- 3,759
- 1,615
Solar flare is the speed of sound
-
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
- Thread starter Arc7Kuroi
- Start date
- Status
- 32,835
- 38,111
Solar flare is the speed of sound
- 12,318
- 11,261
I agree with this.
- 3,708
- 1,759
It's actually infinite since the speed of light is infinite ggSolar flare is the speed of sound
- 15,591
- 22,892
Agree with the OP
- 5,668
- 4,897
can this be applied then?
- 6,084
- 8,836
Yeah this is just common sense tbh and naturally I agree.
- 4,621
- 6,676
This seems perfectly fair to me. In general, the standards for light-speed qualifications have always been complicated; it's kind of difficult to suggest that something is simultaneously made out of light, and yet doesn't also move at light-speed, even if this sometimes appears to be the case (though you could argue that it moves at slightly below light-speed due to not being in a vacuum, but I digress). So, we need to be fairly specific on what our standards are if we're applying it to speed ratings.
Going back to the point of this thread, this seems like a perfectly acceptable way to determine that something is indeed made out of light.
Going back to the point of this thread, this seems like a perfectly acceptable way to determine that something is indeed made out of light.
- 32,835
- 38,111
no probs b0ss
- 31,633
- 34,651
I agree with the proposal.
- 8,170
- 2,204
Agree, that was pretty silly to me.
- 5,668
- 4,897
This seems pretty much accepted
- 21,489
- 30,820
It needs to be implemented first
- 21,489
- 30,820
Usually, but for serious pages like this, staff would just automatically implement it themselves (I don't have that power btw)
- 10,938
- 12,427
I mean, that's ok I guess, although it weighs much less in favour of it than a scientific description such as "consists of photons".
One also needs to consider that the statement needs to be reliable, which in case of such a description is more of an issue. A random person might describe any glowing energy beam as a "beam of light", as that's their subjective impression of it and what's the closest thing they know to what they have witnessed, not because they know what it actually is and are trying to give an accurate description.
One also needs to consider that the statement needs to be reliable, which in case of such a description is more of an issue. A random person might describe any glowing energy beam as a "beam of light", as that's their subjective impression of it and what's the closest thing they know to what they have witnessed, not because they know what it actually is and are trying to give an accurate description.
- 6,135
- 4,213
Well that makes sense...
- 32,835
- 38,111
- 2,319
- 2,918
Well if this doesn't sound like something @Kaantantr would say.
Neutral party as usual with that kind of thing. Following to see where this goes.
- 5,668
- 4,897
well this one was in regards to "made of light"
- 32,835
- 38,111
I mean, don't we already have the rule that it must be from reliable sources, twice in a row? Official guidebooks are one form, or it could also be from people who are scientists or have a thorough understanding of laser-based tech.
Also I think the reflect part should also allow other materials to qualify like shiny knife/sword blades or water puddles and so on (Where light shines on blades and makes a blinding light or a laser beam reflection is shown on a water puddle like a reflection in a mirror, or the annoying light glare on your old-ass plastic shell monitor), making mirrors the only way to qualify light beams as light speed seems to be restrictive in terms of the wording itself, IMHO
- 10,938
- 12,427
I mean, reliable source aside it also must come in a reliable context. I was mostly pointing out that it isn't an ultra-strong criteria and that reliability must be considered, to make sure everyone kept it in mind for the CRT's that are no doubt supposed to follow this.
Mirrors aren't mentioned as the only things that reflect, though? It literally says "reflects off a material that it can be expected to", with non-magical mirrors merely being one example.
- 19,199
- 28,262
- Thread starter
- #75
The entire purpose of this thread was to reverse KT saying ābeam/ray of light =/= made of lightā.
By the current wording of the fourth requirement, nothing inherently needs to change. Just that we recognize āof lightā statements by reliable sources to mean āmade of lightā as that is what āof lightā by definition means.
By the current wording of the fourth requirement, nothing inherently needs to change. Just that we recognize āof lightā statements by reliable sources to mean āmade of lightā as that is what āof lightā by definition means.
- 5,668
- 4,897
so are we agreed then?
- 32,835
- 38,111
Guess so, since DT himself has no issues with this.
- 5,668
- 4,897
so what now
- 32,835
- 38,111
So, maybe this?
"Regarding the fourth requirement, it should be noted that lines saying "a beam made of light" and/or "a beam made of pure light/purely made of light" are both equally valid qualifiers of said rule".
Sorry if I butchered the wording, but additional help regarding this is welcome.
"Regarding the fourth requirement, it should be noted that lines saying "a beam made of light" and/or "a beam made of pure light/purely made of light" are both equally valid qualifiers of said rule".
Sorry if I butchered the wording, but additional help regarding this is welcome.
- Status
Similar threads
