Talk:2898: Orbital Argument

2024-02-26T15:31:09Z

Vampire: Possible other interpretation.

May not be (probably isn't!) the inspiration for this comic, but just yesterday there was news of the latest successes in cooling down {{w|Positronium}} (an 'atom' in which nothing is at the nucleus, the charges 'orbit each other' (or the quantum equivalent)). A co-inky-dink, surely, but just thought I'd mention it in passing... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.78|141.101.98.78]] 03:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

In editing, I'm accutely aware that even the "relatively small" force by the Earth on the Sun is a bad way of putting it. Looked at properly, ''exactly the same'' force is exerted against the Sun by the Earth (heavy item drawn pulled down to light item) as is exerted against the Earth by the Sun (lighter item being pulled down by heavier item). ((Fairly easily proven, these days: e.g. If it were not so, something like a bowling-ball and ping-pong ball could be kept separate by a stick, but released in space where they'd then work as a 'gravity drive' that propelled them one way (or perhaps the other!) without any need for power/propellant.)) Of course, the force should be considered equal (bidirectionally singular) with the inertial framing being the factor that makes the freefalling apple the more obvious thing to fall than the Earth upon which any budding Newton is stood/sat in rapt observation. But the Earth's contribution to the (currently) indivisible joint attraction that drives both sides of any 2-body problem is far more than any given apple and far less than any given star. As and when we can perhaps split this (either directionally 'diode' the flow of gravitational effects, or even independently manipulate inertial and gravitational masses) then perhaps we will need to be more discriminating in calculating/describing about such things. Assuming we don't just go with "gravity is a lie, it's all just mass-curved spacetime", instead. ;) But just thought I'd expound a few different relevent worldviews, of greater or lesser usefulness... [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.33|141.101.99.33]] 04:35, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Atomic & subatomic "particles" as discrete units, are a test condition artifact. Everything is waves.
[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 13:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
:Or (admitedly 'wavy') strings. Or resonant fields. Or some other esoterically theorised GUT-fodder... ;) [[Special:Contributions/172.71.178.156|172.71.178.156]] 15:49, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
::Submolecular strings are just (helical) waves viewed through a threshold-conditional gate.
::[[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 21:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I think comic 690: Semicontrolled Demolition is relevant to this one and should appear somewhere in the explanation of this one, as it touches on the same base idea. {{unsigned ip|15:45, 24 February 2024|172.71.175.75}}

Isn't there something about knowledge being true information arrived at by logically sound reasoning? This meets the first criteria but not the second. [[User:RegularSizedGuy|RegularSizedGuy]] ([[User talk:RegularSizedGuy|talk]]) 17:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel there is an additional explanation that White Hat did not intend. The Sun and Earth, the entire Solar system for that matter, orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. Which may also orbit the center of the known Universe? I am not an astrophysicist or knowledgeable enough to attempt a proper explanation. [[User:Vampire|Vampire]] ([[User talk:Vampire|talk]]) 15:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2337: Asterisk Corrections

2020-07-27T03:28:57Z

Vampire: general comment

I think the only spot of the title text quote into which "witchcraft" makes a decent sentence is to replace "next": "I'd love to meet up, maybe in a few days? Witchcraft week is looking pretty empty" [[Special:Contributions/173.245.54.161|173.245.54.161]] 01:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC) Me
:I'd go with replacing "meet up". "I'd love to witchcraft, maybe in a few days? Next week is looking pretty empty." [[User:Orion205|Orion205]] ([[User talk:Orion205|talk]]) 01:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
:: "I'd love to meet up, witchcraft in a few days? Next week is looking pretty empty." would be the third interpretation [[User:Multiverse42|Multiverse42]] ([[User talk:Multiverse42|talk]]) 01:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
::Or it could be "I'd love to meet up, maybe witchcraft a few days?" Munroe really loves to mess with people. [[User:A|A]] ([[User talk:A|talk]]) 01:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
::If it can take out a whole sentence, "I'd love to meet up in a few days. [Magic & calendar shredding sounds, first sentence replaced with witchcraft] Next week is looking pretty empty." would be a pretty satisfying way I would do it IRL. My plan canceling capabilities are absolute witchcraft [[Special:Contributions/172.69.71.82|172.69.71.82]] 08:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
: Alternatively, witchcraft replaces maybe: "I'd love to meet up, [how about we practice] witchcraft in a few days?" [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.66|162.158.75.66]] 02:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A splat? I didn't know that. IME it's just the messed up word resurrected to, summon a beech, auto corrected to the same wrong word. BTW the asterisk on an obsolete keyboard looked like a squished spider, thus 'splat.'

Asterisks can replace multiple words, right? Something like "I'd like to meet up, maybe witchcraft? Next week is looking pretty empty" could work, yeah? [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.135|108.162.246.135]] 04:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
:"I'd like witchcraft? Next week is looking pretty empty." [[Special:Contributions/162.158.159.18|162.158.159.18]] 12:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit, before reading the title text I was expecting him to either have a sentence with a single replacement which could go in several locations (maybe both a noun and a verb), or a followup text implying that the obvious place to put those corrections wasn't the intended one. This time I feel a little disappointed; a sentence which feels natural with the replacement in several places would have been much more satisfying than one where it's a stretch to find any suitable place. [[User:Angel|Angel]] ([[User talk:Angel|talk]]) 10:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

does it necessarily have to replace a word? i find "I'd love to meet up, maybe witchcraft in a few days? Next week is looking pretty empty." to make more sense. [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.80|172.68.174.80]] 11:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd go with replacing "meet". "I'd love to witchcraft up, maybe in a few days? Next week is looking pretty empty." --[[Special:Contributions/172.69.34.54|172.69.34.54]] 21:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

How about including the text before the quote (this is surely cheated a bit, but it's witchcraft so..): I like witchcraft to make it as hard as possible. "I'd love to meet up, maybe in a few days? Next week is looking pretty empty"
Maybe someone can even figure out a version, where interpreting the quote after "witchraft", i.e. "witchcraft"", as part of the correction, could make sense. My knowledge of weird english sentence types is limited, since english is not my mother tongue. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.146|162.158.92.146]] 22:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) WhoCaresAboutMyNameh

I have NEVER seen splat used this way before. Is it really a thing? I have always used regex (s/wrong/correct). [[User:Vampire|Vampire]] ([[User talk:Vampire|talk]]) 03:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

explain xkcd - User contributions [en]

Talk:2898: Orbital Argument

Talk:2337: Asterisk Corrections