 |
| |
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
Well, this is a different world to the real world. Who is to say that it takes 365.25 days to go around the sun, or that the moon orbits every 28 days, or even that there is only 1 moon?
It is obviously a world far far bigger then Earth, since there are some 90,000 nations there, and over 10 Billion people in our region alone. Thus it is conceivable that it takes far longer for the moon to orbit, as it has far further to go. If we are going to invent a time, I see nothing wrong with Sheep's version. It could work our great for them. As it is, however, Akiria and Zetaris will still run on old Earth time, although there is talk of changing to Lamulan chronology (won't make sense to anyone who has not read Mostly Harmless, the 5th Hitch Hikers book).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Who is to say that it takes 365.25 days to go around the sun?
|
No-one. Its 365.24 days. It is dependent on the distance from the sun, thus the limited temperature range for life, which is also dependent on the luminosity of the sun. Any different type of sun (i.e smaller or larger to allow different sized orbit for the correct temp for life), would have a different radiation output in the case of a smaller star, which would itself make multi-cellular life impossible, or in the case of a larger star, would not last long enough for the evolution of complex life itself, let alone a civilisation.
365.24 is pretty much non-negotiable with regards to human life, ok, granted you could have a little difference but that would not affect the time scale to a great degree. Similar with the rotation of the Earth, which creates the right temperature distribution for life to be able to survive across the globe, whilst any difference in size would change the gravity, which would affect the atmosphere, as well as the nature of life itself. Certainly, human life would never have evolved on Mars for this reason, due to the lesser gravity.
quote:
that the moon orbits every 28 days, or even that there is only 1 moon?
|
The moon acts to stabilise the Earth's rotation and degree of tilt, otherwise it would be more greatly affected by the pull of the other planets. Any difference would cause unacceptable tidal stresses, as well as destabilising the Earth's rotation, making the temperature distribution, the magnetic field, also even the stability of the heliocentric orbit, a completely different matter.
With regards to the size of the Earth relative to the number of nations, and the number of people, I think we can be creative on this one. I'm assuming this game is set on Earth, Earth with a radius of 6378 km, and weighs 5.976 x10^24 kg.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Who is to say that it takes 365.25 days to go around the sun?
|
No-one. Its 365.24 days. It is dependent on the distance from the sun, thus the limited temperature range for life, which is also dependent on the luminosity of the sun. Any different type of sun (i.e smaller or larger to allow different sized orbit for the correct temp for life), would have a different radiation output in the case of a smaller star, which would itself make multi-cellular life impossible, or in the case of a larger star, would not last long enough for the evolution of complex life itself, let alone a civilisation.
365.24 is pretty much non-negotiable with regards to human life, ok, granted you could have a little difference but that would not affect the time scale to a great degree. Similar with the rotation of the Earth, which creates the right temperature distribution for life to be able to survive across the globe, whilst any difference in size would change the gravity, which would affect the atmosphere, as well as the nature of life itself. Certainly, human life would never have evolved on Mars for this reason, due to the lesser gravity.
quote:
that the moon orbits every 28 days, or even that there is only 1 moon?
|
The moon acts to stabilise the Earth's rotation and degree of tilt, otherwise it would be more greatly affected by the pull of the other planets. Any difference would cause unacceptable tidal stresses, as well as destabilising the Earth's rotation, making the temperature distribution, the magnetic field, also even the stability of the heliocentric orbit, a completely different matter.
With regards to the size of the Earth relative to the number of nations, and the number of people, I think we can be creative on this one. I'm assuming this game is set on Earth, Earth with a radius of 6378 km, and weighs 5.976 x10^24 kg.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
|
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
365.24 is pretty much non-negotiable with regards to human life |
I disagree. A bigger Planet may be at a moving a different speed? Even if not, a 300 or 400 day year would be feasable, since it would alter the temperature a bit, which may be changed with atmospheric conditions, or somethign else that makes the surface warmer or hotter.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Any difference would cause unacceptable tidal stresses |
I don't see why we are at exactly the optimum tidal stresses here. Some difference is perfectly feasable.
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
With regards to the size of the Earth relative to the number of nations, and the number of people, I think we can be creative on this one. I'm assuming this game is set on Earth, Earth with a radius of 6378 km, and weighs 5.976 x10^24 kg. |
I'm not. I'm assuming it has to be bigger, to fit that many people, and that we can be creative about size and orbit.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
|
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:28
|
|
quote:
I disagree. A bigger Planet may be at a moving a different speed?
|
Not at all, if Earth stole Jupiters orbit, it would take exactly the same time. The period of orbit is determined by the mass of the body being orbited (the sun), and the distance from that body. Anything atmospheric that would increase or decrease the temperature would also have other effects, for example, certain gases which retain heat, or lack of those gases, will affect the heat distribution, and other stuff like oxygen content, more importantly, ozone content, and other stuff, all of which while giving a higher temperature at a different distance to the sun, would create conditions that would make the atmosphere less hospitable in other respects. Water content is another big one, as is the stopping power of the atmosphere against cosmic radiation.
quote:
Even if not, a 300 or 400 day year would be feasable,
|
No, such a large gap would certainly allow bacterial life, but the temperature variations, and the inherent atmospheric variations that go with that would prevent to formation of large multi-cellular organisms. A reasonable guess as to the maximum would be moderately sized anthropods, invertebrates like cockroaches, feeding on plants and mosses. It requires a very specific range of temperatures to allow large beings to evolve. The exception to that would be large beings living off a chemosynthetic producer-based food chain, whereas ours is photosynthetic. Such a system can only happen underwater and at high pressure, like hydrothermal vents, and I am not about to RP Marijuania +co being 3 miles undersea. Silicon-based life forms, or those that replace oxygen with chlorine as the electron-accepter, that could cope with higher temperatures would not be able to form more complex life forms, I'd be suprised if they could form the equivalent of basic anthropods!!
The factors that cause life on the human level on a planet give a suprisingly limited range of variables.
quote:
Any difference would cause unacceptable tidal stresses
|
We are currently at the extreme end of acceptability, it was at its best approx 1.5-2 billion years ago, when the moon was much closer. Of course, this led to much greater volcanic activity, but that was compensated by the far greater variety of life at that time than today, absorbing the volcanic gases.
Now the moon is moving futher away, due to tidal acceleration, and partly because of this, the Earth will become uninhabitable within 1 billion years, as we become far more prone to the grav influence of other planets, tilting the earth, disrupting the atmospheric and water-based mechanisms for distributing the suns heat. We would be in a constant, devastating cycle of ice-ages and hot-ages, to the extent that either extreme would make civilised life impossible, if humanity survives at all, expect small primitive communities living in islands of biodiversity.
The closer the moon gets, the greater the tidal stresses, thus the greater volcanic activity, which creates, and did create when Earth was younger, much much greater amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. If that was the case today, global warming would seem like a mere barbeque to the relative inferno that would result. When this did happen on Earth, there was a far greater amount of life and biodiversity than today, due to Earth being somewhat more hospitable (for other reasons) than it is today, so it coped.
That factor would be multiplied if we had more moons of a comparable size to Lunar. The pull caused would be cancelled out, then doubles, then we would be pulled in many directions, the damage caused to the stability of the mantle and the crust would increase exponentially as the number of moons increase.
quote:
I'm not. I'm assuming it has to be bigger, to fit that many people, and that we can be creative about size and orbit.
|
As such things as orbit, size (thus speed of rotation and centripetal force) are essential to the viability of human life on Earth, as well as the way we measure, perceive and recognise the measures of time, I'm assuming that we live on this Earth. I think that we have to draw the line of reasonability about the capacity of this planet for inhabiting people. Remeber this is a game, we are allowed to be imaginative. Alternatively, one can choose the more aesthetic option of making each region a separate "Earth", but of course, that would disrupt previous RP. Either way, the Earth, as it is, shuold stay.
Nonetheless, many aspects of this game are unrealistic compared to the Earth. I am assuming them to be unrealistic, not changing the paramaters of the Earth to an unacceptable degree in order to make them seem more realistic. It is more realistic to have humans full stop than a planet where they cannot live!!! Besides, is it realistic to have a nation expanding by 5-12 million per year?
Last edited by Whaleboy on 11-06-2003 at 22:12
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Archaic
|
 |
Washed up SMAC/X University Specialist
Nov 2001
time: 15:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by elijah
Then I suppose we can RP better systems, like, I dunno, the current one? 
Seriously, The Gregorian/Julian system is the best way of reconciling physical and celestial phenomenon with the time system, the former of course, is something that we are biologically and psychologically dependent on for regulation of our body clocks, same goes for other animals, who use the world around them as their time reference. |
Well, I wouldn't go that far. Proper Metric Time would be best, but Sheeps Decimal Time isn't Metric Time, and adopting Metric Time could only really be done if all nations did it at once.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003 15:06
|
|