I'm sorry tf is that construction?

"Is X really Y?" is a normal sentence structure to me. I don't think there's anything unusual about it. "Really" here would mean something like "equal to".

"Really" means "actually". The construction is just "is X actually Y?"

They’re asking if there’s any kind of actual difference between the two images, as the right image appears to be made of two of the left image.

I think they're asking if the illustrations are representing the same thing, but they're phrasing that in the most confusing way.

the pictures are asking if the universe is just a repeating big bang, with the universe expanding then shrinking into a big bang then expanding and so on over and over again

I think the "the image" means "The idea depicted in the image". So the literal *image* itself is obviously not the same, but the question is whether the thing *depicted* in the left image, might be better depicted in the right right . i.e. >Is \[the unvierse depicted in\] the image on the left, really \[the universe depicted in\] the image on the right? \--- On the left is the big-bang idea for the early universe. On the right, there seems to still be the big-bang, but exapnded with some sort of loop/big-bounce/cyclic-universe idea. So the question means something like: "Is the big bang really a part of a larger whole that has cyclic elements?" \--- I don't know if there is a technical term for this, but it seems similar to "synecdoche". It isn't quite that, but the idea of a phrase (like "the image on the left") to represent something more, seems similar.

"Are left and right identical?"

Ironically, "I'm sorry tf is that construction" is a really poor construction.

You lot can say what you want about this being “obvious” or whatever, but the person who originally posted that image did word their question in a monumentally stupid way for a sub called r/enlightenment.

It means “Are you sure that the image on the left is the same as the image on the right?” and is a relatively common construction

>Is OP trying to ask whether either of the two options is real? No. This construction is often used to question or cast doubt on something. The implied sense of 'really' in this sort of construction is questioning the accuracy and scope of the first thing without rejecting it as totally incorrect or false. In this specific instance the question being posed is, 'While the evolutionary modelling on the left works and remains correct to a degree, is this modelling not quite the whole story, and would a more accurate model not be more like the image on the right?' So it is used here in a way that is not explicitly saying the modelling on the left is wrong, rather the modelling on the right locates it within a more accurate framework. It's somewhat comparable to the idea that classical physics is not wrong, but with time we came to discover that it's only part of the story, its scope has limitations that don't account for everything we are now able to observe.

>Image on the left = Image on the right? (+implication of disbelief/surprise) As far as construction goes, this isn't particularly unusual. Yes, the content requires context, but the English itself is perfectly fine.

The meme left out some words that most native speakers would automatically fill in. The real question it is asking is as follows: "Is the image on the left really the same as as the image on the right?"