That's not quite the point: even in the Aristotelian paradigm, two bricks weigh twice as much as one, and two grogs lift twice as much as one. Think of each grain of sand as now falling "upwards" with the same "weight" it had while on the floor: clearly, if you put twice the sand, you'll have twice the lift!
That's exactly what allows the trick to work
Uh? Why not? The nature of the sand makes it push upward, as long as it is within the Circle. Just as if I had some ballast at the bottom of the ship and some nasty MuTe spell made it ten times heavier - the ship would just sink under the ballast's increased weight. I do not need any Rego.
This is a very, very good point. We thought a lot about it, and to some extent we are still undecided about whether this should be a "slightly unnatural" effect (which pushes the final spell to level 10 - we do not think giving one type of sand a natural property of another qualifies as "highly unnatural").
In the end we decided that it's really a natural property you are giving to sand - that of spontaneously moving towards iron - because it's a normal property of lodestone sand. You might argue that it's unnatural for a material to "push" towards iron and not "pull it" in turn. But if I recall correctly in aristotelian physics there's no action at a distance, so it can't be lodestone that pulls iron, it's iron that pushes towards lodestone. Since your sand is not lodestone (it just has one property of it, otherwise you'd be using the Level 2 guideline) iron just acts normally. In some sense, you've made your sand fall in love with iron, just as if it were lodestone, but it's an unrequited love because iron doesn't fall for plain sand.
If I understand what you mean, I do not think the text you are citing means quite what you think it means
Otherwise, you could load as much sand as you wanted into a ship, and the ship would never sink.
Yes , a ship would still sink due to the natural motion of the sand.
Read the entire section & Consequences of Motion on page 26 as well.
It means that your mutoed sand , does not have greater force due to greater quantity.
Contrary to its natural tendency to fall downwards , the element of earth ,
cannot provide precipitate motion (page 25) to move anything.
There is no force , Newtonianly property-absent to take advantage of either.
Possibly, but it is difficult (I think) to argue that you are giving the sand the natural property of lodestone. You seem to be changing it to give it an unnatural property (which has some similarity to lodestone).
For me, to count as "changing a natural property [of sand]" you need to be able to point to a natural piece of "sand" that has the desired property.
For me, natural properties of sand that are changable with this guideline are things like whether or not the sand floats, sinks, or dissolves (in water), can be ignited or not, has small or large grains, is red or black, drains or retains water, or is salty or not to taste. I think that you could even make the sand magnetic in the normal sense with this guideline --- but not this special sort of unnatural magnetism.
I can see the logic of this position, but I'm not convinced. However, it is really a matter of what your troupe finds convincing.
Apart from the magnitude of the base effect, the general idea seems good to me.
This is the other reason why I think I would use the "highly unnatural property" guideline --- there's no need to tie yourself in knots explaining how it works "naturally" under Aristotelian physics. It is easier to just say, it is not natural --- therefore it can break the rules of Aristotelian physics (if needed).
Ravenscroft, I'm really having a lot of trouble understanding what you are saying.
Are you saying that if I place a lodestone just under a piece of iron, the lodestone will not "jump up" (in aristotelian physics)?
Also, I'm not sure we agree on what precipitate motion is. According to Aristotle, there is no inertia; an arrow that moves through air does so because the air keeps pushing it (though less and less, so it eventually stops). Fire also does so, as well as (to a lesser extent) Water. Earth doesn't, which explains why an arrow fired into stone or earth stops ... unless the impact is strong enough to break the stone (ok, clay, glass etc. ) and create a "tunnel" of air that sustains the arrow's motion.
Instead, you seem (to me, but as I said, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying) to assume that "earth cannot provide precipitate motion" means that you cannot push an object indirectly if Earth (or metal or whatever) is between you and the object you are trying to push, i.e. if you push a metal shield, the person on the other side of the shield will not budge, because Earth cannot "transmit" motion. That's definitely not the meaning of what you are citing.
Might i also add , that the damage taken from Falling is based on Distance and surface fallen onto.
Object damage , from falling on you , is not based solely on doubling of weight for more damage.
A jug dropped from the second floor does +06 damage
A mature tree does +18 damage
(a large tree being size +03)
So a large amount of mutoed sand will not provide more damage (Force) for the same distance
falling upwards , than it would downwards.
You want more Force , then you require greater distance , not more sand.
Wouldn't at least "slightly unnatural" be more appropriate than "highly unnatural" ? I mean, highly unnatural is earth that sings, is attracted to wickedness, reproduces by eating stuff, or becomes heavier with time or light or height.
The sand itself cannot provide any precipitate motion , if you do not use Rego or possibly higher level muto altering its essential nature.
If you use a person in any example , they provide the initial impetus for motion.
There was nothing i wrote that suggested blocking or transmission of any type inherent to the element of earth component for a Terram Form.
(i hope)
You have altered the sand (terram) to give it a property of lodestone (terram).
The property of attraction , does not increase arithmetically , if you have more sand.
Twice as much sand is not twice the attractive power.
The sand still has to lift itself and any other sand attached to it , as well as the weight of the iron and the barrel ,
against the natural tendency to fall downwards towards the sphere of earth.
(You can always Perdo the weight away of course)
Which is why , in game mechanic terms , you need a Strength value to determine what something can lift ,
if you are not using Rego , then you need an equivalent.
The Limit of The Divine probably covers your Perpetual Motion as well ,
because only God is Infinite.
Then I just do not understand what you are saying, I'm sorry ...
Yes!
I do not understand what you are saying. Let's go with bricks. Are you saying "the weight of A brick does not increase if you have more bricks"? Then I agree. But if you say "Two bricks together do not weigh twice as much as a single brick", then I disagree. Let's say it takes a bucket full of lodestone sand to lift the bucket, the sand, and a brick tied to the bucket. What I'm saying is that then two buckets each full of lodestone sand will lift themselves, the sand, and two bricks, one tied to each bucket.
Here I totally agree.
This, I totally fail to comprehend. I'm just completely clueless about what you are saying.
What are the effects of the spell? I mean, ok, sand moves toward iron. I would think that this would, at best, no more than give a slight coating of sand to the iron-booted, or get some sand inside some armor, for maybe some irritation. Or am I missing something here?
You are missing 3 pages of the discussion of how this spell is designed to make a ship fly Ingenious system if you ask me.
An alternative that occurred to me would to make each bucket have the spell cast at the bottom of the bucket. They are circular after all. Makes for much easier replacements and you do not warp the ship mightily from a constant effect.
I would go for highly unnatural, since the sand is also providing enough push to move a whole ship. And doing so you can show your tongue to Aristotle or any other pesky physics theoretician that comes around. "Hey, it is highly unnatural!"
This is about as unnatural as a negative mass used as a propulsion system (look it up). It took me some time to wrap my head around it.
I am left with how strong the magnetic force of lodestone is. Collectively, your sand must be strong enough to lift your contraption. If it'd take 100 men to lift it, and one man can resist pushing the strength of a barrel... well maybe you'd want 10 barrels of highly unnatural attraction rather than 100 of natural. If you consider that a strong man can throw half the weight he can lift, you'd want 20 barrels to get some movement out of your ship.
It may be a clever idea , but unless someone more authoritive than myself can put forward better arguments ,
i wont keep arguing why it wont work for the given assumptions of the OP.
Still remain unconvinced that it will work , no matter what level of Muto is used.
You can go the hard way (which I've done, for nerd-ness sake ) or try this more "back of the envelope". A magnet can usually "lift" a bit of iron PLUS a weight ten times as large as the iron itself. You can try it yourself taping together a few needles and, say, a pencil, and lifting the whole thing with with a magnet. Then, to lift a 100 ton ship, you probably need a dozen tons of "magnetized" sand at most.
I think it's unnatural tous* because we have so much familiarity with Newton's third law, the action-reaction principle: it is, after all, what makes jets and rockets work. But the action-reaction principle does not exist in Aristotelian physics. It's the Aristotelian physics that are really weird and unnatural, at least to our sensibilities. Which is great! It gives a great mythic feel to Ars Magica, and choosing to make them part of the 5th edition setting is one of the things I really really commend David Chart for.
) and create a "tunnel" of air that sustains the arrow's motion.
Ingenious system if you ask me.