Talk:2925: Earth Formation Site - Revision history

172.68.144.154 at 02:32, 15 August 2024

2024-08-15T02:32:38Z

Prog: Thanks

2024-07-31T15:59:18Z

Thanks

172.69.194.97 at 11:11, 30 July 2024

2024-07-30T11:11:54Z

Prog: The Earth did not form from a collapsing cloud.

2024-07-30T09:31:42Z

The Earth did not form from a collapsing cloud.

172.71.103.30: Added comment

2024-05-08T07:28:23Z

Added comment

172.71.242.160: Obvious markup error/mistype by the respective editor. If not quite right, can be properly corrected, but at least not now broken entirely.

2024-04-30T22:07:28Z

Obvious markup error/mistype by the respective editor. If not quite right, can be properly corrected, but at least not now broken entirely.

141.101.99.126: Missed signature, added (without 'pester' unsigned template). Also, as it agrees with single-indent above, cannot be in reply to that, so must be a second single-indent.

2024-04-30T21:59:46Z

Missed signature, added (without 'pester' unsigned template). Also, as it agrees with single-indent above, cannot be in reply to that, so must be a second single-indent.

Laser813 at 19:16, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T19:16:06Z

Laser813 at 19:10, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T19:10:09Z

172.70.160.173 at 17:49, 30 April 2024

2024-04-30T17:49:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:32, 15 August 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:
	:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template\|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion\|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97\|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)		:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template\|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion\|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97\|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
	::Okay, thank you. Let's see what the community thinks about my edit ._. [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]])		::Okay, thank you. Let's see what the community thinks about my edit ._. [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]])
		+	--
		+	re: #1, Earth didn't just form at its core, it formed everywhere within its volume. IMO that's the joke - you could put the sign anywhere on Earth and it would be equally valid. It's analogous to putting a sign on Bondi Beach saying "the continent of Australia formed here".
		+
		+	[[Special:Contributions/172.68.144.154\|172.68.144.154]] 02:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:59, 31 July 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	:The protocol is "if you think it's wrong, correct it". Noting that "if other peope think ''you're'' wrong, then they'll correct/revert you afterwards" also applies, but I see little to complain about factwise. (Though you might find yourself under pressure to be a bit more summarised than above. I know: I'm also one who'd like to cover every base, every objection, to try not to leave something that's not completely right.)		:The protocol is "if you think it's wrong, correct it". Noting that "if other peope think ''you're'' wrong, then they'll correct/revert you afterwards" also applies, but I see little to complain about factwise. (Though you might find yourself under pressure to be a bit more summarised than above. I know: I'm also one who'd like to cover every base, every objection, to try not to leave something that's not completely right.)
	:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template\|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion\|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97\|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)		:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template\|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion\|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97\|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
		+	::Okay, thank you. Let's see what the community thinks about my edit ._. [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]])

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:11, 30 July 2024
Line 48:		Line 48:

	The mechanism of the Earth's formation is an open area of research. But the general idea is that first, the Sun formed from a collapsing cloud of dust and gas. The remaining dust and gas formed a disk around the Sun called the Sun's protoplanetary disk. From this disk, the planets formed. The best current explanations fall either into the "classical accretion" camp or the "pebble accretion" camp. In classical accretion, dust particles in the Sun's protoplanetary disk collide and coagulate until the resulting body is massive enough to slowly accrete matter through gravitation. In pebble accretion, the dust particles again coagulate to form small pebbles. But here, the pebbles get concentrated in certain parts of the protoplanetary disk where they stick together. This process forms bodies massive enough to accrete matter through gravitation. Neither of those two scenarios involve a collapsing cloud of dust and gas, that's how the Sun formed, not the Earth. Maybe this should be added to the explanation. (I'm new here so I don't what the protocol for proposed changes is.) Source: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_accretion [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]]) 09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)		The mechanism of the Earth's formation is an open area of research. But the general idea is that first, the Sun formed from a collapsing cloud of dust and gas. The remaining dust and gas formed a disk around the Sun called the Sun's protoplanetary disk. From this disk, the planets formed. The best current explanations fall either into the "classical accretion" camp or the "pebble accretion" camp. In classical accretion, dust particles in the Sun's protoplanetary disk collide and coagulate until the resulting body is massive enough to slowly accrete matter through gravitation. In pebble accretion, the dust particles again coagulate to form small pebbles. But here, the pebbles get concentrated in certain parts of the protoplanetary disk where they stick together. This process forms bodies massive enough to accrete matter through gravitation. Neither of those two scenarios involve a collapsing cloud of dust and gas, that's how the Sun formed, not the Earth. Maybe this should be added to the explanation. (I'm new here so I don't what the protocol for proposed changes is.) Source: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_accretion [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]]) 09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
		+	:The protocol is "if you think it's wrong, correct it". Noting that "if other peope think ''you're'' wrong, then they'll correct/revert you afterwards" also applies, but I see little to complain about factwise. (Though you might find yourself under pressure to be a bit more summarised than above. I know: I'm also one who'd like to cover every base, every objection, to try not to leave something that's not completely right.)
		+	:Note, as you haven't used it here, that we have a "wikilink template", {{template\|w}}, which you'd want to use. Simply do something like <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion}}</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>{{w\|Pebble accretion\|a process of accreting pebbles}}</nowiki></code> (the latter gives the link outward text that isn't the wikipage title, if that works better for you). It doesn't do ''too'' much different from any of the other ways to linking to wikipedia (though it gets rid of the annoying "locked/unlocked" icon based upon the http(s)ness of the link you would have given), but it reads nicer in the editor than having a full URL, and a bit nicer (YMMV) than <code><nowiki>[[wikipedia:Article name]]</nowiki></code> or whatever you might otherwise use. See established edits for general guidance (and use "Show preview" to check such things look ok, rather than have to come back in to edit them right/leave it to someone else to do so). ...otherwise, welcome, new user. You sound like you might fit in rather well, from your attention to detail. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.194.97\|172.69.194.97]] 11:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:31, 30 July 2024
Line 46:		Line 46:
	<br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173\|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)		<br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173\|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
	: I concur with the removal that you're questioning, but I also think if you want to put it back in a way that isn't too much of a tangent, go for it. [[User:Laser813\|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813\|talk]]) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)		: I concur with the removal that you're questioning, but I also think if you want to put it back in a way that isn't too much of a tangent, go for it. [[User:Laser813\|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813\|talk]]) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	The mechanism of the Earth's formation is an open area of research. But the general idea is that first, the Sun formed from a collapsing cloud of dust and gas. The remaining dust and gas formed a disk around the Sun called the Sun's protoplanetary disk. From this disk, the planets formed. The best current explanations fall either into the "classical accretion" camp or the "pebble accretion" camp. In classical accretion, dust particles in the Sun's protoplanetary disk collide and coagulate until the resulting body is massive enough to slowly accrete matter through gravitation. In pebble accretion, the dust particles again coagulate to form small pebbles. But here, the pebbles get concentrated in certain parts of the protoplanetary disk where they stick together. This process forms bodies massive enough to accrete matter through gravitation. Neither of those two scenarios involve a collapsing cloud of dust and gas, that's how the Sun formed, not the Earth. Maybe this should be added to the explanation. (I'm new here so I don't what the protocol for proposed changes is.) Source: e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_accretion [[User:Prog\|Prog]] ([[User talk:Prog\|talk]]) 09:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 The explanation needs to be rewritten. It is missing the point and far to detailed for just saying: The marker could be standing at any point of earth's surface, as reinforced by the title text. The whole discussion about galaxies and solar systems moving is just a matter of the reference system and does not contribute to the understanding of the comic.--[[Special:Contributions/172.70.243.32|172.70.243.32]] 07:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 : I disagree. The section is saying that it could not have reasonably happened on Earth itself due to the fact the Earth and the Solar System itself move around through space. <span style="font-family: 'Comic Sans MS'">[[User:SomeoneIGuess|someone, i guess]]<sup>([[User talk:SomeoneIGuess|talk i guess]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/SomeoneIGuess|le edit list]])</sup></span>  13:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 ::Randall was once a physicist. He's aware of the fact that there is no absolute system of measurements, and that locations on Earth are always relative to Earth coordinates, not some sort of galactic map. [[User:Nitpicking|Nitpicking]] ([[User talk:Nitpicking|talk]]) 14:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 :Firstly, you top-posted. Moved your contribution down here.
 :Secondly, 4.45x10<sup>9</sup> only makes clear the imprecision (c.f. "4.450000000x10<sup>9</sup>"). Whereas it would be entirely possible for something to be ''precisely'' in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, as much as it could be 4,450,000,001 BCE or 4,449,999,999 BCE.
-:Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|this section on surveying a certain height)... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
+:Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|this section on surveying a certain height}}... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 :I disagree that "the year 4,450,000,000" is trying to be precise to the nearest 10 million years. In no other context would specifying a single year be understood as saying "give or take a large error." Anthropologists don't claim that agriculture was developed in a certain year, they describe a rough time frame. Randall's choice of giving a precise year, then, is him being overly precise to be funny in an historical marker kind of way. Had he wanted to, he could have had the marker say that the earth formed "4,450,000,000 years ago" and your argument would be correct. He went with the more ridiculous route, and so that impossible precision is appropriately pointed out in the explanation, I think. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 40: / Line 40: @@
 :Secondly, 4.45x10<sup>9</sup> only makes clear the imprecision (c.f. "4.450000000x10<sup>9</sup>"). Whereas it would be entirely possible for something to be ''precisely'' in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, as much as it could be 4,450,000,001 BCE or 4,449,999,999 BCE.
 :Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w|Mount Everest#19th century|this section on surveying a certain height)... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-:: I disagree that "the year 4,450,000,000" is trying to be precise to the nearest 10 million years. In no other context would specifying a single year be understood as saying "give or take a large error." Anthropologists don't claim that agriculture was developed in a certain year, they describe a rough time frame. Randall's choice of giving a precise year, then, is him being overly precise to be funny in an historical marker kind of way. Had he wanted to, he could have had the marker say that the earth formed "4,450,000,000 years ago" and your argument would be correct. He went with the more ridiculous route, and so that impossible precision is appropriately pointed out in the explanation, I think.
+:I disagree that "the year 4,450,000,000" is trying to be precise to the nearest 10 million years. In no other context would specifying a single year be understood as saying "give or take a large error." Anthropologists don't claim that agriculture was developed in a certain year, they describe a rough time frame. Randall's choice of giving a precise year, then, is him being overly precise to be funny in an historical marker kind of way. Had he wanted to, he could have had the marker say that the earth formed "4,450,000,000 years ago" and your argument would be correct. He went with the more ridiculous route, and so that impossible precision is appropriately pointed out in the explanation, I think. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 Not sure what astronomical standards [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&diff=prev&oldid=340919 are inconsistent in this removed text]. We can measure (historic) times in terms of a unit exactly 31,557,600 seconds long, the Julian year, even before its establishment. Yet appreciate that a physical (astronomically accurate) solar year ''at'' that historic time may be different, especially prior to the Thea-collision which probably did ''something'' (could depend upon if Thea had originated from L4 or L5, or what dynamics it possessed if it came from elsewhere), perhaps easily by the requisite amount to build up the nearly 2% difference. Seperately (and unrelated to the actual definition(s) of year), day length has also been changing, thus we know that a physical solar day has been other than 86400 seconds (astronomical day of 86164ish seconds) and a solar year unlikely to have been 365.25 (or 365.2425!) days, so divorcing ephemeris measurements of time (officially 31,556,925.9747 seconds per year in 1900, and changing still) from SI standards of time (as above) is already a thing.
 <br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 : I concur with the removal that you're questioning, but I also think if you want to put it back in a way that isn't too much of a tangent, go for it. [[User:Laser813|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813|talk]]) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 30 April 2024
Line 43:		Line 43:
	Not sure what astronomical standards [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&diff=prev&oldid=340919 are inconsistent in this removed text]. We can measure (historic) times in terms of a unit exactly 31,557,600 seconds long, the Julian year, even before its establishment. Yet appreciate that a physical (astronomically accurate) solar year ''at'' that historic time may be different, especially prior to the Thea-collision which probably did ''something'' (could depend upon if Thea had originated from L4 or L5, or what dynamics it possessed if it came from elsewhere), perhaps easily by the requisite amount to build up the nearly 2% difference. Seperately (and unrelated to the actual definition(s) of year), day length has also been changing, thus we know that a physical solar day has been other than 86400 seconds (astronomical day of 86164ish seconds) and a solar year unlikely to have been 365.25 (or 365.2425!) days, so divorcing ephemeris measurements of time (officially 31,556,925.9747 seconds per year in 1900, and changing still) from SI standards of time (as above) is already a thing.		Not sure what astronomical standards [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&diff=prev&oldid=340919 are inconsistent in this removed text]. We can measure (historic) times in terms of a unit exactly 31,557,600 seconds long, the Julian year, even before its establishment. Yet appreciate that a physical (astronomically accurate) solar year ''at'' that historic time may be different, especially prior to the Thea-collision which probably did ''something'' (could depend upon if Thea had originated from L4 or L5, or what dynamics it possessed if it came from elsewhere), perhaps easily by the requisite amount to build up the nearly 2% difference. Seperately (and unrelated to the actual definition(s) of year), day length has also been changing, thus we know that a physical solar day has been other than 86400 seconds (astronomical day of 86164ish seconds) and a solar year unlikely to have been 365.25 (or 365.2425!) days, so divorcing ephemeris measurements of time (officially 31,556,925.9747 seconds per year in 1900, and changing still) from SI standards of time (as above) is already a thing.
	<br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173\|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)		<br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173\|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
		+	: I concur with the removal that you're questioning, but I also think if you want to put it back in a way that isn't too much of a tangent, go for it. [[User:Laser813\|Laser813]] ([[User talk:Laser813\|talk]]) 19:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 30 April 2024
Line 40:		Line 40:
	:Secondly, 4.45x10<sup>9</sup> only makes clear the imprecision (c.f. "4.450000000x10<sup>9</sup>"). Whereas it would be entirely possible for something to be ''precisely'' in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, as much as it could be 4,450,000,001 BCE or 4,449,999,999 BCE.		:Secondly, 4.45x10<sup>9</sup> only makes clear the imprecision (c.f. "4.450000000x10<sup>9</sup>"). Whereas it would be entirely possible for something to be ''precisely'' in the year 4,450,000,000 BCE, as much as it could be 4,450,000,001 BCE or 4,449,999,999 BCE.
	:Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w\|Mount Everest#19th century\|this section on surveying a certain height)... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206\|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)		:Of course you could 'creatively lie' to imply the correct precision (at the expense of the correct accuracy), as in the last paragraph of {{w\|Mount Everest#19th century\|this section on surveying a certain height)... Or you could instead say that it was 4,450,002,023 years ago, but then you'd have to update/replace the sign at some point in 2025. [[Special:Contributions/172.71.242.206\|172.71.242.206]] 19:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
		+
		+	Not sure what astronomical standards [https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2925:_Earth_Formation_Site&diff=prev&oldid=340919 are inconsistent in this removed text]. We can measure (historic) times in terms of a unit exactly 31,557,600 seconds long, the Julian year, even before its establishment. Yet appreciate that a physical (astronomically accurate) solar year ''at'' that historic time may be different, especially prior to the Thea-collision which probably did ''something'' (could depend upon if Thea had originated from L4 or L5, or what dynamics it possessed if it came from elsewhere), perhaps easily by the requisite amount to build up the nearly 2% difference. Seperately (and unrelated to the actual definition(s) of year), day length has also been changing, thus we know that a physical solar day has been other than 86400 seconds (astronomical day of 86164ish seconds) and a solar year unlikely to have been 365.25 (or 365.2425!) days, so divorcing ephemeris measurements of time (officially 31,556,925.9747 seconds per year in 1900, and changing still) from SI standards of time (as above) is already a thing.
		+	<br/>The prior edit removing the Thea-impact-moment idea, I agree more with. Though it ''does'' solve the issue of a definitive time and (to some extent) surface location, undoubtedly kicked off the creation of 'nu-Earth' out of the resulting gas and dust and the rest (that didn't get chucked into orbit, to be the Moon, or beyond it to add to the rest of the LHB material). And happened at very much around the time stated by the sign. Given that it's not even supposed to have a real 'answer' to what it means, Thea might well be the answer Randall didn't even think he was leading us to. [[Special:Contributions/172.70.160.173\|172.70.160.173]] 17:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)