Active Users:631 Time:19/03/2026 03:14:11 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 1947 Views
He didn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:27:34 PM 883 Views
I definately did not see conclusive evidence; in fact... - 11/11/2009 05:32:20 PM 951 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 469 Views
That still doesn't say if she did or did not. - 11/11/2009 05:39:12 PM 938 Views
It eliminates for the following - 11/11/2009 05:44:29 PM 936 Views
That's quite a leap of logic... - 11/11/2009 06:31:21 PM 1003 Views
Re: - 11/11/2009 07:46:15 PM 980 Views
You make a faulty assumption - 11/11/2009 08:06:52 PM 914 Views
NO! - 11/11/2009 09:07:39 PM 819 Views
Why? - 11/11/2009 06:32:10 PM 799 Views
Re: Why? - 11/11/2009 07:48:14 PM 832 Views
Logical? - 11/11/2009 09:16:18 PM 830 Views
Er? I think you're reading it wrong. - 11/11/2009 06:32:17 PM 827 Views
I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 06:33:41 PM 767 Views
Re: I can't follow your logic - 11/11/2009 07:47:27 PM 861 Views
I'm sorry but you are terribly wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:34:56 PM 824 Views
That is a fallacious leap of logic. - 11/11/2009 06:50:13 PM 854 Views
Yes, but... - 11/11/2009 07:49:39 PM 826 Views
That is still erroneous. - 11/11/2009 08:10:15 PM 799 Views
your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 05:47:53 PM 833 Views
Re: your interpretation is wrong - 11/11/2009 07:51:01 PM 840 Views
I repeat, your interpretation is wrong. - 11/11/2009 08:15:43 PM 862 Views
I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 06:11:46 PM 919 Views
Re: I generally agree... - 11/11/2009 08:01:31 PM 892 Views
I'm not a writer... - 11/11/2009 08:48:25 PM 853 Views
Agree - 18/11/2009 11:22:09 PM 790 Views
There's nothing in those quotes that even touches on who killed Asmodean. - 11/11/2009 06:40:31 PM 856 Views
This logic is lacking as well - 11/11/2009 10:17:48 PM 899 Views
Your comments make sense. - 11/11/2009 11:29:29 PM 763 Views
Re: Your comments make sense. - 12/11/2009 04:48:19 AM 731 Views
Two Things - 11/11/2009 07:58:11 PM 788 Views
Re: Sanderson eliminates a particular somebody from consideration as Asmodean's killer - 11/11/2009 07:59:32 PM 842 Views
But do you agree that Graendal cannot reveal herself if she got balefired? *NM* - 11/11/2009 08:07:53 PM 431 Views
Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 11/11/2009 08:52:49 PM 885 Views
this is what happens when you get interrupted in the middle of a post *NM* - 11/11/2009 09:28:01 PM 414 Views
What? Did you double post? - 11/11/2009 09:49:15 PM 764 Views
According to Etzel, this is impossible - 12/11/2009 04:14:47 AM 822 Views
Why is it impossible? You can't have parallel timelines? *NM* - 12/11/2009 11:29:45 AM 414 Views
I don't say it's impossible... - 12/11/2009 03:11:17 PM 841 Views
This was done in the series before... - 12/11/2009 03:40:58 PM 750 Views
I meant... - 12/11/2009 04:02:33 PM 831 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 18/11/2009 11:32:03 PM 797 Views
Re: Sure she can reveal herself! Even if she got Balefired! - 19/11/2009 01:57:48 AM 810 Views
that proved nothing. *NM* - 11/11/2009 10:46:15 PM 389 Views
Rather pointless, really. *NM* - 12/11/2009 01:08:14 AM 350 Views
Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:13:45 AM 813 Views
Re: Uh, I read the exact opposite - 12/11/2009 04:53:39 AM 816 Views
there was a bit more before it - 12/11/2009 05:03:20 AM 752 Views
Not so suspicious if he's read some fan reactions/theories. - 12/11/2009 11:48:30 AM 794 Views
Which he clearly said he did and LOL'd at. *NM* - 18/11/2009 11:33:58 PM 419 Views
Maybe I missed something. - 12/11/2009 03:02:59 PM 778 Views
Yeah, BS will reveal it either in ToM or AMoL. *NM* - 12/11/2009 03:12:16 PM 377 Views

Reply to Message