explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2115: Plutonium

2023-08-17T16:37:45Z

Stickfigurefan: New comment

I feel like this is a reference to Kerbal Space Program - the RTG in the game runs on Bluetonium-238, and there is no half-life mechanic, leading to an actual power orb that provides stable power forever.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.127|172.68.144.127]] 08:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Even though space is cold, it conducts so poorly that spacecraft would probably have more problems getting rid of heat than keeping heat, considering how isolated they are. [[User:Tharkon|Tharkon]] ([[User talk:Tharkon|talk]]) 16:43, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

:It actually has little to do with conduction; the heat radiates pretty effectively, especially as it gets "hotter" vs the surrounding radiation. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.69.124|172.69.69.124]] 17:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

::You're right, spacecraft are cooled by radiation. Yet it is far less effective than conductive/convective cooling by blowing the surrounding medium (water, air, whatever) over the hot parts. It's so much easier to cool things down here on Earth! Cooling problems is one of the reasons why nuclear reactors are not very popular in space, they need massive cooling systems.

Reminds me of reddit.com/r/outside [[User:Linker|Linker]] ([[User talk:Linker|talk]]) 16:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I put in how the title text makes a probable reference to game development. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:It could, with equal probability, be a reference to parallel universes. There's nothing anywhere that says anything about game development.... [[Special:Contributions/162.158.214.10|162.158.214.10]] 18:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:”Cool Mechanic” “Unbalanced” and “Join the team” seemed like hints [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
::It seemed obvious to me it was a reference to episodic story development, as it looks like that happens with shows and comics all the time. Don't understand how it makes sense for parallel universes (except that this kind of happened with star trek and the introduction of the parallel reality) but recommend updating the article to include all interpretations. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.47.240|172.68.47.240]] 21:20, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:::I thought it was more in the line of someone joining a D&D game, doing something crazy with their character then leaving, and the remaining players all have to keep up the story.
:::(Unsigned: Please sign your posts!)
::::Definitely refers to gaming, in my opinion: These phrases are used extensively in gaming circles & almost nowhere else.
::::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 23:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This seems to be in the same vein as two other recent comics, Internet Archive and ArkXiv. Perhaps real things that seem unrealistic is a new topic of Randalls? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.4|172.69.247.4]] 17:53, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
:Nope, it goes back at least to the 331st comic! [[Special:Contributions/162.158.78.220|162.158.78.220]] 21:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Note that the radioactive material obviously doesn't produce this energy forever, although it can produce it so long the device will break before it gets out of energy." The main problem with Voyager I and Voyager II is not that the devices on board have been broken, exhausted a finite reserve or otherwise failed, but that the power supply can not keep most of the machine powered anymore. In fact, if there was enough electrical power, most of the cameras and other sensors would still work; they might see much that far from the sun and other bodies, but they would work. The plutonium power source undergoes exponential decay, producing proportionally less power each year and each year, the NASA scientists have to decide which devices on the spacecraft need to power-down, never to turn on again, or maybe a device is so important, but needs so much power that they will turn it on for less and less time, sort of like rotating brown-outs. I think the Pioneer probes are in the same boat. [[User:Nutster|Nutster]] ([[User talk:Nutster|talk]]) 04:13, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
:Also because of the many restrictions on use of highly radioactive material, plus the basic weight factor, you would only use just the amount of plutonium required to power the craft fully over it's expected lifetime. After that lifetime you no longer have full power due to decay.[[Special:Contributions/172.68.146.20|172.68.146.20]] 05:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
::Actually, the half-life of the plutonium has a relatively small effect on the loss of power, the degradation of the thermocouples is a more significant cause of the power loss of RTGs on long term spacecraft missions. Plutonium loses about 0.79% of the available energy every year due to decay. [[User:TimO|TimO]] ([[User talk:TimO|talk]]) 09:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Could someone perhaps expand on the term "implementing a mechanic"? In New Zealand English at least, a mechanic is a person who works with machines. I thought this was maybe a synonym for "implementing a mechanism", but it seems to have a specific meaning in the team episode writing sense discussed here. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.200.210|103.22.200.210]] 23:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
:As a non-native speaker, I am familiar with the word "mechanic" on a gameplay level. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_mechanics. I am fairly certain that is what Randal is refering to. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.18.142|162.158.18.142]] 07:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:This use of the word "mechanic" is extremely confusing. To most English speakers it means someone who fixes machines, usually cars. Either remove it or explain the unusual jargon meaning in this context
::In the US, we also call that a mechanic, or a repairman. But in this context, mechanic is referring to mechanics of a story or game, a synonym to feature. Hope that helps, and sign your comments. [[User:Netherin5|Netherin5]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 15:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
:::Tried to explain "implementing the mechanic" (which is actual game developers' jargon) but had to edit out the references to TV shows, comic series and whatever was there before - I have no knowledge how these are created and discussed in their own jargon. The explanation is rather long but the topic is a bit convoluted indeed and hard to explain in plain words (for me at least). Thanks, Netherin5, for trying to fix it up. -- [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.59|162.158.91.59]] 18:10, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
: Mechanic in this case is short for "mechanical function", a method used in games (either physical or video) to allow changes to the game state. For example, a board game may use dice for the purpose of moving a token a number of spaces. That would be referred to as a movement mechanic. In a video game, mechanics might include movement (walking, jumping) or crafting (combining multiple items to produce a new one). --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.113|162.158.79.113]] 16:27, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The explanation of the title text regarding computer games could be expanded to just games in general. This could also refer to a table top Role Playing Game where the game master who runs the universe through a series of narrative follows the game engine's mechanic. Some guest GM came in and introduced a bunch of stuff but left. The rest of the players continue to play with the current dynamic even if its unbalanced and should not make sense. Long stretch, the character in the comics are playing an role playing game (hence the questions) where the engine requires them to stick to reality. When Cueball suggested the power orb, everyone dismissed it as an unobtanium that Cueball made up and didn't realize that one of such thing exist in real life too.

Don't worry, the game devs nerfed the magic power orb by making it very dangerous to be near. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2809: Moon

2023-08-17T16:25:47Z

Stickfigurefan: New comment

Happy birthday to me. This comic is a good birthday present, so I'm gonna try to add some stuff to the explanation now. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:11, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, added a Trivia section and a lot of stuff to the explanation. Request someone help add more information about lunar cycles and some wikipedia links. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 02:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Ah, well, I added more (sufficient? ...haven't wikilinked yet) info about the illumination/tide cycles. i.e. about half the time (at least) half reilluminating areas on the night side of Earth + roughly twice a day dragging/flinging the tides 'upwards' (modifying the Sun's own twice-daily effects).
:Had to heavily qualify the secondary Trivia point, for caveats. I mean selenically-specific names aren't rare, when refering to orb sometimes known as Phoebe/Cynthia, until you become more precise about "common English use". Didn't say anything about (the) Earth, but did mention the Sun(/suns in general) in the edit comment. Interesting point to make, but not so much unusual as stemming from long time (way into prehistory!) custom so really being the heavily weighted precedent. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.187|172.70.90.187]] 05:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::...what? I don't understand. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::''"it can also be described by other titles such as "Luna" (directly taken from from Latin mythology/astronomy)."'' It's not true that "the Moon doesn't have a name". It is ''the'' Moon (unlike other moons), plus all kinds of other names (historical, other culture and/or other language; such as Chandra/Igaluk/Chang'e). But it is interesting to note that, until we were able to imagine (and/or see) moons orbiting other things up in the sky, there was ''just'' its proper name. Whatever it might be. Only after we anticipated the existence of satellites of other planets (and, perhaps, other satellites of our own planet), having first recognised what other planets actually were (distinct from stars, with those being other suns than ''our'' Sun/Sol/Ra/...) was it meaningful that the name(s) we did use for it might be re-used to describe the class of things that were like it. But they then really needed their own fresh names/catalogue numbers. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:Reminds me of that conversation from Dragonheart (paraphrized as I only watched the German dub): "So instead of calling me 'dragon" in your language you call me 'dragon' in another language... I think I like it" [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 07:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

If there was no Moon, would an Earth astronomer that discovered moons around one of the other planets be considered a loony? [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 02:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:If there was no moon, it's quite possible there would be no intelligent life on Earth. Also, when Galileo Galilei found Jupiter's moons, he was totally considered loony by some, while others said it's defect of the telescope. Remember that at that point of history, suggesting that if Earth has moon, other planets might have one too was something you could be burned on stake for. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 03:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

:Definitely not. (I see what you did there.) --[[Special:Contributions/172.70.247.155|172.70.247.155]] 12:55, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I doubt the title text is intended as a reference to that saying. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.247.51|172.69.247.51]] 04:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:Yeah, I don't get how that is related either. The title text references that it is pretty, but the nmoves away from that. Not sure how that is related to a quote that doesn't even use the word "pretty". --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 09:28, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
::I mean, the word "beautiful" and "pretty" have common meanings, so I thought about that connection, but if no one else made the connection, so be it. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:30, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::I think if that connection was meant to be invoked it would just say beautiful, or get more into detail of the way it is pretty/beautiful. However it was just used as a kind of connector to make the other mentioned aspects seem more minor. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 08:05, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Like many things,{{Citation needed}} it has probably seemed usual whilst we only know our own example. Once we started to find other examples out there, we can discover the ways in which it's an outlier. (Martian: "Well of ''course'' there's those two small rock 'stars' visibly zipping around overhead, that's what the sky alsays looks like for me, and I imagine that it's much the same for anyone else..." Earthling/Venusian/Jovian/Tritonian/Plutoid: "...hold my beer!") [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.133|141.101.99.133]] 07:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been saying this about the Sun… A great fireball looming in the sky. It remotely powers life. (Even with 90% of that power lost at each trophic level!) It is worshipped as a god. It controls Earthlings' sense of time. When it leaves the sky at a regular interval, a wave of fear follows, and everything seeks shelter and goes dormant until its return. Oh, but it also burns and mutates the flesh of those who stand in its rays, to the point that it's ''dangerous to look at''. Sounds fake, right? And yet, there it is. [[User talk:AgentMuffin|~AgentMuffin]] 08:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I have a personal theory that the constant gravitational massage is responsible for sustaining the Earth's large magnetic field, thus preventing the solar wind making us like Venus or Mars, and probably keeping the tectonic plates on the move. (Oh and dogs domesticated themselves - just saying p.s. same for cats but only after we had barns). [[User:RIIW - Ponder it|RIIW - Ponder it]] ([[User talk:RIIW - Ponder it|talk]]) 09:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we’re well past the point of “plans being made” of humans returning to the Moon. [[User:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|Silver]] ([[User talk:SilverTheTerribleMathematician|talk]]) 19:29, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
:You mean that we are currently building rockets and stuff to send people to the moon at this very moment? [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 05:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
::We are. Which I hope you're aware of. But if you weren't... this your [[1053: Ten Thousand|lucky day]]! [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:::Huh. I thought we were still only in the planning phase. Admittedly, paying attention to the news these days tends to be bad for one's mental health, all things considered. [[User:R3TRI8UTI0N|R3TRI8UTI0N]] ([[User talk:R3TRI8UTI0N|talk]]) 03:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
::::{{w|Space Launch System}} and {{w|Artemis 1}} built and launched with further SLSs and Artemises(/Artemii?/Artemoxen?) being built for the followup missions. The bit of the mission with {{w|SpaceX Starship}} has been built/tested over variously incremental degrees, but is still far short of even Artemis's trans-lunar test as far as proving itself capable. But there is definitely more than just plans. (Though wouldn't be surprised if there are also ''contingency'' plans, if MusX gets too distracted and cannot actually deliver his element contribution. Like shuffling the {{w|Blue Moon (spacecraft)|Bezos version}} up the order, though that's also far (indeed, further) from usability right now.)
::::Artemis 2 doesn't depend upon anything additional (manufacturing aside) and so the trans-/circum-lunar manned mission is likely to happen (eventually) unless actively cancelled/reconfigured, for possibly political reasons (the current schedule of November 2024 is potentially between the election and inaugoration/continuation of the next/incumbant/returning US President, so any slipping NASA schedules and sudden changes in direction from 'above' are possibly going to interact), even with current equipment already partly in existence. Artemis 3's landing mission is far more hypothetical, right now, but predominantly for all the various non-NASA reasons (e.g. politics and, possibly, the fallout of any further Twitter/X 'developments' that have knock-on-effects that hinder/do not help SpaceX to solve its own entirely different problems). Assuming '2' itself isn't a practical(/fatal) failure in its own right, of course.
::::But this is just my own (broad) thinking about what pieces are in place or in the process of being placed. There are both professionals and supra-amateurs who keep a very close eye on all these things and might be far more informed about current progress. Yet I think I'm safe to roughly update you on the current "beyond planning" status of the Artemis programme, giving you various interesting advances ''and'' caveats that you were not aware of. ...watch this space? (Or space in general!) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.15|172.71.242.15]] 10:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

August 1, 2023 the moon is a "Super Moon" [[User:KingPenguin|KingPenguin]] ([[User talk:KingPenguin|talk]]) 22:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to make a category for these things which would sound outlandish if they didn't exist. [[2115]] is the first one I think of, and I'm sure there's more. I propose we call it Category: Things That Seem Like They Shouldn't Work But Do in honor of [[2540]]. [[User:Take The A Train To Watertown|Take The A Train To Watertown]] ([[User talk:Take The A Train To Watertown|talk]]) 12:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
:[[2085]] title text. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 05:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@84596Gamma - yes, really. (But not as much as a spoon.) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.186|172.71.178.186]] 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned The Broken Earth Trilogy by N. K. Jemisin yet. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2552: The Last Molecule

2021-12-10T17:16:54Z

Stickfigurefan: Final Molecule question

Unsuccessfully tried to search for a match to the image of the chemical compound. Did find this, which is difficult to use on a cellphone: OSRA: Optical Structure Recognition: https://cactus.nci.nih.gov/cgi-bin/osra/index.cgi [[Special:Contributions/172.70.211.172|1 not72.70.211.172]] 07:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:I've tried to search for SMILES of the molecule, but also got nothing: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/#query=C1(C2CC(CCC)C(CC)C2(CCCC))C%3DCC(C(%3DCCC(%3DC)CC)C(C)C)%3DC1 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.222.137|162.158.222.137]]
::Let's name it Excacidin ;) [[User:256 256.256.256|256.256.256.256]] ([[User talk:256 256.256.256|talk]]) 07:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I truly don't understand the God part of the current explanation. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.110.121|172.68.110.121]] 07:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:There is an article at [https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/humans-make-110000th-earths-biomass-180969141/ Smithonian Magazine] that sums it up quite nicely: Of the 550 gigatons of biomass carbon on Earth, animals make up about 2 gigatons, with insects comprising half of that and fish taking up another 0.7 gigatons. Everything else, including mammals, birds, nematodes and mollusks are roughly 0.3 gigatons, with humans weighing in at 0.06 gigatons.
::About half of all known living species on earth are insects. Therefore if there was a god who created all life, it would be reasonable to assume he likes them. [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
::: 1 Ton = 10^3 kg = 1 Mg → 1 gigaton = 1 Pg (note, not pentagram!) --[[User:Slashme|Slashme]] ([[User talk:Slashme|talk]]) 02:27, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry. I love chemistry :-) There is a concept called "Chemical Space" that I learned about in school. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_space may help, in short: Chemical space is a huge but finite space of all possible atom arrangements in molecules. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.91.106|162.158.91.106]] 07:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I've heard the claim, that we know less about our own ocean floor than we do about the surface of Mars several times before. Is there actually a credible source for this and how do we even quantify how much we know about either area? [[User:Bischoff|Bischoff]] ([[User talk:Bischoff|talk]]) 08:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:This essay might shed some light on the question. [[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-how-little-do-we-know-about-the-ocean-floor/ Just How Little Do We Know about the Ocean Floor?]] From a geographical perspective, our maps of the ocean floor are much less detailed than those covering Mars. (5km resolution for ocean floor, 100m resolution for Mars - radar doesn't work underwater). [[Special:Contributions/162.158.107.18|162.158.107.18]] 09:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The current explanation says that there are an infinite number of chemicals. Is that true? Source? Explanation how that is possible?
Obviously the number of possible molecules is huge, but is it actually a literal, mathematical infinite? Given a finite observable universe, with presumably a finite number of atoms in it. There appear to be a finite number of elements which are stable for any appreciable amount of time and capable of forming molecules.
It seems like there might be practical limitations to the size of a molecule, so that you can't keep making bigger and bigger ones just by adding more atoms/subunits?
If you just keep adding carbon atoms to a diamond will you eventually reach a point where forces such as gravitation become a factor and the molecular bonds fail? I can imagine that long chain molecules light years long might reach point where other forces overwhelm the bond strength? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.76|108.162.246.76]] 09:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:For obvious reasons, as long as you limit the number of atoms involved the number of possible "molecules" is - in a mathematical sense - finite. (As there is only a finite number of reasonable stable elements.) But already simple things like polymers can bind millions of atoms in a single molecule. Together with the possible variations intrinsic to such polymers a simple "material" like phenolic resin [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenol_formaldehyde_resin]] is a mixture of more different chemical compounds (in a strict sense) than mankind can ever describe. For all practical application this compexity is not relevant, so no one really cares about.
Additionally there is no clear boundary between typical molecules and other types of condensed matter, like crystals. Same applies to biochemistry. Does chemistry include bio-molecules? If yes, the chemistry guy have to include all the gene sequencing in their to-do list.

"how fast does light travel in one direction?" is not a good example for incompleteness in physics, because this question was settled by Michelson and Morley in the 19th century (answer: it travels with the speed of light)
: It's not clear to me either what was meant here - seems out of place.
:We know how fast light travels when it goes somewhere and comes back – that's ''c'' – but we don't know how fast it goes when only traveling in one direction. For example, light going at ''c''/2 in one direction and returning instantaneously in the other would still match our observations. We also can't reliably synchronize clocks over a distance because we'd either have to do it with a speed-of-light delay, or separate two clocks and find that relativity changed the timings. Of course, Occam's razor indicates that a consistent speed is more likely, but that's not proof. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.126.87|172.70.126.87]] 12:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:Observing two points (nominal source and nominal destination) from a third point perpendicularly off the mid-point between thoss two points, at an arbitrary distance, you ought to see if there's slowness or instaneity involved (at least make a comparison between bidirectional traversal). This does not remove a response bias in the signal from either end as sent towards the recorder at the observation point, but as the stand-off is increased it makes both observation paths nearer and nearer to parallel and so significantly removes the quantifiable initial 'sideways bias' that may exist.
:I leave it as an excercise to the reader to produce the reasons why this might not practically work to quash all such 'inbuilt universal asymmetry', but it's a good start! [[Special:Contributions/172.70.90.141|172.70.90.141]] 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:I genuinely don't understand the confusion being proposed here; in practice it's trivial to synchronize a single photon emitter with a single photon detector (such as a PMT) and confirm the speed of light across a single path, with no return trip involved. As far as I know there is know precidence in QM to suspect bidirectional travel could be a special case.
:I like Veritasium as much as the next guy, but I don't think that this one is a serious debate like the other examples. If you're going to consider something like this a great unsolved mystery in physics, I'm sure there are countless other questions just like this for almost every topic in physics and not everything can be a great unsolved mystery.[[Special:Contributions/172.70.134.23|172.70.134.23]] 17:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

To quote Randall Munroe in https://what-if.xkcd.com/114/, "The whole universe is matter, as far as we can tell. No one is sure why there is more matter than antimatter, since the laws of physics are pretty symmetrical, and there's no reason to expect there to be more of one than the other. Although when it comes down to it, there's no reason to expect anything at all." Antimatter aside, this shows that the laws of the universe are sometimes asymmetrical. I also like the point that "when it comes down to it, there's no reason to expect anything." Why should we expect the speed of light to be symmetrical? There's no real reason to. [[User:Beret|Beret]] ([[User talk:Beret|talk]]) 14:53, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
:On the contrary, without any such thing as the æther (the fundament through which we would be passing) there is no reason to expect the speed of light (in any given frame of reference) to be asymmetrical. Relativistic frame-dragging and other distortions due to (or resulting in!) accelerative forces will act accordingly, but not change ''c'' itself, in proper calculations, as a function to direction. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.86.12|172.70.86.12]] 16:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

::https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light In any case, the point is that there is no reason to expect light speed to be symmetrical, either. Asymmetry in this case is not due to frame dragging, it would be some fundamental feature of photons or the universe. There is currently no experimental way to test this. [[User:Beret|Beret]] ([[User talk:Beret|talk]]) 17:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we can cite one of some famous declarations of physicist saying the physics is almost done [https://nautil.us/blog/the-comforting-certainty-of-unanswered-questions (taken from this site)] :

:The British scientist William Cecil Dampier recalled his apprenticeship at Cambridge in the 1890s: “It seemed as though the main framework had been put together once for all, and that little remained to be done but to measure physical constants to the increased accuracy represented by another decimal place.” British physicist J. J. Thomson: “All that was left was to alter a decimal or two in some physical constant.” American physicist Albert A. Michelson: “Our future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.”
:My physics professor from freshman year: "If you're ever in a room with physicists who say that the physics of Earth are done, and there's nothing else left to calculate, ask them "what about turbulence?". You'll be sure to get some dirty looks."[[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.122|108.162.246.122]] 21:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
--[[User:Marceluda|Marceluda]] ([[User talk:Marceluda|talk]]) 15:32, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd argue that fusion on earth is an engineering problem, not a matter of physics completeness (yeah, engineering is just applied physics and math just theoretical physics and biology what happens when you close two physicists in a room for too long, but still). Also, the problem of the symmetry of light speed is, from the present understanding of physics, a matter of metaphysics. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.94.143|172.68.94.143]] 13:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
:Having worked in fusion research, I'd say it's still a physics problem because we don't yet know if it's physically possible for a burning plasma to be confined for long enough on a small enough scale to create a viable power plant. It's not necessarily just a question of designing the right machine, if you see what I mean. And if it was, I'd like to think we'd find a few hundred billion of dollars of funding and just get it done. IMO the reason it's not a funding priority is that we can't be sure it would work with _any_ amount of money. That said, while it's potentially a question of great value to humanity, I don't think it's significant in terms of the completeness of physics as a field. --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 15:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
:To rant further about fusion funding, we don't know whether we can win any given war either but that doesn't stop us spending trillions of dollars on them. Maybe if we called fusion research "the war on paying for electricity / wrecking the environment" maybe we'd get it sorted. --[[User:192·168·0·1|192·168·0·1]] ([[User talk:192·168·0·1|talk]]) 15:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the final molecule, using the above mentioned cactus website optical recognition I got: *[C@H](*CC[C@H](C)[C@H](C1CC1C[C@H](CC)CCC)C2[C@H](*)[C@@H]2C)CC3C*(CCC)C(CCC)[C@H]3CCCCC, which isn't recognized as a molecule. Anyone have any better ideas on if there is a similar known molecule? [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 17:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Talk:2271: Grandpa Jason and Grandpa Chad

2020-02-21T17:58:05Z

Stickfigurefan:

Is the Title Text a callback to 2268 with the "no further research is needed" comment? [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 17:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:1902: State Borders

2019-06-04T16:56:54Z

Stickfigurefan:

Let's be honest- it should ''all'' be Canada. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.74.123|162.158.74.123]] 12:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:Or... Indigenous people's land? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Could Arizona, New Mexico be a reference to Trump? Like, make the border straighter so it's easier to build a wall? [[User:Herobrine|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine|talk]]) 12:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:More likely the joke is that conceding territory to Mexico is about the last thing Trump would do [[User:AnotherAnonymous|AnotherAnonymous]] ([[User talk:AnotherAnonymous|talk]]) 13:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
::I don't think there's a Trump joke here. Randall doesn't tend to be political. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 05:49, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

My first thought is to wonder if it would be possible to arrange the map such that all internal borders are "straight lines" that span the entire country, to satisfy as many criteria as possible:
* The number of states remains unchanged
** …and they all get to keep their capitals (probably quite difficult)
*** …or (and?) each state manages to keep either its current population, land area, or coastline length
* Or all internal borders are parallels or meridians
* Or all states have the same land area
** …or population; or population density
* Or if you're allowing more (or fewer) states than the present layout, what's the greatest number of states possible such that they all contain at least one complete city?

Which of those criteria would be the most interesting challenge? And which could you construct an algorithm to solve?
I really should refrain from trying to build those algorithms, because I'm supposed to be working --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 13:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
:I'd like to see what a map of the US would look like with each house gerrymandered by their legislative preferences... Borders everywhere, and wow what a nightmare of litigation it would generate as people cross from one district to another!
:More to your query: I don't see any modifications you could make that would keep the population unchanged. Some people would inevitably end up in a different state.

:How about a map where every state has an equal number of spiders? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 04:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
::Population as in number of people; not necessarily the same people. --[[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
:::Oh... Hm, that doesn't sound very useful ''or'' aesthetically satisfying... I think mapping the regions where various spider populations dominate might be more interesting. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.232|108.162.216.232]] 10:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

There are some great videos on YouTube about weird State boundaries. There are some REALLY weird oddities out there. Take for instance the "Give to Canada" piece - that's the Northwest Angle in Minnesota. It's really an accident that it ever ended up in the USA at all, and doesn't make any sense! [[User:Martini|Martini]] ([[User talk:Martini|talk]]) 13:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)Martini
:I wouldn't call the NW Angle an accident as much as a slightly illogical solution in order to maintain the terms of the original border agreement in the face of the Mississippi River's inconveniently located headwaters. My recollection is that it said roughly: the border goes west of <this> point until reaching the Mississippi river [which all parties assumed continued that far north]. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.40|108.162.216.40]] 14:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe Randall's overall point is that though a large part of the individual United States have straight boundaries, especially in the West, or other features that are aesthetically pleasing, as in the S Carolina/Georgia/Florida coastline, there are a good number of internal inconsistencies. Many of these (most of the untagged "fixes") can be attributed to the concept that "Rivers make good logical boundaries", but even then, if you look closer, there are some really puzzling bits:
* The "Give To Canada" bit of Minnesota is almost all Indian Reservation land, so that kind of makes sense...
* The "Fix this thing" in Missouri is even stranger than it initially looks - while the notch in Arkansas is caused by the Mississippi River, there is a large bight of land in the middle of the Missouri-owned bit that is actually Kentucky (yes, there's an island of Kentucky that is separate from the main Kentucky state and entirely surrounded by Missouri)
* Not edited, but equally odd is the dip Florida cuts into Georgia near the east coast - there's no apparent town or natural features there to cause that irregularity

I don't happen to think the Arizona/New Mexico bits are political commentary, just "the entire rest of the state is a box, make this a straight line, too." cleanup. I mean yes, it would make wall-building easier, theoretically, but the Chinese showed the world centuries ago that straight lines are not needed to build a big fricking wall. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.131|108.162.238.131]] 14:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

- While I agree it probably isn't conscious political commentary, its interesting that there are not places the border increases; always concessions, never gains. May take into account its easier to give than take territory? --[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)--[[User:Jgt|Jgt]] ([[User talk:Jgt|talk]]) 19:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm surprised Randall didn't suggest cleaning up Point Roberts as well [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington]. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.107.174|141.101.107.174]] 14:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
: Presumably the graphic designers are okay with that, since it maintains the 49th Parallel as a nice, tidy border. [[User:Wwoods|Wwoods]] ([[User talk:Wwoods|talk]]) 20:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked he didn't support fixing the Idaho/Wisconsin/Montana/Oregon border. That top part should be either given to Montana, or split between Washington and Oregon... I wonder if he left out certain things in order to avoid offending certain groups of people. Like suggesting that Rhode Island and Connecticut should probably be one state, or that Vermont and New Hampshire should be as well. [[User:Kashim|Kashim]] ([[User talk:Kashim|talk]]) 17:03, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Some of the suggestions are ironic, for example Michigan's upper peninsula actually used to be part of the Wisconsin territory, but it was ceded to Michigan in exchange for the port of Toledo being ceded to Ohio. "why does Florida get Alabama's coastline" is actually because Alabama got part of Florida's coastline so it wouldn't be landlocked. The bit of Nevada that he wants to fix it so Nevada has territory along the Colorado River [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.250|162.158.75.250]] 17:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody seems to have noticed that Delaware's curved northern border has been flattened (removing Wilmington). [[Special:Contributions/108.162.238.83|108.162.238.83]] 21:31, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

One significant thing about this map is that, under this map, Hillary Clinton may have won the 2016 election. Citations needed, but I've seen it said that if the Upper Peninsula were moved from Michigan to Wisconsin and the Florida Panhandle were moved to Alabama, Clinton would have won Michigan and Florida, giving her an Electoral College majority. I don't think the Upper Peninsula has enough population to cost Michigan an electoral vote, and I think Florida would lose two electoral votes, putting Clinton exactly at the 270 needed to win. Perhaps the changes around Colorado and Nevada would make a difference, although there were also five faithless Clinton electors who might have voted for her if it would have made a difference. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.219.4|108.162.219.4]] 01:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

* There's a tool out there that allows you to at least approximate these changes (you can move counties from one state to another. It's not perfectly straight lines.) http://kevinhayeswilson.com/redraw/ The changes that are potentially electorally-significant with respect to 2016 were: The Upper Peninsula to Wisconsin, the Florida panhandle largely to Alabama, the expansion of DE, expansion of RI, cleanup of WV/MD, and shifting of Long Island*. (Almost all the other changes occur in very unpopulated areas and involve states that were not particularly close in the last election.) I get a 277-261 Clinton victory on this map. As you note, the Upper Peninsula and Florida Panhandle shifts do change the outcomes in the remaining portions of MI and FL respectively. The change to WV and MD does not appear to change either state's results (I assigned Wheeling to Ohio, which only makes Ohio slightly redder). Expanding Delaware does not quite flip it red - the Maryland Eastern Shore and Virginia bay shore are not sufficient to change DE, although it became an extremely close race - Clinton won by 2,000 votes out of 1.4 million in the expanded state of Delmarva, so if Wilmington becomes part of PA, it probably moves DE and its now 4 electoral votes to Trump (273-265 in that scenario). The NYC area however is the catch here - depending on how it's sliced, it could cause Upstate New York to flip red and therefore flip the overall map back to a Trump victory. (New York north of the northern border of Westchester County is a Red State!). It doesn't appear to matter whether NYC itself ends up in CT, NJ, or divided between the two - adding a blue city to a blue state doesn't change the outcome much, aside from potentially varying the electoral vote sizes. The tool doesn't allow you to add a new state, but the State of Long Island's 2 extra EVs from a Senate seats would not change the overall outcome of the election either - if Westchester is part of Long Island State, Trump wins - if it remains in New York State, Hillary wins. As Westchester County Goes, so goes the White House --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.132.59|172.68.132.59]] 05:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Good curve! The curve is called the Georgia Bight, or less euphoniously, the South Atlantic Bight. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.63.76|162.158.63.76]] 03:34, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

"'''Align to Grid'''" refers to the option to have icons snap to a grid on a Windows desktop. The idea is that the states become "aligned" like icons on a desktop. [[User:FakeCrash|FakeCrash]] ([[User talk:FakeCrash|talk]]) 17:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
:More likely, since this has been drawn up by graphic designers, it refers to functionality in most design/drawing tools that allows you to drag elements into the drawing and have them snap to a notional grid, so that they align nicely with previously added elements.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.155.32|162.158.155.32]] 11:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It would be really useful if this could link to somewhere that described why the various panhandles and oddities exist. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.154.247|162.158.154.247]] 21:04, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_the_States_Got_Their_Shapes [[User:Silverpie|Silverpie]] ([[User talk:Silverpie|talk]]) 21:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

They should be called geo-graphic designers [[User:Jaalenja|Jaalenja]] ([[User talk:Jaalenja|talk]]) 06:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Randall had no references to Trump here. Get over it.
I mean really. Why does everybody think everything about the country has to do with Trump winning? [[User:Jacky720|That's right, Jacky720 just signed this]] ([[User talk:Jacky720|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jacky720|contribs]]) 14:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

For the sentence: "Many U.S. residents will be made to live in new states, and thus be required to pay different taxes and obey different state laws, and even root for different sports teams." It should be expanded to explain that people are indeed required to root for sports teams in the state they live in⸮ --[[Special:Contributions/172.68.133.234|172.68.133.234]] 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The map looks great, but you didn't include all 50 states.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.58.123|162.158.58.123]] 05:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

[https://img
ur.com/a/Tnjts I tried my hand at creating this map] [[Special:Contributions/162.158.255.112|162.158.255.112]] 01:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

In the "explanation" column of the grid the entry for Rhode Island says "Expanding Rhode Island eastward would reduce the number of land borders it has to two [...]" This confused me a great deal, and I triple-checked to confirm that Rhode Island currently has two land borders, so how would making it bigger reduce the number (which is currently two) to two? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.190|108.162.237.190]] 04:15, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

• Original writer - my bad for poor writing. I had the fact that Rhode Island's current border with Massachusetts has two clear lines on the mind: an east-west border to RI's north and a north-southish border to RI's east, with the latter being erased under the DT's proposals.

A description of the change to the eastern Massachusetts/New Hampshire border is missing.

The border between the Province of Québec and the States of New York and Vermont should also be straightened and aligned on the 45th parallel and, while we're at it, extended all the way to the Atlantic Ocean. The Northeastern border would then be a nice straight line, like the Northwestern border. New Hampshire would lose its extreme Northern tip (not a big deal), and Maine all of its Northern territory (which is mostly uninhabited anyway).

• He missed an opportunity regarding the {{w|Erie_Triangle}}.

T for Texas, T for Tennessee: There is an actual [Horrors] OMISSION, given that he is correcting a surveying error in Tennessee, he should also correct the surveying error that put the New Mexico-Texas state line about 1 xkcd line-width too far west (as scaled on the map), unnecessarily expanding Texas.

With regards to the Alaskan panhandle section - to the best of my knowledge (and based on a quick online search) the capital of Alaska has always been in Juneau. It certainly has never been in Anchorage. There were several referendums over the past four decades to move the capital to Anchorage or near Anchorage; however, most were defeated. Also, the two (I think it was two?) that passed, were effectively defunded in the legislature.
Also, most of us Anchoragites (damn, we need a better name for ourselves) would be more than happy to give Juneau to Canada... some of us would pay them to take it.

In the vein of "Give X to Canada," [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Roberts,_Washington Port Roberts] needs addressing. Nobody else really cares enough to make it happen. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.239|108.162.246.239]] 05:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

As a Wyomingite, I strongly object to the 'Align to Grid' changes. Not because I mind Jackson being lost, but because Idaho and Montana have been laying claim to Yellowstone for years. We can't let them actually have it![[Special:Contributions/172.68.34.70|172.68.34.70]] 05:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
:The Wyoming align to grid changes move Evanston over to Utah, and Jackson Hole over to Idaho. Given that Wyoming is already the least populous state by a pretty decent margin, I think it would make sense to just split the remaining land between Colorado and Montana, continuing the arbitrary squiggle that was previously extended to remove Yellowstone. Colorado would become a much taller and slimmer state. While we're at it we could merge the Dakota's into one state as well. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 16:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I think the border between Idaho and Montana is already, for the most part, an arbitrary squiggle.[[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 06:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:2153: Effects of High Altitude

2019-05-22T19:21:23Z

Stickfigurefan:

I don’t even know where to begin. [[User:Netherin5|“That Guy from the Netherlands”]] ([[User talk:Netherin5|talk]]) 18:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone verify if the baseballs and golf balls actually fly further? I'd assume it's due to lower air density and therefore resistance, not weaker gravity as someone else had written. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 18:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
:Both parts (air resistance and gravity) play a role here. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.51.106|172.68.51.106]] 18:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
::At 1 mile altitude the acceleration due to gravity is only about 0.05% less than at sea level, so I don't think it's important relative to the lower air resistance. [[User:Cgrimes85|Cgrimes85]] ([[User talk:Cgrimes85|talk]]) 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
:::The difference in gravity due to being 1 mile farther away from the center of the earth is negligible and due to having more mass(aka mountains) under them Denver actually has a slightly higher Local Gravitational Acceleration at 9.81112m/s^2 than say Los Angeles at 9.80636m/s^2. [https://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/gallery/view.jsp?id=e856809e0d522d3153e2e7e8ec263bf2 wolfram alpha source] Decreased air resistance is the reason for flying further. [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 19:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd say the last frame is a reference to 5 o'clock time for drinks. On urban dictionary there's a reference to 4:20 being the time to 'smoke the reefer' [[User:Palmpje|Palmpje]] ([[User talk:Palmpje|talk]]) 18:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
:It's definitely about weed, not liquor. See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/420_(cannabis_culture) Wikipedia article on 420]. [[User:Barmar|Barmar]] ([[User talk:Barmar|talk]]) 18:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Although the comic relates to nuclear war neither the original German text nor the English reworked text (it's definitely not a direct translation) refer to nuclear war. Both refer to unidentified objects however so I've adapted the explanation to that end. [[User:Palmpje|Palmpje]] ([[User talk:Palmpje|talk]]) 19:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk:2127: Panama Canal

2019-03-22T18:45:13Z

Stickfigurefan:

Can any English majors verify if 'we would had to modify it' in the Title text is grammatically ok or not? It sounds like it should be 'we would have had to modify it' or 'we would've had to...', but I could be wrong or maybe it was intentional? [[User:Stickfigurefan|Stickfigurefan]] ([[User talk:Stickfigurefan|talk]]) 18:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)