Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 1979752" data-attributes="member: 2205">I'm not expert on the intricacies of Aristotlean physics (although I could tell you a bit more about his cosmology with all the spheres and whatnot; although I don't like that model for my campaigns either) but that seems wrong to me.  If Aristotlean physics is all about observation, how is it that it can ignore trajectories?  Ever since the first caveman threw a rock at something trajectories have been an observable aspect of the physics of moving objects.No, probably not.  Maybe I'm just not trying to label my game physics.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  I find that the rules adequately reflect observational physics for my purposes; i.e., the practical kinds of physics that affect day to day life, regardless of the label.  Since you asked, I'd say that for the most part, Newtonian, or even Einsteinian physics are the default on my gameworld, as they are on ours, but that there's no effect of the differences.  Regardless of which theoretical model you use to describe our world, that caveman's rock still does the same thing when thrown, and always has done so.  Since I think the rules adequately (if not perfectly) portray real world physics, I suppose it's immaterial what the more complex physical models are.I've picked that up from other posts of yours as well, but I'm still intrigued and curious as to exactly how that is done.  OK, so you've looked at the rules, decided that they more closely reflect Aristotlean rather than Newtonian physics, fine.  But what impact does that actually have in your game?  I know you said the following:But I'm still curious as to what that means.  I mean, even Lovecraft didn't really posit any alternate models, he just essentially told us indirectly that we were hubristic (if that's a word) by our dogmatic approval of current scientific models.  Personally, I think he's got a point in a way; if there's anything the history of science teaches us it's that we can have a model that seems to work just fine for years and years, and then we find some missing piece of evidence that turns it completely on its head.  But that's maybe a subject for another off-topic and likely inappropriate thread.  From a game perspective, I guess I do as Lovecraft; I don't exactly present the alternative model.</blockquote>

Verification