-
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 Standard Revision
- Thread starter ProfessorKukui4Life
- Start date
- 2,938
- 365
Yeah, but rudely replying so despite me saying along with Kukui and DMUA numerous times that we're not trying to make things super lax is an attack, or at the very least a pretty hostile move. Especially when me being a bit wordy has nothing to do with me trying to deceive or manipulate anyone or push any kind of agenda to negatively impact anything.
But Whatever, Ant.
If DMUA is a calc member and be says the bending lasers would still be Rel, then I am confident in his confidence.
But Whatever, Ant.
If DMUA is a calc member and be says the bending lasers would still be Rel, then I am confident in his confidence.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@Ant no offense but that genuinely sounds like you dismissing Anexim altogether since you simplify his points to "spamming texts" and " making standards lax". Your comments honestly don't read like you are looking at this fairly or paying attention to the arguments one bit.
- 11,134
- 14,116
@DMUA Yes, depending on how efficient the user is. I already said when the user can change the direction of light, he is directly altering its velocity. It can be higher, it can be lower. It can be much higher, it can be much lower.
But we're not gonna make random assumptions that it would be in the relativistic range. It has to be proven. All I'm saying is it isn't "light-speed" anymore. What speed it is, has to be proven.
But we're not gonna make random assumptions that it would be in the relativistic range. It has to be proven. All I'm saying is it isn't "light-speed" anymore. What speed it is, has to be proven.
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #87
Ant, just to clarify, Regis's opinion here is completely wrong because of what I said earlier. He's misinterpreting the point of my thread in general.
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #88
This. Funny thing, I was going to bring this example up earlier but anyway, this.The real cal howard said:
Unless you actively slow down when taking a turn (which will always be the case since drivers want to live), cars will not slow down automatically just because it turns when turning the steering wheel. You can drive at a constant speed while turning and manuvering the car. The only reason why this doesnt happen IRL is for obvious reasons, like people....not purposely wanting to die in a crash.
- 167,679
- 76,256
@Andytrenom
Well, I am tired and in an annoyed mood after cleaning up all of those troll posts earlier, so I may have overreacted. I also have limited perception and communication filters, and poor social skills. My apologies.
It is true that I do not have enough time to thoroughly look into this issue though. I am just worried about that we will loosen our standards, and noticed that Amexim was by far the most committed to pushing this revision, to the point of drowning out other voices.
I would much prefer to see what DontTalk thinks about this, for safety reasons.
Well, I am tired and in an annoyed mood after cleaning up all of those troll posts earlier, so I may have overreacted. I also have limited perception and communication filters, and poor social skills. My apologies.
It is true that I do not have enough time to thoroughly look into this issue though. I am just worried about that we will loosen our standards, and noticed that Amexim was by far the most committed to pushing this revision, to the point of drowning out other voices.
I would much prefer to see what DontTalk thinks about this, for safety reasons.
- 2,938
- 365
How is it a random assumption to say that a beam of light, as it would be with any physical body purposefully slowing down to change course, is at least somewhat comparable to its max speed (in the sense that it's not thousands of times slower whilst slowing Down to turn) if it's otherwise moving as fast as possible while turning? How is the assertion that it's even plausibly MHS or even Sub-Rel even more reasonable than that? The light wouldn't suddenly lose hundreds of times its speed just by turning, not many things would, unless i'm mistaken.
It being confirmed to be light with other things would necessitate the Relativistic rating as well, and calcing it would only prove this, right?
Edit:I'm absolutely in favor of as many Calc Members and knowledgeable people getting here as possible, but did he, like, leave? Or am I mistaken? Also, Kukui asked me to be here. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered. I have a bad track record with these things, you see, so I was tryna stay out of it, but... Here I am. It's cool Ant, you try to be the best you can all the time and constantly being forced to look at Kermit **** is something I also had to deal with and it IS annoying. So it's cool.
It being confirmed to be light with other things would necessitate the Relativistic rating as well, and calcing it would only prove this, right?
Edit:I'm absolutely in favor of as many Calc Members and knowledgeable people getting here as possible, but did he, like, leave? Or am I mistaken? Also, Kukui asked me to be here. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered. I have a bad track record with these things, you see, so I was tryna stay out of it, but... Here I am. It's cool Ant, you try to be the best you can all the time and constantly being forced to look at Kermit **** is something I also had to deal with and it IS annoying. So it's cool.
- 31,372
- 34,118
Andy already contacted DonTalk. And yeah, Kukui wasn't trying to be too lax, one of the main points was just having one detail such as a light bending shouldn't automatically debunk something being light speed. If they have other details to be light speed, they could still be. And if there's other non light details and/or lack of info to be light, then it could be debunked.
- 10,758
- 6,491
@AKM Is it a necessity that if a light manipulator bends light, its speed would also have to decrease drastically? Or is it something that will depend on the user's intention?
Because if it's the latter, assuming lightspeed is no random assumption, it is very reasonable to assume that the user won't actively slow down the speed of his own attacks, because that's how anyone with a functional brain will act in a normal scenario.
Because if it's the latter, assuming lightspeed is no random assumption, it is very reasonable to assume that the user won't actively slow down the speed of his own attacks, because that's how anyone with a functional brain will act in a normal scenario.
- 11,134
- 14,116
@Amexim
When the character is actively changing the velocity of said light, anything is an assumption without proof.
Also like Tata said, Tien's taiyoken and Frieza's beams don't have the constant speed of 2.99x10^8m/s. They're much faster at this point despite being light.
When the character is actively changing the velocity of said light, anything is an assumption without proof.
Also like Tata said, Tien's taiyoken and Frieza's beams don't have the constant speed of 2.99x10^8m/s. They're much faster at this point despite being light.
- 2,938
- 365
If the substance is confirmed to be light, then I would say "Relativistic" is as intuitive of a rating for light manipulation (barring context, which is important, not every light attack is light speed, one step at a time) if light slows down when it's "bending". As, again, unless the science ***** with me once more, the idea that it would MASSIVELY decrease in speed doesn't seem plausible.
But am I wrong doe?
But am I wrong doe?
- 10,758
- 6,491
The "anything is an assumption without proof" statement is frankly ridiculous in this context.
Are you really telling me that "User will pick the fastest speed his attacks can travel at" is too much of an assumption?
Are you really telling me that "User will pick the fastest speed his attacks can travel at" is too much of an assumption?
- 167,679
- 76,256
Well, I am considerably less against light being allowed to bend, if the reasons for this have been properly clarified, than against light being allowed to be tangible, but again, DontTalk is considerably better suited for evaluating this than I am.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I actually think I remember Assalt speaking on this topic once.
According to him, even producing light capable of pushing a human away requires the source to generate tier 6 amounts of energy
I would say approach this a bit like the mass energy standards. You would require significant or explicit proof to treat a beam as real light if it has that kind of physicality, otherwise it would just be considering the same as a generic energy beam
According to him, even producing light capable of pushing a human away requires the source to generate tier 6 amounts of energy
I would say approach this a bit like the mass energy standards. You would require significant or explicit proof to treat a beam as real light if it has that kind of physicality, otherwise it would just be considering the same as a generic energy beam
- 31,372
- 34,118
Light shouldn't bend naturally, and people with the power to bend light don't have lightspeed attack porency. But let's say there's legit proof that a laser is lightspeed, but someone with light manipulation is able to bend it telekinetically. ESU Star Wars characters do similar feats to that. Lasers that are shown and/or stated to be even faster than light are also a different issue altogether.
DonTalk was already contacted, so we can wait for him.
DonTalk was already contacted, so we can wait for him.
- 2,938
- 365
Frieza's beams aren't light. That's the first thing, and I covered why the statements for it being so would NOT be enough under what I would be suggesting. Iirc, Piccolo calling death beams flashes of light is more a testiment to its speed, the fact that Ki is a kind of mystical plasma substance that is most definitely not light or lasers, and that guidebook statement is another colloquial use of "beam of light". I am of the opinion that we need more direct statements for things like this, otherwise "laser beams" and "flash of light" are enough to make any verse that has Ki blasts or Energy Manip to be light speed. THAT is too lax. As I said b4 we need the statements to be clear or otherwise heavily imply the substance is real light via stating it is light speed or saying something similar to "I use real light/photons/sunlight" Or "My Light Attack refracts from a prism,".
As for the change of velocity thing, it still sounds absurd when you try to say that a change in direction from a laser that's otherwise light speed when going forward is then likely in any scenario, using any logic or physics, to be anywhere outside of the Rel range, because;
A. Why would they purposefully make the beam bend that slow?
B. Even if it bends that slow, when it completes the change in direction, it should return to normal speed because it's going in a straight line, otherwise, why would they bother?
C. It seems extremely out there for light that behaves like light does in any other scenario to suddenly shift in speed massively when light bending irl wouldn't shift that drastically and stay within Rel ranges. The assumption that the character WOULD and IS purposefully slowing the blast down beyond what regular light would do is the bigger leap in logic than the simple intuitive "Relativistic because it turned a bit". You would have to argue that light realistically decreases in speed that much when bending irl, or substantiate the claim that they are making it go that slow on purpose if light wouldn't realistically go that slow.
Think of a car driving at full speed. Now I want to take a left turn since i'm On nascar. I want to win the race, so i'm going as fast as possible, but I have to turn left. Me turning left, I would lose speed because I have to slow down to change direction, either because i'm Looking at how fast I am from one direction— meaning me going diagonal to the left is slower than me going straight— or because i'm sacrificing a bit of speed to turn due to some phenomena I don't know. Regardless, I don't go from 150 MPH to 5 MPH when I turn. I would lose speed, but not THAT much. Assuming i'm closer to 150 than 5 isn't a big leap, and is actually the only rational thing, right?
As for the change of velocity thing, it still sounds absurd when you try to say that a change in direction from a laser that's otherwise light speed when going forward is then likely in any scenario, using any logic or physics, to be anywhere outside of the Rel range, because;
A. Why would they purposefully make the beam bend that slow?
B. Even if it bends that slow, when it completes the change in direction, it should return to normal speed because it's going in a straight line, otherwise, why would they bother?
C. It seems extremely out there for light that behaves like light does in any other scenario to suddenly shift in speed massively when light bending irl wouldn't shift that drastically and stay within Rel ranges. The assumption that the character WOULD and IS purposefully slowing the blast down beyond what regular light would do is the bigger leap in logic than the simple intuitive "Relativistic because it turned a bit". You would have to argue that light realistically decreases in speed that much when bending irl, or substantiate the claim that they are making it go that slow on purpose if light wouldn't realistically go that slow.
Think of a car driving at full speed. Now I want to take a left turn since i'm On nascar. I want to win the race, so i'm going as fast as possible, but I have to turn left. Me turning left, I would lose speed because I have to slow down to change direction, either because i'm Looking at how fast I am from one direction— meaning me going diagonal to the left is slower than me going straight— or because i'm sacrificing a bit of speed to turn due to some phenomena I don't know. Regardless, I don't go from 150 MPH to 5 MPH when I turn. I would lose speed, but not THAT much. Assuming i'm closer to 150 than 5 isn't a big leap, and is actually the only rational thing, right?
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #101
I completely agree with Andy on this point that saying a user of light-based attacks will sudenly not choose to have their moves travel at the fastest speeds they can operate at, when facing opponents that they'll clearly not do this against, is absurd and is an even bigger assumption than them going with common sense and going with everything they got.Andytrenom said:
Unless the light manipulator is purposely doing such, like say facing someone in training and deliberately holding their capabilities back, the default assumption until otherwise comes should be that they are shooting their attacks at their top speed.
- 11,134
- 14,116
Uhh. The speed of photon is fixed and it always travels in a straight path. If it fails to adhere to these rules then either it's not photon or a character is able to control its movement and speed according to his will.
In case of the latter, it totally depends on the character's limitations. He might only be able to propagate it at the speed of sound at max while fully controlling it. Or he might be able to propagate it at MFTL speeds. But there's literally no reason to assume it will still be SoL, because it ceases to be your standard light.
That's the extent of my opinion on the matter. I'll let DontTalk say his share now.
In case of the latter, it totally depends on the character's limitations. He might only be able to propagate it at the speed of sound at max while fully controlling it. Or he might be able to propagate it at MFTL speeds. But there's literally no reason to assume it will still be SoL, because it ceases to be your standard light.
That's the extent of my opinion on the matter. I'll let DontTalk say his share now.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Genuinely curious, is it the speed of a photon that is fixed or is the maximum speed of light? I am not sure how light slows down in various mediums if it's the first one.
- 2,938
- 365
@AKM
Then that makes sense, at first glance, but then you'd have to assume the character (who, for the sake of the example, has confirmed light speed attacks) isn't trying to turn it at the fastest attack speed they have, and/or they don't have control over the attack's speed when actively manipulating it, which needs to be confirmed to be true rather than assumed needlessly. We shouldn't assume a character's attack speed as a result of the substance they use is SOLELY because of the substance they use, because that ADDS a limitation to a character that isn't explicitly stated.
Example explaination: Ah'Tur, a light manipulator; "The only reason my attacks are light speed is because i'm using the substance 'light', which moves at around 1c, to attack. I can't actually make my attacks go that speed."
We don't add weaknesses that aren't there, just as we don't add strengths. That clarification would need to be there explicitly, otherwise we're using headcanon to draw limits about a character's abilities when we lack information on their mechanics to make claims this precise. We usually assume a character has control over their power when they... control it... To arbitrarily claim that this character isn't normally in full control of the speed of their attack with nothing more than a guess is exactly what you accuse us of doing it seems.
Things might be different if we have the character's ability confirmed to operate as light in many aspects, is called light, but is never explicitly stated to move at light speed though...?
Even then, like I said, you'd be more adding that variable to the situation (one that's likely not accounted for) than taking the most simple inferences. It also, again, assumes that they're not responsible for the speed of their attack when it's linear due to its nature— in this case the power being light in the first place would make it light speed against— or rather irrelevant to their will.
Which needs to be stated, otherwise we assume that they're choosing to push it as fast as they are firing it- since the alternative seems to be a more unique mechanic of a power that needs to be clarified rather than actually typical of any form of elemental manipulation— again, adding a mechanic, trait, or weakness to the character without reason. We wouldn't do the same with other powers.
Fire, energy/Ki, and earth manipulators are able to control the movement and speed of their substances according to their will. Even if electricity and light typically have defined speeds, why would we assume that their users have no native control over the movement and speed of those substances because of that when that's not at all consistent in fiction enough for us to even consider it and blatantly goes against what the power is supposed to be, as you stated that Light Manipulators would have this ability, meaning we all agree on what substance manipulation can do?
Let alone consistent with either your nor any others' understandings of superpowers. By this logic, Fire manipulators can't ever control what their fire burns, or water manipulators can't ever keep things dry even after being hit with water, as these powers also have innate traits like these— although these cases at least need to be proven positive to be true, as again, we try our best not to assume things without at least a "good enough" reason to. Percy Jackson would like to have a word with you about the latter, as he's swam in water without even getting wet due to his water manipulation.
It would be best if we ignored that then...? Not because you don't have any basis in science, but because, besides adding things with little ability to comment on one way or the other and assuming they exist with no reason, this small hang up would be the one thing to destroy every other conclusive piece of evidence— say it's light in every way but the bending and has no speed statement— would we say it's not real light then, even though it's been directly stated to be and functions to be so? I disagree with that assessment, especially when we're looking for extremely specific variables that are hard to come by in most contexts and making the assumption that there's a difference between the speed of their substance (light or electricity) being the product of their power itself or that speed being something they choose— or some unique mechanic of the power that explains away the bending...
I dislike the idea if this is gonna be used to delegitimize hard light substance statements and/or override the functions that make it opperate as light, as we can neither gain this information reliably, nor should we assume this information is relevant given how all other superpowers work and are treated, and it's one point vs 3 pieces in favor of it.
If it's stated point blank period to be light EXPLICITLY, it's probably light, and doubly if it does light things like reflecting off of mirrors. I'm of the opinion these standards are best used when the light statements are vague and/or lack context to make the light based statements viable, or when there are no light explanations in general and all we see are blasts of shiny things.
Then that makes sense, at first glance, but then you'd have to assume the character (who, for the sake of the example, has confirmed light speed attacks) isn't trying to turn it at the fastest attack speed they have, and/or they don't have control over the attack's speed when actively manipulating it, which needs to be confirmed to be true rather than assumed needlessly. We shouldn't assume a character's attack speed as a result of the substance they use is SOLELY because of the substance they use, because that ADDS a limitation to a character that isn't explicitly stated.
Example explaination: Ah'Tur, a light manipulator; "The only reason my attacks are light speed is because i'm using the substance 'light', which moves at around 1c, to attack. I can't actually make my attacks go that speed."
We don't add weaknesses that aren't there, just as we don't add strengths. That clarification would need to be there explicitly, otherwise we're using headcanon to draw limits about a character's abilities when we lack information on their mechanics to make claims this precise. We usually assume a character has control over their power when they... control it... To arbitrarily claim that this character isn't normally in full control of the speed of their attack with nothing more than a guess is exactly what you accuse us of doing it seems.
Things might be different if we have the character's ability confirmed to operate as light in many aspects, is called light, but is never explicitly stated to move at light speed though...?
Even then, like I said, you'd be more adding that variable to the situation (one that's likely not accounted for) than taking the most simple inferences. It also, again, assumes that they're not responsible for the speed of their attack when it's linear due to its nature— in this case the power being light in the first place would make it light speed against— or rather irrelevant to their will.
Which needs to be stated, otherwise we assume that they're choosing to push it as fast as they are firing it- since the alternative seems to be a more unique mechanic of a power that needs to be clarified rather than actually typical of any form of elemental manipulation— again, adding a mechanic, trait, or weakness to the character without reason. We wouldn't do the same with other powers.
Fire, energy/Ki, and earth manipulators are able to control the movement and speed of their substances according to their will. Even if electricity and light typically have defined speeds, why would we assume that their users have no native control over the movement and speed of those substances because of that when that's not at all consistent in fiction enough for us to even consider it and blatantly goes against what the power is supposed to be, as you stated that Light Manipulators would have this ability, meaning we all agree on what substance manipulation can do?
Let alone consistent with either your nor any others' understandings of superpowers. By this logic, Fire manipulators can't ever control what their fire burns, or water manipulators can't ever keep things dry even after being hit with water, as these powers also have innate traits like these— although these cases at least need to be proven positive to be true, as again, we try our best not to assume things without at least a "good enough" reason to. Percy Jackson would like to have a word with you about the latter, as he's swam in water without even getting wet due to his water manipulation.
It would be best if we ignored that then...? Not because you don't have any basis in science, but because, besides adding things with little ability to comment on one way or the other and assuming they exist with no reason, this small hang up would be the one thing to destroy every other conclusive piece of evidence— say it's light in every way but the bending and has no speed statement— would we say it's not real light then, even though it's been directly stated to be and functions to be so? I disagree with that assessment, especially when we're looking for extremely specific variables that are hard to come by in most contexts and making the assumption that there's a difference between the speed of their substance (light or electricity) being the product of their power itself or that speed being something they choose— or some unique mechanic of the power that explains away the bending...
I dislike the idea if this is gonna be used to delegitimize hard light substance statements and/or override the functions that make it opperate as light, as we can neither gain this information reliably, nor should we assume this information is relevant given how all other superpowers work and are treated, and it's one point vs 3 pieces in favor of it.
If it's stated point blank period to be light EXPLICITLY, it's probably light, and doubly if it does light things like reflecting off of mirrors. I'm of the opinion these standards are best used when the light statements are vague and/or lack context to make the light based statements viable, or when there are no light explanations in general and all we see are blasts of shiny things.
- 10,873
- 12,277
Well, first things first. Fulfilling something on the list of light not being real doesn't disqualify under all circumstances, but it means you need stronger evidence to counterbalance.
-Does not bend: At the point you are magically influencing your lightbeam you have demonstrated that its movement behavior is not entirely determined by its nature and as such the burden of proof grows. Even worse: Lightbeams that bend without the character having shown such magical abilities, but just for the rule of cool.
It is not assuming that light manipulation doesn't exist, it means that at the moment you use light manipulation to influence the movement behaviour of light there is no necessary correlation between the nature and movement of light anymore.
-tangible: Yes, but only if they have demonstrated a non-physical interaction ability with light. Being able to non-physically interact with souls is something entirely different. Likewise being able to interact with plasma or gas isn't even real non-physical interaction, as one can much more physically interact with those than with light.
Otherwise assuming they have non-physical interaction with light will straight up increase your burden of proof, since then you not only have the burden of giving proof of that being real light, but also have to proof them having a superpower not yet shown at the same time.
-Does not bend: At the point you are magically influencing your lightbeam you have demonstrated that its movement behavior is not entirely determined by its nature and as such the burden of proof grows. Even worse: Lightbeams that bend without the character having shown such magical abilities, but just for the rule of cool.
It is not assuming that light manipulation doesn't exist, it means that at the moment you use light manipulation to influence the movement behaviour of light there is no necessary correlation between the nature and movement of light anymore.
-tangible: Yes, but only if they have demonstrated a non-physical interaction ability with light. Being able to non-physically interact with souls is something entirely different. Likewise being able to interact with plasma or gas isn't even real non-physical interaction, as one can much more physically interact with those than with light.
Otherwise assuming they have non-physical interaction with light will straight up increase your burden of proof, since then you not only have the burden of giving proof of that being real light, but also have to proof them having a superpower not yet shown at the same time.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
- 16,912
- 7,361
I think I agree most with Don'tTalk here. If you're able to influence the direction of your beams I don't see why you can't be influencing the speed, and the bending of light IRL does change its speed within the medium it refracts in.
As for the second thing, NPI's not an absolute blanket.
As for the second thing, NPI's not an absolute blanket.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Once again, does light bending require the speed to be dropped to the point it may not be anywhere near SoL anymore?
If it does, then not assuming light speed is fine. But if the argument is that the user can change the light's speed to his will, then that doesn't work, because the user deliberately slowing down the speed of his own attacks is still something that only makes sense in very few scenarios and so SoL or around that range for the beam would be the most logical assumption
If it does, then not assuming light speed is fine. But if the argument is that the user can change the light's speed to his will, then that doesn't work, because the user deliberately slowing down the speed of his own attacks is still something that only makes sense in very few scenarios and so SoL or around that range for the beam would be the most logical assumption
- 31,372
- 34,118
I think DonTalk simply said that people who often bend light often manipulate it in a way in which it's no longer light speed. He's not quite saying it automatically disproves it not being lightspeed anymore. Some characters could simply redirect it at the same speed as if it hit an invisible mirror. And some lightbenders are also able to make light even faster than actual light.
I also think DonTalk's points are very good.
I also think DonTalk's points are very good.
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #112
>-tangible: Yes, but only if they have demonstrated a non-physical interaction ability with light. Being able to non-physically interact with souls is something entirely different. Likewise being able to interact with plasma or gas isn't even real non-physical interaction, as one can much more physically interact with those than with light.
With all due respect because DonTalks points are very reasonable, I have to completely disagree on this point here.
What exactly is the difference between non-physically interacting with souls and non-interacting with light? Or any other intangible force? Both are intangible, and we don't rate Non-Physical Interaction with "different levels" of intangibility, so what exactly is the difference here if you can explain? The way I see it, intangibility is intangibility, there's no reason why someone would be able to interact with one intangible force and not another.
Souls are not "more intangible" or "less intangible" then light is. Just as light isn't more or less intangible than Gas is. It makes no sense.
With all due respect because DonTalks points are very reasonable, I have to completely disagree on this point here.
What exactly is the difference between non-physically interacting with souls and non-interacting with light? Or any other intangible force? Both are intangible, and we don't rate Non-Physical Interaction with "different levels" of intangibility, so what exactly is the difference here if you can explain? The way I see it, intangibility is intangibility, there's no reason why someone would be able to interact with one intangible force and not another.
Souls are not "more intangible" or "less intangible" then light is. Just as light isn't more or less intangible than Gas is. It makes no sense.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Sorry but this is very, very wrong. Light is energy that cannot be normally held or touched hence can be considered "intangible" but it can still be blocked by physical objects and interacted with through normal physical means.
A soul is a metaphysical concept that isn't even supposed to have a physical presence and cannot normally be stopped by just putting a normal wall in its way
They are such wildly different concepts and suggesting that their form of intangibility isn't different because the site hasn't made a distinction between them is frankly dumb to me.
A soul is a metaphysical concept that isn't even supposed to have a physical presence and cannot normally be stopped by just putting a normal wall in its way
They are such wildly different concepts and suggesting that their form of intangibility isn't different because the site hasn't made a distinction between them is frankly dumb to me.
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #114
Sorry, who are you responding to here?Andytrenom said:
The quote box is completely blank.
- 10,758
- 6,491
You
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #116
>Light is energy that cannot be normally held or touched hence can be considered "intangible" but it can still be blocked by physical objects and interacted with through normal physical means.
A soul is a metaphysical concept that isn't even supposed to have a physical presence and cannot normally be putting a normal wall in its way.
Based on your response here, your implying that light is basically "less intangible" than a soul is since the former can be interacted with in some instances while the latter cannot without the ability to hit souls. Am I reading this right?
A soul is a metaphysical concept that isn't even supposed to have a physical presence and cannot normally be putting a normal wall in its way.
Based on your response here, your implying that light is basically "less intangible" than a soul is since the former can be interacted with in some instances while the latter cannot without the ability to hit souls. Am I reading this right?
- 10,758
- 6,491
Yes.
- 10,758
- 6,491
I did agree to "less" but maybe different works better
- 16,959
- 4,855
- Thread starter
- #119
In that case, that would support my earlier point when replying to DontTalk even more.
Like you said and admitted to, light is "less intangible" than souls are. And hitting souls/non-corpoerals is the most basic and common form of Non-Physical Interaction we have. So if a character is able to non-physically interact with souls, thats even more of a reason to say they can also non-physically interact with light. You cant go from hitting something thats entirely one thing to not being able to hit something thats less tha.
Or in this case, if I can hit a soul, then something thats "less intangible" should be perfectly within my capability to hit as well. The only thing i'd need to demonstrate is hitting something that is "more intangible" then what i've shown to hit, which would be souls.
>They are such wildly different concepts and suggesting that their form of intangibility isn't different because the site hasn't made a distinction between them is frankly dumb to me.
Then this is something that also should be addressed because, currently, we don't treat intangible forces as different from each other as you and I specified here. Its just treated "intangible" all around. But this is something that needs to be done in a different thread.
Like you said and admitted to, light is "less intangible" than souls are. And hitting souls/non-corpoerals is the most basic and common form of Non-Physical Interaction we have. So if a character is able to non-physically interact with souls, thats even more of a reason to say they can also non-physically interact with light. You cant go from hitting something thats entirely one thing to not being able to hit something thats less tha.
Or in this case, if I can hit a soul, then something thats "less intangible" should be perfectly within my capability to hit as well. The only thing i'd need to demonstrate is hitting something that is "more intangible" then what i've shown to hit, which would be souls.
>They are such wildly different concepts and suggesting that their form of intangibility isn't different because the site hasn't made a distinction between them is frankly dumb to me.
Then this is something that also should be addressed because, currently, we don't treat intangible forces as different from each other as you and I specified here. Its just treated "intangible" all around. But this is something that needs to be done in a different thread.
- 10,758
- 6,491
Me saying "yes" was just me being lazy honestly. If I were to write a more detailed response I would probably call them 'different kinds of intangibility' instead
Similar threads
