy is misleading, especially if the conversion ends up being back-converted by someone else with no idea ("...which is 20.0000746 miles"), and may have come from an ''original'' figure actually deliberately pegged at 35km (21.748 miles!), within a few metres or less.
:Really, you should be taking the level of precision/accuracy inherent in the initial values, preserving the awkward fractions throughout the intermediate steps ''and'' converting the inherent ranges by the same process then clearly presenting the final figure to no more exactitude than the initial smudge of "all actual values that would be given by this type of input value", and maybe less. The write-up might be then be realistically "...of around 21¾ miles (35km)", if using a better primary source, or "20 miles (~30km)" in a case of the detail already being likely lost by intermediate chinese-whispers.
:But this is what confuses people. And how even those that are not confused can confuse others... [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.10|172.70.86.10]] 12:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
::It gets even better when different units also use different 0s. So for a persons height we can assume that as 0ft0in and 0cm is the same, 185cm is one order of magnitude more precise than 6ft1in, as it is 3 significant digits vs 2 at the same height. However a persons body temperature in 38°C with 2 significant digits and 311K with 3 is the same level of precision and only .15°C (Or .15K) apart, while 100°F (37.77...°C) is also very close but a bit more precise. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 14:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
:::One of many reasons that Celsius and Fahrenheit are not considered as true units - their connection to kelvins is affine, not linear. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.142.75|172.71.142.75]] 05:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Acknowledging that Celsius degrees equal Kelvin degrees, which remains a useful equivalence, even though degrees Celsius does not equal degrees Kelvin. (Ditto with Fahrenheit and Rankine.)
::::...and I'm partial to Delisle, anyway. ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.134|172.70.162.134]] 11:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I was expecting maybe a reference to Schrödinger's President when I first read the comic - but later realized that this could have been misconstrued as a threat. Oops!

As far as I recall, isn't the transcript supposed to avoid tables? I understand blind people with text reading programs use the transcripts to follow this comic, and thus it should avoid visual elements wherever possible? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 04:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
:Generally, yes, though some useful additional description went in before I might have 'flattened' the description again, and there are ther extant table-transcripts
:Best practice would be to not rely on screen-readers to say nice informative things about tabulation and instead say it all explicitly (like they can't be relied on parsing MathML stuff), but there's good manual description and bad, too. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.25|172.70.85.25]] 13:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In the fewer-legs-than-your-cat category, any interest in adding a link to the "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" riddle often attributed to Lincoln? The best link I found is https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/11/15/legs/ which makes it clear the riddle was already in circulation by 1825, well before Lincoln's usage. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.163|108.162.246.163]] 05:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

If you only look at the squares that mention cats, the resulting shape resembles a basic glider from Conway's Game of Life. I don't know how much this has to do with the comic but it feels like the sort of nerd shit that is worth mentioning. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.60|108.162.221.60]] 13:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
:I came to this page to mention the fact only to find that I already did. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.104.79|141.101.104.79]] 13:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

most obamas have hundreds of legs in their cat [[User:Squishmallow fan|Squishmallow fan]] ([[User talk:Squishmallow fan|talk]]) 21:48, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

1446: Landing

2014-11-12T10:22:49Z

141.101.104.79: /* Transcript */

{{comic
| number = 1446
| date = November 12, 2014
| title = ???
| image = ???.png
| titletext = ...
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Buckle up, boys.}}
This comic changes over time, tracking the progress of The [http://www.esa.int European Space Agency's] Rosetta Spacecraft Lander. Frames of the comic began appearing at midnight (EST) on November 12, 2014 and updated every five minutes. Together, the images form a [http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip_book flip book].

==Frame by Frame Breakdown==
{| class="wikitable plainlinks table-padding"
|-
!Image
!Day/Time
|-
|[[Media:???.png|00:00:00]]||1/00:00:00
|-
|[[Media:???2.png|00:05:00]]||1/00:05:00
|-
|[[Media:???3.png|00:10:00]]||1/00:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???4.png|00:15:00]]||1/00:15:00
|-
|[[Media:???5.png|00:20:00]]||1/00:20:00
|-
|[[Media:???6.png|00:25:00]]||1/00:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???7.png|00:30:00]]||1/00:30:00
|-
|[[Media:???8.png|00:35:00]]||1/00:35:00
|-
|[[Media:???9.png|00:40:00]]||1/00:40:00
|-
|[[Media:???10.png|00:45:00]]||1/00:45:00
|-
|[[Media:???11.png|00:50:00]]||1/00:50:00
|-
|[[Media:???12.png|00:55:00]]||1/00:55:00
|-
|[[Media:???13.png|01:00:00]]||1/01:00:00
|-
|[[Media:???14.png|01:05:00]]||1/01:05:00
|-
|[[Media:???15.png|01:10:00]]||1/01:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???16.png|01:15:00]]||1/01:15:00
|-
|[[Media:???17.png|01:20:00]]||1/01:20:00
|-
|[[Media:???18.png|01:25:00]]||1/01:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???19.png|01:30:00]]||1/01:30:00
|-
|[[Media:???20.png|01:35:00]]||1/01:35:00
|-
|[[Media:???21.png|01:40:00]]||1/01:40:00
|-
|[[Media:???22.png|01:45:00]]||1/01:45:00
|-
|[[Media:???23.png|01:50:00]]||1/01:50:00
|-
|[[Media:???24.png|01:55:00]]||1/01:55:00
|-
|[[Media:???25.png|02:00:00]]||1/02:00:00
|-
|[[Media:???26.png|02:05:00]]||1/02:05:00
|-
|[[Media:???27.png|02:10:00]]||1/02:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???28.png|02:15:00]]||1/02:15:00
|-
|[[Media:???29.png|02:20:00]]||1/02:20:00
|-
|[[Media:???30.png|02:25:00]]||1/02:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???31.png|02:30:00]]||1/02:30:00
|-
|[[Media:???32.png|02:35:00]]||1/02:35:00
|-
|[[Media:???33.png|02:40:00]]||1/02:40:00
|-
|[[Media:???34.png|02:45:00]]||1/02:45:00
|-
|[[Media:???35.png|02:50:00]]||1/02:50:00
|-
|[[Media:???36.png|02:55:00]]||1/02:55:00
|-
|[[Media:???37.png|03:00:00]]||1/03:00:00
|-
|[[Media:???38.png|03:05:00]]||1/03:05:00
|-
|[[Media:???39.png|03:10:00]]||1/03:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???40.png|03:25:00]]||1/03:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???41.png|03:35:00]]||1/03:35:00
|-
|[[Media:???42.png|03:40:00]]||1/03:40:00
|-
|[[Media:???43.png|03:50:00]]||1/03:50:00
|-
|[[Media:???44.png|04:10:00]]||1/04:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???45.png|04:15:00]]||1/04:15:00
|-
|[[Media:???46.png|04:20:00]]||1/04:20:00
|-
|[[Media:???47.png|04:25:00]]||1/04:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???48.png|04:30:00]]||1/04:30:00
|-
|[[Media:???49.png|04:35:00]]||1/04:35:00
|-
|[[Media:???50.png|04:40:00]]||1/04:40:00
|-
|[[Media:???51.png|04:45:00]]||1/04:45:00
|-
|[[Media:???52.png|04:50:00]]||1/04:50:00
|-
|[[Media:???53.png|04:55:00]]||1/04:55:00
|-
|[[Media:???54.png|10:00:00]]||1/10:00:00
|-
|[[Media:???55.png|10:10:00]]||1/10:10:00
|-
|[[Media:???56.png|10:15:00]]||1/10:15:00
|-
|[[Media:???57.png|10:20:00]]||1/10:20:00
|-
|[[Media:???58.png|10:25:00]]||1/10:25:00
|-
|[[Media:???59.png|10:30:00]]||1/10:30:00
|-
|[[Media:???60.png|10:35:00]]||1/10:35:00
|}

==Transcript==
00:35:00
:Rosetta: Three hours to separation
00:45:00
:Philae: Has anyone ever tried this before?
00:50:00
:Rosetta: I don't think so.
01:25:00
:Rosetta: Ready to begin pre-delivery burn.
02:20:00
:Rosetta: We are ''go'' for separation!
02:25:00
:Rosetta: We are ''go'' for separation!
:Philae: ''Yessss!''
03:05:00
:Philae: Can I just go now?
03:25:00
:Rosetta: Well it's been a fun 10 years together.
03:35:00
:Rosetta: Well it's been a fun 10 years together.
:Philae: Yeah! ... a little boring maybe.
03:50:00
:Rosetta: Ok, turning on ''concert''. I'll send you signals through the comet, once you're down there, so we can measure what's inside it.
:Philae: Assuming comets even ''have'' insides!
:Rosetta: I'm, uh, pretty sure they do.
04:10:00
:Philae: ''Wheee!''
04:15:00
:Rosetta: Quick, take a picture of me!
:Philae: Just take a selfie
:Rosetta: Can't. No front-facing camera
10:00:00
:Rosetta: Bye

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Dynamic comics]]