(urth) Inhumi's secret and numbers on blue

[DAVID STOCKHOFF]

>________________________________
> From: Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com>
>To: urth at lists.urth.net 
>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:23 AM
>Subject: (urth) Inhumi's secret and numbers on blue
> 
>Entonio wrote:
>>
>> I find the insistence on the unfeasibility of inhumi travel misguided, except when it aims to point out that they may be lying (that's what they and their hosts do, after all). We keep discovering creatures here on earth living lives formerly considered impossible, and I mean impossible, not unlikely. To hold on to what we know to dismiss what we don't is what flat-earthers did. Still, I'm inclined to think the inhumi  can't cross the void the way we're told they do.
>>
>> They don't seem to have anything like a cell wall either, so no hypothetical  plant-like abilities. Otoh, theres their shapeshifting thing (which I find no one protesting!), so all bets are off.
>
>I think the strongest evidence that the official story of the inhumi's
>travel is false is that Horn, in trying to explain it, says that light
>objects fall less quickly, as is shown by the example of feathers,
>(and so inhumi won't burn up on entering the atmosphere at speed, as
>landers do). That's not just something that breaks the laws of
>physics, as things in what is partly a fantasy work may; it's a
>misunderstanding of how the laws of physics work, even in normal
>circumstances, and what is more it is a notorious schoolboy error,
>which we are proud of having got beyond, as told in (perhaps
>apocryphal) stories about Galileo. So I think by saying this he is
>sending an implicit message to the (real) audience, 'This explanation
>does not work'.
>_____
>
>---This argument parallels the one I just made: Krait's claim mixes the known falsehood with the truth. Even living on the Whorl, Horn should grasp that feathers are not just lighter versions of rocks.
>
>_____
>On the other hand Jahlee does seem to confirm the story and offer
>evidence, when she says:
>
>"If you lack endurance…" She shrugged. "Only your frozen corpse gets
>to Blue. It crosses the sky there, a little scratch of fire. No doubt
>you've seen them. I have." (RTTW 3). (And the Rajan nods, as if he had
>indeed seen this.)
>_____
>
>---Whether true or not, this confirms that in the flight theory, inhumi are moving fast enough to burn up, and only the unfurling or motion of their wings can save them. An object with high drag slows down faster than an object with low drag---unless you're in space. High drag will not prevent burnup if you're moving too fast to begin 
with, and wings don't help you slow down in space. I don't know
 whether to imagine inhumi skipping and settling slowly into the atmosphere or diving
 in and pulling up. Neither quite works. Why would Wolfe tell us this?
>
>Another issue that hasn't come up is how spaceflight would evolve. Perhaps the inhumi's ancestors flew mindlessly toward Blue the way a moth flutters around a lamp, and a random few made it. But the only way this could confer advantage is if (a) Green's population was dying or (b) Blue was an advantageous place to carry out part of the life cycle and return more powerful than before or (c) Blue fundamentally changed the species in some way. Well, we already know the answer would be "c" (and thus also "b").
>
>Here's another question: why would Wolfe set up the Blue-Green system so that the planets came close to one another in the first place, only to reveal the supposed significance of this as false? That's a deep game to play. (A species with landers might make the crossing more easily, just as it is easier for us to get to the Moon than to Mars, but this distinction would be lost on readers who never even see a Neighbor lander and who already have accepted star travel.)
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20121128/197f09b5/attachment-0002.htm>