> On Sat, 12 Apr 2003, S. Ben Melhuish wrote:
> <snip>
> > Is this how other folk envision the Moon?
> >
> > (The other vision of the Moon might be one that would be all red, or
> > all black, at the same time, regardless of the observer's location.
> > In some ways I like this idea more, though it's a little more
> > "magical" and less grounded in 21st-century reality and thus a
> > little harder to fully wrap my brain around.)
>
> I was really disappointed with the rotating-source-of-darkness Red
> Moon explanation. I don't like my Glorantha cheapened by
> pseudo-science explanations. [just an opinion guys]
I personally like the weirdness of the rotating Destix explanation, which shouldn't come as a surprise to many ... ;-)
Although I must admit to really disliking the idea that the Moon doesn't rotate.
Hmmm ... maybe, instead of staring fixedly southwards, the Moon rotates anticlockwise, taking four weeks (one month !) to turn 360° ? IMG the weirder the Moon the better, although obviously that wouldn't be everyone's cup of weirdness.
> So. Personally I like the moon to be seen in the same phase regardless
> of where the observer is standing. So in my vision the moon is
> pulsing, not turning.
I like this explanation for what is seen in the Silver Shadow.
Actually, I like all three explanations for the phases !
Julian Lord
PS
> I like my Glorantha flat (not just called flat, with a normal horizon)
--__--__--
Powered by hypermail