Русский New site

Advanced search

[ New messages · Forum rules · Members ]
Page 44 of 69«1242434445466869»
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
General suggestions
AlekDate: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 21:25 | Message # 646
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 318
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
They simply cannot exist.


Then why does Universe Sandbox spawn up to 1-jupiter-mass rocky planets under "random exoplanet" option? Universe Sandbox is realistic in this type of thing...Or supposedly, anyway





Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
WatsisnameDate: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 22:44 | Message # 647
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2604
Status: Offline
There is a maximum size of a rocky planet, placed by physics. This is ~4 Earth radii. At that point, adding more rock makes it smaller.

There is a maximum mass of a rocky planet, placed by the natural planet formation processes. This is 8-10 Earth masses. At that point, it starts growing into an ice or gas giant.

1 Jupiter mass is 318 Earth masses. Universe Sandbox is not realistic in letting you create 1 Jupiter mass rocky planets unless you choose to disregard natural planet formation processes.





 
JackDoleDate: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:18 | Message # 648
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
There is a maximum size of a rocky planet, placed by physics. This is ~4 Earth radii. At that point, adding more rock makes it smaller.

What if the planet has a lower density than the Earth? In the early universe, when there was not as many heavy elements, such a planet could have formed. He would probably not meet the definition of a rocky planets, but he could have a solid surface, and would be no ice or gas giant.

That's the kind of planet I need. For Jack Vance's 'Big Planet' and Robert Silverberg's 'Majipoor'. biggrin





Don't forget to look here.



Edited by JackDole - Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:20
 
AlekDate: Saturday, 14.11.2015, 23:48 | Message # 649
Pioneer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 318
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
Universe Sandbox is not realistic in letting you create 1 Jupiter mass rocky planets unless you choose to disregard natural planet formation processes.


But I said with the "random exoplanet"button, so it seems that a few have been actually discovered, since US^2 only uses it's database when using the "random exoplanet" button :-/

Quote JackDole ()
when there was not as many heavy elements,


Yeah...Hydrogen was even more common then, meaning gas giants would have formed even more easily.





Living among the stars, I find my way. I grow in strength through knowledge of the space I occupy, until I become the ruler of my own interstellar empire of sorts. Though The world was made for the day, I was made for the night, and thus, the universe itself is within my destiny.
 
WatsisnameDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:09 | Message # 650
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2604
Status: Offline
JackDole:

Sorry, it just doesn't work out that way. Check the paper I linked a few posts ago, and particularly see Fig 4. (This is one of my favorite plots in the planetary sciences.) smile The authors derive the mass-radius relationship for solid planets, where density decreases vertically up the scale (same mass in larger volume).

Let's start by considering a very high density planet made purely of iron. How big can it get? From the plot, we see the maximum size it can be is about 2.5 Earth radii. Beyond that, adding more mass shrinks it.

But what if we start building planets with a less-dense mixture of materials? Say we replace more and more of the iron with things like silicate rock, or water. This decreases the density, which increases the size for a given mass. Indeed, the plot confirms this. The plot also shows that these lower-density planets can attain a larger size before gravitational contraction shrinks them down again.

So, what is the lowest density world you can build which has a solid surface, and how big can you make it? This would be a water world (or water-ice world). From the plot, the maximum possible size of a water-world is between 4 and 5 earth radii, which would again weigh in at about 1000 Earth masses. This is totally unrealistic, because it still only takes 10 Earth masses to start gathering the hydrogen and helium that would be around in the early universe. Such large solid planets would never be expected to form in our universe, no matter what era we look at.

The largest planet with a solid surface you can possibly have which doesn't surpass that 10 Earth mass terrestrial-->ice giant transition, is a ~2.4 Earth radius water world. If you go less dense than that, then you are requiring that the planet be made up of more and more hydrogen and helium, and it really doesn't qualify as a solid planet anymore (let alone rocky).

This is why SpaceEngine does not create terrestrial worlds larger than ~2.4 Earth radii. It just doesn't happen in nature. And no matter how you might change the planet formation process to avoid the ice-giant transition, you still can't make solid planets arbitrarily large. The laws of physics hold you to no more than ~4-5 Earth radii.





 
WatsisnameDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:41 | Message # 651
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2604
Status: Offline
Quote Alek ()
But I said with the "random exoplanet"button, so it seems that a few have been actually discovered, since US^2 only uses it's database when using the "random exoplanet" button :-/


They are not rocky exoplanets.





 
JackDoleDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:50 | Message # 652
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
Sorry, it just doesn't work out that way

So no 'Big Planet', no 'Majipoor'? sad What a disappointment! wacko





Don't forget to look here.

 
WatsisnameDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 00:52 | Message # 653
Galaxy Architect
Group: Global Moderators
United States
Messages: 2604
Status: Offline
I'm sorry. I wish I could have real life ponies made of diamonds, damn the laws of biochemistry. smile




 
JackDoleDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 01:05 | Message # 654
Star Engineer
Group: Local Moderators
Germany
Messages: 1735
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
ponies made of diamonds

That would be far too dangerous! Constantly someone would try to steal them. biggrin





Don't forget to look here.

 
HarbingerDawnDate: Sunday, 15.11.2015, 09:35 | Message # 655
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote Watsisname ()
I wish I could have real life ponies made of diamonds






All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
SpaceEngineerDate: Monday, 16.11.2015, 17:48 | Message # 656
Author of Space Engine
Group: Administrators
Russian Federation
Messages: 4795
Status: Offline
In addition to what Watsisname said, you can't have a purely metallic or purely water planet. This is impossible in natural planet-forming process, because it is taking deal with entire Periodic table. You can't have a part of a protoplanet nebula made purely of iron, when a part made purely of basalt particles, when purely of water ice. Everything will be intermixed, abundance of each material will change gradually with distance to sun.

Quote OMGspace_engine ()
For the Water planets, I mean not a full transparence, but a transparece in the planet "borders", imagine if you was looking for the star from behind the planet, the light, instead of a full cut in the luminosity, will suffer a "fade-out" to the core of the planet(I think it was not much clear, but is the best I can think to explain )


Impossible. Did you ever seen the Sun shining through the ocean few minutes after sunset?





 
Bells_TheoremDate: Monday, 16.11.2015, 19:51 | Message # 657
Explorer
Group: Users
United States
Messages: 188
Status: Offline
Are cloud shadows planned for in future updates? Would they be difficult to implement?
 
HarbingerDawnDate: Tuesday, 17.11.2015, 00:48 | Message # 658
Cosmic Curator
Group: Administrators
United States
Messages: 8711
Status: Offline
Quote Bells_Theorem ()
Are cloud shadows planned for in future updates? Would they be difficult to implement?

Yes and probably.





All forum users, please read this!
My SE mods and addons
Phenom II X6 1090T 3.2 GHz, 16 GB DDR3 RAM, GTX 970 3584 MB VRAM
 
BKunzeDate: Friday, 20.11.2015, 06:17 | Message # 659
Observer
Group: Newbies
Canada
Messages: 1
Status: Offline
Are tidal effects planned in the near future, or will that most likely be further down the road, if at all?

Edited by BKunze - Friday, 20.11.2015, 06:18
 
n0b0dyDate: Friday, 20.11.2015, 06:53 | Message # 660
Explorer
Group: Users
Pirate
Messages: 297
Status: Offline
Quote BKunze ()
Are tidal effects planned in the near future, or will that most likely be further down the road, if at all?


I doubt they will be implemented in the near future. Most likely it will be further down or not possible at all (hopefully not).
 
Forum » SpaceEngine » Feedback and Suggestions » General suggestions (Post your suggestions here.)
Page 44 of 69«1242434445466869»
Search: