Random Worldbuilding Questions (Biology, Geography, Society, etc.)

[Ksheep]

Wondering about some terminology. I have a group which doesn't practice religion (in a world where the existence of gods is universally accepted), but they aren't anti-gods and they believe gods exist--they just have no interest in worship or religion.

What would the dictionary definition for that be? I might work out a fantasy name for them too, but I want to know what the real term would be.

I'm not entirely sure, but apatheism might be close to what you're looking for. An apatheist "is acting with apathy, disregard, or lack of interest towards belief or disbelief in a deity".

[Storm Bringer]

Wondering about some terminology. I have a group which doesn't practice religion (in a world where the existence of gods is universally accepted), but they aren't anti-gods and they believe gods exist--they just have no interest in worship or religion.

What would the dictionary definition for that be? I might work out a fantasy name for them too, but I want to know what the real term would be.

"deism", i think. thats the belief in (a) god, but not that this god or gods are worthy of worshipping.

[Yora]

More like a position that the goods might be worthy of worship, but it's pointless to do so, because it won't make any difference. Seems to fit very well for what the question asked.


And now another astronomy question, yay!

If an Earth-like planet was in the habitable zone of a red giant, and that red giant enters the white dwarf stage, what would happen to the planet? About half the stars mass (I think mostly hydrogen and some helium) would be blasted out into space, leaving behind a tiny faintly glowing core.
The solar wind would be massive, but enough to strip the planet of its atmosphere? And what about the heat? Would that be an issue or would the gas be sufficiently dispersed to not make much of a difference.

And after the planetary nebula has formed, what happens to the planets orbit? With the star suddenly losing half its mass, would all the planets become rogue planets and fly off into space?

[hamishspence]

And now another astronomy question, yay!

If an Earth-like planet was in the habitable zone of a red giant, and that red giant enters the white dwarf stage, what would happen to the planet? About half the stars mass (I think mostly hydrogen and some helium) would be blasted out into space, leaving behind a tiny faintly glowing core.
The solar wind would be massive, but enough to strip the planet of its atmosphere? And what about the heat? Would that be an issue or would the gas be sufficiently dispersed to not make much of a difference.

And after the planetary nebula has formed, what happens to the planets orbit? With the star suddenly losing half its mass, would all the planets become rogue planets and fly off into space?

The very basics of this was my final year coursework project.

Basically the result was- the planets would slowly move outward during the period of increased solar wind. Even within a gas envelope, the drag is not very high compared to the star's decreasing mass- so it would still move out- possibly popping out of the surface of the star.

Though the mass decrease is not rapid enough for the planets to "escape".

However, other factors, such as tidal locking, weren't taken into account- what actually happened might be different.

[Yora]

But if the planet is not slowed down to a speed that matches the new gravitational pull of the star for a stable orbit, why doesn't it continue to spiral outward forever?
Or does the planet still do that, it only takes a very long time?

[hymer]

As long as we're asking astronomy...

A tidal locked planet about one quarter of earth's mass volume, but four times the density (to retain a gravity we can relate to, and which could be expected to retain the atmosphere). 98% or so of the surface is covered by sea, much of it quite deep too. If needs be, a large sattelite to mix things up.
Now, light aside, could the movements of water be enough to make (parts of) the dark side habitable? There would/could still be a bit of wobble in the planet, right, so there would still be small areas with a day/night cycle?
Any other comments, thoughts, etc.?

[Yora]

If I am not mistaken, density is irrelevant for gravity. It all comes down to mass. At least for an orbiting object.

One quarter the mass pluss four times the density would mean one sixteenth the volume. Which coincidentally would be about 16% the surface of Earth.

And astronomically speaking, I don't think there is any way to get an object of a given size to become more dense under it's own gravity. Even id the planet would be entirely made of iron, that would still be less than 4 times the density of granite, the lightest material in Earths composition.

[hymer]

Typo, my bad. Thanks for catching it. As for whether the planet is made of some weird stable uranium or exists in a universe where gravity works differently, I don't particularly care. It's the weather and climate of the planet that interests me.

[hamishspence]

But if the planet is not slowed down to a speed that matches the new gravitational pull of the star for a stable orbit, why doesn't it continue to spiral outward forever?

I figured that it would spiral outward only to the point where its angular momentum is appropriate for the new, half-normal-mass star.

[Tirunedeth]

As long as we're asking astronomy...

A tidal locked planet about one quarter of earth's mass volume, but four times the density (to retain a gravity we can relate to, and which could be expected to retain the atmosphere). 98% or so of the surface is covered by sea, much of it quite deep too. If needs be, a large sattelite to mix things up.
Now, light aside, could the movements of water be enough to make (parts of) the dark side habitable? There would/could still be a bit of wobble in the planet, right, so there would still be small areas with a day/night cycle?
Any other comments, thoughts, etc.?

Because of the way the gravitational force scales with distance, to get equal gravity with 1/4 the volume you'll need a density of around 1.6 times that of Earth, or 8,730 kg/m^3. That's actually at least somewhat plausible for a planet made primarily of iron, given that iron has a density of around 7,900 kg/m^3 at room temperature and will get denser due to pressure deep within the planet. Note that this an iron core this large would probably imply some very different geology.

As to whether or not you could get a habitable night side, all I can really answer is "maybe." Because of its high density and specific heat capacity, convection in water should be much more efficient than it is in air. Given that you are also dealing with a planet with around 40% of the Earth's surface area, there's also a significantly shorter distance to move that heat. I'm not really sure how to model things in a simple manner, so all I can really say is "sounds plausible."

You could get some zones where the star rises and sets due to axial tilt or an eccentric orbit, but in those regions the star would appear to move on timescales of about a year (more precisely, the orbital period of the planet, which will be somewhat less than a year).

Any natural satellites will need to be between ~13,000 km and ~200,000 km in order to not be torn apart by the planet's tides or pulled out of a bound orbit by the star's tides.

But if the planet is not slowed down to a speed that matches the new gravitational pull of the star for a stable orbit, why doesn't it continue to spiral outward forever?
Or does the planet still do that, it only takes a very long time?

hamishspence is correct. Ignoring drag, the planet's angular momentum is conserved, and we can work out where the planet will need to orbit to have the same angular momentum. If the mass loss occurs quickly, you'll end up with an eccentric orbit, but as long as it happens slowly the changes in the eccentricity will average out to zero over the entire orbit.

[hymer]

Thanks T! I figured the oceans with such differences in temperature would have some huge steady currents moving cold water to the light side and vice versa. All the rest is definitely good enough for my purposes.

[hamishspence]

Because of the way the gravitational force scales with distance, to get equal gravity with 1/4 the volume you'll need a density of around 1.6 times that of Earth, or 8,730 kg/m^3. That's actually at least somewhat plausible for a planet made primarily of iron, given that iron has a density of around 7,900 kg/m^3 at room temperature and will get denser due to pressure deep within the planet. Note that this an iron core this large would probably imply some very different geology.

Oddly, this site:

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease...anets-possible

suggests that an iron planet with the mass of Earth would be only 3000 miles in diameter. Since this planet would be vastly denser than room-temperature iron, I think someone may have messed up and used diameter at one point, when they should have used radius.

[Tirunedeth]

Oddly, this site:

http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease...anets-possible

suggests that an iron planet with the mass of Earth would be only 3000 miles in diameter. Since this planet would be vastly denser than room-temperature iron, I think someone may have messed up and used diameter at one point, when they should have used radius.

Wow. That does come out to a pretty incredible density. I was working just from a thought of something like Mercury, which is almost as dense as the Earth in spite of being around ~5% the mass. I decided to look up the paper referenced by that article (link here). It looks like figures 4, 5, and 6 show the mass-radius relationships, and all seem to give a radius of around 4,500 km for a one earth mass pure-iron planet. I'd say you are correct in thinking that somebody mixed up radius and diameter when writing the article you linked to, since 4,500 km is around 2800 mi, which is around what the article claims the diameter of such a planet would be. It's an easy mistake to make, and I've made it more times than I'd like to admit on homework and tests.

I wrote up a simple implementation of the model from that paper, too. The figures I got for the planet hymer asked about are (neglecting any water layer):
Mass: 0.40 M_E (2.4E+24 kg)
Radius: 0.63 R_E (4,010 km)
Core Radius: 0.57 R_E (3,600 km, or ~90% of the planet's total radius)

This gives a surface gravity the same as that of Earth and a volume approximately one-quarter that of Earth, as requested. Note that the large size of the planet's core could result in some very interesting geology; I suspect that the outer portion of the core would be molten, and since the core is so shallow I'd expect you could get magmas containing very high concentrations of iron and the siderophiles (various elements which tend to dissolve in molten iron, such as gold and platinum).

If you want a possible origin for this world, it probably would have formed from a larger body which was hit by a massive impact that removed most of the silicate material. The loss of this material would have left it with a very large iron core for its size. This is the process though to have left Mercury with a large iron core relative to its size.

[hymer]

My thanks again to you both, then!

[Draz74]

If you want a possible origin for this world, it probably would have formed from a larger body which was hit by a massive impact that removed most of the silicate material. The loss of this material would have left it with a very large iron core for its size. This is the process though to have left Mercury with a large iron core relative to its size.

Incidentally, a slightly less dramatic version of this event is also what allowed Earth (with its high iron content) to have a satellite moon with very little iron content. So this means giving the planet in question a moon is quite sensible; perhaps even an abnormally large moon for its size, like Earth has.

[hymer]

Good point, thanks to you too.

[Tirunedeth]

Incidentally, a slightly less dramatic version of this event is also what allowed Earth (with its high iron content) to have a satellite moon with very little iron content. So this means giving the planet in question a moon is quite sensible; perhaps even an abnormally large moon for its size, like Earth has.

The impact which might have created this planet would indeed have knocked a great deal of material into orbit (assuming the planet originally had a similar core mass to total mass ratio to the Earth, some 0.8 Earth masses or so of material would need to have been removed). Some portion of that could coalesce into a moon, but I'm not sure it would remain in orbit for a long period of time. Bear in mind that the Earth's Moon is thought to have formed around ten times closer to the Earth than it is today, and migrated outwards due to tidal effects. If the same thing happened with this planet, a moon could easily drift outwards to the point where it can no longer stably orbit the planet. Of course, a stable moon could also form, depending on its size and initial distance from the planet. I'd say that smaller moons would tend to be more stable, since they would undergo less tidal migration, but I'm not sure what sorts of limits there would be.

[Yora]

An unstable moon like on Earth is not a problem if it takes billions of years for the moon to drift too far away.

[hymer]

In Viking-era Scandinavia, the amount of men and women were perhaps roughly equal. Men were more prone to die from violence, accidents and childhood disease, while women risked death from childbirth.
Add a smattering of magic as in most fantasy RPGs, and assuming childbirth becomes far less dangerous as a consequence, what happens to this society? The amount of men will still be substiantially lower compared to the amount given birth to, while the number one cause of death among women has been all but removed.
In this particular case, I've established that men will not marry several women. It is considered in this culture that strife will always develop when two women without a clear hierarchical first must share a household, and only a man who is cruel or has a very strong personality could possibly make this work. This allows people like kings to have multiple wives, but makes it unlikely for most others.
So what becomes of the surplus women? What does this change do to the individual, community and culture? Any and all thoughts, comments, etc. are welcome.
For those in doubt, women in this culture (like in the historical basis) were allowed to have property of their own, but the society as a whole is still quite patriarcal.

[Thinker]

In Viking-era Scandinavia, the amount of men and women were perhaps roughly equal. Men were more prone to die from violence, accidents and childhood disease, while women risked death from childbirth.
Add a smattering of magic as in most fantasy RPGs, and assuming childbirth becomes far less dangerous as a consequence, what happens to this society? The amount of men will still be substiantially lower compared to the amount given birth to, while the number one cause of death among women has been all but removed.
In this particular case, I've established that men will not marry several women. It is considered in this culture that strife will always develop when two women without a clear hierarchical first must share a household, and only a man who is cruel or has a very strong personality could possibly make this work. This allows people like kings to have multiple wives, but makes it unlikely for most others.
So what becomes of the surplus women? What does this change do to the individual, community and culture? Any and all thoughts, comments, etc. are welcome.
For those in doubt, women in this culture (like in the historical basis) were allowed to have property of their own, but the society as a whole is still quite patriarcal.

Why wouldn't those magical advances in medicine help men as well? Accidents and disease would claim the lives of far fewer men. Viking women didn't just sit at home having babies. They were certainly domestic, but they also joined journeys of colonization and/or exploration and were responsible for managing and working the homestead when men were away raiding, which would have left them open to many of the same accidents as men.

I really wouldn't expect the population shift to be all that dramatic. In the United States in 2011 the female population was 50.8% of the total population. Most of the magic found in systems like DnD mimic the use of modern medicine, but better. Females in 2011 also could not participate in the US's combat zones while the US was active in two theaters of war. This leads me to believe that the population might shift one or two percentage points at most in favor of a higher population of women.

So, society with 20 more women per thousand people would not drastically change. You would probably see more widows as it would be slightly more difficult for them to remarry, which means a slight increase in land-owning women. Nothing else would change drastically as the viking culture's economy was driven by the trading and raiding performed by men, rather than any domestic production.

[hymer]

Thanks for replying!
Restorative magic would help both sides in a conflict. Offensive magic helps to kill people on both sides. The conflict ends when one side is sufficiently reduced in ressources, not seldom being manpower. Advances in medicine have reduced deaths in battle for the individual, but advances actually mean a lot more people die in war than they used to. At least this is the case if the belligerents actually try to avoid targeting civilians. Far greater percentages of the population can be mobilized for war, resulting in mass armies and mass death.
Men in our world today die far more often from accidents than women do, I believe it's something like 2:1. This would also be the case in Viking society, as in there's no reason to believe it wouldn't be. Accidents may or may not kill fast enough for it to be impossible for help to arrive. Compared to birth, which is a lot more predictable, it's not small difference. Accidents for men are also more likely to happen away from home in hunting, fishing, timber production, mining, etc. Births are fairly likely to happen in a sensible location.
In short, yes, it would make a difference, and not a small one.

[Yora]

Why wouldn't those magical advances in medicine help men as well? Accidents and disease would claim the lives of far fewer men.

Because young men tend to do stupid dangerous things. Put them in a culture where everyone has knives and axes, and drinking and fighting is encouraged, and you have significant amounts of fatalities in the 16 to 22 age group. If you had a magic healer that can patch up some wounds if he arrives in time, that could lower the number, but even if you can increase the odds of preventing death fron infected cuts, that's still a lot.
Though I think even in the most severe cases, that shouldn't result in anything more extreme than a 45/55 ratio at most.

[hymer]

Very true, Yora, though...
Probably the amount of violence is higher in the fantasy world than in its historic basis, but that's actually hard to figure out. Let me describe the fantasy case:
Something like half of all able-bodied men will, at least once in their life, go out to war or on a raiding campaign, and may not be back for years even if they survive. Some few even spend more than half their lives in such activity.
The average man not away from home will be party or witness to an act of 'civilian' violence with intent to kill about once a year (which includes such things as violent encounters with boar or bear, but also drunken bravado, duels to settle disputes, armed robbery, etc.).
Finally, settlements are regularly raided by outsiders, though of course the frequency varies widely - some settlements are outright fortresses as a consequence. All able-bodied men are expected to do their best to defend their settlement and family in these cases, and maybe 3 out of 4 men able to bear arms has been part of such a defence at least once in their life.
This means that the average man dies in war or in/on a raid (possibly from disease), while the average woman dies of natural causes. The genders may be something like 3 men to each 5 women, with women having a vastly higher average age than men.

[Ormur]

As Thinker said more land-owning widows might result as the discrepancy in the male-female ratio would increase with age. Another result which I'm pretty sure has some historical precedent in N-Europe is unmarried girls staying as servants basically forever since getting married is probably going to be the most common way to getting land (whether it's rented or owned).

[hymer]

Thanks Ormur. I'm thnking something along those lines as well. I think I'm going to turn part of that surplus of women into something campaign relevant. I'd rather not have women just sitting in waiting, gagging to get married in a very competitive situation, so I'm thinking I'll introduce some sort of equally honourable alternative. Say some sort of religious order, or a military caste of women, or travelling bards, lorekeeers etc.
Any ideas anyone?

[avr]

Travelling bards or lorekeepers sounds like something which would employ a very limited number of people. Religious orders could certainly work, but require the order(s) to have something to employ the women - land to work or crafts they make or some source of income which would let them live without earning. A military caste requires the culture to be a bit more unified than viking culture was I think.

[hymer]

Good points, avr. Which makes me think that I could do them all together. Give them land somewhere isolated, where holy taboo keeps men (and thus raiders) out. People travelling the lands gathering and spreading news and lore, and recruiting new members. And a military arm for a specific purpose - perhaps the lands they own are very fertile, but right next to monster territory.
High number of magic users deal with a lot of the economical problems and adds a source of income beyond that of what the land can generate.

[TheWombatOfDoom]

What about craftswomen guilds? Women in the depression started filling lots of craftsmen and labor work when the men went off for war - what if the women filled these roles once the balance started shifting in gender roles and now they fill that market, with a more minority in men in these kinds of jobs.

[hymer]

Certainly realistic. On closer thought, though, it may already have happened, at least to some degree. The real labour-intensive thing in an agricultural pre-industrial society is, well, agriculture. This is already something the women do when as needed.
On the other hand, a large number of female craftpeople could be a striking and interesting phenomenon. Maybe they've taken over some previously male dominated trades... Hm. Thanks!

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

In this particular case, I've established that men will not marry several women. It is considered in this culture that strife will always develop when two women without a clear hierarchical first must share a household, and only a man who is cruel or has a very strong personality could possibly make this work. This allows people like kings to have multiple wives, but makes it unlikely for most others.

Just a note, your note on two women without a clear hierarchy creating strife in a Scandinavian-inspired society, you might wanna have a story similar to the Icelandic saga Njal's Saga, which revolves around the repercussions around some poorly picked marriages, as the wives of two good friends become bitter enemies and keep sending servants to kill each other's servants, and it eventually escalates over 50 years, ending with like a ridiculous body count. A very good read, too. For a story written in the late 13th century, it has some AMAZINGLY gripping court scenes, not to mention the battle scenes!