Danny Phantom: Ghost Ray Re-evaluation

[LordGriffin1000]

The lightspeed Ghost Ray was recently removed from the profiles due to the reasons on this thread. However I believe the Ghost Ray does fit enough of our requirements to be considered legitimate light/lasers and lightspeed.

Below is a blog containing the evidence, just click the "New Analysis" tabber at the top of the blog to see the revised evidence.

Ghost Ray (Danny Phantom)

vsbattles.fandom.com

If accepted, the following calcs will be re-added to the profiles and verse page as support evidence to the already accepted speed ratings.

Danny Phantom Calc: Lightspeed Dodge

vsbattles.fandom.com

Danny Phantom: FTL Speed

vsbattles.fandom.com

Here is just a list to keep tabs on who agrees/disagrees or are neutral. Note some of the user's agreed on the blog itself so if you don't see a comment from them in the comment section it means they commented in the blog.

Agree: 8 (BlastX, ElixerBlue, ShadowChild'sReaper, DarkDragonMedus, Firestorm808, Elizaa, GilverTheProtoAngelo, KingTempest)

Disagree: 1 (Mr. Bambu)

Neutral:

 

[ShadowChild'sReaper]

After reading the blog I say I'm okay with it. As Griffin has pointed out the evidence presented does show that the ghost ray looks to be a fine match for all of the requirements. One thing the show has is consistency in being either consistent or consistently inconsistent. But it's hardly every just blatantly inconsistent.

Most arguments against it or at least the ones I can think of are overwhelmed by the more prominent evidence supporting it.

 

[Firestorm808]

I'll go over them later today.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I'm not that well verse in Danny Phantom but I will agree since it seems you've complied a lot of receipts and evidence

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I disagree with it being light. A lot of this evidence isn't actually support for it being light speed (for example, "ghosts being able to make light" doesn't equate to "their beam attacks are light"). Furthermore, reading the previous thread gives more concrete evidence against than this thread gives in favor, I feel. For example, ghost things just phasing through physical objects is a pretty major trait that goes against the characteristics of light. Frankly, without a specific statement of ghost rays being light, I don't think we should equate them at all. Ever. I think your most concrete evidence is unusable- Butch Hartman's reaction is fairly definite, but then we have WoG and Death of the Author so it just... isn't usable.

Jot me down as opposed.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I disagree with it being light. A lot of this evidence isn't actually support for it being light speed (for example, "ghosts being able to make light" doesn't equate to "their beam attacks are light"). Furthermore, reading the previous thread gives more concrete evidence against than this thread gives in favor, I feel. For example, ghost things just phasing through physical objects is a pretty major trait that goes against the characteristics of light. Frankly, without a specific statement of ghost rays being light, I don't think we should equate them at all. Ever. I think your most concrete evidence is unusable- Butch Hartman's reaction is fairly definite, but then we have WoG and Death of the Author so it just... isn't usable.

Jot me down as opposed.

Alright so I'm going to go over this piece by piece to make it easy.

"I disagree with it being light. A lot of this evidence isn't actually support for it being light speed (for example, "ghosts being able to make light" doesn't equate to "their beam attacks are light")."

You do realize that I'm trying to prove it's light which is a part of it being light speed right?. Nowhere did I say "ghosts being able to create light = their beam attacks are lightspeed". That was simply just me explaining that they can create light to show it's nothing new to them so I don't get what you're saying here.

You picked a single part of the blog that was only meant to showcase them being able to create light. When I specifically put a section directly talking about speed called "Ghost Ray and Speed" in which I explained that it being lightspeed is actually consistent when the calcs involving the Ghost Ray actually match up with our current calcs for the verses current speed rating. Not to mention the author statement in which Butch outright agreed with them being light/lightspeed.

"Furthermore, reading the previous thread gives more concrete evidence against than this thread gives in favor, I feel. For example, ghost things just phasing through physical objects is a pretty major trait that goes against the characteristics of light."

I don't see how there is more evidence against it. Your example doesn't work because I explained that I screwed up on that on the whole intangible ghost ray in the original blog.

To go into detail. The Ghost Ray isn't naturally intangible, it hits real world objects and interacts with them accordingly as I blatantly showed with in the blog with the mirror and magnifying glass. If it always phased through everything that effect wouldn't have happened.

I even explained at the beginning of the blog the nature of ectoplasmic energy and how it's properties changed when they form it into something else like data, technology, fire and of course light. So the previous argument in the other thread regarding "ghost things phasing through physical objects" is unusable since it doesn't apply to the Ghost Ray which is shown to not pass through physical objects naturally.

"Frankly, without a specific statement of ghost rays being light, I don't think we should equate them at all. Ever."

That's the entire reason for the blog.... I provided the evidence that proves it's light without the statement you're asking for. It's entirely possible to equat two things without a direct statement and Danny Phantom does this via showing and telling.

Shadow is a being of darkness who's only harmed by light as proven in the series. Danny was completely unable to due it harm until he used the Ghost Ray which we visually see cause it harm and dazed it, to which Danny instantly new light was It's weakness and said "So bright light effects it". He then fully proves this by catching Shadow in the light of a movie projector and later we see it effected by stadium lights.

So not only does it have the exact same effect on Shadow as actual light does and we know Shadow's only weakness is light, we have visual evidence of ghosts being able to create and project light so saying Danny can't project this into a beam is ridiculous especially since the Ghost Ray actually shows properties of being light such as when Danny used it in combination with a magnifying glass to expand it and catch Shadow's entire body and in another episode it reflects off a mirror.

Also, I explained earlier in the blog under the "Ectoplasmic Energy" section that when they change their ectoplasmic energy into something else it basically becomes that as shown with Skulker's battlesuit being actual technology and capable of being hacked by real world technology, Undergrowth's plants which grow and die like actual plants, and Technus and Danny as data being the same as normal data. So the Ghost Ray in all likelihood is light, especially when we have Butch Hartman agreeing with it.

Which brings me to your last point.

"I think your most concrete evidence is unusable- Butch Hartman's reaction is fairly definite, but then we have WoG and Death of the Author so it just... isn't usable."

You can't just claim "Death of the Author" and ignore Butch Hartman's word, that is wrong, especially when we have other verses on this site that utilize author statements so long as they are backed up by the stuff in verse and or if the author is not consistent with statements.

Butch Hartman's word is valid here because the Ghost Ray actually has backing of being light and as I pointed out in the blog in a previous video he did before the Death Battle was announced, Butch stated Danny could create light which is shown in the series.

Hell I just recently utilized a statement from Butch Hartman in a previous thread and it got accepted because it had supporting evidence from the actual show itself. So what's the difference here? Butch Hartman has always been consistent when talking about actual Canon stuff like in his Ghost Zone Secrets video in which he provides actual clips from the show itself and when it came to the stuff he didn't clip like the unique ectoplasmic energy and OP Crown of Fire and Ring of Rage, that stuff is also supported in the series.

Butch basically tells us when he's talking non canon stuff like when he brought up things that didn't appear in the show or in his Danny Phantom 10 years later, Danny Phantom Graduation, or the latest on about Danny's lost brother which he dubbed a "Phan Fantasy" aka non-canon. So I see nothing wrong using his word on this.

I'll create an section on those who agree or disagree with the OP.

Note: I'm heading off to bed and won't be commenting until later tomorrow, got a busy day tomorrow. I'll comment to any replies when I get the chance.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

"You do realize that I'm trying to prove it's light which is a part of it being light speed right?. Nowhere did I say "ghosts being able to create light = their beam attacks are lightspeed". That was simply just me explaining that they can create light to show it's nothing new to them so I don't get what you're saying here."

Yes. And I'm saying that point doesn't matter.

"You picked a single part of the blog that was only meant to showcase them being able to create light. When I specifically put a section directly talking about speed called "Ghost Ray and Speed" in which I explained that it being lightspeed is actually consistent when the calcs involving the Ghost Ray actually match up with our current calcs for the verses current speed rating. Not to mention the author statement in which Butch outright agreed with them being light/lightspeed."

I picked a single example of why I feel your points fall short. I don't care if it is consistent with our current calcs, this has no bearing on my evaluation. Something can act as legitimate light whether the feats surrounding it are Infinite, Sub-Rel or Subsonic. The author statement means nothing as we can't use WoG on this site. You should know this, Griffon.

"I don't see how there is more evidence against it. Your example doesn't work because I explained that I screwed up on that on the whole intangible ghost ray in the original blog.

To go into detail. The Ghost Ray isn't naturally intangible, it hits real world objects and interacts with them accordingly as I blatantly showed with in the blog with the mirror and magnifying glass. If it always phased through everything that effect wouldn't have happened.

I even explained at the beginning of the blog the nature of ectoplasmic energy and how it's properties changed when they form it into something else like data, technology, fire and of course light. So the previous argument in the other thread regarding "ghost things phasing through physical objects" is unusable since it doesn't apply to the Ghost Ray which is shown to not pass through physical objects naturally."

I do.

This ostensibly doesn't matter. The fact that it can do the latter at all sort of negates the point. Just because they can choose whether it is intangible or not doesn't negate the fact that it can display traits that are not aligned with natural light.

"That's the entire reason for the blog.... I provided the evidence that proves it's light without the statement you're asking for. It's entirely possible to equat two things without a direct statement and Danny Phantom does this via showing and telling."

I understand what the purpose is, Lord, and I'm telling you that based on the evidence against it, your blog's proof isn't enough for me. It is possible to equate two things, Danny Phantom does not achieve this. Gonna forego going through the next handful of things since these are just... the evidence from your blog?

"You can't just claim "Death of the Author" and ignore Butch Hartman's word, that is wrong, especially when we have other verses on this site that utilize author statements so long as they are backed up by the stuff in verse and or if the author is not consistent with statements."

...I can. I don't care what other verses do. We very explicitly don't use author statements. This instance isn't backed up by in-universe stuff.

"Butch Hartman's word is valid here because the Ghost Ray actually has backing of being light and as I pointed out in the blog in a previous video he did before the Death Battle was announced, Butch stated Danny could create light which is shown in the series."

I disagree.

The rest of your points seem to hinge on me accepting Butch Hartman making statements outside of the canon of the game, so... sorry, I guess. I don't mean to just disregard your points. But WoG ain't usable. If you need proof of this, feel free to reference our Editing Rules- it says it pretty plainly.

Sorry Griffon.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Agree with the Lightspeed justifications..

The magnifying glass focusing and mirror reflection are alone good enough evidence for LS in my opinion.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

"You do realize that I'm trying to prove it's light which is a part of it being light speed right?. Nowhere did I say "ghosts being able to create light = their beam attacks are lightspeed". That was simply just me explaining that they can create light to show it's nothing new to them so I don't get what you're saying here."

Yes. And I'm saying that point doesn't matter.

"You picked a single part of the blog that was only meant to showcase them being able to create light. When I specifically put a section directly talking about speed called "Ghost Ray and Speed" in which I explained that it being lightspeed is actually consistent when the calcs involving the Ghost Ray actually match up with our current calcs for the verses current speed rating. Not to mention the author statement in which Butch outright agreed with them being light/lightspeed."

I picked a single example of why I feel your points fall short. I don't care if it is consistent with our current calcs, this has no bearing on my evaluation. Something can act as legitimate light whether the feats surrounding it are Infinite, Sub-Rel or Subsonic. The author statement means nothing as we can't use WoG on this site. You should know this, Griffon.

"I don't see how there is more evidence against it. Your example doesn't work because I explained that I screwed up on that on the whole intangible ghost ray in the original blog.

To go into detail. The Ghost Ray isn't naturally intangible, it hits real world objects and interacts with them accordingly as I blatantly showed with in the blog with the mirror and magnifying glass. If it always phased through everything that effect wouldn't have happened.

I even explained at the beginning of the blog the nature of ectoplasmic energy and how it's properties changed when they form it into something else like data, technology, fire and of course light. So the previous argument in the other thread regarding "ghost things phasing through physical objects" is unusable since it doesn't apply to the Ghost Ray which is shown to not pass through physical objects naturally."

I do.

This ostensibly doesn't matter. The fact that it can do the latter at all sort of negates the point. Just because they can choose whether it is intangible or not doesn't negate the fact that it can display traits that are not aligned with natural light.

"That's the entire reason for the blog.... I provided the evidence that proves it's light without the statement you're asking for. It's entirely possible to equat two things without a direct statement and Danny Phantom does this via showing and telling."

I understand what the purpose is, Lord, and I'm telling you that based on the evidence against it, your blog's proof isn't enough for me. It is possible to equate two things, Danny Phantom does not achieve this. Gonna forego going through the next handful of things since these are just... the evidence from your blog?

"You can't just claim "Death of the Author" and ignore Butch Hartman's word, that is wrong, especially when we have other verses on this site that utilize author statements so long as they are backed up by the stuff in verse and or if the author is not consistent with statements."

...I can. I don't care what other verses do. We very explicitly don't use author statements. This instance isn't backed up by in-universe stuff.

"Butch Hartman's word is valid here because the Ghost Ray actually has backing of being light and as I pointed out in the blog in a previous video he did before the Death Battle was announced, Butch stated Danny could create light which is shown in the series."

I disagree.

The rest of your points seem to hinge on me accepting Butch Hartman making statements outside of the canon of the game, so... sorry, I guess. I don't mean to just disregard your points. But WoG ain't usable. If you need proof of this, feel free to reference our Editing Rules- it says it pretty plainly.

Sorry Griffon.

I planned on replying to you comment fully but I felt it was a waste of time since it would just be a back and fourth thing. However this comment you made is wrong.

"The rest of your points seem to hinge on me accepting Butch Hartman making statements outside of the canon of the game, so... sorry, I guess. I don't mean to just disregard your points. But WoG ain't usable. If you need proof of this, feel free to reference our Editing Rules- it says it pretty plainly."

Well I did decide to take a look at the Editing Rules page and it turns out you were not taking into account the entire rule.

* When a statement from a character, guidebook, or even word of god contradicts what occurs in the series, they won't be used. For example, if an author says that a character from his work is incapable of shattering planets, even though it has destroyed galaxies on-screen, we will always go with the latter, rather than the former. The statement need to be consistent with what has been revealed within the fictional franchise itself. Otherwise, it will be considered invalid.

* Author statements will only be accepted when they clarify what has been shown or implied in the series itself, and will be rejected when they contradict what has been shown to the audience. Statements that technically do not contradict anything shown in the series will still be rejected if there is no evidence that they are accurate.

Your previous comments even before this one make it sound as if we don't accept WoG period but looking at the Editing Rules we do except WoG statements so long as they are consistent or have evidence that supports from the series that supports it and I have proven that the Ghost Ray have some properties of being actual light going off our Light/Laser page so Butch Hartman's agreeing with the beams is valid and could be used as support.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Yes. If they simply validated what was already presented, that's one thing. But your statements don't fit this description, I feel, given the contradictory features of the Ghost Rays. The nail in the coffin for your argument would be if we took Butch Hartman's statements at explicit face value- but doing so is contradictory to what we see in some places. Thus the rule applies.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'll see if I can find more evidence that supports lightspeed Ghost Rays, for now I'm just gonna close this thread.