Re: [Glorantha]Phases of the moon

From: Alex Ferguson <>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 17:48:00 +0100

On Wed, May 19, 2004 at 04:33:32PM +0300, Mikko Rintasaari wrote:
> > > I propose moving back to the old model. The moon look _the_same_
> > > where-ever on the mortal plane of Glorantha one looks at it.
> >
> > Evidence for this being 'the old model'? On the contrary, Cults of Prax
> > clearly describes it having a _different_ appearance from place to place.
> > (Not specifically as regards phase, but then, you'd expect that in the
> > context.)
> Now you are splitting hairs. There was talk of the moons apparent hight
> varying with the place it was viewed from

And indeed the apparent size. There was certainly no suggestion that it was in any way an "ordinary celestial body", which is what you're apparently proposing, or erroneously assuming to have ever been the case.

> but the phase of the moon was (in that most Gloranthan way) tied to
> days of the week.

And as I say, have you any evidence for this claim? I can think of none.  

> The searchlight model creates more problems than it solves, and creating
> complex patches to a complex and unsatisfying model doesn't seem the right
> way to go about this.

Are you implying that's what I'm doing? That would be a wholly unwarranted characterisation; I suggested no "patch" to the searchlight model, I merely pointed out why your model was a) not 'the old model', and b) has its own issues with consistency of explanation. The 'searchlight model' proposes that in each 'septant' of the mundane world one sees a progression from black to crescent to half to full moon, and so on; supposing you'd see something else, requires an appeal to optics on your part that you're accusing the proponents of the idea of making. (_Why_ you'd see such a thing is another matter, and I make no suggestion on that.)

What one'd see in Silver Shadow is another matter again, but it might be well to get some rather more basic issues straight before venturing too far down that line of thought.    

> > > The semi reality of the moon pulsing (as opposed to turning) overhead
> > > seems much better to me than trying to force Gloranthan reality to conform
> > > with Terran astronomy. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > I must have missed that part... Have you actually seen our moon lately?
> Sorry? I added an underline incase you misread the above. I don't mean
> that terra has a moon rotating above, but that the searchlight model is
> trying to create a "terran optics" solution to a Gloranthan miracle. Much
> like the horrible stuff about curving light and so forth trying to create
> a horizon on a flat world.

Optics and astronomy are rather different matters. And either comparison still seems to me to be mistaken: the 'searchlight model' is nothing much at all like the behaviour of our moon (your suggestion would be much moreso), and it assumes nothing at all like RW optics.

I agree that 'bendy light' is a horrible account, but are you seriously suggesting that Glorantha ought to simply not to have a horizon? I suppose this comes down to whether one thinks Glorantha is a place where mythic accounts are compellingly true, or one with assorted cheesy magical special effects to underpin the idea that it ultimately has nothing at all to do with our world. (Discworld with more fights between the jokes, to heavily paraphrase the old saw about ice hockey?)

--__--__-- Received on Thu 20 May 2004 - 06:26:22 EEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sun 04 Feb 2007 - 19:57:49 EET