Talk:1684: Rainbow

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 22:15, 13 May 2023 by (talk) (Band colors, not rainbows)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

How do I find the official transcript?Transuranium (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)Transuranium

Most recent comics do not have official transcripts. Forrest (talk)11:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
But now there is one here ;-) Kynde (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Actually the transcript seems to appear with a lag of abut 10 comics at this time. But also for some time the transcript has been messed up so for instance this official transcript page] for comic 1673: Timeline of Bicycle Design actually displays the transcript for comic 1670: Laws of Physics, but still has the correct title and the title text for 1673. Wonder if Randall has never noticed this, even though it has been an issue for at least most of this year (see the trivia for 1644: Stargazing.) --Kynde (talk) 12:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Religion... geez. It's some weird stuff, huh. 17:05, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Now that XKCD adopts the voice of God, it's time to write him off and move elsewhere. 11:56, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nice of you to decide for everyone. Just like god would do, right? 13:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
My house is better than your tent. 21:34, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Word of God has appered before, as in Comic 224 or 258. 17:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to me that adopting the voice of God is the main practice of devotional speakers, including priests & pastors. If you're unwilling to accept people's interpretations & commentary on religious doctrine, then that leaves only having faith in the most literal meanings. If that's your preference then good luck, because even the Catholic church doesn't preach the gospel as literal untranslated Truth. 18:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

For the sake of doctrinal accuracy, God (assuming the comic is in fact referring to the Jewish God who set his war bow in the cloud after the Flood) never promised not to destroy the earth by fire. Christian theology (2 Peter 3:10) implies God fully intends to destroy the earth by fire - or at least by unprecedented universal nuclear fission. 11:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

In the Hopi faith, the First world is said to have been destroyed by fire, the second by ice, & only the most recent world destroyed by flood. This theme recurs frequently throughout indigenous American & Central American cultural histories. Given the widely publicized Hopi tales of rainbow bodies & the often accented correlations with "Western" religions, it seems to me that it would be reasonable to assume that in this comic, Randall is not actually depicting the strict Noah's Flood interpretation of events, but rather a wider conversation with God, incorporating multiple religious histories to present a much more inclusive picture of prior apocalypses which apparently are believed to have destroyed the Earth. 18:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Good point, but for universal respect you should capitalise His pronouns. 12:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Ok, really? So the bible says "I will destroy the earth by universal nuclear fission" ? I must have missed something on the first reading -- could you tell me the page number? 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"And the elements shall melt with a fervent heat." 3500ºC is enought to melt everything, but when combined with Colossians 1:17 "in Him all things are held together" that implies he could stop holding things together - voila, every single element on the table separates into a soup of protons, neutrons, electrons, and enough free energy to destroy a universe - oh wait that's the point. Okay, so that's just speculation, but it sounds cool to watch. 11:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't mention a nuclear catastrophe in so many words. It does mention a massive asteroid will destroy the planet and that angels will collapse the pillars of reality which are all the rules God built the universe on. It's actually an incredibly visual passage for such abstract concepts, wonderfully well written. Lackadaisical (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

When the conditions are right, various types of multiple rainbow may be visible. Rhubbarb (talk) 12:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Atmospheric optics enthusiast signing in. That's right. Although the "third faint bow near the sun" Cueball mentions might indeed refer to the 22° halo, another possibility is that he means the (very rare) tertiary or third-order rainbow. See wikipedia:Rainbow#Higher-order_rainbows. Here's a picture of one. 13:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Should we mention multiple rainbow discussion in today's What If?? Djbrasier (talk) 19:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is now included in the explanation. Given that the third panel halo has sun dogs it is not a third order rainbow that Noah sees though. --Kynde (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

There is nothing within the Bible to indicate that the earth was destroyed by fire before the flood. As already mentioned, there is mention in the Bible that God intends to destroy the world by fire in the future. Second Peter 3 contains a number of references to this, especially verses 7 and 10. note the phrase "and the elements will be dissolved (or melt) with fervent heat" which could mean nuclear holocaust, or worse. 04:19, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Or it could mean that the Sun will enter into its Red Giant phase in about 5 billion years and incinerate the Earth that way. Whilst humanity is capable of wiping itself out via nuclear holocaust, I think that actually destroying the planet is a bit beyond our capabilities. 05:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the what if. Does anyone now which video it is he will not make any reference to in the image with Megan touching the rainbow. It seems like it should be easy to find it, but unless it is the commercial for touching the rainbow (which shows nothing like in this picture), it does not seem to be easy to find. --Kynde (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean the "double rainbow" meme? This should probably explain it - Double Rainbow at KYM Psu256 (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes thanks. I just found (and saw) the original double rainbow video because it was referenced in Whiplash (the movie) and I read about it in the trivia section on IMDb. So I remembers this and came back here, which was great because it was first with your link that I understood the fuzz ;-) Kynde (talk) 10:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that mentioning Noah is probably worthwhile, nothing in the comic directly indicates that Cueball is in fact Noah as opposed to just some random fellow talking to God. In the Genisis account (Genesis 9) God tells him about the covenant and the rainbow, rather than being asked about it - thus Cueball is clearly someone other than a person familiar with the whole deal. J-beda (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, but most people only have a passing familiarity with the bible and many assume they have a greater knowledge than they do. Also the author has changed how things happen before for the sake of the comic. In the past we would have the official transcript to settle the matter but lately this hasn't been included. While the person in the comic may not be Noah I would say Noah is notable enough to reference and for the moment we should refer to him as Noah because it wouldn't serve to make the explanation clearer if we don't, it would just be pointless nitpicking which clutters up an otherwise alright explanation. Lackadaisical (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I think it is clearly Noah, it is right after the flood so there are only him and his family, and Noah would not know what it is until God tels him. And given that god generally only rarely speaks, it is most likely that Noah has though what it was before God tels him about it. And if Noah thinks about it, then God know that he had the though... This is of course for the fairytale fluff of the bible, but in that context it must be clear that this is Noah. --Kynde (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the section on "halos" is fairly irrelevant (and to a lesser extent the following section for the final panel). Cueball doesn't say he sees a ring AROUND the sun, he says "what about that faint third bow near the sun", "bow" being short for rainbow. He's seeing a third rainbow near the sun, probably faint because of being close to the sun in the sky. I believe the gag here isn't describing real life conditions, it's that god is rather incorrigable, constantly apologizing but never improving, continuously putting up apology rainbows. After all, even a second rainbow is rather uncommon. It's a silly image for Cueball to be seeing rainbows all over the sky. I think that's the gag, and the current explanation is just overthinking it. - NiceGuy1 04:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC) I finally signed up! This comment is mine. Also, it clearly never occurred to me to re-check this comic for new comments. :) Hopefully now that I've signed up I'll get notified of comments now. Right? NiceGuy1 (talk) 09:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Read the What-If. It was over-thought before the explanation was ever written. 05:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Well the rainbow clouds on either side of the sun, where a "bow" around the sun is seen, is almost certainly referring to sun dogs. And they appear together with halos! And since Noah did not even now what a rain bow was and asked "what that colored band was", then anything he sees in the sky will now be called a bow, and not a ring/halo. It is not impossible to have rainbow in one direction and halo with sun dog in the other! But to see the third bow with your eyes is all but impossible! --Kynde (talk) 12:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey I thought he was talking about the individual colors as 'bands' This makes for less rainbows to be seen.