From: Alex Ferguson (email@example.com)
Date: Wed 25 Feb 1998 - 04:18:06 EET
Peter Metcalfe valiantly fights a Battle of Greg Papal Bull Stops Here:
> I fail to see the logic in this train of thought. A precession
> is not a major disturbance of the heavens, it is a failure of
> the (human-wrought) calender.
Well, partly. The earth really _is_ precessing, and this does cause the
stellar "backdrop" at each equinox to change, so it's not just a human
construct. But it's very, very tiny and progressive, yes.
The objection that I'm aware of against precession of the equinoxes
is that Greg Sez (tm) that it don't happen, and when I spoke to him,
briefly, about it, he seemed fairly savvy about the whys and forefores
of having/not having 'em do so.
> I don't think the Lunars would have any cause to see signs of
> precession _yet_ (thus 'proving' that they have finally got
> the calender right).
However, what might happen, if there's been significant precession
since Plentonius' time, or since the latter part of the Darkness,
is that myths that depend on certain things happening in the sky
at certain times, or at certain relative positions, might "break".
Most obviously, the story of the Young God, star towers, and stuff
like that. (In this sense, Stonehenge and the Zodiac are "broken",
Of course, it's possible such things could have been mutated over
time without anyone realising it (or those few who do realise it
hushing it up...); or such things may be less ancient than they're
cracked up to be; and other such shamelessly revisionist notions.
Alternatively, the precession may be _so_ small as to make no real
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:12:31 EEST