Are you sure about this? The tan graph is half-below the x-axis, which seems to not correspond to the proposed path of light rays. I don't follow how this extends to light rays which are reflected from above ground level, either; the same path, displaced vertically? I'll have to go think about this somewhat.
> This has an interesting effect at very long distances. Looking down on the
> world from an orbital altitude (whatever that means) the flat world would
> appear spherical!
Of course, if this were a) true, and b) known to anyone, they would not, if in possession of their Correct Brains, conclude "correctly" that light bends, but "erroneously" that Glorantha is a sphere, or a sphericly curved section of whatver sort, by virtue of the Duck Test. Or Occam's Razor, if you'd prefer a more high-falutin' sounding rationale.
> In fact the dome of
> the sky would not have to be a dome at all - it would be a plane
> parallel to the ground which just appeared to be a dome because of the
> curvature of the light!
Oof. To be fair, Nick did posit that light _from_ the heavens should travel in straight lines, but I suspect that just opens up other difficulties elsewhere.
ian gorlick allows that I am:
> correct that most Gloranthans may be unaware of the bending of light
I'd prefer "strongly believe the contrary", myself.
> and many may be unaware that their world even has a horizon. So many people
> don't give a toss about this whole debate and can freely ignore it and it will
> never affect their campaigns.
But this undercuts the whole argument for Bendy Light in the first place. If Gloranthan physics is Weird because it reflects the consensus of belief of its inhabitants, a proposition for which there is some merit, then proposing something which is just as weird, but _not_ entailed by Gloranthans' belief, is getting dangerously close to Pratchettesque mechanics for their own sakes, only without the laughs.
> I think you may be making an unwarranted assumption about Solar cultures. Why
> should they think that light ought to propagate in straight lines? The sun is
> round, the sky dome is curved
Circles are one thing, but tan-shaped curves are rather pushing it, don't you think? The whole iconography of the sun is based around a circular disk and straight rays; if curved light were an important part of solar belief, then Wheels would be shown with (noticably, to underline the point) curved rays, not straight ones. Why is it more likely that they'd believe in this, than in say, a spherical, or curved as if it were a portion of a sphere, surface of the earth?
> arrows (the weapons of the sun) travel in curving arcs.
I doubt that the DHns have discovered parabolas: see mediaeval gunnery texts for some strange ideas about the paths of projectile. And as I said before, isn't an understanding of sight as due to the optics of reflected light itself anachronistic for a culture at the stage of development as Dara Happa, particularly pre-Lunar DH?
> The notion that straightness connotes goodness, lawfulness, and
> truthfulness is a bias from our culture.
They're even more of a bias in Dara Happan culture. The God's Wall gives the Four Measurers pretty darn high billing... And granted, the compass is one of 'em, but that only covers Straight Lines, Right Angles, and Circles, not Other Stuff.
This said, I'm much happier about arguments about what people ought to believe than in what Ought To Be, with all its monomythic baggage.
Alex.
Powered by hypermail