My guess is that it depends on lethality (or just physical impact): the more dangerous any given phenomenon is, the more likely it is to be described as ‘holy’ in some way – and therefore, off-limits. And probably for longer, too. Look at thunder and lightning, even today. “It’s the angels moving furniture”, right?

The more direct impact, the likelier the phenomenon will be attributed to a deity of some kind. Look at how long the seasons were held responsible to some deity (or at least, the deity’s state of mind)! Now, if seasons were much more pronounced (like Brian Aldiss’ Helliconia, maybe), I’d reckon it would take centuries longer to be explained rationally. And if they were less pronounced? Hmm, would they be ignored?

Or maybe I should knock off the Kahlua?

Cool pictures of the Aurora always frustrate me. I have lived in an area where the aurora is occasionally visible (at least in theory) for 14 years now. However, the rare combination of a night when the aurora should be visible, a night when the sky is visible at all, and a night that I can get away from the light pollution has yet to occur.

One day I will travel north just to see it I think. Usually when I travel it’s south, to warmer climes.

@ #1 John – Interesting thought. Maybe we wouldn’t do either. Maybe it would just be the sky to us, having nothing to compare it too? As for the two moons thing, I imagine tide tables would be heinously complicated, that would lead us to advance in math faster, figure out gravity faster and we might already be past arguing about a moon base. Or, maybe it would have had such an effect on the environment that we never came down from the trees?

This video spawned a new one: ‘What if you were on a planet closer in on the habitable zone with a bigger magnetic field…how would that change the pace of discovery?’ Would we try to understand it faster, or imbue it with the power of a god or gods longer?

Ok, I better lay off the gin.