Talk:3222: Star Formation
This entire process is unconfirmed and needs citations. [citation needed] 66.154.219.128 20:26, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- Not sure if you're serious... but I rewrote some of the things that might have prompted this comment. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
The something that ionized the gas clouds is presumably the star that formed. No second deity needed. 74.76.189.192 21:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
- I dispense with that bit. What you obviously have here is a non-omniscient creator (or shaper-of-the-universe, at the very least) who is surprised by how things turn out when they had a much simpler (or at least different) idea of how things should have proceeded. I'm reminded of The Science of Discworld (once the Dean twiddles his fingers in the proto-Roundworld, and then the wizards discovering that things just like becoming spheres more than they expected) or perhaps something where a desired result went awry due to unforeseen external factors. 81.179.199.253 21:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Is Randall a believer in Stupid Design? Barmar (talk) 22:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
I was actually factually thinking about stellar constitutionality at formative stages last night. Like couple days ago i explained big bubbles theory to a person on Blue Sky. Gives me headswirls to envision ( attempt ) alternate density temporal flow size constants. Cool! AskShea (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
The explanation states that this is a simplified model blown to an absurd extreme, but I thought that this was a mostly-accurate model of how astronomers have theorized the universe’s structure came to be. Am I wrong? I am confused. Logalex8369 (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
While likely completely unintended, this made me think of watching Bob Ross (obviously not live-)streams on Twitch. He'd start off with some lovely background - typically including clouds - and then "ruin" it by drawing a big vertical brown streak on top of that (with chat promptly declaring the painting ruined) only for him to turn it into a lovely tree and thus "saving" the painting (also commented on by chat). The difference of course is that Bob Ross knew what he was doing (or at least where he was headed). 2001:1C01:2DCC:C200:FDDE:3CEC:29F7:C097 01:07, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
...why do I feel bad for them?--DollarStoreBa'alConverse 02:57, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to add this to Category:Time-Traveling Sphere? The dot's identity in this comic isn't confirmed, and it's unclear that the dot can control its movement in time. PDesbeginner (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
- The dot looks a bit like the portrayal of God in SMBC to me. 65.25.122.84 (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2026 (please sign your comments with ~~~~)
- It probably isn't the TTS (notably different, and makes lttle sense to be the TTS either long before it used time travel or after it had mastered it), and equally shares similarities with the 1450: AI-Box Experiment entity, etc.
- But it's clearly a variation within Randall's "non-corporeal intelligent entity" broad stroke of character, just like a number of the more physical Category:Aliens (or possibly 'futurekind' of more distant Earth ages) are variations on the tentacled-/bug-eyed-monster variety (minor notable differences, but of a similar style; being of the Kang And Kodoth form, more or less).
- We only seem to have a clear Category for the two examples of the TTS, which other 'dot entities' like this one (and the AI, etc) probably are not, but it's the handiest reference we have without pointing at all vaguely similar 'characters' directly. Unless and until we get ourselves a 'dot entity' super-category to cover all such floaty-glowy dots/spheres/etc of clearly greatly advanced ability (if not intelligence). 82.132.238.5 17:10, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
