The speed of light for Avada Kedavra

[Hypertornado099]

I don't know where you see that it says Voldemort say the spell. If Harry had heard this, they would have written to us about it in a text, as was the case before. But this is not said anywhere. Harry only saw Tom's lips move.

Them not mentioning it doesn't mean it didn't happen

 

[Qawsedf234]

Reading the thread I'm against the proposal. Even being generous and accepting some statements as qualifiers, AK has to many things going against it for a SoL rating.

So put me in disagree.

 

[Dweller_Of_Dreams]

Yeah, put me in disagree too.

 

[Tllmbrg]

Hard disagree from me too

 

[DragonZeroNova]

The reason I didn't take into account anything from the movies is because they're so wildly different that other aspects would instantly fail them. In fact, in one of your comments you stated to disregard what was in the movies because they weren't book accurate, but in the reply to mine you use movie evidence instead of book evidence. The rainbow circles do not exist in the books. If you prove that AV diffuses liquid in the books, I can give you one point, but that still won't be enough. The statues (As far as I remember) were both from the MoM entrance, and they were all gold. The fact that the Patronus is also described as light is not a point in your favour, but a point in mine that light is not meant to be accurate. Just being called light does not in fact mean that it is being described as being made out of photons, especially by a reliable source (I don't think Harry Potter has even passed non-magical elementary school and Hogwarts doesn't teach "muggle sciences")
TLDR AV scores 0/5 to generously 0.5/5 on light requirements, disagree with putting book AV or movie AV as light.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

If the magic wand trembled, the beam would still be straight. It would just change direction. I can't believe I have to explain something this simple. Try taking a flashlight and shake it. See if the beam of light becomes jagged

No, it wouldn't be smooth, because the spell comes from a wand that is shaking. And no, you gave the wrong example, because the light from the flashlight is not concentrated, it just scatters in the air, so its beam will be straight. In the case of a laser, this will not work.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Except that makes no sense since in that case it either wouldn't change much at all (like the light through a window) or would split into different colors... Which is what I would've said had it not been for the fact that green light cannot diffract into a rainbow, only white light can since it is the combo of all light frequencies. Green only diffracts into green, search up green light diffraction. It also looks very different.

No, green light is emitted from the laser, but the laser itself is white due to the fact that all the energy is concentrated in one light wave. I do not understand what you are trying to prove, given that diffraction is STILL present in those screenshots that I sent above. You are simply denying the fact that rainbow light waves are clearly visible in the screenshots

I think that might be a problem for you since I just went over all your screenshots, zoomed in on every one of them and none of them have rainbow effects, only light waves with the same color.

It's strange, but I don't have any diseases related to flowers. I can clearly see rainbow circles around Avada Kedavra. And yes, this is the diffraction of a light beam.

I think, as I will later say again, we are confusing movies and books now. Books have the metal statues and suits of armor, the movies don't. You can't really use the same arguments for both since both mediums contradict each other.

You absolutely cannot claim that there is stone armor in the movies. This is literally not mentioned anywhere. And book proofs can be used as additional materials for films, because so far this is a single canon.

Except there ain't no fog. For it to have this effect with fog you'd need so much fog we'd barely see harry or voldemort (or see the scene from like 50 meters away).

Can you throw other examples when a spell blows someone or something up? I think not. This could have been done purely for the beauty effect.

Kek

cheburek

Yet again, you're confusing books and movies, which have very different interpretations of the event.

You have no evidence to back up your opinion. I have

 

[Hypertornado099]

No, it wouldn't be smooth, because the spell comes from a wand that is shaking. And no, you gave the wrong example, because the light from the flashlight is not concentrated, it just scatters in the air, so its beam will be straight. In the case of a laser, this will not work.

Ok, imagine you take a laser pointer and vibrate it. Would the beam not be straight? Would it appear jagged?

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Of course, this is not Avada Kedavra, but the spells in question are described as jets of light, just like the Killing Curse. It seems strange to say that "jet of light" shouldn't be taken literally for most spells, but that it should for Avada Kedavra. My point is that even though other spells are described as "jets of light", they still aren't meant to be real light, making it likely that the same applies to Avada Kedavra, which is described in the same way.

I replied in another message about similar spells (The Patronus consists of light).

The quotes show spells, described as "jets of light", bounce off tree trunks, push people and objects, blow things up, shatter glass, ricochet off each other and even bounce off Hagrid. This sounds nothing like how real light would behave.

It could be a real enchanted light. The statement that if it is a magical light and therefore cannot travel at the speed of real light should work the other way as well. Due to the concentrated energy in the laser, it has sufficient momentum. And Hagrid is very strong by himself, so the rays just bounce off him, because there is a magical protection on him. Like a Protego.

Exactly, which makes it seem strange that they can't react to punches, if they normally react to "lightspeed" spells.

I can give you a BUNCH of examples from other verses, where such strangeness also manifests itself, but the speed is still many times higher than human.

If this is the case, I find it a bit odd that it's never mentioned or even implied.

Because Rowling did not think that in the future the speed of her spells would be discussed on VSB

Okay? How is this relevant?

It's just that Harry was able to move so fast that he tore up space-time by teleporting.

If Fawkes can fly at the speed of light, why is it never mentioned? Dumbledore explains Fawkes' abilities to Harry in Chamber of Secrets, and he doesn't even mention something like "Fawkes can fly fast".

Because FTL travel is a common routine for wizards if they can easily fend off light spells. It is precisely by such feats that the speeds of characters who evade or react to something are scaled.

This is completely untrue, just as Hypertornado099 and Arceus0x have already explained. You're also using scenes from the movies to counter my point from the books, which makes it hard to debate you, as the two contradict each other far too much.

So far, the canon has not been divided, which is why I use evidence from two sources. I have already answered other people about the vibration of the wand, I did not get enough counter arguments.

You haven't really made any arguments in favour of Avada Kedavra being lightspeed that can't be refuted. My conclusion is based on the sum of all the evidence I presented, not just that last argument, which you by the way haven't really countered properly.

In my opinion, no one has ever refuted the diffraction of light and reflection from metal surfaces, which are the main ones for proving the speed of light. No one has discussed scaling Dumbledore's spell to Avada Kedavra, by the way, lol, although it has light speed

 

[Gendolfgg1]

The reason I didn't take into account anything from the movies is because they're so wildly different that other aspects would instantly fail them. In fact, in one of your comments you stated to disregard what was in the movies because they weren't book accurate, but in the reply to mine you use movie evidence instead of book evidence. The rainbow circles do not exist in the books. If you prove that AV diffuses liquid in the books, I can give you one point, but that still won't be enough. The statues (As far as I remember) were both from the MoM entrance, and they were all gold. The fact that the Patronus is also described as light is not a point in your favour, but a point in mine that light is not meant to be accurate. Just being called light does not in fact mean that it is being described as being made out of photons, especially by a reliable source (I don't think Harry Potter has even passed non-magical elementary school and Hogwarts doesn't teach "muggle sciences")
TLDR AV scores 0/5 to generously 0.5/5 on light requirements, disagree with putting book AV or movie AV as light.

The passage accurately states that the Patronus consists of light. It is already your right to deny this fact.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Ok, imagine you take a laser pointer and vibrate it. Would the beam not be straight? Would it appear jagged?

Hmm, but the laser pointer is not as powerful as the Avada Kedavra, it does not have momentum

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Them not mentioning it doesn't mean it didn't happen

They literally wrote to us what Harry felt and saw before he "died." You're just trying to suck nonexistent information out of your finger right now.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Reading the thread I'm against the proposal. Even being generous and accepting some statements as qualifiers, AK has to many things going against it for a SoL rating.

So put me in disagree.

Thank you for coming, but I still don't understand why Avada Kedavra doesn't fit the speed of light, given that I've proven how it reflects off metal surfaces and exhibits light diffraction. This is directly the main evidence in favor of the speed of real light. And the "contradictions" that the thread participants noticed are not valid against the proof of diffraction /reflection (this is literally written in the rules about the speed of light). I would like to hear your opinion on this, if it's not difficult for you.

 

[Propellus]

Yeah no, I hard disagree as well, this has way too many anti-feats as it doesn't ever travel in a straight line and rather appears in squiggly lines

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

it reflects off metal surfaces

Yet also made a metal statue shatter. Not melt, directly shatter.

Exhibits light diffraction

It doesn't. What you call light diffraction is not a property of Avada Kedavra, but of Priori Incantatem which is an entirely different phenomenon.

So your main proof has contradictions or outright doesn't truly apply to the spell.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Literally, the facts that I have given in favor of the fact that the spell moves at the speed of light apply to Lumos as well. Or do you want to say that Lumos is subsonic? Visually, it glows the same way as Avada, just not green.

Or at least it's like Stupefy

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Literally, the facts that I have given in favor of the fact that the spell moves at the speed of light apply to Lumos as well. Or do you want to say that Lumos is subsonic? Visually, it glows the same way as Avada, just not green.

Or at least it's like Stupefy

That's an entire different beast altogether. It's a spell meant to create light, is not offensive, and nothing scales to it.

 

[Dweller_Of_Dreams]

It could be a real enchanted light.

???

The statement that if it is a magical light and therefore cannot travel at the speed of real light should work the other way as well. Due to the concentrated energy in the laser, it has sufficient momentum.

What? Does real light bounce off tree trunks, ricochet off other jets of light, push people or objects, et cetera?

And Hagrid is very strong by himself, so the rays just bounce off him, because there is a magical protection on him. Like a Protego.

Magic bounces off him, but light shouldn't, unless he's secretly a mirror or made out of metal.

I can give you a BUNCH of examples from other verses, where such strangeness also manifests itself, but the speed is still many times higher than human.

Okay? That doesn't make it any less strange in this case.

Because Rowling did not think that in the future the speed of her spells would be discussed on VSB

Yes, and? My point is that there is nothing in the books that suggests what you're saying is the case. It sounds more like a head-canon you have made because you want Avada Kedavra to be lightspeed.

It's just that Harry was able to move so fast that he tore up space-time by teleporting.

He teleported, meaning that this is in no way relevant when discussing his speed.

Because FTL travel is a common routine for wizards if they can easily fend off light spells. It is precisely by such feats that the speeds of characters who evade or react to something are scaled.

Wizards can travel faster than light? Why on earth would they ever use brooms that fly at 150 mph, then?

So far, the canon has not been divided, which is why I use evidence from two sources.

I know they haven't been divided yet, but things still get rather messy and hard to follow when you use sources that directly contradict each other.

I have already answered other people about the vibration of the wand, I did not get enough counter arguments.

You got plenty of counterarguments, and your answer was basically repeating the same baseless assumption over and over.

In my opinion, no one has ever refuted the diffraction of light and reflection from metal surfaces, which are the main ones for proving the speed of light.

LephyrTheRevanchist refuted both here:

Yet also made a metal statue shatter. Not melt, directly shatter.

It doesn't. What you call light diffraction is not a property of Avada Kedavra, but of Priori Incantatem which is an entirely different phenomenon.

So your main proof has contradictions or outright doesn't truly apply to the spell.

No one has discussed scaling Dumbledore's spell to Avada Kedavra, by the way, lol, although it has light speed

Dumbledore's spell was described as a jet of light, but can't have been real light since it was jagged. This means that J. K. Rowling uses the term "jet of light" even when describing something that isn't really light, meaning that Avada Kedavra being described as such doesn't have to mean that it actually is light.

This will be my final reply regarding these issues, as I'm tired of this debate, and really our debates in general.

 

[LightMoonWizard]

I'm netural on this on. I think the only way to have offensive projectile spells anywhere close to lightspeed is using the near light speed summoning spell WOG which this wiki had rejected. Object summoned by this spell was casually caught by wizards which indicates they had the reaction speed enough to see it and catch it when it came close enough to them. And combat projectile spells should at least be the same speed as this spell. Regardless, we have lightning feats so we could use those to get mhs+ spells instead if accio wog is still rejected.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

That's an entire different beast altogether. It's a spell meant to create light, is not offensive, and nothing scales to it.

Let's say, but this does not negate the fact that Lumos exhibits exactly the same phenomena as Avada Kedavra.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Yeah no, I hard disagree as well, this has way too many anti-feats as it doesn't ever travel in a straight line and rather appears in squiggly lines

Let's say, but the rules on the speed of light do not specify anywhere that one contradiction is needed against the evidence of how light is reflected and refracted

 

[Gendolfgg1]

???

A light that travels at a speed of 300,000,000 m/s, with magical properties.

What? Does real light bounce off tree trunks, ricochet off other jets of light, push people or objects, et cetera?

higher, but it's still not Avada Kedavra

Magic bounces off him, but light shouldn't, unless he's secretly a mirror or made out of metal.

can a spell be cast on it that reflects light?

Okay? That doesn't make it any less strange in this case.

in that case, do we need to review ALL the verses that have the speed of light?

Yes, and? My point is that there is nothing in the books that suggests what you're saying is the case. It sounds more like a head-canon you have made because you want Avada Kedavra to be lightspeed.

literally, Rowling wrote that her spells are light rays. It wasn't my idea.

He teleported, meaning that this is in no way relevant when discussing his speed.

Why?

Wizards can travel faster than light? Why on earth would they ever use brooms that fly at 150 mph, then?

Because teleportation can be dangerous. And they can't fly with it.

I know they haven't been divided yet, but things still get rather messy and hard to follow when you use sources that directly contradict each other.

I don't understand exactly where they contradict

You got plenty of counterarguments, and your answer was basically repeating the same baseless assumption over and over.

my assumption is still valid and no one has refuted it.

LephyrTheRevanchist refuted both here:

1) Reflected from the golden statue
2) No, with all flash spells there is light diffraction.
3) No.

Dumbledore's spell was described as a jet of light, but can't have been real light since it was jagged. This means that J. K. Rowling uses the term "jet of light" even when describing something that isn't really light, meaning that Avada Kedavra being described as such doesn't have to mean that it actually is light.

You can't claim that it was uneven, because you didn't even see that stream of light (it wasn't in the movie). There are absolutely no contradictory facts anywhere that a light ray does not consist of light. Patronus is also a spell that is described as a flash of light, and Rowling wrote that this spell consists of light, so it does not leave traces in snow.

This will be my final answer regarding these issues, as I'm tired of this debate, and really our debates in general.

ok

 

[Gendolfgg1]

I'm netural on this on. I think the only way to have offensive projectile spells anywhere close to lightspeed is using the near light speed summoning spell WOG which this wiki had rejected. Object summoned by this spell was casually caught by wizards which indicates they had the reaction speed enough to see it and catch it when it came close enough to them. And combat projectile spells should at least be the same speed as this spell. Regardless, we have lightning feats so we could use those to get mhs+ spells instead if accio wog is still rejected.

Yes, it was worth doing the same for a long time, but I decided to try to start with Avada

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Yet also made a metal statue shatter. Not melt, directly shatter.

So you're not denying the fact that the spell bounced off the golden statue?

 

[CloverDragon03]

The light bending isn't really an anti-feat in this case since the anti-feats section for light says that this is fine if reflection/refraction can be proven

That being said, I still think the other stuff - combined with wizards legitimately having no feats on this level, being like Subsonic at best - makes this not really viable at all. I disagree with the OP

 

[Gendolfgg1]

Yes, it was worth doing the same for a long time, but I decided to try to start with Avada

However, it's worth trying to make a thread at the speed of light on Stupefy, I wonder which way the facts will be denied

 

[Gendolfgg1]

The light bending isn't really an anti-feat in this case since the anti-feats section for light says that this is fine if reflection/refraction can be proven

That being said, I still think the other stuff - combined with wizards legitimately having no feats on this level, being like Subsonic at best - makes this not really viable at all. I disagree with the OP

OH YEAH, SOMEONE READ THE CRITERIA

Why? Wizards can use Lumos Solem, which moves at the speed of light. The question is not the reaction, but the speed of the spell

 

[CloverDragon03]

Why? Wizards can use Lumos Solem, which moves at the speed of light. The question is not the reaction, but the speed of the spell

I believe you were bringing up earlier how there's "no reason for wizards to not be at that level of speed" which implied to me that wizards can react to Avada Kedavra

And even ignoring that, things like the spell having mass and exploding would be anti-feats that couldn't be explained away by reflection/refraction

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

So the films depict Avada Kedavra as a kind of green bolt, but this isn't the case in the books. It is always described as a flash or jet of light:


–The Goblet of Fire, pg. 216

–The Goblet of Fire, pg. 638

What the 4th movie is trying to show with the light show is the Priori Incantatem, the connection between wands that occur when they share the same core and clash spells.

– The Goblet of Fire, pg. 663-664

– The Goblet of Fire, pg. 696-697

Normally, Avada Kedavra can't be blocked:

– The Goblet of Fire, pg. 216

Avada Kedavra also doesn't push a target, they simply fall lifeless:

–Half Blood Prince, chapter twenty-eight

Avada Kedavra, as shown with the Priori Incantatem, does produce some kind of heat. This is also shown in the battle with Dumbledore:

– Order of the Phoenix, pg. 717-718

Anytime someone "dodges" Avada Kedavra, it is always some form of aim-dodge or the person casting it didn't aim well:

–Order of the Phoenix, pg. 696

– Order of the Phoenix, pg. 717

– The Deathly Hallows, pg. 57

– The Deathly Hallows, pg. 60

– The Deathly Hallows, pg. 61

Or the wand just straight refuses to kill someone:

–The Deadly Hallows, pg. 743-744

-

With all this being said, I don't think Avada Kedavra quite meet the lightspeed standards, but most contradictions about it come from the movies not portraying the spell correctly.

I see no one read this, huh

 

[CloverDragon03]

I see no one read this, huh

I read like, the first page and skimmed through the rest, I'm a busy man

This is more interesting. With this in mind, what would you say is why Avada Kedavra doesn't quite meet our standards?

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

I read like, the first page and skimmed through the rest, I'm a busy man

This is more interesting. With this in mind, what would you say is why Avada Kedavra doesn't quite meet our standards?

The only main 2 criteria it meets is being called light and being reflected by the statue. However, Dweller brought how other spells that definitely don't have nearly enough proof to qualify also receive a similar description of "jet of light", reducing the veracity of it. And for the statue reflecting it, later during the same fight, the same statue shattered when being hit by it.

So the two main requirements it qualifies for are suspect.

 

[Stillwinston]

On the topic of HP CRT's, we oughta look at making a video game profile for harry one of these days PoA on the gamecube was my childhood fr

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

On the topic of HP CRT's, we oughta look at making a video game profile for harry one of these days PoA on the gamecube was my childhood fr

Not the thread for this. But hell yeah

 

[CloverDragon03]

The only main 2 criteria it meets is being called light and being reflected by the statue. However, Dweller brought how other spells that definitely don't have nearly enough proof to qualify also receive a similar description of "jet of light", reducing the veracity of it. And for the statue reflecting it, later during the same fight, the same statue shattered when being hit by it.

So the two main requirements it qualifies for are suspect.

I understand. That does make the veracity of it being real light super suspect, yeah

 

[DragonZeroNova]

The only main 2 criteria it meets is being called light and being reflected by the statue. However, Dweller brought how other spells that definitely don't have nearly enough proof to qualify also receive a similar description of "jet of light", reducing the veracity of it. And for the statue reflecting it, later during the same fight, the same statue shattered when being hit by it.

So the two main requirements it qualifies for are suspect.

Small correction, it was a different statue but from the same location and both the statue that was shattered and the one that deflected AV were made of the same material which is gold. AV also apparently made a desk burst into flames, but I'm not confident if that was movie only or also in the books, someone would have to verify that.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Small correction, it was a different statue but from the same location and both the statue that was shattered and the one that deflected AV were made of the same material which is gold. AV also apparently made a desk burst into flames, but I'm not confident if that was movie only or also in the books, someone would have to verify that.

Again... Already quoted it lol.

And it was actually the same statue.

 

[DragonZeroNova]

Again... Already quoted it lol.

And it was actually the same statue.

I missed the quote yeah
No, the centaur statue was the one that exploded. The wizard was the one who deflected.
"But the headless golden statue of the wizard in the fountain had
sprung alive, leaping from its plinth to land with a crash on the
floor between Harry and Voldemort. The spell merely glanced off
its chest as the statue flung out its arms to protect Harry."
"Another jet of green light flew from behind the silver shield. This time it was the one-armed centaur, galloping in front of Dumbledore, that took the blast and shattered into a hundred pieces, but before the fragments had even hit the floor, Dumbledore had drawn back his wand and waved it as though brandishing a whip. A long thin flame flew from the tip; it wrapped itself around Voldemort, shield and all. For a moment, it seemed Dumbledore had won, but then the fiery rope became a serpent, which relinquished its hold upon Voldemort at once and turned, hissing furiously, to face Dumbledore."

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Yeah, just went to reread it. Somehow I merged "headless" and "armless" as the same lol.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

The light bending isn't really an anti-feat in this case since the anti-feats section for light says that this is fine if reflection/refraction can be proven

It wouldn't matter as anti-feat if the reasoning for the light bending was possible to explain through reflection/refraction. If one looks at literally the first scan shown in the op, one can easily see the beam making an irregular pattern in midair without any logical explanation through light physics, the beam is more similar to lightning in aesthetics (not saying it would even scale to that) due to the irregular path, the bits of light that come from the beam itself and the other rays that come from it, so it's evident that the people who made the visuals of the spell were taking as reference lightning instead of an actual beam of light.

 

[Gendolfgg1]

I believe you were bringing up earlier how there's "no reason for wizards to not be at that level of speed" which implied to me that wizards can react to Avada Kedavra

We assume this if the spells really move at the speed of light, but it will still need to be discussed. So far, the discussion is solely about the speed of Avada Kedavra

And even ignoring that, things like the spell having mass and exploding would be anti-feats that couldn't be explained away by reflection/refraction

How can a spell have mass if it bounces off metal surfaces? This is outside the laws of physics, especially since a beam with mass exhibits LIGHT diffraction.