Oltux72

Members
  • Content count

    696
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Oltux72

  1. Exactly. At that point you need to compute coming from the actual allomantic force the allomancer generates. You are using fixed here in two slightly different ways. The masses are given by the situation and measurable. Anchoring however, alternatively can be seen as effectively anchoring them. As Pagerunner remarked, you can also see the allomantic "link" as transmitting the normal force. Both ways of seeing it give the same result. The force is set to a constant value by the allomancer generating the push. Yes, but not the same acceleration. That is the basic reason behind Kelsier's rule of thumb that if you push on something heavy you'll move, and if you push onto something light, it'll move. The whole point is that by anchoring something you get a transition from light to heavy. Electrostatics and gravity would show the exact same behavior (except that there is no repulsive force in gravity of course)
  2. No, on the contrary. Model 4 supposes Newton's third law is inoperative. But the results we see derive from the 3rd law. No, and it seems I am not very good at explaining this. So there is one total force, which the allomancer determines. If both sides were anchored, that is what they would feel and that's it. I assume so far we agree. I think you also agree with the free fall case of no side being anchored. But now you are mixing the physics of these cases in an incorrect way. That is an easy mistake because the force is applied to the coin uniformly, but to the allomancer at, as far as we can tell, the surface of his body. The allomancer undergoes acceleration. And the amount of acceleration is not a matter of choice. It is determined from the force and the ratio of effective masses. Precisely because only the force is under free choice any alteration of the mass ratio will change the acceleration. No, no, no. Again the acceleration increases. And it increases precisely because acceleration and mass are linked by Newton's laws and controlling only one of them (force) means that a change in an uncontrolled variable (mass) changes the third variable (acceleration) Correct. The acceleration of the coin drops to zero, or something very close to it. Newton's laws! You almost got it. The change of the ratio of accelerations is the inverse of the change of the ratios of effective masses. But that is nothing extraordinary. That is the normal everyday consequence of Newton's laws. You would have the exact same result if you replaced allomancy by electrostatic repulsion. It does not. That is the exact result you get if the force is constant.
  3. That is the basic error in your reasoning. Let me explain in detail and please excuse the length of the explanation: Let's look at the case of an allomancer and a coin in a vacuum and in free fall. We have action equals reaction and F = m * a Let's do the math: m (allomancer) * a (allomancer) = m (coin) * a (coin) a (allomancer) / a (coin) = m (coin) / m (allomancer) [that is exactly the same result you would get for electrostatic repulsion at any given moment, hence utterly ordinary] The allomancer being much heavier than the coin, almost all of the acceleration the force generates is experienced by the coin. Now the crucial the point here is that the masses in these equations are those the force acts upon, not just those directly affected by the magical force. Hence you need to include the mass of the clothing the allomancer is wearing, or if the coin is in a wallet and stays in it, the mass of the wallet on the coin's side. Now we consider the case of a coin securely anchored to the ground. Which mass is acted upon on the coin's side of the equation. Theoretically a whole planet. Compared to the mass of a planet, the mass of a coin irrelevant. And that is exactly what your model shows. The coin will experience a normal force from being used to accelerate a planet. You can see that indeed as the normal force being transmitted to the allomancer. The result is the same. No. The effective mass of the coin changes when it hits the ground. And that effect is felt by the pushing allomancer. It is really the same physics that allow a swimmer's same leg muscles to accelerate him much more by pushing on the walls of the pool rather than making swimming motions.
  4. Well, the spike is missing and hence an ability. Would the gold restore it?
  5. Dalinar was brutal and bloodthirsty. But dishonorable? They promised fealty, they broke their promise, Dalinar kiled them, as he had threatened. Honor is satisfied. In fact you could argue that Evi was a traitress.
  6. But how does the gold "know" whom to show at all? It will not work by mass. Any human being changes the majority of his atoms over a surprisingly short period of time. That opens up some questions. What determines the point of divergence? Which alternate decision is picked? Now it is possible that just nobody has been rich and interested enough to spend the money necessary to get good with allomantic gold. Or it is somehow connected to identity. So you would in effect become the gold shadow by burning gold without identity? That is a cool effect.
  7. If you take that to its logical extreme Lerasium, if used "correctly" or in alloys with other metals up to now considered inert, can create a new metal (as they would see it) or technically more correct, a new kind of allomancy. For example, if you alloyed it with silver and burned it, you might become able to control shades.
  8. But which one? You are without identity. Either you see all your possible pasts, like the interaction of atium and electrum projected into the past, or just nothing.
  9. That unfortunately seems to be pretty impossible. The Aons are too symmetrical for that to work. Forgery by rewriting history must have a sequence of events.
  10. Well, we are on thin ice. However I note that the modifier aon does not come with an ordering Aon. If you wanted, to give an example, heal a gut wound.you would in effect say gut + heal. There is no visible grammar that makes sure that 'gut' becomes active before 'heal'. In a sequential model that would be necessary. Now technically an Aon being a modifier could imply that it has to be executed first. So we would need to look at at least two independent Aons being combined. And there we lack examples. But note that the list of Aons has no obvious grammatical elements.
  11. Language and execution in a CPU are linear. While all modifiers to an Aon operate on the same You can simulate that via a state machine, but by all indications simultaneous operations are inherent in Selish magic ans sequential operations require extra work.
  12. Language unlike symbols is linear. You can use it to describe symbols, but not really to represent it. It seems to me that Selish magic is programming, but programming closer to how you programm an FPGA rather than a CPU.
  13. Yet it stores identity. And allomancers wearing aluminium hats seem to have no problem using their own allomancy.
  14. It is indeed extremely unlikely for all the Cosmere's languages to have no sounds not found in English. I think Kholin should be pronounced [xɔlɪn] or [xɔlin]
  15. No, they are not. Gravity still exists. The coin should fall down and then two allomancers have a coin below them and are pushing on it. In the case of two allomancers pushing something else must also happen. Yes, it is true that that weakens my argument. Something we do not understand is happening. Kelsier tells her not to get into a pushing duell unless she is firmly grounded. Hence they must exist.
  16. Yes. That tells us two things. Some strange interaction of their push is happening. The coin should actually be rammed into the ground. It is right between them. They are equally strong. A position right in the middle is compatible with every kind of decay.
  17. Why then doesn't tell Kelsier Vin that pushing duells don't make sense but tell her to get a firm grounding?
  18. Well, if you want to have a push duell to make sense, the pushed object must be able to reach one of the participants. For that to happen the point where the push of the weaker, defending party would be able to stop the pushed object would have to be inside his or her body or very close to it. If we assume the pushing duell to begin with an object at rest right between the allomancers (easiest assumption - it doesn't change much), the stronger allomancer will accelerate the object towards the weaker allomancer. However, as the distance towards the weaker allomancer is shrinking and the distance to the stronger allomancer is growing. As far as strength depends on distance the weaker one's push is growing stronger and the stronger one's push is growing weaker. If the influence of distance is large enough they will eventually grow equal. Now looking at your graphs they still have a change of a factor of two to three over sensible distances. Allomancers would have to be intrinsically very variable in strength to overcome that effect.
  19. Pushing duells make these calculations dubious. If the maximum force an allomancer can push with changes a lot over the distance he can push, there is always an equilibrium point between two allomancers. Hence almost all of the decay in maximum force must be close to maximum range.
  20. The really hard part is giving even a sensible formula for the maximum strength an allomancer can push with. In particular the relationship with distance is odd. For almost any physical influence we find that the strength drops off with the square off the distance. Allomancy clearly does not follow that rule. We have three observations hard to reconcile. pushing duells make sense pushing up at full power from a close anchor does not kill you pushing with full force against a close anchor pushes you up swiftly. there is a maximum height you can support yourself at from a given anchor and that is below the sensing range That means in effect that the force cannot drop off much until you get relatively close to maximum range. If it depended strongly on range, the weaker allomancer could push back anything as soon as it got close enough.
  21. The name is Alethi. The Alethi have their own script. It features 5 vowels. It has no indication of length, nasality or diphthongs. It would seems that the vowel system of that language is the basic five vowels without length distinction. Whoever transliterated it into the latin alphabet was not American or English (the J like /j/ thing). It also shows no sign of vowel reduction in unstressed syllables. Like Spanish in short. Hence the most likely answer to a question of how two vowels meeting each other are to be pronounced would be: separately in two syllables uninfluenced by each other
  22. Your model 1 seems correct. The allomancer determines a force. AFAICT your reason dismissing model #1 is flawed. Quoting your pdf: "This is the plainest explanation, but as poor Vin discovers, it is not a good fit, because that model decouples the Allomancer and the coin." Exactly. This is due to the normal force. It makes the second term go away. Which is exactly what is observed. As soon as the object an allomancer pushes against is securely anchored, it no longer matters. You are absolutely correct in complaining about the discontinuity. It arises from a model that assumes a full normal force as soon as the coin hits the ground. In reality there will be some deformation. But fundamentally if you introduce a new force (in form of the normal force) a discontinuity is not a problem. It is expected. But I think you are conflating two things. That the allomancer determines a force does not give him an arbitrary range of forces available. As far as we can tell, it certainly depends on choice of the allomancer (experienced allomancers can push weakly and all of them can flare their steel) inherent strength of the allomancer distance to the object pushed degree of investiture in the object pushed mass of the object pushed And maybe time is also a factor. Hence an allomancer determines (if he is trained well) a force between 0 and the upper limit given by factors 2) - 5)
  23. Did anybody share my instant feeling of revultion at the idea of snapshots? Like if switching one off is in effect mass murder and the horror of being shown a badge telling you that you are created to satisfy curiosity, doomed and meaningless?
  24. We saw transportation used in one of Dalinar's visions. The oathgates may just work so well, because they have an aiming point in form of each other, when they are operating.
  25. Now I have to protest. Are we discussing her ethics or her emotions and character? For the record, yes, I think her actions were justifiable. But you have to realize that this attitude is far from universal. Polls on the death penalty cannot be explained in any other way. Is it universal on Roshar? Clearly not, you could not explain Shallan's reaction, if that were the case. But, we have to look at the timing. It is unlikely that Jasnah is playing Batwoman (yes, I know, there are no bats on Roshar) every night and killing criminals unnoticed. No, she waited until the right moment to give Shallan a needed lesson. She coldly calculated those deaths. That she was , presumably, right to do so, does not alter the fact that she coldly calculated with the death of a few men (who had it coming). Again, that does not make her cold in other areas of life. It just makes her a killer in the way Navy captains of the 17th and 18th century hunting pirates and enemy ships were stone cold killers. Today that attitude is unusual among us (again: unusual, not unjustified - that is a different issue). Among Alethi, however, it is the cultural norm (probably still unusual - but the theoretical norm to strive for). And that is my main point. Attitudes are culturally influenced. You cannot conclude back from different interest and attitudes back to maturity or lack thereof by external benchmarks.