• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Light feat standards: Reflection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cyberblader90

Cyberblader90

Messages
5,668
Reaction score
4,897
Laser/Light Beam Dodging Feats | VS Battles Wiki | Fandom
I have noticed something on the light feats page that is admittingly vague

"The beam reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror"
One of the conditions to qualify as real light is to reflect off a surface, but the page doesn't specify as to what it means by that.

To illustrate what I mean:
specularjavafigure1.jpg

Molecular Expressions Microscopy Primer: Light and Color - Specular and Diffuse Reflection: Interactive Tutorial (fsu.edu)

Proper light will reflect off different types of surfaces, doing so at angles for flat surfaces, and irregular for non standard surfaces.

Would like the input of staff regarding if reflection should be branched out

Furthermore, its come to my attention there seems to be different interpretations of how reflection is accepted. Should it be something like light bending from a surface, shooting out an angle, etc?

Reflection of Light - Introduction | Olympus LS (olympus-lifescience.com)

There are of course studies on this.

Also want to discuss stuff like partial reflections. that is to say light partially reflects on as surface, and reflections leaving smoke.

reflection is when radiation bounces off of something without being absorbed, so for the surface to smoke, it would have had to absorb heat from the beam. Obviously reflective surfaces aren't indestructible and it's possible to melt things like mirrors with enough intensity, but most radiation will reflect off of them rather than cause damage, and there would have been some level of actual reflection regardless, the beam wouldn't just stop at the surface and not go anywhere else.

I also think its worth discussing the the distinction between something reflecting and it spreading out in an impact

My proposal is a stricter interpretation of reflection, as bending, curving, etc wouldnt prove its light
 
Last edited:
If the compressed and improved rule is accepted, a list of all the series that will be affected by it should be made, right? I remember that this wasn't done about stabilization skills
 
AKUTO123 said:
If the compressed and improved rule is accepted, a list of all the series that will be affected by it should be made, right? I remember that this wasn't done about stabilization skills
Click to expand...
I dont have a list made but preaty sure "ton" would be a good guess
 
For the people complaining about bleach affiliations, this question was initially asked devoid of verse context, I said I thought the argument itself was fine but that we didn't have a real standard for this, so that he should make a specific calc group thread. Kindly stop giving the op shit for disagreeing with a bleach calc or whatever.

And yeah, as I've said, I personally think this sort of argument against something being light works. If it reflects in a way that's very different from light, there you go. However, other calc people may think this is to pedantic, and as such, they're free to opine themselves. We need some sort of standard for this anyways.
 
Wokistan said:
For the people complaining about bleach affiliations, this question was initially asked devoid of verse context, I said I thought the argument itself was fine but that we didn't have a real standard for this, so that he should make a specific calc group thread. Kindly stop giving the op shit for disagreeing with a bleach calc or whatever.
Click to expand...
Well, only one person mentioned Bleach but whatever...
 
I guess a more detailed explanation for different types of reflections should be okay.

You may want to improve the description from other requirements of the profile now that you will edited it.
 
Yeah I just kinda saw the one, if it doesn't apply to you then there's no reprimand intended. I agree with trying to keep this thread verse neutral and focused on setting a standard as opposed to bleach specific.
 
Wokistan said:
For the people complaining about bleach affiliations, this question was initially asked devoid of verse context, I said I thought the argument itself was fine but that we didn't have a real standard for this, so that he should make a specific calc group thread. Kindly stop giving the op shit for disagreeing with a bleach calc or whatever.

And yeah, as I've said, I personally think this sort of argument against something being light works. If it reflects in a way that's very different from light, there you go. However, other calc people may think this is to pedantic, and as such, they're free to opine themselves. We need some sort of standard for this anyways.
Click to expand...
it's called Bleach because it shows up on a Bleach downgrade crt. The arguments in the crt he opened are not accepted in the wiki. I told him to change the reflection rules of the wiki first and he did this. I'm not saying he did it just for Bleach, or because he didn't like Bleach, I just told the story. I have no website for anyone
 
AKUTO123 said:
it's called Bleach because it shows up on a Bleach downgrade crt. The arguments in the crt he opened are not accepted in the wiki. I told him to change the reflection rules of the wiki first and he did this. I'm not saying he did it just for Bleach, or because he didn't like Bleach, I just told the story. I have no website for anyone
Click to expand...
can i ask we avoid this. That isnt my intent. I think feats in general should be discussed. Wok already mentioned the rest
 
Cyberblader90 said:
can i ask we avoid this. That isnt my intent. I think feats in general should be discussed. Wok already mentioned the rest
Click to expand...

I meant that, I just wanted to say that this is a general rule, but that the idea emerged on the Bleach crt. I have no words against you
 
Cyberblader90 said:
Also want to discuss stuff like partial reflections. that is to say light partially reflects on as surface, and reflections leaving smoke.

reflection is when radiation bounces off of something without being absorbed, so for the surface to smoke, it would have had to absorb heat from the beam. Obviously reflective surfaces aren't indestructible and it's possible to melt things like mirrors with enough intensity,
Click to expand...
Actually, a perfect mirror would reflect 100% of energy, and not take damage regardless of intensity. Such a thing is theoretical though. Real mirrors can reach up to 99.999% efficiency. Basically, the roughness of the surface is directly related to the way it reflects light, and its absorption.

Essentially, the angle of incidence is very important, and a rough surface would have a spectrum of these, which often results in it absorbing most of the light, which is also what creates the illusion of color. I'm not sure what you mean in the original post, by "branching out on reflection". Diffusion and perfect reflection are essentially the same process, just on different materials. If a surface isn't totally rough, and is mostly smooth, then some of the light is reflected if it hits the right angle, and the rest of it is absorbed, which can indeed make it so that not only is a beam reflected, but that it leaves behind an aftermath.

To me the line on the page that it should reflect off surfaces it's supposed to is already spot-on. If something hits a very smooth surface, such as a mirror, then it absolutely should reflect if it's light or radiation. If it hits something rough, then it can't really be determined either way. Altogether, I'm confused on what's actually being proposed here.
 
"Altogether, I'm confused on what's actually being proposed here."

I believe he tried to argue against a thing counting as light by posting it reflecting off a rough surface as though there was a single angle of incidence, and using it not behaving like light to say it wasn't. We don't have a concrete standard about that, so this thread was born to establish one.
 
FinePoint said:
Actually, a perfect mirror would reflect 100% of energy, and not take damage regardless of intensity. Such a thing is theoretical though. Real mirrors can reach up to 99.999% efficiency. Basically, the roughness of the surface is directly related to the way it reflects light, and its absorption.

Essentially, the angle of incidence is very important, and a rough surface would have a spectrum of these, which often results in it absorbing most of the light, which is also what creates the illusion of color. I'm not sure what you mean in the original post, by "branching out on reflection". Diffusion and perfect reflection are essentially the same process, just on different materials. If a surface isn't totally rough, and is mostly smooth, then some of the light is reflected if it hits the right angle, and the rest of it is absorbed, which can indeed make it so that not only is a beam reflected, but that it leaves behind an aftermath.

To me the line on the page that it should reflect off surfaces it's supposed to is already spot-on. If something hits a very smooth surface, such as a mirror, then it absolutely should reflect if it's light or radiation. If it hits something rough, then it can't really be determined either way. Altogether, I'm confused on what's actually being proposed here.
Click to expand...
hmm this would help one of my points though
if light hits a rough surface it will reflect on a spectrum of different angles
It would still diffuse and not be specular
The original point isn't changed

So there is a notable difference. that should at least be specified
 
Thank you, I think I understand what is being proposed now.
Similar to the way no real object reflects all light, it's also true no real object absorbs all light, it's always a ratio, and as mentioned for rough objects due to the varying angles of incidence, this results in the light not absorbed scattering in all directions.

If something like a beam hits an object that is obviously not smooth, but reflects entirely in one direction, that indicates to me that it's not behaving like light, and more like a physical object which would bounce in a specific direction after impact, such as a ball thrown against a rocky cliff would ultimately bounce one direction rather than scattering, unlike light.

So, that considered, it seems to me that this would indeed be proof it's not light, or at least not acting like light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TheOrangeGuy09
Lasers
Replies
1
Views
500
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
CurrySenpai
The Great Remnant Quest to Downgrade RWBY [Part 2] LIGHT SPEED MORE LIKE LIGHT PEE
2 3
Replies
102
Views
5K
Cire
Saqphire
  • Locked
[Jujutsu Kaisen] Lightspeed Scaling, but it's not the feat you're thinking of
Replies
30
Views
2K
Saqphire
Saqphire
Majinere566
Should Goddess Magic be Lightspeed? ( Nanatsu No Taizai Thread)
2 3
Replies
89
Views
5K
Majinere566
Majinere566
Lloydblitzed
Light Speed Projectiles in Ninjago
Replies
13
Views
944
SunDaGamer
SunDaGamer
Back
Top