Light speed qualifications but stricter

[Vexzito]

So I want to bring up two threads for this, being the original thread which was had its justifications slightly changed due this threads reasonings.

The fourth lightspeed justification is:

• It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a reliable source

And it's reasoning being:

If an attack is simply called a "beam of light / light ray / light attack" or something similar, that doesn't have the same meaning as being stated to be "made of photons" or "made of light", given how common it is for names of attacks to have the term light in it (example, Piccolo's makankosappo or light of death) or characters hyping themselves up.

Justifications changed to:
In the second light speed qualifications thread, it was decided "beam of light/ray of light" would be considered made of photons/light because of Merriam-Websters 3rd definition of "of" which means "consist of".

My problems with this:
It assumes "of" inherently means "consist of" and it fails to recognise other definitions for the word "of" that can be used in the phrase "beam of light/ray of light". In the same Merriam-Websters dictionary that is used to justify "of" meaning "composed of", the 10th definition is used to define a characteristic/quality/possession. Or the 15th definition in Collins dictionary:

You use of to indicate a characteristic or quality that someone or something has.

Now, if you go to the "characteristic" link, you'll see characteristics can be adjectives; but how does this fit into "beam of light/ray of light"?

Applying the 15th definition from Collins dictionary to "beam of light", it can mean a beam being given the characteristic of "light" (adjective) because it gives off luminosity or is bright, etc. Obviously, the adjective "light" doesn't mean photons/light itself in this instance.

From the same thread, an example was given which would fit the fourth requirement.

To give a some examples to illustrate my proposal: A) a laser travels in a straight line, reflecting off reflective surfaces, is stated to be a beam of light, it satisfies the fourth requirement;

Now that "beam of light/ray of light" doesn't inherently mean "composed of" and using my example from Collins dictionary applied to "beam of light", chemical lasers would fit the requirements of being lightspeed despite them not being lightspeed.

Conclusion:
Being stated "beam of light/ray of light" doesn't inherently mean "composed of light" as the word "of" can have multiple meanings. If the phrase a "beam of light/ray of light" is used, it needs to have more context to justify "of" in this case meaning "composed of".

 

[Vexzito]

Oops, accidently posted it. I'll edit it.

 

[Sus]

 

[Bernkastelll]

So I want to bring up two threads for this, being the original thread which was changed due this threads reasonings.

What

 

[Sus]

What

their wise words are not comprehensible to a mortal human

 

[Damage3245]

Do you want me to lock this so you can start a new thread, or are you updating this one?

 

[Vexzito]

I'll finish editing it in a bit.

 

[Vexzito]

Made my changes

 

[KingTempest]

Following

 

[Damage3245]

Also following this. The OP is interesting.

 

[AnonymousBlank]

I have popcorn. Proceed at will

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

Seems rather straight forward (like a laser), I agree.

 

[BlackeJan]

This is gonna be juicy. If this passed then ALOT of characters will have to get revised including novel characters

 

[LIFE_OF_KING]

The way that the speed of light is controversial is amazing

 

[Arkenis]

this seems far too strict to solely take away characters speed rating based off the word of. Would it not be better to just look at the raw?

 

[Bernkastelll]

this seems far too strict to solely take away characters speed rating based off the word of. Would it not be better to just look at the raw?

but.....a lot of verses have english as it official languages.....

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

but.....a lot of verses have english as it official languages.....

Then English is the raw

 

[EliminatorVenom]

I approve this revision.

The real life example in the end cleared whatever doubt I might have. If the standards would say that something in real life has SoL, while that thing does not have it, it is immediate proof that it needs to be revised.

 

[Livinmeme]

The word made of ligths represnt made physically made of ligth, also i think than the ligth standards are fine as they are (maybe a little strict but that is).

 

[Nierre]

Wow good work

Following

 

[Sus]

I agree, let's strict everything

 

[Livinmeme]

Can people stop following the FRA train without any counter arguments???

 

[Livinmeme]

We should wait knowledgeable people

 

[Bernkastelll]

Can people stop following the FRA train without any counter arguments???

?

 

[Livinmeme]

?

People are FRA train without any arguments or counter arguments, we dont know what knowledgeable people think about this to form a oppinion. Basically i think is to early to spam FRA

 

[Bernkastelll]

People are FRA train without any arguments or counter arguments, we dont know what knowledgeable people think about this to form a oppinion. Basically i think is to early to spam FRA

People can agree with stuff that they think that it's right

 

[Livinmeme]

People can agree with stuff that they think that it's right

That is okay but to many people are agreeing extremlly fast basically a FRA train

 

[Nierre]

Only one person agreed??

Everyone else is just following, as in, watching the thread.

 

[Arkenis]

but.....a lot of verses have english as it official languages.....

then that's when it's ok... Like bro my comment was obviously in reference to non english officials. And in the official english the common definition of of should be considered over the 10th definition in dictionary.

 

[Livinmeme]

It also depends on context, we should use it in context

 

[RisingIons]

Soon light speed will only be accepted if the mass of photons is directly stated to confirm it is indeed light
Neutral

 

[Arc7Kuroi]

what part of protons have to do with light

 

[Bobsican]

TBH I disagree, while it can be argued out of semantics and all, that'd also be too strict for our purposes, for example, we don't ask for every single supportive thing to be the case to consider something as light. On its own it's still a supportive thing, and at most I'd be open to just clarifying that context may not make it as explicit for this kind of purpose as it may be at first.

 

[Reio35]

Too semantically most definitions considered beam of light to be the same as light beam

A new angle on controlling light

System could provide first method for filtering light waves based on direction.

news.mit.edu

Here they call light beams beams of light

Light beam - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Also here

 

[Axxtentacle]

using 10th and 15th listed definitions to say it could potentially mean something else

Ok I get semantics but that's really out there lmao. I don't see why you should use those definitions when definitions tend to get really out there and wonky once you start getting into context-dependant situations. I disagree because this thread seems to say we should use really weird definitions that are only used in certain context-specific situations over the general definition for general scenarios.

 

[EliminatorVenom]

The key problem that I see that this new idea solves is the real-life example in the bottom of the text.

If our standards, somehow, make something in real life have LS, when it doesn't have, they ought to be corrected.

 

[Reio35]

Oops, accidently posted it. I'll edit it.

Also nothing states chemical lasers aren't as fast as normal lasers. A chemical laser is just a laser that gets it's energy from a chemical reaction. So it's still a normal laser just the energy source is different

 

[Vexzito]

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.

then that's when it's ok... Like bro my comment was obviously in reference to non english officials. And in the official english the common definition of of should be considered over the 10th definition in dictionary.

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.

TBH I disagree, while it can be argued out of semantics and all, that'd also be too strict for our purposes, for example, we don't ask for every single supportive thing to be the case to consider something as light. On its own it's still a supportive thing, and at most I'd be open to just clarifying that context may not make it as explicit for this kind of purpose as it may be at first.

Ok I get semantics but that's really out there lmao. I don't see why you should use those definitions when definitions tend to get really out there and wonky once you start getting into context-dependant situations. I disagree because this thread seems to say we should use really weird definitions that are only used in certain context-specific situations over the general definition for general scenarios.

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.

Too semantically most definitions considered beam of light to be the same as light beam

A new angle on controlling light

System could provide first method for filtering light waves based on direction.

news.mit.edu

Here they call light beams beams of light

Light beam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also here

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.

 

[Livinmeme]

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.

Yeah but photons are still ligth wich was what you were refering

 

[Vexzito]

Yeah but photons are still ligth wich was what you were refering

Photons is a noun. If someone was using light as an adjective, they wouldn't be referring to photons. They would be using light to describe something as bright, giving off luminosity or something along the lines.