The wiki has recently been updated. Please contact me by talk page or email if you encounter any issues.

Talk:Zebia: Difference between revisions

From FrathWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
 
(70 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== List of Contributors ==
== 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.
If you are a contributor, sign below with three tildes. If your wiki screenname is different from your ZBB name, list that as well.
* [[User:Tmeister|Tmeister]]
* [[User:Tmeister|Tmeister]]
* [[User:Gsandi|Gsandi]]
* [[User:Gsandi|Gsandi]]
* [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]](Servator_Mundi)
* [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]](Servator_Mundi)''Anyone care to enlighten me on why the Zompster banned me? Throw it on my talk page if you do.''
* [[User:Cedh audmanh|Cedh Audmanh]]
* [[User:Cedh audmanh|Cedh Audmanh]]
* [[User:Corumayas|Corumayas]]
* [[User:Corumayas|Corumayas]]
* [[User:Keenir]] (Rodlox)
* [[User:Jotomicron|Jotomicron]]
* [[User:brandrinn|bandrinn]]
* [[User:Kolyakrokodil|Kolyakrokodil]]


== Discussion on the size of 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.'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]]
[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.  
''Upon thinking about it, I think gsandi's idea of signing the updated total would be a good way to insure that no vote is counted twice, etc...'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]]


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.
''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.'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]]


Let's wait and see what others think.
I have reorganized the unresolved issues into this section, replacing the other voting section (I hope you're not offended, Praesidium!). If you would like to vote, add your vote to the appropriate category, along with your reason(s), and update the "Current results". This section is not for general discussion of the topics, which should take place in another section or in the [http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/viewtopic.php?t=21300 ZBB thread]. For those who have already voted in the other voting section, I have copied your votes here; I hope you don't mind. Also, if the option you would like to vote for is not on the list, add it yourself, following the pattern of the other options.
[[User:Gsandi|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).
As per Praesidium's suggestion, declare an issue resolved when there is at least a two-thirds majority in favor of one option, and when it is clear that everyone who intends to vote on that topic has done so. If somebody protests, we can reopen the voting, unless changing the decision would undermine work on the project that has taken place since the issue was first declared resolved. [[User:Tmeister|Tmeister]]
[[User:Praesidium|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.
'''No current issues to vote for'''


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.
==Results of voting==
''I'm adding this to show the results of topics that have been decided. A description of a given topic will placed here, and a note should be put next to the relevant topic in voting saying that said topic appears to be decided, that topic should be removed from voting after several days have passed. If you wish to contest the decision to move it here for any reason you must do so before it is removed from voting. To do so make a note here explaining why, rather than deleting it outright.'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]]


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).
''I went ahead and deleted the determined issues, since there has been no contesting of the decisions.'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]] 19:04, 17 March 2007 (PDT)


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".
''Be sure to sign with four tildes when nominating a topic for deletion to aid in determining what should be deleted. A topic should be nominated if one choice has the 2/3 majority and hasn't been voted on for a while.'' [[User:Praesidium|Praesidium]] 22:16, 31 March 2007 (PDT)


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.
====Physical characteristics of the system====
*Size of Zebia: ~3%>Earth
**3 votes in favor of ~3%
**1 vote in favor of 15%
**1 abstain
*Alter's physical characteristics: <small>Values kindly calculated by Kalan</small>
**Mass (compared to Novus): 0.9<br />Orbital period: 1728 Zebian years<br />Great semi-major axis: 218.7 AU<br />Perihelion: 178.5 AU<br />Aphelion: 565 AU<br />Magnitude in Perihelion: -15.67 mag<br />Magnitude in Aphelion: -13.1 mag
**These results were (difficultly) acchieved after a long time by means of a random process


[[User:Gsandi|Gsandi]] 03:03, 28 February 2007 (PST)
====Biological====
*Use of humans/humanlike creatures as the sentient race(s): Yes
**5 votes in favor
**0 votes against
*Number of sencient species: One
**2 votes in favor of more than one
**3 votes in favor of exaclty one

Latest revision as of 12:10, 30 April 2008

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.

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

Upon thinking about it, I think gsandi's idea of signing the updated total would be a good way to insure that no vote is counted twice, etc... Praesidium

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

I have reorganized the unresolved issues into this section, replacing the other voting section (I hope you're not offended, Praesidium!). If you would like to vote, add your vote to the appropriate category, along with your reason(s), and update the "Current results". This section is not for general discussion of the topics, which should take place in another section or in the ZBB thread. For those who have already voted in the other voting section, I have copied your votes here; I hope you don't mind. Also, if the option you would like to vote for is not on the list, add it yourself, following the pattern of the other options.

As per Praesidium's suggestion, declare an issue resolved when there is at least a two-thirds majority in favor of one option, and when it is clear that everyone who intends to vote on that topic has done so. If somebody protests, we can reopen the voting, unless changing the decision would undermine work on the project that has taken place since the issue was first declared resolved. Tmeister

No current issues to vote for

Results of voting

I'm adding this to show the results of topics that have been decided. A description of a given topic will placed here, and a note should be put next to the relevant topic in voting saying that said topic appears to be decided, that topic should be removed from voting after several days have passed. If you wish to contest the decision to move it here for any reason you must do so before it is removed from voting. To do so make a note here explaining why, rather than deleting it outright. Praesidium

I went ahead and deleted the determined issues, since there has been no contesting of the decisions. Praesidium 19:04, 17 March 2007 (PDT)

Be sure to sign with four tildes when nominating a topic for deletion to aid in determining what should be deleted. A topic should be nominated if one choice has the 2/3 majority and hasn't been voted on for a while. Praesidium 22:16, 31 March 2007 (PDT)

Physical characteristics of the system

  • Size of Zebia: ~3%>Earth
    • 3 votes in favor of ~3%
    • 1 vote in favor of 15%
    • 1 abstain
  • Alter's physical characteristics: Values kindly calculated by Kalan
    • Mass (compared to Novus): 0.9
      Orbital period: 1728 Zebian years
      Great semi-major axis: 218.7 AU
      Perihelion: 178.5 AU
      Aphelion: 565 AU
      Magnitude in Perihelion: -15.67 mag
      Magnitude in Aphelion: -13.1 mag
    • These results were (difficultly) acchieved after a long time by means of a random process

Biological

  • Use of humans/humanlike creatures as the sentient race(s): Yes
    • 5 votes in favor
    • 0 votes against
  • Number of sencient species: One
    • 2 votes in favor of more than one
    • 3 votes in favor of exaclty one
Retrieved from "http://www.frathwiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Zebia&oldid=30956"