#this is assuming the planets started out with similar masses. which we don't know for sure buttt. idk it makes sense to me

[konfizry]

as Rena's consumption and hollowing progressed over the millenias(?), it is quite possible (near undeniable in fact) that its mass decreased drastically enough for the Twin Planet System's barycenter to shift from an equidistant point between the two planets to one that is closer to (and maybe even contained within??? if the phenomenon is extreme enough) Dahna. i call this the satellization of Rena. the press is deliberately keeping silent about this issue and

[blnk338]

One of the many great things about the universe is it is constantly expanding, which causes many stars to be farther and farther away from earth, and therefore causes them to be dimmer. But, the expansion of the universe only affects the distance between galaxy groups. Which leads me to believe that before the dark era that our black holes will not be able to effect one another. that does space will be so vast and expanded, and we don't know how far it will expand, but it'll be so vast that black holes will not be close enough to each other to even effect one another.

The fact that theoretically the universe can recreate itself to be something completely different something unknown or exactly the same following the exact same flow of time is just an amazes me I love that part of of the unknown cuz there's so many possibilities so many theories that you can come up with and I'm genuinely obsessed with that. That also feeds into the fact that the universe is so grand there could be other "Milky Ways" out there that have just started to begin their journey and could create life similar to ours

(i like ur cat pfp :))

im so glad you mentioned the universe expanding bc my feet r fuckin swinging and shit DID YOU KNOW that we literally have no fucking clue what the edge of the universe, if one at all, is? okay, so we basically have three options:

There is no edge, none, not a single one; that the big bang (which is a theory, still, even though there's so much evidence. also, the big bang wasn't an explosion as many believe bc there was nothing to "ignite" it, it was just a bunch of matter moved all at once) just blasted a bunch of atoms and nuclei out into the universe, they bashed together, and they created shit-- but there's nothing else. as in, technically, you could go out as far as you can and eventually, you'll just have all the stars dwindle and reach a wall of nothingness

there IS an edge, and it's somehow even more terrifying. going back to the big bang, we're going to hypothesize that the "blast" was in an ellipse-ish shape (sort of resembling how a black hole looks where there's the one mass in the center, a force around the "top" and "bottom", and a ring around the side). there is technically an "end" to it-- but its horrifyingly stark. it's like, there's a bajillion, trillion stars, and then suddenly, there's nothing. the question that has to be asked then, is that: will we even see the edge if we DO eventually get to said edge (assuming that earth will continue in the milky way, to move further and further way from the big bang's "blast" zone)? as in, are there mere windows that we can see that utter nothingness? have we missed that window? assumingly, once we'd hit that edge, we, the observer, would just cease to be. or perhaps suddenly, half the night sky would be missing stars and would be an endless void that slowly consumed the rest of the sky until there was nothing to realize that the planet had "fallen off the edge."

finally, the third option-- that the universe is in one big cycle (but not like my last response to your ask); using an example of a black hole. think of it sort of like this:

so think of it like we start at point A and move to point B, hypothetically, if we were to stick with the second option, we would then just fall off the universe entirely and cease to be HOWEVER, in this third case, we'd be thrown from B to C if, at the center of the big bang's "blast" was sort of a reverse black hole (this one was a wild card that i saw), and in that sense, we would also cease to be, as we would then be sucked into the black hole. UNLESS, it acted more as a gravitational pull sort of thing and swung us under/around the "center" and onto point D. If, however, it wasn't as strong, we would be thrown to point E and, hypothetically, be thrown to point F, and somehow make it back to point B and start the process over again (although, it'd take a few trillion trillion trillion years, id assume)

The reason why I throw the third one out the window is that I don't think there'd even be enough TIME for any of that to occur, if anything, because the Milky Way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy will collide and therefore wipe out all living things and also most DEFINITELY throw both galaxies out of balance. if you're curious, (thank you NASA for the visuals), the first image is what Andromeda looks like today.

See that little white line beside the big ring of bright stars? That's Andromeda outside of the Milky Way's rings (unfortunately, most people can't see.

The second image seen is in about two billion years:

it's far closer, in fact, we can make out the goddamn details-- it's scary, but most likely not a single person reading this post will actually ever experience it. bummer for the space brain, major win for present-day humanity as we would not experience the horror of living on a planet that, in 2 billion years, would be exponentially hotter

third image is in about 3.75 billion years:

i believe it is now (and do correct me if I'm wrong) that this is the point where the oceans begin to dry up; the planet is so fucking hot that there's no way life could be sustained

fourth image is in about 3.85 billion years (happening fast since the last image):

the formation of stars lights up the sky as every speck in the sky we've ever know gets outshined by the constant collateral and literal damage in the sky above us.

fifth image, in about 3.9 billion years (IK!! close together, mark you calendars):

the formation continues into this beautiful and terrifying amalgamation of clusters hashing it out through bared teeth and gaseous war cries

image six, roughly 4 billion years:

andromeda and the milky way now become one. like some epic yaoi finale, they've merged together to create milkomeda/milkdromeda. we are far past dead at this point, luckily, and anything that lived on earth is far past deceased at this point

image seven 5.1 billion years:

the cores of what used to be the milky way and Andromeda have now appeared in the sky as two giant bulbs, and the planet somehow heats up further (it has been, in case you thought it'd stop-- this is space, shit's always hitting the proverbial fan)

final image, 7 billion years:

the merged galaxies become one, ultimate yaoi, and the bright core would take up the entire sky-- no stars would be seen.

... or whatever

[lokigodofaces]

Okay people, time to talk about how Asgard makes no sense at all!

(I'm no astrophysicist or anything of the like, I just find all of that fascinating and therefore take the time to learn more about it. I can't go into the math or anything but I know the concepts of things).

Today we're talking about how gravity is so unbelievably inconsistent on Asgard and makes no sense!

Before we begin, let me define gravity. I know, you learned about it a million times in school, but there are things we forget about it. Gravity is a force that attracts objects with mass to each other. For example, the Earth has mass and therefore has a gravitational field pulling you to the core. You also have mass and have a gravitational field and are pulling the Earth towards you. But the Earth is much more massive than you, making your gravitational field basically negligible. Everything with mass has a gravitational field, and those interact with nearby objects. For example, there are gravitational interactions between you and the phone/computer/tablet you are reading this on.

The more mass something has, the stronger the gravitational field. That is why we stay on the surface, and why planets stay in orbit, and why black holes "suck" ("suck" is not a very good word to describe the process, but oh well) different objects in, and why galaxies hold together.

The center of gravity is created by two gravitational fields interacting. With you and the Earth, the center of gravity is almost exactly the exact center of the Earth. Not quite, but extremely close, because of how much more massive the Earth is. While objects with more similar mass have the center of gravity closer to the middle. For example, Charon, Pluto's moon, is about half the size or so of Pluto. The center of gravity between them is actually above the surface of Pluto. It's closer to Pluto than Charon, but their mass is so similar that they're actually both orbiting around a point in space.

Now that we have that out of the way, here we go under the cut because this is a massive post.

1) The planet's form makes absolutely no sense

Look at this!

What even is this? Asgard is a disk with an iceberg-esque part at the bottom and some land mass on the top. Which is problematic.

For one, gravity causes things to become spherical. Things, such as yourself, with lower mass don't have the gravity to become a sphere. This is why asteroids and some moons can have funky shapes.

Here are some asteroids. Ceres is the biggest asteroid and a dwarf planet, and it is almost spherical as you can see. The rest are a little funky. They don't have the mass, and therefore gravitational force, to be spherical.

Life evolves to live in the conditions it is in. We can't see ultraviolet light because our atmosphere blocks most of it. So why would we need that ability? Why would people that could see UV have a higher chance of surviving to reproduce? This is why we aren't ridiculously strong. We evolved to be able to work with what was needed. Which means we are suited for Earth's gravity. If it weren't for other factors like the suits, astronauts would be able to jump much higher on the moon because it is tiny compared to Earth, and our strength overcompensates.

If Asgard has low gravity, then it would make sense Asgardians would evolve for a low gravity environment. Which means they wouldn't become super strong. If anything, they could have serious spinal problems on Earth because of our gravity, assuming they didn't immediately collapse. And, um, that is not the case in Marvel. The opposite is true.

2) Inconsistent gravity is confusing

So, gravity is what keeps us on the ground, right? Well, that doesn't always seem to be the case on Asgard.

Not to mention the water constantly spilling off (also not astronomy related but where is that water coming from? And why does that water just disappear?).

Even if Loki was about as far as he could be from the center of gravity while being on the planet, even if Asgard has extremely low gravity and they showed it to us, this would still make no sense. Gravity should be strong enough to keep him on the planet.

And if it wasn't? Should've not been strong enough everywhere else on the planet. No one should be able to stay on the planet. It shouldn't be strong enough to have an atmosphere.

While with its shape Asgard would have unequal gravity, it shouldn't be this unequal. And, if gravity were weak enough for Loki to fall off, it should've been weak enough that he would've floated off rather than fallen off. Same with Thor. And Odin. And Heimdall. And literally everyone else to ever be on the bifrost. No one should be able to stand on the bifrost, everyone should float off into orbit. But that clearly doesn't happen because Asgard's gravity makes no sense.

3) 2+ nearby wormholes

There are at least two nearby natural wormholes.

We have a wormhole taking you from Asgard to Sanctuary and a wormhole taking you from Sakaar to Asgard. I am not including the bifrost, because while Selvig and Jane called it an Einstein-Rosen bridge (sciency way of saying wormhole), the bifrost is artificial, and not naturally occurring. Right now I am focusing on the naturally occurring wormholes. Also, we don't know if these are two way wormholes are blackhole whitehole pairs. Basically, the theory is that some wormholes could allow travel from both ends, kind of like the Nether Portal in Minecraft, and others are a one way ticket, with a blackhole on one end and whitehole (ejects mass instead of taking mass in) on the other. We've only seen these work one way, so they could be partially whiteholes.

So there are a few problems with all of this.

Blackholes distort light.

The top image is from Hubble. Do you see the circular-ness the photo is focused on? That is from a blackhole distorting light. The second is an illustration and not from Hubble so it's less reliable, but this is a more noticeable example. Basically, light has particles called photons, and blackholes absorb mass.

As you can see in the gif, stuff orbits around blackholes and slowly gets closer and closer to the event horizon. Once you get past the event horizon, there is no turning back. Light can't escape, which is why these are blackholes. Photons are distorted like this, which means that the light produced by nearby stars and reflected by nearby celestial objects is distorted, making them look off.

In other words, Asgard's light should be...interesting.

Another thing, Asgard should be orbiting around one of these blackholes to die eventually. Unless there's a bigger one, I would guess the Sakaarian wormhole if it were two way. If not, it'd orbit around the Sanctuary wormhole.

Having two next to each other would do crazy things to Asgard's gravity. The Sanctuary one would constantly be pulling Asgard towards it, and if the Sakaarian wasn't a whitehole, it would constantly be pulling Asgard and the Sanctuary wormhole towards it.

This is something I don't know as much about, but if the Sakaarian wormhole is a whitehole on Asgard's end, I would not be surprised if there were consequences. Lots of mass being ejected into the nearby space might have consequences, though this mass might be coming in subatomic forms and not be too harmful.

(Also Sakaar should've been torn apart by the wormhole leading to Asgard and possibly others. I'm just saying. This is an Asgard post but we gotta agree that Sakaar is also messed up).

Except that none of this is true apparently.

4) There is no way Loki should've survived.

When Loki fell into the wormhole he had two options: die a quick death or die a very quick death. Wormholes are awesome. Awesome in the biblical sense of the world. Which means they are utterly terrifying.

Quick Death: Loki should have been spaghettified (and also Asgard...and the Asgardians...but I'll let that slide since apparently Asgard has secret amazing gravity). Spaghettification happens as you get closer to a singularity and let me tell you, it is absolutely terrifying. It is my greatest irrational fear (irrational in that it will never happen to me). Basically the gravity of blackholes (and by extent wormholes) literally tears molecules apart. It starts with stretching the person/object out to make them long and thin, like spaghetti. A person would die during this first stage because our organs cannot handle this. And soon the body/object would fall apart on an atomic level.

Very Quick Death: Upon passing the event horizon (point of no return), Loki would go through a massive wall of fire, burning him to death and he would be spaghetiffied almost instantly.

So...yeah...how is he not dead?

5) Even if Loki could survive, he shouldn't have made it to Sanctuary

There are theories on how to make viable wormholes. I don't remember exactly how, but there are theories on how to allow someone to pass without being spaghetiffied or burnt to a crisp. But then there's the problem of it being impossible to reach the other side.

Basically the "pathway" between the two ends of a wormhole is infinitely small. In other words, Loki couldn't fit through it, and would therefore die. There are theories on how to counteract that problem, but the odds of a wormhole naturally forming like this are low. So, Loki should've died even if he got past the singularity on the way to Sanctuary.

6) Also there's the bifrost.

The bifrost is artificial. The problems about travelling through wormholes (spagettification, fire wall, infinitely small tunnel, etc) aren't there because Asgard built it as a way of travel. And since it was repaired by the Tesseract in between Avengers and Dark World, it might be a product of the Tesseract anyway.

With artificial devices explained by fictional science/technology/magic, I'm not as picky. It's science I don't understand because that's not science from this universe. But I do have questions about the bifrost. I don't fully understand how it could've destroyed Jotunheim. My thought was that it absorbed Jotunheim like a blackhole, but we don't see debris coming over to Asgard. How is it turned on and off? What consequences were there when it was destroyed? Is gravity all of the sudden strange when it turns on? I do like that it looks like people are pulled into the bifrost when it turns on, makes it more wormholey. But how did Hela knock Thor and Loki out of the bifrost?

I tend to forgive all of that because it's a fictional device. Just like how I forgive the gravity/blackhole bomb things the dark elves had. Those are clearly artificial and since we have theories on how those are possible I let it slide (though I find it interesting how the blackholes evaporate (that's the term for the death of a blackhole)). I actually headcanon the dark elves used gravitonium to create these devices. Gravitonium is an element introduced in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. that has interesting gravitational abilities. It is 100% fictional, so I let a lot of it slide. But gravitonium is supposed to be a heavy element, meaning it wasn't created in the solar system, it was created by a supernova, so it has to exist elsewhere in the universe. Why not on Svartalfheim? But that's just me (there are actually lots of connections between TDW and AoS, specifically connections between Loki and AoS). But fictional devices are that: fictional. Whereas blackholes and wormholes are very real. Blackholes are confirmed to exist, and wormholes are theoretical with lots of evidence (Einstein created a list of formulas describing how the universe works, and wormholes work in these formulas. But that doesn't mean wormholes exist currently, have existed in the past, or ever will exist, we just know they're theoretically possible.). So I can be more picky about those.

Of course, I can watch these movies and still be entertained. I love these movies. But I'm a nerd that has to overanalyze everything and I specifically like space, and thus this post was born because Asgard makes no sense.

[trainthief]

Hey I was wondering if you'd ever consider doing like a top 20 fav classical music albums or composers list or something. Obviously if that just sounds stressful disregard this but I know you are like, into classical music & I grew up with my parents playing it & recently got, like, into the classical station but aside from like 3 artists I like I don't know where to start & I like your blog and would be interested in hearing about like, your taste

Sorry for responding to this so late, I’ve had a real week and I wanted to make sure I had time to put some thought into answering this ask. I’d definitely love to help, I always like recc’ing classical stuff to people! The idea of 20 absolute all time favorites is a difficult one for me because I love so much stuff and it’s really difficult to compare like… Caroline Shaw’s modern experimental chorale stuff to Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos. Anyway, instead I will give you some full length pieces in different styles that I think are great for new listeners, and explain a little about what each one is doing and what I love about it, and some more pieces I recommend if you enjoy what you’re hearing. Hopefully that will help! 

In no particular order: 

Appalachian Spring by Copland: Let’s just get this one out of the way up front. If you’ve been following me for any amount of time at all, you know I’m deeply in love with Copland. He essentially invented the American compositional style by adding jazz elements to the established practices, which caused an absolute uproar at the beginning of his career as people then considered it an unholy mix of high and low culture. He doubled down on this concept when he wrote “Fanfare For The Common Man” which essentially stands as a celebration of the working class and those who couldn’t afford to see the symphony anyway. He was, I should also note, both gay and Jewish. A real icon. Anyhow, although I love so much of his work and could go on forever, I consider listening to Appalachian Spring in its entirety a spiritual experience, no exaggeration. Take it on a hike, listen to it while you look at the trees and think about whatever crosses your mind, and by the time the Coda hits you… well I personally can’t tell you what experience to have, but I feel for a second like I can see and be seen. Anyway, aside from that, just good music, very pretty. If you’d like similar music that incorporated jazz effectively into classical work, I’d of course recommend another favorite of mine: Rhapsody in Blue by Gershwin. 

Russian Easter Festival by Rimsky-Korsakov: As a general rule of thumb, Russian composers are ALWAYS good for some drama. This piece in particular is great because it’s not only fanfare and excitement, there’s a touch of pastoral calmness that I really love (more on that as a concept later) at the beginning, but we still get plenty of wildness. There’s a frantic octave part the violins play around minute 5 that always makes me want to scream. If you like this, I’d also recommend checking out Rimsky-Korsakov’s Capriccio Espagnol. The man knows how to write sexy. 

Romance in D by Berkey: I recommend this partially because it’s a lesser known and very beautiful piece, and also because it’s a good lead-in to a whole subset of classical called Furniture Music. Essentially called that - originally by the composer Satie - because it’s nice to put on in the background. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still fun to listen to, and from a compositional and performance standpoint it can still be very impressive. But it’s just good and calming and you could certainly sip tea to it in the restaurant area of a ritzy 1920’s hotel while you read a novel and ignore your rich husband asking if you’d like any marmalade. A good example of the same effect is the soundtrack to Phantom Thread. It’s also good for studying. If you like that conceptually, I’ve got a whole playlist here. 

Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgsky: A really excellent intro to classical and one of my favorite works, AND like the last one, also a lead-in to an informal format. Pictures was written with the idea that each song was a separate painting that the listener could imagine they were looking at in a museum. For that reason, each one has a different style and personality, and feels very descriptive and exciting. A collection of small related pieces is called a suite, but I haven’t yet been able to find a technical name for that specific kind of storytelling structure within a suite. It’s not uncommon though, and in that same vein I’d also recommend The Planets by Holst (about the planets, as you might assume), and Carnival of the Animals by Saint Saens (about… yeah you get it). 

Spem in Alium by Tallis: We’re taking a wild left turn now and veering into the Christian choral tradition dating back to the 1500s. Like anyone else who isn’t even a Christian, there’s a few things about Catholicism that I’m obsessed with. Namely the hymns and the stained glass. Focusing only on the hymns, Tallis is one of the best examples of polyphonic hymnal work. Polyphonic, essentially, means that the different voices in the piece are moving around each other and will frequently change their notes in a way that will compliment - but is not necessarily in line with - the direction of the piece as a whole. It makes more sense if you just listen. The style, however, was developed in an attempt to capture the idea of the stars and planets circling each other in their own independent orbits, because at the time people had just started to turn their gaze to the sky for answers about their own lives. Aside from that very cool background, I just find the really human side of the choir format in particular paired with the elevation of music being this untouchable but powerful thing paired with the holiness of the concept paired with how awesome the acoustics of a chapel can be…. It’s just a lot. If you like this I’d also recommend Miserere Mei by Allegri, Ave Maris Stella by Dufay, and O Magnum Mysterium by Lauridsen 

Peter Grimes by Britten: Classical music is so rooted in every musical tradition, and visa versa, that it’s almost impossible to separate it conceptually from a lot of genres. Technically, “classical” refers to a period of time more than it does a genre anyway, but let’s not get pretentious about it. While we’re pushing the boundaries of what can and can’t be included in this list, let’s talk Opera, and specifically Peter Grimes. When asked to describe it, Britten said it was “a subject very close to my heart—the struggle of the individual against the masses. The more vicious the society, the more vicious the individual.” More specifically the struggle was an allegory for gay oppression, and ironically Britten wrote the lead role with his lifelong partner Peter Pears - an opera singer - in mind. To give a taste without giving too much away, the Prologue establishes that Grimes, a fisherman, is being questioned over the death of his apprentice. The townspeople are all convinced before the questioning even begins that he must have done it, but the coroner decides the death was accidental. Grimes is let free and advised not to get another apprentice, but he of course ignores this…. If the vocal side of opera doesn’t do it for you, there are 4 Sea Interludes from this work that are really great independently. If you want even more opera with even more drama, I’d recommend looking at Tosca or Turandot both by Pucccini. If you think classic opera is too high brow and you want something a little sillier, try Mozart’s Magic Flute. If you want something more new age and weird, try listening to Two Boys by Muhly or selections from Einstein on the Beach by Glass (but probably not all 5 hours, Knee Play 5 and Spaceship would be my top 2). 

Symphony No. 6 “Pastoral” by Beethoven: I mentioned earlier when describing the Russian Easter Festival that I love a piece with pastoral calmness. Getting back to that point, I haven’t ever seen one word that’s commonly used to describe this particular sense in a piece, but I personally call it a Pastoral after Beethoven’s 6th. In general, the symphony is one of my favorites as a composer and listener, especially given that it’s really just about taking a walk in nature which is one of only 3 themes music should have anyway in my opinion. A good amount of my music is written with this feeling in mind. Aside from all that context, the first movement in particular is very nice, passionate but not sensational, and is just about being excited to be outside. Nothing wrong with that. This subset of music is probably the most informal of all the ones I’ve listed so far, but if you’d like more “Pastorals,” or pieces that have a nice calm passion to them, I’d also highly recommend Enigma Variations: Nimrod by Elgar, Fantasia on a Theme of Tallis by Vaughan Williams, Once Upon A Time In America by Morricone, Musica Celestis by Kernis, and of course again Appalachian Spring by Copland. (I would also be legally sent to jail if I didn’t mention that while we’re on the subject of Beethoven, his 9th Symphony is generally considered one of the greatest achievements in classical music). 

Rite of Spring by Stravinsky: A lot of these pieces have been good jumping off points into different musical concepts, but with this one I’m sticking my description to the initial piece itself. I got the chance to email with a composer I admire and he at one point described composition not in the sense of writing something “smart”, but in writing something “detailed”. The Rite of Spring is a really great example of detailed composition. It’s extremely experimental with its time changes - essentially the way that you should be counting your notes as a musician constantly changes and always into a pattern that’s difficult to keep track of - and also with its chord structure. The music itself can be jarring and odd to listen to but the composition wasn’t random and when studied shows an obsessive elbows-deep involvement in the work that I really admire. It might not surprise you to hear, however, that at the initial performance the audience was so furious that the lighting technician had to continually flash the lights to confuse them, out of fear of a riot. If you’d like something a bit more fun to listen to by the same composer, however, Firebird is a good one. And if you’d like another great piece that was completely booed off the stage at its premier, I’d recommend Grand Pianola by Adams. 

Romeo and Juliet by Prokofiev: While we’re in the general vicinity of ballet, I should get into that deeper. Ballets can have some of the most fun music to listen to because the timing is required to be so much more specific. Romeo and Juliet is a lot of fun, particularly the “Montagues and Capulets” and “Masks” sections. Another great ballet is, of course, The Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky. I’d also recommend Don Quixote by Minkus, and Rodeo by Copland…. I know I know 

Violin Concerto in D by Tchaikovsky: I said Russians bring the drama, and it’s doubly so when it’s a gay Russian. This piece is a classic example of the solo concerto format, which is a staple of classical as a whole. The setup is a single player on whatever instrument the piece is written for accompanied by an orchestra, and is usually a showcase of technical skill by the soloist. This one in particular is basically THE turning point in a violinist’s studies and just about every violinist learns it as soon as they’re capable of taking it on. Personally I still vividly remember when my teacher finally gave it to me, it’s a very specific sense of accomplishment. Similar examples of the solo concerto format on different instruments would be Piano Concerto in F by Rachmaninoff, and Oboe Concerto in C by Mozart, both of which I absolutely love. 

The Revd Mustard His Installation Prelude by Muhly: I’ve gone on forever so I’m trying to be quick. Nico Muhly is one of my favorite modern composers and Revd Mustard combines his classic ecstatic and constantly moving style with an organ, which I’m a sucker for. Contemporary classical in his style can be difficult to listen to because it’s gotten very experimental and as a result, very complicated. But if you don’t go into it with the expectation that you’re going to hear a structured and logical Mozart-like piece and you instead surrender your opinion until the whole thing has come together for you, it can be really interesting at the very least. As a side note, Nico has collaborated with Sufjan, Bjork, Jonsi, Teitur…. lots of people. You’ve certainly heard him before even if you didn’t know it. For more classical from the last few decades I’d recommend Partita for 8 Singers by Shaw, Tissue No. 7 by Glass, Different Trains by Reich, the Red Violin Concerto by Corigliano (especially because I just saw it live a few days ago and am still reeling), Perpetuum Mobile by Penguin Cafe Orchestra, and Cantus in Memoriam Benjamin Britten by Part. Each of which is vastly different, stylistically speaking, but all of which I really love. And for more organ listen to one of my favorite pieces of all time, Symphony 3 by Saint Saens. 

Ok, you know what? I’m cutting myself off because I’ve gone on forever. If you haven’t been put off of asking me questions entirely by now, please feel free if you want even more recommendations in a specific style, or want to know more about something you enjoy. Clearly I love talking about this. Hope that helped!

[ardenttheories]

p1 I'm having fun with thinking about this now: What if not all fem trolls have boobs, and not all masc trolls don't? I admit for all the ones we've seen it's been that way, but we've also only seen a relatively small group of a species from a galactic sized empire. Another thought I have is: What if boobs were a mutation due to some crossbreeding with another, albeit incredibly similar, species? If it /is/ a fem troll only thing, then it could be due to that, and modern trolls are a mix of-

p2 -an insect species with different sexes, and an insect species with a queen and no different sexes. It wouldn’t even need to be a one time thing, possibly being why modern Trolls are so varied and weird: Having lusi, having different blood colors, having both land dwelling and sea dwelling variants, having ones with drastically shorter or longer life spans when compared to others, ect. Honestly making their current views on mutation kinda ironic as they’re a /mess/ of mutations.

p3 Either that, or it’s an ingrained instinct from one evolutionary ancestor or another to weed out incestuous and unhealthy offspring, even if now a days they don’t need to. Personally to me though, that seems more like a cultural thing than a result of a confusing frat-party of ancient bugs getting a little too drunk and deciding to give everyone the ol’ college try. Sorry if this doesn’t make much sense, and thanks in advance for your thoughts!

See, this is something that makes more sense to me! I could honestly get behind the idea of trolls having boobs for whatever purpose if there wasn’t such a strict male-female divide in the comic, especially since biologically a male-female divide in a species with both sets of genitalia and an outside producer of eggs just makes no damn sense. 

So if we say that what we see in the comic (and in Hiveswap, I suppose at this point) is just a small percentage of the troll population and in no way represents what the entire species looks like, and we consider this idea of ancient insect frat party crossbreeding… I really, really like how this works and what this would mean. Considering we know the slurry all goes to the Mother Grub, an ancient troll mating with this insect species with different sexes and no queen taking back their genetic material to her honestly explains a LOT about troll genetic diversity - we could even say this is why, as you said, trolls have different blood colours and a seadweller variant that is much rarer, but much stronger. 

All the genetic material from these species - one with longer lives, one with shorter lives, one with red blood, blue blood, green blood, one with the need to attract specific mates and thus one with colourful chest patterns, one with the ability to live in the sea - slowly made its way into the Mother Grub, and over billions of years began to make changes to the trolls being born (especially if we assume that the earliest troll ancestors had weak, easily overridden genetics made specifically to take on the mutations of other species in order to facilitate faster evolutionary growth). Grubs were born with fins, with different blood colours, with different life spans - grubs with various mutations lived, died, survived, passed on the genetics that helped them grow into adulthood, and continued this fast-paced stride of evolution until, one day, we can assume that trolls began to develop so quickly that they strove past all the other species on their planet. Perhaps an extinction event happened, and the trolls were the only ones to survive (such as the mammals were able to thrive once the dinosaurs died out en masse), allowing them to flourish across the planet in a way they were not able to before. 

And thus, we can also explain trolls with such vastly different genetic variations. Stronger or weaker psionic powers? Likely linked to the ancient genetics of a psionic bloodline. The incredible strength of the Zahhak family line? Likely the genetics of a similarly incredibly strong ancient ancestor.  

In this case, then, those with the breast mutation - which, by the way, I’m really starting to enjoy the context of the peacock feathers as a comparison to them, and if people start drawing trolls with fleshy lumps that have no nipples but beautiful designs on them I may ascend straight to Skaia - simply have the leftover gene from one of these genetic ancestors, who likely used them as a way to attract mates. In this case, we can probably say that Lanque is descended from one of these ancestors, and has gone against the norm to identify as male when, perhaps, those with this genetic trait tend to identify as female. In which case, it would be genetic traits which determine a societal gender identity, not sexual organs - which, if you really wanted to be pedantic about it, gives the possibility for a plethora of ways for identity that humans simply couldn’t understand. 

[iamtiredofthisplanet]

Innocently asking, why are Germanics so plagued with furries? In America, the most furries are found in like the Midwest which is filled with Germanic immigrants. You don't really see many Italian or Slavic furries for instance. Meanwhile in Europe you see curries the most densely in like Germany and Sweden. Is this related to autism? I am not trying to be offensive I promise, I'm just baffled what causes this. Surely there's a genetic factor? Did Neanderthals like wolves too much? :s

Hehe, auto-correct made you say curries… Anyway!

        I’d say it wouldn’t be necessarily tied to genetics, or autism in itself, art movements are interesting wiggly bits of trends throughout time itself. 

      There are some ties to studies done between so and so mental disorder, but I wouldn’t call autism itself a “mental disorder”. I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the possible tie between some level of ties between attraction to furries leading back to nostalgia and that awkward in-between set of years we call the teenage phase. I do vaguely remember autism being brought up in the study since in some cases “the line could be blurred more”, but it felt a bit wrong to just assume “someone with autism = can’t tell difference between fiction and reality” because that may not always be the case. 

       The furry community is an interesting trend in the art world because its origins have been tied to many things. Mainly people point out possibilities to shows, for example: Disney movies (Robin Hood is mentioned a lot), cartoons (Swat Cats, TMNT(?) mentioned quite often), and so on. But there’s been ancient civilizations who created what we would call “furry characters” today. 

This is a piece I learned about in Art History: “The Lyre of Ur”

Humanoid animals on an ancient artifact! Maybe some people did find animals attractive, or the mystery and intrigue of animals themselves attractive somewhere in history. We’re pretty much a one of a kind creature, with some vaguely similar animals on the planet that might be a bit similar to us. It may be that urge to find something else besides us that understands, can communicate, kinda like how so many people follow the concept of life out there in space. 

It can maybe just boil down to wanting something different, something along “seeing another human and so many humans can get boring.” We don’t have a space faring Mass Relay to find some interesting new foreign sentient beings to speak to. What’s the closest we got? Our imagination! “What’s one of the most different things around me? Hey this animal looks cool, what if it could speak and do as I do…?” 

Who knows where it really started, and who knows why. Maybe they have more shows prevalent with anthromorphic characters? Maybe they’re much more open about it than others could be in other regions, speaking about it with others? I’ve met several people who turned out to be furries throughout my life so far. They weren’t open about it, but they’d discreetly show me some of their art, or mention they had a gallery. Some of them were chill people, others I’ve had to distance myself from for my sanity or due to drama. It might be that in general in those regions it may be a bit more part of the culture, normal, than in other places. America is much more reserved when it comes to possible fetishes/sex/sexuality, so it may be a factor in all of it as well.

     Maybe someone felt that deep down they were meant to be something else, or felt a close bond to a certain animal and its traits, and just wanted to be tied closer to it, or wish they could be it and not a simple looking human… and suddenly you have a furry character! 

In the end, there’s no real way to really be able to tell. The human mind is very different from person to person, and we become what our experiences make us. What it may all tie down to is “Hey I really like this show/character and I feel attracted to the design/character’s personality. I want to make a character too.”

Sorry this got so long, studying Art History, art, and art in different cultures and communities in general has made me think about all that stuff.