My mom has a degree in Library Sciences (I think that's what it's called) and my dad is a copywriter at an advertising agency. The next step up in math classes for me was trigonometry, and my mom flat out told me if I wasn't going into a math-heavy career, then I shouldn't waste my time with it.

What's ridiculous is claiming a character can't do something they've been shown doing.

And Cartoon Physics is irrelevant. See Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

But you were just getting to the good parts!

Hay, I really want to be a writer, but there's just something about astronomy and physics that's just awesome.

As for how well that's doing I'm still looking for a decent college, badly out of writing practice, and am bad at math.

I guess I'm lucky to come from a more math and science oriented family. I had a laminated periodic table of the elements at the age of 7.

edited 6th Apr '13 12:56:44 PM by storyyeller

The letters are just numbers where you fill in the blank. That's all.

Really, the only reason we use letters instead of underscores like in the computer games we played when we were little is so you can have more than one and tell them apart.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:05:48 PM by Pykrete

Same here. But replace physics with geology and chemistry. I'm going to my community college next year to figure out if I want to write or draw- I sorely need to practice both. Art especially after being scared away by a string of condescending art teachers. I wasn't until I started watching Fi M that I really wanted to get back into art.

I spent my early days roaming the kid section of the library. Good times.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:04:25 PM by PrincessGwenevere

@Story: I'm going to assume sarcasm, because otherwise your statement makes no sense.

@Sereg: What does Who Framed Roger Rabbit have to do with anything?

I am an English/Psychology major. Although I am not good at it, I still have some interest in math and science. There was a time when I even wanted to declare mathematics as my second major. My parents were like "Lol, no." and convinced me to take Psychology instead, should I wish to pursue a second major.

And of course, next semester I will be taking psychological statistics, so I will be doing all the math I (don't) want.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:12:44 PM by dRoy

Who Framed Roger Rabbit shows that toons' Toon Physics abilities are real abilities they're able to take advantage of in the real world.

Even if you assume they're not, the purpose of the exercise is to work out what the character is capable of. As such, the reason they're capable of such things is irrelevant.

EDIT: I have a masters in genetics. When I have the oppertunity, I'd like to get a PHD as well.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:11:32 PM by Sereg

Honestly, I think I could've handled pretty much any subject except math. I could probably do it, but I'd hate every moment. The main reason I sucked at math in high school so badly was because I could almost never get past the first few problems without going "I don't give a crap what X is! Why am I trying to find X when I could be doing literally anything else with my time?"

Just because it works that way in that movie doesn't mean it works that way in every cartoon ever. By that logic, applying gamma rays to any character in any movie ever means that they would give superpowers. Roger Rabbit and MLP are completely different works that function on completely different rules.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:13:06 PM by JapaneseTeeth

@Sereg: In that universe, they're applicable. You're applying the standards of different shows across universes again.

Every character gets the physics of their native universe. That's just logic. If you don't do that, then you litterally can't compare any fictional characters unless they're from the same universe.

EDIT: As said, we're looking at what they're capable of doing. If the reason they're cpable of doing that is because of their universe's rules who cares?

edited 6th Apr '13 1:16:32 PM by Sereg

Heydoes anyone else have the instrumental version of Snowdrop's Lullaby stuck in their head?

No, but THIS Lullaby is.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:16:10 PM by dRoy

Um, that's exactly the point I'm trying to make. You can't compare fictional characters against each other for specifically that reason. The only way to do so is to create your own cosmology that defines how each character's native physics manifests when it interacts with physics from another universe.

It's why Superman Vs. Goku will never be resolved: the Superman universe and Dragonball Z universe don't have the same physics, so unless you can agree on what type of physics you're using, you can never truly compare them.

Even if your argument was applicable, it would prove that "Lol Toon Physics" isn't a valid argument as some pieces of fiction do treat it seriously.

EDIT: As I said, they each get their own physics. They each get the ability to do anything they could do in their native universe. Why is that concept so hard?

edited 6th Apr '13 1:19:58 PM by Sereg

Again it doesn't matter how other works of fiction treat it. If MLP shows that Pinkie can use Toon Physics at random due to Rule of Funny, that's how it works in the MLP universe.

If another work plays Toon Physics seriously with a clearly delineated set of rules, that's how it works in that universe.

Whether or not "some works" of fiction treat Toon Physics seriously is irrelevant. The only relevant piece of information is "does MLP treat Toon Physics seriously?" If not, I'm not going to attempt to figure out exactly how it works. Given that the show's general explanation for how Pinkie's abilities work is "because Pinkie Pie" that's how I'm going to treat it.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:22:00 PM by JapaneseTeeth

It isn't an argument in those that do treat it seriously, yes. But a possibly valid one in others that don't.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:20:50 PM by crowlover

And the sonic rainboom wasn't treated seriously? Celestia's ability to move the sun isn't treated seriously? Discord's csual violation of reality isn't treated seriously?

And again, you're ignoring a simple and obvious solution I mentioned at the beggining. If they can do it in their native universe, they're treated as always being able to do it.It's as simple as that!

What I'm saying is that you're assuming a lot of information about the physics behind how those things work that we have no info for.

Let's take one example: the sun.

Here's what we know about it:

1. It exists.

2. Celestia moves it

3. An unspecified number of unicorns are capable of moving it

4. Discord is capable of moving it.

5. It provides enough light and heat for the planet to survive.

That's it. That's the sum total of knowledge about the sun. Everything else is conjecture based on those points. We have no idea how big it is or how much magic it takes to move. It's treated seriously from a narrative standpoint in that it's used to cause tension, but never at any point does the show attempt to provide any scientifically rigorous information on how it works or how Celestia is able to move it other than "she can, okay?" We don't know whether real world physics apply to it.

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say here. If they can do it in the show, obviously they can do it. I'm not arguing that. What I am arguing is the mechanism behind the abilities. I.e. Celestia being able to move the sun in Equestria has absolutely no bearing on whether she could move the sun in another universe. They're different suns which exist in universes with different laws of physics.

edited 6th Apr '13 1:31:28 PM by JapaneseTeeth

Anybody getting a sense of deja vu? I feel like we've had this discussion before.

Too, too many times, Irish.

Shhh, just shut up and get yourself a bag of popcorn.