Implicating glowing_eyes → glowing
Link to implication

Reason:

this might be a little surprising but glowing eyes tend to usually glow.

Mutisija said:
Implicating glowing_eyes → glowing
Link to implication

Reason:

this might be a little surprising but glowing eyes tend to usually glow.

Probably not going to be implicated. After all, lava doesn't always glow.

123easy said:
Probably not going to be implicated. After all, lava doesn't always glow.

yeah ur prolly right because if lava doesnt always glow it must mean that glowing eyes dont always glow either

Unlike lava, the name itself would imply that it always be glowing

Rainbow_Dash said:
Unlike lava, the name itself would imply that it always be glowing

...You have no idea how much I'm facepalming.

123easy said:
...You have no idea how much I'm facepalming.

Glowing is literally in the name, that is why the implication would make sense. You can't draw glowing eyes without them being glowing or it would not be glowing eyes. You can draw lava without it glowing and it's still lava.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Glowing is literally in the name, that is why the implication would make sense. You can't draw glowing eyes without them being glowing or it would not be glowing eyes. You can draw lava without it glowing and it's still lava.

No, you really can't. that's like saying you can draw fire without it burning something (even if it's 'just' the air).

123easy said:
No, you really can't. that's like saying you can draw fire without it burning something (even if it's 'just' the air).

Glowing:
post #256929

Not glowing:
post #312209

Halite said:
Glowing:
post #256929

Not glowing:
post #312209

Becuase the light reflecting off the stone and lightning up Applejack is totally not the glow off the lava.

123easy said:
No, you really can't. that's like saying you can draw fire without it burning something (even if it's 'just' the air).

It's more like saying you can draw fire without it glowing.

123easy said:
No, you really can't. that's like saying you can draw fire without it burning something (even if it's 'just' the air).

https://31.media.tumblr.com/3d9a721db8c26b162fe6182510856399/tumblr_n4luyiaqUq1reqroso1_1280.png
i drew that just to prove you wrong. that is definitely lava and it definitely doesnt glow.

Mutisija said:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3d9a721db8c26b162fe6182510856399/tumblr_n4luyiaqUq1reqroso1_1280.png
i drew that just to prove you wrong. that is definitely lava and it definitely doesnt glow.

Could have just gone solid red, would have been even clearer.

Halite said:
Could have just gone solid red, would have been even clearer.

https://24.media.tumblr.com/7e99120ac339ce90e8973ae9dab56c71/tumblr_n4lw6t3RfR1reqroso1_1280.png

Mutisija said:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3d9a721db8c26b162fe6182510856399/tumblr_n4luyiaqUq1reqroso1_1280.png
i drew that just to prove you wrong. that is definitely lava and it definitely doesnt glow.

Just because you say it's lava doesn't mean it's lava. A definitive property of lava is that it's molten rock. It MUST glow, due to the heat cuasing luminescence. Otherwise it's simply not lava.

123easy said:
Just because you say it's lava doesn't mean it's lava. A definitive property of lava is that it's molten rock. It MUST glow, due to the heat cuasing luminescence. Otherwise it's simply not lava.

Art is not real life.
In real life, if you're pregnant, you must have a vagina.
In furry art, you can get pregnant in your butt.

Are you really going to bring this bullshit up every time[/b] we discuss something that glows? (or sometimes doesn't)On the topic of the implication, it all sounds good.

It's true though. The only thing that makes lava red is that it's emitting light.

Wyvrn said:
It's true though. The only thing that makes lava red is that it's emitting light.

ORLY?

Lava rocks are rocks, not lava.

Wyvrn said:
Lava rocks are rocks

Unless they don't glow when they melt. Then we'd have to tag them as frozen Tang or something equally unrock-like.

Wyvrn said:
Lava rocks are rocks, not lava.

They are cooled lava, are you going to try to tell me that red lava rocks didn't come from red lava?

Halite said:
They are cooled lava, are you going to try to tell me that red lava rocks didn't come from red lava?

black glass comes from red lava. brown rocks come from red lava. green rocks come from red lava. clear minerals (quartz) come from red lava. The point is that the red of lava is not the red of some of the minerals that it contains but the red from the rock being super-heated and liquified. it's the same principle behind why iron turns from a dull grey/black to a bright cherry red when it is conducting heat. There's a reason that we have the term "red hot" for things that glow red when hot.

123easy said:
Just because you say it's lava doesn't mean it's lava. A definitive property of lava is that it's molten rock. It MUST glow, due to the heat cuasing luminescence. Otherwise it's simply not lava.

its bubbling red liquid substance and in addition character calls it as lava. anyone with common sense would tag that as lava. there is literally nothing that would prove that its not lava. and no, because it doesnt glow doesnt mean that its not lava.

Let's get back on topic, please.

Mutisija said:
its bubbling red liquid substance and in addition character calls it as lava. anyone with common sense would tag that as lava. there is literally nothing that would prove that its not lava. and no, because it doesnt glow doesnt mean that its not lava.

Except no, because 'bubbling red liquid substance' fits many substances. It could be liquid Philosopher's Stone from FMA, for example (though that has a shimmery quality), red dye, blood, or many other similar substances. It could even be a reddish tree sap.

The hotter something is, the more energetic it is. Lava is magma that has reached the surface; Magma itself is molten rock (or more scientifically a fluid aggregate of naturally occuring minerals of various melting temperatures that are suspended in a substrate of lower melting point minerals). The temperatures required for that are so high that the energetic reaction that produces heat levels high enough to render it molten causes it to radiate energy within the visible spectrum. As I said before, it's literally why we have the term "red hot".

123easy said:
Except no, because 'bubbling red liquid substance' fits many substances. It could be liquid Philosopher's Stone from FMA, for example (though that has a shimmery quality), red dye, blood, or many other similar substances. It could even be a reddish tree sap.

The hotter something is, the more energetic it is. Lava is magma that has reached the surface; Magma itself is molten rock (or more scientifically a fluid aggregate of naturally occuring minerals of various melting temperatures that are suspended in a substrate of lower melting point minerals). The temperatures required for that are so high that the energetic reaction that produces heat levels high enough to render it molten causes it to radiate energy within the visible spectrum. As I said before, it's literally why we have the term "red hot".

bubbling red substance could be anything but the character states clearly that its lava so there is no reason to believe that is something else.
also art is not a copy of reality, it is possible to draw things in ways they do not appear in reality. now please stop fighting about this.

Mutisija said:
bubbling red substance could be anything but the character states clearly that its lava so there is no reason to believe that is something else.
also art is not a copy of reality, it is possible to draw things in ways they do not appear in reality. now please stop fighting about this.

We use common sense and recognizable factors to determine if something is something. Just because someone points at a dog and says "Oh, it's a dragon!" doesn't make the dog a dragon.

DrHorse said:
It's more like saying you can draw fire without it glowing.

Mutisija said:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/3d9a721db8c26b162fe6182510856399/tumblr_n4luyiaqUq1reqroso1_1280.png
i drew that just to prove you wrong. that is definitely lava and it definitely doesnt glow.

This is exactly my point

Halite said:
Art is not real life.
In real life, if you're pregnant, you must have a vagina.
In furry art, you can get pregnant in your butt.

Lava can be drawn without it glowing. You can draw an exploding volcano that is burning everyone alive, and manipulate the lightning so that it is not giving off any more light than the solid ground, and you can also draw someone on fire without burning, music posters do that all the time and hunger games has a prime example of someone on fire that does not burn.

Lava as we commonly think of it is hot gooey stuff that burns everything and often replaces the floor of young children. It can be drawn in that context and not have any glow to it what so ever as art can be heavily manipulated like that. The implication could be broken and therefor is not a good one. Glowing eyes are going to be glowing 100% of the time because the name says they are. If they are not glowing, then they aren't tagged glowing eyes to begin with

123easy said:
We use common sense and recognizable factors to determine if something is something. Just because someone points at a dog and says "Oh, it's a dragon!" doesn't make the dog a dragon.

that dog example is different because there its damn clear that the dog can not be a dragon. here its really likely that the red bubbling stuff is lava and character's dialogue confirms that its lava.

Rainbow_Dash said:
... If they are not glowing, then they aren't tagged glowing eyes to begin with

Absolutely.

Rainbow_Dash said:
Lava can be drawn without it glowing. You can draw an exploding volcano that is burning everyone alive, and manipulate the lightning so that it is not giving off any more light than the solid ground, and you can also draw someone on fire without burning, music posters do that all the time and hunger games has a prime example of someone on fire that does not burn.

Lava as we commonly think of it is hot gooey stuff that burns everything and often replaces the floor of young children. It can be drawn in that context and not have any glow to it what so ever as art can be heavily manipulated like that.

With Hunger Games someone being wreathed in fire and not burning- that's fine, that's the sculpted effect. The gas or the dress or whatever that is producing the effect, however, IS burning. SOMETHING is burning. http://trilliumprints.com/photo/p3psu.jpg the guitar is on fire. http://img.auctiva.com/imgdata/1/3/1/4/7/9/4/webimg/327609834_o.jpg the treble clef is made of fire. http://www.posterplanet.net/music/images/music-lil-wayne-fire-poster-TR1279.jpg Lil Wayne isn't on fire, but something behind him is.

Liquid, molten rock equals red hot. Red hot equals glow. How hard is it to understand? 'molten glow' is a literary term used to describe the light emitted by various minerals, metal or stone, that have been heated up to such a degree. Rock hit by a Dragon's Breath until it turns to liquid and sloughs off the surface doesn't remain whatever colour it was but turns red hot because of the heat emitted. If it's a pool of red goop, that's an ambiguous substance- by the very rules of TWYS it CANNOT be tagged lava because it doesn't LOOK like lava. Lava REQUIRES the red-hot glow unless it is a stylized abstraction- in which case TWYS DOES NOT support it being tagged lava.

Mutisija said:
that dog example is different because there its damn clear that the dog can not be a dragon. here its really likely that the red bubbling stuff is lava and character's dialogue confirms that its lava.

I can as easily have the character saying "Oh look at that fizzy koolaid" or "Oh look at that pool of blood". Doesn't mean that's what it is. It's ambiguous and your image would not, should not, ever be tagged lava. Unknown liquid at best.

I think the problem here is you're referring to the red coloration of the lava itself as glowing, and everyone else is referring to the light it emits and illuminates other objects. Hence (from their standpoint), if it's not illuminating anything else it's not glowing.

But this really isn't the place for this discussion. We're talking about glowing_eyes -> glowing. Which makes sense.

tony311 said:
I think the problem here is you're referring to the red coloration of the lava itself as glowing, and everyone else is referring to the light it emits and illuminates other objects. Hence (from their standpoint), if it's not illuminating anything else it's not glowing.

But this really isn't the place for this discussion. We're talking about glowing_eyes -> glowing. Which makes sense.

Except the red (and yellow, and white, et al) colouration is the result of what is causing the incandescence (the glow), the very high temperatures of the molten rock. Even the world's coolest molten rock, carbonatite, visibly glows in low-light conditions (shading an area from the sun will do the trick. It's a low glow, but it's there until it solidifies).

Glowing_eyes > glowing is rather obvious and I assumed it was already done? I brought it up here because of the connection of glowing to the topic being discussed.

tag implication approved, as it was never really the thing in question, lava that can't glow was