Gravity in Glorantha

From: Simon Hibbs (simonh@msi-uk.com)
Date: Mon 11 May 1998 - 12:36:40 EEST


Lord Julian :

>You misunderstand me. I was suggesting that the scientific
>*approach*(es) would be similar to RW ones. Perhaps not
>the 20th century RW, admittedly. Gloranthan reality is
>of course radically different.

I agree tentatively.

>>Gravity acts perpendicularly to the world's surface, regardless =
>>of your location on it.You might be able to explain this effect, =
>>however a stable planetary orbit in a uniform parallel field is =
>>impossible, so gloranthan celestial mechanics contradicts =
>>universal gravitation.
>
>Um, what about the Sun? Yelm has, I believe, a stable orbit?

Precisely, and so universal gravitation, as described by Newton, cannot
apply in Glorantha.

>Gloranthan physical objects have weight and fall down. =
>
>Therefore, they have gravity. (Mind you, Newton's work did partially
>change the meaning of this word ...)

True, there is some form of gravity in glorantha, perhaps even some form
of universal attraction, but it is clearly not Newtonian, nor is it
Einsteinian.

>Your quibble is sustained, but I think my point was valid.
>RW science and theory IS applicable.

On the one hand you say that scientific approaches on glorantha would be
similar to real world ones, then that gloranthan reality is radicaly
different, then you say that real world sceintific theories are
applicable. This is getting confusing.

>Belief doesn't create Divinity, 'cos its already there.
>A god, however, only encompasses a portion of Divinity, not all
>of it. (Except for the Invisible God, who does.)
>Following a cult shapes belief into a god who gives a =
>pathway to universal Divinity. The God Plane then sustains
>the independant existence of the god. Mucho heroquesting necessary.

This I can largely agree with, it was simply the orriginal implication
that merely believing in a god can cause the god to exist that I found
too simplistic to be meaningfull.

>> there is a process of interaction between humanity
>>and divinity which we call religion.
>
>Is religion, then, a branch of chemistry?

In the same sense that Debbie and I have a certain 'chemistry' between
us perhaps. ;)

Simon

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


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri 13 Jun 2003 - 23:17:09 EEST