explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2847: Dendrochronology

2023-11-04T12:26:47Z

172.69.79.143:

Hello wonderful person. IYKYK

Is the set of bones supposed to signify something? Human perhaps? I see vertebrae. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.30|172.70.46.30]] 13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: The bones depicted appear to represent a subset of "generalized vertebrate animal", including arm, leg, and jaw bones in addition to the vertebrae. Humans are cited as prey species, but the bones in this specimen are far too small to be human. If a typical tree ring is 2 mm wide, the 1635 CE ring would have to be 40 mm wide to accommodate a 20 mm diameter human femur with free space, as shown. The ring is ca. 12 mm wide. This tree ate smaller vertebrates. Of course, different tree species likely had different prey ranges, as with carnivorous animals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: Yes, that's what he means by "carnivorous", he's claiming that one year this tree was eating humans, those bones are the remains of those humans. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:: "Carnivorous" doesn't ''necessarily'' mean "man-eater". It's eating creatures (and generally you'd go for "insectivorous" for certain eater-of-invertibrate diets, but it'll probably cover consuming anything in the Animal Kingdom, fish, fowl, etc). He actually only claims one ''human'' was eaten (the eponymous researcher of the phenomenon), even if it was possible that others also got fatally surprised by it. But it could be any arboreal creature (and maybe some unwise unarboreal but tree-adjacent ones). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.8|162.158.34.8]] 18:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Carnivore" can indeed apply to creatures that aren't herbivores (animal vs plant consumption), although a common connotation is "a consumer of vertebrate animals, especially mammals, captured live." Subsets exist, for instance piscivores (fish eaters) and insectivores. The caption's "horrible summer of 1635" implies widespread predation of trees on humans, even if only one such human is (facetiously) named, and the specimen shown is too small (or the wrong tree species) to attack H. sapiens. The proximity of the date of publication of this comic to 31 October is perhaps not to be neglected. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.187|172.70.211.187]] 04:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::: True, carnivorous doesn't MEAN humans, just means "meat-eater", but that seems to be the implication here. :) The fact that he calls it "horrible" means he was talking about humans (people wouldn't be THAT concerned over animals being eaten, animals eat each other all the time). Obviously if this were to happen, wildlife would certainly be included among the victims, they roam the woods more, LOL! But the tone of "There was that ONE horrible summer..." (just picturing a faraway haunted look in their eyes), yeah, he's referring to humans. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:::: Nevertheless, the sample of bones there cannot be IDed as human. The skulls are not, and ''perhaps'' some positive scale inference can be made, but even that enlarged ring doesn't seem right for the long-bones (if that's what they are) or vertebrae being human. The question being if "seeing vertebrae" meant human, and the answer was implied by the use of that word is thus a non-sequitur and not related. Yes, there were man-eating-trees (or at least a tree eating one man/woman/child who was both insightful and yet blind to xanger), but probably not directly illustrated.

So this tree was cut down in late 1642? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.182|172.70.42.182]] 13:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: Its year of death was indeed 1642 CE per dendrochronology. As for being cut down ... given the dense layer of calcium phosphate in the sapwood, and the saws available in the mid-1600s, the question "how?" [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2023/10/27/amoebas-lorica-dendrochr-ohno-logy/ is nontrivial]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
: Wouldn't the bark make it 1643? Isn't a ring a complete year, the bark is the current year's ring forming? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:: The bark is on the other side of the {{w|vascular cambium}} from the xylem tissue, so it isn't part of a tree ring and doesn't count as a year, as I understand the matter. However, the drawing does permit the interpretation that a ring is forming under the bark. Since the bulk of a tree ring normally forms at the beginning of a growing season, this would indicate that the tree died in the first couple of months of the local growing season in 1643 CE. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.112|172.70.210.112]] 08:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So is the year 1635 a reference to some real event, or just totally random? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.230.26|162.158.230.26]] 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:If it was totally random it would have been 4AD! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.5|141.101.99.5]] 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:at first I thought maybe the {{w|Carrington Event}} (similar but smaller EM storm as Miyake events), but that was 1859. The only vaguely related thing I saw for 1635 was the first recorded US hurricane... you might say I'm Stumped (and if that's the meta joke here, insert Capt Kirk "Khan!" clip here, with the subtitle "Monroe!") - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.39|172.68.34.39]] 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the carnivorous trees aren't true trees. They are part of the same species as broccoli and kale. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.48|172.69.247.48]] 22:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
: Sorry, that hypothesis has been falsified. [https://xkcd.com/2827/ Despite Randall's best efforts]. (Sly of you.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.214|172.70.206.214]] 04:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2847: Dendrochronology

2023-11-04T12:25:43Z

172.69.79.143:

Hello wonderful person. IYKYK

Is the set of bones supposed to signify something? Human perhaps? I see vertebrae. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.46.30|172.70.46.30]] 13:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: The bones depicted appear to represent a subset of "generalized vertebrate animal", including arm, leg, and jaw bones in addition to the vertebrae. Humans are cited as prey species, but the bones in this specimen are far too small to be human. If a typical tree ring is 2 mm wide, the 1635 CE ring would have to be 40 mm wide to accommodate a 20 mm diameter human femur with free space, as shown. The ring is ca. 12 mm wide. This tree ate smaller vertebrates. Of course, different tree species likely had different prey ranges, as with carnivorous animals. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: Yes, that's what he means by "carnivorous", he's claiming that one year this tree was eating humans, those bones are the remains of those humans. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:: "Carnivorous" doesn't ''necessarily'' mean "man-eater". It's eating creatures (and generally you'd go for "insectivorous" for certain eater-of-invertibrate diets, but it'll probably cover consuming anything in the Animal Kingdom, fish, fowl, etc). He actually only claims one ''human'' was eaten (the eponymous researcher of the phenomenon), even if it was possible that others also got fatally surprised by it. But it could be any arboreal creature (and maybe some unwise unarboreal but tree-adjacent ones). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.34.8|162.158.34.8]] 18:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
::: "Carnivore" can indeed apply to creatures that aren't herbivores (animal vs plant consumption), although a common connotation is "a consumer of vertebrate animals, especially mammals, captured live." Subsets exist, for instance piscivores (fish eaters) and insectivores. The caption's "horrible summer of 1635" implies widespread predation of trees on humans, even if only one such human is (facetiously) named, and the specimen shown is too small (or the wrong tree species) to attack H. sapiens. The proximity of the date of publication of this comic to 31 October is perhaps not to be neglected. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.187|172.70.211.187]] 04:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
::: True, carnivorous doesn't MEAN humans, just means "meat-eater", but that seems to be the implication here. :) The fact that he calls it "horrible" means he was talking about humans (people wouldn't be THAT concerned over animals being eaten, animals eat each other all the time). Obviously if this were to happen, wildlife would certainly be included among the victims, they roam the woods more, LOL! But the tone of "There was that ONE horrible summer..." (just picturing a faraway haunted look in their eyes), yeah, he's referring to humans. :) [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
:::: Nevertheless, the sample of bones there cannot be IDed as human (the skulls are not, and ''perhaps'' some scale inference can be made, but even that enlarged ring doesn't seem right for the long-bones (if that's what they are) or vertebrae being human. The question being if "seeing vertebrae" meant human, and the answer was implied by the use of that word is thus a non-sequitur and not related. Yes, there were man-eating-trees (or at least a tree eating one man/woman/child who was both insightful and yet blind to xanger), but probably not directly illustrated.

So this tree was cut down in late 1642? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.182|172.70.42.182]] 13:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

: Its year of death was indeed 1642 CE per dendrochronology. As for being cut down ... given the dense layer of calcium phosphate in the sapwood, and the saws available in the mid-1600s, the question "how?" [https://www.dude-n-dude.com/2023/10/27/amoebas-lorica-dendrochr-ohno-logy/ is nontrivial]. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.220|172.70.206.220]] 16:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
: Wouldn't the bark make it 1643? Isn't a ring a complete year, the bark is the current year's ring forming? [[User:NiceGuy1|NiceGuy1]] ([[User talk:NiceGuy1|talk]]) 06:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:: The bark is on the other side of the {{w|vascular cambium}} from the xylem tissue, so it isn't part of a tree ring and doesn't count as a year, as I understand the matter. However, the drawing does permit the interpretation that a ring is forming under the bark. Since the bulk of a tree ring normally forms at the beginning of a growing season, this would indicate that the tree died in the first couple of months of the local growing season in 1643 CE. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.210.112|172.70.210.112]] 08:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

So is the year 1635 a reference to some real event, or just totally random? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.230.26|162.158.230.26]] 17:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:If it was totally random it would have been 4AD! [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.5|141.101.99.5]] 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
:at first I thought maybe the {{w|Carrington Event}} (similar but smaller EM storm as Miyake events), but that was 1859. The only vaguely related thing I saw for 1635 was the first recorded US hurricane... you might say I'm Stumped (and if that's the meta joke here, insert Capt Kirk "Khan!" clip here, with the subtitle "Monroe!") - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.39|172.68.34.39]] 19:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the carnivorous trees aren't true trees. They are part of the same species as broccoli and kale. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.48|172.69.247.48]] 22:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
: Sorry, that hypothesis has been falsified. [https://xkcd.com/2827/ Despite Randall's best efforts]. (Sly of you.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.206.214|172.70.206.214]] 04:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:177: Alice and Bob

2023-10-29T23:38:59Z

172.69.79.143:

This part: "but everything from the public-key authenticated signatures on the files to the lipstick heart smeared on the disk screamed "Alice." " reminds me of the song Alice by Tom Waits. May or may not be intentional.
[[Special:Contributions/108.162.242.120|108.162.242.120]] 18:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The title text refers to comic 153, the first time Randall claimes to be banned from a conference (others to follow, e.g. comics 463 and 541).
And I don't consider this comic to have a "twist ending" revealing that it's Eve talking. She says that she is commonly being labelled the attacker in the very first panel. --[[User:YMS|YMS]] ([[User talk:YMS|talk]]) 15:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Is Danish's name actually Eve? They seem to look the same, and have the same character. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.5|108.162.246.5]] 17:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Would that make [[Black Hat|Black Hat]] Bob? And who would be Alice? [[Special:Contributions/173.245.55.76|173.245.55.76]] 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

None of them because they aren't the same characters! -Pennpenn [[Special:Contributions/108.162.250.162|108.162.250.162]] 00:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In addition to the obvious cryptography naming convention, I thought there was a reference to the 1969 movie classic Bob&Carol&Ted&Alice about infidelity and partners swapping. The climax scene has all 4 climb to bed together with Bob and Alice (married, but not to each other) kissing passionately. The movie inspired a genre of sexual comedies, and to this day, calling out a few of the names with a "&" between is used as a euphemism for "too sexually liberal for their own good." [[User:Danshoham|Mountain Hikes]] ([[User talk:Danshoham|talk]]) 16:13, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

;Isn't she Danish?

She looks very similar to the character called [[Danish]] after an enigmatic remark in [[515]]. But here she is called Eve. Shouldn't we rename the character everywhere? [[Special:Contributions/162.158.102.137|162.158.102.137]] 13:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... the existance of http://aram.xkcd.com/ suggests that Black Hat Guy has the same name as his acknowleged inspiration, so does that make them Aram and Eve ;) ? -- [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.142|141.101.98.142]] 10:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Is "barred" used meaning "banned" or is that a typo exposing Randall as a Dvorak typist? --[[User:Volemo|Volemo]] ([[User talk:Volemo|talk]]) 23:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
:"{{wiktionary|barred|Prevented, either by a physical barrier or by conditions.}}" Yup. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.143|172.69.79.143]] 23:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2846: Daylight Saving Choice

2023-10-28T20:35:32Z

172.69.79.143: /* Personal Inclination */

I instead suggest that we make the DST shift 12 hours. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.1.190|172.68.1.190]] 15:16, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:I have better idea: What about observing the DST change in fall but ignoring the DST change in spring? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

::Even better: 12 hours backwards shift in fall, no shift in spring. Sure, it would lead to confusion, but it’d also be really funny. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.58.135|172.68.58.135]] 04:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

The terrorist plot wasn't thwarted by this kind of proposal. It was just due to the fact that DST laws differ between countries. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

: The Palestinian terrorist plot on 5th September 1999 definitively was. One group of terrorists switched to ST as decided by authorities, while other refused to and used DST. [[User:Abukaj|Abukaj]] ([[User talk:Abukaj|talk]]) 16:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

When I read the comic, I applied it to this upcoming clock change which would turn the clocks back to "standard" time. Thus the ironic joke is that if you don't like daylight savings time then don't change your clocks, so you are then stuck in daylight savings time forever. [[User:Rtanenbaum|Rtanenbaum]] ([[User talk:Rtanenbaum|talk]]) 18:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:This was also my initial (and continuing) impression... [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.190|172.71.242.190]] 23:43, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
::Added a (larger than intended) paragraph to this end. On the presumption that, at each biannual clock-changing moment, the policy translates the current feelings of the person into whether they ''must'' add/remove an hour (even opposite to what they think they should do).
::If I had realised that it'd be so lengthy an 'explanation', before starting to edit, I'd have maybe added a Trivia-like section, or just inserted the ideas within it down here in Talk.
::I do believe that Black Hat's part in the announcement indicates an intentional multi-tiered chaos of this kind (rather than if a Cueball, where it might indeed be only "on/not-on DST" for the relevent half the year for single-order chaos). If anyone wishes to shift it out of the main Explain, or compress it, could they perhaps make sure that Black Hat's inherent disruptivity is still clearly mentioned there/here? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.42|172.70.86.42]] 11:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

== Average 39 minutes ==

While this figure makes sense (rather than 30 minutes) it was still slightly unexpected at first; as DST has a duration of 238 days, the average year-round time would be 238/365 hours ahead of Standard, or 39 minutes and 7.4 seconds. 
(Or, to factor in that a leap day occurs in 97 of every 400 years, 238/(365 ⁹⁷⁄₄₀₀) = 39 minutes and 5.8 seconds)

In fact, the original DST duration was set to actually be 6 months long (last Sunday of April to October), before being extended in 1987 and 2007 to reach its current 34 weeks.

[[User:SomeDee|SomeDee]] ([[User talk:SomeDee|talk]]) 15:23, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I was wondering where that number came from... trust him to use the most absurd metric possible for averaging, instead of, for instance, the average deviation of sunrise, solar noon, or sunset... or even their earliest or latest times. - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.102|172.68.2.102]] 17:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I haven't calculated for myself what US DST would actually average out at (presuming Randall is correct), but 'average year-round clock offset' for Europe (inc. UK, at least currently) would be different because it starts ''one week earlier'' (last Sunday in March, rather than first Sunday in April, if I remember the months right). One fifty-twoth of an hour (going straight to how the weightings change, rather than calculating the full averages in my head anew) is going to be slightly more than a minute of difference, so probably in the realms of UTC(+regional hourly shift)+40minutes. Maybe even +41 if it rounds off over into the ''next'' minute. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.175|172.71.242.175]] 22:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:It also ends two weeks earlier, (Middle of October instead of first week of November), so I'm really not sure on the actual difference. I just know that it's a headache for a couple weeks on either end for multinational meetings. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.100.194|172.70.100.194]] 16:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::One week early. Had to check, as it was identical (at one end or other, but an adjacent weekend at the other end or one) back when it mattered to me; might have changed in 2007.
::Last Sunday in October here (will change in about 24 hours from posting this, for me), first Sunday in November for US. So that's a week at each end, and approx 2 minutes difference on the average Randall'd have to use on his next visit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.195.103|172.69.195.103]] 00:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

== Major health ==

> "''has been found to cause major health problems''"

Citation needed.

One reported factoid:
''"..a group of U.S. researchers ...determined that heart attack risk jumped 24 percent the Monday after switching over to daylight saving time. .....dropped 21 percent on the Tuesday after the fall time change."''
https://www.heart.org/en/news/2018/10/26/can-daylight-saving-time-hurt-the-heart-prepare-now-for-spring
24% in fall, 21% in spring, suggests 3% net, which is more likely margin-of-error than major-problem.

"has been suggested" or "controversial" but not "has been found".

:So it basically evens out? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.23.90|172.69.23.90]] 18:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

:Your link doesn't work. Also, does it means the heart attack risk is worse whole half year? -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 21:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article cites [https://web.archive.org/web/20140313140334/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131101-when-does-daylight-savings-time-end-november-3-science/ this National Geographic article] [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]] ([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk]]) 20:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

== Personal Inclination ==

I haven't changed clocks for DST in years. That system is garbage; it doesn't even fall on obvious days. When someone says a clock is off, shrug & say "That's debateable. This one's right year-round, how often do you have to set yours?"
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 17:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: Huh? So you're an hour late or early for half the year? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.215.9|172.70.215.9]] 21:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
: What would be "obvious days"? The equinoces, I suppose would be the astronomical absolutes, but they vary by several (calendar) days, and does this mean that clocks change at their hour, minute and second, regardless of whether in the middle of a week ''and workday''..? Also, the benefit (or otherwise) of any given date changes by latitude. And on what sleep cycles (early mornings or late evenings) any given person has. Equinox-nailed switchovers (or even tied to month-endings, say March 31st 24:00 to September 30th 24:00) just don't help much more (maybe less) than current versions. Heck, it's arbitrary, as might be many other choices, but it seems to keep disruption to the minimum (during changeover), and if the redistribution of hours isn't to your liking (a farmer may get up at/before dawn ''every day'', regardless of what pesky clocks say, 'cos animals and crops don't 'adjust' by our method) then that's up to you. But I bet some things will change around you and you at least need to mentally adjust to what time everyone around you decides it is. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.85.232|172.70.85.232]] 23:58, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
:Clock time is itself arbitrary. Why 12 hours twice instead of, say, 10 hours for one cycle per solar day? The answer boils down to "In ancient times, it was easy to divide 12 into fractions in your head. Also, counting hours at night was harder (no sundials) and less important (because pre-electricity, most people just slept)." [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 03:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
::Easy in modern times, too, since 12, 24, and 60 are {{w|highly composite number}}s and 10 can't even divide into thirds or quarters… [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 04:25, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
:: You can thank the Babylonians and their base 60 number system for both modern time divisions AND the system of degrees. It's been argued (not sure if proven) that the reason for that was exactly as agent muffin said: It's highly divisible to common fractions of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, and 1/6, which coordinates well with regular polygons up to the largest that tiles a plane. Personally I think it came about the other way around (multiples of 3/4/5) but semantically it's the same - [[Special:Contributions/172.68.2.93|172.68.2.93]] 20:51, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
: I also haven't changed most of my clocks for DST in years. Most of them change themselves; my digital watch, kitchen wall clock and living room mantelpiece clock are radio-controlled, while my computers and iPad use NTP. Even my central heating system adjusts itself, but it doesn't use an external time source, so while it needs manual adjustment, it's not for DST. That just leaves my car, my oven and my telephone, none of which use an external time source so need regular adjustments anyway (or they would if I actually used them to tell the time). --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 10:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

A bit of a seasonal puff-piece 'news article', perhaps, but [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67243110 a brief BBC item about the upcoming change] might appeal to those reading this. And at least it isn't about death and destruction in Ukraine, Israel/Gaza or Maine (or Musk calling people racists)... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.43.241|172.69.43.241]] 01:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Why don't we just get one time for everyone worldwide that stays the same all year? I, for one, wouldn't care if noon was at 4:17 instead of 12:00! Even at the risk that mathematicians and astronomers will hate me for the following sentence: get real, damn it, it's just numbers! [[User:PaulEberhardt|PaulEberhardt]] 17:62, 32 October 2023 (according to my watch)
:Well, that's just UTC (or UT1/close equivalents). Though {{w|Timekeeping on Mars#Coordinated Mars Time|I can think of a different system}} we could use... [[Special:Contributions/172.69.79.143|172.69.79.143]] 20:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

2844: Black Holes vs Regular Holes

2023-10-22T21:18:21Z

172.69.79.143: /* Explanation */ Rather than say "who was famous for", technically more accurate, grammatically avoiding the whole issue of his proven mortality.

{{comic
| number = 2844
| date = October 20, 2023
| title = Black Holes vs Regular Holes
| image = black_holes_vs_regular_holes_2x.png
| imagesize = 525x743px
| noexpand = true
| titletext = Created by the collapse of: [massive stars] [Florida limestone bedrock]
}}

==Explanation==
{{incomplete|Created by a CHILD FALLING IN TO A FRIEND'S BLACK HOLE - Please change this comment when editing this page. Do NOT delete this tag too soon.}}
This comic is a comparison between {{w|black hole}}s and regular, everyday {{w|hole}}s.

{| class="wikitable"
!
! scope="col"| Black hole
! scope="col"| Regular hole
! Scope="col"| Explanation
|-
! scope="row" | Usually formed by...
| Supernovas, colliding stars
| Shovels, small mammals
| Black holes are created by stars going into supernova, and occasionally by two stars colliding. On the contrary, regular holes are often created by humans using shovels, as well as small mammals such as moles or dogs. Of course, this is by no means limited only to small mammals. Many animals, from elephants to ants, are also known to create this kind of hole.
|-
! scope="row" | Falling in is...
| Definitely fatal
| Sometimes fatal
| Falling into a black hole is almost always fatal.{{Citation needed}} On the other hand, if a regular hole is deep enough, it is possible for someone to die by falling into it.
|-
! scope="row" | Created by the Big Bang
| Maybe
| No
| Like many other celestial objects, black holes may have been created by the {{w|Big Bang}}, however ordinary holes were almost definitely not created this way. But, because the entire universe started with the Big Bang, everything in it (including ordinary holes) could be argued to be "created" by it.
|-
! scope="row" | Created by children playing at the beach
| I '''''really''''' hope not
| Yes
| Children commonly dig holes in sand at beaches, however if one were to create a black hole at the beach, this could prove cataclysmic.{{Citation needed}}
|-
! scope="row" | Source of many precious metals
| Indirectly
| Yes
| Both the supernovae that create black holes and various events involving black holes, such as black hole/neutron star mergers, produce large quantities of heavy elements, including precious metals found on Earth. Those metals are often underground, and are thus recovered by a mine, i.e. a regular hole.
|-
! scope="row" | Einstein imagined falling into one
| Yes
| Probably at least once
| The thought experiments of {{w|Albert Einstein}}, particularly in relation to {{w|general relativity}}, involve consideration of what happens when one falls through gravitationally-curved space. Aside from this, almost everyone has had a reason to consider the possibility of falling into a normal hole.
|-
! scope="row" | A component of dark matter
| Maybe
| Probably not
| {{w|Dark matter}} is a theoretical part of the universe, a large amount of its total calculated mass which cannot (yet) be directly seen. It is considered possible that at least some of this 'missing mass' is in the form of black holes. It is not generally considered an option that ordinary holes have anything to do with this.
|-
! scope="row" | Created by the Large Hadron Collider
| No
| Yes
| There were concerns when the {{w|Large Hadron Collider}} (LHC), a particle supercollider, was initially put into operation that it would create a black hole that would destroy the Earth. This did not happen.{{Citation needed}} However, the LHC is mostly underground, and its construction required the digging of many holes.
|-
! scope="row" | Massive stars often collapse into them
| Yes
| No
| If a star is large enough, when the star dies, it may still have enough gravity to collapse back into itself, commonly creating black holes. This does not happen with regular holes, and would likely mean the end of the world if one did.
|-
! scope="row" | Explored by humans in famous sci-fi stories
| Yes
| Yes
| Many sci-fi stories and movies explore black holes and regular holes alike. In particular, there's the eponimous classic ''{{w|The Black Hole}}'' and more recent films such as ''{{w|Interstellar (film)|Interstellar}}'', both about space missions that encounter a black hole. {{w|Journey to the Center of the Earth}} is a classic novel by {{w|Jules Verne}} (and made into {{w|Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959 film)|various}} {{w|Journey to the Center of the Earth (2008 theatrical film)|films}}) which involves going into a volcano tube (a kind of hole). H. P. Lovecraft's 1921 short story ''{{w|The Nameless City}}'' involves the explorer narrator venturing into an ancient tunnel (entered through a hole) dug by a pre-human civilization under the Arabian peninsula, and ''{{w|At the Mountains of Madness}}'' involves tunnels lost in the continent of Antarctica. 
|-
! scope="row" | Fatal to get a big one in your body
| Yes
| Yes
| If a black hole appeared inside of a person's body, they would almost definitely die instantly.{{citation needed}} The same goes for a regular hole - if you cut out a massive section of a human's body, they would likely bleed out. This also applies for the holes left by bullets and other high-speed projectiles.
|-
! scope="row" | Some of them are the mouths of wormholes
| Maybe
| Yes
| Black holes are commonly portrayed to be the entrances of {{w|wormhole}}s, especially in sci-fi stories. While wormholes remain purely theoretical, if they exist, some common models for them suggest one end would appear as a black hole, drawing matter in to be ejected from a 'white hole' elsewhere. On the other side, many species of worms live in shallow holes, with a "mouth" on the surface - the "mouth" of the "worm hole". This could also be a reference to Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, when the Millennium Falcon spacecraft almost gets swallowed by a giant worm in an asteroid hole.
|-
! scope="row" | Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne argued that any information that falls into them is lost forever
| Yes
| No
| The {{w|Black hole information paradox}} is a paradox arising from a contradiction between two widely-accepted theories related to black holes. Scientist {{w|Stephen Hawking}}, famous for his research into black holes, said that black holes release their energy over time, eventually disappearing, through {{w|Hawking Radiation}}. According to this theory, if information was also to enter the black hole, it would be released alongside this radiation. On the other hand, the {{w|No-hair theorem}} states that all black holes are completely identical outside of three key features: mass, spin, and electric charge. If information that fell into a black hole is released with Hawking radiation, then that means that there ''must'' be more than three properties of black holes.
On the other hand, information that falls into a normal hole is not lost forever, and can likely still be reobtained, especially if the information is stored physically. Hawking and {{w|Kip Thorne}} famously made a {{w|Thorne–Hawking–Preskill bet|bet}} with {{w|John Preskill}} over this paradox.
|-
! scope="row" | Commonly inhabited by meerkats
| Undetermined
| Yes
|{{w|Meerkat}}s commonly live in holes underground. It is highly unlikely that Earth mammals live in black holes, but because it is impossible to know what lies beyond the event horizon it is [[technically]] impossible to falsify the postulate that there are meerkats there.
|-
! scope="row" | (title text) Created by the collapse of
| Massive stars
| Florida limestone bedrock
| As mentioned before, Black holes are often created by the collapse of massive stars. On the other hand, many {{w|sinkhole}}s in Florida are caused due to most {{w|bedrock}} in the state being made of {{w|limestone}}, which is naturally soluble - that is, easily dissolved in water. Sinkholes from dissolved limestone are generally entrances to [https://caves.org/ caves] that explore further limestone dissolving from underground waterways. Florida is known for its warm underwater caves [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-behind-floridas-sinkhole-epidemic-180969158/ and opening sinkholes].
|}

==Transcript==
:[A table comparing two main columns of relevence to various statements]
:[First column is headed:] Black Hole
:[Second column is headed:] Regular Hole
:[Respective statements cells placed to the left of both, below]

:[Statement:] Usually formed by...
:[Black hole:] Supernovas, colliding stars
:[Regular hole:| Shovels, small mammals

:[Statement:] Falling in is...
:[Black hole:] Definitely fatal
:[Regular hole:| Sometimes fatal

:[Statement:] Created by the Big Bang
:[Black hole:] Maybe
:[Regular hole:| No

:[Statement:] Created by children playing at the beach
:[Black hole:] I really hope not [with emphasis on "really"]
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Source of many precious metals
:[Black hole:] Indirectly
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Einstein imagined falling into one
:[Black hole:] Yes
:[Regular hole:| Probably at least once

:[Statement:] A component of dark matter
:[Black hole:] Maybe
:[Regular hole:| Probably not

:[Statement:] Created by the Large Hadron Collider
:[Black hole:] No
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Massive stars often collapse into them
:[Black hole:] Yes
:[Regular hole:| No

:[Statement:] Explored by humans in famous sci-fi stories
:[Black hole:] Yes
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Fatal to get a big one in your body
:[Black hole:] Yes
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Some of them are the mouths of wormholes
:[Black hole:] Maybe
:[Regular hole:| Yes

:[Statement:] Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne argued that any information that falls into them is lost forever
:[Black hole:] Yes
:[Regular hole:| No

:[Statement:] Commonly inhabited by meerkats
:[Black hole:] Undetermined
:[Regular hole:| Yes

{{comic discussion}}
[[Category:Astronomy]]
[[Category:Space]]
[[Category:Cosmology]]
[[Category:Animals]]
[[Category:Comics featuring real people]]