Light Speed Standard Revision

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT

Okay. That seems fine. Thanks again.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Very sorry to be getting to this late. I was also busy for a few days to deal with IRL stuff. Im replying to DT's points now.

>There is no difference between a real light technique that isn't lightspeed and a non-real light technique. Any light that isn't lightspeed is supernatural non-real light, as real light is always lightspeed.

This is exactly why there would be a difference though, as I pointed out before. As you said, if the technique needs to still be proven to be moving at lightspeed, then its likely that they never had lightspeed showings for said technique to begin with. Which would mean that the technique was previously never light speed.

Which returns me to my point on how the above would only be applicable to techniques that were never treated as real light. But it would be a completely different story if the technique in question was previously treated to being real light.

>Missing my point. The argument was that light manipulators can influence the speed of light they control and therefore should be able to use lightspeed light. However, if they do this there is no reason to assume the base speed of that to be the speed of light.

And I have to ask, why can't we assume this? Because, as pointed out earlier, characters who influence the speed of their light beams to be slower than the speed of light would only be doing this action in situations where they would purposely slow down the speed of their beams by intentionally influencing them to be slower. Like for instance, if a light manipulator who fires light speed beams was facing off against a fodder in their verse, so to hold back against them, they influence their moves to be slower than light speed so that they dont blitz the fodder opponent.

The problem with this is that characters would almost never do this. If not having an actual purpose or reason to slow down their beams below light speed, characters would be using their attacks to their full capacity in speed when fighting opponents or enemies as that is common sense. A character wont purposely lower their attacks speed when facing someone they are trying to defeat or kill. If holding back, it would be in a situation that happens once in a blue moon.

So my question on this point is why cant we assume the base speeds of the attacks light manipulators control to be the speed of light when 95% of the time they would have no reason to purposely lower them?

>Second, you confuse the burden of proof. Since the burden of proof is on showing that it's lightspeed, it's not that a phenomenon has to necessarily imply that the speed isn't the speed of light, it just has to show that it doesn't need to be the speed of light.

You lost me on this point here. I am not understanding what you are saying when you say "confusing the burden of proof". The burden of proof to prove a light-based move is light speed is a definite done deal, no one is contesting this. What I said before was that the burden of proof should be on the person who is claiming the light based move is slower than the speed of light when it bends since bending light doesnt automatically make it slower. It can be either slower or faster, it's not entirely one or the other. So if you can, explain this point a bit more for me please.

>Likewise there can be counter evidence of the light acting unrealistic. And light bending on its own within the same medium is definitely a behaviour that is unrealistic for light.

Wait a second here. When you say "and light bending on its own within the same medium, are you referring to the light-based move itself bending on its own or the user of the move bending it according to their will? Because only the latter is what im arguing shouldnt be a disqualification, the former is 100% fine as a disqualification. I'll be a bit more specific so that you'll see what I mean.

if I were to launch a light based move, and the move bends on its own without me doing anything to make it bend, then that is a legitimate unrealistic disqualification against the move being real-light since it was able to bend with no influence from me to do that. It was bending all on its own, which real light should not be able to do. The argument here that im making is that light-based moves bending should not be a disqualification if it bends according to the user's will specifically. I never had a problem with the move being unrealistic light if it just bended outside the users control.

>The mistake you make in your example is that you interact with water and ice via the same mechanism and that there is no case where a character that can interact with ice could not interact with water either.

So you are saying that someone who can interact with ice can also interact with water then? If so, i'd like to see examples of this please because I have never heard of this being a thing until now.

 

[Wokistan]

I can go interact with water just by stirring it around with my hand. You don't need to be special for that, the mechanism for both is just physical contact

 

[Amexim]

To say that a real light technique can never not be light speed is a refutation of any other form of light manipulation possible. That blatantly rejects superpowers right there.

As for the speed of Substance manipulated being tied to the user exclusively, this also makes no sense to me. A manipulator of sound or electricity would have an easier time letting sound or electricity move at its natural speed because letting it do so is to allow the sound or speed to move with even less of the user's influence. To argue that substances suddenly have to always be moved at the speed of the user's will or capability and that it cannot ever he argued that a user of a substance's basic speed of their attack matches the natural speed of the substance that acts without their influence or with as little of their influence as possible is weird.

What makes more sense than saying that light, sound, or electricity's speed is SOLELY based on the user of the substance, rather than partially both, or that the user cannot make their substance act like the substance would naturally is absurd. It argues that it requires effort to let the substance being manipulated act normally. Say I manipulated water, this logic would say that I have to actively allow water to flow down like it would if I am not touching it.

This is what I mean by assuming new restrictions and weaknesses. Instead of doing what we do for sound, electricity, water, or fire, and saying that the user can't let their substance operate naturally to any extent whilst assuming control, including the speeds, makes no sense. Why would a sound manipulator's attacks, while bending sound vibrations, automatically not be able to let the sound retain its normal speed when allowing sound to retain its natural aspects is an application of relinquishing at least in part the abnormal affects of their power. And to say that a user couldn't do any of this whilst manipulating other factors and saying that if you manipulate one piece of the substance, you're doing it all?

Nah.

Edit: There's no reason why I couldn't make my electricity move as fast as it would naturally, as letting it work as it would in certain ways WITHOUT my influence is actually me trying to lessen my control over it in ways, which, I stress, makes my power do less things and less work and the normal physics of the substance do more work and have more involvement in things. I think it is actually perfectly reasonable and should be the default position to assume that someone who can manipulate a substance can manipulate it in some ways while simultaneously allowing it to function in the ways it naturally does if they wish, because, not only is attempting to make it function abnormally an application of the power in certain areas and removing that application and making it act normally demonstrates that the power is the reason that the substance is acting abnormally and therefore it acting naturally is evidence of the absence of application in some areas, but we see characters being able to manipulate substances whilst those substances retain their natural properties. Like electric manipulators controlling electronics to do certain things. So it's not crazy to say that it requires more effort, more involvement, and more skill to make a substance work abnormally than it does for a substance to act naturally. And therefore, a user has to actively make the substance slower than normal.

 

[Wokistan]

"To say that a real light technique can never not be light speed is a refutation of any other form of light manipulation possible. That blatantly rejects superpowers right there. "

Those superpowers with light at different speed just don't use "real" light. Simple. The speed is part of the definition of real light iirc.

This in turn functions as a response to some of your other points, like the whole "As for the speed of Substance manipulated being tied to the user exclusively...". If they aren't shown to manipulate the substance in the same conditions as to how it actually is we shouldn't assume they can. All you'd have to go off of is just a title.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I can go interact with water just by stirring it around with my hand. You don't need to be special for that, the mechanism for both is just physical contact

....putting it like that, fair enough.

Still, my point in general should still hold true even if the example is just flawed.

 

[Amexim]

Woki, read the edit. I added that before I refreshed and saw your points.

 

[Amexim]

And as for that last part, electricity operating as electricity does while being bended doesn't make it not real electricity. Same for sound. Should be the same for light. Bending isn't enough to disprove something stated as light to be light, because the same applies for other substances. Electricity doesn't do tons of weird shit like turning into a sharp sword, that doesn't make it not electricity.

 

[Antvasima]

Just a note that the staff have already largely agreed with DontTalk, so it is extremely unlikely that this will pass, and that in order to get him to reply you will likely have to make a request on his message wall. He keeps himself informed via email notifications, so he likely unsubscribes to actual discussion threads.

 

[Amexim]

It's 3 staff on our side vs 5 or so on yours. It's not at all one sided enough to say that our efforts are futile, especially when we're still arguing.

 

[Antvasima]

Actually there are at least 6 staff on DontTalk's side, and the ones on yours don't seem committed, or at least they do not comment here.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, again, in order to push through actual wiki policy changes, there must be a firm staff consensus for them. That is not going to happen here.

As such, I would appreciate if both of you permanently drop this subject, so we can focus on other issues instead.

 

[Amexim]

You'd think you'd get more staff members to be here by highlighting it. But fine. It doesn't matter. I'm done, just like you want.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Considering how important this is, I see know issue with it being highlighted tbh.

 

[Antvasima]

Highlighting the thread would cause it to go out of control with the number of comments, and turn unmanageable for DontTalk, who only has the time to reply sporadically.

However, you can message other additional administrators to comment here if you wish,

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Well, I suppose you could make it a Staff Discussion, since the staff opinion was stated to be more important here, and it would mitigate a large portion of the work load.

 

[Antvasima]

That is too late at this point, but again, you should feel free to message several administrators and discussion moderators, so we get some help to make a conclusive decision about this.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

"characters are simply capable of manipulating their light based moves"

If the character in question had shown this ability in the past, sure; but there's no reason we'd want to assume the character can manipulate light when they hadn't previously demonstrated the ability.

I'm leaning more against this than for. While I get we throw authorial intent out of the window we shouldn't treat light realistically if it isn't portrayed realistically.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for the input Dargoo.

 

[Amexim]

Dargoo, if a character is firing a light beam from their superpowers, that is by definition light manipulation. What exactly would you think is happening? If you're saying "You need to demonstrate that you can bend your light beforehand." Then that already is an arbitrary line to draw when we don't do the same for other substances.

Ugh. Just close the thread Ant.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Dargoo, if a character is firing a light beam from their superpowers, that is by definition light manipulation. What exactly would you think is happening? If you're saying "You need to demonstrate that you can bend your light beforehand." Then that already is an arbitrary line to draw when we don't do the same for other substances.
Ugh. Just close the thread Ant.

We don't do it for other substances mainly because they are typically treated realistically in fiction. Whereas the speed of light is too often not even considered when someone dodges a light-like beam. There should be a stringent standard to prove the light is realistic before we apply realistic speeds and properties.

You also need to prove it's light, first, otherwise it can be an unremarkable beam of supernatural energy.

I mean, there's administrators on both sides of this argument; it seems there's some discussion to be had.

 

[Amexim]

That last part is what I think too, but Ant wants it closed, so can you do that plz? Don't want to worry him.

 

[Amexim]

And also, we were going from the assumption that the bending is used to "disprove" its light, instead, if I recall correctly. And if it's not good enough evidence on its own in the face of any evidence to suggest it is light and photons and shit, then it's kind of useless as a rule, because positive or negative, light can still bend. It bending isn't a good sign with no info, but with info of it being light, it's not an argument killer by any means as it could be explained by light manipulation.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

light can still bend

Light only really "bends" in the traditional sense through Gravitational Lensing or a large amount of refractions that give the illusion of bending, both of which are rather uncommon in fictional portrayals of it.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

"characters are simply capable of manipulating their light based moves"
If the character in question had shown this ability in the past, sure; but there's no reason we'd want to assume the character can manipulate light when they hadn't previously demonstrated the ability.

Just so my point and argument doesnt get misinterpreted and disagreed with based on that, Dargoo Faust is 100% right when talking about this.

"Simply capable of manipulating their light based moves" would only speak for characters who have shown to manipulate their attacks in any way before.

 

[Amexim]

Lightning doesn't turn into knives either, but that doesn't make it not real electricity. Both of these can be accomplished through superpowers.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

My point is that you should show the characters in question have a superpower that can let them make the stuff act that way.

Even then, if it's just supernatural light they created themselves, and not externally manipulated, why should we assume it moves at light speed when it doesn't follow other properties of light?

 

[Amexim]

My point is that you should show the characters in question have a superpower that can let them make the stuff act that way.

Even then, if it's just supernatural light they created themselves, and not externally manipulated, why should we assume it moves at light speed when it doesn't follow other properties of light?

The first part is my point too. If the characters have a superpower than can make it act in that way, then it bending doesn't negate enough to be a relevant factor if we have other info to support the light being light.

2nd part. Supernatural and magic light, would be treated like supernatural and magical lightning. But if it's real light or lightning that is being used by a superpower, it's fair game. The difference between manipulation of water already present and the creation of it or something.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Well yeah, I'm not saying it isn't. But that would be them manipulating what is already proven to be realistic light, not shooting a nondescript beam out of their eyes.

I guess? You'd still have to prove that what they're manipulating is realistic light.

 

[Amexim]

We're not talking about nondescript beams though, I don't think. We're talking about beans that are called light, that bend.

And that's what everything else is for besides it bending.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

We're not talking about nondescript beams though, I don't think. We're talking about beans that are called light, that bend.

And that's what everything else is for besides it bending.

If the light is bending because a character is manipulating it, yes. We wouldn't assume the character is manipulating it unless they've demonstrated the ability before, though.

 

[Amexim]

Of course not. But it's kinda grey for me because light manipulation inherently implies that you could in the first place manipulate it how you wished, but if you need more for stuff that's cool.

 

[SomebodyData]

I agree with Dargoo and DT here, put me as "Against".

 

[Yobo_Blue]

"characters are simply capable of manipulating their light based moves"

If the character in question had shown this ability in the past, sure; but there's no reason we'd want to assume the character can manipulate light when they hadn't previously demonstrated the ability.

I'm leaning more against this than for. While I get we throw authorial intent out of the window we shouldn't treat light realistically if it isn't portrayed realistically.

How do we determine when they've shown the capability before if we're assuming those beams aren't real light?

 

[Amexim]

Wait, Somebody, because now Dargoo seems to partially agree with some of what I am saying. So where do you stand?

Please refrain from simply saying "I agree with x" and argue as well.

 

[SomebodyData]

I agree with x

@Yobo I believe Dargoo was trying to say that they've shown the ability to manipulate proven light (ie external) and made it bend before creating artifical life and making that bend.