Active Users:1143 Time:22/11/2024 07:54:58 PM
This logic is lacking as well PatAtt Send a noteboard - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM
Why can't the CK make Rand more like 10,000x more powerful? That's always the order of magnitude I was imagining based on the descriptions in the book... for the strongest sa'angreal ever made? When an 'average' sa'angreal raises the user's ability above that of an angreal to the same order of magnitude that an 'average' angreal does over using no enhancement?

With that in mind, the existence of multiple sa'angreal multiplying your power 250x becomes extremely likely. 100x is certainly nothing special for a sa'angreal... and when you consider that these CK were considered 'too strong to ever be used', able to fight the Dark One (or the CREATOR, by Lanfear!), and able to crack the world in half... 100x Rand's power just doesn't fit the description.

10,000 times 30 minutes of Rand back-tracking is approximately 200 days. This isn't a proof that this happened, of course, but a proof of concept. If we can reach back in the vicinity of a year, then anything is still possible. And nothing Sanderson said ruled it out... all he addressed was a very limited 'what if'.


You are proposing that Brandon didn't really rule out being able to go back a year by putting on his Aes Sedai hat and "assuming" a number that was smaller than the actual number to make the math not work out. However, Brandon said

I think it is unrealistic to assume you can get back a year, but that’s not saying it is impossible. I think that if you did that to the Pattern the ramifications would be so dramatic you’d see the Pattern unraveling hardcore at that point, it’s like balefiring an entire city. When I first read that guess I just laughed, I’m like guys c’mon lets run the math on this.


He says "I just laughed...c'mon lets run the math on this." Not the response you would expect if the notes indicated that this is what happens (remember he has a lot of ToM written, and knows how the series turns out, including the reveal of Asmo's killer).

Second, he says "I think that if you did that to the Pattern the ramifications would be so dramatic you'd see the Pattern unraveling hardcore at that point, it's like balefiring an entire city." This is the ramification of balefiring ONE person back ONE year. There was something like 100-200 people in the fortress IIRC. 150 people back 1 year is the same as 1.3 million back 1 hour (150 people*1 year*365 days/year*24 hours/day = 1,314,000 people hours (the SI unit for balefires - or BFs for short :P)) and the same as balefiring It would be the same as balefiring 5,256,000 people back 15 minutes (the more realistic assumption for how far the strongest channeler in the world can balefire). The Pattern may have unraveled under the strain of that many people being balefired back 1 year.
Reply to message
Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 05:18:48 PM 1654 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 631 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 701 Views
Yes, Brandon did. I edited my original message to add in another quote from Brandon...see above *NM* - 11/11/2009 05:33:27 PM 334 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 611 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 641 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 749 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 699 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 654 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 563 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 550 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 570 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 578 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 571 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 529 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 612 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 562 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 579 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 556 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 533 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 596 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 570 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 567 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 654 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 636 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 608 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 493 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 567 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 612 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 483 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 483 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 528 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 589 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 307 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 617 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 298 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 506 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 553 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 283 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 552 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 498 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 584 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 540 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 538 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 261 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 241 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 541 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 537 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 494 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 521 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 286 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 503 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 236 Views

Reply to Message