/vt/ - Virtual Youtubers

>>51363296
>>51363373
>Overall
First of all, I absolutely love the double narrative you have going on here. It is fairly obvious, sure, but it is also very enjoyable. I like this sort of writing, I bet it was fun to write, to me it at least seems like it would be. "tfw no dommymommy mecha" / 10

The Second half does steal the show though. It is great. You do give up on the initial double narrative there though, or perhaps you switch to take it more seriously. Either way, its nice.

The single largest issue was flow and text focus. Some of the paragraphs feel incomplete or too short, and In my personal opinions, some of the dialogue lines would work better in their own lines. The best example of this are paragraphs 7 and 9. Paragraph 7 in general feels quite weird to me, since the latter half of the dialogue is in conflict with what was stated in the description section. If he has faith in his ability, why does he question them in the next line? It feels like there is a few sentences missing there, the story jumps. Flow error.
There are other flow errors here and there as well. I will mention them in their own sections above, but I wont mention all of them since they aren't a major issue. Its literally me being nitpicky, like one sort of has to be with overall very solid works.

I hope you do not mind me doing this style of feedback. I dont know what kind you (or anyone) prefers.

>>51108031
>What actually is Gravity
"We dont know" is a valid answer. It is thought to be the bending of spacetime due to the influence of Energy and Momentum (so technically speaking, not mass or matter specifically).This is the theory of General Relativity, and while on large scale it works beautifully well, it does not work on the very small scales where we have another very good and working theory, Quantum Mechanics and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
So, we know that Quantum Mechanics exist, and that quantum scale systems behave as predicted by Quantum Mechanics. We know that Gravity exists, and we know that Gravity behaves like it does according to General Relativity. It would be natural to then combine the two models and create the "Theory of Everything", which would explain how the entire universe works.

There lies the issue. When we try to do this, everything breaks down. Quantum Mechanics, the Standard Model, and General Relativity do not work together, but separate they do work beautifully well. This is a sign that something is wrong with one, or all, of the models, and we do not know what. Theories like the String Theory are attempts at unifying the two, but those models have their own issues, particularly with string theory that for it to work we would have to assume 10 spatial dimensions instead of our observable 3. Physicists do not like making assumptions like those unless they can be measured and verified.

>Nature of Mass and Energy
Yes, black holes have mass, and no, light does not have mass, nor does it have matter. Let me explain.
So, it turns out that Matter is not a fundamental building block of existence, but that it is instead merely another form Energy can take. Mass is Energy, in a literal sense.
This is where we get the famous E=mc^2, telling us that Mass ("m" in the equation) is directly equivalent to Energy ("E" in the equation). The "c" is the speed of light, which is a universal unchanging constant.

This is where we get into Nuclear Fission and Fusion as well, although this is a bit of a tangent. It turns out that when we split a uranium atom, the halves of the split atom combined weight less than the whole uranium atom. Same happens when we fuse Hydrogen into Helium: The Hydrogen atoms alone had more mass than the helium atom does. The difference in mass turns to energy, in the form of light (Gamma and X-ray Radiation), and momentum in the form of the kinetic energy of the atom or the particles that were born from the reaction (Alpha and Beta radiation).

E=mc^2 only describes "stationary" systems though, and for objects that move we need to expand it by adding a Momentum part, turning the equation into E=mc^2 + pc.
"p" here means Momentum, and "c" is the same speed of light as above.
So, since light AKA Photons do not have mass, the equation describing their energy becomes just E=pc, meaning that it is entirely defined by their momentum. For photons, p = hk, where "h" is the Planck Constant, and "k" is a number describing the (inverse) wavelength of the photon. Photon momentum and by extension photon energy is thus inversely related to it's wavelength - Longer Wavelengths (Radiowaves, Microwaves, Red Light) have less energy than Shorter Wavelengths (Gamma Rays, X-Rays, Blue Light).

Because Gravity interacts not with just Mass-Energy, but with Momentum, and Photons have Momentum, it follows that Photons are affected by Gravity despite being massless. This also means that photons do indeed exert a very very tiny Gravitic pull, despite having no mass and no matter. This is how you get the idea of the kugelblitz, theoretical prediction of the General Relativity; a black hole formed from concentrated photons.
From light having Momentum also follows that Photons can push things. This is where ideas such as Laser Sails come from.

You could think of Mass and Light as being just two sides of the same coin, that is Energy, with Energy being the fundamental building block of existence for STUFF as you know it.
Matter on the other hand is its own thing. I'll explain more about matter in the next post.

>>17564159
I tried to make my first with the latter and that sort of flopped.
In my view, a mixture of both is probably optimal. It easier for anons to get engaged with the text if it references things that they already know and/or are familiar with, e,g, the thread, its events, and the people, but as >>17564241 said, going too far into this direction may risk becoming circlejerky.

on the other hand, while having the narrative be separated from the thread and its events would give a lot more creative freedom, it would, if taken to its extremes, risk becoming off topic to the general and the community, and it would likely risk some anons losing interest.

Do what inspires you, reading your work has been a blast so far.

>>15799277
Kino. Do you have a plan on where to take this story? because I was thinking of trying to write something for the arc as well and I wouldn't want to risk stepping on your plans.