Subject: (urth) Green ain't Lune

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 06:47:25 +0000

My excuse for missing this is that it is only my second reading of RTTW, and
I wasn't looking for it the first time through. On page 163 Silkhorn is
answering Pig's question about what he had been thinking:

    "The three whorls. Two large and low, by which I mean near the Short
Sun. This one near the stars. I don't know whether Green's bigger than Blue,
or Blue's bigger than Green; but both are much bigger than this whorl we're
in, the Long Sun Whorl."

Now, it's true that he gives no absolute answer to the question of which
body is larger, Blue or Green, but the fact that he has been on both worlds,
seen both from a lander in space, and was unable to distinguish one from the
other by size indicates, at the very least, that there is little difference
between them with regard to size. Earth is about four times the size of the
moon; Urth is presumably four times the size of Lune. Blue cannot be four
times the size of Green, or someone would have noticed.

Also, the Green-born inhumi would have had a hell of a time flying around on
Blue with all those extra gravities dragging them down. And if it was hard
for them to escape Green's gravity to hunt on Blue, as Jahlee indicated,
then it would be just about impossible to escape Blue's and return to Green,
if Blue had much higher gravity.

Does this finally kill the Blue=Urth idea?

-Roy

--

---

From: Jeff Wilson <jwilson at io.com>
Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2002 06:19:41 +0000

> From: "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net>

> Does this finally kill the Blue=Urth idea?

	No, because 1) Lune shows signs of Urthlike gravity in TBOTNS, and 2)
Silkhorn's statement could be an acknowledgement of the varying apparent
sizes of the bodies during his travels on and around them. 

	The gap between Green and Blue could perhaps be bridged at close
approach by an expansion of the atmospheres due to tides. This could
allow the atmospheres to mingle, but they would also be attenuated so
that flying through the thinned air is very difficult even in the lower
effective gravity between the worlds. 

-- 
Jeff Wilson
How Am I Posting? 1-800-555-6789
"If your SecOp can see you, so can the enemy." -Cpt Law

--

---

From: matthew.malthouse <matthew.malthouse at guardian.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 09:44:52 +0000

On 06/04/2002 07:19:41 Jeff Wilson wrote:

>       No, because 1) Lune shows signs of Urthlike gravity in TBOTNS,

Where?  I can only recall the picture cleaning and a reference to Voladus
possibly hiding in "the forests of Lune".

Matthew

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2002 20:08:23 +0000

> times the size of Green, or someone would have noticed.

I don't think that follows.  If you see planets from space, you
can't tell which is bigger unless you know which one is closer, and
it's hard to see how Horn could have had any information about his
distances from Blue and Green.

> Does this finally kill the Blue=Urth idea?

One of the few things I think is clear is that Green, Blue, and Urth
have about the same gravity.  If Green is the moon, it must have been
terraformed even as to the gravity (which of course is possible and
might even have been a necessary part of the terraforming, but which
there's no direct evidence on).

My latest theory about what Wolfe may have had in mind: Blue and
Green are a double planet orbiting each other with a period of six
years (could someone remind me of the cite for that period?), and
orbiting the Short Sun with a much longer period.  They would have
to be very far from the Short Sun, which therefore would have to
be many times brighter than our sun, but I suspect it's possible.

This would be consistent with Silkhorn's comment (when he tells us
the Gaonese date, somewhere in the first half of OBW) that different
towns use different years, which is hard to reconcile with Blue's
having a period of about an Earth/Whorl year--you'd think they could
all pretty much agree.

The only objection I can see to this theory is that "conjunction"
would be a misnomer for "closest approach", but I don't think
"conjunction" can be the right word anyway.  Are there objections? 
Has someone suggested this before?

Jerry

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 07:35:43 +0000

>years (could someone remind me of the cite for that period?)

"We know that conjunctions with Green occur every sixth year." (OBW, 182)

>having a period of about an Earth/Whorl year--you'd think they could

"There is argument about the length of the year here, and how well it agrees
with the year we knew in the Long Sun Whorl, but the difference must be
slight if there is any . . ." (OBW, 129)

-Roy

--

---

From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 16:58:28 +0000

--- "Roy C. Lackey" <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:
> From: Jerry Friedman <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, April 08, 2002 3:08 PM
> 
> 

Thanks for both, Roy!  The second one seems to shoot down my 
long-period-satellite theory--and leaves me again with no idea of what
Wolfe might have meant.

-- 
Jerry Friedman

--