Stack Exchange
log in

JBH

 Discussion on question by flox: How t…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Mon 02:54
@flox what particular direction? Where are they expecting to go that makes any sense? Without knowing that an answer that states "they don't navigate. They shut down the engines and hunker down to live the rest of their lives on their ship" is as valid as any other.
JBH
Mon 02:54
The problem with the issue of heat death is that everything's coming to a standstill. There's no more energy. No collisions, no black holes, no pulsars... just how far toward heat death are we? Past the point suggested by Pohl in The World at the End of Time? My point is that there's a point where there's nothing to work with because even mass detection won't work. I'm tempted to vote to close because there aen't enough conditions to work with. It wouldn't take them long to figure out their problem, so what are they're (your) goals? What do we have to work with? Right not it's nothing.
JBH
Mon 02:54
@DanielB Honestly, I hated that episode. But every SciFi series seems to have one. :-p
JBH
Mon 02:54
I started to write an answer only to realize that you haven't provided a precise enough list of conditions. There's a difference between the stars not emitting visible light and the stars not emitting anything at all. If Hawking's prediction is true, then so long as a black hole hasn't evaporated, there's stuff about it and around it that are detectable. And all of this ignores the Sci-Fi "mass detector" that could theoretically detect stresses in gravitation waves thereby locating mass. So... just how dead is dead? Exactly what is the nature of the universe?
 

 Discussion on question by Robert Rapp…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Fri 17:13
@RobertRapplean Thanks for working with everyone to perfect the question. That's unusual and always appreciated. And the result is one that can be used by other worldbuilders, which isn't always the case. That's fantastic! Cheers!
JBH
Fri 17:13
Heck yes. (That wasn't meant to sound rude.) You need to give us every detail you can imagine that provides a useful answer for you to work with. Terrestrial tactics favor detonation at altitude to maximize the destructive force of the atmospheric compression wave. Space tactics would favor a contact or surface detonation because without an atmosphere all you have is the mass of the weapon core vs. the ship hull, which isn't as much as you think. A detonation "dead center" of the ship maximizes all damage and minimizes the circumstantial conditions (good things). Details. All you can think of.
JBH
Fri 17:13
You've tagged your question spaceships. The existence of an atmosphere makes a HUGE difference. Practical space ship hulls would need to be built with radiation shielding and impact resistance, seriously reducing the value of a nuclear blast, half of which is lost to space anyway. However, if we ask the question, "if we start with the U.S.S. Gerald Ford in the Pacific Ocean and scale up from 1 to N, what value of N represents the largest scaling factor a 1MT nuke would be guaranteed to sink?" we can answer the Q. What would you like to do?
 

 Discussion on question by Monty Wild:…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Jul 17 13:22
What does a best answer look like?
 

 Discussion on question by Idan: How m…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Jun 28 09:15
@Pelinore You're certainly correct that the problem can be simplified to a set of assumptions that leads to a reasonably objective answer... but it's your set of assumptions, not the OP's. We're really letting the OP down by not insisting they participate with this and I'm not a fan of answering questions just to answer questions. If this really is nothing more than basic algebra and the OP is disinterested in learning how to be a worldbuilder, let it stay closed.
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
@Pelinore We need the OP on board with this. I'm willing to bet a milkshake he/she really thought there'd be a single number. Modifying everything and then taking my assertion to push an answer is answering the question for the sake of an answer, not for the benefit of the OP. We really need to hear from the OP. If he/she doesn't understand what we're talking about, then we're not helping them.
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
... a LOT of assumptions because you've taken more time to tell us your story than you have explaining the conditions of your question. No, your question isn't nearly as simple as you think. Questions like this usually boil down to the statistics of large samples (big farms, lots of people) because what happens to the individual is too complex for any formula. But because what happens to individuals can matter, insurance was invented. So... where do you want to go? We're actually pretty good at questions like this: once you've given us the details and focused on a single problem to solve.
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
... the food is "good enough" every time. So, no fat people on the island, but everyone is healthy. So, how much food do we need? Are we feeding toddlers? Children? Teens? Adults? Senior citizens? There's a VAST difference! What is the demographic of your island? Let's say it all averages out to your basic adult, 3-5 pounds of food a day or an average of four pounds. 25/4 = 6.25 people, but it's N-1 because the delver must be fed, so one delver can feed 5.25 people per day on average. That quick "answer" (and it stinks as an answer) depends on ... (Continued)
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
... you don't explain how hard it is to get the food (hunting bison vs. digging for wild potatoes.. there's a HUGE difference), you don't explain any dangers faced (although you, once again, want an ultra-simplistic analysis if "monsters" are present. Spiders? Orcs? Gods? Once a month? Every five minutes?). So, zero worst case, fifty pounds best case. You, the worldbuilder, declare that a simple average is sufficient: twenty-five pounds per day. What quality is the food? Meat? Lichen? (do you see our problem, yet?). So, we average it out and say ... (Continued)
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
One last bit of advice: you're looking for one number, one ration that magically applies to all people in all circumstances. No such number exists, especially with the science-based tag. The very best you can do is work with averages, and you need to understand how those work. On one day a delver will return with zero food. On another, that same delver may return with fifty pounds of food (a hefty amount given the other equipment the delver is carrying). You don't explain the capacity of the delver. You don't explain the equipment carried. ... (Continued)
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
... because the delver must also survive). After that it's just a question of how much you, the worldbuilder, want to reduce that best-case survival number based on the average difficulty across multiple biomes and difficulties. So, (c) You're asking the wrong worldbuilding question. You should be asking what I just described and then using that insight to build your world's rules. Screw science. Focus on narrative necessity.
JBH
Jun 28 03:19
(a) You'll never get this reopened so long as you continue to focus on all of the possible scenarios (forest, beach, plains, etc.) (b) You're overthinking this something awful. The best possible ratio is based on the quantity and quality of food that can be carried by foot by one person in one day. That has nothing to do with a dungeon or any other scenario. Use a grocery store if it helps. Max quantity/quality divided by how much is needed for one other person to survive is your best possible solution (Note that, in reality, the number of people is N-1 ... (Continued)
 

 Discussion on question by IMP9024: Be…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Jun 27 13:50
(a) These sound an awful lot like a mutation of the Giant Spore from the Borderlands 2 DLC "Sir Hammerlock's Big Game Hunt." (b) I'm thinking the best defense is a long pole to gently push the critter over the top of you so it can go its merry way. If it decides to pursue you, hold it at bay with the pole until it gets bored and leaves. (c) On the other hand, I LOVE the concept! "Don't shoot it Jonny! It'll explode and it's covered wi... AAAAAAAH! IT BURNS! IT BURNS! WHY CAN"T I HEAR ANYONE?"
 

 Discussion on question by SuperYoshik…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Jun 26 04:52
@Nosajimiki It's open-ended because the only objectively singular answer is the one you gave (and I up voted): none. In all other ways there are no conditions, limitations or restrictions that would allow the OP to choose a best answer from a list of proffered weapons. There's no way to distinguish between explosives, poisons, even sling shots (I can describe how cats could do that). Since "none" was unlikely to be the answer the OP was looking for, the question is open-ended. (I'd missed the issue with the wizard... good catch!)
JBH
Jun 26 04:52
On the other hand, this is an awfully open-ended question (prohibited in help center) with no objective metrics for selecting a best answer (better known as all answers having equal value, also prohibited in the help center). So... VTC:Opinion-Based. Questions like this are perfect for the Story Tellers Corner chat room, though.
JBH
Jun 26 04:52
@Trish isn't wrong. A retired air force friend of mine once worked maintaining a nuclear bomber - including loading the bombs. They dropped one on the tarmac. After relaxing their sphincters and looking at one another to be sure they were all still alive (that assumes at least one of them wouldn't end up where the rest would be going), they concluded it took more than just dropping the bomb to make it go off. :-) He does a great job telling that story.
 

 Discussion on question by Trucy K.: H…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
Jun 24 00:33
+1 for asking a well-formed question with clear goals and expectations that would lead to a specific best answer. Well done and thank you!
 

 Discussion on question by Miss Unders…

Imported from a comment discussion on philosophy.stackexchange...
JBH
Jun 14 00:58
In today's world, a point to be made is that "science" is an abused word. "Science" is the acquisition of facts through the Scientific Method. Philosophy should have no value to science (other than as a source of ethics) and science only has value to philosophy as a source of data for analysis. To quote the inimitable Dr. Jones, "If it's truth you're interested in, Dr. Tyree's Philosophy class is right down the hall."
 

 Discussion on question by IMP9024: Wh…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
May 29 20:20
@SharkeyMalarkey You can't have something "as large as you want" with the science-based tag.
JBH
May 29 20:20
I suggest rewording that last paragraph like this: "extra points if you can briefly discuss...." In that case it's entirely optional for anyone to explain it. As asked, you're asking two questions.... Also, Douglas Adams' The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is almost required reading for this site. After reading it, you'll be surprised how often Doug gets quoted.
 

 Discussion on question by FlightDeck0…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
May 22 19:37
@IMP9024 Per edits made by the OP, the question was shifted from "what changes would occur to language" to something closer to "what changes would occur to the sound made by a human voice?" Language is no longer part of the question.
JBH
May 22 02:59
@sphennings I get the X Y vibe, but I honestly think the OP is trying to get his/her head around the idea of "how would sound production change?" How do we ask the question without referencing any language at all? If a human holds a middle-C note with their voice, what differences would you expect in the conditions sited compared to sea level here on Earth?
JBH
May 22 02:59
... simplistic answer: "Southern drawling (or diphthongizing) of the short front vowels, particularly when in a strongly emphasized word, causes pet and pit, for instance, to sound to other English speakers more like pay-it and pee-it. All of this appears to be related to a complicated chain shift of vowels that define the accent." The OP probably wants more than that, even if it's not focusing on word production at all.
JBH
May 22 02:59
@sphennings I believe that's what the OP has been trying to ask. How would you word that question? E.G., "how does reducing the atmospheric pressure to 0.2ATM impact speech production?" Were we to focus on any single language, the question is more along the lines of "what would this dialect sound like?" I get that asking how every word in a language would change is far too much... so how do we ask about the primary changes? Consider this basic answer to "what's the difference between a southern U.S. English accent and a non-accented English?" ... (Continued)
JBH
May 22 02:59
Both of you... this is a fair question to ask, although I could have wished it went to the Sandbox first so we could iron out all these issues. But worrying about the language being spoken is like worrying about the backstory. It's not actually relevant, but it sure is drawing a lot of attention. So... how would either of you ask this question?
JBH
May 22 02:59
@AlexP You're belaboring a point. If English is spoken here and English is spoken there what would the differences in how words sound be? Since English is the official language of Stack Exchange it's reasonable to use it as the referent. The OP is interested in what would change about the sound the voice makes. So... pick a language. Any language. You choose. It's not worth the argument when all that the language is used for is a baseline to ask the question. No two languages are intended to be compared.
JBH
May 22 02:59
@sphennings How would you ask the question? We could remove the dependency on language entirely. The OP is interested in how the process of making sound would change.
JBH
May 22 02:59
On a side note, you're present conditions for humanity don't make much sense to me. What's limiting access to heat? Why would anyone on a world that depends on artificial heat ever have large and long rooms that are harder to heat? Why aren't these people underground where it's easier to heat and easier to maintain higher atmospheric pressures? Now, ganted, you could just edit your question to say "this is th eway it is," and it's your right to do that... but it doesn't make much sense.
JBH
May 22 02:59
Considering the dialog @sphennings and I are having elsewhere, I'm forced to VTC:Needs More Focus. Questons may not be open-ended or lead to all answers having equal value. You're asking about too many variables including variables about which we know absolutely nothing (it's a guess spines would grow taller, it's as likely they'd shrink, having less to fight against, or not change at all). Especially with the science-based tag, this is the wrong place to ask for speculation.
 

 Discussion on question by IMP9024: Do…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
May 21 14:32
If you're expecting answers supported by evidence (e.g., articles), you need to tag the question hard-science. It's the one and only tag we have that obligates the respondent to prove their answer (and, conversely, allows you to complain if they don't). Otherwise, you'll need to live with answers that use logic rather than proof. Also, be careful what you ask for - science is nowhere near as complete as people sometimes think and scientists don't often focus on issues of interest to worldbuilders.
 

 Discussion on question by L.Dutch: An…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
May 19 08:26
@Anketam, The anatomically correct series requires the OP to provide a reasonably complete description of the creature. In short, you can't count each attribute of the creature as a separate question. In this case, "too broad" requires the "book test."
JBH
May 19 08:26
😆 Please clarify what level of biohazard you require for a best answer. Given my experience with my two younger brothers, I can assure you flatulence is a biohazard.
 

 Discussion on answer by JBH: How long…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
JBH
May 12 12:52
@SophieSwett The goal of my answer was to expose the OP to the basic problems of light-speed travel and what her worldbuilding options are. I'm delighted if people can contribute to that, which is the actual issue at hand.
JBH
May 12 12:52
@Pelinore We've successfully frozen and revived hamsters? That's actually pretty cool!
JBH
May 12 12:52
@DanielR.Collins And I'll flag your comment as unkind. WB.SE is not "physics lite." The purpose of any answer is to help the OP be a better worldbuilder, not have a thorough education in physics. Worse, still, until you can show me proof that my assertions are faulty (actual proof, not mathematical thought experiments) your assertions are just as faulty as mine. Notably since my assertions are nothing more than making a point.
JBH
May 12 12:52
@controlgroup "In the scientific method, a hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a specific observation or phenomenon, while a theory is a well-substantiated, comprehensive explanation of a broader range of natural phenomena supported by extensive evidence and testing." I'm being very generous calling the mathematical model a hypothesis. It really is just a thought experiment. Nothing about warp drives is anywhere near a theory.
JBH
May 12 12:52
@DanielR.Collins I'm helping someone who knows little about relativistic speeds to comprehend the consequences of traveling at the fastest speed. I also think you missed the following sentence in my answer, "If we assume infinite fuel." Frankly, it's a common mistake on this Stack to put the education in front of the OP's needs. But, perhaps most irritating, is that I actually address your issue in my answer - though not for the purpose of an education. I stuck with answering the OP's question and meeting her needs.
JBH
May 12 12:52
@SophieSwett No. Remember that as one approaches the speed of light time appears to be running "normally" for the crew of the craft (from our perspective, their time is slowing down). Consequently, the apparent velocity of the craft approaches infinity (from our perspective, it's approaching the speed of light). In this scenario, the time required to turn the craft around exceeds the computer's computational capacity. There literally isn't time to do the math and turn the ship with precision.
JBH
May 12 12:52
@controlgroup I appreciate the link! It'll be my Sunday afternoon reading. However, something isn't theoretical simply because the math doesn't violate physics as we know it today. It's a mathematical hypothesis until there's a physical test to run that proves the mathematical model actually doesn't violate physics. That's actually the important part of science and our willingness to ignore it is my core complaint. Warp drives are just a thought experiment today... but, man!, do we want to believe!
JBH
May 12 12:52
@controlgroup I would be very interested if you could cite one or more papers discussing repeatable expeiments pertaining to the physical construction of any FTL propulsion system in whole or in part, preferentially including discussion of a practical design for navigation.
 

 Discussion on question by QuietInMont…

Imported from a comment discussion on worldbuilding.stackexcha...
1
JBH
May 9 03:17
... Also, we have a policy that you cannot edit your question in a way that causes answers to become obsolete. You did this. @o.m.'s answer is to the previous version of your question. Since editing your question automatically put it into the vote-to-reopen queue, I cannot justify reopening your question. It's one thing to add clarifying information or make minor (e.g. grammar) changes, but if you're going to change a question into a completely different question, you need to ask a new question. (But not this one.)
JBH
May 9 03:17
OK! I just noticed you changed your question. (a) This is now what we call a high concept question. An HCQ typically poses a seemingly simple change (nationalism everywhere!) and then asks for very ambiguous and broad results (how would this change the whole world?) They're off-topic because they're open-ended, don't lead to a single best answer, violate the Book Rule, are unfocused... etc.... (Continued)
JBH
May 9 03:17
And here's my standard boilerplate: Please carefully read the following four pages: tour, help center, help center and How to Ask. They'll help you understand how Stack Exchange and this stack work. Note that you're allowed to ask only one well-focused and well-defined question per-post and it must be asked from the perspective of selecting just one answer as the "correct" or best answer. You can ask anything in Worldbuilding Chat. Finally, please take advantage of our Sandbox where you can refine your question-asking-fu.
JBH
May 9 03:17
@QuietInMontana Now is a good time to stress the difference between on-topic worldbuilding and off-topic storybuilding. Knowing that these are bad questions due to the limits of comments, a worldbuilding question is, "what are the characteristics of a state government that would cause it to lean toward secession?" A storybuilding question is "which states would secede?" The difference is that on-topic worldbuilding is about the rules of a world that are always true regardless any story condition and off-topic story questions are about character/organization choices and plot options.
JBH
May 9 03:17
If you read my earlier comments, they answer your expectation. At the top of the list of things that brought about the U.S. Civil War was race (in the form of slavery). You're asking if it could be race (in the form of illegal immigration). Having already happened once.... But let me warn you against oversimplification. A future civil war wouldn't be about Hispanic people anymore than the Civil War was about Black people. The issues were so much more complex than that (which is one reason why it's taking so long to grow out of bias and discrimination... against a LOT of people).
JBH
May 9 03:17
... by political issues (including and most importantly, slavery), the reason it happened is because of the consequences of separation. Lincoln's fears about other countries gaining political power in our part of North America because of the war were a very real for prosecuting the war. In other words, a second civil war won't be fought because of any one thing, but it would be caused by a widening gulf between ideologies, if the logistical strength of states can be brought to bear, in a world where we no longer believe states have that right. Long story short: it's really complicated.