Talk:1738: Moon Shapes

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 07:12, 27 September 2016 by (talk) (Added ref to the Japanese interpretation of a rabbit making mochi.)
Jump to: navigation, search

Some of the examples of "incorrect" moons are kinda questionable - like, how relevant is the position of the moon when there's literally a giant divine skyperson standing on it, grabbing stars and scattering of them? 23:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I fixed part of the explanation by mentioning the title text. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 14:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a reflection of the nuclear war on the sun's surface. Mikemk (talk) 08:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I can't find any photoshopped Moon that looks like the last image. Somebody has to make one. -- 13:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Randall uncharacteristically missed an opportunity for pointing out additional errors that people make: It's interesting to note that you can get a decent estimate of the artist's latitude by looking at how they draw a crescent moon. In equatorial cultures, the crescent looks like a cup or a boat - and they interpret it like that. But if you look at most english language children's books, the crescent looks like a letter 'C' or a 'D' with a human face - suggesting that they were probably made in the tradition of northern Europe. When I first moved from the UK (more or less a 'C'-shaped crescent moon) to the southern USA (more like Randall's depiction of the correctly-drawn crescent with the points at a roughly 45 degree angle to the horizon) - I subconsciously felt that the moon "looked wrong" - it was only much later that I understood the reason.
Furthermore, this rotation of the moon relative to the observer also explains why "The man in the moon" is a common trope caused by the pareidolia interpretation of the cratering patterns of the moon in northern cultures. But in southern cultures, people tend to see a rabbit in those full-moon patterns - and that has become the source of many of their stories. In Japan, for example, the patterns are interpreted as a rabbit making mochi (a sort of sense dumpling made from rice pounded into a powder) on the moon - the Sea of Tranquillity forming the head, and the Sea of Clouds forming part of the pestle in which the rabbit is pounding the rice.
Now that I'm more acutely aware of this - it's interesting to note how many movies get the orientation of the moon wrong for the location that their story is supposedly set in! SteveBaker (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Not quite sure how to add this but Gibbon is the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire - or a type of Ape. It is not a phase of the moon. Also I think the moon depicted is Waning. 14:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the correct expression is gibbous - "having the illuminated part greater than a semicircle and less than a circle"

Yes, the one he says is correct has me thinking: "OMG, the moon is drunk and has fallen over on its ass." No self-respecting moon lies on its back like that. 14:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed - but that's pretty much how it looks down here in sunny Texas. It's one of those things you never think about - but once the fact of it clicks in your head, you get this visceral feeling of how you're standing on a large ball rather than a flat plane! Ha! Take that flat-earthers! :-) SteveBaker (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
"Wax gibbon" is probably nothing more than a joke on mispronouncing "waxing gibbous". As drawn, it is the way a waning gibbous would appear in the northern hemisphere, but a waxing gibbous in the southern hemisphere. Harperska (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Link to the DreamWorks logo image please? There seem to be multiple versions. 15:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised Randall missed the chance to include a joke about guys with fishing rods. -- 15:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Here's the link to the Dreamworks logo. You're welcome. --JayRulesXKCD (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The first "wrong" image is also only possible if the bright portion is presumed to be the sun during a solar eclipse, assuming the sky is actually depicted as black. You can only have a crescent moon during a solar eclipse if the solar system suddenly acquired a second sun. Harperska (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's a good counter-example: EXAMPLE. The bright dot is actually the ISS transiting the moon - but it certainly looks like an impossibility! SteveBaker (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention the "nuclear war" joke. Does it need explaining? 19:29, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I've always wanted to create a story, and have the horns of the moon connect on the other side, so you have a blackbody in front of the moon, in parody of this tendency. Also, interesting how the moon is at different rotations in different locations. I never did see the rabbit in the moon. Now I know why. 04:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)