PDA

View Full Version : WIP - HELP? Pretty please?



Jalyha
01-13-2014, 04:07 PM
Okay, based on some very good advice :) I'm trying to get the technical aspects of my map down before I get into really .... drawing it...


(And I'm trying to start on a somewhat smaller scale... a continent instead of a planet, lol)

So... I turned off my shoved all my artistic instincts into a dark box, locked it in a safe, threw it down a well, sealed the well, and sat on it.

So this isn't pretty.

But... I will make it pretty. First, though, I need to know if it makes *sense* to have things in the (general) areas in this ... whatever this is.

I would REALLY appreciate some help. And I have no feelings, (no, really, I don't) so don't worry about hurting them. :) I'd just like, if you don't mind, any harsh criticism, careful critiques, gut-feelings... whatever you've got, if you would, so I can fix what's wrong, before prettifying it.

Thanks so much!!


Oh, yeah, here's the map-to-be-in-training-thingummy-what:

60286

arishok
01-13-2014, 04:18 PM
You have the rivers and deltas mapped out, which is rad!

Are you going to add in any lakes?

And is the white space just undecided, or is it a desert or something else?

Jalyha
01-13-2014, 04:28 PM
I'll add in lakes once I know the rivers are right.

The white space is... flat land, lol... I put in the "high ground" to make the rivers run... downward-ish.

Anyway, the patches to the west, and southwest might contain deserts, the rest will be plains or some such for settlements. This particular continent is supposed to be very lush and green. :)

(I'm mean to the people on my other continents, lol)

Mostly, right now, I just want to make sure it makes sense to have the mountains, hills, plateaus, and dense forests where they are, and that the river placement makes sense given those high places. :)

arishok
01-13-2014, 04:32 PM
I would assume that the river placements are fine--runoff from glaciers and the like is pretty common.

Though, depending on the elevation of land, aquifers could be used as well.

Jalyha
01-14-2014, 03:12 AM
Thanks so much. :)

I asked if the placement seems natural/logical, because it's for a low-tech (no-tech) society. And there isn't glacial runoff on this continent.

I've read all the "how rivers should run" type posts, and I don't want those people nipping at my heels when (if?) I post the finished map, so I thought I would ask if everything is in a logical place *before* I get that far.

The mountains/cliffs/stuff *seem* logical to me, but I'm not the expert in tectonic plates that some members here seem to be, nor do I know if my rivers fit if the height is correct. :)

Any suggestions/comments are still appreciated. :)

Thanks all~

arsheesh
01-14-2014, 03:18 AM
Looks pretty good to me, nothing to criticize here.

Cheers,
-Arsheesh

Veldehar
01-15-2014, 11:23 PM
A lot of whether something makes sense will come with more details than are presented here. The rivers don't seem to have any major issues, but they still could in a different manner than just the basic rules. Except one basic rule... rivers rarely if ever hit at 90 degree angles, in nature, but this being a rough, I will just mention that in passing. How big is this continent? At what latitude and longitude is it sitting?

Even sitting north or south of the equator may alter its reality by where cold and warm currents sit...

Tectonics, no I'm not an expert, but, tectonically speaking, I see some possible issues with what forces would cause the pattern of mountains here. Basic mountain structure puts one side steep, the other into rolling hills. So, you've got issues here.

What is with the cliffs and plateau regions? Not typically what I would call major land formations on a continental scale.

Jalyha
01-16-2014, 12:21 AM
:)

I dunno latitude/longitude type stuff :( I keep trying to learn but I never get it.

It's... a fairly small continent, I suppose. I figure, about the size (tall) of the USA (Not all of north america, just the US). About half as wide? I fixed the angles on the rivers :P

Ummm... I probably won't draw in the cliffs/plateaus (although parts of the land are supposed to be VERY rocky. I just wanted to show where I picture them, for a height indication for judging river flow :)

I didn't know that about the mountain structure! I'll adjust for that. I thought tectonics made mountains go near the edges of the land? Are mine too far inland, or too many of them, or both?

(Makova's village is on a cliff somewhere in the west, so I need *some* cliffs... though I can't imagine drawing them in...)

But this is exactly the kind of info I was looking for... I'll make some adjustments now and post an update! :D

Hai-Etlik
01-16-2014, 02:25 AM
One oddity of the rivers is you have the headwaters concentrated in a few small arcs, and then everywhere else is evidently bone dry.

Also, the biome and the geomorphology are two different things (They interact with one another of course). Forests can grow on hills or in plains. Generally what determines whether there's forest is a combination of rainfall and temperature. Where there's enough water and it's not too cold, you get forests, otherwise you get grassland, scrubland, or desert, unless humans interfere and cut down the forests. Keep in mind that most of Europe and eastern North America were covered by forest. It's a good idea to place your pre-agriculture forests, then remove them based on where there are people, and if you are after the temperate climate of typical psuedo medieval fantasy, then you should have a lot of forest, at least to start.

Veldehar
01-16-2014, 01:59 PM
Disclaimer, I am not an expert, I just read too damned much once and I have forgotten a whole lot of it, LOL.

A couple things to consider:

Mountains indeed tend to occur at the edges of continents, but that is because these are near the edges of tectonic plates that are driving into each other. So it is not so much that continents have mountains on edges, as it is tectonic plates have mountains on their edges. If two equal sized land plates strike and form mountains, theoretically, you would have mountains in the middle of a land mass that people would call a continent. For instance, India is considered part of Asia, but is part of the Indo-Australian plate, which drives it into the Eurasian plate creating the Himalayas

Western coasts are cool water (relatively anyhow) while east coasts are warm water. If you think western Europe, consider the Gulf Stream's effects for warming that climate. Warm water and warm air bring more moisture than cold, which is important.

Wind direction and mountains are very important to precipitation. When air rises to travel over the mountain, it dumps water on that side, leaving what is called a rain shadow on the lee side of the mountain, and often dry warm winds. A quick quote:

On the lee side of the mountains, sometimes as little as 15 miles (25 km) away from high precipitation zones, annual precipitation can be as low as 8 inches.

So, no matter which way your winds are blowing, you have a river running between two ranges, so it is in a rain shadow from either direction. Possible? yes, but it needs explanation.

Forests: in a fantasy world in particular, it should also be noted that deforestation could easily be handled by extremely large herbivores running in herds, elephants, bison, buffalo and such can have serious deforestation effects, so, even larger critters could be real nasty on trees. I use this in one area of the Sister Continents. Fire can also be a major player in regions that are borderline forest worthy in precipitation or that experience regular droughts, such as the Great Plains in the US.

Jalyha
01-16-2014, 05:04 PM
Ohhhh thank you guys :) That actually makes a lot of sense!

I'd never thought about how the wind would affect the rivers/water, and I'm not sure how to make the smaller rivers without it looking out of scale.

I *was* trying not to overwhelm my map with forests, even though i pictured a lot of woods in my head.

I may simply start over keeping these new ideas in mind. :P I'll try to work it out first, though...I'm stubborn that way. :D

Gamerprinter
01-16-2014, 05:47 PM
Not that it will help, but I use a vector application for my maps, and when placing rivers I use shaped stroke lines - meaning that the further end of a drawn line gets smaller to a point, so the river width diminishes as it gets closer to its source. Say I'm creating a river from the coast, I might use an 8 point line that diminishes to a single point on it's source end. Any rivers that I intend to merge into that larger river I use a smaller width, so 6 point and 4 point lines depict rivers merging near the center of the river length, and 2 point lines for smaller creeks anywhere along the river length and near the headwaters. Since you're using a paint program, I'd just choose a smaller pixel width line to draw in your smaller, joining river arcs.

Regarding the point mentioned about mountains and tectonic plates. Not all mountains are on coastal areas (though many are). Consider the Himalayan Mountains, though the Indian plate is smashing into the Asian plate, the Indian plate is actually connected by land to the Asian plate and causing the rise of the Himalayan mountains, those mountains are nowhere near the sea, more like south central region of Asia. Also look at the Caucasus Mountains, same thing. Look at the Alps, caused by Greece slamming into Europe and noting this region as earthquake prone. Even the Rockies in the US are far from the sea. The California coastal range on the other hand follows the close to the sea, tectonic plate caused mountain formation - so coastal ranges do exist, but cannot be considered the same for all mountain ranges.

With regard to the prevailing winds and rain shadows, look at the coastal range in Washington state and SW Canada. The west side of the mountains is considered a temperate rainforest, whereas the east side of the same range is arid and sometimes desert. Look at Kuaui, Hawaii. The north and eastern side of the island is rich in palm jungle, but the west and southern side of the island is bone dry - almost a desert.

If your mountains aren't that high in elevation, however, a rain shadow might not form, such is true only for fairly high elevation ranges. Something to consider.

Jalyha
01-16-2014, 06:51 PM
ummm i also have that Gimp program (though i'm not comfortable with it) and some ink-something program that makes my head hurt... I just don't feel comfortable using them yet. Simple tools for simple minds, and all that. :P But is there a way to do that line/stroke thingummy in Gimp?

The reason I started with this "continent" is because there's not much on it that is vital (yet) to my story. So... pretty much anything that needs to be changed can be changed :)

& Except for a VERY basic shape.... not much more about the others. Getting stuck on the land was part of what brought me here. :P

What cannot be changed is:

1) The number of continents - I need at least 5 :/
2) 1 valley village that... oh wait I took it out already because it was ridiculous. Nevermind
3) The planet. It's supposed to be *mostly* water (even more so than the earth)
4) The moons. They are central to the larger plot events in my story... There are 2 moons, and one of the moons has a (3rd) moon orbiting it.... for now...
5) One continent must have steep cliffs close to the shore on the west and the character must cross 1 mountain range on his way to the capitol on the eastern shore.


So...

Would it make more sense (given all this stuff about winds and plates, and the fact that I have virtually no restrictions) to start with the tectonics/air currents/etc before attempting to start on the continents?

If so, I could just start anew.


By the way, I was actually thinking about Hawaii a lot when I wrote my manuscript (and thus imagined the land, lol)


Anyway, here's what I fixed so far based on what was said here (or tried to fix):

60348


So... keep trying, or start over? :P

Veldehar
01-18-2014, 04:05 PM
This really relies upon so many details we just don't have that it is hard to say for certain. Should be adequate to "justify" what we can see here. A single continent can be plopped down and things forced to make sense, but then when you set that continent into a world, it can go haywire if you put it in the wrong place. So keep going and post back, LOL.

Azelor
01-18-2014, 05:56 PM
4) The moons. They are central to the larger plot events in my story... There are 2 moons, and one of the moons has a (3rd) moon orbiting it.... for now...

why do you for now ... ? It's possible to have that many moons but under certain conditions if you want to keep it realistic.

And I approve Veldehar, it's usually hard to be wrong with just one part of the world. You could try to make a rough outline of the world to see how it fits.

Jalyha
01-18-2014, 08:16 PM
Welll.... I could tell you why but that would spoil the story :(

I know what happens with the moons. :P

I have a world outline somewhere...

60411

The whole thing is very tentative, though :)

jbgibson
01-18-2014, 10:26 PM
If that's the whole world, it's an odd projection. Since a globe's equator is twice the distance as from pole to pole, most views of whole worlds are going to be wider than they are tall. All kinds of compromises in distortion are endured to obtain certain desired characteristics, but if you're showing pole to pole N-S, then *some* proportion wider than a square might be expected. If it's all of the world that *matters*... say, the rest is ocean, like our Pacific... that would be at least plausible. But the wraparound Antarctic continent tends to say what you see is all there is.

Nothing particularly wrong with the arrangement of landforms you present above.

Moons with moons are fine... at the right size and distance. Look at earth - it's a 'moon' of the Sun, and has a nice moon of its own :-). Now, if you want a close/large moon like ours, that then has a large one of its own.... physics is getting bent. Unless you'll settle for a REALLY little subsatellite... we have those too. Manmade lunar orbiters a meter or three long are able to keep a reasonably stable orbit... for a while.

Jalyha
01-19-2014, 12:33 AM
Okay, so... (If I've done the math right)


A planet the size of earth, with a similar distance to a star of about the same size as our sun would have a similar hill sphere.


Earth's hill sphere is about 1.5 million km.

Earth's moon is 370k km from the Earth. It has it's own hill sphere (based on size and distance and such) of about 60k km.

Technically, Earth could manage about more satellite's... say one at around 850k km from earth which would have a larger hill sphere than our current moon, and one out beyond 1.3mill km. Of course that wouldn't last long, would it? ;)

A larger planet OR one much further away from the sun would have a much larger hill sphere. With both, you get something like Jupiter with a hill sphere 35 times as large as Earth's and capable of supporting more moons.


Let's take a planet (Call it "N") with a mass somewhere between that of Earth and Jupiter and place it somewhere around the distance of Venus. Now we'll give it 2 Moons of it's own, an extremely large, close moon I shall call "B", and a further smaller moon OUTSIDE the hill sphere of moon B. The smaller moon can be moon C.


If I'm correct, moon C would have a smaller hill sphere of its' own,

But moon C could have a MUCH smaller satellite, at around 30k km from moon C, which would still be visible from planet N.

Moon B would act much like our own moon, Moon C would be more shy :P

And moon T... welll... it wouldn't keep a stable orbit for more than a generation or two. Not that the moon would just spin off into space. That doesn't happen, does it? No, something much worse would happen.

Poor moon C. Poor moon T.

Poor planet N? :S


Anyway, that's if my math is right, which it probably isn't (I have a very small attention span, and a very large notebook filled with equations to figure out my moon problem).

Plausible? :/



As for the map:

My planet is mostly water. More so than even the Earth :D

I didn't know that about the antarctic continent, I'd just read somewhere around here that on a flat map it should wrap-around. Also, I have yet to actually finish a map, because I am shockingly bad at mapping.

OR even deciding on my map. :(

So... those are the (tentative) continents. Some of which are starting to have some serious natural disaster-type problems. For un-earthly reasons.

And my poor little medieval people are dying off faster than a Stark in a Game of Thrones novel. By the thousands. Cause I'm mean.


In the meantime, they still need somewhere to live, and I can't figure out how the world in my head would fit together on a map.

Which is why I keep begging for help on every step of my project. It's a pretty stretch to accomplish what happens in my plot(s), so I need to get all the nit-picky details right. (Also because I'm a bit obsessive).


I also don't know if the continents are realistic enough (plate-wise/erosion-wise) to make it worth fixing the world map, which is why I started trying to do a single continent. :(

Now I'm just frazzled. :P


PS: I had a bunch of numbers and more explanations, but it was too long, so I didn't put it :/

Veldehar
01-19-2014, 12:52 AM
Speaking of projections... if you haven't checked it out yet, a cool little freebie from NASA. Handy little thing.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gprojector/

Azelor
01-19-2014, 01:23 AM
Isn't it possible to squeeze an equirectangular projection in a square ? I don't know if it's possible but Hai-Etlik surely knows about this ...

The easiest way is to make the submoon orbit the larger moon. If it's the smaller moon, well let's just say that the submoon would be more like an asteroid. And it would be hard to see it from the planet (I guess).I know it's possible but I haven't been into the details. I bought a astrophysic simulator called Universe sandbox on Steam and it worked. It's possible to get arround this n body problem but Binary star systems are much more complicated...

Moon T should be stable otherwise it would already have disappear. Either by crashing on moon C or to become the third moon of the planet.


I already saw your map on another topic... So far, it seems fine to me. I have to admit I have a problem when it comes to world construction. I started with a region with no idea of the surrounding. Yet I find myself ''forced'' to fill the map because things like climates and plates does not make much sense if the world is empty.

Jalyha
01-19-2014, 10:34 AM
Speaking of projections... if you haven't checked it out yet, a cool little freebie from NASA. Handy little thing.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/gprojector/


It does look handy. :) I'll try it and see if it helps my horrible little map. :D



Isn't it possible to squeeze an equirectangular projection in a square ? I don't know if it's possible but Hai-Etlik surely knows about this ...

Huh?


The easiest way is to make the submoon orbit the larger moon. If it's the smaller moon, well let's just say that the submoon would be more like an asteroid. And it would be hard to see it from the planet (I guess).I know it's possible but I haven't been into the details. I bought a astrophysic simulator called Universe sandbox on Steam and it worked. It's possible to get arround this n body problem but Binary star systems are much more complicated...

Wouldn't that depend on the exact size of the moons? :s Does your simulator allow you to put in precise measurements? Can I borrow you to test my moon issues? :P


Moon T should be stable otherwise it would already have disappear. Either by crashing on moon C or to become the third moon of the planet.

From what I understood, that will always happen, eventually... :)



I already saw your map on another topic... So far, it seems fine to me. I have to admit I have a problem when it comes to world construction. I started with a region with no idea of the surrounding. Yet I find myself ''forced'' to fill the map because things like climates and plates does not make much sense if the world is empty.

Yeah... I start with more like.. a photograph of the area in my head. :/ I haven't even been successful with mapping a small region yet, lol.

Azelor
01-19-2014, 12:15 PM
Well, equirectangular (or plate carrée) is a rectangular shape projection. But... a software names Fractal terrain display a projection called equirectangular DIN formated where the proportions are 1,41 instead of 2... So I was simply wondering if it's possible to make it a square.


I can try it in the simulator with precise number, but it's not flawless.

Jalyha
01-19-2014, 03:09 PM
Well, equirectangular (or plate carrée) is a rectangular shape projection. But... a software names Fractal terrain display a projection called equirectangular DIN formated where the proportions are 1,41 instead of 2... So I was simply wondering if it's possible to make it a square.


I can try it in the simulator with precise number, but it's not flawless.

I don't know what you need so here's what I have:

Sun: About the same as our sun, which is:
Surface temperature: 5,778 K
Mass: 1.989E30 kg
Radius: 695,500 km (1 R☉)

Planet N:
Radius: 26,187 miles (42,143.9 km)
Mass: 62.16 Earth mass
Surface Area: 8.62 billion square miles (13.87 billion km2
Distance from sun: 316,700,000 miles (509,679,000 km)

Hill Sphere ~ 5.45 million km

Moon B:

Orbits planet N at a distance of: 420,793 km
Circumference: 8,918 miles

Moon C:

Orbits planet N at a distance of: 776,938 km
Circumference: 7,839 miles

Moon (subsatellite) T:

Orbits Moon C? at a distance of: 58,214 km
Circumference: 2,983 miles


All of this was just me playing with numbers (which I'm not very good at, so there's probably something wrong) and can be tweaked. I basically just did this up in a bout of insomnia one night to see if it was at least partially plausible.... and for how long :P



So... that's for simulation purposes. What I really need is anywhere from 150 - 400 years with 3 visible "moons" or satellites in the sky and after that, I need a lunar train-wreck. :D

Cause train wrecks are fun.

For the map of the planet, I HONESTLY don't care what's on the other side of the globe, but I'd imagined it up until now as all (or mostly) water. And as I said, I don't really care too much about the shape/placement of the continents, except for the "devil's walk" (string of islands near 1 south-eastern continent) and that one continent is called "the devil's hat" because it has "horns".

I've NO idea what I'm doing with the rest of them :(

Azelor
01-19-2014, 08:51 PM
Ok so I made some tests:

Your planet is far from it's star : 3,41 times farther than the Sun-Earth distance.
1 revolution around the star takes 6,27 years
the global mean temperature is around -117 C, if the atmosphere is the same than on Earth
the diametere of the planet is nearly 4 time Earth's
gravity, I tried to calculate it and I got 1,54 (on Earth it's 9,81) so it's 6,37 time less. I think I made a mistake.
density would be around 1,17 g/cm3 (on Earth it's 5,52) that could be a problem , maybe a weaker magnetic field. But since water is more dominant than on Earth, it could explain a bit of the difference.

Moon B:
mass 2,27 moons (with same density as our Moon)
takes 4 days to obrit around the planet (not sure if that part make sense since our moon takes 28 days and is more or less at the same distance). but at the same time, since both objects are more massive I think B need to move faster to compensate for the increased gravitational pull. Does it make sense ?

moon c: 1,54 moons
take 9,85 days

Moon t : orbit seems more or less stable at 12 000 km but it's pretty much the limit. The hill sphere of moon c is bigger than that but even at 15 000 km, it take less than a week before it change of orbit.
mass : around 0,03 moons
orbit around moon c in 1,11 day


That was the simulator, I did around 150 days. The bodies rotate so fast that 150 days is long enough to know how stable they are. If I increase speed too much the simulator can't get the orbits right and planets get ejected with no reasons. Like a sling.

Jalyha
01-19-2014, 09:14 PM
Crudcicles. :(


The moon stuff is exactly what I wanted it to be... and yes, the orbit of moon B makes sense :) My people mark "weeks" as 4 day periods. :P

Even the orbit of moon T being at the absolute limit is perfect.

And I don't think you made a mistake on the gravity... at least, it's close enough to what I estimated for it not to be worrying...

The problem is... the temperature is way too low!! (I don't know how to calculate that?) Can't live in those temperatures. I could move it closer to the sun to heat it up, but that would mess with all the gravity crap, which changes the hill spheres of the planet, which might affect my moons, which means... starting over. :/

How else can you increase a planet's temperature, without killing everything off? >.<

Starting to think my story won't work :(

Thank you for running the simulation either way. The fact that my moons are doing what I want them to do means, at least, that I'm calculating everything properly (or close enough). So it really does help a LOT.

Sharpe
01-19-2014, 10:31 PM
Wow. This thread is full of a lot of great information!

Azelor
01-20-2014, 12:00 AM
Oh I forgot to say that the Hill sphere of the planet was about 20 millions km, not 5. If the simulator is right, 5 millions km would be when the planet is about 149 millions km from the star. Same as Earth.

To answer your question, the albedo is a number that indicate how much of the light if reflected back to space. Light colours reflect light and the dark ones absorb it. It says here that snow can reflect between 40 and 85% while it's around 8 % for water covered areas. Earth's albedo is around 30% but more oceans means a lower albedo.

We also discussed other ways to create heat on a cold world. This includes the friction generated by the gravitational pull between different bodies that could heat the planet. But I think it’s mostly volcanic activity and would not heat the atmosphere much.

But low gravity and low planet density seems problematic too. Not that life is not possible but if far different than on Earth. It would be very easy to fly. So easy... I wonder what would happend to the atmosphere.

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 01:12 AM
Uh.... Earth's hill sphere is 1.5 million km, not 5 million?

Yeah, I've been going over the other stuff and coming up with tons more problems. I think I may have to start the math over from scratch :(

(IF I can get it to work at all, it won't affect anything I've already written)

OR I could scrap the danged story and start that over...

Hmmm... 10 chapters of writing or 60-something pages of calculations... ? :(

Hai-Etlik
01-20-2014, 01:34 AM
The map looks reasonable for a Mercator projection Mercator is infinitely tall and so you have to chop off the poles, where you do so is arbitrary so you can get a square if you want to. The "Google Spherical Mercator" used by most web slippy maps does this for instance.

The aspect ratio of equidistant cylindrical can be adjusted by changing the standard parallels. The aspect ration for a full globe map in equidistant cylindrical is 2:1 when the standard parallels are 0° (Plate carree/equirectangular), and it can be adjusted to anything lower than that, including 1:1 when the standard parallels are at cos⁻¹ 0.5 = 60°

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 02:07 AM
The map looks reasonable for a Mercator projection Mercator is infinitely tall and so you have to chop off the poles, where you do so is arbitrary so you can get a square if you want to. The "Google Spherical Mercator" used by most web slippy maps does this for instance.

The aspect ratio of equidistant cylindrical can be adjusted by changing the standard parallels. The aspect ration for a full globe map in equidistant cylindrical is 2:1 when the standard parallels are 0° (Plate carree/equirectangular), and it can be adjusted to anything lower than that, including 1:1 when the standard parallels are at cos⁻¹ 0.5 = 60°


Y U give me more math? :( *cries*


Actually, that's very helpful. And next time, I'll just do it right in the first place (or claim later "It's a Mercator projection!" :P :P )

I'm glad I was confused on this one. It opened up a lot of learning :P

So.... guess I'll get back to the drawing board...

Lingon
01-20-2014, 04:02 AM
Now, I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I've missed something, but would it not be possible to just make the star hotter, to solve that the heat problem at least?

Azelor
01-20-2014, 12:31 PM
Uh.... Earth's hill sphere is 1.5 million km, not 5 million?

Yeah, I've been going over the other stuff and coming up with tons more problems. I think I may have to start the math over from scratch :(

(IF I can get it to work at all, it won't affect anything I've already written)

OR I could scrap the danged story and start that over...

Hmmm... 10 chapters of writing or 60-something pages of calculations... ? :(



No, I mean that the distance star/planet is about the same as ours. Your planet hill sphere is bigger because it's more massive.

Yes it's possible to have a hotter star but it also mean a more massive star that would have an impact on the hill sphere. Another possibility is the white dwarfs because they are small and very hot but they don't emit a lot of light.

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 12:35 PM
Now, I haven't read the whole thread so maybe I've missed something, but would it not be possible to just make the star hotter, to solve that the heat problem at least?

Yes and no. Okay... highly simplified, so less than 100% accurate, but still understandable, here we go:

A star is basically just gas, held together with gravity. Early in life the star is contracting and is not yet hot enough or dense enough for nuclear reactions. Heat is generated by the contraction (hydrostatic support). Then, for most of its' life, nuclear reactions cause heat and radiation. Toward the end of life, most of the nuclear fuel in the core has been used up. It has a series of inefficient nuclear reactions for heat. After a long time, the reactions no longer generate sufficient heat to support the star against its own gravity, the star will collapse.

So what does that mean? Well... we have gas, energy, gravity, mass, light and heat. The problem is...

The light and heat (which is what we want) is created by the reactions - ENERGY.

You can't *create* energy. All the energy in the universe is already there. What we usually *call* energy is just a reaction, caused by interactions between things which have mass (You'll recognize E=Mc2. E is energy. M is Mass.).

What's interacting to cause these reactions is the atoms in the gasses (which have mass). The denser they are, the denser they get, the more efficient reactions, which equals more heat.

Denser stars will also have more MASS.

Which means HOTTER stars will have more mass.



Now the MASS of an object directly influences its' gravitational pull - its' hill sphere. That's how far away an object can be to be pulled into orbit. That gives us everything that can be pulled into orbit around your star/sun... planets, asteroids, etc.

As the mass increases, the energy (reactions) increase, increasing the heat, but also expanding the "hill sphere" and pulling in more objects in a larger radius.

*insert lots of stuff about giant rocks crashing, imploding, exploding, etc...*

Anyway. The larger objects in orbit - PLANETS have a lot of mass.

"Now the MASS of an object directly influences its' gravitational pull - its' hill sphere. That's how far away an object can be to be pulled into orbit."

So other objects - moons, asteroids, satellites, etc... can orbit the planets. The *difference* is that the planet has less mass than the sun/star, and it's within the hill sphere of the sun/star.

So the hill sphere of your planet is influenced by the hill sphere of the sun/star. OR, more accurately, by the mass of the sun/star.

We'll ignore eccentricity for a moment, because it makes for unfavorable orbits. Therefore, the method for calculating the hill sphere of any object IN ORBIT around another object with more MASS (like a planet around a sun) is:

"r" (the radius of the hillsphere) is (approximately) equal to "a" (semi-major axis of the sun) times the CUBE ROOT of ["m" (the mass of the planet/object) divided by 3 times "M" (the mass of the star/more massive object).].



When the Mass of the star changes, so does the hill sphere of everything orbiting it.
If the hill sphere of the planet changes, that affects the moons/subsatellites that can orbit it.

So... hotter sun = more mass = larger/stronger hill sphere = smaller PLANETARY hill sphere = different plausible/im-plausible orbits for the moons = different masses/distances for the moons = different hill spheres for the moons = no sub-moon/different conditions for the sub-moon, etc.

So I'd still have to redo all the calculations. :)



That being said.... It IS a good solution. I probably will be doing that. In fact I'll probably go in increments... star a little hotter, planet a little closer, back and forth until I can find the sweet spot (or rather, heat spot) that will let my people survive. When I asked how to make it hotter, I was hoping for some atmospheric ideas that would save me from re-calculating. Cause math melts my poor little brain.

I wonder if I could commission an astrophysicist on a forum somewhere.... :P

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 12:46 PM
No, I mean that the distance star/planet is about the same as ours. Your planet hill sphere is bigger because it's more massive.

Yes it's possible to have a hotter star but it also mean a more massive star that would have an impact on the hill sphere. Another possibility is the white dwarfs because they are small and very hot but they don't emit a lot of light.


OH I see. :)

Still, Earth is (149,600,000 km) from the sun. Planet N is (509,679,000 km) from the sun. It's much further away?

(Edit: Nevermind, I see ... I made a mistake in transcribing the "miles"... still it would be too cold, so it doesn't matter.)

A white dwarf might work, it would cool, but not in the lifetime of a universe, so it's conceivable....



YOU GUYS ARE SMART. I'm going to go play with those numbers.

HereBeLions
01-20-2014, 12:51 PM
Hm... regarding atmospheric changes, how about a higher concentration of CO2 or methane in the air? Yeah, we think 'global warming' when we hear those two gases, but CO2 at least was around in force during the time of the dinosaurs too, when it was significantly hotter on earth. Perhaps your planet could fairly young (geologically speaking) and still coming up with new volcanoes every twenty minutes.

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 01:01 PM
Yeah, I wonder how hot I could get it without poisoning my people, though... ? :P

HereBeLions
01-20-2014, 01:59 PM
Well, as long as you have an appropriate quantity of oxygen in the atmosphere, your humans could probably adapt to higher CO2 concentrations at least. CO2's actually a critical part of our breathing process - receptors assess the acidity of our blood caused by CO2, which prompts our lungs to inhale when a certain acidity is reached - so maybe your planet's humans could have a higher tolerance to internal acidity? Or even a higher native acidity, with their tissues having a lower pH than earthling tissue does and thus a lower breathe-in-now-please point from the body's acidity receptors.

Jalyha
01-20-2014, 02:50 PM
Yeah... it sounds plausible. Biology isn't my strong point, but I can see how that would work.

It's certainly easier to play with than re-mapping my entire solar system :D

I'll toy with some numbers and bug people on some science forums and see how much of that I can get away with :D

Lingon
01-21-2014, 01:12 PM
snip So... hotter sun = more mass snip


D'oh! Didn't think of that at all :blush: And you are clearly far more well-grounded than I here, so :D But I read the rest of the thread now, and I have to say I really like the look of the map so far, the one with all five continents. Very nice shapes and colors there!

Jalyha
01-21-2014, 02:43 PM
Oh, I'm not well grounded here at all :( I'm just (literally) obsessive about details. Part of my Asperger's. :P So I tend to over-research everything, and then mess up anyway, lol.

Thanks, about the world map. I used the coastlines tutorials on here, else I wouldn't have been able to create anything but blobs. The coloring comes naturally- I'm a painter - and the effects are all GIMP scripts :P

What I can't seem to do is figure out how the features of each continent would work, but now I need to make sure the story will even work before I go about trying to map it ? :P

foremost
01-21-2014, 02:58 PM
I haven't read most of the posts in this thread, so I apologize if I restate or resurrect
an old topic. But anyway, I guess I'll share whatever I know. Not much. I'll start
with plate tectonics;

--On a collision boundary between two land plates, there are mountains; the crust has
nowhere to go but up.
--On a diverging boundary, shield volcanos (gentle) raise up. Check out the Mid-Atlantic
Ridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an underwater example, as well.
-- On a collision boundary between two land plates, one ocean crust is pushed under the
other. The rock and water trapped under plate #2 fuels the creation of magma. On this
boundary you have cone volcanoes (active) and a trench (located where one plate goes
under the other).
--On a collision boundary between one land mass and one ocean, you'll find an off-shore
trench and cone volcanoes.
--On a sliding boundary, where one plate is going past the other, you'll have a fault.
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/q...sanandreas.jpg
--Note that earthquakes (and, when underwater boundaries are involved, Tsunamis) will
occur at many plate boundaries. An island chain is formed by the movement of a hot-spot
(mantle plume) moving with the plate. Bigger islands are newer because they have not
yet been subject to weathering.
--Finally, I think most cartographers know about puzzle fit. When two plates with land
pull apart, it looks like they could go back together.

Some of this might apply to the map you posted in the introductory post to this thread.
I'd also like to add that a lot of the features and their locations will be in correspondence
to the other features. A valley might have lush forest due to a water-shed. All the rivers
coming down and washing the soil out from the mountains will create good soil for
growing (not to mention, trees need water). Plus, mountains can create rain on one side
(I'm thinking of Seattle and the West Coast of South America) So, following my logic, I'd
imagine the mountains would be surrounded by forests and rivers. Your rivers looked to
comply with "science" well.

What I'd be interested to learn about would be lakes. I live near a lake and enjoy doing
so, but I don't see why a lake would form. That's cartography "science" I don't understand.
Any ideas? Best of luck, I know everyone here tries to be really informative.

Jalyha
01-21-2014, 04:08 PM
Thanks ! :)
I've been trying to read up on tectonics and I kind of get the idea... your restatement of the effects clarified a lot. What I really don't understand is WHY they would move against another plate instead of into it, or away from it... like... how does it shift one direction instead of the other?




What I'd be interested to learn about would be lakes. I like near a lake and enjoy doing
so, but I don't see why a lake would form. That's cartography "science" I don't understand.
Any ideas? Best of luck, I know everyone here tries to be really informative.

Oooo lakes are easy... and weird.

there's a couple of different ways a lake can form.

If you have a depression in the ground (think of a bowl, or a saucer) and you have a TON of rain in that area, the depression will fill. It has to be a LOT of rain to make this a lake (or even a pond) because most of the water will be absorbed, eventually, into the ground. Because of this, sometimes a lake will form, and if there isn't enough precipitation, it will dry up, because more water will be absorbed than added. :) (Think of puddles after a heavy shower.. they pool wherever the ground is lowest.)


This will also happen with other sources of water - like rivers - anywhere there is LOWER ground, and more water than can be absorbed/diverted, the water will pool.

So lakes might be more frequent where 2 rivers meet in a low-lying area than a single river, because there's more water now, and more force behind it.

But you also need that depression in the ground :)

Water flows down, so if there's lower ground than the lake-area, the water is going to leave that way. If there's too *much* lower ground, ALL the water will leave, and you won't have a lake at all. If there isn't *enough* lower ground, the water level will keep rising. The lake will get bigger, and cover more/higher area. Eventually it will find a lower path to take. Water will flow out of the first lower area it finds, which is why USUALLY there's only 1 river leading out of a lake, and almost all lakes have a river leading out.

If a lake does not have a river leading out, either it finds an exit for the water underground, or the water is absorbed and it dries up.

Another way a lake can form is from flooding. This is pretty much the same thing as your "ice melt" lakes. When, say, a river floods, it covers land that isn't usually in its' path. Sometimes it fills depressions in the ground that were dry ground before. As the thin layer of water on the higher ground is absorbed, there's still water in the depression. (think of puddles - the smaller ones disappear first.)

The water in the depression is sometimes absorbed, but some of it evaporates, causing more rainfall, and cycles the water back into the new-formed lake.


There's also water under the ground. (More than most people think). Sometimes, the force of the water pushes it up through the ground, like lava from a volcano. This could evaporate or be absorbed, but usually it turns into springs, or pools into lakes. :)


Sometimes... there's these certain types of volcanos that EXPLODE ... literally explode... no more volcano. no more anything-that-was-around-the-volcano. just a huge (disturbingly round) pit in the ground. The water outside the "blast radius" is still flowing like it normally would, but now, instead of running over land, it finds this huge hollow and fills it. :)


Of course all of this is the highly-simplified, not strictly accurate/scientific explanation, but it is, in essence, why lakes *usually* form. There are lots of other ways too, though :)

I'm sure someone will come along and explain it better, but those are the basics :P

Pixie
01-21-2014, 07:15 PM
Thanks ! :)
I've been trying to read up on tectonics and I kind of get the idea... your restatement of the effects clarified a lot. What I really don't understand is WHY they would move against another plate instead of into it, or away from it... like... how does it shift one direction instead of the other?

Hi

Almost every plate will have a boundary where it is being subducted and one opposite where it is getting "on top" or where new oceanic crust is being formed. They will move towards the subducted area, this is because of three reasons:
- extra weight from rising mountains will make it slide away from that point
- the subducted part will sink into the mantle before completely detaching from the rest of the plate, sucking it in a "pull" force towards the boundary.t
- there is movement in the molten mantle, which also carries the floating plates on top of it; that movement is a cell where hot magma rises in the ridge area, spreads out and sinks again a little colder somewhere else (just like hot water rising from the bottom of a pan).

So, the way you start with tectonics on a map (from personal experience) is to define major oceanic ridges and rough limits of those plates and make them move away from those ridges. If you already have the continents and the oceans, keep experimenting where ridges make sense - not all oceans need to have active ridges, but most will, and ridges do not have to be in the center of the ocean (doesn't happen in the Pacific, for example)

One other point:
- smaller plates also rotate. Actually, all plates may have rotation movement, but in smaller ones it can be very pronounced. The Arabian plate, rotating anti-clockwise is a good example. We tend to forget the smaller plates when "imagining" a world, but they come really handy to "round the corners".

This pretty simple image shows how the bulk of tectonics comes from movement started in the oceanic ridges.
http://mapcollection.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/world-map-of-tectonic-plate-boundaries.jpg

Jalyha
01-21-2014, 07:38 PM
omg thank you!

That's awesome. Exactly what I was trying to find out ^_^ I'mma go push my world around :twisted:

foremost
01-21-2014, 08:43 PM
Just wanted to add something:

Plates move because of convection currents. The half-molten rock
that's part of the Earth's crust is always heating and cooling (thus
rising and falling, think of a lava lamp). It generates plate
movement.

Thicker continental crusts will run right over the ocean crusts,
cause those are generally thinner. The submerged rock combines
with water (gets sucked down as well) and forms lava. Lava rises
via a cone volcano.