Hate to point out errors, but..
Cruithne does not orbit Earth, it orbits our Star (Sun), and like noted in the Wiki article (that you linked), it's incorrectly referred to as a second moon.
... This is why I wrote - "well, sort of - it's a quasi-satellite - but still!"
One possibility -if we're wiling to stretch credibility a bit- is that both moons are indeed in near-synchronous orbit, and that Satina is currently blocked from view behind the larger Moon.
Recall the Emergent Compendium codex entry, with its image of two shadowed spheres among stars subtitled "An eclipse as Fen'Harel stirs".
Given what we know about Solas waking, it seems possible the appearance of a single moon may be a distinctive feature of the modern age, if we're willing to accept the concept of a valid lunar "eclipse" as being caused by another moon. (The two referenced spheres being the two moons, rather than a moon and Earth.)
Again, it's a bit of a stretch, and would only be possible with a remarkably small and specific set of factors governing the moons' respective orbits, but... perhaps?
Another possible, although even slightly more far-fetched, is that the moons share the same rough orbit but are located at stable lagrangian points in orbit around Thedas, so only one is ever visible in the sky at any given moment.
This could be why they refer so often to "the moon" as if it was a singular entity, as for a long time it was not realised that there was two, until their understanding of astronomy and the differences in the surface features of the moons clued them in that this was indeed the case.
What? That makes no sense either. "One life, one death, there is but one God". It acts exactly like an Abrahamic religion, even down to the part of there being only one god and all other gods being false, a singular being who made everything. That is basically the complete opposite of Deism. I suspect you're wrong about this and have no evidence at all, but we'll see.
I think I can answer that - while Deism doesn't really describe the concept well, it has a very important aspect that Andrastianism originally preached: there are no (more) miracles. Prayer doesn't work. God exists, but he won't lift a finger.
This aspect of religion got watered down A LOT in further installments, but originally was quite defining. The official stance of religious authorities was that Maker is mad at the world and doesn't intervene in any way now. No miracles will occur and no prayers will be heard until people get their sh*t together and start singing Chant of Light in every corner of the world.
I'm pretty sure that's what In Exile meant when he mentioned Deism - the idea of absent God that does exist in Deism, even if other aspects are obviously at odds with Andrastianism - starting from the fact that Deism generally opposes the idea of organised religion, especially if the latter claims to be started through supernatural interventions (like, say, being started by God-chosen miracle-making prophet).
In fact, if we're talking about Thedas, Imperial Chantry is a bit closer to Deism, as it, generally speaking, rejects most miracles, doesn't really acknowledge Andraste as bride of the Maker and possibly doesn't even include Drakon's revelation in its Chant of Light (and that's where the idea of spreading Chant of Light to reclaim Maker's grace comes from). This takes a lot of supernatural from their religion, bringing it relatively close to philosophical principles of something called Christian Deism.
Bioware playing fast and loose with their lore. In another news, water is wet.
So, um... I think I found the second moon. I am playing DAO again and did Leliana's Song before completing her personal quest as usual (makes the confrontation in Denerim a lot more impactful). You know how the first part is Denerim at night? Well the moon is TINY at that part, really far off in the night sky. Way further and smaller than at any other night part in the series, though it was extraordinary bright for being so far away (must have a very reflective surface compared to the other one). I took a crappy cell phone pic of it, but it's not really worth showing. Still, I could actually believe the moon at that part is different from the one seen everywhere else in the series. It looked to be probably 4 times further away in orbit than the "main" moon
Unless, that moon's orbit is very elliptical and during certain parts of year the same moon can be either very close the planet, only to be very far during others. I'm not an astrophysicist though, so I can't tell how possible it is for a planet to have a moon orbit that's this different from our Earth's moon.
Elliptical orbits can happen everywhere and with everything that has a gravitational pull. As you can see in the following graph, Jupiter has a lot of moons and almost all of them have elliptical orbits.
Elliptical orbits can happen everywhere and with everything that has a gravitational pull. As you can see in the following graph, Jupiter has a lot of moons and almost all of them have elliptical orbits.
I know. So is our moon - but the orbit isn't extremely elliptical enough for the moon to appear to be significantly bigger or smaller.
Actually, during a lunar perigee the moon does appear extremely close..
Example:
Our lunar apogee, the moon will look only 30% of the size it does during a perigee.
Actually, during a lunar perigee the moon does appear extremely close..
Example:
Our lunar apogee, the moon will look only 30% of the size it does during a perigee.
Um... Holy sh*t. Is that real, or just a demonstration image showing what it would look like? That's scary. What does that do to the tides?
edit:
Also, strong Castelvania vibes from that pic.
Actually, during a lunar perigee the moon does appear extremely close..
Example:
Our lunar apogee, the moon will look only 30% of the size it does during a perigee.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The difference in brightness is 30%. The actual size difference between perigee and apogee is only 14% in total area- which translates to a mere 7% wider. (ie: hardly noticeable.) The photograph above is more indicative of careful camera work than how a perigee moon actually looks to the naked eye. For an orbiting body to change as significantly as it would have to given andy's description of Satina during Leliana's Song, it would have to have a very slow, but also fairly extreme elliptical orbit.
While that's not impossible (hell, we're talking about a universe where magic exists) it's hard to imagine such an orbit would be remotely stable. I'd chalk this up to either confirmation of two moons, or a significant visual goof by the art team.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. The difference in brightness is 30%. The actual size difference between perigee and apogee is only 14% in total area- which translates to a mere 7% wider. (ie: hardly noticeable.) The photograph above is more indicative of careful camera work than how a perigee moon actually looks to the naked eye. For an orbiting body to change as significantly as it would have to given andy's description of Satina during Leliana's Song, it would have to have a very slow, but also fairly extreme elliptical orbit.
While that's not impossible (hell, we're talking about a universe where magic exists) it's hard to imagine such an orbit would be remotely stable. I'd chalk this up to either confirmation of two moons, or a significant visual goof by the art team.
Okay, descriptions aren't enough. Crappy cell phone pic is here, weird horizontal bands (because of my plasma screen's interlacing actually being visible to the camera) and all.
You can get extreme visuals due to the inclination of the moons orbit during certain seasons and where you are at and at higher or lower elevations from sea level. I have seen the moon look absolutely huge, similar to the pic above, and then a few years later the moon very small during winter at its apogee. The actual difference in visual size if both earth and the moons orbits were on the same exact plain would be just over 12%. But since the moons orbital inclination is 6.5 degrees, and the earth is tilted on its axis 23 degrees, you can have the moon really close or really far visually.
Retour en haut