1433: "Lightsaber"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Dr What
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:43 am UTC

1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Dr What » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:25 am UTC

Image
Title="A long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far, away, astronomers in the year 2008 sight an unusual gamma-ray burst originating from somewhere far across the universe."

Well, if the universe is "Finite" and yet "Unbounded", then wouldn't it fill in all the space-time of this universe? Though it may take a few billion years.
Last edited by Dr What on Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:44 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Aiwendil
Posts: 311
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 8:53 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Aiwendil » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:31 am UTC

Hull breach? But that scene takes place on Endor, not on a ship. Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

User avatar
rhomboidal
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby rhomboidal » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:40 am UTC

Engineer: "Sir, hundreds of the crew have been dismembered or decapitated."
Vader: "That's my boy."

User avatar
Envelope Generator
Posts: 582
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:07 am UTC
Location: pareidolia

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Envelope Generator » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:50 am UTC

If all gamma ray bursts are of luminogladial origin, WE'RE SURROUNDED.
I'm going to step off the LEM now... here we are, Pismo Beach and all the clams we can eat

eSOANEM wrote:If Fonzie's on the order of 100 zeptokelvin, I think he has bigger problems than difracting through doors.

bondsbw
Posts: 24
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 6:37 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby bondsbw » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:00 am UTC

Envelope Generator wrote:luminogladial


Wasn't sure what that was, so did a quick Google search. Found exactly 1 result: this page.

User avatar
bachaddict
Handel Played it Better
Posts: 484
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:18 am UTC
Location: Aotearoa

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby bachaddict » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:06 am UTC

bondsbw wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:luminogladial

Wasn't sure what that was, so did a quick Google search. Found exactly 1 result: this page.

Learning from your experience, I discovered that gladial means pertaining to swords.

This lightsaber would need a huge power source, wouldn't it?
slinches wrote:Also, the OTC isn't a disease. In fact, it's the cure. As we all know, Time heals all wounds.

Thanks for the molpish wig ggh!
he/him/his

gpq
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:51 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby gpq » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:09 am UTC

Luminogladial seems to be lightsword-related in latin. It seems that there is not much web presence for latin Star Wars but I found this brief clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMhnLqzIWvg where lightsabers are translated as "luxlaminas".

Also, the movie in that clip might also not be Star Wars for some.

User avatar
ysth
Posts: 182
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ysth » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:13 am UTC

AAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHH.

Why oh why GRB 080319B, not GRB 20080319B? Have we learned nothing?
A math joke: r = | |csc(θ)|+|sec(θ)| |-| |csc(θ)|-|sec(θ)| |

User avatar
Eternal Density
Posts: 5547
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2008 12:37 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby Eternal Density » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:39 am UTC

Dr What wrote:Well, if the universe is "Finite" and yet "Unbounded", then wouldn't it fill in all the space-time of this universe? Though it may take a few billion years.

Upper bound on the physical size of the present universe, roughly 1 ×10113 m3.
I can't find a reference but the cross-section of a lightsaber beam is likely less than 0.0625 m2.
Multliply the area by c to get 18,737,028.6 m3 / s so in the order of 107 m3 / s

So if it never retraced itself, the beam would fill that area in 10104 seconds (well a bit less since we rounded, but the size is approximate anyway so whatever). In years that's around 3 x 1096 which is a Long Time Ago. (Billions of billions of billions of...)

bondsbw wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:luminogladial


Wasn't sure what that was, so did a quick Google search. Found exactly 1 result: this page.

The post I'm quoting is the result it gives me.
Play the game of Time! castle.chirpingmustard.com Hotdog Vending Supplier But what is this?
In the Marvel vs. DC film-making war, we're all winners.

speising
Posts: 2269
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby speising » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:16 am UTC

Dr What wrote:Image
Title="A long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far, away, astronomers in the year 2008 sight an unusual gamma-ray burst originating from somewhere far across the universe."

Well, if the universe is "Finite" and yet "Unbounded", then wouldn't it fill in all the space-time of this universe? Though it may take a few billion years.

why are you linking to 1322?

Istaro
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 6:00 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby Istaro » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:52 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:Upper bound on the physical size of the present universe, roughly 1 ×10113 m3.
I can't find a reference but the cross-section of a lightsaber beam is likely less than 0.0625 m2.
Multliply the area by c to get 18,737,028.6 m3 / s so in the order of 107 m3 / s

So if it never retraced itself, the beam would fill that area in 10104 seconds (well a bit less since we rounded, but the size is approximate anyway so whatever). In years that's around 3 x 1096 which is a Long Time Ago. (Billions of billions of billions of...)


That's assuming that the blade extends at the speed of light, right? I seem to remember them extending much slower than that. Anyone want to analyze a lightsaber-activation scene from one of the movies, timing how long the blade took to reach full length and estimating that length by comparison with the actor's height? Not me, I'm afraid. I'm just the idea guy here.

Edit: yeah, I know they're called lightsabers, but . . . can't argue with canon.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Klear » Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:57 am UTC

Does the lightsaber even work if it's not... looping back or something?

MattGrum
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 7:59 am UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby MattGrum » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:03 am UTC

I read somewhere that in the extended universe cannon, the lightsaber itself only acts as a source of plasma, Jedi use the force to shape this into the blade of a sword.

This is of course completely ridiculous (and inconsistent with a scene in The Empire Strikes Back where Han is able to use Luke's lightsaber) but there you go!

TrunkImpaired
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:35 am UTC
Location: Australisphere

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby TrunkImpaired » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:48 am UTC

Klear wrote:Does the lightsaber even work if it's not... looping back or something?


Here's the debate I finally registered for. Now who wants to be the one to write this weeks What If about how much energy it would take to power this lightsaber?

grubernd
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:08 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby grubernd » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:09 am UTC

i think thats the only natural way a light-emitting device works.

so this scene should read more like
dad: "hey, you made something? what is it?"
son: "i call it a lightsaber, but it still has some problems."

some versions later the little guy managed to extend a gyro-mounted mirror on a light-proof cord so the energy could be contained between the grip and an arbitrary length of saber. the time was later referred to as "the age of the hand-less minions".

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 902
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:29 am UTC

Istaro wrote:I know they're called lightsabers, but . . . can't argue with canon.


That's a common misconception. They're called light sabers because they have fewer calories.

User avatar
Dr What
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2012 6:43 am UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Dr What » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:46 am UTC

speising wrote:
Dr What wrote:Image
Title="A long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far, away, astronomers in the year 2008 sight an unusual gamma-ray burst originating from somewhere far across the universe."

Well, if the universe is "Finite" and yet "Unbounded", then wouldn't it fill in all the space-time of this universe? Though it may take a few billion years.

why are you linking to 1322?


sorry, fixed.
i thought i was typing 4 3 3, but actually i typed 3 2 2... :oops:

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2955
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:48 am UTC

da Doctah wrote:
Istaro wrote:I know they're called lightsabers, but . . . can't argue with canon.


That's a common misconception. They're called light sabers because they have fewer calories.

They can certainly help you lose weight fast.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
Nix_Seb
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 9:38 am UTC

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby Nix_Seb » Mon Oct 13, 2014 10:55 am UTC

Eternal Density wrote:
Dr What wrote:Well, if the universe is "Finite" and yet "Unbounded", then wouldn't it fill in all the space-time of this universe? Though it may take a few billion years.

Upper bound on the physical size of the present universe, roughly 1 ×10113 m3.
I can't find a reference but the cross-section of a lightsaber beam is likely less than 0.0625 m2.
Multliply the area by c to get 18,737,028.6 m3 / s so in the order of 107 m3 / s

So if it never retraced itself, the beam would fill that area in 10104 seconds (well a bit less since we rounded, but the size is approximate anyway so whatever). In years that's around 3 x 1096 which is a Long Time Ago. (Billions of billions of billions of...)

bondsbw wrote:
Envelope Generator wrote:luminogladial


Wasn't sure what that was, so did a quick Google search. Found exactly 1 result: this page.

The post I'm quoting is the result it gives me.



A glorious Googlewhack and the birth of the first online record of this word for which we are literally writing its history with our quotes.
A man of five words

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:27 am UTC

Aiwendil wrote:Hull breach? But that scene takes place on Endor, not on a ship. Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.


The ship was hovering above the scene shown. It just happened that the lab's PC was connected to the live feed from gww.statcomms.imperialwarship.com ("galactic-wide-web" in case you were wondering).

Apropos of nothing in this thread, use The Force to solve this philosophical riddle: How do you think the unthinkable?


|
|
|
V



|
|
|
V

With an ithe-berg. (pronounced with a long-i, of course)
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
karhell
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:56 pm UTC
Location: Breizh

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby karhell » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:47 am UTC

cellocgw wrote:With an ithe-berg. (pronounced with a long-i, of course)

I'm afraid that Ithe-berg will have to be pun-thawed
AluisioASG wrote:191 years ago, the great D. Pedro I drew his sword and said: "Indent thy code or die!"
lmjb1964 wrote:We're weird but it's okay.
ColletArrow, katakissa, iskinner, thunk, GnomeAnne, Quantized, and any other Blitzers, have fun on your journey!

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2955
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby orthogon » Mon Oct 13, 2014 11:56 am UTC

Aiwendil wrote:Hull breach? But that scene takes place on Endor, not on a ship. Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

Oh, sorry, thought you said Hull Beach...
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

Duban
Posts: 351
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 1:22 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Duban » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:09 pm UTC

It is not the gods I fear. No, It is those who claim to speak for them that concern me.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3429
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Luminogladial"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:17 pm UTC

Istaro wrote:
Eternal Density wrote:Upper bound on the physical size of the present universe, roughly 1 ×10113 m3.
I can't find a reference but the cross-section of a lightsaber beam is likely less than 0.0625 m2.
Multliply the area by c to get 18,737,028.6 m3 / s so in the order of 107 m3 / s

So if it never retraced itself, the beam would fill that area in 10104 seconds (well a bit less since we rounded, but the size is approximate anyway so whatever). In years that's around 3 x 1096 which is a Long Time Ago. (Billions of billions of billions of...)


That's assuming that the blade extends at the speed of light, right? I seem to remember them extending much slower than that. Anyone want to analyze a lightsaber-activation scene from one of the movies, timing how long the blade took to reach full length and estimating that length by comparison with the actor's height? Not me, I'm afraid. I'm just the idea guy here.

Edit: yeah, I know they're called lightsabers, but . . . can't argue with canon.


If memory serves, they were originally supposed to be monofilament (Larry Niven used monofilament swords in some of his books - the blade was encased in a stasis field to stiffen it, and there was a ball on the tip so the user had a visual reference).

I think they're supposed to be some sort of plasma with a containment field (or an energy field that converts the air trapped inside to plasma) rather than actually being made of light...

User avatar
thevicente
Posts: 119
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 3:19 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby thevicente » Mon Oct 13, 2014 12:21 pm UTC

"it" doesn't.

ViperFUD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ViperFUD » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:32 pm UTC

karhell wrote:
cellocgw wrote:With an ithe-berg. (pronounced with a long-i, of course)

I'm afraid that Ithe-berg will have to be pun-thawed


I'm quite disappunted.

While puns are, of course, the highest form of humor, using the word "pun" itself as part of a pun is lowbrow and deserving of punishment. I always begin to expect better from the xkcd crowd whereupun I am almost always let down. I know I sound a bit punchy, but the forum is constantly punctuated with comments like this. And if I don't call the perpuntrators to justice, who will?


Ok. This is my punultimate joke. I grow tired of puntificating.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:39 pm UTC

ViperFUD wrote:
karhell wrote:
cellocgw wrote:With an ithe-berg. (pronounced with a long-i, of course)

I'm afraid that Ithe-berg will have to be pun-thawed


I'm quite disappunted.

While puns are, of course, the highest form of humor, using the word "pun" itself as part of a pun is lowbrow and deserving of punishment. I always begin to expect better from the xkcd crowd whereupun I am almost always let down. I know I sound a bit punchy, but the forum is constantly punctuated with comments like this. And if I don't call the perpuntrators to justice, who will?


Ok. This is my punultimate joke. I grow tired of puntificating.


Well, then, a challenge: what's the longest sentence (in English) you can write which has a "u" in ever word?
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6476
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:50 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Well, then, a challenge: what's the longest sentence (in English) you can write which has a "u" in ever word?


You quoted "[stuff using "u"]".

Quine that!

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
HES
Posts: 4871
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby HES » Mon Oct 13, 2014 1:54 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:Well, then, a challenge: what's the longest sentence (in English) you can write which has a "u" in ever word?

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo
He/Him/His Image

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6476
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ucim » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:03 pm UTC

You quoted "You quoted "[stuff using "u"]"".

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Klear » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:11 pm UTC

ucim wrote:You quoted "You quoted "[stuff using "u"]"".

ViperFUD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ViperFUD » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:38 pm UTC

ucim wrote:You quoted "You quoted "[stuff using "u"]"".

Jose

Assuming you utilize useful, non-redundant structures: your truly unique rules result thusly; understand, accumulation produces further returns.

Fungo4
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:48 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Fungo4 » Mon Oct 13, 2014 2:54 pm UTC

I remember my first question when seeing the lightsaber was "Why does it have to be so short?" Now I understand that there's an optimal length for weilding such a dangerous weapon, but the question still remains, would it be plausible (in the canon of course), to just make a super long lightsaber? Is there something preventing jedi from doing that, or have we just not seen any?

Now I'm imagining a jedi version of the death star, which rather than using a "clumsy, random" megalaser, uses a giant saber to slice planets in half.

Wybaar
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:59 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Wybaar » Mon Oct 13, 2014 3:44 pm UTC

Alternately, Luke could have made a one-use lightsaber where the blade extends from the opposite end, not the one where the blade would extend in a regular lightsaber. "Oh, sorry Dad, was that your leg? Serves you right for CUTTING OFF MY HAND!"

User avatar
Klear
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sun Jun 13, 2010 8:43 am UTC
Location: Prague

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Klear » Mon Oct 13, 2014 4:17 pm UTC

Wybaar wrote:Alternately, Luke could have made a one-use lightsaber where the blade extends from the opposite end, not the one where the blade would extend in a regular lightsaber. "Oh, sorry Dad, was that your leg? Serves you right for CUTTING OFF MY HAND!"


Then he could take his rightful place as the Emperor's apprentice. The end!

B-Caff
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Feb 01, 2012 8:37 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby B-Caff » Mon Oct 13, 2014 5:20 pm UTC

Image

Am I reading XKCDSW?

ViperFUD
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 3:10 pm UTC

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby ViperFUD » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:15 pm UTC

Fungo4 wrote:I remember my first question when seeing the lightsaber was "Why does it have to be so short?" Now I understand that there's an optimal length for weilding such a dangerous weapon, but the question still remains, would it be plausible (in the canon of course), to just make a super long lightsaber? Is there something preventing jedi from doing that, or have we just not seen any?

Now I'm imagining a jedi version of the death star, which rather than using a "clumsy, random" megalaser, uses a giant saber to slice planets in half.


In the expanded universe (I believe it was the Jedi Academy books, by Kevin J Anderson), one of the apprentices uses a design which has 3 different corusca focusing gems to change the blade length. One was the standard length and the other was double the length.


The specific physics of lightsabers have never been adequately explained ... probably because you "need the force" to build one; essentially, they work because magic.

speising
Posts: 2269
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby speising » Mon Oct 13, 2014 6:19 pm UTC

wait, the force isn't magic, it's some gastrointestinal parasites ot something.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4872
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Oct 13, 2014 8:51 pm UTC

Regarding "luminogladial", I assumed Envelope Generator had just read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, wherein there is a spell to create a glowing magical sword used only for ceremonial dueling purposes: "lucis gladius". The Muggleborns call them "lightsabers".
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

brenok
Needs Directions
Posts: 507
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
Location: Brazil

Re: 1433: "Lightsaber"

Postby brenok » Mon Oct 13, 2014 9:23 pm UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:Regarding "luminogladial", I assumed Envelope Generator had just read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, wherein there is a spell to create a glowing magical sword used only for ceremonial dueling purposes: "lucis gladius". The Muggleborns call them "lightsabers".

I just assumed he knew the latin words for "light" and "sword", but not "saber", which is probably much more obscure. Apparently, it is "acinaces".


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: da Doctah and 64 guests