From: "Dan'l Danehy-Oakes" 
Subject: RE: (urth) Green's diameter, angular and otherwise
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:27:38 -0800

Jerry F., responding to me...

> > ... for which I am frankly grateful, because it seems to me to drive the
> > final nail into the "Blue = Urth" theory's coffin, based on past
> > discussions herein.

> Okay, how?  I too would be relieved, but I don't see the connection.

Well, maybe I was wrong from that perspective. I think the gravity issue
does it, though...

> > A twin planet, or even the moon, seen at the distance of 105K
> > miles, would be rather too large for an "eye" to be, at any
> > rate, the most obvious metaphor. 

> Au contraire, mon frere.  Sundogs (mock suns, parhelia) have a good
> deal more than twice the angular diameter of the moon, and one person
> who talked to me about seeing one compared it repeatedly to God's eye
> looking at her, perhaps accusingly.  

I can weasel this a bit, by observing that the ring makes the sundog _look_
much more like an eye than a bright glowing round thing in the sky does,
but I accept your basic point.

> I think Marc just presented, not for the first time, cogent reasons
> to think that Green's gravity is less than the Earth's.  

I disagree. I suggest that the "climbing with one arm while fighting with
the other" bit is possible due to one or both of two things:

1) This happens when the Narr is astrally travelling, not physical present
   on Green; and
2) Dramatic/narrative convention; how many times have you seen this in
   the movies?

> I argued a couple of days ago that nonetheless Green's gravity should be
> much greater than the moon's, more or less for the reason you mention.  I
> agree with you and him that there's no trace of any difference between
> Earth's gravity, Urth's, Blue's, and the _Whorl's_ "gravity".

Nor do I see any real evidence that Green's is any different.

> > (BTW, the whole issue of the Fliers in a separate thread seems to miss 
> > the point that they rarely - never voluntarily? - come near "ground" 
> > level.) 

> But they're capable of flying near ground level, at least for a little
> while.  See Sciathan's discussion of his capture, if I remember it
> correctly.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I seem to recall his saying it's much more difficult
near the ground. 

> > > Anyway, the higher the true distance, the harder the problem of how
> > > the inhumi cross.

> > True, but in any event the problem of how the inhumi cross between
> > Bleen and Grue

> (or Blee and Groon, for King Crimson fans)

Well, I confess that I'm a 21st Century Schizoid Fan... 

> > is trivial next to the problem of how Remora (and,
> > apparently, other inhumi) achieved the crossing to the Whorl. If I
> > recall correctly, a Neighbor mentions to Horn that they (the Neighbors)
> > sent them (the inhumi) - but does not describe how this was done. 

> I don't see that.  It's one of the problems the Blue=Ushas theory is
> supposed to solve, and for those of us who don't believe that, there
> was plenty of space travel before Typhon.  The problem of how inhumi
> got onto the _Whorl_ is no harder than the problem of how the averns'
> and the alzabo's ancestors got to Urth.

That seems to be based on an assumption that they were on the _Whorl_ 
from the time it left Urth, and I see no basis for that claim whatever. 
The Neighbor's comment about sending the inhumi to the _Whorl_ seems to 
me to refer to a time after (probably just after) the _Whorl_'s arrival 
in the Glune system.

> On the other hand, I think you could make a good case that it's not
> much easier for the inhumi to cross 35,000 leagues of space than ten
> times that distance.

Shrug. Possibly. And actually, the distance to the _Whorl_ can't be
_too_ much greater than the distance between the two planets, since the
_Whorl_, which is certainly smaller than either of them, is plainly visible
in the Bluvian night sky.

--Blattid


--