Music Chart Fan

Awesome! Thank you again Mattlight/Twilight for taking the time to answer my questions and help me learn more about the physics of celestial bodies and telekinesis. It's a great feeling for me to grapple with somewhat advanced topics like these and come out with a greater understanding of the laws of physics and their application.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around your response for the last hour or so - not because you didn't explain it well, but because I think I was in the wrong mindset. I'll try to write my thought process in understanding this - please let me know if I'm thinking correctly here. At first, I was envisioning increasing the velocity of Earth as like pressing the gas pedal in a car to increase its velocity, but the two are not analogous. A speeding car is constantly expending energy to maintain its velocity, since it has to counter energy lost to air resistance and frictional resistance with the road. However, Earth hurtling through space is not encountering any such frictional resistance. Therefore, Earth's state of motion through space is equivalent to a state of rest - no energy is expended to maintain the state. I think in this way the correct frame of reference for Earth's motion would be a frame of reference moving at Earth's velocity, since in this frame of reference, no energy is expended to keep Earth in its current state. This explains why the correct v2 and v1 are 30 m/s and 0 m/s, as opposed to my previous numbers. Achieving the adjustment in velocity with microbursts then makes sense in this paradigm of Earth hurtling through space with no frictional resistance. Whenever a new velocity is reached, this new state of motion is always equivalent to a state of rest - no energy is expended to maintain the new state. In the calculation of kinetic energy expended, this would make each new initial velocity zero. So indeed, a series of microbursts takes less energy than a single burst to achieve the same adjustment of velocity. Finally, telekinesis works by taking the ordinarily random atomic/molecular motions (which on a macro scale we call thermal energy) and orienting them in a single direction. So there is no collecting or harnessing energy, but rather, orienting kinetic energy already present in the object.

Thanks for your responses so far, Mattlight. All right, I have some numbers of my own to work out here. Feel free to correct me if necessary. How much power would it take to adjust the velocity of Earth by, say, 30 m/s? Earth orbits the sun at a velocity of 29,800 m/s. So let's say that the velocity of Earth has to be changed from 29,770 m/s to 29,800 m/s. mass of Earth = 5.97219E24 kg KE2 - KE1 = 1/2 * m * (v22 - v12) = 1/2 * (5.97219E24 kg) * [(29,800 m/s)2 - (29,770 m/s)2] = 5.336E30 J Now assuming that Celestia takes one day (86,400 seconds) to accomplish this change in kinetic energy, power = (5.336E30 J) / (86,400 s) = 6.176E25 W Comparing this power to the power you calculated for rotating the sun around Earth (6.223E35 W), the power needed to adjust the velocity of the Earth is certainly several orders of magnitude less, but still in the realm of very large, I would think. So, by your theory, the power needed to adjust Earth's velocity comes by converting thermal potential energy to kinetic energy. Where does this energy come from? The total rate at which energy enters the Earth's atmosphere is estimated at 174 petawatts (174E15 or 1.74E17 W), which is mostly solar radiation, but includes geothermal and tidal energy. As calculated earlier, we need 5.336E30 J of accumulated energy in order to adjust Earth's velocity by 30 m/s. If ALL of the energy entering the Earth's atmosphere every second were able to be collected and stored, it would take 3.067E13 seconds, or 971,870 years, to accumulate the necessary energy. What if the necessary energy were to be extracted from the thermal energy of Earth? One estimate of the thermal energy of Earth I found was obtained by figuring an average specific heat of the Earth (860 J/kg*K) and multiplying that by an average temperature of the Earth (3000 K) and the mass of the Earth (5.97E24 kg). This estimate of the thermal energy of Earth came out to 1.5E31 J. Recall that we need 5.336E30 J of accumulated energy in order to adjust Earth's velocity by 30 m/s. So, in order to adjust Earth's velocity by 30 m/s, more than 1/3 of the thermal energy of Earth would have to be extracted and used. This does not seem feasible to do every year. So, I have to ask, where does the energy to adjust the velocity of Earth come from? Furthermore, how is the extremely diffuse thermal energy and/or solar radiation collected and harnessed to adjust Earth's velocity? I understand that, theoretically, this is where the energy comes from, but it must somehow be collected and converted into useful kinetic energy.

First, you did an outstanding job with this post. You obviously put a lot of work into it, and the in-character explanations and pictures really make it more entertaining to read. By the way, I laughed at the comic about Twilight being a "heretic," even if Twilight didn't find it funny. I have seen in the fanon at least, if not the canon, that Celestia "raising the sun" and Luna "raising the moon" are daily rituals. This doesn't seem to fit with your explanation of Celestia's and Luna's duties only being performed on occasion. Do Celestia and Luna do anything to "raise" the sun and moon on a daily basis? Do they fake daily rituals to keep the uneducated plebeians happy? Or am I wrong to suggest that daily rituals happen at all? If this is true, why is it less ridiculous that Luna gives the moon an occasional "push" and Celestia moves the orbit of an entire planet? Moving the sun is too much, but moving a planet is okay? Controlling the orbit of the moon around the planet is too much, but giving the moon a "push" is okay? Of course, assuming that the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass and energy are still applicable, where does the energy to move a moon and a planet come from? How is this massive amount of energy gathered, contained, and harnessed by a single pony?

You make a good point. While I am somewhat like the main character, i.e., I don't have much of a "life" and I don't hang out with or talk to other people very often, I do not wish that I had a pony to love in real life, and so maybe I couldn't relate to the main character. This story is wish fulfillment fantasy, but since I have never had that wish, I was not invested into the story as much as others who do have that wish.

I agree with the OP. Heh heh, the writing style of this fanfic made me think of how I would write a fanfic if I were ever to write one - kind of stiff, trying to include details but ending up being bare-bones, writing about emotions but not really making them come across effectively. I recognize that there are some sad concepts here - a child moving out never to be seen again, being unable to relive good times in your past, memories of these good times gradually fading in your imperfect memory - but this particular story didn't have much emotional impact on me. However, I have a very narrow emotional range and am rarely much affected by stories like these.

Done. Easy. To me, all the songs in this show are excruciatingly lame and far too long, and I can barely stand to sit through them, so not smiling at it is no problem, since I wouldn't do that anyway. I also have several issues with this specific song and the video that goes with it, but I might save those for a separate topic sometime. Before you call me out as a hater, I will say that, of all the songs in the show so far, this is probably one of the better written ones musically. The acoustic guitar strums and interludes are mildly catchy, but the lame factor is too overwhelming.

I hate to rain on your parade, but look at the original NPR segment where former President Clinton answers the questions (http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137386121/bill-clinton-plays-not-my-job). The multiple-choice questions asked to him about the show had very obvious answers (the other possible answers were pretty much jokes), so the fact that he answered the questions correctly does not necessarily indicate any familiarity with the show, let alone being a brony. I think the article which the OP cites is exaggerating when it suggests that former President Clinton is a brony.

I'm apparently the most like Fluttershy, with slightly above average Applejack, Twilight, and Pinkie to round it out. I'm a little surprised; I thought that since I'm an organized and analytical person I would be most like Twilight, but I guess I'm not much of a leader. I guess my anti-social, keep-to-myself nature skewed me toward Fluttershy. On another note, I didn't have good answers to some of the questions asked; for example, my answer to "Which would you want as a pet the most?" would be no pets at all, but that wasn't an option.

My ideal roommate would definitely be Twilight. I like things to be kept nice and neat, like her, and I am the type of person who largely likes to be left alone or only hang out with a few people, like her. In general, her personality type would make her a good fit as a roommate for me.

Definitely Twilight. I would have big issues with the other five. Rarity: I don't care at all about fashion, and I hate following arbitrary social rules, i.e. rules that serve no discernible purpose. Applejack: The whole redneck, Southern, unlearned vibe is very offputting, and I do not want to live on or work on a farm. Fluttershy: I dislike animals of all kinds - I would never want a pet (let alone tens of animals living in my house) - and the soft-spoken "cute" factor is too overbearing. Rainbow Dash: I am not athletic, not at all into sports or physical feats, and not really competitive in the sense that she is. Pinkie Pie: She is pretty much the opposite of my personality type (I am an INTJ), I am very anti-social, and I like things to be orderly and non-random. Because of these flaws, Twilight is left as the most compatible with me. I would like to hang out with a fellow intellectual person like myself, and while I'm not that much into reading per se, I do like looking things up and diving deep into subjects in which I'm interested.