My point is, the sheet analogy gives us one saddle - but in practice, the saddle would have each of its sides oriented towards each planet (with the sheet, its edges are towards the planets instead, 90 degrees off) - You'd have 2 saddles superimosed, each a mirror of each other along the whatever axis passes through both planet centers
@overactor I get it, and i can visualize it, just saying it doesn't give an answer
In any case, how does its shape fix the issue that there must be a 2d interface that is perpetually at zero gravity? at some point, the fields must cancel out 100%
the reason the sheet analogy is limited is because it's a 2d representation of a 3d reality - using the 3rd dimension to represent gravitational strength
@ivy_lynx imagine that 2d sheet at equal gravity towards each planet. The directions of those two forces are not opposite, so as a result there is a net force towards the single point where the directions are opposite - on the line between the planet centres.
@githubphagocyte so the non-homogeneity of the field is what causes the saddle to "shrink up" as stated above and point back towards the point? because the field lines are curved and not parallel?
@ivy_lynx I think that overcomplicates it. At the point between the planets you're being pulled equally in both directions. At any other point where the planets are pulling you equally, they are not pulling in opposite directions. Imagine two people pulling you but not in opposite directions.
> an alternate-universe Earth with Belgium as the global powerhouse - Nate Kerkhofs As a Belgian myself, that seem quite a bit too far-fetched, even for this site.
@ivy_lynx no google gave me pictures instead of diagrams. Drawing one on computer should be fairly straightforward - it doesn't need to be the exact shape wells
@TimB I'm still working on it :P some of these take hours and hours to get right - yesterday the enterprise took me most of the day and I fudged the dome answer to get it over with
@TimB also, I don't know if you saw my comment above, you can have an entire new series of questions based on how to destroy worlds realistically as well
@overactor what do you mean missing something? I always thought lasers are used not for their pressure but to transfer power, then you just use a regular electric engine for propulsion - that way you're not just limited to moving in directions away from the planet
The interstellar mod for KSP also lets you place orbital solar power harvesters that transfer energy through dishes to spacecraft, which then use thermal or electric propulsion.
Can we get a clarified difference between world-building and World Building SE. I personally feel that they're probably different in scope.
The reason I'm asking this, is I've asked a couple of questions (really it was the same one clarified) trying to get help in the process that comes with rea...
@overactor I'm guessing faster than the wind by propelling a smaller craft with a larger one might work. Doesn't help for light speed though, only for air wind...
@githubphagocyte that matrix question is awesome. I started googling equivalent machine/computer specs, power requirements and nuclear power outputs before I remembered I'm at work... :)
@githubphagocyte yep. I'm imagining the entire surface of the planet covered in a huge mainframe powered by nuclear power and solar panels... you'd just have to hope you don't have a power cut!
@ivy_lynx I must admit I wrote them up in advance so all I had to do was quickly edit the links once the targets existed. And it gives you about 3 minutes grace...
Those two questions are the ones I was asking for advice about earlier. I think they are sufficiently distinct to keep separate - I've tagged one biology and the other physics.
@TimB they can still spread out - I just want to know how many can live on Earth
I imagine that past a certain population level, even maximum speed emmigration will still see the Earth population continuing to rise. I want to know where it would level off.
From the voting ratio on my 2 questions, more people are interested in wiping out biological life in favour of human machines, than shrinking humans down to fit more in.
Anyway, for your question @githubphagocyte, I assume if we can shrink ourselves, we have advanced to the point where our computer graphics replication of cats is so good, that we can continue making cat memes for all time without any actual cats.
@overactor I started with Luminous, which is a short story (and the name of the collection of short stories). That particular story is about maths, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
and it falls into the standard tv traps of having a conclusion and massaging the numbers and hiding a few guesses/assumptions to let them get to that conclusion
but still it's not bad
@githubphagocyte I don't think either of your questions is really answerable. It's too unconstrained
@TimB even considering that I'm seeing very disappointing answers that don't seem to consider the question
I was hoping for calculations based on the available energy from the sun, how much of that could be absorbed without overheating the Earth, and theoretical size limits of computers and biological brains
@githubphagocyte Personally, I don't feel like answering those two because I can't reconcile being advanced enough to engineer a massive overhaul of the human race and planet to save space, but not using colonization of other bodies in the first place.
@githubphagocyte even if you're floating in space, you could still build upwards - even if that's not good enough, you can build inwards and if that's still not good enough, why not spend all your resources coming up with FTL drives? it seems logically unreconcilable and that kills the interest for me
It might help if the reason they can't leave and colonize is also a factor that limits the population growth - that way, you explain why they're not expanding away from the planet and also give answerers a clue about how to calculate the maximum - as it stands, there's no way to start calculating any maximum; do you use the volume of a person and just stack them all across the world? are all buildings uniform boxes? it's hard to even start thinking about it
@TimB At present roughly twice as much sunlight is reflected away from the Earth as is absorbed
@ivy_lynx they need food, so I would expect available space to put the humans in would not be a limiting factor
@ivy_lynx I don't see that being restricted to the planet would make much difference to the maximum population size. Whether they spread out or not there will be a limit. Is there reason to think that limit would be affected by the presence of humans elsewhere?
@githubphagocyte Yes, if there is transfer of energy or resources in general. It doesn't change the limit on a single isolated world, but the total available energy for instance could be estimated to be near infinite - just imagine if they have room-temperature superconductors, efficient fusion and fission reactors as well as matter-synthesizing technology
Even considering the usual thermodynamics tripe, the real issue isn't total energy, but energy flows - if they're efficient enough, you can grow to insane magnitudes; it's hard to skip over issues of massive drops in breeding rates as TimB states, the possibility of huge accidents or widespread illness
@TimB Earth already has plenty of examples of overcrowding. People are still actively moving to the overcrowded areas. Also if the birth rate exceeds the emmigration rate plus death rate then people leaving won't stop the population growing
@githubphagocyte @githubphagocyte yeah but people here move to overcrowded areas because the alternative is desert, no jobs and a lack of social services - if you have those everywhere, people tend to move away from centers - the birth rate exceeds emmigration there because of little birth control, children being part of the work force, religious beliefs etc.
In your world, 1st world conditions should be the norm
Oh man, I was looking for the Exalted map and I came across the flat earth society again - while ridiculously unscientific, it presents an interesting situation for a question, especially the 50e3 ft ice walls. But I really don't want to invite crazyness and people speculating about the real earth.
I'm not even sure their website isn't a massive trolling experiment
There was a question about a world with a refraction index that would make the cosmology seem concave though
@Fulli I'm concerned that we're getting too many answers per question. I think in the long run, this will discourage people who could have been good contributors. It might also suppress voting as folks will be unsure as to which of the many answers to vote for.
Also, a high answer count is not an indication of good answers. I'm seeing one or two good answers per question and some rushed attempts that didn't read the question
It's due to the nature of the subject matter I think - this system was established on generic Q&A sites and SO, which either don't tie rep with moderation and rights, or, as in the case of SO, right and wrong are much more clear. With worldbuilding, it's not entirely about being correct, while on SO, people can and tend to vote based on that. I'd imagine the future of WB will resemble that of writers.SE more than any other site
That's why we can't expect voting to work the same - there is comparatively, a very high amount of voting and very little downvoting, but personally, I don't feel it can be any other way.
The Factory Floor
The Factory Floor