Help /tg/, I am toying with the idea for a setting.
Could a tidally locked world support life on the sun side (not just the twilight region) if it was far enough away from its star?
>>44234800
"Sure"
>>44234800
Life uh uh uh finds a way.
>>44234800
If it can handle being perpetually bathed in radiation, why not.
>>44234822
Answered it for you, but lets go in depth a bit.
First, you need to determine what sort of plant life could survive on the sunside. How do they get water? The only way I can think of is a series of incredibly LONG taproots, reaching into aquifers that span huge portions of the sunside. This would leave you with trees, and some species of shrub. Grass like plants would be non-existant, and due to the total lack of rain,most everything would resemble a cactus in appearance and nature. Waxy, with the ability to soak up huge amounts of water and store them for long periods of time. Most would be very stunted, because the less surface area they have above ground, the less water they would lose.
Next, we move a step up. What eats the plants? Reptiles and arthropods would be most likely, as they both possess the best water retaining abilities out of anything we know of. Even if the sunside wasn't a hellish wasteland, the temperatures would still be incredibly high compared to Earth, forcing anything to live there to fight for every ounce of water.
tl;dr, look at the Sahara, or Death Valley. Use that is found there as your basis for what could exist on sunside.
Are we talking fantasy? Sci-fi?
If it's fantasy, maybe the world's rotation was halted long ago by some evil nonsense or whatever, and the mages of that time were able to prevent the sun side from being completely obliterated by radiation, but weren't able to resume the spin.
If it's sci-fi, maybe the natives of the twilight region have built radiation shields, but the "recovery" of the sun side is millennia away.
>>44234800
Probably, but then the twilight region likely wouldn't be able to support life; or at least would be insanely cold compared to the sun side
How would weather work on a planet like this?
How would water move around? Would there be wind? Would there be a lot of wind?
I have toyed with the idea of a tidally locked planet that "wobbles" to create some semblance of a day-night cycle. Anyone knows if this is remotely feasible?
>>44235092
>Would there be a lot of wind?
Sure, probably lots. Hot air could travel from the sun side towards the cold side. Certain areas of the twilight region might be temperate but inhospitable due to rapid windstorms. It'd make a cool place for monsters to exist.
>>44234800
No.
300mph winds. 300mph winds everywhere.
By the way, for those interested in worldbuilding, I found this channel and I thought it might interest some people here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCeh-pJYRZTBJDXMNZeWSUVA
>>44235104
It's not.
>>44235335
Care to elaborate? The earth already wobbles in its rotation, I don't see any reason a tidally locked planet couldn't rotate along it's locked axis and why it couldn't also wobble along that rotation.
>>44235399
It precesses, not wobbles. You need rotation for that.
>>44235454
A tidally locked planet could feasibly still rotate, just in a perpendicular axis/plane.
I need an excuse, any bullshit excuse really, to have a stable L1 Lagrangian point. I want a planet orbiting between two (very distant) binary stars.
>>44235542
https://youtu.be/De2SuYAjrdY
The only excuse you ever need. Live your dreams, anon.
>>44235542
Have you considered just having it happen and not telling the players exactly how it works? If they ask how it works, tell them their characters don't know, but they could spend years studying the phenomenon if they want.
I mean there's a limit to how hard your sci-fi has to be.
What would be the immediate effects of a split earth?
>>44235542
You could have two stars orbiting each other with a planet exactly in the center of rotation.
>>44235600
That's all well and good for when it's appropriate, really, but this is for some fairly hard sci-fi friends of mine. We really like that kind of verisimilitude, at least occasionally.
>>44235606
>I mean there's a limit to how hard your sci-fi has to be.
Yes, in the sense that I will accept almost any bullshit excuse that sounds remotely plausible. No, in the sense that my friends know enough about Lagrangian points to not just take it at face value.
>>44235635
Well first, a brooding Asian guy with black clothes and fabulous hair would sheathe his katana.
>>44235635
I'm not Earthologist, but I'd say a few things would be draining of the oceans and collapse of the crust around the cut. Also, Lava.
>>44234800
I'll one-up you and add a giantic perpetual hurricane covering the sunny side.
>>44235635
It depends on the nature and method of this truly cataclysmic event, but unless something thrust the halves apart with insane amounts of force, they would gravitate towards one another again, and then collide in what is sure to make matters even worse for any life on the planet. This splitting and subsequent merging could feasible be enough to melt the entire planet back to something really similar to when the planet was still forming.
If you're talking more immediate than that, seismic activity and eruptions out the wazoo seems like a good place to start.
>>44235646
Hey, I didn't even think about it like that, that's pretty smart.
>>44235635
Well first of all, the atmosphere is fucking gone so all the air rushes out to fill the giant gap between he planets, causing 500+ mph winds everywhere on the planet starting near the cut, effectively wiping out all life in a matter of minutes.
>>44235092
You'd have fucking shit tons of wind. Like 200+mph routinely as it goes from the hot side to the cold side to the hotsid etc. and the actual terminator would be where you live so you'll have fuck huge and crazy bad belt storms 24/7 where you pray to god there only 150mph wind and the lightning rods didn't fail again so you can actually try and get some work. I'd assume you'd have water problems eventually as all the moisture would be from terminator to the cold side and the evaporation would eventually start doing some damage since neither side is replenishing your greenband oceans. This is purely off OP's pic btw if the world looks different tell us.
>>44234800
I read a short story in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction back in the 90s that was set on a tidally locked world. As I recall there are horrific storms around the divide between the day side and night side. You're basically confined to a thin band between the storm zone and the desert zone, unless you're crazy.
>>44235468
It wouldn't be tidally locked then. You'd either have to have a fuck huge planet to sit close enough to a star to lock but not kill everything on the greenband (think jupiter size but with the gravity of a rocky planet) or the lock is coming from a moon of some sort sitting firmly on the outter perimeter of the orbit on a more normal sized planet. Either way there wouldn't be a wobble the physics don't match up.
>>44235635
Depends entirely on how far this splitting force pushes the two seperated pieces from each other.
Let's say it's a katana wielded by a shounen protagonist, you could technically split the planet in half and then have it re-connect to itself pretty much instantly.
There would be earthquakes unlike anything we have seen before along the "cut zone", but without something to push the two halves from each other, you'd just have gravity hold it together.
>>44235784
>Shittons of wind
Yeah what this guy said. Practically all tidally-locked planets in Space Engine (which roughly simulates geology and basic weather) have giant storms on the sun side.
>>44235646
If you somehow managed to get the planet there first (just handwave it you'd never scientifically justify it) its all good. The greenbelt might be thinner though getting blasted from both sides like that and the winds and storms would be worse cause of the colliding hot air currents and tornadoes made solely of opposing hot air vortexes would be common.
>>44235844
Don't tidally locked worlds rotate?
Just at one rotation per orbital cycle so they HAPPEN to always have the same side pointed at the body they are orbiting
>>44235878
Look at this image for the better examples. See that thinner "safe band" between the storm and ice? Thats all you have to live with in such a system. Eventually you could make artificial living on the cold side but still its insanely small and dangerous as fuck. Maybe make expeditions to the storm side for minerals and the cold side for fresh water for your ailing village be the reason for exploring. This would also seriously hinder life cause the only life "friendly" place is bathed 24/7 in radiation.
>>44235961
>The greenbelt might be thinner though getting blasted from both sides like that
That would depend on the distance to the suns and their luminosity. But yes, it might.
I had the idea of a setting where the planet is in a binary star system, orbiting a regular sized sun, which itself is in a distant, elliptical orbit of a larger star.
So for many millennia, the planet is a normal, fairly nice world, with a particularly bright star in the sky, but as it nears perihelion, the red star in the sky grows and shit gets real and life is forced to the poles as shit heats up for a few thousand years, and then it repeats.
Is this feasible?
>>44235976
Theoretically, it's possible for a planetary body's rotation rate to just coincidentally match its orbital period, but this is pretty unlikely. This also wouldn't be tidal locking.
>>44236063
Problem is the gravity of the larger star would probably pull the planets away after it first close pass.
>>44235976
No. That would be a false rotation. Look at the moon for a better example. It technically achieves one rotation but its tidally locked so it never wobbles. Tidal locking halts that type of movement by nature. You could have a planet pass by upsetting that but then you'd have a slow spin and a dead planet who will either drift away or fall in while being baked/ frozen since the spin or wobble would wipe away the greenband. Look up space engine and look at planets like this then wobble them a bit you'll see what i'm saying.
>>44235976
It's more complicated than it just "happens" to be so but yes, essentially.
So I'm thinking it should be possible for a planet to have a rotation in more than one axis, the rotation in the normal, orbital plane being tidally locked 1:1 but the rotation in the other axis effectively causing the planet to wobble relative to the tidal lock.
It might have to be a rogue planet that was captured by the system to feasible have such a funky rotation, but still, I don't see anything inherently impossible about it.
>>44236085
>Theoretically, it's possible for a planetary body's rotation rate to just coincidentally match its orbital period, but this is pretty unlikely. This also wouldn't be tidal locking.
>Tidal locking is the name given to the situation when an object's orbital period matches its rotational period. A great example of this is our own Moon. The moon takes 28 days to go around the Earth and 28 days to rotate once around it's axis. This results in the same face of the Moon always facing the Earth.
>>44236085
>Problem is the gravity of the larger star would probably pull the planets away after it first close pass.
Well I figure it doesn't have to be all that close if it's a big damn star. The planet's closest sun only needs to pass close enough that the planet's climate is fucked up by like 10-20 degrees.
Still, yeah, it might not be stable.
>>44236190
Actually, it's more of a problem if the star is big, because bigger means a bigger gravity well, pretty much.
You'd be better off having the thousand-year offender be a small but luminous star.
>>44234800
Not without jumping through some hoops. On the sun side it would be unliveably hot and to add insult to injury, all the water would freeze out into glaciers on the dark side. Even at the twilight zone there would be no water at all. With enough technology or magic you could send expeditions to gather ice but that probably means only a few, very large cities surrounded by agriculture and canals.
>>44236160
Sorta figured the definition of tidal locking would include tidal forces, not coincidences of rotation period and orbital period.
>>44236190
If a star's warming up a planet, that planet is also under its gravitational influence.
You could accomplish the same thing with a variable star that becomes much more intense on a long cycle. This has actually been done with a really interesting approach by the book "A Deepness In The Sky" by Vernor Vinge.
>>44236234
Wouldn't the destabilizing effect of gravity be due to difference in gravitational acceleration on the planet and the star due to their differing distances from the second star? The force of gravity diminishes with the square of distance, so I'd think further away, the difference in distance would have a smaller effect on the experienced fluctuation in gravitation force experienced by an orbiting body.
Tidal forces should be less significant at great distances, even if the absolute attractive force is strong. Like for instance, the whole solar system is pulled towards the center of mass of the galaxy, but that shit is so far away that it's irrelevant on an interplanetary scale.
>>44235635
Split how? Depending on your answer, my response can differ between "horrible things" and "hell in a handbasket"
So this thread has got me thinking, what if civilization on this inhospitable planet is because a lost colony ship withno contact with the rest of humanity was forced to crash land. It has been a few hundred years since then. Advanced technology has allowed people to eek out a living but how has society changed in the centuries leading up to when this hypothetical game takes place. For sure, space faring human civilization is a legend wrapped in myths and uncertianty and the colonists has fractured into different factions that are no doubt hostile to each other. What else would have happened?
>>44236739
See the world Jinks from Larry Niven's Known Space series.
>>44236739
>So this thread has got me thinking, what if civilization on this inhospitable planet is because a lost colony ship withno contact with the rest of humanity was forced to crash land.
That's called Homeworld.
>>44236463
Binary star systems cannot hold onto planets long enough for life to evolve.
>>44236739
Radiation-based illness is a serious concern with a high risk for someone to be born or end up sterile. People suddenly dying a slow and painful death from radiation fleas making it into vital resources would also be an occurrence common enough that no one would be surprised when someone starts exhibiting symptoms of their bellies burning up from the inside.
Early warning systems for megastorms would be an absolute necessity, and 90% of any structures created would have to be almost wholly placed underground. Most structures would also be networked into an anthill situation due to the possibility of having outdoor entrances buried under feet and even miles of sand. Deep space contact would be limited to nonexistence due to harsh weather and a magnetosphere that's weak at best.
>>44236739
All I know is that this setting is gonna have Dom-like exoskeletons for warfare. Big fat hover feet for high speed ocean infantry combat.
>>44236902
There wouldn't be enough life on the planet for oxygen to be sufficiently dense either.
Basically, there's no good reason for anyone to choose to live on this planet. If they crash, they're as good as dead and nothing can change that.
Give it up OP. You can't have science fiction with science. You can only have it with magic you made up for convenience.
>>44236981
I'm not OP. I'm just someone who was reading the thread and posted my own idea.
>>44237015
Just putting my foot down. Tidally locked planets are no good for anything.
>>44237030
Ok, what if we build a giant fucking solar panel? That should work, right? right? please?
>>44237071
Easier to stick it in space than on a planet.
So, is there another feasible way to make the twilight zone the only habitable area of a planet?
Without having an ice-age at least.
>>44237071
>giant solar panel in +300 mph winds
>>44237076
>>44237093
I was thinking just out of atmo. I don't want to deal with construction in 300mph winds.
>>44237030
Pretty much. I mean, they're great if you wanna go Star Trek/Wars space opera, but when you get down to it, the exogeology involved pretty much guarantees that surface life would be impossible. There could be subterranean life, but it's doubtful that it'd thrive long enough to grow beyond the extremophile stage of evolution. The colonists would have to dig early and dig deep and hope that there's enough biodiversity on their ship that survived to avoid complete breakdown within a few generations, and that's not even mentioning the massive challenge farming and hydroponics would be.
tl;dr, there's a reason why the EU dropped Ryloth being a tidally locked planet.
>>44237081
"a wizard did it"
Only excuse you EVER need.
>>44237118
Ok, so how are we going to get the energy collected from the panel to the surface?
>>44237148
MAAAAAGIC!
>>44237081
You can't really do much, honestly. Earth's placement in the sol system, the tilt of its axis, the moon it has, the speed it rotates and orbits the sun are all huge factors on why it's able to support life. Screw up even just one of those factors and we end up like Mars or Venus.
>>44237148
Some sort of radiation, maybe? We'd need something that doesn't really care about atmospheres and weather conditions after all.
>>44237030
Original poster of colony idea. The game is meant to be bleak. Like Muv Luv Unlimited The Day After levels of bleak. Humans are not thriving and they will all die off eventually no matter what. It's just that even though they will die slow painful deaths, human nature still results in people making factions and getting into wars with each other over what are in the end pointless reasons. I mean if the players want a happy ending, I could BS some ayy lmao Stargate thing but with the tone of the game I'm setting, one of the factions would end up destroying it and extinguishing the human's last hope for survival because of some stupid ideology thing.
>>44237148
>>44237216
>Part of the solar energy (55–60%) is lost on its way through the atmosphere by the effects of reflection and absorption.
>Space-based solar power systems convert sunlight to microwaves outside the atmosphere, avoiding these losses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power
>>44235659
>>44235542
>>44235774
>>44235646
How are you going to justify the planet forming between the two stars? Or even harder, a planet moving to that point and getting stuck?
I doubt a planet could ever form stuck midway between too stars (and thus two competing gravitational forces pulling apart all the dust required to form one), and if it did, it'd probably be so far away from both that it's barren and frigid.
>>44237251
Also speaking of energy, I'm thinking that the different factions take one generator (perpetual motion engines that can't be replicated by the colonists) from the colony ship each to power their main underground city and energy for the other cities under the main city state of whatever faction's sway is provided by energy shipments. This means that unruly city states that wish to rebel are denied energy and left to starve.
>>44237251
No on that world they will die short painful deaths within hours of arrival.
Just come up with another setting, or make it a fantasy story. Science is incompatible with science fiction.
>>44237296
Your teachers told you not to cite wikipedia for a reason.
>the setting has wind spirits that have agreed to not pass the twilight region except at specific locations
>each day they stop for a few hours to allow crossing these "wind highways"
SOLVED!
>>44237352
>(perpetual motion engines
Only on fucking /tg/. Fuck this guy.
>>44237296
Yeah, i was thinking radiowaves, since they pass through atmospheres (at least our Earth one).
>>44237352
>perpetual motion
If they are going to die anyways, why can't it just be an incredibly long-lasting source?
Like, a generator with enough juice to last 1000 years?
Same thing, no handwaving.
>>44237426
OP is a dipshit who aspires to be just like jj abrams.
>>44237304
Not OP, but I'm gonna say that the planet orbits one star and rotates once per revolution because of ancient super advanced ayy lmaos which leads into the Stargates mentioned in >>44237251
>>44237368
For the sake of the setting, technology was advanced enough on the original colony ship to allow everyone to survive. People only needed to start moving out and making fortified and shielded underground cities after space and resources started running low on the ship. Remember these colony ships were made to withstand and terraform if possible even the harshest of death worlds.
>>44237394
>>44237426
Perpertual motion was the first thing that came to mind to show how advanced humanity is in the setting. 10000 years engines can also work.
>>44237454
So you're nullifying the only interesting element of the setting so you can have people, what, do bad things and go outside and die?
bravo, jj, bravo.
>>44234800
Short answer- No
Long answer- Hell no. Too many factors are working against any kind of life to exist on this planet. Even if you threw a colony on the planet, they'd all be dead in a generation, if not sooner. They'd honestly fare better in space.
>>44237482
You can't be this stupid. Perpetual motion is im
>/tg/
>scientifically illiterate.
Why do i bother.
>>44237499
You still need to gather resources to get synthesizers to work to actually make things. And each faction only has one (1) of these generators for their main city. Cities that aren't the main city state rely on shipments of energy that can be intercepted by other factions. Also other factions want to capture each other's capital city states because that gives you control of an extra generator and influence over X amount of city states that relied on that generator.
>>44237522
As opposed to the literally illiterate (you)
>>44237499
>going outside and dying
>not wearing protective gear/exoskeleton that this humanity civilization is obviously advanced enough to produce
Shiggy diggy
>>44237601
Ohh wow i can smell the clearasil on you.
>>44237672
>le exponential tech lel magic le reddit futurology
Oh fuck off.
>>44237582
Sounds pretty stupid imho.
>>44237739
What? The setting is in the future. Humanity in this setting produces engines that can run for thousands of years and protection from death worlds is far fetched?
>>44237787
>humanity leaving the solar system
is far fetched.
What you have is literal cartoon magic. Stop being a faggot with zero life experience. Nobody over the age of 30 believes in exponential progress.
>>44237195
Why is the moon inportant? Honest question, I always assumed you wouldn't need a moon for life. I know its important for life on earth, but Id imagine life evolved in response to it and not directly because of it.
>>44237817
>inb4 a quote from a boyfucking science fiction writer as if that has any bearing on anything other than book sales.
>>44237754
Eh, I tried. I mean OP is trying find a way to make his idea work so I proposed to most plausible one that could still work as a setting for an RPG. I mean all these realism fags screeching about how this isn't possible don't get that it's just fiction. Like how Star Wars/Trek have FTL and artificial gravity when both of these are impossible as shown. If the OP was asking for hard scifi setting, then that'd be a competely different story. If it is supposed to be hard scifi, I'd be in the "this is impossible" camp too.
>>44237835
Eats asteroids. Provides tides.
>but Id imagine life evolved in response to it
WHAT THE FUCK DID I ENTER THE RETARD DIMENSION ON MY WAY HOME?
>>44237817
When was any part of this supposed to be hard scifi?
>>44237867
He asks for science, we tell him it's not possible. He refuges in his singularity religion.
Give up and go home people. this is officially /x/ territory.
>>44237887
There's no such thing. There's just space opera, and space opera with a few facts from wikipedia scattered about with no relevance to the plot.
Humans cannot tolerate science in any form other than "wish-fulfilling santa claus"
>>44237887
>Could a tidally locked world support life on the sun side (not just the twilight region) if it was far enough away from its star?
>no "in a fantasy world"
>no "assuming magical science"
>no "i want to make up as much bullshit as possible
Just
>Could a tidally locked world support life on the sun side (not just the twilight region) if it was far enough away from its star?
If that's not a scientific question, then it's not a question at all. Of course you can make it work if you just make up magic bullshit, why ask? Why not ask "How can i magic bullshit this setting into being?"
>>44237962
I'm more interested in if the twilight region is able to support life.
>>44237871
What I meant, ass, is that life would still be present but radically different without a moon.
>>44237962
Well yeah in that case, the answer is no. However, this is /tg/ so I took OPs idea and made a workable game setting out of it. Sue me.
>>44238002
It cannot.
>>44238024
No, you tremendous fool.
>>44238051
You're the one that took offense when none was given. It's just science. You shouldn't feel slighted by facts.
>>44238058
Well than thank you, I did not know this.
>>44237835
It acts as a sort of shield of some of the nastier asteroids/comets that have been on a course for Earth impact. That and the GIH theory assumes that the collision with Theia that created the moon attributes a huge portion of the earth's iron core which is why we have such a strong magnetosphere. Without that or a weaker one, life would have evolved dramatically different.
>>44237195
Earth's unique qualities are all huge factors in why it's able to support Earth based lifeforms.
>>44238116
The main issue is that the winds will still be extremely high, and there isn't enough area on the planet for large trees to form, again because of the high winds, so you won't have enough oxygen to breath. Complex life requires oxygen. You might be able to find worthless bacteria all over the dirtball, maybe some sea life deep down, but that's all.
>>44238058
>No, you tremendous fool.
It's probable without the moon in orbit but not ideal.
>>44238165
...Yes. That is, indeed, exactly what I said.
>>44238193
Jupiter eats most of the extinction event asteroids. Life would evolve just fine. Frankly, if any event in earth's history did not occur, we wouldn't be here. The moon is not special in that regard.
>>44238232
Its importance in tidal effects would certainly alter how life would have evolved. I'm not saying that you need it for tidal forces to be present; the sun and the rest of the other major bodies in our system certainly play a part, but they certainly wouldn't be as pronounced as what we have.
>>44238213
Oh, sorry, I assumed you were trying to be relevant in answering his question.
Okay then.
There are two ways in which your statement was completely irrelevant:
1. Habitable doesn't imply life has to originate there. It just has to imply life could happen there. Skip the whole evolutionary process and just colonize this hypothetical world from another planet.
2. Another feasible way to justify life on a planet is to change the nature of the life. Instead of carbon based lifeforms designed to operate on water, have life develop in ammonia, or *insert chemical here*, with different chemical processes. Life can evolve for different temperatures, or form in a different atmosphere, etc, etc. Right now scientists tend to act as if "earth like" qualites are the end all/be all of life supporting. It's a reasonable viewpoint, considering there's no observational evidence yet of any life beyond earth at all. However, the theoretical chemical processes to support life in different environments are there, and it's a big fuckin universe.
>>44238282
>Its importance in tidal effects would certainly alter how life would have evolved.
Life didn't evolve in tidal pools. The science channel is not the equivalent of an education.
>>44238339
>1. Habitable doesn't imply life has to originate there. It just has to imply life could happen there. Skip the whole evolutionary process and just colonize this hypothetical world from another planet.
Nobody ever would. Crashing on planets is not a thing that can happen without completely bending over backwards, and even then.
>Another feasible way to justify life on a planet is to change the nature of the life
Maaaaaaagic.
Tide is literally just a large gravitational mass pulling water around.
The star you orbit has a (rather large) gravitational pull and will also affect tides.
If any planets orbit near enough, they too could have an affect on tides.
Obviously this wouldn't be the same as having a large mass like the moon right next to your planet, but you would still have SOME tides.Right? I'm not talking out of my ass now am I?
IS there a way to do "Desert World only the sun never sets, enjoy hot, forever?"
>>44238410
You don't know that earth has two tides?
Boy, i heard kids didn't have to know things, but jeez.
>>44238510
Not scientifically. Star Wars is fantasy, that's how there's oxygen on tatooine and hoth.
>>44235646
Three Body Problem kind of did that.
Although it might have been 3 stars and a planet...
Anyway, an alien planet is stuck in a chaotic orbit, getting passed around multiple stars. No perfectibility.
So the opposite of a tidal lock setting.
>>44238604
>Three Body Problem kind of did that.
Do kids really only know buzzwords without context?
>>44238531
I literally JUST fucking said the sun has a tide.
Calm down with your "I'm better than you guys!" attitude, it's making you look like a fucking retard when you try to one-up every single post.
>>44238640
You said "affect tides"
You don't know shit. Stop pretending.
By the way, the word you were looking for is "Effect"
>>44238640
and I obviously meant the sun causes a tide.
>>44238674
oh, OBVIOUSLY. Lol, you're so smart. I bet everyone says so.
>>44238703
No I typed that out in 4 seconds after your post in a desperate attempt to appease your great intellect, it was not a typo.
Jesus christ, what's your problem? How sad are you that you feel a need to post like this?
>>44238740
Calm down. Count to ten.
>>44238758
It's ok anon. You can let out your frustrations.
There's no need to project. Who's being mean to you? Are you getting bullied at work? Is your crush ignoring you?
>>44238671
Not that guy but he used the word 'affect' correctly. 'Effect' is a noun, you illiterate fuck.
>>44238410
>>44238531
Not quite.
The earth has 2 tides, but both are almost entirely due to the moon. The sun's tidal forces on the earth are negligible.
The sun exerts a far more massive gravitational force on the earth and the waves than the moon does, but it exerts this force far more uniformly, because it is so far away, and the earth is so small compared to the distance between them.
The moon's force is comparatively tiny, but it isn't exerted as uniformly.
The moon's gravitational force is about 6.8% stronger at the closest point on a spherical earth to the moon, than it is at the center of that same spherical earth. Because of this, the moon pulls more strongly at the surface of the water, than it does on the earth as a whole. This results in the water being
On the exact opposite side of the planet, the moon pulls more weakly on the oceans than it does on the earth as a whole, which means the earth is pulled away from the surface of the water. Of course, we don't perceive it that way, because the water is much much smaller. We categorize it as the water moving up from the earth, rather than the earth moving down from the waves.
A related concept, if you think about it, is sphagetification. That's the hypothetical black hole death, where you're ripped apart by gravity pulling more strongly on your feet than your head as you fall in.
The greater the distance between two bodies, the less gravity varies between two points on one of those bodies. You can see this by taking the derivative of the gravity function. If you do, you'll see that at low |r|, the rate of change is very high, while at high R, the rate of change approaches zero.
tl;dr:
The moon is responsible for almost all tide action on earth because of how dang close it is. The Sun has negligible effect because it's so far away.
>>44238787
Woah there sperg. Calm down. Count to ten.
>>44238829
Effect does function as a verb when it bears the sense to bring about.
You don't know shit.
>>44237835
What the other anons said plus it stabilizes our axial tilt. Without the tidal forces from it keeping our current tilt are seasons would be all over the place and we'd have civilization wiping catastrophes like massive mile high tides, continent shattering earthquakes, and massive tornado factory storms scouring the surface inbetween and during the previous. Its due to material distribution in the earth being uneven and our cores spin and mantle spin being different due to the previously mentioned impact. We're extraordinarily unique in all the events leading to our development i actually wouldn't be surprised if our type of life isn't a one off.
For more fun/scary facts read up on how iron was formed and why its why we actually developed at all.
>>44238846
Also, this means that at most distances that support known life, suns wouldn't exert relevant tidal forces on the planets.
If you want tides and humans (or similar life), you're going to want to add in a moon, or some other gravitational feature in close proximity to the planet you're telling this story on.
>>44238846
>The sun's tidal forces on the earth are negligible.
Quick google search says that the sun has about 44% of the tidal affect on the earth that the sun does. The sun is super far away sure, but it's also really big.
>>44239043
Yes, but as he said, this force is pretty much equally distributed among all the water, regardless of which side of the planet it is etc.
The moon however has a way weaker gravitational force and thus affects the water closer to it far stronger than the other side.
The question I had was if the force from the sun alone could work, even if the tidal forces were maybe 1/10th or 1/20th of what we have on Earth.
>>44239114
It could, but the tides you'd have would look a lot like what was shown on that planet from the movie Interstellar: waves of water moving uniformly in single bands rather than the choppy things we're used to seeing right now. Of course, they wouldn't be waves the size of mountains, but you get the picture.
>>44239401
Yeah, that's what I was going for.
The question is what effects this has on life on the planet.
All this moon talk has me wondering what sort of conditions would be necessary for a "living" moon, that is, a moon with an atmosphere and the ability to sustain plant and animal life.
Anyone know?
>>44236981
Uh huh.
>>44237368
>Your teachers told you not to cite wikipedia for a reason.
That reason being?
>>44237522
Perpetual motion is impossible. Extremely long motion is not. See: solar system, Milky Way, etc.
>>44237817
It's far-fetched but that doesn't mean shit in the context of fiction. It's not the fucking subject you mongoloid.
>>44239850
I'll reinforce this point too. "The reason being?" is a totally valid criticism of that kind of bullshit.
I have also had doctorate program professors tell me and my classmates that wikipedia was unacceptable as a source and never to cite it...... only to later catch several of them red-handed sourcing the information in their own powerpoint presentations during lectures from wiki-fucking-pedia. God damn liars and thieves.
Wikipedia 'can' be bullshit, but several articles are extremely well cited and you'd get away with citing the articles they cite as your source material without anyone in respectable academia blinking an eye. It's to the point that you can't get away with just saying "hurr durr it wibi bibie it doesn't real" and not look like a jackass.
>>44236863
Binary stars certainly can have stable planetary orbits both within a certain distance of either star, and outside the binary system. For example, various models show that orbits are stable within about 2-4 AU of either Alpha Centauri A or B, orbits with low inclination being more stable, and about 50+ AU away from the binary. The distance between the stars varies from 11 to 36 AU.
>>44239696
Same conditions as a normal planet basically.
There's actually a surprising lack of difference between a moon and a planet in that regard.
>>44239951
>not allowed to source wikipedia on essay
>use wikipedia as sole source for all information
>just use the sources linked in the wikipedia articles
>nobody notices a thing
I assume absolutely everyone got through highschool like this.
>>44239951
Wikipedia can only give knowledge. It cannot give wisdom. That takes work.
>>44240005
You failed yourself. You were supposed to learn, not parrot.
>>44234800
Earth has an atmosphere, you know. The strip of habitability would not be that narrow. The point of earth directly facing the sun would be somewhere between 50C and 80C. Too hot for humans, but very habitable for the right kind of life.
>>44240184
I didn't learn anything about the essays or topics I wrote, because they were sourced from wikipedia?
>>44235635
The earth is round because of gravity. Both halves would either re-merge or collapse into spheres. This destroys the surface, as A. the surface literally crumbles beneath itself, and B. the gravitational energy gets turned into heat, which bakes what little rocky crust survives at a lovely 400C.
After a few million years, when the surface has cooled enough for a crust to form and rain to fall, you'll get an Earth with a carbon dioxide and nitrogen atmosphere. Dump a bunch of photosynthesising plankton on it, wait another million years, and you will have two perfectly habitable balls with lower gravity.
If they haven't re-merged, then they're most likely orbiting each-other, with the moon orbiting the dual system. The planets would become tidally locked to each-other. I fucking guarantee that SOMEONE is going to try to build a space elevator from one half to the other.
>>44235542
A figure 8 orbiting?
>>44235646
>You could have two stars orbiting each other with a planet exactly in the center of rotation.
Not stable. Planet immediately drops and orbits the more massive entity. On the plus side, the less massive star will circularise the orbit.
>>44236190
>The planet's closest sun only needs to pass close enough that the planet's climate is fucked up by like 10-20 degrees.
Assuming you're using a red giant because they have the greatest luminosity to mass ratio, a red giant heating the planet up by 20 degrees has to come within the orbit of saturn. That isn't close enough to rip the planet out of its orbit, but it IS close enough to get the planet's orbit in resonance, and make it considerably more elliptic.
>>44235711
If the planet doesn't rotate then where does the hurricane get its spin?
>>44240471
Maybe it rotates on it's side?
>>44237195
It's a very common myth that the Earth's characteristics are optimal for carbon and water-based life. The Moon's certainly nice but other factors could be so much better.
Optimal superhabitable worlds are larger, have denser atmospheres, and orbit K-class stars which release less harmful ultraviolet radiation and have longer lifetimes. Desert planets with less surface water are especially stable climatologically over billions of years, and have extended habitable zones compared to Earth-like planets.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhabitable_planet
Earth was a frozen wasteland for much of its existence; we have evidence of multiple periods with worldwide glaciation. The Marinoan glaciation was the last snowball period, and after it ended just 600 million years ago multicellular life could finally flourish. The oldest one we know of, the Huronian glaciation, happened over two billion years and lasted for 300 million years. A planet being covered in ice from pole to pole, with the occasional slushy puddle near the equator, is not the perfect candidate for life.
>>44238369
Hey, what if someone decided to design lifeforms to live on a hellish inhospitable planet just to see if they could?
And also they were wizards?
>>44238369
>Anything but life that has developed on earth is impossible
Really nigger?
>>44240397
>I fucking guarantee that SOMEONE is going to try to build a space elevator from one half to the other.
Who the fuck is left to do so?
>>44240471
The meeting vortexes of wind meeting in a chaotic enviroment. Eventually one wins out and keeps getting fed.
>>44234800
Uh. Yeah. Why not?
>>44234959
This is all assuming the sun side is a waterless desert. It wouldn't need to be, given how completely vague the OP scenario was.
>>44240397
>space elevator
This is very unlikely, because it's extremely unlikely the orbit around the barycenter would be circular. Even if it was at the start it wouldn't be for long because of outside influences.
So you'd have to make a space elevator that can handle the distance it's spanning getting significantly longer and shorter all the time.
>>44240892
You know, one of the great things about space elevators is that they are not rigid structures, so that would be theoretically possible, although the practical realities of storing hundreds of kilometers of cable with the needed physical properties would be extreamly difficult.
>>44240964
It may be practically possible if the distance changes like 5 or 10 percent. But what about it changing by hundreds of percent?
>>44240998
what do you mean? Like make them closer? Cause thats a great way for the gravity to pull them back together.
>>44235542
I managed to get the players to buy that they are living on a moon orbitting one half of a binary star system, with a star the size of Uranus in the star's L3 lagrange point. Just don't worry too much about it.
>>44241400
No, I mean most cases where two objects of similar mass orbit a common barycenter it will be like pic related. Not circular. See how they get very close then very far from each other all the time?
>>44240998
No idea, the principles involved have not been invented. No one even knows how to make a static length space elevate. I am not aware of any particularly large scale, highly dynamic length cable projects, but, since I cant think of a use outside of this one, I suspect no one has even tried. Not much need for high length changes in suspension bridges, and very few other applications involve anything even roughly analogous to space elevator cable. Steel and Concrete just dont change in length by hundreds of percent, and neither do the gaps you want to bridge.
>>44234800
>>44234959
OP, just use canyons.
They will provide enough shade to keep it alive.
I'm more concerned about the "equator"... The Hot / Cold fronts will create constant storms along the "green" zone.
>>44241482
Yeah, but to me it seems like a static one is plausible in a hard sci-fi sense, while one that stretches out several times over isn't.
>>44241487
The storms would actually be on the cold and warm sides, mostly warm, the winds at the equator however would be fucking terrifying. The best chance would be a small ring between the equator and the warm side storm and another between the equator and the cold side though that one might be entirely unviable. Either way you'd bake or freeze since the temperate zone is a death trap.
>>44241501
What if its a static segmented with alot of extra track surrounding it. When needed to expand the track disconnects long enough to let extra pieces in and redistribute weight then the actual elevator "rides" the track using magnets so it actually doesn't touch it or the extra rails so as not to fuck the whole thing over. You could launch the elevator using a shallow climb gas cannon until safely out of orbit and then magnets could safely do the rest.
>>44241963
It still seems unfeasible to me given how the static parts would already be undergoing extreme conditions, and you want to add parts capable of movement to it? High speed and constant movement at that? That's more the realm of forcefields and inertial dampeners and such from softer sci-fi.
Besides, what would the actual benefit of connecting the two worlds be? It's not like you need some kind of track in space to keep going in a line.
>>44234800
Watch this:
https://youtu.be/akivxvQd4Mw?t=446
>>44234800
I found an article about this, with a study that was done at U Chicago. Seems to suggest such a thing is possible, as oceans would circulate water back to the day side. Seems like life would only exist at areas of moderate temperature near water sources.
http://astrobites.org/2014/11/07/habitability-still-a-go-on-tidally-locked-terrestrial-exoplanets/
>>44242022
>>44241963
At this point you are better off just making teleporters.
>>44238846
Speaking of tides, how would you go about predicting tides from two moons with radically different orbits? Like if one of them orbits the planet longitudinally.
>>44243504
Depends on size, distance, density, speed, and orbit pattern. I'd also like to say that shit would fuck up right quick killing or screwing whatever planet thet orbit.
>>44243504
Assuming the orbits are perpendicular to each other, it then depends on where in the orbits the moons are.
For instance, any time one moon eclipses the other, tides would be going fucking crazy. It'd be even crazier if the sun was directly behind the moons.
Any time the earth is directly between the two moons, tides would be at their weakest I think.
From there, you can connect the two dots to get a vague guess about how all four tidal forces from the moons are affected by the other moon.
>>44240471
it does rotate tho. it just rotates at the same rate that it revolves.
>>44235606
>I mean there's a limit to how hard your sci-fi has to be.
Not if you're a film/book critic
>>44236240
>just guessing at basic definitions
>passing your guessing off as cold hard facts
Never change /tg/
>>44243443
Wouldn't teleporters just kill you and make a copy of you that thinks it's you?
And it was this that caused humanity to slowly lose what they called a soul. Empty vessels of living flesh, the perfect host!
>>44243684
>It'd be even crazier if the sun was directly behind the moons.
No, it fucking wouldn't.
>>44245030
Nah you're thinking matter transporters. Teleporters cut out the fabric of reality switch the pieces between themselves and stitch it all back together.
>>44245030
If souls were a thing, yes.
>>44245477
Oh, ok. That makes sense.
>>44245499
It's ok to admit you lost/sold yours. I mean, we'll still have to purify your mortal shell, but redemption is worth your feeble existence!
What is the reversal of a tidaly locked planet?
>>44245742
A planet who's axial tilt is at 90 something degrees like uranus but has its poles at a 90 degree angle away from the sun as well. Could't even tell you how absolutely fucked up it would be.
>>44237148
Fucking wind god fucking dammit it was all over the thread and nobody got it
>CTRL+F
>Dune, Fremen
>No Results Found
Come on lads! OP, look at the Dune setting and research the Fremen and Stillsuits in particular. It gives you a great idea how nomadic peoples thrive in a hostile desert world where water is so rare it's pretty much considered holy.
>>44235635
The padawan is harshly punished for dropping his lightsaber.
>>44235646
That's not possible, on another side you could have a similar intresting scenario where two equaly massive stars orbit around each other and a planet has an orbit shaped like an 8 that crosses the center of rotation of the two stars. It should be intresting to see how the "two sun season" develops.
While it wouldn't be ALL SUN ALL THE TIME
What about a planet in l4/l5, resulting in a very short night compared to the day?
>>44234800
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_red_dwarf_systems
