Light speed qualifications but stricter

[Paul_Frank]

The laser example doesn't even make sense given that it, well, is light speed.

When lasers are called light, they aren't referring to it glowing or being bright, all a laser is is the amplification of light by means of emission of radiation, and then that light is projected outward on the course of the laser. It's actual light made of photons, a chemical laser just refers to the method used to power this.

Beyond this, using the 10th and 15th definitions is beyond nitpicking. Dictionaries are literally ordered in order of how common they're used. So the entire basis of this thread is to take one of the least used definitions of a word to try and change a standard, and then the example used to support this is outright incorrect, as it assumes, with no evidence or explanation, that chemical lasers suddenly aren't actually shining light.

 

[Nierre]

Beyond this, using the 10th and 15th definitions is beyond nitpicking.

LOL true

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Me: Starts sweating after just reacently getting a lightspeed move accepted.

Also Me: Realizes this has no effect on that lightspeed move, stops sweating.


For this thread, I honestly don't really have much to say. Our standards for this are always changing it seems.

 

[Reio35]

I don't think the proposed standards are as strict as people are making them out to be. I'm pretty sure it was the same before July.


There isn't a "common definition" for "of". The word has multiple definitions (different definitions are numbered in dictionaries) due to the way it can be used like: with nouns, verbs, adjectives, values, dates, etc. Also, I don't know if you're implying the "10th definition" means it holds less priority over the definitions that are numbered lower, they don't. The definition I used just happened to be the 10th/15th one listed.



Using different definitions of a word isn't semantics. Discussing whether the word "World" can have different meanings such as planet, society or universe isn't semantics. The current standards only make use of a single definition for "of", whereas I showed it can have multiple meanings that fit the phrase "beam of light" and even allow for things that aren't made up of light to qualify for being lightspeed.

The example I used isn't a "weird context-specific situation", many people will refer to lasers as beams of light. Many people will use "of" to assign an adjective to something, It's common.


Your own link says Light beams can be artificial, they aren't always natural light. If anything, that means "light beam" can also fall under the laser example I gave in the OP.

As well as, I can interpret "light" in light beam to be an adjective, the same way someone would assign an adjective to a noun like "red car" to describe it's appearance. So "light beam/light ray" doesn't mean it's made up of photons/light either.

Artificially light is the same thing as normal light the only difference is it's being produced through artificial means like chemicals. However the light itself is still the same as natural.

Typical when someone says something is a beam or ray of light it's not adjective. If anything it should be a case by case thing instead of throwing it out all together.

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

If anything it should be a case by case thing instead of throwing it out all together.

I agree with this, it's probably for the best to take a nuanced view rather than a simple view, especially considering how there are plenty of cases that differ ever so slighty.

Like maybe if the character has near LS feats and then ***** out a beam of light that reflects and whatnot, it satisfies. This surely is quite the balancing act.

 

[RisingIons]

what part of protons have to do with light

I meant photons

The fact that you can still see the spoiler image is fantastic comedy.

 

[WrongIdea21]

Speed "of" light means that light has speed, beam "of" light means light in the form of a beam, the word beam is always associated with glowing things or shooting straight things does not mean automatically made of light, but Beam "of" light of course it's made of light. I'm confused because I'm so stupid.

 

[Arkenis]

Speed "of" light means that light has speed, beam "of" light means light in the form of a beam, the word beam is always associated with glowing things or shooting straight things does not mean automatically made of light, but Beam "of" light of course it's made of light. I'm confused because I'm so stupid.

Just another random strict reasoning behind los

 

[Vexzito]

The laser example doesn't even make sense given that it, well, is light speed.

The example I gave are made up of Helium-Neon. The photons they emit aren't only photons but would also be composed the gases used to create the photons, containing photons doesn't mean it's made of photons. This is what you call a composition fallacy. X containing Y in its composition doesn't mean it's only made of Y.

Though, I could give other examples of lasers not moving at the speed of light.

When lasers are called light, they aren't referring to it glowing or being bright

It can by definition as I've proved with Collins dictionary.

Let's use this as an example, if someone who does not have a scientific background described a laser as being a beam of light, don't you think they would refer to it being a beam of light because of luminosity rather than being photonic as the current standards assume?

all a laser is is the amplification of light by means of emission of radiation, and then that light is projected outward on the course of the laser. It's actual light made of photons, a chemical laser just refers to the method used to power this.

A "beam of light" will not always refer to a laser and as above, not all lasers move at SoL either way. The OP proposes if they have that context, then they should show it.

Typical when someone says something is a beam or ray of light it's not adjective.

Since you acknowledge it's a valid interpretation, it will help explain my next point a little easier.

If anything it should be a case by case thing instead of throwing it out all together.

This is the point of the OP, "beam of light" is taken case by case rather than always assuming a character means "a beam consisting of photons".

 

[WrongIdea21]

Just another random strict reasoning behind los

Absolutely random

 

[Paul_Frank]

The example I gave are made up of Helium-Neon. The photons they emit aren't only photons but would also be composed the gases used to create the photons, containing photons doesn't mean it's made of photons. This is what you call a composition fallacy. X containing Y in its composition doesn't mean it's only made of Y.

This is incorrect as well, the photons are in fact only photons, the gas that's used, to simplify things, is used because the reactions they cause produce enough energy that the photons can undergo stimulated emission by going past them, this process lowers the energy of the excited gas and gives more to the photons, this, in a closed system like the chambers of a chemical laser, results in a net gain for the emissions rather than absorption, and the produced photons are then sent through the optical cavity.

In short, yes, they are only photons, its not like photons are bonding with gasses or anything, and as such, even if you're trying to say the gas is shot out too, that wouldn't change the speed of the beam since the beam of light itself is still just the photons

Though, I could give other examples of lasers not moving at the speed of light.

This doesn't help your case though. This is explicitly a beam of light, however it's just being significantly slowed artificially, this doesn't mean the beam isn't light or photons, which means it's entirely irrelevant to the op.

It can by definition as I've proved with Collins dictionary.

Let's use this as an example, if someone who does not have a scientific background described a laser as being a beam of light, don't you think they would refer to it being a beam of light because of luminosity rather than being photonic as the current standards assume?

No, no one I've met has called something light because of luminosity, because that as a concept is something more advanced than just learning about photons. People I've seen that have called lasers light call it that because, well, they know they're shooting light out, and then people who have a middle school education learn that that's because of photons. If someone said something gave off light, shone, or glowed, then yes, those refer to luminosity, but not saying something is light.

 

[Vexzito]

Well, if the example in the OP is redundant then I'd be willing to drop the thread since my argument relied on a "beam of light" giving off luminosity but not being photonic.

Unless there's some beam that gives off luminosity/light and isn't photonic that I don't know of, I'm alright with closing the thread.

 

[Vexzito]

Actually now that I think about it, I was too fixated with IRL examples.

Using the same definition for fictional verses that have secondary energy sources such as magic, it can apply.

Currently we assume such verses would automatically have beams "made of light" while they could use "light" the same way I argued in the OP. Ergo, they could be referring to a secondary energy source such as light magic or magic that is bright, glowing, etc. which by itself, does not fit the requirements.
(Maybe I should've included this as an example in the OP instead.)

As such, I'll address arguments against the definition I used as I feel only they are relevant.

No, no one I've met has called something light because of luminosity

I do. I could use fictional characters as an example of referring to something as "light" even though it will have anti-photonic properties/not be light but because of it being bright, emitting luminosity, etc.

I could use the Wiki for example, people use to refer to Delta's beams as "light" even though they don't have those properties.

I've never met anyone that can run 100 metres in under 10 seconds. That doesn't mean no such person exists though. If by definition you can call something "light" because of that thing glowing, being bright, emitting luminosity, etc. There's nothing wrong with it.

LIGHT Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

LIGHT definition: something that makes things visible or affords illumination. See examples of light used in a sentence.

www.dictionary.com

because that as a concept is something more advanced than just learning about photons.

We don't need to only use luminosity as an example and even then, we can tell most of the time when something has luminosity by appearance. You don't need to be be well read in it.

People I've seen that have called lasers light call it that because, well, they know they're shooting light out, and then people who have a middle school education learn that that's because of photons.

Yes, hopefully those fictions can provide that context.

Edit: I have some stuff to do, so my replies might be delayed.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

Something that is called light but possesses properties that light doesn’t have like causing explosions or bending mid flight doesn’t discount the statement that said beam isn’t light though. Those are simply antifeats for said beam to be given light speed since it’s not acting like how irl light does and thus why would we grant it a property of irl light. This is already taken into account when a CRT is made to accept things as lightspeed and the OP (of the theoretical CRT, not you) simply needs to bring more evidence that said beam is like irl light.

 

[Vexzito]

Something that is called light but possesses properties that light doesn’t have like causing explosions or bending mid flight doesn’t discount the statement that said beam isn’t light though.

Or that thing wasn't light in the first place but was described as "light" for shining, glowing, etc. For some reason everyone ignores this definition even though it's one of the key focuses of the CRT. To acknowledge different meanings for "of".

 

[Paul_Frank]

Everyone is ignoring it because it's a pretty odd assumption to use the 10th and 15th definitions of the word rather than the earlier ones, this is what most people in the thread that have disagreed have said.

That train of thought requires you to

1. Ignore the former, more commonly used definitions, and hop straight down to those
2. Assume then that "beam of (has characteristics/quality) light" means "a beam that glows", possessing only that singular quality of light
3. Assume that it only means it has characteristics of light, i.e being luminous and giving off light, rather than saying that being light is its characteristic.

What I mean by number 3 is, using the definition of of as "used as a function word to indicate a characteristic or distinctive quality or possession", beam of light would mean "a beam where being light is a distinctive quality of it."

With characteristic being described as "The characteristics of a person or thing are the qualities or features that belong to them and make them recognizable", this would mean that the beam being light is a quality that belongs to it, even using these definitions. You can say this is just one possible interpretation of it, but so is the one outlined in the op, and this one fits more in line with the common usages of the words.

 

[Vexzito]

But I've never argued we should assume or the definition I'm using should take precedence. Only the fact that it exists and can be what the phrase means.

And since you agree it's a viable interpretation, I don't see any problems other than "it's not used as commonly". Though, the definition we use should depend on the context of the fiction, not what the dictionary considers more common.

 

[Arkenis]

But I've never argued we should assume or the definition I'm using should take precedence. Only the fact that it exists and can be what the phrase means.

And since you agree it's a viable interpretation, I don't see any problems other than "it's not used as commonly". Though, the definition we use should depend on the context of the fiction, not what the dictionary considers more common.

I think given the fact something is more commonly used over another should take precedence over the uncommon interpretation. There’s also the fact that we would then need to have an argument for every statement that says “of light” and go over the use of the word. It’s extremely unwarranted if a reason for why the use of “of” is being used in an uncommon manner is not give.

 

[Paul_Frank]

But I've never argued we should assume or the definition I'm using should take precedence. Only the fact that it exists and can be what the phrase means.

And since you agree it's a viable interpretation, I don't see any problems other than "it's not used as commonly". Though, the definition we use should depend on the context of the fiction, not what the dictionary considers more common.

Its a viable interpretation after taking several unlikely assumptions, and ignoring common usages. For that reason, the more common one makes more sense, as it doesn't require as many odd assumptions in succession in order to ascribe a less common usage to an author's words

 

[Axxtentacle]

if countless can't mean infinite by default because that's not the common usage of the word then this should fall under the same logic