explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2840: Earth Layers

2023-10-12T17:49:34Z

Sandor: Apache Guacamole

Why are the seeds outside of the pith? Is there a fruit that is organized this way? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 18:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
:If there's one that's this way that contains pith, i can't find it, but raspberries, cashew apples, and blackberries all have their seeds on the outside [[User:SomeoneIGuess|SomeoneIGuess]] ([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk]]) 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
:The pith is the innermost part of a tree trunk. The part of a fruit is the ''pit'', which is basically the same thing as a seed.--[[Special:Contributions/172.64.236.13|172.64.236.13]] 20:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
::Ummm...the white, fibrous stuff within fruits that wraps around the seeds (like in oranges, for example) is called "pith", whether trees contain something by that name or not.[[User:Yorkshire Pudding|Yorkshire Pudding]] ([[User talk:Yorkshire Pudding|talk]]) 21:43, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
:Strawberries are an (albeit rare) example of a fruit with the seeds on the outside of the pith (and skin, for that matter) [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.116|162.158.159.116]] 15:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
:Clear tootsie roll tootsie pop joke miss (awwaiid) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.39.49|172.70.39.49]] 01:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Something that seemed to be excessive to edit into the Explanation, but noting here in passing, the additional issue of magnets (in a Kinder context) is the problems of ingesting them. In addition to other issues, they can attract each other/separate bits of metal across folds of the digestive system and cause problems beyond merely their passage through the system (which they might not now be able to do). I don't even know if Kinder has ever included magnets, but I think they'd be extremely limited even outwith the US. (Though, as counter-example, there are {{w|Hardware disease#Prevention|Cow Magnets}}, designed for ingestion but not further digestion. And not for humans, nor the size of either a standard Kinder-yoke or a planetary one.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.69|172.71.242.69]] 08:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

When I saw guacamole in the comic, I assumed it was a reference to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Guacamole Apache Guacamole], as might be seen in a diagram of the different layers involved accessing some complicated computer system. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 17:49, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T23:20:39Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 (to 0) || 83 || 19,000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 928 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30,637 || 3,029
|-
| Earth || 1,083 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59,942 || 1,802
|-
| Mars || 163 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685,794 || 24
|-
| Jupiter || 1,4310,00 || 779 || 504 || 1,107 || 3,051,847 || 46,890
|-
| Saturn || 827,130 || 1,434 || 1,107 || 2,154 || 10,726,236 || 7,711
|-
| Uranus || 68,340 || 2,873 || 2,154 || 3,684 || 28,061,145 || 244
|-
| Neptune || 62,540 || 4,495 || 3,684 || 5,304 (symmetry) || 45,743,348 || 137
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: 61 * 10^9 km^3 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=61+*+10%5E9+km%5E3+in+cm%5E3 6.1 × 10^25 cm^3], 19000 * 10^9 km^2 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=19000+*+10%5E9+km%5E2+in+cm%5E2 1.9 × 10^23 cm^2], and (6.1 × 10^25 cm^3) / (1.9 × 10^23 cm^2) is [https://www.google.com/search?q=%286.1+%C3%97+10%5E25+cm%5E3%29+%2F+%281.9+%C3%97+10%5E23+cm%5E2%29 3.2 meters]. I'm afraid I'm correct. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.145|172.69.22.145]] 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: According to {{w|List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radius_over_400_km}} yes I had Mars wrong (corrected) but the others are roughly correct. I stand by my claim that Randall is in error. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Mercury's orbital radius is about 58 * 106 km, not 58 * 109 km, which makes the annulus' area 19000 1012 km2. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 23:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T23:16:16Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 (to 0) || 83 || 19,000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 928 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30,637 || 3,029
|-
| Earth || 1,083 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59,942 || 1,802
|-
| Mars || 163 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685,794 || 24
|-
| Jupiter || 1,4310,00 || 779 || 504 || 1,107 || 3,051,847 || 46,890
|-
| Saturn || 827,130 || 1,434 || 1,107 || 2,154 || 10,726,236 || 7,711
|-
| Uranus || 68,340 || 2,873 || 2,154 || 3,684 || 28,061,145 || 244
|-
| Neptune || 62,540 || 4,495 || 3,684 || 5,304 (symmetry) || 45,743,348 || 137
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: 61 * 10^9 km^3 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=61+*+10%5E9+km%5E3+in+cm%5E3 6.1 × 10^25 cm^3], 19000 * 10^9 km^2 is [https://www.google.com/search?q=19000+*+10%5E9+km%5E2+in+cm%5E2 1.9 × 10^23 cm^2], and (6.1 × 10^25 cm^3) / (1.9 × 10^23 cm^2) is [https://www.google.com/search?q=%286.1+%C3%97+10%5E25+cm%5E3%29+%2F+%281.9+%C3%97+10%5E23+cm%5E2%29 3.2 meters]. I'm afraid I'm correct. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.145|172.69.22.145]] 22:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: According to {{w|List_of_Solar_System_objects_by_size#Objects_with_radius_over_400_km}} yes I had Mars wrong (corrected) but the others are roughly correct. I stand by my claim that Randall is in error. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.86|172.71.154.86]] 22:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::: Mercury's orbital radius is about 58 * 106 km, not 58 * 109 km, which makes the annulus' area 19000 1012 km2.

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:24:47Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are mostly out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:21:23Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are all out by 1000, and a few of your volume figures also have the wrong scale (Mercury is smaller than Mars, and the giants are all too big by a factor of 10). [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:13:48Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are wrong. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:10:14Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table <del>are</del> were at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes <del>are</del> were at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune <del>are</del> were at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are wrong. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:09:04Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table <del>are</del> were at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are wrong. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T22:07:33Z

Sandor:

I have to wonder, would you slide down to the sun, or be flung outwards? [[User:SDSpivey|SDSpivey]] ([[User talk:SDSpivey|talk]]) 19:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
: The discs are centered on the orbit of the parent planet, and presumably rotating at the same frequency as the parent planet's orbit. That means the inner edge of each disc is going slower than you'd need to orbit the Sun at that distance, and the outer edge faster. If you moved inward from the original planet's orbit, the Sun's gravity would pull you in, but when you crossed the boundary to the next disc, you'd get flung back outward.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.61|162.158.62.61]] 19:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::No Each planet fills out the space within their orbit into the next planet. Easy to see as the outer edge of Neptune's orbit is the same as with the planet flattened. There is a distance from Mercury to the Sun indicated. Maybe because it would melt if it got any closer? --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::First, they're rings not discs, but I'm skeptical of the math. And it looks to me like the ring's edges are halfway between the orbits, with Neptune extended outwards the same distance as halfway to Uranus's orbit. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.4|172.69.22.4]] 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: right;"
|-
! Planet !! Volume (109 km3) !! Orbital radius (109 km) || halfway to prior || halfway to next || Annulus area (109 km2) || Thickness (cm)
|-
| Mercury || 61 || 58 || 29 || 83 || 19000 || 321
|-
| Venus || 93 || 108 || 83 || 129 || 30637 || 304
|-
| Earth || 108 || 150 || 129 || 189 || 59942 || 180
|-
| Mars || 16 || 228 || 189 || 504 || 685794 || 2
|-
| Jupiter || 1431000 || 779 || 504 || 1107 || 3051847 || 46890
|-
| Saturn || 827000 || 1434 || 1107 || 2154 || 10726236 || 7710
|-
| Uranus || 68000 || 2873 || 2154 || 3684 || 28061145 || 242
|-
| Neptune || 63000 || 4495 || 3684 || 5304 (symmetry) || 45743348 || 138
|}

:::: The volumes in this table are at 2 different scales. Only the Mercury to Mars volumes are at 1010 km3. Jupiter to Neptune are at 1012 km3 [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 21:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
::::: Thanks, fixed; I had the scale wrong for the radii too. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.158.231|172.71.158.231]] 21:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Someone please double-check this, I think Randall is off by a factor of 1000. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.154.229|172.71.154.229]] 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:::: I did my own spreadsheet, and my figures agree with Randall's (roughly). I think your thinkness figures are wrong. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 22:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

This makes about as much sense as other Flat Earth theories. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.200.137|172.70.200.137]] 20:00, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
:But this would actually be a flat Earth. Albeit with a rather larger surface area ;-) --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2750: Flatten the Planets

2023-03-15T21:01:16Z

Sandor:

Talk:2603: Childhood Toys

2022-04-08T09:13:00Z

Sandor: I think pedal cars and go-karts are missing.

Tarzan would thrive commuting by tire swing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.69.68.170 ([[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.170|contribs]]• [[User_talk:172.69.68.170|talk]]) 22:11, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How are a bicycle, scooter or wagon toys, or childlike. They're actually designed for commute and children aren't even allowed on scooters. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 22:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:Wagon doesn't mean station wagon. Google "toy wagon" to see what he's referring to. And electric scooter is a motorized version of a common child's toy. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 22:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::I didn't actually assume a station wagon, was thinking of the thing usually pulled by horses. And doesn't the fact that a 'toy wagon' exists suggest that a regular wagon is not a toy? And I thought a scooter was more like a motorized bicycle rather than a toy, like a motorcycle, but slower. And at least here, you'd need to be at least 16 years old and get a permit to drive one. Funny how the same word borrowed in a closely related language can suddenly carry such different meanings. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 23:17, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:::Since the heading says "childhood toys", I think we're supposed to understand that he means a toy wagon. And the comic shows the kind of scooter he's talking about, not a motorized bike. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
::::Here in the UK, there are:
::::*Push-along-scooters (childs toys, steel-tubing, often red and blue painted/trimmed, maybe pink for girls) that you one-leg along. Around the turn of the millenium, the craze arrived for 'adult' versions (I got one!), mostly in bare and sturdier aluminium.
::::*The motorised vehicle that might also be called a 'moped' (such terms might be considered defamatory, by the proud owner of a Lambretta, etc, depending upon era and exactly which type of motored two-wheeler you're describing)
::::*Mobility scooters, i.e. four-wheel (sometimes three) electrical vehicles sometimes barely a seat/handlebars on a moving platform, others almost like a quad-bike (esp. off-road capable ones)
::::*Now (well, since the last few years) the illustrated kind that is electrically-powered version of the sturdier push-alongs.
::::...though (as I appended in a link), except for some very limited and controlled trial-schemes, it is actually ''illegal'' to use electric 'executive' scooters (the last category). Both on roads and pavements (i.e. sidewalks). They are not considered roadworthy, for the former, and riding on the pavement is illegal for various vehicles (including bicycles, though few know/care this). There's no special provision for the use of cycle-lanes (on-road) or cycle-paths (shared/split pavements, or bridlepath-level trails). The only place an otherwise unregulated electric-scooter can be ridden is 'private land'. Which means you'd have very little chance of commuting upon your own scooter, legally, only the sanctioned for-hire ones.
:::::I was in Austin, TX a few months ago, and companies like Lime Bike had pods of electric scooters (like the one in the comic) for rent on the streets. So the legality is very location-dependent. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::::This is a description of the situation in the UK (see link I put in main explanation), although the sanctioned rental schemes mentioned are the explicitly legal exception for the UK, in explicitly served areas... as long as you have a driver's licence and follow other rules. Looking at the US legality, it's probably as patchwork as you'd expect with federal/state/local laws doing their usual uncoordinated things... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.64|172.70.86.64]] 14:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::::(There's no such restrection on e-bikes, except for a theoretical maximum speed/power before they should be considersd motorbikes rather than electrified-mopeds. They are as welcome on the roads as bicycles (which largely depends upon the motorists and their prejudices/impatience), and similarly as illegal to ride on pavements (though of course people do that!)...) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.162.77|172.70.162.77]] 12:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:Is this possibly a cultural difference? At least in the USA, I have definitely seen kids (maybe not much younger than 10, but still) using electric scooters. Wagons and bikes are definitely associated more with kids in the USA as well, because, unfortunately, cars are seen as the only "real," most viable, and most independent form of transport. (As I have heard others say, bikes are just what you use until you get a car.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.251|172.70.114.251]] 01:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::Presumably. This puzzled me a lot too. Bicycles aren't remotely 'toys', nor are scooters really -- and I'm assuming here this don't mean scooters in the sense of a small motorbike. EDIT: as is obvious from the actual cartoon. [[User:Zoid42|Zoid42]] ([[User talk:Zoid42|talk]]) 08:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:::In some areas of the US, bicycles are used solely for pleasure and exercise, not for actually getting anywhere. Partially because there isn't anything worth going to within an easy biking distance, and partially because the entire road system and the people who use it are often openly hostile to bicyclists.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.174.13|172.70.174.13]] 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
:It's surprising to see bikes listed as toys and not automobiles. Makes it seem like some new conservative meme has snuck into Randal. Weird comic for sure. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.114.251|172.70.114.251]] 21:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
::Not all the things listed are really toys, it's more that there are versions made for children, and you might well have had them as a child. You do not get automobiles aimed at children (with a few expensive exceptions), so that's why they are not in the list. The closest would be pedal cars and go-karts - I think they are the more notable exception. I would totally commute to work on an electic go-kart if I could. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 09:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Slip N Slide doesn't need to be downhill. It's common to use a running start and then leap onto it, then slide to the end. But this method only works for a few yards at most, so for commuting you'd need to keep getting up to run to the next one. We'd need a network of them on every street. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 23:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
:I like bicycling everywhere, & I despise unnecessary commuting by ''any'' means, but I'd strongly consider just about any job that made it easy for everyone to commute there by Slip'N'Slide... Can we get home by zip-line?
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 00:21, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

A road made of trampolines could actually be extremely useful for short-distance commutes since you go a lot faster. [[User:N-eh|N-eh]] ([[User talk:N-eh|talk]]) 00:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This is not exactly new. With special praise to the Pogo Stick https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGQBu_cqzn8

Given a choice between a big wheel (tricycle), unicycle, or a toy wagon (https://www.classicredwagons.com/radio_flyer_classic_red_wagon_18_c_p10.htm) as the only allowed ways to commute, I think the vast majority would toss their stuff in, use it as a scooter uphill and level, then sit in it and gleefully zoom downhill. I’d even take stilts or a pogo stick over a unicycle. In fact, I don’t see how a unicycle qualifies as a childhood toy at all. I’ve seen children using everything else mentioned, but I’ve never seen a unicycle for sale anywhere, and I’ve never seen anyone successfully ride one who wasn’t a professional acrobat.[[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.7|172.69.33.7]] 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

This strip reminds me of the Ripping Yarns episode: "Across the Andes By Frog". Although the characters in the episode didn't actually ride frogs, their progress across the mountain range was limited to the speed at which the poor amphibians could hop. Needless to say, the high altitude and low temperatures were another limiting factor. I can't remember whether they were eventually successful. [[User:Beechmere|Beechmere]] ([[User talk:Beechmere|talk]]) 02:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Beechmere

Talk:2516: Hubble Tension

2021-09-20T10:34:14Z

Sandor:

Having noticed that 85 KPH is slower than 85 MPH, it took me a while to work out that 85 MPH is much slower than 68 km/s (and I was blindly assuming that the universe is at least one megaparsec in radius), after which the title-text joke started making sense. Congratulations on being almost too subtle for me.00:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the 85 mph number significant in any way? Why does "Dave" who points radar guns in random directions get this number? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Well, it's probably over the speed limit in most places. Maybe Dave is a traffic cop? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.137|172.68.129.137]] 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the explanation only explains the things everyone can read on the internet anyway. 85 mph or 85 km/h have the wrong unit, because for the expansion speed we need to look at two points of space, measure how fast they move away from each other. Obviously this should be a number that increases linearly with the distance of the two points (if space is created equally everywhere in the universe). Thus the 85 km/h misses the length. Is the joke here that a random dudes results are reported equally (false equivalence)? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.142|162.158.93.142]] 04:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Dave again: "But when they hit 88 mph, we're gonna see some REALLY weird shit!" [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 06:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a thought: maybe Dave is talking about Fords Galaxies? -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.222|162.158.183.222]] 08:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:I had already added that before I saw your comment. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relating (coincidentally) with several of the above comments, I added in a "what Dave could be measuring" paragraph (ultimately: just traffic!), via a diversion where I totally messed up a factor and it sent me down a rabbithole of completely the wrong distance! ((Sanity-check my new figures, please: e.g. 85mph => ~0.038km/s => ~0.0005588(of the 68km/s/Mpc figure) => therefore 558.8pc, etc and onwards)) Anyway, perhaps Dave just is/wants to be a traffic-cop? (If you can find humour in the 'all directions' - presumably ''away from'' - then obviously supercede the 'both directions' bit.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.47|172.70.134.47]] 09:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe a radar speed gun pointed at the sky would actually display something like "no reading" when it doesn't receive any radar echo, rather than 85 miles/h. It wouldn't do to fine drivers for speeding when the measurement fails. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.208|162.158.183.208]] 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Dave is measuring Ford Galaxies that are all speeding away from him, either way too fast, or if kph just moderately speed for a normal road between cities. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::Unless it ''is'' actual some kind of a Ford MPV Owners' Club 'burn out' session of some kind, I read it as more general "large, relatively unwieldy family-style vehicle passing in conspicuous quantities and not actually holding up the rest of the traffic" rather than truly committing traffic violations (in excess of any other vehicle on the road). To "book it" is to hurry, but (more colloquial understandings allowing) more as in the "not dawdling" sense. (They'd be noteworthy only for narrative punning reasons, really, as one of the comic's hooks. But that's only meta.)
::Though (outwith the most obviously speed-trapped areas) my personal experience is indeed that driving ''at'' the posted speed limit often means being treated as an inconvenient mobile-roadblock, by more than half the rest of the vehicles that come up behind and tailgate or pass, I would still consider hugging-the-limit (whatever it is) as going fast and not actually slow. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.11|162.158.159.11]] 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we've missed an important joke in the last panel. Dave says the galaxies are moving at 85mph/kph and "booking it". However, KM/S/Mpc is going to be on the scale of several thousand times faster than 85mph/kph. Dave's reference to "booking it" is actually moving quite slow. [[User:Pconwell|Pconwell]] ([[User talk:Pconwell|talk]]) 12:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Dave is used to measuring car speeds, and 85 MPH is very fast (significantly over the speed limit) in most places. The joke is that he's totally out of context and measuring the wrong thing, but it happens to be a number in the same ballpark as the Hubble Constant. Of course, this is just a coincidence, since the units are different. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

How is the expansion rate different from an acceleration? The (correct) units surprise me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.87|172.70.130.87]] 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:In acceleration, the velocity increases over time. In expansion, the velocity increases over distance. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

With all this talk about units, I would like to mention that Google ever-so-helpfully says that 1 km/s/Mpc is "3.24077929e-20 hertz". [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.195|172.70.126.195]] 16:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
: Google also says 73 km/s/Mpc is 2.36576888e-18 hertz, which is perhaps unsurprisingly 1 over the age of the universe. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 10:32, 20 September 2021 (UT

I see two things to comment on about Dave's response. First, if everything measured always shows the same velocity, then the "per megaparsec" part of the result becomes largely irrelevant, as Dave's results are the same regardless of this value. This means that Dave's results are "it doesn't matter how far away, it is all 85 MPH!" If taken seriously, this would be a challenge to the standard model of an expanding universe much bigger than the actually existing controversy.

Second, I believe the joke here is that Dave's radar gun is a police model that consistently reports that anything being measured is speeding. A recurring accusation, and occasional actual problem that requires police radar units to be tested regularly to avoid, is that radar guns that report speeds higher than they actually are are used to issue tickets unfairly. When used as an accusation, or in fictional media, it sometimes comes with an accusation that this happens with the full knowledge of a cop who cares more about issuing tickets than doing his job properly. In this case it appears that either every Ford Galaxy, all traffic, or even possibly the sky itself, is consistently "speeding" in this fashion.[[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Dave's radar could have been pointed at a Ford Galaxie: https://mystarcollectorcar.com/the-out-of-this-world-ford-galaxie1959-to-1974/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.191|172.70.178.191]] 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2516: Hubble Tension

2021-09-20T10:32:16Z

Sandor:

Having noticed that 85 KPH is slower than 85 MPH, it took me a while to work out that 85 MPH is much slower than 68 km/s (and I was blindly assuming that the universe is at least one megaparsec in radius), after which the title-text joke started making sense. Congratulations on being almost too subtle for me.00:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Is the 85 mph number significant in any way? Why does "Dave" who points radar guns in random directions get this number? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.167|108.162.245.167]] 03:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Well, it's probably over the speed limit in most places. Maybe Dave is a traffic cop? --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.129.137|172.68.129.137]] 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the explanation only explains the things everyone can read on the internet anyway. 85 mph or 85 km/h have the wrong unit, because for the expansion speed we need to look at two points of space, measure how fast they move away from each other. Obviously this should be a number that increases linearly with the distance of the two points (if space is created equally everywhere in the universe). Thus the 85 km/h misses the length. Is the joke here that a random dudes results are reported equally (false equivalence)? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.93.142|162.158.93.142]] 04:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Dave again: "But when they hit 88 mph, we're gonna see some REALLY weird shit!" [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 06:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a thought: maybe Dave is talking about Fords Galaxies? -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.222|162.158.183.222]] 08:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:I had already added that before I saw your comment. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Relating (coincidentally) with several of the above comments, I added in a "what Dave could be measuring" paragraph (ultimately: just traffic!), via a diversion where I totally messed up a factor and it sent me down a rabbithole of completely the wrong distance! ((Sanity-check my new figures, please: e.g. 85mph => ~0.038km/s => ~0.0005588(of the 68km/s/Mpc figure) => therefore 558.8pc, etc and onwards)) Anyway, perhaps Dave just is/wants to be a traffic-cop? (If you can find humour in the 'all directions' - presumably ''away from'' - then obviously supercede the 'both directions' bit.) [[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.47|172.70.134.47]] 09:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe a radar speed gun pointed at the sky would actually display something like "no reading" when it doesn't receive any radar echo, rather than 85 miles/h. It wouldn't do to fine drivers for speeding when the measurement fails. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.208|162.158.183.208]] 09:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Dave is measuring Ford Galaxies that are all speeding away from him, either way too fast, or if kph just moderately speed for a normal road between cities. --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 10:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
::Unless it ''is'' actual some kind of a Ford MPV Owners' Club 'burn out' session of some kind, I read it as more general "large, relatively unwieldy family-style vehicle passing in conspicuous quantities and not actually holding up the rest of the traffic" rather than truly committing traffic violations (in excess of any other vehicle on the road). To "book it" is to hurry, but (more colloquial understandings allowing) more as in the "not dawdling" sense. (They'd be noteworthy only for narrative punning reasons, really, as one of the comic's hooks. But that's only meta.)
::Though (outwith the most obviously speed-trapped areas) my personal experience is indeed that driving ''at'' the posted speed limit often means being treated as an inconvenient mobile-roadblock, by more than half the rest of the vehicles that come up behind and tailgate or pass, I would still consider hugging-the-limit (whatever it is) as going fast and not actually slow. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.11|162.158.159.11]] 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I think we've missed an important joke in the last panel. Dave says the galaxies are moving at 85mph/kph and "booking it". However, KM/S/Mpc is going to be on the scale of several thousand times faster than 85mph/kph. Dave's reference to "booking it" is actually moving quite slow. [[User:Pconwell|Pconwell]] ([[User talk:Pconwell|talk]]) 12:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:Dave is used to measuring car speeds, and 85 MPH is very fast (significantly over the speed limit) in most places. The joke is that he's totally out of context and measuring the wrong thing, but it happens to be a number in the same ballpark as the Hubble Constant. Of course, this is just a coincidence, since the units are different. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

How is the expansion rate different from an acceleration? The (correct) units surprise me. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.130.87|172.70.130.87]] 14:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
:In acceleration, the velocity increases over time. In expansion, the velocity increases over distance. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 14:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

With all this talk about units, I would like to mention that Google ever-so-helpfully says that 1 km/s/Mpc is "3.24077929e-20 hertz".
: Google also says 73 km/s/Mpc is 2.36576888e-18 hertz, which is perhaps unsurprisingly 1 over the age of the universe. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 10:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

[[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.195|172.70.126.195]] 16:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I see two things to comment on about Dave's response. First, if everything measured always shows the same velocity, then the "per megaparsec" part of the result becomes largely irrelevant, as Dave's results are the same regardless of this value. This means that Dave's results are "it doesn't matter how far away, it is all 85 MPH!" If taken seriously, this would be a challenge to the standard model of an expanding universe much bigger than the actually existing controversy.

Second, I believe the joke here is that Dave's radar gun is a police model that consistently reports that anything being measured is speeding. A recurring accusation, and occasional actual problem that requires police radar units to be tested regularly to avoid, is that radar guns that report speeds higher than they actually are are used to issue tickets unfairly. When used as an accusation, or in fictional media, it sometimes comes with an accusation that this happens with the full knowledge of a cop who cares more about issuing tickets than doing his job properly. In this case it appears that either every Ford Galaxy, all traffic, or even possibly the sky itself, is consistently "speeding" in this fashion.[[User:Geek Prophet|Geek Prophet]] ([[User talk:Geek Prophet|talk]]) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Dave's radar could have been pointed at a Ford Galaxie: https://mystarcollectorcar.com/the-out-of-this-world-ford-galaxie1959-to-1974/ [[Special:Contributions/172.70.178.191|172.70.178.191]] 09:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2032: Word Puzzles

2018-08-14T17:17:28Z

Sandor:

;Is it a real word puzzle?
Who wants to labouriously check if he's double-bluffed and used an actual word puzzle for this comic? :D [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.181|162.158.154.181]] 17:45, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

"Jeopardy" is misspelled in the description. Can someone who is logged in please fix?
Many of the "clue" words can also be rearranged, anagram-wise, to form new words, e.g., parts ≈ strap. {{unsigned ip|162.158.74.243}}

Most words have 2, 3, 4 or 5 characters. I do not believe, it is a simple crossword puzzle, otherwise he would not fool people. Sebastian --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.4|172.68.110.4]] 18:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

;Some thoughts:
*Cueball is messing with Megan and not presenting an answer what the "reminiscent of Jeopardy answers" would imply.
*{{w|Lance Ito}} is a judge well known for the O. J. Simpson murder case.
*{{w|Brian Eno}} is an English musician, composer, record producer, singer, writer, and visual artist. Read the Wiki article to learn more.
*No idea what "Ohio's AirAsia Arena" could imply.
--[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 18:37, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
::Almost all the words in the alt-text / title-text are open to multiple pronunciations from a phonetic standpoint. Often they're placed next to a word containing the same sound with a different spelling, or the same spelling with a different sound.
::Once again Randall is creeping me out with this, as yesterday I complained about the spelling of "tear" with a comment including this line:
::tire tier tear tear tare tar ... teer?
::Randall so often does comics that feel intimately in touch with what I'm doing or saying the day before that it's almost spooky. If I weren't an outlier in so ''many'' scatter plots I might almost begin to feel "ordinary".
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

;Moved from the explanation (discussion goes here)
The kind of puzzle that Megan thinks she is solving is called a "Cryptic", which has markedly different rules than ordinary crosswords. If Cueball's statement had been "Part of this aria is an Indian garment" the answer would have been "sari", because a part of the phrase "this aria" is the sequence "sari", which in turn is an Indian garment. Cueball's actual statement contains quite a few familiar cryptic puzzle triggers. The word "composed" can be a hint of a preceding or following anagram, in this case of "this aria" or of "by Brian" or of even longer adjacent strings. Although "opera star" could be a famous singer, say "Caruso", it might also be the name of an opera followed by the name of an astronomical star. "Au pair" could be any of its ordinary meanings, say "nanny", but might also be "earrings" (because AU is the chemical symbol for gold, and a gold pair could be earrings). The word "start" is often a hint to take just the beginning of a word, so "the start" would be "t", or "start of his" would be "h" or "hi". The New York Times runs a cryptic crossword as its "second Sunday puzzle" every other month or so, and there are other regular cryptic crossword venues. In case you are interested, there are various guides on the web for solving cryptics, such as this one at The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/puzzclue.htm. (-- John?)
:This sounds like the most correct explanation to me so far, much moreso than the strictly crossword-based interpretation. I think this ''should'' be in the explanation.
:[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 22:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
: Why was this moved from the explanation? This is a far better explanation then what remains there. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.38.172|162.158.38.172]] 07:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::I've moved this because it's written like a comment (including the sign). And I think at first we should focus on the ''My Hobby'' thing, Cueball is messing with someone. If you're also ''sure'', like Megan is, that there is a puzzle to solve then Cueball is probably messing you too. Nevertheless all mentioned items and persons have to be explained. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
:::I think it's a given that Cueball is messing with Megan, and that the focus should be '''why''' Megan thinks this is a word puzzle. The current explanation says the "text contain[s] many words that appear frequently in crossword puzzle answers", which seems an unlikely explanation to me. Surely the trigger shoud be many words and constructions that appear frequently in word puzzle clues (not answers), and I think John gave a good explanation of why this shounds like a word puzzle clue. [[User:Sandor|Sandor]] ([[User talk:Sandor|talk]]) 17:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Although Randall says he is messing with us, the fact that he is so much cleverer than any of the rest of us means that Cueball's statement might even be a legitimate cryptic clue. --John [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.214|108.162.219.214]] 18:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

If anyone has an account on https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/, that community might be able to figure out if it's a legit puzzle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.64|162.158.142.64]] 20:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
:I just asked at puzzling.stackexchange: https://puzzling.stackexchange.com/questions/69502/is-this-a-puzzle-if-so-what-is-the-solution. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.209|141.101.96.209]] 02:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::One answer supports my statement above: "I see no reason to believe this is a puzzle: it's simply a bunch of words that commonly appear in crosswords." Just sayin. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 09:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Two words: [[Nerd Sniping]] [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

:"opera star" = "au pair a[t the] star[t]"? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.88.230|162.158.88.230]] 07:43, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

When I first read this sentence, I thought he just wanted to be needlessly verbose for a simple joke, like [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE5KkmDAcDs here]. [[User:Fabian42|Fabian42]] ([[User talk:Fabian42|talk]]) 08:16, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

In the explanation, I think there's a misunderstanding of "post-live". Death is "post-life", while "post-live" is the period after an artist stops performing live (in rock conerts, on stage, etc.). The artist may still be alive, and even produce studio albums. So, according to the comic, Brian Eno has stopped performing on-stage, but has still continued to create music (e.g. compose an aria). - Assaf {{unsigned ip|141.101.107.30}}
: My thoughts exactly - post-live does not mean after death! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
::Thanks for mentioning this. The phrase is still incorrect so I'll do an update. BTW: Is the concert on this album {{w|June 1, 1974}} the last or maybe even the only live performance Eno has done? --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 13:52, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I arranged all the important words in the main text on a Scrabble board. The total score of all the letters is 69. The total from my arrangement is 116. {{unsigned|Misterblue28}}

Reminiscent of the alliterations in BoJack Horseman.
:"Are you still looking for a star for your Transgender Teddy Roosevelt Planes Trains and Automobiles reboot, Plans, Trans, A Canal, Panama?"

:"You know the actress Courtney Portnoy? She portrayed the formerly portly consort in the seaport resort. Courtly roles like the formerly portly consort are Courtney Portnoy's forte. This was supposed to be Courtney's crossover coronation. But that's sorta been thwarted unfortunately 'cause Courtney's purportedly falling short of shoring up fourth quadrant support."

:"But Courtney, more importantly, audiences are going to adore your tour de force performance as the forceful denim-clad court reporter in "The Court Reporter Sported Jorts", the jet-setting jort-sporting court reporter story."

:[[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.154|162.158.63.154]] Steve

Would it make more sense to interpret "Brian Eno's opera star au pair" as "Brian Eno's au pair, who is an opera star" rather than "an au pair to an opera star which belonged to Eno"? It seems to make more sense, and there isn't anything that I can see that necessarily divides "opera star" and "au pair" into two separate clauses (such as "opera star's au pair").[[Special:Contributions/162.158.187.25|162.158.187.25]] 16:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
:Sounds reasonable. I'm not native English but I thought the more complex variant would fit into this comic. Maybe I'm wrong and I don't mind when you or someone else is changing it. --[[User:Dgbrt|Dgbrt]] ([[User talk:Dgbrt|talk]]) 16:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)