"Gravity" and "things falling down" are not necessarily the same thing. Things could be going down because the elements seek their sphere (from in to out: Earth, Water, Air, Fire, and so on through the crystalline Celestial spheres...). Things could be going down because everything loves the Heart of Lorkhan. Things could be going for a variety of reasons other than "Universal Gravitation", an idea that doesn't appear on the real-world historical record until much later than the point where people began to perceive that things fall, which is to say before there were people.

Oh my. Look at what a beautiful little conversation about stars turned into.


This is so convoluted I don't even know where to begin. For a start, I've got to state the obvious: even though in English Space and Universe can be synonyms, what we've been talking about here is space as in "an empty area", not Space as in "all creation" (or at least that's what I meant when I've said and read "space"). Also, nobody said the celestial sphere of TES is at an infinite distance.



I must agree that the "physical" model you seem to be proposing, built upon convenient "evidence" that includes "gravity" but ignores "levitation", is very common sense, boring, and in all aspects, your authority to challenge the developers in particular, quite inferior to what we have in the obscure texts, as that one is at least based on observations done by TES astronomers, which are quite factual and are the only objective measure of the success of a theory, as in real life, so in TES.



I can explain those claims to you: they are a very deliberate statement that even such parts of TES lore that seem to call for real life scientific interpretation are not to be interpreted using real life science. It's not a mistake, it's a message. If you insist on shutting your eyes and ears to it, you may as well keep out of discussions that assume everybody has understood it.

Well, given that it has planets of infinite mass without infinite gravity and which appear as sphere's due to mortal mental stress, it obviously doesn't...

No one was upset until you took an axe to the cosmology, though. Why? Fiction doesn't need to be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

I actually learned alot about ES through reading books in Oblivion.

Yes, but chances are those books were from Morrowind or Daggerfall, Oblivion added few of its own...

It certainly doesn't mean Cosmology is correct; it's still meant as an in-universe text from an in-universe group.

since there is nothing in lore to contradict Cosmology and plenty to support it, we must make the logical assumption that it is correct.

I've already given several contradictions to it. As for the lore that supports it, most of it, more likely than not, simply stems from the same theory, rather than actual evidence. And let me re-quote Haskill.



If they know so little about daedra, I can't say I can imagine their astronomical knowledge is much better. And really, it isn't logical to assume it correct, especially given how little we actually know.

It's hilarious because you think that one statement can refute the validity of all the lore you want.

Please. Keep speaking.

It doesn't refute the validity of lore, it refutes the validity of the practice of taking any in-universe lore as absolute fact. And really, it applies both to us and to the people of Tamriel.

Which no one has yet done, yet you keep the strawmen coming. It's not lore that gets people agitated, it's dishonest arguments.

@ CP: Maybe so. But it's hilarious because you're using that freedom to basically refuse to accept the only piece of lore on a subject. This isn't something like the Tsaesci Creation Myth where ambiguous info can cause different interpretations to come forth. You refute the only piece of information that actually speaks on the subject. And it's hilarious.

You can do something like that with texts like the Arcturian Heresy (even though I would find that to be unnecessarily personally). But ONE TEXT speaks on the subject.

It's a lot less "dishonest" than clinging to bits of text and telling yourself that it must be right to put off the awareness of how little we actually know. It remains what it is; an in-universe text, which I have given various refutations for regarding its factuality, which as of now, still stand. If you want to pretend like whatever evidence that goes against doesn't count, go ahead.


I'm not refusing it, I'm refusing to take it as more than what it is; a flawed theory written in-universe.

Lol. Nothing else in-universe could give you the idea that this theory is flawed. You took real life scientific theories/laws and applied them to a world where magic exists, which itself creates a ridiculous list of possibilities and implications.

Good job.

Except that you haven't given any real refutations, you just keep saying how it can't be accepted as truth and then offer no alternative or reason not to accept it other than the general statement that its an in-world text, which, given that that logic can be applied to anything, is not a real refutation.

You're only other attempt at refutation dealt with presuming without grounds that the Aurbis shares our physics, going something like:
A: Nirn's heavenly bodies share our physics
B: The proposed nature of those heavenly bodies doesn't fit our world's physics
=
C: A is true, therefore B must be false

However, there are no grounds to believe that A is true, so the rest of your argument falls flat. There is however, reason to believe that B is true (subjective or not), so the proper conclusion is not that the proposed natures are wrong, but that the heavenly bodies aren't subject to our physics.

just because mortals know little about daedra (or so haskil claims, with obvious bias) doesnt mean that we know nothing about astronomy or that Cosmology is totally 100% wrong. just because men dont know how the brain works, for example, doesnt mean we dont know how to make a house. daedra and astronomy as as unrelated as houses and brains, and just because a daedra's closest servant claims that we dont understand daedra doesnt mean were totally wrong about the stars. your argument is a total non sequitur.

Crimson Paladin, do you have any evidence suggesting an alternate theory?

He's already cited his evidence: real life.

That's why this is hilarious.

Nothing in-universe gives any evidence that it's anything more than a theory. Which is what it is at it's heart and should be treated as such. Why can't we just accept we don't have the whole truth.

It certainly doesn't suggest any real evidence behind its own claims. As for evidence against it, I have it here; Azura has some connection with a particular star, and one of her symbols is a crescent moon. Why would a Daedra Prince not only be connected with a "bridge to Aetherius" but have the symbol in the image of mortal delusion? Not to mention that both Azura and Hircine's creations have connections to the phases of the moons. Furthermore, Baan Dar, upon closer inspection, is indeed roughly spherical, not just appearing so due to "mortal mental stress"

There's also one other problem; why would vampires be harmed by sunlight in both the Shivering Isles and in Nirn unless the Shivering Isles either orbit Magnus or a similar star?

Science and magic can easily co-exist. Stars, moons, and planets still show magical influence on Nirn. And it still fits into TES better than that contradictory information from that Temple Zero society. I'm not saying that all of it is incorrect, as there is evidence for some of the information contained within. But certainly not for all of it.

And finally, it wouldn't hurt you to actually provide me with counter-evidence for some of my theories, instead standing around calling it ridiculous. After all, in the physical sense, Nirn mirrors Earth in many respects; 24-hour days, similarly sized years and lunar cycles, seasons, climate, atmosphere, fauna (to a degree), a zodiac, eight other planets (at the time the article was written), orbiting a yellow star. Don't pretend like they're completely different.



Yes, I do. I do not dispute that the planets may represent the Divines or that the moons represent Lorkhan. However, I do have evidence. The seasonal changes, the day-night cycle, the lunar phases, the changes in the night sky over the months, and the fact that gravity pulls things towards the plane one's on, all of this supports my theory.

The planes of Oblivion may be in fact planets orbiting other stars, although the ones seen apparently are mostly oceanic, as is shown with the Deadlands, the Shivering Isles, and Paradise. The Daedra themselves may not be as connected to their realm as the Aedra, hence the fact that the Shivering Isles don't transform immediately after Sheogorath does, but must be conquered by Order.

Its your version of the truth, and it svcks. The Cosmology was written as fact, in a succinct, Q and A format. This is called world building, and you need to accept it, because you've taken the discussion from the Serpent, which was becoming cooler than this steemy terd. Its consensus, and you can take this discussion to the fan-fic forum.

No, Cosmology was written as an in-universe text, not as fact. And its existence even been confirmed in TES canon, it's just an obscure text.

im pretty sure all those are adequately explained in the text. the existence of seasons or changes in daylight doesnt mean that nirn is a spherical planet orbiting a ball of hydrogen and helium which produces energy through fission. humans had hundreds of alternating theories, its perfectly possible that a mythical world built from the remenants of divines has some sort of mythical explanation for this. ive already refuted gravity a page or two back. just because things look like earth doesnt mean they are like earth.

Azura: takes on mortal symbols to appeal to mortals. just how she appears dunmer in Morrowind to appeal to dunmer while she is white in Daggerfall. besides, Meridia proves that daedra can interact (or even originate from) the solar realm.
Hircine: acts on Lorkhan
Vampires: gameplay mechanics.

your "evidence" has been refuted many times already.

Cosmology is the ONLY text we have on this topic. youre building a theory on observations of the real world and a few easily explained elements, as well as gameplay mechanics.

if there is only one lore text on a subject it is fact. there is no text to say that the planets are really spherical objects orbiting a sun.

most important, its extremely lame, mundane, and boring, and therefore extremely wrong.

So you're going to fall back on the "myth explains everything" defense? Gravity wasn't refuted, as it not only accounts perfectly for the physics, but the orbits, and by extension, the Firmament, certainly better than a that tired "mythical" theory. Why the insistence that TES must be completely different?

As for quoting Haskill, my point remains; mortals take a tidbit of information and construct significant speculation out of it.

Besides, they offer no backing for much of what is said. Just in-universe claims.


No, because given it wasn't a problem in the Deadlands, it would've been similarly easy to turn off sun damage in the Isles.


Baan Dar? I'm waiting.


No, it's not fact, it's a look into the beliefs and teachings of the Temple Zero society in the form of literature.

You haven't cited anything in the lore that states it isn't fac though. Except that Haskill quote that means jack crap in regard to this discussion.

The Shivering Isle isn't a planet!!! WTF??? Nothing else even needs to be said about that except "good job."

Of course science and magic can. Because, of course, you can prove this through your haphazard claims that you create by using rules from real life in a universe that is fundamentally different from real life. Good job.


I'm sorry for assuming that a world were elves, orcs, and arenotelicon gods exist is different from my own. I'm sorry for assuming that a world where you can actually see the stars through the shadow of a crescent moon. I apologize. I don't apologize for how this this is hilarious though.


Good job using unsourced speculation again.

edit: Seriously not even being malicious: I don't really understand why you study the lore when you just disbelieve whatever you want. Using that logic, you seriously can't learn too much about the TES universe. I could use a ton of real life rules to disprove lots of stuff in TES lore. But that just screams BATW, like LN stated.