Shardblades and Hemalurgic Decay

[Kurkistan]

Ah, but since this is an analogy, how allomancy actually works isn't as important as how it analogically works. I'm not trying to say that Feruchemy is Allomancy just with a different type of "fuel." Though, the comparisons between the two seem to be useful for trying to get my point across.

Because "similar" is different than "exactly the same"? Both humans and mice are mammals, and as far as similarities go, we're actually quite close. We use mice as subjects for experiments that reveal new information about human reproduction. The oddity there, though, is that adult female humans have periods while adult female mice do not. So so similar, yet still different.

I suppose my problem is that, as far as I can tell, you simply don't see a difference between how Feruchemy works and how Allomancy works, besides the different attributes and, I suppose, upper limits. Is there any difference besides those in your model, at this point?

If I were to postulate an in-world explanation, I would suspect that feruchemy does indeed have an upper limit. Sanderson's off the cuff figures for compounding, for example, indicates that there is around a 16% loss for simply doubling an attribute, while there is roughly a 24% loss for trippling. This means that compounding has an upper limit of roughly 12.5 times the original. For anything above that, the rate of energy loss is equal to the rate of energy gain (or exceeds, actually, but I am assuming that excessive compounding doesn't start returning negatives). I suspect that in reality, the rate of loss isn't so drastic, but as long as there is that rate of loss, and as long as it is related to the degree of compounding, there is an upper limit. It is just a far more generous upper limit than in Allomancy.

That makes a certain amount of sense, actually. Hurrumph. I guess we're down to just glaring at each other and guarding our models like dragon gold then, since I don't see any factually attack-able flaws left in either (unless you still have a beef with mine, that is).

Quite true, but didn't AoL say, from Wax's perspective, that he had made himself the same weight as a building?

I don't have the book, so can't check, but I suppose he either overdid it or miscalculated his own weight, then .

The key in the end is that Feruchemy would just be vastly more efficient than it is if "parallel tapping" were allowed. I don't have any solid solid evidence that that isn't the case, but I think it's about as likely as my 10-digit theory of Allomancy.

Except that Feruchemy is a particular instance of a larger phenomenon. What you are suggesting is like trying to talk about a book without talking about literature, or talking about Rome without talking about history.

More specifically, I'm trying to talk about a couple of books (the Mistborn books) with a few references to other works while you're trying to talk about the Cosmere as a whole. That would work with the right universal theory, but not really in any other circumstance.

It's like you're trying to talk about the Roman Empire while I talk about Rome: If you get everything about the entire empire exactly right, then you'll be able to describe Rome as well as anyone can, but I'm focusing on getting the details of that one city exactly right first. I would prefer to start with a firm foundation and then build out (how the Empire was influenced by the state of Rome, etc.) while you want to work in from the outside.

True. I should have specified "discussing it well"

Good sir! You wound me!

EDIT:

You guys seriously gotta publish a "Cosmere Theories for Dummies" someday.

That will be a truly monumental achievement, akin to the Atlas (20 awesome points if you get the reference without looking it up) in scope.

I'm trying to do something a bit more comprehensive with this thread, though I think I'll have to revise some things after TES. Still mulling that over right now.

Edited October 18, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Asperity]

(Won't quote because length)

That's good. I think it's amazing that there are such in-depth theories already despite the small amount of material so far (eight books) but I just can't wrap my head around some of this stuff and comprehend it. It's just too much, haha. But I do enjoy reading it all. Cosmere fascinates me to no end.

[Kurkistan]

(Won't quote because length)

That's good. I think it's amazing that there are such in-depth theories already despite the small amount of material so far (eight books) but I just can't wrap my head around some of this stuff and comprehend it. It's just too much, haha. But I do enjoy reading it all. Cosmere fascinates me to no end.

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions. It's a fundamentally simple system, really. You just need to think of it the right way.

[name_here]

I think that Aons have to be drawn in a physical manner to be permanent. Certainly we don't see any freestanding Aons in light, even though one of the Aons Raoden experiments with is Aon Ashe, which is used on the lighting plates. If it were purely a matter of how they're drawn, he'd probably have made permanent versions of that because his base was a permanent Aon. It might also be due to complex Realmantic reasons, where drawing it physically focuses the creator's mind on permanence.

Alternately, it could just be that freestanding Aons can't operate permanently in the same manner as the physical ones. Of the known physical Aons, for light and teleportation, they're activated by touching the object the Aon is written on and apparently can be used by non-Elantrians. It might be necessary to have a physical object to allow toggling.

[Thought]

I suppose my problem is that, as far as I can tell, you simply don't see a difference between how Feruchemy works and how Allomancy works, besides the different attributes and, I suppose, upper limits. Is there any difference besides those in your model, at this point?

The short answer is: sort of.

Both Allomancy and Feruchemy (and, indeed, all shard-based magics [i'm not sure what lightweaving counts as]) in my model should involve the same basic process. That is, the individual is a magic user because they are able to activate gateways through which power from a shard is channeled. Elantrians and Feruchemists would create their own gateways, while Allomancers use ones already in existence (and Hemalurgists do a little of both, depending on how one looks at it).

Or, to put it another way, the differences in my model between Allomancy and Feruchemy are akin to the differences between AonDor and Dahkor.

After all, I am trying to laydown the commonalities between magic systems, so the similarities, more than the differences, would be highlighted.

(unless you still have a beef with mine, that is).

Only that its wrong and clearly inferior to my own awesometastic suppositions

It's like you're trying to talk about the Roman Empire while I talk about Rome: If you get everything about the entire empire exactly right, then you'll be able to describe Rome as well as anyone can, but I'm focusing on getting the details of that one city exactly right first. I would prefer to start with a firm foundation and then build out (how the Empire was influenced by the state of Rome, etc.) while you want to work in from the outside.

That only works up until about the start of recorded history, since Rome was always heavily influenced by the outside. How rarely were the doors to the temple of Mars closed (the signal that the city of Rome was at peace)! How often was the senate filled with laments about the little-beards and how they were corrupted by outside influences!

The only thing we can conclude from this is that Carthage must be destroyed!

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions. It's a fundamentally simple system, really. You just need to think of it the right way.

As I think a lot of our back and forth proves. That was a lot of talk to try to get across what were fundamentally simple systems.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Thought

[Kurkistan]

Feel free to PM me if you have any specific questions. It's a fundamentally simple system, really. You just need to think of it the right way.

As I think a lot of our back and forth proves. That was a lot of talk to try to get across what ever fundamentally simple systems.

That was in response to Kythis asking about Cosmere stuff in general. Obviously our nitty-gritty is complicated, but you can slap down some basic effects of magic systems and crude divisions between the Realms pretty easily.

Specifically, I misread Kythis and thought he was asking about Realmatics for some reason, which was more so the "fundamentally simple system" I was referring to. We both agree that the Spiritual realm is what allows people to access power, that the Physical structure of metals is important in Allomancy, etc. How exactly stuff is laid out in those realms is what we've been discussing.

P.S. Also, we generally try to avoid scaring the pancakes out of new members.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

Yes, sorry, I was adding my voice in agreement with your assertion to Kythis that this stuff is fundamentally simply, by providing an example that backed your assertion up. Apparently I only made things more complex.

[Kurkistan]

Ah, my fault. I misread your tone (again). I think the "what ever" (that you failed to delete, I guess?) in the middle of your second sentence threw me off a bit.

To reiterate, don't worry Kythis, even though it's devastatingly complicated AS EASY AS BREATHING, it starts to make sense after a few days MOMENTS of study. Except be sure to watch out for the spikes OBEY THE ADMINS, OUR BENEVOLENT LORDS AND FRIENDS.

Edited October 23, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

Oh wow, that was a really confusing mistake, and quite bad of me.

... I mean...

*goes back and corrects the error and hopes he didn't make a new one in its place*

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Straff Venture]

Ah, my fault. I misread your tone (again). I think the "what ever" (that you failed to delete, I guess?) in the middle of your second sentence threw me off a bit.

To reiterate, don't worry Kythis, even though it's devastatingly complicated AS EASY AS BREATHING, it starts to make sense after a few days MOMENTS of study. Except be sure to watch out for the spikes OBEY THE ADMINS, OUR BENEVOLENT LORDS AND FRIENDS.

I can imagine this being written on the wall of some derelict Gulag in Siberia with a skeleton lying on the floor below it.

[Observer]

I can imagine this being written on the wall of some derelict Gulag in Siberia with a skeleton lying on the floor below it.

Or some preAdonalsmic cave drawings written in a High Imperial ketek.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Observer

[Straff Venture]

Or some preAdonalsmic cave drawings written in a High Imperial ketek.

Thats likely actually a lot easier than it sounds, seeing as you can get away with anything in high imperial when of course nothing makes sense anyway

[Kurkistan]

NO!

Turns out that, somehow, that Brandon quote that I would have staked my entire fortune on my interpretation of does not mean what it means. New from Hal-Con:

Q:Does the rate of feruchemical storage of an attribute affect the total amount stored in a metalmind?

A: It was not intended to be.

Q: Does the loss during the withdrawal of large amounts of attribute depend on the rate of original storage?

A: No

I had not expected this. I guess you can get away with a simpler model, Thought. (I still say it should be stored in the metalmind's Spiritual aspect, btw, it's just that I have about as much proof as your initial model did, instead of standing atop a mountain of awesome like before).

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Rayonn]

So, I just read this entire thread (ok, I skimmed some of it), and was generally convinced by Kurkistan's arguments.

Then I come to this:

NO!

Turns out that, somehow, that Brandon quote that I would have staked my entire fortune on my interpretation of does not mean what it means.

Everything I thought I knew is wrong! This theory I've been rooting for is dead in the water just when its triumph seemed complete! It's like the end of Well of Ascension all over again!

Edited October 31, 2012 by Rayonn

[Kurkistan]

That is right, Kurkistan. Fear me I was the one to ask that question, since your theory didn't seem right to me, but I did not have proof or your eloquence Well, now I have it, and my "power law" theory is once again more probable

Which has an (advanced) formula:

E=t*(A*k)^(al(A))

More explanation to come

I would heavily suggest that you start a new thread before digging deeper. "Shardblades and Hemalurgic Decay" indeed.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan

[Thought]

First, bwhahahahahahahaha

Second, depending on what Sanderson thought the second question was, that might not mean that the original rate of storage isn't important to the overall effect. The rate of loss appears to be based on a percentage. So, doubling means you loose roughly 16%, tripling roughly 24%, etc. Those rates would presumably remain regardless of the original rate of storage. It doesn't matter if you are doubling 50pts stored for an hour or 100pts stored for a an hour, you are still doubling, so the rate of loss is the same percentage. But if you originally stored 50pts for an hour and 100 points for an hour, then to get out 100pts, under Sanderson's new comment, it is still reasonable to suppose that you'd be doubling one and not the other.

[Kurkistan]

Oh Thought, how I now value the twisted paths of your mind! That might work, although I think it could also be squirreling the meaning a bit.

Besides just preserving my own ego, I'm also tempted to accept your pretzel-brained solution because I really don't see any other interpretation that allows the books--and particularly that previous Brandon quote--to make sense in light of this new answer.

Edited October 31, 2012 by Kurkistan