Difference between revisions of "Talk:564: Crossbows"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 14: Line 14:
 
No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
 
No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg
 
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? [[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 
http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? [[Special:Contributions/85.164.251.29|85.164.251.29]] 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 +
 +
 +
I'm glad people are not complaining about the explanation anymore (I did put more effort into this baby than any page yet). I do not, however, think we can proceed any further until we get something straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. a clear indication from Randall of which way this comic was to be interpreted.
 +
 +
Until then, this explanation has explained all it can, and I thus see it as complete. --[[User:Quicksilver|Quicksilver]] ([[User talk:Quicksilver|talk]]) 03:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:42, 24 August 2013

Is there any evidence for involvement of velicoraptors in this comic?Guru-45 (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I did add the incomplete tag. Physicists are unsure on gravity? I also can't see any hints for Velociraptors at the comic. The explain does need a major review. When I have enough time I will give a try.--Dgbrt (talk) 17:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The "explanation" is really bad and contains many errors. The first sentence "Physicists are unsure of most of the forces that govern our everyday lives" is extremely vague; "attraction" is a certain sign of a force (i.e. the force pulls two particles together instead of pushing them apart), "gravity" is a certain type of force (like electromagnetism or the nuclear forces). The Higgs Boson is not a force, it wasn't theorized in the late 1900s, and it acts on the scale of fundamental particles which are several orders of magnitude smaller than atoms. The LHC was not set to be released, but to be activated. No serious particle physicist expected that the experiments at the LHC would have drastic ramifications. That accelerator had a malfunction shortly after its first activation had nothing to do with the Higgs Boson. etc. I Think this needs to be completely rewritten. --37.209.61.239 15:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Err yes. This piece was a train wreck which I turned into a rundown shack. It needs a few more citation links (for the confirmation, and to Cueball and Randall), a few more examples of infestations, and a more fleshed out explanation of why a crossbow in particular (and if velociraptors come in). --Quicksilver (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of this was missed completely by this explanation. The physics Nobel price has never been avarded to more than three people and is only awarded to people alive when the price is given. As the discovery of the Higgs certainly will give a Nobel price to someone, and there are more than three people working in that particular lab on the Higgs, they prepare for some kind of battle royale until there are less than three researchers left, such that they can be awarded the price. 176.11.125.174 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I did add the incomplete tag again because a summarize of some theories doesn't help.--Dgbrt (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's more likely to be option number 2, as they talk about how Cueball hasn't yet done the maths. If it was just a Nobel prize, they would've already known they were close to a breakthrough, without having to do any calc. Obviously the maths reveals the possibility of some sinister mutation as explained in point 2. Just a random opinion floating through. Alcatraz ii (talk) 10:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No 2 might also be a reference to the quote by an American physicist that the LHC might discover dragons (see eg http://blog.iandavis.com/2008/09/15/the-lhc-may-discover-dragons/). I still like explanation 1 best though, even dispute the math thing. Maybe it just refers to counting the lab members? 85.164.251.29 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)


I'm glad people are not complaining about the explanation anymore (I did put more effort into this baby than any page yet). I do not, however, think we can proceed any further until we get something straight from the horse's mouth, i.e. a clear indication from Randall of which way this comic was to be interpreted.

Until then, this explanation has explained all it can, and I thus see it as complete. --Quicksilver (talk) 03:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)