• 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 Speed Qualifications

Status
Not open for further replies.
Arc7Kuroi

Arc7Kuroi

16,978
22,779
Introduction
  • In this thread the LS qualifications were made stricter. This thread here is in response to a very specific portion of the aforementioned thread, after having discussed it with Cyber and KingTempest.
The Issue
  • Tempest said, "An attack being called a light beam, light ray, laser beam, beam of light, ray of light, or anything similar to those is not enough justification to fit the fourth requirement."
  • I agree with everything his original thread proposed and even the above statement, until it claimed “beam/ray of light” does not imply said beam/ray is made of light. If you review the third definition of “of”, “used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents.” A few examples of how this is used in phrases: a body of water (said body is made of water) and a throne of gold (said throne is made of gold). It’s clear to see where I’m going with this, by definition, a beam/ray of light is a beam/ray made of light. Thus, by definition it would fit the fourth requirement for light speed lasers.
Proposal
  • After discussing with KT and Cyber, I’ve come to the following proposal: unless contradicted, being stated to be “of light” satisfies the requirement “stated to be made of light”, as by definition that is what “of light” indicates.
  • 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; B) same case with a laser being called a beam of light, but it is also stated to be made of magic (or insert any non-light thing here), it doesn’t satisfy the fourth requirement. If the beam is only stated to be "of light" and nothing else, it is made of light by definition. Unless someone wants to tell me a body of water isn't made of water this should be a pretty simple CRT.
 
which is a really weird premise if it has no contradictions to other aspects

It being made of light or being called light wouldnt change much, its the properties you have to check to see if it has contradictions, and also check for further support
 
DemonGodMitchAubin said:
I mean I agree, but I don’t think anyone was disagreeing with the premise that something is made of light, it’s just that people disagree with the notion that just because something is made of light, it moves at light speed
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not arguing that "of light" = light speed, I'm saying "of light" satisfies our fourth requirement (made of light) for light speed requirements.
 
KLOL506 said:
Anyways, count me in on agreeing with this. I always found the notion of "something is made purely of light but isn't necessarily light-speed" very odd.
Click to expand...
I'm on the same boat as this comment so yeah, I agree.

Also a body of water isn't made of water and doesn't behave like one
 
Purgy said:
I thought this was already how we treated it to be honest.
Click to expand...
It was for the longest time lol, but according to the thread linked in the OP it was recently changed so "of light" couldn't qualifiy "made of light".
 
i thought the reason the requirement was stricter was cause of quote:
"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."

a body of water and a throne of gold
thrs a word for it but my brain is switched off rn
definitely hasnt been butchered like the phrase X ability is the speed of light!
but im fine with OP change back aswell
 
I also am on an agreement over this, cases where it's dubious out of other factors would just be evaluated in a CRT.
And dismissing this out of just being "made to sound cool" would be like dismissing something like "The blast of Absolute Zero" as just a random thing to say to make it sound more appealing, when it's about as blatant as you can get for X move being at Absolute Zero.
 
Loyd said:
i thought the reason the requirement was stricter was cause of quote:
"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."

a body of water and a throne of gold
thrs a word for it but my brain is switched off rn
definitely hasnt been butchered like the phrase X ability is the speed of light!
but im fine with OP change back aswell
Click to expand...
Light of death is not an "of light" statement. If you read the OP, I make specific mention to the phrase "of light". "Light of death" is not the same as "beam of light". I am, to clear all confusion, arguing that the phrase "beam/ray of light" by definition means that said beam/ray is made of light.

On the flip side, "light of death" merely implies said light causes death/is comprised of death.
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
Lol if someone calls an attack like "ray of justice" or "beam of ruin" or "light of death", I'm fine with that not satisfying the fourth requirement. But "of light" by definition means "made of light" is all I'm sayin.
Click to expand...
alternatively, I'd be more convinced if it says "beam made of pure light" or "beam made purely of light" or similar.
 
KLOL506 said:
alternatively, I'd be more convinced if it says "beam made of pure light" or "beam made purely of light" or similar.
Click to expand...
That's extremely specific, though I can see why you'd say that, Frieza's Death Beams are a good example, they're explicitly referred to as "beams of light" but are clearly not made of natural light.
 
Purgy said:
That's extremely specific, though I can see why you'd say that, Frieza's Death Beams are a good example, they're explicitly referred to as "beams of light" but are clearly not made of natural light.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'm also fine with just "beams of light" assuming it also shares other properties of light like reflecting off of shiny stuff like water, metal, mirrors, and any other conditions needed to fullfill being light speed. Or in general, lighting up the scenery with a blinding light also works (Which is common in fiction).
 
Arc7Kuroi said:
Heh
Click to expand...
f60.jpg

YAMEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
 
KLOL506 said:
Anyways, count me in on agreeing with this. I always found the notion of "something is made purely of light but isn't necessarily light-speed" very odd.
Click to expand...
It's actually funny,how does light itself not move at its standard speed when called light.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reiner04
Does this qualifies as light speed?
Replies
6
Views
705
KLOL506
KLOL506
God243
Light manipulation for sirens(Azur Lane)
Replies
14
Views
1K
Kisaragi_Megumi
Kisaragi_Megumi
Gasper
Big Monsterverse speed upgrade
Replies
21
Views
2K
Pokeaim
Floxy178
  • Locked
Shinra Tensei speed of light
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
KingTempest
  • Locked
One Piece 1099 Pacifista Addons
Replies
11
Views
1K
LephyrTheRevanchist
LephyrTheRevanchist
Back
Top