Editing Talk:2417: 1/1,000th Scale World

<!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.-->

Just for reference: the maths to scale down the Niagara Falls flow an convert from cubic feet to cubic centimeters:
<pre>
> 1e5*(.3048)^3*1000^2/(1e3)^3
[1] 2.831685
> 1e5*(.3048)^3*1000^2/(1e3)^3/2
[1] 1.415842
</pre>
American editors may want to adapt the formulas to add the numbers in cubic inches.--[[User:Pere prlpz|Pere prlpz]] ([[User talk:Pere prlpz|talk]]) 18:29, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

do we have a category for these small scale world comics if not we might want to discuss that. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.246|162.158.75.246]] 18:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
:Yeah, I was wondering about this because when the first two came out, there wasn't a category. Now with the appearance of this one, there is. Does there need to be three in a series? Is there even really a specific number? [[User:RingTailedLemur|RingTailedLemur]] ([[User talk:RingTailedLemur|talk]]) 22:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Based on the original Star Trek canon, I believe it more than reasonable to say that all of the Enterprises would be able to operate at least partially submerged, but I would be very worried about a scale aircraft carrier breaking in two if lifted. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.62.115|162.158.62.115]] 20:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Tensile/shear strength works on cross-section, so would be proportional to the square of the scale, not the cube. A scaled-down Golden Gate Bridge would only support a millionth of the full load, not a billionth, so the proportional load is only 0.3 of a person. (And it basically wouldn't have to support itself, which, as it turns out, takes care of most of the remaining part.) --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.183.117|162.158.183.117]] 22:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
::Hey 162, I rewrote this section a little bit. Would welcome feedback or corrections. [[User:Jkshapiro|Jkshapiro]] ([[User talk:Jkshapiro|talk]]) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Neutrino Detector/Observatory seem to be 2 different things? one under an icesheet, one in tunnels? Some light should be shed on what they are, where they are, wether the ice sheet is to scale, etc. Also why the implication of the neutrino detector being functional ("The fact that people are not supposed to create false positives implies that the neutrino detector is functional.") - also: The no hot stuff on the ice could be just about not melting the ice and therefore destroying the model, instead of messing with the detectors... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 06:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Only particles that travel faster than the speed of light (in ice) will emmit Cherenkov light, so the part about the "hot objects" is incorrect. What is shown here is the IceCube observatory, whose main detector part are the "strings" with "DOMs" buried deep down in the ice (between about 1500m and 2500m below the surface) --[[Special:Contributions/141.101.69.213|141.101.69.213]] 08:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I find that the zeppelin part doesn't make much sense (in the comic, not the explanation) as modern zeppelins are filled with helium rather than hydrogen... even "classic" zeppelins were filled with helium if available. The resaon for the Hindenburg not being filled with helium but hydrogen was a ban on helium exports by the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LZ_129_Hindenburg#Use_of_hydrogen_instead_of_helium [[User:Elektrizikekswerk|Elektrizikekswerk]] ([[User talk:Elektrizikekswerk|talk]]) 09:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Would have been interesting if he had put a shipwreck on the ocean floor next to Cueball with the warning/reminder, "Do not try to raise the Titanic." [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 09:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:"Do not play with the Titanic." [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 23:39, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

In the upper left corner of the comic there is a girl with a "Mickey Mouse" and perhaps cornrows hairstyle. Is she black? Does Randal have other black characters in any of the comics?
[[User:Punchcard|Punchcard]] ([[User talk:Punchcard|talk]])
:I thought that was Science Girl...looks like her in [[1058]]. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]]) 15:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:I find it distressing that someone is trying to introduce an identity policy/agenda into a cartoon using minimalistic stick figures.  Anyone could be anything — Cueball, who is generally assumed to be male, could actually be a female suffering from alopecia areata or other hair loss, perhaps due to chemotherapy; and the pony-tailed character sometime referred to as 'Danish' (and for that matter, how do we know he or she is Danish?) could be a male rocking the old hippie look. [[User:RAGBRAIvet|RAGBRAIvet]] ([[User talk:RAGBRAIvet|talk]]) 07:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
::or just a person of any gender who likes having really short hair/a shaved head. A person doesn't need to have a medical reason for deciding for a specific hairstyle. But how is asking "is she black?" introducing an agenda? --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

:: Danish is named after a pastry. Otherwise though I generally agree with your premise, there's no need to try to project attributes onto characters like this when it's not relevant to the comic. [[User:Esogalt|Esogalt]] ([[User talk:Esogalt|talk]]) 07:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

:Even in [[617: Understocked]] where real people of colour are pictured, they are drawn in the same style without of any indication of skin colour. Therefore it is possible that that person is black, but I don't think it has any relevance here, as it doesn't change anything about the meaning of the comic. The artstyle simply doesn't reflect skin colour. --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 11:26, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

== Order of comics ==

I wonder why he posted this one after the 1/10,000 and 1/100,000 comics instead of publishing them in order. My thought is maybe he worked on them simultaneously but this one wasn't ready, or maybe he made this one because he felt the response to the previous two was positive. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.68.11|172.69.68.11]] 23:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I can almost *guarantee* that it's the second one.

== Small planes ==

I was fascinated by the east/west layers shown under "Watch for small planes".  I assume this is in reference to actual US FAA and/or global practices?  And of course the next question that occurs to me is what about planes flying due north or due south?  Can anyone fill in some notes on this?  [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.18|108.162.245.18]] 01:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:Global. Well, not entirely universal, but common for lot of countries. See {{w|Flight level#Semicircular/hemispheric_rule|Semicircular Flight Level rule}}. Apparently, New Zealand, Italy and Portugal prefer to divide by North/South but most countries use West/East. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 01:34, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

:Any aircraft with a heading from 0° to 179° is considered to be flying "east", and one with a heading anywhere from 180° to 359° is considered to be flying west.  (Headings get rounded to nearest degree, so nobody flies at 359.5°.)  Traffic headed east flies at odd flight levels (31,000 ft, 33,000 ft, etc.) while traffic heading west flies at even flight levels (30,000 ft, 32,000 ft, etc.) -- [[Special:Contributions/172.68.174.132|172.68.174.132]] 03:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
:: This is sensible (required?) for VFR flights below the flight levels, where the even/odd rules are followed.  Up in the PCA, you just fly at whatever level makes ATC happy. [[User:RandalSchwartz|RandalSchwartz]] ([[User talk:RandalSchwartz|talk]]) 01:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:Thanks! That clears it up. I've added a short sentence to the table entry.   [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.144|The Artist Formerly Known as 108.162.245.18]] 06:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

==Girl in the background==
I don't get the girl sitting at top left. What is she sitting on?
:It's the {{w|Antarctic ice sheet}}. Big, innit? [[Special:Contributions/141.101.76.20|141.101.76.20]] 22:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

::But why is she up in the atmosphere?

:::She's not. She's sitting on top of the ice sheet. [[User:Danish|Danish]] ([[User talk:Danish|talk]])

:::The sheet averages 1.6km thick (1.6 scaled metres) or maybe more. But in places ''significantly'' more. The weight of ice can be depressing the ground beneath by greater than a couple of km. The detector array is (at the surface infrastructure) 2800m ASL with variously 1.5-2.5km of string-holes dangled down into the ice-cap. Comparing with Cueball, if brought away from wading in the ocean, that makes him slightly taller than I'd have guessed.  (How you can see this - in the same view as the Golden Gate, all those cork-tipped buildings and other stuff - is an issue with the model layout rather than scale.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.77.126|141.101.77.126]] 01:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

:::FWIW I had the same problem at first trying to understand what I was looking at there. It kind of looks like she's sitting about 10 feet above the duck pond. It took me a while to kind of figure out some of the implied 3D aspects of the drawing. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.168|108.162.245.168]] 07:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC)