This question has been marked as a potential duplicate of this question.

Since I'm asking for a self consistent framework and side effects, of which energy is just one part, I don't see this as a duplicate. I'd like to see both sides of this argument so we can decide how to treat this question, and as guidance for future askers.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I voted to keep it open, because I agree, it is a different question. $\endgroup$
    – bowlturner
    Mar 2, 2015 at 16:58

2 Answers 2


I issued the close vote.

I felt that anyone looking for hard-magic ways of transmuting elements will necessarily need to deal with the general conservation of energy as the most crucial part of that framework given the massive amounts of energy involved. If you hand-wave that away then you are quickly out of the realm of hard-magic.

I also want to dissuade the whole "how would X work if Y?", "how would X work if Z?" sort of duplication where the answers are similar, but fragmented.

And I am also concerned that the question is too broad. Once you allow hand-waving something as vital as the conservation of energy, you allow many possible hand-wavy/magical answers to solve your problem. But I voted as duplicate since it's more helpful than too broad, even if the broadness helped encourage my duplicate vote when I might've otherwise considered it different enough.

  • $\begingroup$ How would you feel about answers saying "Conservation of energy is covered in the linked question, but you'd also need to consider the following points"? $\endgroup$ Mar 2, 2015 at 15:23
  • $\begingroup$ @trichoplax - I feel as though it is neigh impossible to get answerers to do that. It's easier to vote the single question down than N answers who are effectively answering the question, like the current leader. $\endgroup$
    – Telastyn
    Mar 2, 2015 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ Since there is a lot more to my question that energy considerations, would you prefer to see the energy parts removed, or just not to see the question at all? $\endgroup$ Mar 2, 2015 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ @trichoplax - I'm not sure, it depends on what you're looking for. $\endgroup$
    – Telastyn
    Mar 2, 2015 at 15:43

The questions are inherently different

The first question is asking about the consequences of magic as achieved by violating nuclear physics or altering time, the second question is about the consequences of magic as achieved by violating thermodynamics. Labeling these the same is like labeling a question about helicopters as the duplicate of a question about rockets.

Even through the end goal may be similar, the mechanism by which you get there matters.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .