The Grand Planet Formation Discussion Thread!

[Bill Phil]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

Planet radius, gravity and orbital velocity are given and directly measurable.
The planet masses are just presumed on the 6.67e-11 assumption.

By radius and gravity we can get GM, not G or M.

P.S.
I had already noted a book which I'm fond of: Raft.

 

No. That doesn't work. The only source we have for mass is the game. In that regard we must assume it is correct. If it is, then G cannot be different.

[SAS123]

1 hour ago, More Boosters said:

 

Just imagine the disappointment when an intelligent race emerges in such a planet, gets sufficiently advanced and then calculates the Delta-V requirements for pushing through their thicker atmosphere and 2g.

If earth was only 50 precent larger, we wouldn't off gotten to the moon or even into space because of the Delta v requirements and thrust

3 hours ago, sevenperforce said:

Eight times more massive with twice the radius is merely 2 gees.

Would probably be fractionally higher because it would necessarily end up denser than Earth.

Ought to still be able to support plant life, in theory. Different atmospheric makeup for sure...going to retain a lot more gas so it will be unlikely to have an atmospheric pressure anywhere near earth's at the surface. Though that's not necessarily a problem. 

I should also add that there are waterworlds which aren't terrestrial but aren't gas giants either and they in theory could get up to 2/3 - 3/4 the size of Neptune and have high masses. They are called mega-earths. 

Edited April 27, 2016 by SAS123

[Shpaget]

7 hours ago, Darnok said:

What software you are using?

I'm not the author of the videos.

The description, however, says it was done in Octave.

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Bill Phil said:

No. That doesn't work. The only source we have for mass is the game. In that regard we must assume it is correct. If it is, then G cannot be different.

The only source we have is what we can measure.
We can measure time intervals and more or less distance.

The "mass" we can't measure neither in game, nor in real world. It is a mathematical generalization of time-space trajectories, nothing more.
Also even in this case we can identify "mass" correct to a constant. Either gravitanional mass (GM), or inertial mass (as a ratio with another "mass"), or an energy-equivalent mass (mc²).

Of course, we can read wiki or MJ/KER/Void/etc. indications, but they are just opinions of their respectable authors.
A blind belief in authorities is not a rational thinking way, you know.

[RA3236]

Wow. This escalated quickly.

[kerbiloid]

Btw we can such nice things as mountains.
Maximum mountain height is defined by its material density and yield point and by the gravity on the planet surface.

Taking a priori that Kerbal world uses the same chemistry as ours (i.e. Kerbin is not a neutron star),
we can presume that objects on the Kerbin surface (plains, mountains, ocean, kerbals, trees) are made of the same chemical elements and compounds as we can usually observe.

As the Kerbin mountains have the same heights as the terrestrial ones (max ~8 km), this again proves that Kerbish 9.81 m/s² are indeed 9.81 m/s².
So, under our prior beliefs (same chemistry of the visible objects) we can treat Kerbish distances as real terrestrial meters, not "kerbometers".

[SAS123]

1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:

Btw we can such nice things as mountains.
Maximum mountain height is defined by its material density and yield point and by the gravity on the planet surface.

Taking a priori that Kerbal world uses the same chemistry as ours (i.e. Kerbin is not a neutron star),
we can presume that objects on the Kerbin surface (plains, mountains, ocean, kerbals, trees) are made of the same chemical elements and compounds as we can usually observe.

As the Kerbin mountains have the same heights as the terrestrial ones (max ~8 km), this again proves that Kerbish 9.81 m/s² are indeed 9.81 m/s².
So, under our prior beliefs (same chemistry of the visible objects) we can treat Kerbish distances as real terrestrial meters, not "kerbometers".

There's no evidence that the Kerbol Solar System is even in our universe.  

[SAS123]

Ok next question. Who thinks planet 9 exists?

Evidence To support planet 9:

• Unusual Alignment of Dwarf and Minor Planet's Perigee's
• Mathematical Theories state that with a 2% chance of error, the orbit is stable and checks out.
• Any Infrared Surveys of the sky probably missed the planet due to it's size and position in the night sky.

 

[kerbiloid]

24 minutes ago, SAS123 said:

There's no evidence that the Kerbol Solar System is even in our universe.  

Thus it may have any G value it wants.

[Bill Phil]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

The only source we have is what we can measure.
We can measure time intervals and more or less distance.

The "mass" we can't measure neither in game, nor in real world. It is a mathematical generalization of time-space trajectories, nothing more.
Also even in this case we can identify "mass" correct to a constant. Either gravitanional mass (GM), or inertial mass (as a ratio with another "mass"), or an energy-equivalent mass (mc²).

Of course, we can read wiki or MJ/KER/Void/etc. indications, but they are just opinions of their respectable authors.
A blind belief in authorities is not a rational thinking way, you know.

We can't measure mass, not directly.

But in the game, there's no reason to assume that we know distance or time intervals. We can't meaaure anything in game either. Angular size of any two objects can be the same at certain distances. The only source we have for any of that is the game. And if you accept the game's size for Kerbin, then you should also accept its mass for Kerbin.

It is rational, if there's literally nothing else to base anything off of.

All we can do to get a G in the Kerbal universe is to set Kerbin's mass equal to 1. Then GM = G. But that's not necessarily a different value of G. All we can say is that it uses different units.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bill Phil

[sevenperforce]

For anyone who was interested, here's a hypothetical trinary system (blue giant, yellow dwarf, brown dwarf, terrestrial planet) with eternal day on the terrestrial planet.

[kerbiloid]

35 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:

And if you accept the game's size for Kerbin, then you should also accept its mass for Kerbin.

I accept almost everything in the game as a reasonable assumption: time intervals (measured with my clock or displayed by the game interface, heights and distances from UI, chemistry, etc.)

The only arbitrary assumption I make - that the G differs from 6.67e-11. I would like to take it 6.67e-11 but then I must believe in a planet core made of neutronium, which in turn is more doubtful.

This worked in Spore for me (with its planets 800 meters in radius), giving absolutely reasonable results, this probably works well in KSP.
Absolutely nothing is effected by G in the game world except orbits - and as we can see, orbits take this absolutely nice.

So, in my assumptions Kerbin is a rocky planet with an iron core made of absolutely usual substances which you are mining and converting into fuel, RocketParts, etc.

P.S.
Btw "our" G is just an empirical value looking constant with great precision.
But we only presume if it is indeed constant and why it is 6.67e-11.

 

Edited April 27, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Kepler68]

On April 26, 2016 at 6:50 AM, SAS123 said:

I don't care. It isn't real life. haha. Yea in real life Kerbol couldn't Exist because of its size and Temperature would cause itself to rip apart.

could kerbol be a cooling white dwarf or neutron star?

[SAS123]

51 minutes ago, Kepler68 said:

could kerbol be a cooling white dwarf or neutron star?

White Dwarf Emit a White Glow because they are very very hot. And when they cool down they just go from a bright white to dim white to black. Neutron Stars will always glow until they get sucked up by a black hole or until the end of the universe. Kerbol is too big to be either a white dwarf or neutron star. White dwarfs are around the size of the earth while neutron stars are as big as New york. Kerbol couldn't exist because the radiation pressure would strip most of the outer layers off possibly leaving a cooler red dwarf behind or just your average white dwarf. BUT Kerbol could exist though in a Weak Force less universe. That universe would be very similar to our own but you don't have radiation which means stars would and can be smaller while being hotter because they would directly turn deuterium into helium. 

[Kepler68]

1 minute ago, SAS123 said:

White Dwarf Emit a White Glow because they are very very hot. And when they cool down they just go from a bright white to dim white to black. Neutron Stars will always glow until they get sucked up by a black hole or until the end of the universe. Kerbol is too big to be either a white dwarf or neutron star. White dwarfs are around the size of the earth while neutron stars are as big as New york. Kerbol couldn't exist because the radiation pressure would strip most of the outer layers off possibly leaving a cooler red dwarf behind or just your average white dwarf. BUT Kerbol could exist though in a Weak Force less universe. That universe would be very similar to our own but you don't have radiation which means stars would and can be smaller while being hotter because they would directly turn deuterium into helium. 

but without radiation, all the planets wouldn't get any light nor heat. also i didn't realize there was a rule against deuterium straight to helium, interesting.
could there be some force resisting the pressure of kerbols energy? and is it possible for a star to have a core of something other than hydrogen?

[SAS123]

4 minutes ago, Kepler68 said:

but without radiation, all the planets wouldn't get any light nor heat. also i didn't realize there was a rule against deuterium straight to helium, interesting.
could there be some force resisting the pressure of kerbols energy? and is it possible for a star to have a core of something other than hydrogen?

I don't mean all radiation, Its confusing but it's atomic decay. hold on give me a few minutes to re-read what a weakless universe consists of.

EDIT: Ok. 1) although light can be generated by radiation, it isn't just generated by atomic decay. Its also the release of electrons in atoms when they drop into a lower energy. Heat is Infrared so there would be heat as well. 

2) Here's a link to wikipedia on a Weakless universe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weakless_Universe near the bottom, it tells you how weakless stars work.

Edited April 29, 2016 by SAS123
Additional Information

[Kepler68]

so weakless force stars can be hotter and still maintain hydrostatic equilibrium. the page also says that life as we know it wouldn't work, which could explain why jeb can go years without a bathroom break. this could actually explain a lot of things!

EDIT: i just had an idea for a universe with a weak force, could kerbol be a post-main sequence star that had its outer layers blown off?

EDIT2: i also just realized it is midnight for me XD goodnight everyone!

Edited April 29, 2016 by Kepler68

[SAS123]

On 29/04/2016 at 0:54 PM, Kepler68 said:

so weakless force stars can be hotter and still maintain hydrostatic equilibrium. the page also says that life as we know it wouldn't work, which could explain why jeb can go years without a bathroom break. this could actually explain a lot of things!

EDIT: i just had an idea for a universe with a weak force, could kerbol be a post-main sequence star that had its outer layers blown off?

EDIT2: i also just realized it is midnight for me XD goodnight everyone!

When scientist talk about 'life' in other universes, they state them as observers. Because the strangest thing is that universes without observers cannot exist(sort of). For edit one, no. It's still too hot for its size. 

Anyways it's not the fact that if the weak force doesn't exist life cannot. Its says that the current strength of the weak force may be key for life and we wouldn't really know. We just know that our universe can support observers.

I tried creating a universe from scratch and its very hard without any force or particle to be close to unique without it having some 'linkage' our universe.

[Kepler68]

6 hours ago, SAS123 said:

When scientist talk about 'life' in other universes, they state them as observers. Because the strangest thing is that universes without observers cannot exist(sort of). For edit one, no. It's still too hot for its size. 

Quantum physics being weird again? 

6 hours ago, SAS123 said:

Anyways it's not the fact that if the weak force doesn't exist life cannot. Its says that the current strength of the weak force may be key for life and we wouldn't really know. We just know that our universe can support observers.

i noticed we don't really know a lot about life yet we try to find it, though it's interesting to know the fundamental forces play a role

 

6 hours ago, SAS123 said:

I tried creating a universe from scratch and its very hard without any force or particle to be close to unique without it having some 'linkage' our universe.

What do you mean having some linkage to our universe? I thought they were all completely isolated. 

btw I like these conversations because I actually learn from them as opposed to looking it up and people assuming I have a Ph.D. In everything. Ty

[PB666]

Not sure what the point of this thread is or even why its is our forum, but i can answer one question, Kerbol exists in the 'toon'iverse.

[SAS123]

10 hours ago, Kepler68 said:

Quantum physics being weird again? 

i noticed we don't really know a lot about life yet we try to find it, though it's interesting to know the fundamental forces play a role

 

What do you mean having some linkage to our universe? I thought they were all completely isolated. 

btw I like these conversations because I actually learn from them as opposed to looking it up and people assuming I have a Ph.D. In everything. Ty

I meant i tried creating a universe with unique forces and particles. But unless i lived in my own created universe, its very,very hard to imagine different laws to our own without having bit and pieces from our own universe.

 

[Kepler68]

3 hours ago, SAS123 said:

I meant i tried creating a universe with unique forces and particles. But unless i lived in my own created universe, its very,very hard to imagine different laws to our own without having bit and pieces from our own universe.

 

okay that's still a cool thing to imagine though. 

Do the fundamental forces affect everywhere, or are there places unaffected by certain forces and because they separated at different times, at the edge of the universe are there places with only one or two?

I also noticed the kerbol system may have different chemical and nuclear properties than we know of, like how the "blutonium" in the end game generator gives a ton of EC/S and never seems to decay. There is also the super dense planets which may be simply made of something other than osmium, the ground never seems to have a scratch on it even after the biggest crash. Also is it possible kerbol has a superdense core or heavy corona resisting the heat as well as allowing it to burn hotter?

those are my last questions about kerbol I promise sorry for cluttering up the thread with weird ideas

EDIT: one last thing someone  needs to make the eternal day thing happen in game it would be awesome!

 

Edited May 1, 2016 by Kepler68

[ProtoJeb21]

I like to imagine the Kerbol system being scaled down from reality by a factor of 10. Kerbol is the size of your average M-K class star, but each object is 1/10 of their "Reality Size." For example, in real life Kerbin will have a radius of 6,000 km, or about 95% the size of Earth. Jool's Reality Size is a radius of 60,000 km. If the objects' masses are kept the same, then their densities become, well, realistic. So keeping this in mind, the correctly-sized planets and moons of the Kerbol system could've formed very similar to most objects in our solar system. Example: Jool could've formed similar to Uranus, being in an area with enough methane to turn it green.