User talk:Avsa

old discussions are here

Hi! I appreciate your graphic skills, but I don't think the Triangle of Everything works for Wikipedia articles. Some version might be great for a wall size poster where the many items are fun to explore. But articles on a specific topic need images on that topic to be useful. For example, the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit is just a puzzling extra line on the Everything. The rest of the image is just unrelated and visually overwhelming.

The ingredients of the Everything image might be remixed into a series of images each of which might work for a specific purpose. For example aspects of the Tolman–Oppenheimer–Volkoff limit could be visualized with an image containing only stellar masses. With more space for the topic limit in the grid, the result could be better understanding. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I am working on a better version just with the stellar evolution bit which I hope will be better received Alex Van de Sande (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please let me know if you would like feedback. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I'd appreciate feedback! I have remade the stellar evolution chart. It's not as eye catching but if the content is more precise I'll try to post a version of it to the stellar evolution article. I think in this case the mass and radius chart does help. I am still working on it, specially on the placement of labels. If it's accepted there then I'll try to add some more visually appealing art (but not go overboard with it). Alex Van de Sande (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi Avsa. I'm studying the Triangle of Everything image you uploaded. (Thanks, it's very interesting!) The mass axis says it's in 10^n kg, and you have 1 solar mass = 2*10^30 kg. But you have this and Sol placed at n=24 on the mass axis. Where's the disconnect? Yoda of Borg (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for noticing Yoda! Actually the labels are wrong, I had skipped a few and didn't notice. Will fix it immediately! Alex Van de Sande (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

I wrote an article based on your work, it is at https://thomasfdavis.substack.com/p/the-triangle-of-everything Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! Loved it! Alex Van de Sande (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I know that you aren't necessarily addressing this to the general population, but I stumbled into it here. If you're looking for feedback in general, I have comments:

you misspell Schwarzschild a few times. It ends in -schild with an s because it's german for "black shield", not something-child. (And this is off topic but Rothschild similarly means "red shield".)

You say that the planck mass is somewhat human scaled after saying that planck time and planck length are the smallest possible units of those quantities. First, I wonder why you think that some of these are the smallest possible things but acknowledge that some are very clearly not. At a guess, I think you're misunderstanding what those planck quantities actually represent, which as I understand it are simply units that we get by defining them as being derived from setting the fundamental quantities as having a magnitude of 1 of something. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

On a lark, I looked up Schwartzschild radius and stumbled into this which is a great representation of the objects in the cosmos, but to read it took longer than I want to admit. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triangle_of_everything_simplified_2_triangle_of_everything_-_Planck_Units.png

I know there's another version you did that is much easier for me to comprehend, so I wonder why you made this one. In any case, I think an important reason I found it difficult to read is that the bold axes such as the one indicating "1 planck length" points boldly... and after minutes of looking at it I realize it points from the origin of the graphic toward a position on the scale of the L unit labels (and so on for other units).

just as the 10^n meters markers are labeled, I think I would usually expect a label that indicates 1 planck length to be maybe emboldened somewhat but indicated otherwise similar to other tic marks and labels. More similar to what we see in the version someone else referred to elsewhere on this talk page.

Furthermore, I wonder if planck units are particularly important to this representation. One of the reasons I have to ask this is that 1 planck momentum is a human-scale momentum, not particularly small or large, and that tells me that planck units are just meant to facilitate calculations, not to represent any fundamental physical quantization. If this is what you have in mind, maybe one label on each tic mark could be labeled as being approximately 10^m planck units. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)Reply