Active Users:1029 Time:23/12/2024 05:05:06 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 1663 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 640 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 717 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 340 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 620 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 652 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 757 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 706 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 663 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 575 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 558 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 580 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 585 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 585 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 540 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 621 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 576 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 590 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 566 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 544 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 605 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 582 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 582 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 670 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 647 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 625 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 513 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 581 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 620 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 490 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 490 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 539 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 602 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 313 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 626 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 303 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 516 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 565 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 289 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 565 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 509 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 595 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 551 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 549 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 268 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 246 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 554 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 551 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 506 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 534 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 295 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 514 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 241 Views

Reply to Message