- 1,560
- 107
| The beam refracts in a new material, such as a liquid or... The beam reflects off a material that it can be expected to, such as a non-magical mirror. The beam is called lightspeed by credible scientific sources. It is stated to be made of photons or light itself, again by a credible scientific source. It has its origin at a realistic source of light, such as a camera. Furthermore, there are a few criteria which show a beam is NOT real light: It is shown at different speeds in the same material. It is tangible and can be interacted with physically by normal humans. They do not travel in straight lines (unless you can prove refraction/reflection, see above) |
The beam refracts.
Great. Makes sense. No issue here.
The beam reflects.
Completely reasonable and logical. It's fair game.
The beam is stated to be lightspeed by a scientific source.
And here it really begins to go downhill. If a beam is really light, why does it become so necessary to prove its lightspeed? Light goes at lightspeed regardless except at really extreme environments, where it would be very obvious those things are affecting it, like a black hole. Even if we're assuming that this is for light that hasn't proved to be actual light, being called lightspeed can theoretically apply to anything outside of light as well, so it's redundant to list.
It is stated to be called light or photons by a scientific source.
Okay. I'm going to assume this ISN'T just bad wording, and I apologize if it was. With that in mind, let me say this: having to be a scientific source is just plain BS. Having to be scientific source really seems to exclude many different works of fiction, and only really works if no one who isn't a scientist or at least not a part of science or realistic fiction is considered unreliable. For example, for this to work, we'd need to assume a OUTERVERSE level being isn't knowledgeable on light because it's metaphysical instead of scientific.
It has a realistic source of light.
Realism isn't exactly a main priority in fiction. That whole idea of things reacting to light? Surpassing it even? It doesn't work under basic science. And yet we're using a "realistic source of light" as our basic qualification? That seems to be extremely restrictive of anything outside of certain genres being considered light. That's pretty close to a Argument from Disbelief.
They have to travel in straight lines.
This is the thing that really baffles me the most. If being able to control light is a character's ability, why does using that ability to, say, bend or redirect light suddenly make it not light. That really can only be a thing if we assume that being able to bend light is a impossible power to have, which is really silly with all the very varied abilities you'll see looking at fiction in general, or that manipulating light in anyway fundamentally changes its existence, which seems odd when refraction is a thing, but I'll be the first to admit I'm no scientist. It also seems weird when we have lots of characters who follow supposedly scientific rules, like in the case of Cole MacGrath. Technically it's a different element but it's a good example. His lightning works the way it should, being able to heal, cause people to spasm, short out devices, etc, etc, but electricity can't actually really be aimed in any capacity without a plasma channel or something.
TL;DR, our standards are a bit wacky and need updates, better wording, and possibly some removals. Sorry if I touched a nerve.
