Talk:1622: Henge

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 17:21, 28 December 2015 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

This "catch the sun in the butterfly net" subplot reminds me of novel by Polish author Kornel Makuszyński (and a children's films based on it) "The Two Who Stole the Moon" --JakubNarebski (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I had to laugh at this part of the explanation, and then remove it: "(In reality, the fact that the net is not melting or burning proves that the sun is nowhere near the net.)" Because in this comic they obviously catch the sun ion a net, as they later (after the catch) has put it on sale on Craiglist as per the title text. But the reason I laughed was that the only problem the writer of this sentence saw was that the sun would be too hot. What about it's size and gravity, if we are talking about the real sun... So yes if it where the real sun it would be a long way away to look this small (150 million km as usual, 8 light minutes). But in this comic it is between the trees and it is very small and cool. Only strange thing is that Beret Guy is not involved as his powers would explain this comic. But then again he would never do it for profit. --Kynde (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) I disagree, there's no indication that this scheme actually worked. The Craigslist posting could just as easily have been written in advance, and the Title text could be the next line spoken, before the capture either succeeds or fails. Swordsmith (talk) 16:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The "sun exposure" explanation is wrong. It's not about how it holds up under sunlight, it's about how much sunlight it gets. 17:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)