oh i misreaad that about the tidal locked moon then...
I'm not saying we can't have a lot of stuff in the system, it's more about what the stuff *does*.
(And I'm old enough and stubborn enough that pluto will always be a planet to me ;P )
oh i misreaad that about the tidal locked moon then...
I'm not saying we can't have a lot of stuff in the system, it's more about what the stuff *does*.
(And I'm old enough and stubborn enough that pluto will always be a planet to me ;P )
Have you "liked" a post today?
Yeah I know it seems concerning, but I don't think it's actually something to worry about when in comparison to our actual solar system. Given the immensity of space and the countless possible things that can go on I doubt we can go to wrong to put lots of stuff into our tiny little creation.Originally Posted by Jalyha
I'm not really convinced either way, but having grown up with it a planet my inclination is the same as yours. I don't quite agree with the Astronomers new definition of planets so much.(And I'm old enough and stubborn enough that pluto will always be a planet to me ;P )
If Pluto was still a planet by definition, there would be 10+ other planet in our system. Planets are supposed to have something special , they aren't just small rocks floating around. If it was so, one could consider large asteroids as planets too. But that's another debate in the same line as the tomato debate...
I did not considered putting a gas giant close to the star mainly because our solar system don't have one... Maybe they can't form too close but I'm not sure. How close could it be? One could say that considered the size of the system, Jupiter is pretty close to the Sun.
A gas giant can form as close as you want it, really. WASP-18b is only a little more than .02 AU from its star, and it's probably around 10 times the mass of Jupiter.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
What's the mass of it's star, though?
I'm a bit concerned if the mass is too great compared to the mass of the star, it wouldn't be able to hold an orbit very close to the star.
Also, if it was too hot, what the effect on the chemical reactions would be.
I'm just supposing, though... I haven't looked into any data, so if you do know, then please share
And, like I said, I'm cool with the planets I have, and I'd even be cool with more. I don't think eveery planet needs something unusual... we've got uranus and neptune which are rather blah (imo) as far as planets go, for example. But I'm not opposed to it either. Was just pointing out the apparent statistical unlikely-hood... key word being "apparent"... I'm trying to force myself to look at believability the way a random reader of my books would... it's them *I* would have to convince with my own worlds.
I'm simply trying the same viewpoint here
Having questionable stuff is fine, as long as you've got the answers for it
Have you "liked" a post today?
IANAP
WASP-18 is an F6 star with an apparent mass about 25% greater than the sun. It's a little bit larger and a little bit hotter than our star, but it's reasonably Sun-like. WASP-16b will probably collide with the star eventually. If it's been spiraling inward for a long time, it may have swept up many of the other planets in that system as it did so: sending them into larger orbits, hurling them into the star ahead of itself, or even absorbing them.
How the presence of a large planet that close to the star would affect potentially life-harboring planets further out is an interesting question. That particular planet would probably block less than 10% of the light coming from the star for maybe half an hour each day (that's a wild guess; I only did some very rough math), which would only slightly reduce the total solar power reaching the biosphere. Even a small change of that kind could have large ramifications, though. The regular partial eclipse would be a noticeable event. Might make for some interesting mythology.
A large planet further away from the star would make the eclipses longer and more dramatic, although less frequent. It might also have the effect of perturbing the inhabited planet's orbit, though.
Bryan Ray, visual effects artist
http://www.bryanray.name
All of this stuff is unlikely to come up often if at all. While it allows a creator to add depth to the world and the things we make for it, all of these "stuffs" are not going to be overtly explicit in our stories or modules or whatever. Unless of course the plot deals with them directly, but even then I don't think their "believably" will be called into question. The amount of stuff going on here is only noticeable because we are dealing directly with it in creation and in its definitions. Not many people read encyclopedias cover to cover. And fanatics who are obsessed with minor continuity errors and slight realism errors in a fantastical world are pretentious and silly.
I feel like you're talking about me D: I do this things
You're right, though, it prolly won't come up at all. and I'm just being annoyingly nitpicky, so Imma shuttup for a while
Have you "liked" a post today?
lol I'm sure this forum in general attracts people who do these sorts of things. The thing is though whether these errors get in the way of the story or not, when they don't and one searches for them anyway the person is in essence denying the medium for what it is. When you are more concerned with whats going on behind the scenes then the scenes themselves that is a problem. But crowds aren't interested in buying tickets for a behind the scenes documentary for a reason, especially not without seeing the movie first.I feel like you're talking about me D: I do this things
once again,I am weird, I usully prefer the "how it was made"than what they made
but i see your point.
I think I am paranoid because sci-fi and mid/high fantasy fans (both readers and gamers) are more likely to pick than any other genre (including historical fiction, which is.... weird, you'd think history fans would demand more accuracy...)
But I'm cool with all we have here... was just... pointing
Have you "liked" a post today?
Reply With Quote
