0514: "Simultaneous"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Kranerian
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri May 02, 2008 10:16 am UTC
Location: New Jersey
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Kranerian » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:11 pm UTC

I feel exceedingly geeky. I read it, and a second later started laughing so hard that I disrupted my web design class. Excellent comic, Randall.

User avatar
jayhawk
Posts: 7
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 4:03 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby jayhawk » Mon Dec 08, 2008 4:34 pm UTC

Dobblesworth wrote:But does the female figure have that spacecraft capable of travelling at 0.9c to reach the planet 15 light years away where his twin is casually waiting for some sexual intercourse?

You have it backwards. The guy in bed is the one who was moving. It is the stationary twin who is older (and thus "more mature by now").

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Random832 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:50 pm UTC

Patashu wrote:
4=5 wrote:wouldn't the distance be too small for the rollover between 0 and something to be noticed?

That's part of the joke; the consequences of special relativity apply on all scales, even every day ones, even if you're not perceptive enough to notice them happen.


But they're still not large enough to actually cause something to not be simultaneous if simultaneous is defined as "mostly overlapping" for non-zero-duration events.

SocialSceneRepairman
Posts: 199
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 4:17 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby SocialSceneRepairman » Mon Dec 08, 2008 5:54 pm UTC

seladore wrote:I think they are both SR jokes. The twin paradox comes from SR, not GR.


As I recall, the paradox comes from special relativity, but the resolution comes from general relativity...

User avatar
GBog
Posts: 114
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 4:57 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby GBog » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:09 pm UTC

SocialSceneRepairman wrote:
seladore wrote:I think they are both SR jokes. The twin paradox comes from SR, not GR.


As I recall, the paradox comes from special relativity, but the resolution comes from general relativity...


To be precise, the paradox comes from an invalid application of special relativity.

Also: great comic.

User avatar
edd07
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:47 am UTC
Location: Mexico City
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby edd07 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Haha, I get it now.

Man, I feel dumb. It seems so obvious now.

Additives
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:14 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Additives » Mon Dec 08, 2008 7:58 pm UTC

It is almost precicly this comic, and its lack of being in physics textbooks that stopped me doing physics in university.

10nitro
Posts: 192
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 8:46 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby 10nitro » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:20 pm UTC

Thank you guys for explaining it, I really wasn't expecting a physics joke today... possibly because I first saw the comic in A+ certification, before quickly navigating away when I saw the word "orgasm", fearing that the instructor had seen it. So I was in the "computers" mindset.

Patashu wrote:p.s. 255th post! Or is the 256th one special? :s

It's 255 only if it started counting at 0... with Randall I suspect he may have made it be so, but I have no idea how much modification phpBB would take to start at 0.
~ Luke Shumaker
FRC1024 Programmer
IT technician, GNU/Linux admin, comp. security guy
Eagle Scout
http://lukeshu.ath.cx

ThemePark
Posts: 450
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:42 pm UTC
Location: Århus, Denmark

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby ThemePark » Mon Dec 08, 2008 8:29 pm UTC

Kitsusyn wrote:Meh, not enough sex. ¬_¬

Fix'd!
I have traveled from 1979 to be a member of the unofficial board Council of Elders. Phear M3

Tsereve
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:08 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Tsereve » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:11 pm UTC

But length decreases by the same factor as time dilates...so if the time offset was noticeable, wouldn't the, er, shrinking be just as noticeable? :P

User avatar
The_Beige_Volvo
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:18 am UTC
Location: Berkeley
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby The_Beige_Volvo » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:13 pm UTC

So having sex with twins may be doubly special relativity?

:oops:

User avatar
kriel
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 2:58 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere I'm not.
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby kriel » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:17 pm UTC

... I so didn't get this till I came to the forums. I figured it was just general gender-bashing, but that didn't feel xkcd-style.

JennyWren
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 7:01 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby JennyWren » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:02 pm UTC

I read the comic, thought "WTF Randall isn't funny today, sex humour, meh", glanced briefly at the alt-text (another ?hunh?) then proceeded to get my lunch out of the microwave when "oh.......Oh!" and hilarity ensued.
The only thing that sustains one through life is the consciousness of the immense inferiority of everybody else. ~ Oscar Wilde

User avatar
edd07
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:47 am UTC
Location: Mexico City
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby edd07 » Mon Dec 08, 2008 10:19 pm UTC

JennyWren wrote:I read the comic, thought "WTF Randall isn't funny today, sex humour, meh", glanced briefly at the alt-text (another ?hunh?) then proceeded to get my lunch out of the microwave when "oh.......Oh!" and hilarity ensued.

Yeah, I wonder if Randall is reading this thread only to see how many people got it in the first place and how many didn't. (And giggling at anyone who didn't, of course)

Hey, if it were my comic, I totally would.

User avatar
Patashu
Answerful Bignitude
Posts: 378
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:54 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Patashu » Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:20 pm UTC

Did any of you figure out that the alt text existed on their own, or did they have to find out from someone else?

I ask because often the alt-text makes the joke but it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere...

burtonlang
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:14 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby burtonlang » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:27 am UTC

I didn't get that alt-text! The comic now links here.

User avatar
edd07
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 11:47 am UTC
Location: Mexico City
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby edd07 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:47 am UTC

burtonlang wrote:The comic now links here.

Huh. So I guess he DID see a lot of people didn't get it. He's watching us!

Baza210
Posts: 219
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Ireland.

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Baza210 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:51 am UTC

Just waiting for an In Popular Culture section on that wikipage now..
Here I'm allowed everything all of the time

User avatar
Arc
Posts: 65
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 9:31 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Arc » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:58 am UTC

Now that I get it, I'm amazed that I couldn't figure it out from the alt text.

Also, look what I found on Wikipedia (not relevant to this specific comic, but oh well). I give it an hour to survive, tops. Edit: Actually it seems to have been there 2 days already...

kandalf
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 1:16 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby kandalf » Tue Dec 09, 2008 2:59 am UTC

First I was going how the hell is this supposed to be funny? I got it after a minute and chuckled. Pretty good comic today.

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby phlip » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:15 am UTC

So... is this Rule 34 for SR?

Also: I thought of SR as soon as I read the word "simultaneous"... my brain is weird like that. That it turned out to actually be the joke only made it funnier.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Southwest
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:01 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Southwest » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:16 am UTC

I'm so glad I came to the forums. The joke was just flying over my head. At least now I have some semblance of understanding.

But damn. All of the ins and outs of relativity just fuck with my head*. It's like the first time I started dealing with integrals. It doesn't seem to make sense right now, but I'm sure it must be true. Even if I did fully grasp it, I get the feeling it'd still be doing a number on my brain.


*Double puns not intended.

User avatar
dennisw
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2008 9:09 am UTC
Location: Appearing pro se AND pro bono!
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby dennisw » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:16 am UTC

Patashu wrote:Did any of you figure out that the alt text existed on their own, or did they have to find out from someone else?

I ask because often the alt-text makes the joke but it doesn't seem to be documented anywhere...


It's in the documentation for the Hovermouse 7000.

Also, it's implied on the About page.
Try the Printifier for xkcd. You can now scale the comic between 50 and 150%.

I find these very useful: Common Errors in English Usage (web site) and Eats, Shoots & Leaves (book). You may, too.

e pluribus unum
Unleash unlicensed ungulates!

Bluewink
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:37 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Bluewink » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:29 am UTC

I love this comic because we get SR-sex jokes about simultaneity instead of just ength contraction! So much classier! :P

sideshow45
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:27 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby sideshow45 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:34 am UTC

I have a story for you people
Earlier today, I was in my physics class, sleeping away, as usual. However, as I drifted in and out of consciousness, I realized the prof was discussing special relativity. As I made a concerted effort to wake up (theoretical physics amuses me), I missed the ladder in barn example, and the laser clock example. In fact, the only example that I was truly conscious for was the lightning example, involving simultenaety issues concerning SR.
When I got back to my room, I read this comic, and it made my day. I immediately emailed it to the professor, in the hopes that the bonus points he enjoys handing out would make up (even slightly) for the homework I don't plan to hand in later this week.

User avatar
QuantumShinobi
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:19 pm UTC
Location: Grad School
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby QuantumShinobi » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:36 am UTC

Matterwave1 wrote:Considering he has to move back and forth which implies acceleration almost the entire time, I would say GR applies to this comic...o.O

Although, no human senses would detect anything was amiss anyways.


A common misconception, along with the "twin paradox must be solved by GR" thing. Acceleration can be treated in SR so long as treating spacetime as Minkowski works (negligible curvature). Without gory details, one treats the observer as being instantaneously in an inertial frame in every (proper) time slice d(tau), then works from there.

http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/ ... ation.html <- this guy worked out some details, if anyone cares.

Also to the Physics masters student who missed it: for shame, lol :D

-Brian

User avatar
StClair
Posts: 409
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:07 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby StClair » Tue Dec 09, 2008 8:16 am UTC

Now that is marvelously subtle (and geeky, of course).

bullestock
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:49 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby bullestock » Tue Dec 09, 2008 10:29 am UTC

Kitsusyn wrote:Meh, too much sex. ¬_¬

There is no such thing as too much sex.

User avatar
michaelandjimi
Isn't Even Playing
Posts: 2353
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:21 am UTC
Location: Citizen of the World
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby michaelandjimi » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:03 am UTC

4=5 wrote:wouldn't the distance be too small for the rollover between 0 and something to be noticed?
Common wisdom has it that time slows to a standstill when one interacts with a person they love (experimentation currently being done on those who are merely fierce friends), which I imagine would lend itself to both of the observers being more likely to, well, observe the time dilation.
Whelan wrote:Relax, have a good time, and hope for the bees ;)

User avatar
Arancaytar
Posts: 1642
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:54 am UTC
Location: 52.44°N, 13.55°E
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Arancaytar » Tue Dec 09, 2008 11:13 am UTC

Kitsusyn wrote:Meh, too much sex. ¬_¬


That is not a very common complaint.
"You cannot dual-wield the sharks. One is enough." -Our DM.
Image

xkcdpasta
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 11:32 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby xkcdpasta » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:20 pm UTC

The relatively underendowed wrote:The distances involved are too small for it too be perceptible.


Speak for yourselves. I've basically got a prototype space elevator in my pants.

Mr. Anderson
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 4:49 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Mr. Anderson » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:29 pm UTC

Got it instantly, because I am expecting physical hints on xkcd. Anyway: IMO it is not very funny (but the alt text is).

User avatar
martin878
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:47 pm UTC
Location: Oxford, UK

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby martin878 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:03 pm UTC

Perhaps this also explains http://xkcd.com/57/? :lol:

Faranya
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 3:10 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Faranya » Tue Dec 09, 2008 9:21 pm UTC

I enjoy the fact that the comic now links directly to an explanation of special relativity. That was entertaining.
Image

Batman7
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:19 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Batman7 » Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:58 am UTC

The real question is: if a man with a 12 in penis is thrusting at sqrt(2)*c into a woman with a vagina 6 in deep, does he fit?

User avatar
ethraax
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 11:19 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby ethraax » Wed Dec 10, 2008 2:38 am UTC

Batman7 wrote:The real question is: if a man with a 12 in penis is thrusting at sqrt(2)*c into a woman with a vagina 6 in deep, does he fit?


I'm new here, but wouldn't that mean he's thrusting faster than the speed of light?
Meowgan wrote:It's just like knitting, but with less knitting.

User avatar
Sir_Elderberry
Posts: 4206
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:50 pm UTC
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Sir_Elderberry » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:40 am UTC

ethraax wrote:
Batman7 wrote:The real question is: if a man with a 12 in penis is thrusting at sqrt(2)*c into a woman with a vagina 6 in deep, does he fit?


I'm new here, but wouldn't that mean he's thrusting faster than the speed of light?


Yes. Sqrt(2) is 1.41...So. Tachyon penis?
http://www.geekyhumanist.blogspot.com -- Science and the Concerned Voter
Belial wrote:You are the coolest guy that ever cooled.

I reiterate. Coolest. Guy.

Well. You heard him.

Ashbash
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:46 am UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Ashbash » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:50 am UTC

I must be weird, I totally got the main joke but the alt text whizzed straight by me, as in I took in completely literally.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:59 am UTC

I got it and I majored in english. Shouldn't I require explanations? :P I think it might be that they force you to read a lot of subtext when you major in english.
Rice Puddin.

Batman7
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 9:19 pm UTC

Re: "Simultaneous" Discussion

Postby Batman7 » Wed Dec 10, 2008 5:26 am UTC

Sir_Elderberry wrote:
ethraax wrote:
Batman7 wrote:The real question is: if a man with a 12 in penis is thrusting at sqrt(2)*c into a woman with a vagina 6 in deep, does he fit?


I'm new here, but wouldn't that mean he's thrusting faster than the speed of light?


Yes. Sqrt(2) is 1.41...So. Tachyon penis?


Oops, that was supposed to be c/sqrt(2)

My question can still be asked, it just becomes less of a paradox since the length contraction is now imaginary and you can not get an imaginary penis into a real vagina.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 104 guests