No, Balefire Does Not Work Like that. (-- 2009 Empy Award Winner!)

[Sharaman]

Aye, it hit multiple people(maybe, since quite a few might have just drowned), but it didn't do so at the same time.  She used a thinner beam to cut the boat, not a massive beam to obliterate it.  So, though it was one beam that might have killed more than one person, it probably didn't impact more than one person at the same instant.

 

Moggy was trying to specifically BF Nyn - she was distracted and the (thin) beam jerked.

But she used enough power for the boat to be knocked back some hundred metres - I guess if you know the currents and speed, etc, you could work out how many seconds worth of BF she used. But how would you know if the time effect would have been enhanced if she'd just hit Nyn instead of the front half of the boat?

 

This could actually be the basis for a BF experiment - run boats / pieces of driftwood of known mass and cross section, in a current of water and BF them. You know how many seconds of BF you need to use to drive a given object a given number of seconds backwards in time. You could also discover if the time-erasure works the same way for objects of different mass/ c-section, etc.

 

(Admittedly, it would be more fun to let guys get their partners pregnant and then BF the guys, a while later and see if you can make the foetus disappear.)

 

@BladeDancer The time paradox is indeed a major problem with BF, and any other time-trouble device in narrative fiction.

 

[Casabamelon]

When Rand split balefire with Callandor, the splits kept tearing away columns until the flow was stopped.

 

I don't think balefire is like a laser, I think it's like a fire hose... that spits acid? It tears away what it hits with the full power, then moves on to the next thing with full power because it still has a flow of the One Power pumping into it. Once the flow stops, the balefire stops. This is why it can go through one thing and then stop, and not have it burn this back in time in progressively smaller increments of time.

[BladeDancer]

When Rand split balefire with Callandor, the splits kept tearing away columns until the flow was stopped.

 

I don't think balefire is like a laser, I think it's like a fire hose... that spits acid? It tears away what it hits with the full power, then moves on to the next thing with full power because it still has a flow of the One Power pumping into it. Once the flow stops, the balefire stops. This is why it can go through one thing and then stop, and not have it burn this back in time in progressively smaller increments of time.

 

When Rand had just killed Rahvin, he returned back to the battle in Caemlyn to find his Aiel surrounded by and battling Shadowspawn. Rand attacked the Shadowspawn from behind. Rand was able to use Balefire streams so finetuned that he could disintegrate one Trolloc at a time. His blasts did not go through the lot of them. So it is possible to control how much matter a bolt of Balefire will burn through.

[Casabamelon]

When Rand split balefire with Callandor, the splits kept tearing away columns until the flow was stopped.

 

I don't think balefire is like a laser, I think it's like a fire hose... that spits acid? It tears away what it hits with the full power, then moves on to the next thing with full power because it still has a flow of the One Power pumping into it. Once the flow stops, the balefire stops. This is why it can go through one thing and then stop, and not have it burn this back in time in progressively smaller increments of time.

 

When Rand had just killed Rahvin, he returned back to the battle in Caemlyn to find his Aiel surrounded by and battling Shadowspawn. Rand attacked the Shadowspawn from behind. Rand was able to use Balefire streams so finetuned that he could disintegrate one Trolloc at a time. His blasts did not go through the lot of them. So it is possible to control how much matter a bolt of Balefire will burn through.

 

Exactly. To continue the hose/water analogy, it's like using a hose vs. a squirt gun. One is a steady stream tearing away what is in front of it, the other is a measured blast (like a balefire bullet).

[mb]

Here is some speculation I done about balefire in another thread::

 

I think the first balefire being undone would depend on if the time of second balefire overlaps both the time of the first balefire and the time it took to weave the first balefire.

An example::

• w= time for weave to reach its target
  
• r= time removed
  
• 1= of the first balefire
  
• 2= of the second balefire
  
• t= time between the two balefires
  
• scenarios:
  
  • If r1 is less than w1, then r2 would need to be greater than t+w1 in order for the first balefire to be undone.  If r2 is less than t+w1, then the first balefire would not be undone.
    
  • If r1 is greater than w1, then r2 would need to be greater than t+r1 in order for the first balefire to be undone.  If r2 is less than t+r1, then the first balefire would not be undone.
    
  • If r1 equals w1 equal to some number x, then r2 would need to be greater than t+x.  If r2 is less than t+x, then the first balefire would not be undone.

 

[BladeDancer]

Here is some speculation I done about balefire in another thread::

 

I think the first balefire being undone would depend on if the time of second balefire overlaps both the time of the first balefire and the time it took to weave the first balefire.

An example::

• w= time for weave to reach its target
  
• r= time removed
  
• 1= of the first balefire
  
• 2= of the second balefire
  
• t= time between the two balefires
  
• scenarios:
  
  • If r1 is less than w1, then r2 would need to be greater than t+w1 in order for the first balefire to be undone.  If r2 is less than t+w1, then the first balefire would not be undone.
    
  • If r1 is greater than w1, then r2 would need to be greater than t+r1 in order for the first balefire to be undone.  If r2 is less than t+r1, then the first balefire would not be undone.
    
  • If r1 equals w1 equal to some number x, then r2 would need to be greater than t+x.  If r2 is less than t+x, then the first balefire would not be undone.

 

 

Are you talking about a scenario when two people simultaneously unleash Balefire at each other?

What's r1? Is this the amount of time that the first blast of Balefire removes from the Pattern?

[mb]

Are you talking about a scenario when two people simultaneously unleash Balefire at each other?

The scenarios are when one balefire happens after another; there are 3 people (or 2 people and an object) involved.  One person balefires someone/something; another person afterward balefires the one person.

 

What's r1? Is this the amount of time that the first blast of Balefire removes from the Pattern?

Yes.

 

[Javonite]

Can balefire be undone with balefire?

 

[Morsker]

Can balefire be undone with balefire?

Probably. The WoT FAQ claims we've gotten contradictory answers on this, although one of the citations is a bit vague:

 

http://www.steelypips.org/wotfaq/2_nondark/2.3_one-power/2.3.07_balefire.html

[OptimusPrime]

Graendal; when she died, would the people out of her palace (that went through her Compulsion) still do any 'unfinished' orders that she gave to them or were they completely free from her Compulsion at her death?

 

My guess is that if it was indeed Graendal then anyone under her Compulsions would be completely free because she technically never put it on them because of the balefire.

 

It all depends on when those people were Compelled. Even Rand could only balefire her so far back. Some of those slaves have been there for a long time.

 

I forgot about that, nice one. One thing people, how thick was the bar of balefire? It definitely felt big, but no way near the limit.

 

Can balefire be undone with balefire?

 

 

Heres what I think. Get ready.

 

If you wanted to bring someone back from a balefire death, you have to do balefire on the killer strong enough to go back further than the balefire-calculated time of death. Do you see what I mean? Say, if I balefired Luckers so he died ten minutes ago, and five minutes later you balefired me, your balefire would have to be strong enough to kill me more than fifteen minutes ago to bring Luckers back. I think this because balefire has to go back far back enough to undo what I affected, and the balefire itself didnt affect them when they were hit-they died BEFORE they were hit, so you have to do a really strong balefire to undo it.

 

Do you understand what I mean? It could easily be wrong though

[Javonite]

Do you understand what I mean? It could easily be wrong though

 

I understand the principle, my question was rather if that principle held or not. If it does indeed hold, you can create versions of the Grandfather Paradox (time travel: go back in time and kill your parent before you were born...). This way you could possibly create [infinite] loops in the pattern, which probably isn't very healthy for the world.

 

Perhaps the Hinderstap phenomenon is related to balefire for instance. Such as might happen if you nuke an entire palace.

 

Edit: On further thought, the Hinderstap situation doesn't really require that balefire can be undone.

[water_seeker]

Can balefire be undone with balefire?

 

 

I could swear that RJ said no to this at some time, but I can't find that reference.

 

From my own take on BF...if I BF you, you will cease to exist BEFORE I BF'd you.  So if someone else came in and BF'd me, you woulnd't come back, because you died before I did anything to you (technically).

[CUBAREY]

From my own take on BF...if I BF you, you will cease to exist BEFORE I BF'd you.  So if someone else came in and BF'd me, you woulnd't come back, because you died before I did anything to you (technically).

 

 

Well if the second channeler kills the first with enough power to burn his thread prior to him using balefire then the first victim's threads could never have been burnt which means they would still be alive. A more theoretical answer is that my answer is correct as it goes but does not explain mechanics of "unburning" a thread. But then again that is why use of balefire leads to paradoxes that threatened to unravel the weave of time.

[water_seeker]

From my own take on BF...if I BF you, you will cease to exist BEFORE I BF'd you.  So if someone else came in and BF'd me, you woulnd't come back, because you died before I did anything to you (technically).

 

 

Well if the second channeler kills the first with enough power to burn his thread prior to him using balefire then the first victim's threads could never have been burnt which means they would still be alive. A more theoretical answer is that my answer is correct as it goes but does not explain mechanics of "unburning" a thread. But then again that is why use of balefire leads to paradoxes that threatened to unravel the weave of time.

 

The thing is, when someone is BF'd they die before they were killed.  You could then BF that person so that they die before they killed the first person, but that first person would still be dead...because they died prior to being killed, even if you used enough BF so that the original killer died prior to their victim.

 

I guess another way to say it is the persons thread (the one who was originally BF'd) doesn't exist at the time that the person killed them, so undoing that persons (the killer) actions by BFing them wouldn't change the fact that the original victim is dead, because they're death happened before the original killer took any action.

 

OMG...I can see it...in my head...but IDK if I'm explaining it right.  Damn paradoxes.

 

Oooh, BFing the person who BF someone else may stop the BFing, BUT the thread of the person they BF'd no longer exists at that time (the BF time) so they would still be dead because they died before they were BF'd.

 

OR how about this?  When a person is BF'd, the BF is the original killer, but since the thread burns back before the point they were BF'd the BF is (in essence) no longer the persons killer since it happens AFTER they die.  So BFing the person who BF'd them would only undo what happened after the person died anyway.

 

Okay, I guess 4 ways of saying the same thing is enough.  I hope I made sense.

 

[Nightstrike]

The thing is, when someone is BF'd they die before they were killed.  You could then BF that person so that they die before they killed the first person, but that first person would still be dead...because they died prior to being killed, even if you used enough BF so that the original killer died prior to their victim.

Mat died before Rahvin died. Rand used enough BF to make Rahvin's channeling become erased. Person A balefires person B, who balefired person C before that. Person C's thread is gone before person B's thread was gone. If person A uses enough balefire in a short enough time, then person C will be alive again. His thread had never been burned away at all - at least not according to his own experiences.

 

Q: "If person A balefires person B, then person C balefires person A, what happens?"  

RJ: Depends on how strong the balefire was....

 

 

[PhantomX9]

uh what about if the balefire hit someone inside or outside the fort who was responsable for Graendal being there before it enveloped the entire fort so Graendal wouldint of been at the fort therefore never useing compulsion on the guy?

[ed2funy]

Isn't there a balefire thread?

 

Also...interesting. :D

[water_seeker]

The thing is, when someone is BF'd they die before they were killed.  You could then BF that person so that they die before they killed the first person, but that first person would still be dead...because they died prior to being killed, even if you used enough BF so that the original killer died prior to their victim.

Mat died before Rahvin died. Rand used enough BF to make Rahvin's channeling become erased. Person A balefires person B, who balefired person C before that. Person C's thread is gone before person B's thread was gone. If person A uses enough balefire in a short enough time, then person C will be alive again. His thread had never been burned away at all - at least not according to his own experiences.

 

Mat died by lightning, not balefire, so that example doesn't fit.

 

Q: "If person A balefires person B, then person C balefires person A, what happens?"  

RJ: Depends on how strong the balefire was....

 

That says absolutely nothing about the person coming back.  The question doesn't read "If person A balefires person B, then person C balefires person A, will person B come back?"  If it did, then his response would mean that it is possible for a balefired person to come back.  His response in relationship to the "what happens" could simply mean that certain things other than the person coming back to life.  This is a classic example of "If the answer is easy, consider the possibility that you asked the wrong question."

[Nightstrike]

Mat died by lightning, not balefire, so that example doesn't fit.

Rahvin used a weave (channeling) to kill him, and Mat died before Rahvin.

 

That says absolutely nothing about the person coming back.

Exactly what else could it possibly mean?

 

 

[bronnt]

It's funny-everything important in this thread seems to have been said in the first 10-15 pages.  Since then, arguments, comments, and questions have just been repeating themselves.  It's only served to confuse me about what I already understood.

 

Primary examples of BF:

 

1) Mat and the DarkHounds.  Mat is still exactly where he was when the Darkhounds were BFed, though the BF burned them back a few minutes.  Therefore, BF does not affect causality.  If it had, Mat's actions during the affected minutes would have been different, since there were no Darkhounds during those minutes.  He might have gotten dressed, or gone directly to Moiraine for healing, but instead he's still staring at the hole in his door, with his memories of the actual events intact.

 

2) Rahvin.  Rand BFs Rahvin, and as a result, Asmo, Aviendha, and Mat are essentially reborn.  Others' memories are not affected, they remember seeing the dead bodies of all three, but there should have been no cause for that.  Even though the result is that Rahvin is dead before he was able to weave lightning, the secondary effects of Rand's battle with him are still present-BF damage in the palace.  If you're assuming the butterfly effect, then Rand wouldn't have been chasing Rahvin around in the palace to do that damage, since Rahvin would have already been dead before Rand reached it.  It resolves the direct paradoxes-inexplicably dead people-without fixing indirect paradoxes-the effects of battle.

 

3) Nynaeve and the boat.  This one seems definitive.  The rowers and the affected part of the boat are removed, therefore, the boat is suddenly at the bottom of the river with Nynaeve still in it.  Had BF affected causality, then the moment the damage was done, Nynaeve would gotten out of her cabin, instead of sitting still while the boat filled with water.  Lan would not have seen the paradox of the boat suddenly changing positions on him-to him it would have all followed smoothly and he'd have caught up with Nynaeve while her boat was sinking.  BF exists with its own paradox.

[alligator]

Mat died by lightning, not balefire, so that example doesn't fit.

Rahvin used a weave (channeling) to kill him, and Mat died before Rahvin.

 

 

Balefire erases that person's thread from the pattern, to a certain extent, I believe. Killing someone simply with a weave like lightning doesn't erase the thread. So Mat's case doesn't apply, because his thread was still there to be brought back when Rahvin was balefired.

 

At least that's how I understood it?

[Nightstrike]

You die, and your thread is gone from the Pattern. Balefire means that your thread is gone sooner than the "apparent" time of your death.

 

Kurafire: So threads and souls are the same thing?

RJ:  Err, not the same thing, but they must coexist. The thread can be removed; you die in this world. You die and the soul remains to come again and begin another thread. The soul disappears from this Gray Man, it's gone. Think of the Dark One as having eaten it. It's a fiction, but a convenient fiction for the moment. The thread of the Gray Man remains until the Gray Man dies, physically.

Kurafire: And the rest of the Shadowspawn?

RJ: What? Do they have souls you mean?

Kurafire: Yeah, and how do their threads work?

RJ: The threads work in the way, in the same way that the thread of any living thing works. It is part of the Pattern. They are not outside of the Pattern. Neither are the Forsaken. But the Pattern in a thing that is open, that's change. It is not a matter of the lives being forced necessarily. It's wide, you have the Pattern, the Heroes that are bound to the Wheel, they're not always heroes in the way of someone who rides in galloping with a sword, or carries out daring rescues. The people, the Heroes who are bound to the Wheel, are the corrective mechanisms. Human behavior is throwing the Pattern out. It's throwing the balance off. And the Wheel spins out the proper correctives. Put everything back in the balance. So not even the Forsaken are apart from that, they're not outside. The only things that are outside are the Creator and the Dark One. Neither affected by the Pattern.

 

 

[Crael123]

I think that we are all overthinking this. does it really matter? asmo isnt coming back. graendal is dead. semi and elza and rahavin are all dead. the deed was done.

[mb]

Does balefire really matter?  I would say yes since balefire is different from other forms of killing since actions become undone with it.

 

Asmodean, the books do not tell the means of his death.

And balefire seems to be not the only possibility.  (To me, inside a gateway could also fit.)

 

[water_seeker]

Mat died by lightning, not balefire, so that example doesn't fit.

Rahvin used a weave (channeling) to kill him, and Mat died before Rahvin.

 

We are talking specifically about Balefire, which behaves differently than other weaves.  With any other killing weave, you die as soon as you're killed, but with Balefire you die before you're killed.  Your thread stops at a time before any killing action can be used against it.  In essence, you die, but you weren't killed.  Because you weren't killed by the person (since you died before they took action, someone else Balefiring them wouldn't bring you back because (technically) they didn't kill you (even though they did).

 

The problem understanding the concept is that we live in a world of cause and effect.  There is always a cause and it is always followed by an effect.  Brett Favre throws a ball when he shouldn't have (cause), the Saints intercept and the game goes into OT (effect).  But with Balefire, the Saints intercept and the game goes into OT without Favre throwing the ball.  The effect with Balefire precedes the cause (because the thread burns back in time) thus freeing the effect from the cause.  You die, but it can't be because of the Balefire (even though we know it is becuase of the Balefire) because that happens later and thus undoing the Balefire with someone else's Balefire wouldn't have any effect on the dead.

 

Also, don't look at it from an observers POV, look at it through the Patterns POV.  According to the Pattern (which attempts to make sense of the paradox Balefire creates) the Balefired persons death was separate from the Balefirer's action, so bringing the person back wouldn't make sense when it tries to rectify the next persons Balefire.

 

That says absolutely nothing about the person coming back.

Exactly what else could it possibly mean?

 

The end of the question ("what happens?") makes it open-ended.  For RJ, that would be too tempting a question to not mess with someones head.  And did you notice that his answer was none too specific either?  It depends on how strong the Balefire was...  It's the wrong question for one, he doesn't answer it for two, and no one followed up on it for three.  As for what it could mean...anything really, the cup they moved before they were Balefired is now back on the mantle...the fire they started in the fireplace now appears to never have burned...the boat they rowed across the harbor is now only part way through the harbor...the person they stabbed before they Balefired person B isn't dead anymore...it could mean a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with them balefiring person B even though that is how the question opens.