Talk:Zebia

Voting

I propose we use a two thirds majority voting system, as such will encourage debate to a point where everyone is happy enough if there is not a great majority, while not having the annoying qualities of a system requiring unaniminity. Thus when voting on an aspect give your opinion, and a brief statement of why. Praesidium

The Topics

These are the topics currently up for voting, if you feel there is something that needs deciding add it at the end of the list it fits best.

Contested Issues

This is for topics which are contested.

1. Planet size: ~3% increase/decrease or 15% increase (measured in terms of radius).
2. Number of sentient races: should it be limited to just one, or should several be allowed; if so, under what circumstances? In this context I refer solely to beings capable of culture, and a hunter-gatherer civilization akin to early humans, not just something intelligent enough to use some form of language or recognize that the image in a mirror.

Other issues

These are topics that have are not really contested, likely due to lack of attention.

1. Pat Sajak: Alex Trebek in disguise?
2. Brightness and distance of Alter.
3. Pronounciation of Novus: /nowUs nov@s/?
4. Will humans, or a human-like race, be used, or will all sentient beings be creations unique to this world, or at least the colaborators?

The current status of the voting

This lists the current number of votes, for easy reference.

Contested Issues

1. Planet Size
   1. ~3%-3
   2. 15%-1
2. Sentient Races
   1. >1-1
   2. 1-2
   3. <1-0

Other Issues

1. "Pat Sajak: Alex Trebek in disguise?" Is this a joke?
   1. Yes-2
   2. No-0
   3. What the hell is wrong with you?-0
2. What is Alter like?
   1. Brightness of Alter
      1. very bright (i.e. nights are not completely dark)-1
      2. similar to the main moon-1
      3. quite dim-0
   2. Orbital period
      1. ~6000 years-1
      2. ~4000 years-1
      3. ~2000 years-0
3. Pronounciation of Novus
   1. /nowUs/-1
   2. /nov@s/-1
   3. /TIs Iz Ir\Elevent/-~2
4. Use Humans as the sentient species?
   1. Yes-3
   2. No-0

Voting Itself

Post your votes here, under the respective category, also say whether or not you updated the results to include yours.

Note: discussion should be carried out primarily at the forum, this is for posting your official opinion on something, please update your posts rather than add new ones. Praesidium

Contested Issues

1. For the size, I vote for a smaller change to shift focus more towards creation of culture, rather than novelty beastiaries, plus with an increase as much as 15% it just looks like you're trying too hard to say "this planet is different from Earth".
2. I would also vote for multiple sentient species, as defined above, though a common ancestor origin would be the most logical and equivocating.Praesidium

1. I favor a ~3% increase in size because the earth's surface area is large enough as it is, and more gravity would make humans less human-like and reduce the number of animals that can be used as beasts of burden.
2. One sentient race only. The reasons are: the possibility of it becoming a thinly-veiled analogy for real-life racism; the tendency for each race to be culturally monolithic due to the small number of contributors; the increased possibility of culture-destroying genocides or extinctions that would be unfair to the conculture's creator; and the difficulty of roleplaying from the point of view of nonhumans. Copied by Praesidium, originally posted by Tmeister

Other Issues

1. No, because they'll be the dualistic pantheon of th-what the hell do you mean is that a joke? Have you seen my other posts today? Of course it's a joke.
2. I believe I calculated that the illumination provided by Alter based off the figures and equations in it may have been gsandi's calculations related to Novus would be ~.5% that of Novus, which would be equivolent to that of Sol. I'll go along with the most popular opinion on Alter's orbit of Novus (though I would like to know: would Alter orbit Novus, or would the two circle each other? I have little knowledge of astronomy, and don't intend to change that too much.)

I believe there was talk of that on an earlier page, I'll dredge it up and post it on the wiki talk page, or create a page on the moons.Praesidium

1. Is this a joke? Confused
2. I think it should be about as bright as the quarter moon, but it would be more noticable since it would be concentrated into a planet-sized angular area. I think the orbital period should be somewhere along the lines of 6000 years, which amounts to 1 degree every 17 years or so, easily noticeable once astronomers start keeping records. Knowing the apparent brightness and the period of the orbit, all we need is a way to correlate absolute brightness to mass, and we can calculate the distance, mass, and absolute brightness using Kepler's 3rd Law.
3. I personally favor the Anglicized pronunciation /"noU.v@s/, since it is being used in an English, not Latin, context, though it will only be an issue in the unlikely scenario that we make a movie or radio show about the conworld. Although I'm sure some of us would be delighted if the project got to that stage, there's no point in arguing about it until it's necessary.
4. The people of the conworld should be humans, for the reason discussed in Issue #2, that is, that it is difficult to realistically roleplay non-humans without making them human minds in alien bodies.

If only one thing can be decided now, it should be the size of the planet, so we can start with the geography. Also, I'm going to change the short name of the sun to "Novus", relying on the "silence is implicit agreement" precedent.

Another issue: how far and big should the moons be? Nobody seems to have said anything about that. Copied by Praesidium, originally posted by Tmeister

List of Contributors

If you are a contributor, sign below with three tildes. If your wiki screenname is different from your ZBB name, list that as well.

• Tmeister
• Gsandi
• Praesidium(Servator_Mundi)
• Cedh Audmanh
• Corumayas

Discussion on the size of Zebia:

[quote="Tmeister"] Obviously the planet cannot be exactly the same size as Earth (~ 3960 miles or 6372 km as the radius), but in light of the discussion about the size of the planet, it needn't be significantly larger. So how about around 4100 miles (6600 km)? The increase in gravity is very low - if the density is comparable to Earth's, an object weighing 50 pounds on Earth would weigh 51.8 pounds on the new planet. On the other hand, this gains an extra 4,513,600 sq miles of surface area (11,690,170 sq. km, about 68% of Russia, admittedly not very much).[/quote]

I don't know how you got this answer, I arrive at a different one.

If r is the mean radius of thre Earth, and x is the difference between Zebia's and the Earth's radius, then the new surface area is 4п(r+x)^2 = 4п(r^2 + 2rx + x^2). Since we want the increase in surface area only, we subtract the Earth's actual surface area, and the resulting difference can be calculated (at r=6372 and x=228):

4п(2rx+x^2) = 4п(2,906,000 + 52,000) [rounding off the thousands]

= 4п(2,958,000)

= 37,152,000 sq.km.

This is more than 1.5 times the area of the ex-USSR.

Nevertheless, I would be in favour of making the planet even larger - or, alternatively, quite a bit smaller - then the Earth. Adding 228 km to the actual radius of the Earth adds only about 3% - this, to me, is too much of a coincidence. Let's make it a good 15% more (or less). I suggest, more - making a radius of, say, 7350 km. This should certainly give us a large enough surface area to play on. (If heavier gravity becomes a problem, we can always decrease the average density of the planet - as a general principle in conworlding, always vary the parameters you know the least about!)

So, what's the increased surface area now, with an x value of (at r=6372 and x=978)?

4п(2rx+x^2) = 4п(12,464,000 + 956,000) [rounding off the thousands]

= 4п(13,420,000) = 168,555,000 sq.km.

This is slightly more than the actual total land area of the Earth (roughly 150,000,000 sq.km.), so that by applying our 15% or so increase in the radius, we can double the land area and still have about 20,000,000 sq.km left over as more oceans.

Let's wait and see what others think.

Gsandi 02:07, 26 February 2007 (PST)

I'd be in favor of the smaller increase in radius, as too much and too many things become alien, making it harder to work with. Then you have the fact that increased mass wouldn't just mean that things were heavier, but they fall faster too (with an increase of 15% in radius fravitational acceleration would nearly double, if my equation is even close to being correct [g*m1^2*m2^2/r^2](?) increasing the radius by 15% should result in a volume increase of ~32%, assuming the same (or similar) density that would mean that gravity would be ~74% greater). Praesidium

Not quite, as I already showed once in a thread on the zompist board. Assuming that average density remains the same, the mass of the planet goes up with the cube of the radius, but at the same time the surface is further away from the centre of the planet, and gravity decreases with the square of the distance. Therefore the actual acceleration on an object due to gravity is subject to the relationship r^3/r^2, i.e. it is exactly proportional to the distance from the centre. Thus, a 15% increase in radius results in a 15% increase in the acceleration due to gravity.

I am not sure how to interpret your equation g*m1^2*m2^2/r^2. If m1 and m2 refer to the masses of the objects, it is simply incorrect: gravitational force F=Gm1m2/r^2, i.e. it is proportional to the masses of the objects in question, not to the squares of their masses. G (and not g) is the gravitational constant, of course.

It is also very important to make a clear difference between force and acceleration. The force between two objects due to gravity is indeed proportional to the product of their masses, but acceleration being the product of mass and acceleration, you have the equation: gm1 = Gm1m2/r^2, where the two m1's cancel, so that the acceleration g of an object in a gravitational field is going to be g = Gm2/r^2, i.e. it is independent of its own mass (as Galileo already proved experimentally at the Tower of Pisa).

Weight and gravitational force on an object are basically the same thing, you don't have to specify that "things were heavier, but they fall faster too".

Pragmatically speaking, I don't think that a 15% increase in surface gravity would make much of a difference to animals evolving on the planet - their muscles and other physiological parameters will have evolved in order to deal with the prevalent gravity. Conceivably they would be a bit smaller and squatter than we are (on the average), but conceivably they would have evolved a somewhat more efficient way to use sugar (or other) - based energy use.

Gsandi 03:03, 28 February 2007 (PST)