• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
Tom Sewell

Friday, November 29, 2019

Recommended Posts

Well Tedd does mention the limits available, it seems a given that she'd want to explain everything to Ashley and Diane, the last time she assumed people would just know was proven quite wrong.

Also, while we're looking at "Playing with Dolls" Ashley in panels 5 and 6 are not unlike how Nanase was when offered a Grace form watch, and then things kinda, spiraled, from there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Will someone please just zappa the Ashley?

She needs to be transformed
She needs to transform herself
She needs to transform someone else
And all these transformations need to be safe, without embarrassment, and reversible
Otherwise, Ashley will never be able to relax

Also, Yes Nanase, you are just entirely too cool
I'm surprised that local glaciation isn't triggered when you and Susan are in the same room

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Also, Yes Nanase, you are just entirely too cool
I'm surprised that local glaciation isn't triggered when you and Susan are in the same room

At least Susan isn't calling her a slut any more.  That's cool.

For those that haven't read the archives Here Is the comic where she did just that,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

And all these transformations need to be safe, without embarrassment, and reversible

Otherwise, Ashley will never be able to relax

Despite what Ashley told Grace about not liking being embarrassed in real life, I get the impressions a fairly strong part of her still wants to be part of an embarrassing transformation. It's possible she may not be able to relax around transformation magic until she knows what it's like to be embarrassed in that context.

...On the other hand, if turns out she really does like it, it will still be pretty hard for her to relax...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mlooney said:

At least Susan isn't calling her a slut any more.  That's cool.

I think he's referring to both being "Soo Cool!" in general, not like cold shouldering each other.

I don't think we've had to worry about them being antagonistic towards each other since Nase's appearance and Susan asking if Nanase wanted to hang out later.  Though we could probably go as far back as the Night Out when Nanase reluctantly chose to talk to Susan about being attracted to Ellen.

6 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Despite what Ashley told Grace about not liking being embarrassed in real life, I get the impressions a fairly strong part of her still wants to be part of an embarrassing transformation. It's possible she may not be able to relax around transformation magic until she knows what it's like to be embarrassed in that context.

She's probably going to be disappointed about the clothes not shrinking with her bit, I know the dynamic morph watches  used in Playing with Dolls were tricky, but it's possible that Tedd's been able to combine the clothing resize part of Ellen's FV5 beam to the "amplio decreasco"  spell so that there wouldn't be any wardrobe malfunctions.

This is supposed to be a party for introducing Ashley (and now Diane) to the world of Magic. The next party can involve the more risque stuff.

21 minutes ago, detrius said:

I just noticed Ashley has little hearts in her pupils. Is that in any way relevant?

She's just loving this soo much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Scotty said:

Well Tedd does mention the limits available, it seems a given that she'd want to explain everything to Ashley and Diane, the last time she assumed people would just know was proven quite wrong.

Note however that she didn't mentioned them right away, only when Diane asked.

11 hours ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Will someone please just zappa the Ashley?

She needs to be transformed
She needs to transform herself
She needs to transform someone else
And all these transformations need to be safe, without embarrassment, and reversible
Otherwise, Ashley will never be able to relax

I think she would be able to relax even if some of those transformations will be with embarrassment.

2 hours ago, Scotty said:
8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Despite what Ashley told Grace about not liking being embarrassed in real life, I get the impressions a fairly strong part of her still wants to be part of an embarrassing transformation. It's possible she may not be able to relax around transformation magic until she knows what it's like to be embarrassed in that context.

She's probably going to be disappointed about the clothes not shrinking with her bit, I know the dynamic morph watches  used in Playing with Dolls were tricky, but it's possible that Tedd's been able to combine the clothing resize part of Ellen's FV5 beam to the "amplio decreasco"  spell so that there wouldn't be any wardrobe malfunctions.

Or, maybe just got better with it since then. Or ... maybe the reason the watches didn't worked well was actually related to them being watches and not proper wand ...

2 hours ago, detrius said:

I just noticed Ashley has little hearts in her pupils. Is that in any way relevant?

Probably not. I mean, it's not likely those are her traumen marks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Diane doesn't get why anybody would want to be tiny and helpless, probably because she has some underlying fear of helplessness or something. On the other hand, it seems like she could imagine wanting to be "small and cute" to the degree of someone like Rhoda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, ijuin said:

Yeah, Diane doesn't get why anybody would want to be tiny and helpless, probably because she has some underlying fear of helplessness or something.

Wait what? Isn't that one called "instinct of self-preservation"?

17 hours ago, Tom Sewell said:

Maybe the real surprise will come when Ashley finally takes the wand, and the spell doesn't turn out like anyone expects it will.

I don't think she's THAT bad wizard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect a more complicated outcome -- because of her ambivalence about actually having magic, a very limited or even "fizzle1" effect (someone shrinks a single inch, etc.).

1 fizzle -- from the cartoon sound effect for fireworks and such that don't go off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:
2 hours ago, Haylo said:

I would expect a more complicated outcome --

Howzabout this?

Instead of shrinking herself or her intended target, Ashley triggers the reversal of Dark Energy causing the entire Universe to shrink

I'm pretty sure she's not powerful enough for that ... and neither was pre-reset Pandora while connected to all other immortals. Seriously, do you realize how big universe is? And if you meant it as something which would be just triggered by magic locally and then spreading normally ... well, such spreading would be limited by speed of light and would therefore NEVER reach MOST of universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/29/2019 at 5:58 PM, detrius said:

I just noticed Ashley has little hearts in her pupils. Is that in any way relevant?

Yes, her eyes have above average blood flow, but also enhanced danger of glaucoma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, hkmaly said:

something which would be just triggered by magic locally and then spreading normally ... well, such spreading would be limited by speed of light and would therefore NEVER reach MOST of universe.

Who says "Magic" pays attention to Einstein's silly speed limits?
Remember, in the EGS Universe, the "Laws" of Physics are actually polite suggestions.

By the way, it would only need to spread at about forty trillion times the speed of light to encompass everything as far as the CMB in less than a day
Is that wand made of Adrenaline charged Tachyons on Steroids?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving faster than light is mathematically one and the same thing as moving backwards through time, which is the one thing that we know for certain can not be done via Magic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ijuin said:

Moving faster than light is mathematically one and the same thing as moving backwards through time, which is the one thing that we know for certain can not be done via Magic.

In our universe, they are one and the same. In EGS they might not be (maybe their Will Of Physics isn't as strict as ours, hence the "polite suggestions").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Haylo said:
8 hours ago, ijuin said:

Moving faster than light is mathematically one and the same thing as moving backwards through time, which is the one thing that we know for certain can not be done via Magic.

In our universe, they are one and the same. In EGS they might not be (maybe their Will Of Physics isn't as strict as ours, hence the "polite suggestions").

If you look closer at those laws, you will find out that decoupling moving backward through time and faster than light require fixed referral point for speed. In our universe, you can measure relative speed between two objects but don't know if one of them is stationary or if both are moving. With faster-than-light travel, you WILL know it - or you will be able to travel to past, no other possibility.

Also note that we still don't know how Uryuom got to Earth, but it seems quite likely faster-than-light travel was involved. However, if they didn't used magic for it, it wouldn't be problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also note that we still don't know how Uryuom got to Earth, but it seems quite likely faster-than-light travel was involved. However, if they didn't used magic for it, it wouldn't be problem.

Maybe they used Star Trek: Voyager physics for it. That crap is awesome. I still marvel at how they escaped from a black hole's gravitational field by flying through a crack in the event horizon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If you look closer at those laws, you will find out that decoupling moving backward through time and faster than light require fixed referral point for speed. In our universe, you can measure relative speed between two objects but don't know if one of them is stationary or if both are moving. With faster-than-light travel, you WILL know it - or you will be able to travel to past, no other possibility.

Not relevant to your point (I think) but I felt like pointing out that with the universe expanding and most objects between the size of an asteroid and a small galaxy orbiting something and either rotating or resting on something that is rotating, unless one of the objects you are examining is your referral point (fixed or otherwise), it's almost certain that both of your objects are moving in some way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, The Old Hack said:
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Also note that we still don't know how Uryuom got to Earth, but it seems quite likely faster-than-light travel was involved. However, if they didn't used magic for it, it wouldn't be problem.

Maybe they used Star Trek: Voyager physics for it. That crap is awesome. I still marvel at how they escaped from a black hole's gravitational field by flying through a crack in the event horizon.

Isn't much weirder than how Spock froze a volcano by cold fusion bomb.

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
15 hours ago, hkmaly said:

If you look closer at those laws, you will find out that decoupling moving backward through time and faster than light require fixed referral point for speed. In our universe, you can measure relative speed between two objects but don't know if one of them is stationary or if both are moving. With faster-than-light travel, you WILL know it - or you will be able to travel to past, no other possibility.

Not relevant to your point (I think) but I felt like pointing out that with the universe expanding and most objects between the size of an asteroid and a small galaxy orbiting something and either rotating or resting on something that is rotating, unless one of the objects you are examining is your referral point (fixed or otherwise), it's almost certain that both of your objects are moving in some way.

Universe expanding would not matter: nothing is actually MOVING due to it - it just gets farther apart.

However, you are right that nothing in universe is truly stationary: due to gravity having no cut-off distance, everything in universe is either falling into something, orbiting something or is "resting" on something bigger which does.

Now ... about those referral points: If your referral point is orbiting something, you can "easily" prove that it does (with measurement devices precise enough), as orbiting is not inertial movement and you will be able to measure fictitious force caused by it. That's NOT true if you are falling: reference frame of free falling object is inertial. There is no experiment which would allow you to PROVE you are not stationary, although you would have lot of reasons to doubt it unless you have no way to look at stuff around you or you are extremely optimistic (or, possibly, religious).

... that is, no experiment unless you start experimenting with faster-than-light engine. Faster-than-light engine is either also time machine, or has some weird behaviour which allows you to prove you are falling and compute how fast exactly.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Universe expanding would not matter: nothing is actually MOVING due to it - it just gets farther apart.

So you're saying there is a difference between objects getting further apart and "moving away from one another"? I was under the impression that any change in distance between two objects could be considered "movement".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, hkmaly said:

In our universe, you can measure relative speed between two objects but don't know if one of them is stationary or if both are moving.

In fact, in our universe the concept of "stationary" is meaningless and what object we assign it to is completely arbitrary.

You say I'm doing push-ups; I've defined that my back is stationary and I'm bench-pressing the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this