> Yes, Nick, I did read your discussion of the moon being in different
> phases depending on where the observer stands... I just don't like it.
Sure. Your post didn't mention this, which is why I mentioned the Codex take (Joerg's, Martin's and my own) and where to find it. As I hope I've always said re: how the Moon looks, I really don't care what it gets up to in other folks' campaigns. There is so much confusing source material out there (RQ2 had it invisible outside the Glowline and always appearing full within it: phases? What phases?) that I wanted to produce my own reconciliation.
> My proposal that the red face of the moon attracts light and the black face
> was only intended as a thought provoker.
Sorry: I read you saying that the curved-light theory meant it "must" attract light. As one of the originators of the theory, I felt moved to comment, since this came as news to me.
> It seemed to me that while we were playing with the effect of curving light
> we might consider localized effects near the terminator of the moon.
Absolutely! It's entirely possible the "moon-ring" effect visible inside the Glowline is caused by just such an interplay of local celestial phenomena.
> I think the curving light theory should be explored more...
I agree! You did this brilliantly with the Path of Yelm, which I accept 100% as the Gloranthan explanation for the Sun's movement. But I think the best way to explore the theory is by looking at celestial phenomena and working out the curved-light explanation for why they look the way they do: not (as you seemed to be doing) to say that the Red Moon must appear weirdly distorted because of the theory. I think we can safely say she looks round from the ground.
> Come on Nick, let go of your own theories for a moment and play with this
> one...
Hey: I never said that you were *wrong*. I mentioned that I had a solution to the "problem" which you might not have read, and answered a question about how the dark side of the moon might look. Sorry if this contribution rubbed you up the wrong way.
___
Pam writes that curving light
> would cause a discrepancy between an object's true location and its
> image over distance, and may make things like archery more difficult.
> Interesting, then, that only the sky cults have truely mastered long-
> distance archery! Must be due to being "in tune" with the behavior of
> light and vision in Glorantha.
Certainly true. If you fire an arrow at a target that's a long way away, it's more likely you'll miss him. This is empirically true, and (to my mind) proves the curved-light theory beyond reasonable doubt ;-)
NB: curved light also means that Farsee spells can be used to see "beyond the horizon", as these impel greater vim and vigour to the hypothetical rays emanating from your eyes.
_______ ____
Thanks to Brian's friend Dana for the physical excursion: nice to read an
outsider's opinion. So arrows fired at distant targets might hit the ground in
front of them, eh? Gee, these wacky Gloranthan physics make the strangest things
happen ;-)
O - - - - - - - - - - - - - -V
A |
=========== |
======= ____|___
===== \___|__/
===========
Where ====== is the sea's surface (curved in the real world, flat in Glorantha), - - - - is the line of sight (vice versa), and the man and boat should be obvious. (The man is, of course, a Tsankth buccaneer walking on the water). From this diagram, it looks to me like only the tops of distant objects would be visible.
The theory that sight works through rays emanating from the eyes was cooked up by some Greek (I'm at work and don't have my books handy), and held its own in the classical world for centuries, so I don't think we need worry that it's completely untenable.
Powered by hypermail