Natural Solar and Planetary Phenomena

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

No, I mean planets that are actually creatures the size of planets. Big enough to have their own atmosphere.

I don't see how a living creature could actually get that big and still transfer nutrients. It also would need to feed on something.

Yeah that's a definite no.
On another note, i've discovered yet anpother type of binary orbital. It looks like an 8 inscribed in a circle, but moves like a yin-yang being drawn from only one line. it's really just an 8 orbital with higher speed.
I also just realized something- if we implement quaternary systems, that means we would ahve 3D orbits as a possibility. I say we don't implement it. actually, depending on the orientation and rotation of stars, a trinary system could have 3D orbits too.

~sciocont wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

No, I mean planets that are actually creatures the size of planets. Big enough to have their own atmosphere.

I don't see how a living creature could actually get that big and still transfer nutrients. It also would need to feed on something.

Yeah that's a definite no.
On another note, i've discovered yet anpother type of binary orbital. It looks like an 8 inscribed in a circle, but moves like a yin-yang being drawn from only one line. it's really just an 8 orbital with higher speed.
I also just realized something- if we implement quaternary systems, that means we would ahve 3D orbits as a possibility. I say we don't implement it. actually, depending on the orientation and rotation of stars, a trinary system could have 3D orbits too.

Okay, just wondering.

That's cool. Adding it immediately.
I don't get the 8 one though.

I was wondering, if we have Binary Terrestrial Planets, is it also possible that we can have Binary Gas Giants? Basically their gravities would be pulling gas from each other and there would be a large bar of gas connecting them. I got the idea from a book.

Dudeman wrote:

No, I mean planets that are actually creatures the size of planets. Big enough to have their own atmosphere.

*flashes back to Cecil_90's "Welcome to Vitron" adventure* Nah, like Scio said, it would still need food, air, a method of waster removal, etc.

What about floating land masses? Possible?

Dudeman wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

No, I mean planets that are actually creatures the size of planets. Big enough to have their own atmosphere.

I don't see how a living creature could actually get that big and still transfer nutrients. It also would need to feed on something.

Yeah that's a definite no.
On another note, i've discovered yet anpother type of binary orbital. It looks like an 8 inscribed in a circle, but moves like a yin-yang being drawn from only one line. it's really just an 8 orbital with higher speed.
I also just realized something- if we implement quaternary systems, that means we would ahve 3D orbits as a possibility. I say we don't implement it. actually, depending on the orientation and rotation of stars, a trinary system could have 3D orbits too.

Okay, just wondering.

That's cool. Adding it immediately.
I don't get the 8 one though.

I was wondering, if we have Binary Terrestrial Planets, is it also possible that we can have Binary Gas Giants? Basically their gravities would be pulling gas from each other and there would be a large bar of gas connecting them. I got the idea from a book.

Cool idea, I'd like to see that.

I don't really get that orbit either... Yin-yang figure of eight?
And we should include 3D orbits... But maybe just as a patch. They would look really cool to observe.
You do mean orbits that depend on the third dimension, rather than not on the system's pane? Even Spore did orbits tilted from the pane, we've got to do that.

And I think we decided life in space is impossible, so that whole type of life is a no go... Except with god tools, of course. They should be able to make organisms immortal, so... Maybe even organic stars!

Dudeman wrote:

What about floating land masses? Possible?

Floating as in boats, or flaoting as in Pandora?

Poisson wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

What about floating land masses? Possible?

Floating as in boats, or flaoting as in Pandora?

I originally meant...

Poisson wrote:

flaoting as in Pandora.

That would have to happen only under very extreme circumstances, though. Some sort of magnetic rock in the floating land masses would be pushing away from the same magnetic force on the ground below it (Both would be only negative or both would be only positive). The planet/moon's gravity would pull it back at the same time, so the mass wouldn't just fly off into space. It would have to be kept in a perfect balance, as any slight push on the rock would send it spinning.

Very extreme circumstances, you see.

But it's been used a lot in concept art...


This idea of...

Poisson wrote:

Floating as in boats

... Would be great too. It's a lot more simple. The rock simply has to be less dense than the liquid on the planet.

Or it could just be an pole.

Dudeman wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

What about floating land masses? Possible?

Floating as in boats, or flaoting as in Pandora?

I originally meant...

Poisson wrote:

flaoting as in Pandora.

No.


This idea of...

Poisson wrote:

Floating as in boats

Yes.

A floating mass on a liquid (or anything with a specific gravity higher than 1) would work. Matter with lower specific gravity (like air) just won't hold things up, and that sort of magnetism is basically unthinkable.

While Floating landmass is a no-no, any info on the limits of steepness and height of landforms? I know that on Earth we can't get much taller than Everest by natural means, but what about a planet with lower gravity?

And yes, I am thinking of that one passage from C. S. Lewis's Space trilogy.

Dudeman wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

What about floating land masses? Possible?

Floating as in boats, or flaoting as in Pandora?

I originally meant...

Poisson wrote:

flaoting as in Pandora.

Not possible unless we are doing alternate biochemistries, which are not curently planned. Iron in blood would be blasted out of the body, killing the organism. Then again, some invertibrates use copper.... But the amount of magnetism required is unthinkable even accounting for that.

This idea of...

Poisson wrote:

Floating as in boats

... Would be great too. It's a lot more simple. The rock simply has to be less dense than the liquid on the planet.

Or it could just be an pole.

I feel like I should say something about all the weird orbits around binary stars (figure 8 and such)...

Put quite simply, they're so rare that they're negligible. When planets form, they form in a circumstellar disk around the star. I can't think of any circumstances where a circumstellar disk would naturally form in a figure 8 shape - First, the individual gravities of the stars would pull most of the nebula that they formed in into a disk either around each individual star or around the pair of stars if they're close enough to each other, and second, even if a figure-8 or similar shape did form, the collisions where the particles cross and the gravity of the larger resulting particles would throw most of the matter either into the stars, away from the stars, or into more stable elliptical orbits. It'd take an extremely rare set of circumstances to result in a planet orbiting in a figure 8 or similar orbit, and it'd have to be only one planet - if two or more planets orbit in the star system, even if only one is in the figure 8, the chances of gravitational interaction would be excessively high, rendering the orbits even more unstable than they already are.

Also, don't forget that binary stars orbit each other, they don't just sit still in space. The figure 8 would have to spin around its center point in order for the planet to not run into one of the stars or be ejected into space (Unless the orbital period of the planet in the figure 8 exactly matched a multiple of 1/2 the orbital period of the stars, but again, this would be very rare). If this kind of thing is included, I think it should be incredibly, incredibly rare (as in, maybe 1 planet in the entire galaxy orbits this way) or created by God Tools.

Wow, I just realized how much I typed. Sorry about that

Trust me, that's nowhere near the longest post here.

If it's that rare I think they should just be left as a thing to play with in god mode.

Poisson wrote:

Trust me, that's nowhere near the longest post here.

I meant more the big blocks of text than the length of the post, but okay.

R136a1 wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Trust me, that's nowhere near the longest post here.

I meant more the big blocks of text than the length of the post, but okay.

Also not the worst.

R136a1 wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Trust me, that's nowhere near the longest post here.

I meant more the big blocks of text than the length of the post, but okay.

Long paragraphs isn't a bad thing, if there's nowhere to separate the text, then it's not possible to make them shorter anyway.

And good point. They are orbiting, and lots of the orbits wouldn't be as stable, or as easy to get, accounting for the orbit. Although, all movement is relative - you can just as easily think that the stars aren't orbiting at all, the universe is just rotating around it. So maybe the stars' orbit isn't actually affecting the planet's orbit. But the formation of the planet is a very good point, not very likely, unless the stars formed systems, suddenly got close, lost speed, and became binary, which isn't going to happen. Some-one, please take my copy of Spore a very, very long way away and burn it, then throw the ashes into the sun, then burn that too.

So maybe this would just be a Sandbox phenomenon?

(Sandbox phenomenon is ©The Uteen epic-phrase-creation corporation, not very many rights reserved)

The Uteen wrote:

R136a1 wrote:

Poisson wrote:

Trust me, that's nowhere near the longest post here.

I meant more the big blocks of text than the length of the post, but okay.

Long paragraphs isn't a bad thing, if there's nowhere to separate the text, then it's not possible to make them shorter anyway.

And good point. They are orbiting, and lots of the orbits wouldn't be as stable, or as easy to get, accounting for the orbit. Although, all movement is relative - you can just as easily think that the stars aren't orbiting at all, the universe is just rotating around it. So maybe the stars' orbit isn't actually affecting the planet's orbit. But the formation of the planet is a very good point, not very likely, unless the stars formed systems, suddenly got close, lost speed, and became binary, which isn't going to happen. Some-one, please take my copy of Spore a very, very long way away and burn it, then throw the ashes into the sun, then burn that too.

So maybe this would just be a Sandbox phenomenon?

(Sandbox phenomenon is ©The Uteen epic-phrase-creation corporation, not very many rights reserved)

The orbits were designed by ~~sciocont, not me. So tell that to him.

So should I remove them, add '(Sandbox Only)', add '(Only Created by God Tools), add '(Few per Game)', or what?

The Uteen wrote:

Although, all movement is relative - you can just as easily think that the stars aren't orbiting at all, the universe is just rotating around it. So maybe the stars' orbit isn't actually affecting the planet's orbit.

Yes, the orbiting binarys was a pretty weak argument. Not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. I was probably half asleep at the time...

Dudeman wrote:

The orbits were designed by ~~sciocont, not me. So tell that to him.

So should I remove them, add '(Sandbox Only)', add '(Only Created by God Tools), add '(Few per Game)', or what?

I was hoping he'd see this here. Besides, it was more directed to everyone in general.

I'd say either or both of the first two work.

R136a1 wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Although, all movement is relative - you can just as easily think that the stars aren't orbiting at all, the universe is just rotating around it. So maybe the stars' orbit isn't actually affecting the planet's orbit.

Yes, the orbiting binarys was a pretty weak argument. Not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. I was probably half asleep at the time...

Dudeman wrote:

The orbits were designed by ~~sciocont, not me. So tell that to him.

So should I remove them, add '(Sandbox Only)', add '(Only Created by God Tools), add '(Few per Game)', or what?

I was hoping he'd see this here. Besides, it was more directed to everyone in general.

I'd say either or both of the first two work.

Ok, I'll add them both to each then.

R136a1 wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Although, all movement is relative - you can just as easily think that the stars aren't orbiting at all, the universe is just rotating around it. So maybe the stars' orbit isn't actually affecting the planet's orbit.

Yes, the orbiting binarys was a pretty weak argument. Not entirely sure what I was thinking when I wrote that. I was probably half asleep at the time...

Dudeman wrote:

The orbits were designed by ~~sciocont, not me. So tell that to him.

So should I remove them, add '(Sandbox Only)', add '(Only Created by God Tools), add '(Few per Game)', or what?

I was hoping he'd see this here. Besides, it was more directed to everyone in general.

I'd say either or both of the first two work.

Thanks for pointing that out- it solves a ton of provblems, because now we will only need a few types of orbits.

I also noticed that Resonances were included under the "stars" category. That's all well and good, but a note should be made that it'd be pretty rare. 3 bodies are required for resonance - one very large one for the resonating objects to orbit around and the 2 objects which are in resonance with each other. The only time I can think of a resonance happening with stars is if a large star (blue giant, supergiant or hypergiant) is orbited by two smaller stars (Red/Brown dwarfs) which aren't orbiting each other. A 3-star system in this sort of dynamic where the primary (biggest, most massive star) is too close to the sizes of the two secondaries, it'd be extremely unstable due to all sorts of weird orbital interactions between the 3 stars.

Also, I notice that Brown dwarf stars haven't been mentioned yet. Brown Dwarfs are basically "failed stars," too small to fuse hydrogen in their cores but large enough to fuse deuterium and protons into helium-3. They're predicted to have masses between 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter.

R136a1 wrote:

I also noticed that Resonances were included under the "stars" category. That's all well and good, but a note should be made that it'd be pretty rare. 3 bodies are required for resonance - one very large one for the resonating objects to orbit around and the 2 objects which are in resonance with each other. The only time I can think of a resonance happening with stars is if a large star (blue giant, supergiant or hypergiant) is orbited by two smaller stars (Red/Brown dwarfs) which aren't orbiting each other. A 3-star system in this sort of dynamic where the primary (biggest, most massive star) is too close to the sizes of the two secondaries, it'd be extremely unstable due to all sorts of weird orbital interactions between the 3 stars.

Also, I notice that Brown dwarf stars haven't been mentioned yet. Brown Dwarfs are basically "failed stars," too small to fuse hydrogen in their cores but large enough to fuse deuterium and protons into helium-3. They're predicted to have masses between 13 and 80 times the mass of Jupiter.

Oh, I think that first one was an accident...

I never actually knew what brown dwarves were... Thanks for telling me.

Dudeman wrote:

Oh, I think that first one was an accident...

Alrighty, that's cool too

Dudeman wrote:

I never actually knew what brown dwarves were... Thanks for telling me.

No problem

R136a1 wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

Oh, I think that first one was an accident...

Alrighty, that's cool too

Dudeman wrote:

I never actually knew what brown dwarves were... Thanks for telling me.

No problem

Even though I said the first was an accident, it would actually be really cool. I'll add things like Co-orbital Suns around a Supergiant, and Supergiants with multiple satellites which are in fact other stars.

Or do you all think it's too unlikely?

Dudeman wrote:

R136a1 wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

Oh, I think that first one was an accident...

Alrighty, that's cool too

Dudeman wrote:

I never actually knew what brown dwarves were... Thanks for telling me.

No problem

Even though I said the first was an accident, it would actually be really cool. I'll add things like Co-orbital Suns around a Supergiant, and Supergiants with multiple satellites which are in fact other stars.

Or do you all think it's too unlikely?

I would say that's quite unlikely- they'd probably just be sucked in by the gravity.

~sciocont wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

R136a1 wrote:

Dudeman wrote:

Oh, I think that first one was an accident...

Alrighty, that's cool too

Dudeman wrote:

I never actually knew what brown dwarves were... Thanks for telling me.

No problem

Even though I said the first was an accident, it would actually be really cool. I'll add things like Co-orbital Suns around a Supergiant, and Supergiants with multiple satellites which are in fact other stars.

Or do you all think it's too unlikely?

I would say that's quite unlikely- they'd probably just be sucked in by the gravity.

Not necessarily. If the smaller stars were orbiting the larger star, they'd probably stay that way for quite some time - The thing that'd get them would probably end up being the energy released when the bigger star went supernova.

Although, that does bring up another problem. The conditions under which Supergiants form are more partial to forming other supergiants than smaller stars. That's not to say it couldn't happen, it just wouldn't be common, especially multiple small stars orbiting one large star without orbiting each other as well. I could only really see this happening if the orbits of the smaller stars were relatively far apart.

Speaking of weird orbital dynamics, I found another type of stellar orbit which could be included, if it isn't too complicated. It's called a Trapezia, and it's a situation where multiple young stars, usually deep inside nebulas, compete for stable orbits. Eventually the system will settle down into a normal binary or trinary star system with any other components being ejected at high speeds into space.

A more detailed description of Trapezia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_star#Trapezia

The Trapezium Cluster in the Orion Nebula, which gave name to the phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trapezium_Cluster