Phases of the moon, solution and problem.

From: Alex Ferguson <abf_at_cs.ucc.ie>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:16:59 +0100

On Tue, May 18, 2004 at 09:30:55AM +0300, Mikko Rintasaari wrote:
> Take an orange and a flashlight, and model what the moon will look like.
> The phases as described will only look like that when the moon is viewed
> from so far away that it appreast low on the horizon.

Where is it written that the 'searchlight model' conforms to any such physical analogy quite so literalisticly? No-one has claimed, for example, that it's at any finite, logically determinable "height" for example, which is about the first thing you'd need for your "orange model" to be viable, or even to assess its viability.  

> I propose moving back to the old model. The moon look _the_same_
> where-ever on the mortal plane of Glorantha one looks at it.

Evidence for this being 'the old model'? On the contrary, Cults of Prax clearly describes it having a _different_ appearance from place to place. (Not specifically as regards phase, but then, you'd expect that in the context.)  

> The semi reality of the moon pulsing (as opposed to turning) overhead
> seems much better to me than trying to force Gloranthan reality to conform
> with Terran astronomy.

I must have missed that part... Have you actually seen our moon lately?

Cheers,
Alex.

--__--__--