> I think the real problem here is that Greg makes some comment about
> some celestial thing that he thinks should be true, without thinking
> for a moment about what it implies about celestial mechanics (or
> understanding how earthly ones work particularly).
Half true. Greg is *very* hot on earthly celestial mechanics (especially from a mythic perspective), and is well aware that Gloranthan ones are different. He hasn't yet worked out a consistent set of Gloranthan rules,=
and keeps changing the ones he does have for no readily apparent reason. He does want the movements of Lightfore through the constellations to "spell out" nightly myths, and is probably upset that, "scientifically" speaking (i.e. using an Ephemeris), this doesn't happen very obviously.
> I think the only real answer ... is to hold down Greg and make him
> think of the consequences of his decisions, and make him suggest which
> relatively sane celestial mechanics he likes, and try and get him to
> stick to it once he has chosen.
Tried that. Good luck if anyone else wants a go!
> If you demonstrate that making one or two changes will produce a
> vaguely sane and earth like sky, compared to immensely complicated
> systems with multiple spheres, and so on, he just might go for it.
=2E.. or he might deliberately go for the immensely complicated system. Whatever we do, the Gloranthan sky is not going to end up very earth-like= =2E
::::
Nick
::::
Powered by hypermail