You're right on the whole, both of our phrasings are a bit suspicious. It should read 'objects, that as seen by the muggles are composed of atoms,'. Also, for the sake of simplicity, let us stay pragmatic. Of course there is not much (if anything), of which we can say that it is or it is not. In absolute terms, your statement is no more true than mine.

So let me rephrase: I don't see the point of adopting a model different from the muggle one for magical theory if that model is to be based on Aristotelian physics, which is just another muggle model, albeit one which has been shown to have a lot less barings with muggle reality. If one wants to use a different model, one would have to forge it, probably from scratch, on the primary empirical knowledge relating to magic.

 

I don't know... It was just instinctive - I always correlate magic with the four elements and, thus, wih that estructure model.

 

Plus, when Aristotle was around, wizards and Muggles hadn't yet separated.

 

Just makes me think of pokemon...

I don't even really see what the question is here. Is it 'How do wizards understand transfiguration?' or is it 'What is the best way for us to understand transfiguration?'. At first I thought it was the latter, but then it seems to have shifted towards the former, which we really don't have any way to know, since there isn't anything concrete in the books. Therefore the answer for the first must take into account the answer for the second: there is no point in arbitrarily deciding on a theory which does not help us understand the subject.

As a writer of course, one might want to use a theory that differs from muggle science and better corresponds to the magical universe, but I don't think the Aristotelian model is it. The idea of four elements just seems like a fantasy cliché: they are all muggle elements, corresponding to the same real things in the muggle and magical world. Why would we say that a particular element is present in in something where it clearly is not? You take units of the four elements, and combine them however you like, they will never form anything that is primarily composed of any metal.

 

Smelting.

Earth + Fire -> Metal

But there's no reason for wizards to rely on cumbersome and inaccurate characterizations of matter created by arrogant muggles.

Damn, that guy lived.

 

In that Mike Smith review the dude went on to describe how all four elements were supposedly part of something but only two were visible. If we assume that magical theory has moved onwards but in a different direction from muggle theories (presumably the currant theory was fully developed by the time Flamel was sixty) then we could come up with a theory something like this (This is the perceived state of the world from a wizards point of view and not the 'true' state):

Magic is in all things and makes up all things. The structure of the magic relates directly to what it is - to change the magic is to change what it is. The structure of magic is made up of elements (like fire, water, earth and wind or hotness, coldness, moistness and dryness however as Wizarding theory has evolved the number of elements has gone up 'cause I said so). These elements are; Passive, Active, Mental, Physical, Strength and Weakness.

Obviously these elements are opposites. Passive and Active, depending on the proportion, influence how overt the magic is from a muggle chair (extremely Passive) to a Phoenix (extremely Active). Mental and Physical determine How the magic is used. A Chair is purely Physical whereas a Phoenix has the ability to think on some level. Strength and Weakness, To borrow a muggle term, determine the density of magic. A chair is thinly spread compaired to a Phoenix.

The only cannon mentions of Wizarding theories (If Granger said any Jargon then those are hear by discredited as attempts to make her look smart and so just J.K. nonsense) are the names of the textbooks that students have to buy. These are hardly substance for a contradiction.

It took me five minutes to come up with a theory of magic, now I believe our attentions should be moved back to the question of 'What is the best way for us to understand transfiguration?' rather than 'How do wizards understand transfiguration?'. It doesn't even matter if their are flaws in the above theory, because not every real life theory we use today is watertight and to be honest if your going to go into this detail in a fic then you can point out any flaws yourself...

 

I didn't even bother to read the whole thing, I might edit when I do, but as far as I can tell this is Pokemon Evolution or some shit. Firstly, there is no point in putting magic where it is not needed, therefore I personally won't use magic to explain things the muggles explain very well. So, whatever you mean by 'magic is in all things and makes up all things' well, no. Even if there are elements, these are still not magic.

And I pointed out that it would be nice if both questions were solved by the same answer. Creating a magical theory isn't about having fun pointing out the flaws in your own fic.

Edit: And stop random capitalisation. It makes you sound even more stupid.

 

The 'random' capitalisation is in names. As far as a cannon wizard is concerned there is magic in everything or at least we have yet to see any evidence to the contrary but you don't need to agree I was just throwing out a line of BS to see how many would snort it up.

I'm perfectly capabe of debating on this subject but the truth is that there is no cannon on this subject.

Now unless you have any objections I would like to move the descution back to 'What is the best way for us to understand transfiguration?' rather than 'How do wizards understand transfiguration?'.

 

At first I also thought there was some sort of pattern, but then I realised this is something imbeciles do, for fun, or just to bother people like me:

That's not all I noticed, but I decided it was enough.

I don't know how you define magic, but try it before saying stuff like 'magic is in everfin'.

 

I would object, saying that they are the same question. The best way for us to see transfiguration is undoubtably how it is done, which is the wizarding conception of it.

Also, it's "canon", not "cannon".

 

I think its number 3.

I believe the limits is that you can change the shape and nature of the objects by rearranging molecules etc and by adding and subtracting molecules and particles. The greater the change from medium to medium or change in dimensions the harder the transfiguration.

However the transfiguration retains some properties of the old ones. Like you cant change a rock into an apple because the new apple would have the same protein and fat etc as a rock.

 

Disagree there. Transfiguration changes something completely. It doesn't overlay an effect like a charm, but rather changes the base structure of the object:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=24

Agreed about the more similar objects are, the easier the transfiguration.

 

I agree in that it changes but almost completely. However only in physical dimension's. In that fact that transfiguration alters the medium to be come bigger, change shape, density and mass. In canon you can almost confirm the greater the change, the harder the transfiguration. Which is why the first lesson is a small change of medium, shape and no change in state. Matchstick to needle.

However I dont believe it changes the almost internal properties by adding amino acids or proteins. Its the only explanation for not being able to conjure food. The conjuration of food is a transfiguration of a gas to a solid. With a gas having no chemical energy to ingest.

 

No, the conjuration of food would be the pulling of food out of non-existence. The reason why I suspect you cannot conjure food is because food is nourishment, and thus must have substance, but a conjured item is in essence, nothing. It was pulled from nothing and it returns to nothing, and its existence is only temporary.

And your opinion of transfiguration seems to imply that it is just a change in appearance rather than an actual physical change. Not only is this a false divide (in order to have a change in appearance you must have a change in the physical properties) but we've also seen much in canon that goes against this.

If a change was just in appearance, then the dog that Cedric transfigured from a rock would not have been able to move under its own power - movement requires respiration, which requires those things such as enzymes and proteins and so forth. So too would the gerbil Fudge transfigured for the Prime Minister not have been able to function as a pet for his niece. And so on.

 

The problem is the dog moves because it is ainimated. A charm I belive. You could have a solid rocking horse ainimated with that charm.

 

No, it's not a moving rock-dog, it's an actual dog, like McGongall's desk begame an actual pig.

There are animation charms which make inanimate objects move as if they were alive - like the animation that Dumbledore did on the statues in the Ministry of Magic, but then you have animation in Transfiguration, which is the transfiguration of something into an animal/that which moves under its own power. Two different types of animation. Cup into gerbil, desk into pig, rock into dog, boy into ferret: we've seen it countless times.

 

Another problem however is the fact. On your way of thinking, many thing would just be transfigured. Wy not transfigure a rock into a dog instead of going to the pet shop. Why are the weasleys poor when they can live off transfiguration.

 

This has already all been discussed earlier in the thread.

The problem is not with Transfiguration - it's clear what Transfiguration can and can't do. We've seen animal transfiguration - it's probably the most common branch of Transfiguration we've seen in the books. That you can transfigure things into and from animals is indisputable. We've also never seen a Transfiguration revert without being deliberately untransfigured by a wizard, and know of some transfigurations that have lasted for centuries, and know from JKR's website that transfiguration changes the fundamental properties of an object, all of which lends to the idea that transfiguration is permanent.

The problem is with JKR's world-building not fitting with her magic, not with the magic itself.

Of course, there is an excuse. Transfiguration is often said to be the hardest branch of magic, and most wizards can't even manage simple charms, never mind complex animal transfigurations. Cedric Diggory was a talented wizard. Mr and Mrs Weasley have never shown any great aptitude for transfiguration.

 

Very true. I tend to believe that transfigurations will only last a long period of time for certain things. I think that here should be ome magical internal resistance that the spell will discharge through.

With the weasely's we know Bill must be atleast talented with transfiguration. with his results. So their must be something wrong with transfigured items that mkaes thm inferiorto real items.

Also another problem that occurs is object-animal transfiguration. By transfiguration how can you give an object thought processes, a brain and by all means a soul.

 

I'd say that you can't give a soul via transfiguration, which is why you can create animals but not a human (though presumably you could create a souless human body if you were talented enough), but I see no problem with creating brains. They're just physical objects, and we know that you don't need to understand an object to create it via transfiguration. You just cast the spell.

This is assming that the spell lingers and keeps ensuring the change.

The way I see it, a transfiguration spell alters an object, and then the spell is over. You're left with an object which was as if it had never been a different object previously.

This is the distinction I see between Charms and Transfiguration. With a charm, magic is always involved: an object levitates so long as the spell is there, and when the spell is canceled the object ceaces to levitate. With transfiguration, since it alters the object it inself, I see the spell as merely performing the change, and then being over.