Difference between revisions of "Talk:2240: Timeline of the Universe"
(discussing the title text) |
|||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
While the explanation mentions the dashed lines for the future fate of the universe, it only lists 3 possibilities, even though there are 4 sets of dashed lines in the diagram. It's possible that the outermost dashed lines represent another mistaken inflation button press. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | While the explanation mentions the dashed lines for the future fate of the universe, it only lists 3 possibilities, even though there are 4 sets of dashed lines in the diagram. It's possible that the outermost dashed lines represent another mistaken inflation button press. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hey, methinks the title text maybe referring to the lesbegue measure(which for a point is zero) since we are talking about sizes.--[[User:Jassi101|Jassi101]] ([[User talk:Jassi101|talk]]) 08:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC) | ||
<!-- NOTICE: Click the [edit] button next to the Google Ads title to discuss the ads. --> | <!-- NOTICE: Click the [edit] button next to the Google Ads title to discuss the ads. --> | ||
{{Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads}} | {{Talk:2220: Imagine Going Back in Time/Ads}} | ||
Revision as of 08:21, 12 December 2019
"Cool Bug Epoch" reminds me of the last panel in 1493 and 2191, but it's probably coincidental.--GoldNinja (talk) 19:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Reminds me of Cool Bug Fact's DPS2004'); DROP TABLE users;-- (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
"The title text is a mathematical joke, based on the Intermediate Value Theorem (IVT)... Hence, technically, Randall is correct." that is assuming that the universe didn't start from anything bigger than this comic. ̶P̶h̶y̶s̶i̶c̶i̶a̶n̶s̶ Physicists, discuss! (okay, fine. philosophers can join too) OtterlyAmazin (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
- Even with antialiasing, the intrinsically granular nature of the graymap representing a sub-pixel measure, at any given perpendicular point of the scale at any given device's DPI. I wouldn't put it past the Universe to have skipped-through the gap between values. ...on the other hand, if we get into Big Rip territory, perhaps the effective DPI of any extant representation will pass back through a coincident value. 162.158.34.202 22:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I notice that the events along the top are mostly sensible, while the events at the bottom are mostly not. 108.162.249.220 23:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
It would be good if this clarified whether the diagram of the growth itself is correct and just badly mislabeled, or if it doesn't even correctly show the size of the universe over time. Gaelan (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- No, this is not the actual diagram, which is a much smoother regular bell shape without the sharp pointy left end. We also don't really know anything about the starting point beyond wild conjecture, as there's lots of uncertainty in the cosmological model, no matter what anyone says. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
While the explanation mentions the dashed lines for the future fate of the universe, it only lists 3 possibilities, even though there are 4 sets of dashed lines in the diagram. It's possible that the outermost dashed lines represent another mistaken inflation button press. Ianrbibtitlht (talk) 03:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Hey, methinks the title text maybe referring to the lesbegue measure(which for a point is zero) since we are talking about sizes.--Jassi101 (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
