clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 08.08.2013 20:27, schrieb Alain:
>
> >> he is firing lasers not laser beams
> >
> > Laser ARE beams. Laser beam is a pleonasm.
>
> Rule #1 when nitpicking: Don't, until you know what you're talking
> about, because you'll inevitably be out out-smartassed :-P
>
> LASER = "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation" -
> that's neither a beam, nor an apparatus, but a principle.
>
> A proper term for a beam generated using this principle would be
> "coherent beam of light" if all you want to describe is the properties
> of the beam; but if you want to also reference the particular principle
> used to generate it, "laser beam" would be perfectly appropriate (while
> "laser light" would indeed be nonsense).
>
> If you accept the acronym of the underlying principle to denote a beam
> generated using it, then it is just as acceptable to denote an apparatus
> using this principle to generate the beam - though of course "Laser
> source" would be more precise.
>
> Of course, propelling a volley of laser apparatuses would entirely be
> possible, might look somewhat like depicted, and science fiction authors
> might even invent /some/ reason for doing so, rather than just shooting
> slugs of lead, tungsten or DU...


Whaowhaowhao...I have just made a picture, I don't want to know if it's real or
not... I don't care if lasers are or not visible, it's art! And with art all is
possible.

Post a reply to this message