Re: Digest V4 #400

From: TTrotsky@aol.com
Date: Thu 15 May 1997 - 01:18:16 EEST


Steve Martin disagrees with my comment that the Gloranthan stars have
measurable parallax, on the grounds that RW ancient astronomers couldn't
measure the parallax of RW stars. I fail to see the relevance since Glorantha

isn't the RW. Since ES can no longer be considered an accurate description of
the Gloranthan heavens, I certainly won't stick my head out and say Steve is
wrong. But IMO the Sky Dome is a real thing, and therefore ought to have a
finite distance. OTOH, I'd say the same about the Red Moon, and that
apparently is wrong!

Joseph Troxall points out that Glorantha should have no horizon on the not
unreasonable grounds that it is flat. On the face of it, this would seem to
be true. But I recall Greg, when asked about the world's shape at Convulsion
3D, saying 'Glorantha is flat, but it looks as if it is round' or words to
that effect. At the time, I interpreted this to mean that it does have a
horizon.
     How come? Don't ask me! There has, I believe, been some discussion about
light rays being curved on Glorantha, although I rather suspect this wouldn't
work. If anyone wants to convince me otherwise, could they do it through
private e-mail? I can just tell it's gonna involve geometry, and I think
we've had enough of that! Personally, I think it's just one of those things
you have to say are 'just magic' and not try and come up with a rationalistic
20th century explanation for. Which is kind of an unusual thing for me to
say, but there you are.

All hail the Reaching Moon,
    Trotsky

------------------------------


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 16:59:40 EEST