Talk:2859: Oceanography Gift

2023-11-27T09:26:19Z

172.71.242.37:

The explanation for inland seas is incorrect. What Randall refers to is that with some (or many) of them, the surface currents work against letting any water flow in, because those currents flow outward. Thus, water poured into the Atlantic won't enter the Mediterranean, but water poured into the Med will move outward and then join the general ocean exchange.
What the explanation says does apply to (for instance) the Dead Sea. Of course, water molecules added to that have a high chance of evaporation, which would then get them into the global circulation anyway. {{unsigned ip|172.71.98.97|07:04, 25 November 2023}}

:This is incorrect anyway, since the Mediterranean has a net inflow of water from the Atlantic (inflow from its rivers can't make up for evaporation). [[Special:Contributions/172.70.38.34|172.70.38.34]] 08:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

::I would not have called the Med an "inland sea", either.
::Though I haven't read the main article/its history, since I put the very first paragraph there and invited others to add more. I presume someone took that literally (like Dead, Aral, Caspian or Salton, each with their own characteristics) rather than with the perhaps rather over-broad definition of having a single relatively narrow 'neck' connection.
::But the caveat in the Title Text of undeliverable by ''surface'' waters does apply, depending upon where you're sampling, as the Levantine sink of water takes inflowing water (that hasn't reversed around Corsica and gone straight back out) and feeds it round to the depths (and out again into the Atlantic) to a large degree. If you're relying on the 2D circulation, you lose such connectivity through the depths as well as it attaining atmospheric height...
::i.e. complex, and I think Randall's wording is not perfect. And yet to see if I can go back and improve/correct/support the Explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.134|172.71.178.134]] 18:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
::...and, re: the later edit about the Suez, yes. That too. Meant to consider it, in my re-edit, but forgot to finish checking which way the flow was (or tended to be). Good catch, though. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.94.193|172.71.94.193]] 15:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

: Randall says that molecules intended for the Med ''may'' be returned as undeliverable - not that they ''will''. I would read that to mean that they're more likely to end up back where they started than they are to make it to a destination in the Med, in which case the current explanation is a bit off base.[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.37|172.71.242.37]] 09:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2852: Parameterball

2023-11-09T13:23:34Z

172.71.242.37:

added transcript and a kinda crappy explanation [[User:Certified_nqh|Me]][[[285: Wikipedian Protester|''citation needed'']]][[Category:Pages using the "citation needed" template]] 17:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: added a bit of crappy info to the explanation. also hi nqh [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 17:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: added crappy edits. also do i have an account or… [[User:TenGolf MathHacker|TenGolf MathHacker]] ([[User talk:TenGolf MathHacker|talk]]) 19:30, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the tennis court in upper right look about 50% larger than normal to anyone else? The ping-pong table definitely looks too small, about half size. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

: I'd say the the upper right is similar width to a tennis court but is 25% longer. The lower left looks to be similar width to table tennis / ping pong but is about half as long. So the explanations for those need revising. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.51|162.158.62.51]] 18:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I have some neat plans for that Incomplete template. Get ready for an occasional change to something random that uses anything but metric... [[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]|[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]]) 18:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
: mobile account here, first of many implemented [[Special:Contributions/172.70.42.48|172.70.42.48]] 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
If no limits, then neutron star or black hole ball exists as much as more non lethal games. {{unsigned ip|172.71.151.139|00:06, 9 November 2023}}

Could the title text be talking about the mass of a bowling ball, rather than then density? If the diameter of a bowling ball is 20cm and the diameter of a table tennis ball is 4cm, which is consistent with a quick Google search, than the volume of the bowling ball is around 125 times as big as the table tennis ball (because we have to cube it for three dimensions). Let's assume a bowling ball is 12 pounds, which is about average. Therefore, a ping pong ball with the density of a bowling ball would weigh much less than a pound. A 12 pound table tennis ball, however, could easily cause equipment damage. [[User:Thexkcdnerd|Thexkcdnerd]] ([[User talk:Thexkcdnerd|talk]]) 02:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:I'm sure a one-pound table tennis ball could do sufficient damage to destroy a racquet, but I guess there's really only one way to find out, and I don't know where to find a one-pound ping pong ball. Or is it pingpong? Ping-Pong? pingPong? [[Special:Contributions/172.70.214.62|172.70.214.62]] 05:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::Originally "gossima", with hard rubber balls, even before "whiff-waff" (or "wiff-waff" or "whiff-whaff" or something). First ''properly'' marketed as "ping-pong", in its recognisable form though.
::A snooker/pool ball would probably have similar density to a bowling ball. I can well imagine equipment (and bodily) damage playing table tennis with a snooker ball.
[[Special:Contributions/172.71.122.115|172.71.122.115]] 09:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:Isn't the bowling ball a reference to the 'bowling ball on a sheet' metaphor for the distortion of space-time by the gravitational fields of massive objects?[[Special:Contributions/172.71.123.146|172.71.123.146]] 09:31, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:Also, isn't the density of a bowling ball also a changing parameter in the game of ten-pin bowling? Don't have bowling balls different weights, and unlike nine-pin bowling a fixed volume/size, and thus a variable density? It doesn't really matter for the explanation but describing the end point with an item that itself is variable isn't really helpful. The entries giraffe, screwdriver and large board game board are having the same problem. "A large boulder the size of a small boulder" https://twitter.com/SheriffAlert/status/1221881862244749315 [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Does the screwdriver measurement relate to the drink or the tool?[[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.245|172.69.194.245]] 09:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The explanation claims that the max density depicted is that of a bowling ball. However, the balls in the first three panels look much too light for that, and the ball in the fourth would probably have crushed the player if it was that dense. I would guess a solid rubber ball would be a better estimate (although the one in the second panel is hard to judge).[[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.83|172.71.242.83]] 11:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2859: Oceanography Gift

Talk:2852: Parameterball