text
stringlengths 22
2.11M
|
|---|
[Question]
[
[This question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/30933/infinite-tube-world/31116?noredirect=1#comment82987_31116) has some close votes but has been edited/clarified, and has attracted more comments and discussion over the possible answers, and the geometry has overshadowed the actual question being raised. There are prerequisites!
There have been other questions to work out details and reality-check of different universe geometries, but specific things like how to keep the dirt and air where it belongs given other inputs. I don't mean to pick on that specific Question, as there have been others before that need to laboriously describe the geometry in question before getting to the real point, and then has Comments to clarify options, and then has Answers the need to cover the basics and don't (technically) get to his real question!
This is a more meta question, concerning wrap-around universes in general. Don't worry about where to put the air, how the sun moves, etc.: those kinds of questions use this as a starting point. Given **the geometry itself**, what would be the ramifications of having a universe with one, two, or all three [“compact”](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_space) spacial dimensions?
This is meant to stay as a reference to be useful for all such scenarios. More specific questions can refer to the general info here and then refer to the ideas an nomenclature and illustrations, when explaining how to keep the air on one side or whatever.
Consider a classic video arcade game 2D world, where opposite edges are identified (that means each pair of edges are the same one really).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/vL2Pk.png)
If you fly off the right, you appear on the left. Likewise up and down. There is nothing special about this edge position actually, and you could scroll the entire view (keep the ship in the center and pan the screen instead, if the game had such a mode) without changing how the points are connected and the geometry of this space.
The [Asteroids](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroids_%28video_game%29) game (and most screen games like this) is topologically a torus, but unlike the surface of a torus in normal 3D space, the space does not have internal curvature! There is a distinction, and you could do things either way.
You'll notice that the path of a ship is non-repeating if you fly off at an angle that's not horizontal or vertical, as are the hazards: they cross the screen along one path, then a different path, each time. This is because there are two preferred axes in the torus.
An alternative is a sphere, like the surface of the earth. Again, no intrinsic curvature! But you go some distance in any direction and find you're back where you started. But this time all directions are the same, and the original point is the same distance away in every direction.
More complex shapes are possible. It can be odd shaped and lumpy; it can have *some* intrinsic curvature, or be intrinsically curved in one direction but not the other, and many other choices are possible.
Now consider another wrinkle. What if the opposite edges were identified but *flipped upside down*? What if the edge gluing was a Möbius strip, as in [this delightful video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mdEsouIXGM)?
---
The Answers to this question should **elucidate the ramifications of this kind of universe**. So you might consider as the formal question to answer, “What is an interesting feature?” Help people understand what strange things will occur that are mind-bending, both for the other world-builders mental preparation and to pass along in their own descriptions to their readers/players. Illustrations are encouraged.
You can show something that is different from our deep instincts and might not realize with our experience in this universe, or go into issues concerning conservation of angular momentum and quantum mechanics, explain what things would look like from the inside, etc. This should be a reference for all things wrap-around, and multiple answers from the same person are OK, to keep different subjects separate if you like.
Next time someone asks a question set in this kind of universe, he should be able to (referring back here) know what to call the specific variety and not have to describe it from scratch. So “what is the proper nomenclature, in a catalog of different universes what are the different options called?” is also a specific questions to answer here. (and anyone using it subsequently is expected to upvote that Answer!)
[Answer]
Some other place on Physics Stack Exchange we discussed the physics of gravitational attraction in the world of Asteroids. For the most part, it's not a problem.
In order to predict gravity from an object (like a planet), you just sum up the field from an infinite lattice of such objects repeated infinitely. It's easy to see that with simple Newtonian approximations, the left/right and up/down fields do not diverge to infinity. The field is mathematically defined, and indeed, you can calculate it yourself. But while the field is well-behaved, the gravitational potential isn't for an infinitely repeating space. There's no reason that you can't still have the expansion of space in a world like this. Another resolution might be that gravity does not perfectly follow the 1/r^2 pattern, and falls significantly below it at far-off distances. But a divergent value for absolute gravitational potential isn't something that you necessarily have to concern yourself anyway because it won't affect any local properties.
One of the most surprising things about such a world is that it doesn't *necessarily* have to be radically different from our own. We have a cosmological horizon that ends long before the universal wrap-around, so we experience no consequences of the wrap-around (if there is such a thing at all). But you could paint a picture of a world with completely observable wrap-around that people don't even notice until they have advanced telescope designs. That could have implications for a space-faring society, but none before leaving their planet.
[Answer]
# Looking into the past
Depending on the geometry of the wrap, with a powerful enough telescope you'll be able to see yourself in the past. Possibly even several times and at different locations in time.
If the universe has a spherical wrap 1 light hour in radius, you'll be able to look up and see yourself 1 hour ago. If you then move over a bit you'll able to see all the way down the line with snapshots every hour. It's like standing in a hall of mirrors, but the mirrors don't reflect immediately.
[Answer]
To be honest, this question is way too broad, but I'm not going to be a jerk and close something that is over two years old. Instead, I will try to answer one part of this, which is what will the effect of gravity be in an infinitely wrapped universe.
# 2d sphere-surface universe
Lets start with a 2-d universe that wraps around; as in the surface of a sphere. The radius of the sphere is r, which means that if you $2\pi r$ in any direction you end up back where you started.
Since the circumference of a circle is $2\pi r$, the distance in the opposite direction will be $2\pi r-d$. The object will be $(2\pi r)\*n + d$ distance away in the primary direction, for $n\in\{0,1,2...\}$, and $(2\pi r)\*n + d$ distance away in the opposite direction for $n\in\{1,2,3...\}$.
Let M be the mass of an object in the sphere-surface universe, and G be the universal gravitation constant. Force of gravity ($F$) on an object will be
$$\begin{align}F &= \sum\_{n\in0,1...}\frac{GM}{\left(2n\pi r + d\right)^2} - \sum\_{n\in1,2...}\frac{GM}{\left(2n\pi r - d\right)^2}\\
&=\frac{GM}{d^2} - \sum\_{n\in1,2...}\frac{8GM\pi nrd}{\left(\left(2\pi nr\right)^2-d^2\right)}\end{align}$$
This is somewhat interesting on cosmic scales. The reduction in gravity is proportional to the ratio between d (distance from the object) and r (radius of the universe). I could not solve that equation, but I numerically solved for this relationship:
$$F\_{actual} = F\_{expected}-F\_{expected}\left(\frac{a}{\pi^3}\left(\frac{d}{r}\right)^3\right).$$
Here $F\_{expected}$ is the gravity that we would expect from normal gravity, where $F\_{actual}$ is what is actually felt in this universe. In this case $a$ has proven difficult to calculate; it is some function that depends on $d/r$. It is asymptotically equal to 0.600644 as $d/r\rightarrow\infty$ . My closest guess so far is
$$a = 1-0.39936\cdot e^{\frac{-d}{2r}}.$$
Anyways the details are not that important. What is relevant is that the force of gravity between two objects 1 universe-radian (i.e. a distance of $r$) apart is about 98% of what is expected; for the maximum possible distance of $\pi$ universe-radians apart, that is on opposite sides of the universe-sphere, gravity drops to zero.
Lets imagine for a minute that we are talking about a 3-d universe inscribed onto the surface of a 4-d sphere. All matter in the universe can be divided into two different universes with two non-overlapping event horizons; one in each hemisphere of the 4-d sphere. Once clustered there, the Schwarzchild radius of each universe will exclude the other. However, the effects of gravity of one universe will be felt in the other. In my limited cognition, this could be a reasonable explanation for [dark energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy). The unknown force driving galactic expansion is actually the force of gravity from the mirror universe, pulling out universe apart. Of course, it will not succeed, since each universe has its own Schwarzchild radius, excluding the other.
There is probably some flaw with this hypothesis, or some observable evidence that this is not the case, but its a proposal for an alien geometry, at least.
>
> I have to go, but I'll come back at some point for more consequences,
> and to do gravity math for another type of infinite universe
>
>
>
[Answer]
Our universe is like this (Probably)!
The universe your describing is compact without boundary, which means it has a finite volume but does not have an edge. The currently accepted model of the universe is called the standard model of cosmology which describes a universe that has these properties, so your universe would look like our universe.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm thinking a planet orbiting a nearby star colonized by human settlers sometime in the not near, but not too distant future. How small could a planet be while still standing in as a relatively close substitute to Earth? Let's suppose the atmosphere, the climate, and the gravity would be very similar to Earth's. Is it realistically possible for a planet half the size of Earth to have these qualities, or even smaller?
[Answer]
## Size and Gravity
Here's a handy equation if you want to find the radius of a planet with the same surface gravity as Earth (or near it), but with a different density. If you want to change the size but keep the same gravity, you need to mess with the density.
$$ r = {{g}\over{{{4\pi}\over{3}} \* G \* \rho}} $$
Where $ r $ is the radius in meters, g is Earth gravity (9.8 m/s), $G$ is the gravitational constant (6.67384E-11), and $\rho$ is the density of your planet in kilograms per cubic meter. I derived this equation from the [surface gravity equation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_gravity#Mass.2C_radius_and_surface_gravity).
You can check this by entering earth's density in kg per cubic meter: 5510 kg/m^3.
$$ r = {{9.8}\over{{{4\pi}\over{3}} \* 6.67384 \* 10^{-11} \* 5510 }} = 6362240 m = 6,362km $$
Check.
So, you can start looking up [densities for various materials](http://www.periodictable.com/Properties/A/Density.v.html) or mixtures and finding out how large your planet would be with a surface gravity the same as Earth.
For instance I'll check the radius for a planet made of platinum. The density of platinum is 21.09 grams per cubic centimeter. Convert that to kilograms per cubic meter: 21,090 kg/m^3.
Now, plug it into the equation and you'll get a **radius of 1,662 km for a planet of solid platinum**. That's a little smaller than our moon.
It's possible to get a planet this small with Earth gravity but, intuitively, this is not at all likely.
## Atmosphere and Climate
As I'm sure someone would point out if I didn't mention it, these are a lot more things than gravity needed to get an Earth like planet.
The planet can't [rotate too quickly](http://quest.nasa.gov/aero/planetary/atmospheric/gravity.html). It also needs a magnetic field to protect from solar wind. So your planet can't be made of solid platinum. But you can mix in some different materials and include them in the density measurement by ratios of their mass in your planet.
Assuming you start with an atmosphere and the [various requirements](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_escape) to [hang on to it](http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s3.htm). You're well on your way to a [habitable planet](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/9857/3202).
[Answer]
The planet will need sufficient gravity to retain oxygen and water. Technically less than Earth normal would be sufficient, but the size of the planet also has an effect. Annoyngly smaller planets are worse at retaining atmosphere, so we can start by assuming 1G will be needed. The actual physics is naturally more complex, but the sad fact is that it is too complex to model. My understanding is that due to only having one habitable planet to study much of what you read about this topic is unproven.
The ratio the planet diameter can be decrease while retaining the same gravity is the inverse of the ratio density can be increased.
Unfortunately, the Earth is already pretty dense. No natural process creating significantly denser planets is known. I think 10% increase of density would be plausible, but that gives nowhere near the level of decrease in size you want.
So you'll need to forget having the same gravity and find a loop hole ...
The obvious one is that since the colonists have only been on the planet for a short time, the atmosphere only needs to be stable for a short time. The planet would be losing volatiles rapidly, but a high level of volcanism would be replenishing them just as fast. Some of the volatiles could have been gained relatively recently from comet and asteroid impacts. Such heavy bombardment would also have heated and fractured the planets crust enough, to trigger release of other volatiles from there.
Mars used to have such an atmosphere and Mars has roughly half the Earth diameter and 30% surface area. So it should be possible for the halfling planet to be habitable for a few million years. Additionally, heavier elements do not naturally concentrate near the surface. This means that valuable minerals are brought by asteroid impacts. The halfling planet would probably be rich in valuable minerals due to the bombardment being relatively recent and no process having yet allowed them to sink deeper. (The planet would probably be too small for plate tectonics.)
Unfortunately, this atmosphere would not have free oxygen. So your colonists will either need some simple terraforming (introduce photosynthetic life and wait) or somebody or something else will have already introduced such life to the planet. This would mean either another life bearing planet in the same system or a visit from aliens a long time ago.
Alternately, you could simply have an Earth sized planet that has less habitable land area available in the form of a single, small continent. This would emulate all the effects of "smaller, but same gravity" planet, but without any speculative science. Really depends on **why** you want a smaller planet.
An ocean world with a single continent with habitable coastal areas and a central desert would have restricted space for the colony to grow, but not to the point people would be pushed to building floating arcologies or vast scale desert irrigation projects. Alternately, a planet without plate tectonics might not have real continents at all. All land would be from [large igneous provinces.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_igneous_province) Why would this be a good thing? A quote from the linked article might tell the answer:
>
> The study of LIPs has economic implications. Some workers associate them with trapped hydrocarbons. They are associated with economic concentrations of copper–nickel and iron. They are also associated with formation of major mineral provinces including Platinum-Group Element (PGE) Deposits, and in the Silicic LIPs, silver and gold deposits. Titanium and vanadium deposits are also found in association with LIPs.
>
>
>
[Answer]
This question was looked at in a nice, very simple and readable paper by Williams, Kasting & Wade in 1997 (see [here](https://www.nature.com/articles/385234a0)). That paper focuses on moons of gas giant planets but the idea is the same, and they address the question of what exactly is needed in terms of planet mass for life.
The trick is, we don't know exactly what is on the checklist for life. Williams et al considered 2 key things: 1) the planet must have enough gravity to hold onto an atmosphere, and 2) the planet must have enough long-lived radionuclides in its interior to provide a heat source capable of maintaining plate tectonics.
They came up with a lower limit for habitability of about Mars mass (0.1 Earth masses). The key limiting factor is the internal heat source, and there is some uncertainty there. I re-did their calculation a few years later with slightly more conservative assumptions and ended up with about 1/3 of an Earth mass as a lower limit.
Here is a summary of the different factors: <https://planetplanet.net/2014/05/20/building-the-ultimate-solar-system-part-2-choosing-the-right-planets/>
[Answer]
One trick is getting the right atmospheric density. Too thin, and it's tough to breath. Too thick, and you don't have enough light at the bottom of the atmosphere to energize an ecology.
Planets lose atmosphere. There is an energy distribution among gas molecules at any given temperature. At the top of the atmosphere a few of them are faster than escape velocity from that point.
Average molecular speed is temperature dependent. A hotter sun, or being closer to the sun means faster escape.
Escape velocity is dependent on both mass and distance from the centre of the planet. Heavier planet = slower escape. Larger planet = slower escape.
This last one may be counter intuitive: If you have a larger planet that is less dense, but that still has a 1g surface gravity, the escape velocity is considerably higher.
A strong magnetic field helps keep an atmosphere. Many of the molecules in the upper atmosphere are ionized. An ion can't travel in a straight line in a magnetic field, but instead will spiral around the magnetic field lines. Since the field is embedded in the earth at either end the ion eventually hits the atmosphere again. (Ok, it's messier than that. There's a convergence of field lines at the poles. This acts as a mirror for slow ions. So they bounce back and forth between north and south poles.)
So why does Venus with essentially the same mass and diameter as Earth have so much atmosphere. It's hotter. It doesn't have much of a magnetic field. It should lose atmosphere. Good question. My suspicion is that it's the lack of oceans. No oceans = no processes that turn CO2 into carbonate rocks.
Mars with a strong magnetic field might hold an atmosphere for a long time.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question needs to be more [focused](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by [editing this post](/posts/543/edit).
Closed 9 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/543/edit)
[This answer](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/a/211/206) made me wonder, how *would* our society be different if humans had tails?
Of course, tails come in all sorts and sizes, so let's say we had a monkey type tail. One you could wrap around a branch and hang on. About as hairy as an arm.
I can imagine all sorts of minor adjustments, like having to allow for a tail in our clothes. But even that poses the question whether we'd want to show our tail, or hide it.
But would toilets look even remotely like they do now, if you could wrap your tail around a rail for balance? Would we sleep in beds, or in hammocks?
What effect would those changes, combined, have on our society?
[Answer]
Assume we are still mostly ground dwelling despite the fact that those tails are best for tree dwelling.
A few notes:
* If we had a tail, I would expect we would use it. They are not as dexterous as hands but expect to use it to balance, ground, carry things, etc.
* I would except that if we use our tail, we would not always need to clothe it entirely. It is not a sexual or excretory part of the body. This would however change style of dress. I have a hard time seeing how pants would fit quite right. We might wear more dresses/skirts/stockings instead of pants, but if I lift my tail you would likely see areas meant to be clothed. We also might not wear clothes except for the fact that you said it is mostly hairless so we would need to for warmth. The only real option, therefore, seems to be clothes with a hole in them and an attached tube of cloth to nylon so you can't see through the hole. They may extend the length of the tail and be closed for formal dress. A long sock for the tail could be worn but may be optional. Skirts may contain two layers of cloth instead of one with the tail escaping between them.
* Chairs would be uncomfortable; expect stools, forward leaning workbeds, other creative ideas. As this seems to be contentious let me clarify: One could feasibly thread one's tail through a hole in the back (holeless chairs are a no go). That would be annoying, however, when going to sit down each time. When I do sit in chairs with backs, I frequently jut my pelvis to the front of the seat and lean back against the chair. This is the main way I use the back of the chair and this results in my sitting partially on my tailbone. I don't want to do that with a tail as that would be very uncomfortable. If I had a tail, I believe I would prefer either a stool, bench, or bed much more than the couch I relax on at home. I don't know exactly how we would sit but it would not exactly be an office chair with hole in it. Large slot, maybe. Hole, probably not. Keep in mind, animals with prehensile tails use them for living in trees where they use their tails to support themselves rather than on the ground where we mostly evolved. Try to incorporate the tail into how they would sit/relax instead of trying to work around it in the simplest way.
* Sports/athletics would incorporate them. Olympic tree climbing?
* Toilet water tanks would be elevated or on the side.
* Whiplike, mobile tails would be a sign of virility. Hairy, thick, muscular ones would be a sign of masculinity. Expect women to shave their tails.
That is not a good enough answer but it provides some contribution.
] |
[Question]
[
I have a planet orbiting a roughly Sun-like star, accompanied by a moon that's a bit more massive than our own Moon. The surface is about two-thirds water and one-third land, with most of the land in a large supercontinent. I'm looking to model the tides the coastal areas will experience, in particularly on one equatorial archipelago far out in the ocean.
I'm currently considering modeling the tidal elevation in the archipelago using [Laplace's tidal equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides#Laplace's_tidal_equations). I want to try out a grid of different parameters, varying the orbits (primarily orbital radii) of the planet and moon. Doing this by hand would be extremely costly and time-consuming. Therefore, I'm hoping for some software that will solve the equations for me; I can iterate across the grid and compare the results, choosing the parameters that suit me best.
What software can help me with my tidal modeling? I have several criteria that would influence my choice:
* **Speed and efficiency.** Since I'm going to be looking at a large number of sets of parameters, a fast tool is a must.
* **Precision.** I would ideally like to calculate tidal elevations to within about one centimeter.
* **Tidal constituents.** Ideally, the package would calculate as many [tidal constituents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_tides#Tidal_constituents) as possible, for further analysis and edification.
* **Cost and accessibility.** Free and open-source software would be nice.
* **Flexibility to different inputs.** I obviously want to be able to input the various parameters - both for the planet (surface gravity and rotation) and the orbits.
* **Interface.** Some sort of a graphic user interface would be nice, rather than just code run on the command line (although I would be okay with the latter).
[Answer]
Unfortunately the answer is no.
Serious props to you if you want to have a go at coding this. There is probably a PhD in it.
One of the primary resources on the topic is the Admiralty Manual of Tides (NP 120).
It has been a few years since I worked in the discipline and theory may have progressed but tidal prediction is primarily done by analysing harmonic constituents with a Fourier transform & then solving for succesive times (t).
The problem is that not all constituents arise from gravitational potentials. The latitude, resonant frequencies of ocean and esturine basins also play a role as does local bathyimetry, orbital inclination and the inclination of the plane of an orbiting body (moon(s)).
In long narrow bays there is also the seiche effect (Bay of Fundy). Also not to forget impacts like prevailing winds, storm surge and inertia (sea level on the Pacific coast of the Isthmus of Panama is 20m higher than the Atlantic coast).
Unless you are proposing a very unusual set of gravitational potentials this is one you can handwave. I'd look for a place on earth with a similar geography to your place of interest (Hawaii?) and use those tides. NP 120 describes how the tidal wave travels along N/S and E/W oriented coastlines if you want to realistically extrapolate.
My background is as Master Mariner / Harbour Master & Maritime academic & one piece of advice I would offer is, unless you have a plot need for cm accuracy don't sweat it. While calculations and predictions are done at that level of accuracy when it comes to afloat / not afloat no prudent mariner would depend on it. A healthy margin of error dependent on vessel size is always allowed.
[Answer]
First off, I am no expert in this field, simply a person who loves to study flow of fluid stuff so has gone about exploring fluid flow simulation tools and methods as a part of their weird list of hobbies
I am assuming here that (**a**) you would prefer a open source tool (since you have mentioned that you prefer this but not specified it) in which case I suggest you give Delft3D a try.[link to open source version of this tool and specifications](https://oss.deltares.nl/web/delft3d/source-code) (I suggest you explore their website a bit. Nice demos and alternative tools and stuff)
(**b**) that the tidal wave simulation is based on the impact on the shore i.e. you are studying small surface area of impact with different parameters (which you think would be the result of having this earth like planet) and in turn try to deduce what could be the the result at a much larger scale and and a basic demo of how this would look like and what could be the parameters here and then gone back to area of interest to see what could be that impact of these deduced parameters in the area of interest in detail.
You could also check out these links for alternative tools [this](https://www.creativebloq.com/audiovisual/simulating-fluids-81412590) and [this](https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_anyone_suggest_any_coastal_hydrodynamic_model_simulation_software2), I got by a basic online search. Hope this helps you out
[Answer]
After some searching, I found this site:
<http://seismologie.oma.be/en/downloads/tsoft>
The application is called TSoft, and it is for modeling tides. I have never used this software, but looking at the screenshots and reading the descriptions, it seems to be a very advanced editor. It also appears to have a basic GUI as well.
>
> In addition, TSoft offers the possibility to write scripts, which allow one to simplify and speed up routine tasks considerably.
>
>
>
If you can't find anything letting you change the parameters of the moon, sun, and other objects, which I doubt seeing as how it is made for editing tides, you can try writing a script for that.
Again, I can't vouch for what this application can or can't do because I do not know enough about it, but hopefully it will be what you're looking for.
] |
[Question]
[
*Disclaimer*: This question is the first of a new series of questions of mine about *introducing hexapedae to the fauna of my conworld*. There are/will be other questions addressing i.a.: ecosystems, [evolutionary factors](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/56701), [taxonomy](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/56360)
---
*Setting*: In my [conworld](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/19788/how-would-flora-behave-on-a-two-continent-planet) the world is divided into two humongous continents, each taking up about half of the total landmass of the planet. Each located at the Northern and Southern poles respectively.
```
1 Equatorial Belt | Saltwater
2 | Saltwater
5 Northern Polar Sea | Saltwater
6 | Sweetwater
```
---
*Creature*: The Beast-of-Burden (further BOB) is quite versatile. Despite its size and weight it can move quite fast - not anywhere near horses, mind you; though it prefers a more lumbering pace and gait. It has roamed the northern regions of the continent for as far back as anyone can think and prove and although it is not the only hexapedal mammal, it certainly is the most prominent in our lifes.
Even though its got quite a temper and stubbornness to it, domestication proved easy enough according to historical texts. Since the olden days its role in our daily life has changed little. It still is used in agriculture and similar areas, harnessed in front of plows and carts; and it still is used as a pack-animal nearly anywhere the automotives with their heavy engines and tyres can't go. Even the military with their airships still make use of them.
Now besides their use in labour there's not much else they're good for. Their coat doesn't grow thick enough to be worth shearing and spinning into thread. Butchering them does not yield much meat compared to their size and their consumption of plant matter, alas the few bits are quite delicious. Their long gestation and the fact that they drop multiple younglings (similar to dogs) would make one think they'd be good for dairy; but their milk has this weird tang that just makes you want to pour it into the sink - though it's amazingly rich.
*Overview*:
* Form:
+ Hexapedal (6-legs)
+ Adults somewhat taller than oxen, caribous, bisons, etc.
+ Broad backs allowing for carrying things and young animals
+ Cannot swim, do not float (see the *addendum* at the end of the question)
+ Natural lifespan of some 30-40 years
* Habitat:
+ Northern part of the northern continent
+ Mountains & Valleys
* Reproduction:
+ Two sexes
+ Long gestation
+ Multiple younglings
+ Do only produce offspring once or twice in life
* Social:
+ Live in small herds
+ Multiple males and females
+ Pairings don't stay together
+ Whole group/herd cares for younglings
* Character:
+ Do not easily scare
+ Protective of their group and younglings
+ Docile
+ Quite ferocious when incited
* Food:
+ Herbivores, feed on grass, mosses, bushes, etc.
+ Multiple stomachs, ruminate food
* Produce:
+ Coat/Wool: similar to bisons/goats
+ Meat: comparatively small yield when butchered, mostly stringy
+ Dairy: weird after-taste, very rich in nutrients
---
**Question**: Does my thinking add up? Are there any big issues/contradictions in how this species looks, lives exists?
The question does not ask for the plausibility of a six-legged mammal in general.
Questions about the taxonomical branch and other similar creatures in the ecosystem will come later.
Questions on how it ends up in this specific niche of nature will come later but can be addressed in answers here as well.
---
*Addendum*:
- *Cannot swim, do not float*: The idea behind this is related to big *earth*-animals such as e.g. Hippos. The BOBs are too heavy/dense in build as well as featuring a coat of fur/hair; thus they have difficulties in swimming, as in being in waters that are deeper as they can stand. They would/will still ford rivers and move into waters less deep than they can stand.
- *[Definition of swim according to the merriam-webster](http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swims)* (emphasis mine):
>
> a : to float on a liquid: **not sink**
>
> b : to surmount difficulties: **not go under**
>
>
>
[Answer]
It doesn't matter that the milk tastes a bit funny, you're still going to drink it. The same with being a bit short on meat, if that's what there is, more so as a multiple birth animal, then that's what you'll eat, especially in an arctic environment. However most big beasts of burden have a lot of meat, it might be quite tough, but there should be a lot of it.
Reproduction rate is too low, once or twice in a lifetime isn't enough for what's fundamentally a prey animal, that'll need to be every couple of years at least. Unless your world has no predators and this species has an unbelievable survival rate for newborns.
Speaking of predators: How do they deal with them, do they have horns? Hooves? Both would come in useful.
Why do they live so long when they can only breed twice? Very few creatures live on past the end of their breeding cycle.
You should possibly also consider how females choose mates. Normally with herd animals it's one (or a small number of) dominant male(s) and the rest don't get much of a look in. The other part of this is of course, how do males impress females, do they fight, do they display, are they particularly charming in a bar, do they dance. Pair breeding is much more common in birds than mammals.
Swimming: Pretty much everything can swim, often badly but they can. Unless you have a particular plot reason for them not to, let them swim.
(Your world though, with a global belt ocean, the tides and storms are going to be epic!)
[Answer]
Honestly the existence of creature per-se is not problematic; In particular being located in "not-earth" so to speak.
I do not expect BOB to be a mutated mammal with extra limbs; those have problems walking, have a hard time getting food, and tend to die young, before having offspring. Edit: the condition is Polymelia, it is a defect in the development of the fetus and not a mutation, and thus and it is not hereditary.
---
As, for why would this feature be selected, the advantage of the six legs is evidently on locomotion. In particular walking and climbing can be done with three contact points all the time, regardless of terrain. This is why six limbs make more sense on small creatures that climb trees.
The BOB could have a similar approach; if their original habitat was mountain or rocky desert (you say valleys, a rocky desert is a valley? Ok, good). At least that was the case during the initial stages of evolution, so the six limbs could have some advantage at that time. In our world, they would compete with goats, so I agree on the choice of fur. Note: being a desert doesn't mean it is hot, being far from the equator would make it colder.
I'll - as you may expect - handwave mammal glands as [convergent evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution).
---
Ok, so the BOB ancestors came from that terrain. But the modern BOB has been domesticated.
I’ll go with [CGPGrey’s domestication checklist](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOmjnioNulo&feature=youtu.be&t=5m16s) (which is based on the book Guns, Germs, and Steel):
* Feedable: If the thing eats other animals, it is not good. You would have to hunt or domesticate those other animals to feed it. So you want Herbivores! (✓)
* Friendly: If it will kill you it is not good, it is going to run away it is not good. You said “Docile”, sounds good to me. (✓)
* Fecund: Animals with reproductive cycles too long or with too little offspring are not good. You say “Multiple younglings” I wonder how many is multiple because it only reproduces once or twice in 30-40 years ※. (✓)
* Family friendly: The creature stays in packs; they do not roam alone when they leave the protection of their parents. Instead they stay in family. They will accept the masters as if they were part of the family, leaders of the pack. This is in line with “Live in small herds“and “Protective of their group and younglings”. (✓)
※: The fact that their live cycle is larger than a generation of the masters is a bit problematic, because it means that the advance in domestication that a single person can archive is limited. Consider making them have more offspring or short their life cycle. This would imply that for domestication there must be people dedicated to do it, and thus there must be another benefit of having them around. There is the “they domesticated themselves” option: if they keep coming to the masters for food, because they can’t get enough is the wild (we said, desert, right?).
I have reason to believe that modern BOB was domesticated to be bigger and bulky (i.e. ancestor BOB is smaller and more agile). The reason is that bigger herbivores are harder to catch. Sure, they can be friendly, but you feed them and then they go away when they are no longer hungry… and trying to catch them will trigger their “Quite ferocious when incited”.
*Oh* - you say - *but elephants*, no elephants aren’t really domesticated. I mean, the influence of humans in their evolution is minimal, and they don’t depend on us. Instead we say that they are tamed, and it takes a lifetime, that’s why they are not common for farming. So make the BOB ancestors smaller. It should be noted that “Do not easily scare” is a feature of big herbivores that can fight back to the predators (which goes well with “Quite ferocious when incited”).
On that note, these BOB aren't exactly pray animals. They fight back.
---
[Pete is right](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/56332/16729) about the meat, we have a big animal (taller than an oxen) and with lots of muscle (it is a carry beast, and has six limbs).
About the milk I have no problem with it not being tasty, in particular because I’m handwaving it as convergent evolution. Regardless people would find a recipe for it, mix it with some fruits. As [Separatrix](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/56333/16729) puts it “you're still going to drink it”.
Really, why did people domesticate this thing if they aren’t going to eat it? They could be good leaving them in the wild, and taming a few for work if they needed. No need to breed them, just leave it happen in nature.
About swimming, it is ok if they can’t. But I tell you, they will still cross some rivers, because they are big enough and stable enough.
I want to point on the multiple stomach subjects, that that is a misconception about [ruminants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruminant), they have one single very specialized stomach with multiple stages. This adaptation is to break cellulose, by hosting microorganism capable of that task in their rumen.
---
Addendum: On taxonomy. Unless the world is dominated by humans and these humans come from Earth, and they are convinced that the live comes from panspermia... the taxonomical classification used in this world is devoid of all the species on Earth. They are independent, and you should make up the classification names in some language of natives.
As per choice of language, the reason to use a language with no native speakers - being the case of Latin (some greek and some made up words based on people names) in our world - is that meaning of the world wills no longer changes by natural language evolution.
[Answer]
I'm not sure how you can expect a single answerer to address everything in what looks more like a collaborative question, but here goes with my initial thoughts.
**Meat**
You've stated that there's not much meat on these BOBs, but that doesn't really make sense to me. They're large enough to bear a burden, they have broad backs and six legs. Muscles are usually the main edible parts of a herbivorous animal, and this BOB should have plenty of them. You said there's little meat yield when butchered, so how does that work out? You might want to find another reason why they can't be a food source.
Apart from that, I can't see much to argue with.
[Answer]
This answer focuses on only part of your BOBs, namely, their evolutionary history. There have been suggestions that six-legged animals will have evolved from a remote ancestor that was a bottom dwelling marine organism. This creature can be labelled 'benthic' which is only fancy way of saying its bottom dwelling.
The majority of animal life on Earth, which includes humans, are tetrapods because our remote ancestor was a free swimming teleost fish. Its four fins eventually became four limbs. Its descendants colonized the land and that's the main reason animal life is four limbed.
Bottom dwellers can have six fins or similar structures and these could evolve into six limbed animal life. It's not unreasonable to expect animal life in your construct world to be all six limbed. Although it is possible there could have been two independent branches of animal life, so there could be both four-limbed and six-limbed animals sharing the world.
Hopefully this will add some versimilitude to their evolutionary backstory.
] |
[Question]
[
The situation is as follows: there is a city with different districts, each provided with electric power from a different power plant:
* Thermal power plant
* nuclear power plant
* Hydroelectric power plant
* Wind power plant
* Solar power plant
All the people have disappeared at the same time, in the middle of the day, so now nobody maintains the power plants anymore.
1. Will power plants continue to produce and deliver electricity to the houses?
2. How long it will be possible to use the electrical energy to the abandoned houses of this city?
3. How soon will each type of power station break down?
4. Does disaster happen (like the explosion of a nuclear reactor)?
5. Which stations will last longer?
[Answer]
I'm assuming there would still be some electrical load because appliances and machines would be left running, but that load would drop over time. It would drop sharply at first as heavy load machines stopped running, then the next major drops would probably be caused by grid failures over weeks or months.
**Will power plants continue to produce and deliver electricity in the houses?**
How long the plants keep running depends heavily on how much management they need, of course. It's possible to automate a lot of stuff even without looking at things like AI management.
A coal plant would run out of fuel fast (as mentioned in another answer) but a nuclear power plant typically refuels every 18-24 months and hydro/wind/solar stuff doesn't have the fuel problem exactly.
However, I think the thing that would kill the grid first is automatic safeguards that trip when the power generation and load get uneven. You can't just generate all the power you want regardless of load, you have to manage generation to match the load. That requires careful, ongoing control in the US power grid. If people stopped doing that, the power grid might start going down in hours. I don't know how automated that is at this point in time, but given what I've read from people who work in the power industry, it seems to require a lot of human effort to keep things running smoothly even day to day.
Regardless of how the grid is managed, it's likely that any active generation power plant like nuclear or coal would simply shut down automatically if people stopped showing up.
**How soon will each power station break down?**
*Coal / Nuclear*
Coal plants would run out of fuel or shut down quickly without workers. Nuclear plants should automatically shut down too, if the engineers who designed it were smart. Neither plant would break down per se, but I'd expect both coal and nuclear to stop generating power inside 24 hours or so.
*Wind*
Wind turbines need significant maintenance and management too, as it happens. Electrical components fail, gearboxes need fluid changes and sometimes need to be replaced, and you can't just let a wind turbine do its own thing no matter what the wind is doing. If the wind is too high, it can destroy the tower. Who controls which way the turbine is facing? Is that automated? It could be, and it's an important question.
If the turbines just stopped getting maintenance and didn't get killed by high winds, and were able to stay pointed into the wind, from some maintenance numbers I found online I'd expect the wind farm to be down to <30% capacity in one year and completely dead by ~18 months.
*Hydro*
Hydro plants are pretty low maintenance, but again, require a lot of management. This is a simpler problem than the wind farm problem, since it's just deciding where to route water through the dam. But something needs to make those decisions. If it's computer controlled, and the computer also manages the reservoir, the plant could conceivably stay functional for years just producing enough electricity to keep itself powered on. Eventually corrosion would take its toll and turbines would start to fail, but at minimal load that could take a decade or more.
Hydro dams would probably get shut down by clogged intakes before the hardware failed, assuming computer management. So, that could mean months to years depending on what kind of debris problems they have.
If there is no automatic management of the system, though, it's a big fat "it depends". In what state was the hydro plant when everyone vanished? Were the turbines running full bore to match the peak power load for the day? Was it flood season, and they were letting a lot of water through to keep the reservoir level manageable? Neither situation would be good for the plant. If the plant was in the wrong state at the time of the great vanishing, it could be damaged in short order, or drain the reservoir in the dry season. So, days to months and the plant would be down.
*Solar*
Solar panels are pretty durable. I believe a typical solar panel is expected to last ~25 years. They do degrade with time, and naturally the output drops if they are dusty. Snow would stop them working at all, of course.
The weak point in a solar system is the battery bank. Lead acid batteries require maintenance. Connections corrode and electrolyte evaporates off. Left unattended, getting hit with a charge/discharge cycle every day, the battery bank in a house might only last 3 months, and certainly not a lot longer. Some of the batteries would be killed from the lack of maintenance, while others would only require new distilled water to work fairly well again.
There are other battery technologies that work fine with solar and require less maintenance, but they're substantially more expensive than typical lead acid batteries. So the system could be designed to be more robust, but probably wouldn't have been.
*The grid*
Again, there's still the grid maintenance to worry about too. Transformers fail, switches fail, power lines fall, etc. Once that stuff fails, some of it is effectively irreplaceable. Even fixing a power line is a nontrivial task. I think the power grid would start failing inside 6 months, which would start cutting off parts of the city.
**How long it will be possible to use the electrical energy in the abandoned houses of this city?**
I take it you want each district to be powered by its own independent grid tied to one of the types of generators?
Assuming automatic control of the power grid so it didn't just shut down, ballpark estimates:
* Nuclear - <24 hours
* Coal - <24 hours
* Wind - Grid will probably fail first from lack of maintenance
* Hydro - Until the grid failed
* Solar - Until the grid failed, but it depends, with a bit of elbow grease
years are possible
Solar is the best bet for long term power, because even if the houses don't have their own panels you can simply relocate and rewire panels from the solar farm to feed the houses you want to feed. That assumes the person doing it has a clue and some basic tools, including a multimeter, of course.
**Does disaster happen (like the explosion of a nuclear reactor)?**
Probably not. If the grid is entirely dependent on human control with no automation or safeguards, grid failures would probably start fires.
**Which stations will last longer?**
See above.
**Other comments**
Quite a lot of this comes down to "Well, it depends how they designed the systems." In most cases, automation isn't done simply because it's cheaper to pay a load of people $20-30 an hour to watch dials and push buttons (or aim windmills) than it is to design, build, and retrofit an automatic system. That sort of automation typically becomes standard over decades, as new systems are built to replace old, worn out ones. The exception is when human costs rise to the point where it's cheaper to just retrofit the automatic system. That's why fast food restaurants are starting to replace workers with robots.
So if what you want in your world is for power to be available even after the people all vanish, it's certainly possible with current technology if, for example, the society placed a high value on the perceived safety of removing human error from the equation.
There are also other ways to get power. There would probably be emergency generators around, in places like hospitals. Some people would own them for camping or as backups (I have a <30lb 1000W Yamaha generator that's been amazingly useful). You can get power from welder/generator machines. RVs have generators, and so do some refrigerated trailers. Gasoline is usable for a year or more, and diesel can last quite a while longer if properly treated. It's also possible to modify internal combustion engines to run on alcohol. So, there are lots of ways to get power in a city even if the grid is down, if you're not worried about people stopping you looting the place.
[Answer]
If, by 'thermal power plant', you are referring to a Coal based plant, you can eliminate it as a power source within a day.
>
> A large coal train called a "unit train" may be two kilometers (over a
> mile) long, containing 130-140 cars with 100 short tons of coal in
> each one, for a total load of over 15,000 tons. A large plant under
> full load requires at least one coal delivery this size every day.
> Plants may get as many as three to five trains a day, especially in
> "peak season"
>
>
>
According to [this entry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station), it takes steady deliveries of coal, so you will get a day worth of power from this type of power station. No deliveries, no more power.
edit: **A note about Loads**. A comment above mentioned loads, and it is relevant to this scenario. [Different Power plants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_following_power_plant) are designed to respond differently dependent upon the load on the system. Some power plants would automatically shut down if the load on the grid was under a certain point.
From the response on Solar we already see that system shuts down when whatever 'main' source on the grid shuts down. Since Solar and Wind power are both unsteady supplies, I would guess both of these would operate in 'load follower' mode and be shut down nearly immediately when everyone vanished. The Load following article also mentions Hydro working in either mode, so you might be down to hydro and nuclear.(there have been other questions and answers concerning nuclear plants...)
[Answer]
Well, the solar power plant on my roof should last for 15 years before the inverters are scheduled for end-of-life. The panels are supposed to resist hail but if one were to be damaged, it's not designed to shunt itself out; someone would have to, at the simplest, unplug the bad one and patch the connectors on either side of it with a length of wire. It's possible to build a system where each panel is isolated rather than in series, but for normal use it's not worth it.
Being a "grid tie" system, it will cut off *also* if the grid feed is down. However, there is a switch (on each inverter) to take it off line and power a 1500W outlet *instead*. So if central power was down, the house would not have power but the "Sandy switches" would let me charge my devices and even run the 'fridge or whatnot on an extension cord.
A system that has local storage of power would have more to go wrong. How long would batteries last? Even so, being designed to work without grid connection, it might power the house by flipping a few switches and jumpering some things, even if the batteries are bad or the charger stuff is shot.
I suppose one like mine could power the house (with whatever amount of power it has) if cut off from the grid, if it's opened up and patched around somehow. It might need a 60Hz reference signal to sync with, and fake the indicators.
But the point is, you could walk up to it after a decade and use it. It has no moving parts, the modern inverters don't contain transformers, and the photovoltaic material itself has never been known to wear out. If you don’t specifically need the home standard AC, you could skip the inverters and use low-voltage DC directly from the panels.
If you want something that will work after being abandoned, that's the stuff. In some areas it's very popular.
[Answer]
You can probably go for a few years with a hydroelectric power plant, barring any downed wires or bad transformers.
I've been inside of one of those plants and there is not much to it. The water is piped to the turbine, comes on the other side and is released.
The turbines are generally designed to run for years with little to no maintenance.
[Answer]
I am not sure how systems are designed these days with nuclear but unless there was an automatic shut down set up without human interaction being required, the nuclear chain reaction could cause a meltdown to occur which if it was located too close to other power generation systems could possibly wipe out them in the process quite quickly....not to mention the effects of the radiation itself could effect the transmission of electric through them through ionization and make the grid useless as a whole anyway...
One could presume that people would be able to locate the switching stations that route the power from the plants and make the adjustments to divert power to key areas from any systems that were still usable presuming these were not totally devastated though one may presume as a need to conserve remaining power systems that it would be wisest to send this power to remote villages as opposed to large cities as refrigerators and such require larger loads and would be instantly active when the grid reconnected in their highest state...so unless they went to each home and flipped breakers rebooting a system after such a problem may be impossible for a system to handle in major cities....millions of fridges needing +20 amps to make that initial turn to get the motors going again would likely fry the systems trying to deliver the power alone even if the existing sources could theoretically provide the power needed to accomplish it there would also be a massive voltage spike backfed into the grid when this was happened as all these motors surged to life....just think when you have old incandescent bulbs and your fridge kicked on how the power would dim go bright and then return to normal now think about the extra voltage that involves multiplied by the number of houses and the fact this will then surge backwards through the transforming substations which would likely explode and if not would still likely overload any electronics hooked up to control it...
Still, we do not know why all these people are disappearing ie from a meteor impact from a nuclear attack alien invasion or "rapture" and what effect it could have globally to have disrupted the equipment and a sudden jarring could also disrupt the safe guards involved in any of these machinery....not to mention the main lines that control stations are in control of running the power to the substations are much more difficult for a typical citizen to gain access to if they were damaged and run on much higher voltages making them more dangerous to handle.
] |
[Question]
[
I have an earth-like planet orbiting one of the stars in a binary system. I [have learned](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/25166/28) that, for G-class stars, if the secondary star is 100AU from the primary one, I can expect the secondary star to have an apparent magnitude of about -17, about 40 times brighter than the earth's full moon (-13).
I'd like to increase this (that is, decrease the number and increase the light). Specifically, when the secondary star is visible but the primary is not, I'd like the facing part of the planet to have a "second day", lesser than the "primary day" but still brighter than the full moon at night. I'm imagining a light level comparable to a cloud-filled rainy day on earth -- you can definitely go out and about and see what you're doing, but you'd probably want headlights on when driving.
HDE 226868 pointed me to [Gamma Cephei](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Cephei), a nearby binary system. The first star (K-class) has a planet orbiting it and the second star (M-class) is just 10 AU away from the primary. This system is apparently stable, but we don't know how habitable the planet is.
Getting two sun-like stars to 10AU apart would, [I understand](http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/23921560#23921560), get the second one's apparent magnitude to -22. I don't know if that's enough, too little, or more than is needed.
I'm flexible about the secondary star; if changing its class and distance would increase its apparent magnitude without frying my planet or making the whole system collapse in on itself, I'm fine with that. I want two stars shedding significant light on my planet, with the primary being sun-like.
So, what apparent magnitude is enough to give me the lighting level I'm looking for, and what is the most stable and realistic way to achieve that?
[Answer]
What if the other star was not all by itself, but had its light magnified? One way to do that is to put it in a [reflection nebula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflection_nebula). Reflection nebulae are clouds of dust that reflect light from a star embedded with the nebula. They're often found around young, hot stars, but it's not implausible to have one exist around a dimmer, cooler star.
In [a 1922 paper](http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1922ApJ....56..400H&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf), Edwin Hubble found that the relationship between a reflection nebula's apparent magnitude and its [angular diameter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter), $R$, is
$$5 \log\_{10} (R) = -m + k$$
where $k$ is a constant resulting from a measurement. If we say that $k = 0$ (ideally), then we can calculate $R$. Assuming $m=-22$, that gives $R\approx10^{17}$, which is a pretty nonsensical answer. Why? Well, Hubble's relation was empirical, and holds for nebulae that are far away. I originally used it for some calculations; that was misguided. Realistically, a radius $r\_0$ of about 1 light-year is reasonable, placing both stars inside the nebula.
But what if you could scale it down?
[Sobolev (1960)](http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1960SvA.....4....1S) did some modeling of scattering nebulae; it's a paper I've only just come across. He came up with one key equation, the ratio of the luminosity of the nebula to the luminosity of the star illuminating it:
$$\frac{L\_N}{L\_\*}=\frac{16\pi^2 r\_0^2\bar{H}(\tau\_0)}{L\_\*}$$
where $r\_0$ is the radius of the (spherical-ish) nebula, $\tau\_0$ is the [optical depth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_depth) at $r\_0$ (and the optical depth isequals $\tau=\alpha r$ for some $\alpha$), and
$$\bar{H}(\tau)=\frac{A}{\tau^2}\left(1-e^{-\tau}\right),\quad A\equiv\frac{L\_\*\alpha^2}{16\pi^2}$$
Putting this all together gives us
$$\frac{L\_N}{L\_\*}=\frac{16\pi^2r\_0^2}{L\_\*}\frac{L\_\*\alpha^2}{16\pi^2}\frac{1}{\tau\_0^2}\left(1-e^{-\tau\_0}\right)=1-e^{-\tau\_0}$$
A reasonable surface optical depth - and this is largely guesswork on my part - could be $\tau\_0\approx2/3$, meaning the nebula is on the boundary of being [optically thin or optically thick](http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/~kjbg1/lectures/lect_2.pdf); we actually use $\tau=2/3$ to define the surface of the Sun. Therefore, we find $L\_N\approx0.49L\_\*$, which is significant - assuming that my guess was anywhere near correct.
Is this plausible? You were correct in [your comment](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/25203/how-can-i-safely-brighten-my-secondary-star/25204#comment64936_25204) that most nebulae are extremely large. This leaves us with two plausible possibilities:
1. The entire system is embedded in a nebula.
2. The nebula is somehow very small.
The first one would most likely produce some interesting but perhaps undesirable effects; for now, I'll consider that a non-viable option. (Also, the estimates above assumed that the other star is *outside* the nebula).
The second option, therefore, is the only one available. The problem is, it's tricky. Now, there *are* some nebulae that are small enough - on the order of 1 AU in diameter. If you want to explain it away by stating that, then you're fine. Another interesting option is to actively explain the small size by stating that stellar winds from the planet's *primary* star dissipated the originally much larger nebula in that part of the system, leaving it mainly only around the secondary star. I don't know what the timescales are there, although I can try to figure it out.
[Answer]
Roughly, to get the brightness from that of the full moon to an overcast midday, you need to increase the luminosity about 4000 times ([Wikipedia: Daylight](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight)). Thus you would have to bring in the secondary star from 100 AU to 10 AU to get it 100 times brighter (i.e. from 40 times the brightness of the moon to 4000 times the brightness of the moon). The orbit of your planet might actually be stable, but I'd be worried (hopefully someone writing here can do a simulation). Gamma Cephei has a large (1.5 solar mass) star and a red dwarf (0.5 solar mass) that are 20 AU apart, so there's a lot better chance of a planetary orbit around the heavy star being stable in Gamma Cephei. So you might have to increase the distant star's luminosity.
For instance, using [the mass luminosity relationship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93luminosity_relation) you can move the companion to 20 AU and make it 1.4 times the mass of the sun. This will quadruple the actual luminosity which will balance being moved twice as far away. That would be near the greatest mass of an F star, so it would be pumping out a tad bit more ultraviolet.
Another approach might be to have much higher metallicity in the companion star (compared to the sun) which would also increase its luminosity, these are one kind of [subgiant star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subgiant). Or you could have the other kind of subgiant, which are old stars that have moved off the main sequence, but the latter type are slowly moving toward giant star status, which would be a bad, bad thing for your planet.
[Answer]
As I state below, if both stars in the system are suitable for having planets old enough to have interesting stuff like habitable biospheres, complex multi celled plants and animals, or native intelligent beings, etc., there will be only a narrow range of luminosity difference between them. The brighter star can be only about 5 or 6 times as bright as the dimmer star.
Assume, therefore, that the planet orbits a star that is not a G2V like the Sun but about a K5V, much less luminous than The Sun, and therefore the planet orbits much closer to that star and has a much shorter year. If the other star is something like a G0V or a F8V it should be somewhat brighter than the Sun and about 5 or 6 times as bright as the star the planet orbits. If the distance between the 2 stars is 10 times the distance between the planet and the dimmer star that it orbits. the apparent brightness of the farther and brighter star will be diminished by 100 times and thus it will appear only 5 or 6 percent as bright as the nearer star as seen from the planet.
Only 5 or 6 percent as bright as the other star is not very bright as compared to the other star, but on the other hand if the nearer star gives the planet about the same amount of light as the Sun sheds on Earth, 5 or six percent of that should equal about 20,000 to 24,000 times the brightness of the full moon on Earth!
You will have to find out if that will be enough for Humans to see colors, for movement to be easy and safe, for the sky to look blue and the stars to be masked by the sky's brightness, etc. I think it should be enough.
If the other star can come as close as five times the orbital radius of the planet around its star, then the other star could appear as bright as 0.2 to 0.24 as bright as the nearer star, or about 80,000 to 96,000 times the brightness of the full moon.
I believe the brightness of the full moon is give as 0.25 lux. 20,000 to 24,000 times the brightness of the full moon would be about 5000 to 6,000 lux, a few times the brightness of a typical overcast day:
>
> 1,000 - 2,000 lux Typical overcast day, midday
>
>
>
80,000 to 96,000 time the brightness of the full moon would be about 20,000 to 24,000 lux, equal to:
>
> 20,000 lux Shade illuminated by entire clear blue sky, midday
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight>[1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daylight)
You should remember that the minimum distance between the stars for the planet's orbit to be stable is not a distance in Astronomical Units but a ratio of the distance between the planet and the star it orbits and the distance to the other star.
>
> However, where the separation is significantly less, a stable orbit may be impossible. If a planet's distance to its primary exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, orbital stability is not guaranteed.[62]
>
>
> One study of Alpha Centauri, the nearest star system to the Sun, suggested that binaries need not be discounted in the search for habitable planets. Centauri A and B have an 11 AU distance at closest approach (23 AU mean), and both should have stable habitable zones. A study of long-term orbital stability for simulated planets within the system shows that planets within approximately three AU of either star may remain stable (i.e. the semi-major axis deviating by less than 5%). The HZ for Centauri A is conservatively estimated at 1.2 to 1.3 AU and Centauri B at 0.73 to 0.74—well within the stable region in both cases.[5]
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_binary_star_systems>[2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitability_of_binary_star_systems)
>
> Wiegert, Paul A.; Holman, Matt J. (April 1997). "The stability of planets in the Alpha Centauri system". The Astronomical Journal. 113 (4): 1445–1450. arXiv:astro-ph/9609106Freely accessible. Bibcode:1997AJ....113.1445W. doi:10.1086/118360.
>
>
> However, where the separation is significantly less, a stable orbit may be impossible. If a planet's distance to its primary exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, orbital stability is not guaranteed.[62]
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability#Binary_systems>[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability#Binary_systems)
>
> In binary star systems, however, a planet must not be located too far away from either one star or too close to two "home" stars or its orbit will be unstable. If that distance exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, then the gravitational pull of that second star can disrupt the orbit of the planet (Graziani and Black, 1981; Pendleton and Black, 1983; and Dvorak et al, 1989).
>
>
>
<http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm>[4](http://www.solstation.com/habitable.htm)
If you consider it desirable for the farther star to be more than 0.25 times as bright on the planet's surface as the nearer star that the planet orbits, or if you want the star that the planet orbits to be as bright as the sun, then the other star will have to be too luminous to be old enough for its planets to be habitable for humans or have higher life forms. And since the two stars and all their planet should be the same age, the planet in question and the star that it orbits will also have to be too young for the planet to be interesting.
Unless scientists note that the planet should not yet be habitable or have advanced lifeforms. Thus characters may speculate that advanced aliens terraformed the planet, or that the entire planet was moved from an older solar system into this younger solar system by super advanced aliens. And maybe someone will point out that the clock is ticking and there are "only" a few million years left until the brighter star swells into a red giant and all life in the system is destroyed.
..............................................................
My Previous Answer.
For scientific reasons I have reversed your star designations, making Star B the one that Planet X orbits and Star A the more distant star.
If planet X orbits Star B but not Star A, Star A should be at least ten times as far away from Planet X as Star B is, in order for the orbit of planet X to be stable. If this is supposed to be hard science fiction you will need a more expert opinion. Of course the distance between Star A and Star B can be many times the minimum of ten times the radius of Planet X's orbit around Star B.
If the distance between Star A and Star B is exactly 10 times the radius of Planet X's orbit around Star B, then some times Planet X will be exactly 11 times as far from Star A as from Star B. And sometimes Planet X will be only 9 times as far from star A as from Star B. The distance from Star A to Planet X will vary between 0.9 and 1.1 times the average distance.
And since the amount of light planet X receives from star A varies with the square of the distance, that amount will vary from 0.826 to 1.234 of the average amount.
If the distance between Star A and Star B is exactly 100 times the radius of Planet X's orbit around Star B, the amount of light that Planet X receives from Star A will vary between 0.980 and 1.019 of the average amount of light.
Since that is a smaller range of difference, as a general rule you would want the distances between Star A and Star B to be as many times greater as possible than the radius of the orbit of Planet X around star B.
But you also need the distance between Star A and Star B to be as small as possible compared to the radius of the orbit of Planet X around Star B. If you want Planet X to be interesting because it is habitable for Earth Humans, or has advanced multi celled life like trees and mammals, or has native intelligent beings.
If Star A is 10 times as far away from Planet X as Star B is, which I think is the minimum distance for Planet X to have a stable orbit, it will have to be 100 times as luminous as Star B to give Planet X as much light as Star B does. If Star A is only as luminous as Star B it will give Planet X only one percent of the light that Star B gives planet X.
If Star A is 100 times as far away from Planet X as Star B is, it will have to be 10,000 times as luminous as Star B to give Planet X as much light as Star B does. If Star A is only as luminous as Star B it will give Planet X only one hundredth of one percent (or 0.0001) of the light that Star B gives planet X.
You didn't specify the desired ratio between the apparent brightness of Star A and Star B as seen from Planet X. You just said Star A (your Star B) should give Planet X enough light to make a difference. And you didn't specify whether you meant enough light to make a difference in the temperature of Planet X or merely enough light to make a difference in it's illumination.
If you want Star A to shed as much light on Planet X as Star B does, then the ratio of their relative absolute luminosity must equal the square of the ratio of their relative distances from Planet X. If Star A is 10 times as distant as Star B it will have to be 100 times as luminous to appear exactly as bright in the sky of Planet X. If Star A is 100 times as distant as Star B it will have to be 10,000 times as luminous to appear exactly as bright in the sky of Planet X. If Star A is 1,000 times as distant as Star B it will have to be 1,000,000 times as luminous to appear exactly as bright in the sky of Planet X.
Thus if Star A and Star B have to have anything remotely resembling the same brightness in the sky of planet X, Star A should have at least several times the absolute luminosity of Star B, and possibly up to millions of times the luminosity. Thus Star A would be much intrinsically brighter than Star B. Thus Astronomers would call it A and call the star that Planet X orbits B. Because of the high probability that the more distant star would be more luminous than the star Planet X orbits, I switched the designations of the stars from what they were in your question.
Suppose that you desire star A to appear 0.0001 times as bright in the sky of Planet X as Star B. Then if Star A is 0.10 times as luminous as Star B, and 10 times as far from Planet X, it will appear to be 0.0001 times as bright from the surface of Planet X. If Star A is exactly as luminous as Star B, and 100 times as far from Planet X, it will appear to be 0.0001 times as bright from the surface of Planet X. If Star A is 1,000 times as luminous as Star B, and 1,000 times as far from Planet X, it will appear to be 0.0001 times as bright from the surface of Planet X. If Star A is 10,000 times as luminous as Star B, and 10,000 times as far from Planet X, it will appear to be 0.0001 times as bright from the surface of Planet X.
Thus even if Star A appears only 0.0001 times as bright as Star B as seen from Planet X, it could, depending on its distance, be tens, hundreds, or even many thousands of times as absolutely luminous as Star B, the star that Planet X orbits.
By comparison, the Sun has an apparent brightness as seen from Earth 398,110 times as bright as the apparent brightness of an average full moon. The apparent brightness of the full moon is 0.0000025 that of the Sun, so if Star B appears as Bright as the Sun from Planet X and Star A appears only 0.0001 as bright as star B as seen from Planet X that could still be about 40 times as bright as a full moon seen from Earth.
The absolutely most luminous star known to science is R136a1 in the Large Magellanic Cloud, about 8,710,000 times as luminous as the Sun. The least luminous known star is 2MASS J0523-1403, about 0.000126 times as luminous as the Sun. That gives a luminosity range of about 69,126,983,000 times. That should be enough for any desired difference in the luminosity of the two stars in the solar system of Planet X, right?
Wrong.
If you want Planet X to be interesting because it is habitable for Earth Humans, or has advanced multi celled life like trees and mammals, or has native intelligent beings, Planet X must have enjoyed a relatively constant amount of radiation from it's sun, Star B, for billions of years, since Earth is believed to be relatively typical, and it took billions of years for those things to develop on Earth.
Therefore Star B that Planet X orbits must have been a relatively stable main sequence star for billions of years in order for Planet X to be habitable for Earth Humans, or have advanced multi celled life like trees and mammals, or have native intelligent beings. And since both stars in the system would be the same age, Star A must also have been a relatively stable main sequence star for billions of years. When stars eventually leave the main sequence they usually change in ways that destroys all life on the planets that orbit them and may also destroy all life on planets orbiting other stars in the same star system.
And what types of stars will remain stable main sequence stars for billions of years? Stars of late spectral type F (starting at maybe type F8), type G, Type K, and type M. Thus Star B, that Planet X orbits, and Star A, in the same star system, would both have to be somewhere between about spectral type F8V to M9V, which would limit the possible range of their luminosity difference. I believe the extreme possible luminosity difference between Star A and Star B would be about 25 times.
But many scientists believe that stars from mid type K and all type M stars are not suitable for having habitable planets for various reasons. If that is correct the possible spectral types for Star B would be limited to about F8V to K5V. That gives a luminosity range of about six times for the difference between Star A and Star B. But since it is not specified whether Star A should have any habitable planets its spectral type can be between type F8V and type M9V.
So if you want your story to be anything like hard science fiction you should find more precise figures for the various limits listed before making your calculations, if you want Planet X to be interesting because it is habitable for Earth Humans, or has advanced multi celled life like trees and mammals, or has native intelligent beings. Unless the stars in the star system are younger and should not have planets as advanced as Planet X seems to be. Perhaps super powerful aliens terraformed Planet X millions of years ago and seeded it with life forms billions of years more advanced than it had time to evolve naturally, or even took Planet X from its original star system and moved it into the much younger star system it is now in.
[Answer]
I think 20 AU is a reasonable distance (especially using a K type star). This would already get the apparent brightness of the second sun to around -20.5; taking 10 AU as the lower limit will get to -22 but given the next paragraph that red giant will probably disrupt the orbits, making 20 AU a safer lower bound.
However, we can go further. By replacing the second sun with a red giant that is both about the same mass as and much larger and brighter than the planet's primary, the second sun can be easily 20000x as luminous as the Sun. This would bring it up to -32 (!) but that's about 100x brighter than the sun and increase the temperature of the planet by over 3x.
However, choosing a point in the middle of the red giant phase can reach essentially any value in between -20 and -30; I suggest using something in the -22 to -24 range; but something brighter is fine as long as the planetary habitable zone is adjusted (which might need to affect the orbital distance of the second sun, etc.)
[Answer]
Stellar engineering is going to be quite difficult and expensive, but there are a few ways to increase the apparent light output of the secondary star in the binary system if the civilization is advanced enough.
The first and possibly easiest approach would be to simply focus the incoming solar radiation from the distant star. Platoons of mirrors or fresnel lenses in orbit can be used to amplify the incoming light, although the orbital mechanics of this would be rather tricky given the huge differential between the planet orbiting the primary sun and the 700 year orbit of the secondary. Given the rather faint amount of light being focused, I doubt that any evil genius will be able to focus the light of the distant secondary sun into a dangerous spot to burn cities and crops (the real danger would be hijacking the orbital arrays and refocusing the light of the primary). This would require a civilization with spacefaring technology at least equal to that of the 1960's on Earth (Saturn V class boosters might be required to place mirrors in very distant orbits, depending on the chosen arrangements of the orbital arrays, and possibly landing on other moons or planets to gather materials or establish control stations for the mirror array).
Given a higher level of technology, the secondary sun itself can be tweaked to deliver more energy to the planet. This would involve actually going to the distant sun and establishing a "solar laser". The mechanics of such a laser can be found here: <http://laserstars.org/amateur/scifi.html>, with the end result being the energy of the sun is focused into a beam and used to illuminate the distant planet. Since the laser light is monochromatic, the lighting will be a bit odd, but using something like yellow laser light should be acceptable to the inhabitants. Once again there will be issues with tracking the planet and keeping the beam placed on target, and there will be times when the primary sun is between the secondary sun and the planet, which might either result in the cutoff of the beam, or retargeting to secondary mirrors around the solar system to bounce the light around the sun and back to the planet. This would be possible using a somewhat more advanced technology than we have today (maybe two generations of technology beyond ours to get started on the process).
Getting into magitech, a truly advanced civilization would have some means of increasing the rate of fusion in the secondary sun to increase the luminosity. Since the rate of energy release is conditional on the amount of gravitational pressure in the core, there must be some means of "squeezing" the core, or perhaps introducing a "small" black hole into the stellar core to "pull" harder on the sun's core. The limitations of that (either external squeezing or using a black hole) is the increasing release of energy will push out on the material in the star, causing it to expand and cool unless overcome in some way (stars exist in a state of equilibrium between radiation pressure pushing outwards and gravitational forces pulling inwards). This sort of magitech engineering will probably require real time monitoring and active control over the process, keeping a crew of people or AI's in close proximity to the star in order to regulate the process. This is obviously well beyond any current or projected capabilities of our current civilization, but perhaps in a few centuries *we* will be able to carry out a project of that nature.
The other very long term possibility would be to physically bring the distant sun closer to the planet (from 100 AU to 10 AU). Moving planets, even giant planets is possible for the very patient (slingshotting asteroids past a planet and using momentum exchange, much like spacecraft slingshot past giant planets to change orbits and speed up or slow down), but since stars are orders of magnitude larger than even giant planets, getting enough momentum exchange to physically move a star is going to take either an unreasonably long time, or require vast amounts of energy (a stream of asteroids moving at a significant fraction of *c* might do the trick, but the energy needed to do so would be a large fraction of the output of the entire star). Using the energy output of the star to create a sort of rocket (using a truly enormous array of mirrors to reflect the star's energy back on a spot to create an intense "flare" of plasma to provide thrust. This idea was explored in the SF Novel "Bowl of Heaven" and Shipstar" by Larry Niven and David Brin), but once again , we are talking very long term.
] |
[Question]
[
Is it possible for a planet to have a liquid ring rather than a ring made of solid particles?
If it is, how long would it be stable for? If not, is there any other configuration of a liquid that could form a ring such as droplets or a mist etc? Else what happens to liquids in orbit (especially liquids with a high boiling point at low temperatures which will only evaporate very slowly).
Assume any configuration of planet and ring and the liquid does not have to be water. Any materials and conditions may be used, but no magic.
[Answer]
No, impossible.
Firstly, the internal friction would let it collapse, because the parts at different altitude have to rotate at different speeds. The frictional heat can be nothing else than transformed potential energy, and the whole thing goes down ...
Secondly, the surface tension would disintegrate the ring into droplets, which would coalesce into a smaller number of (liquid) moons. Those moons can't grow very much, however, because of the [Roche limit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit) So they would probably split again from time to time, until they have lost so much angular momentum due to the tidal forces that they crash into the planet atmosphere.
And yes, *ionic liquids* have the required vanishingly low gas pressure, and would be liquid in space, as long as they stay in the sun and warm enough. See my answer on [How to flood the entire lunar surfaces?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/59399/how-to-flood-the-entire-lunar-surfaces/59426#59426) Also ionic liquids are totally unnatural.
[Answer]
Not in liquid form. It would be gas or ice. I am going to echo another sentiment--you could certainly create technology that allowed for artificial liquid rings, if they are necessary to worldbuilding.
[Answer]
A [gas torus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_torus) sounds more similar to what you want then a standard planetary ring. It might be possible at least in theory to have a thick enough torus that along its core the gas could condense. You would need the planet to have a very strong magnetic field (or even better, replace it with a neutron star). You also need a moon inside the torus that constantly leaches atmosphere into the torus to compensate for what it loses to space. In order to get liquids from the planet into the torus significant volcanism might be an answer.
An example of this concept taken to its extreme is the [The Integral Trees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Integral_Trees). In it the torus is mostly composed of gas, but it does have globules of liquid water interspersed so I guess it in itself would serve as an answer to your question.
[Answer]
**One mongo molecule to rule them all.**
I will venture here into heady speculation, because I want a liquid ring.
A liquid should have a boiling point. The higher the molecular weight, the higher the barrier to turn these molecules to gas. Consider [hydrocarbons](https://quizlet.com/193128337/crude-oil-hydrocarbons-and-fractional-distillation-flash-cards/). Low molecular weight hydrocarbons are volatile, like gasoline. High molecular weight hydrocarbons are nonvolatile, like asphalt. For really big polymers the heat necessary to boil is in excess of that which breaks down the intermolecular bonds - especially in the presence of oxygen.
So: we can have long polymers which do not boil. I propose the ring be made of such molecules. The ring may, in fact, be one enormous planet-girdling cross linked polymeric molecule. Boilproof. Are enormous macroscopic single molecules possible? Go look at your car's tires. How big could a car tire be?
But it must be liquid. That can be achieved by tweaking the flexibilty of the main chain and the strength of the crosslinks between loops of this asphalt like polysilane-like chain. Heat will be imparted by any nearby heat source, like a star or the planet. With no volatility, shedding heat will rely on radiation alone, and this giant polymer ring in orbit will become very warm. Warmed to a fluctuant fluidity!
] |
[Question]
[
There's a [Kardashev scale](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale) in which Earth civilisation is at 0 (the lowest) level with all following levels being purely hypothetical and describing civilisations more advanced than human.
Is there any known anti-Kardashev scale, that describes civilisations in lesser stage of development than the current Earth one? An example could be the one that in Star Trek falls into Prime Directive. But is it described in such detail level, as in the original Kardashev scale (with established certain factors, precisely describing, when a particular civilisation will reach a particular level)?
Or do I have to discover such scale a myself, for my world, that consists of many civilisations at lower levels of development than our current one?
[Answer]
As mentioned in the article, Kardashev does not have to be discrete. Sagan provided a formula so that the Kardashev Scale is continuously defined. On that scale, present-day Earth comes out as a 0.7 civilization.
Sagan also proposed pairing that numerical value with a letter to indicate the cumulative information content of a civilization. If I remember correctly, an A or a B civilization would have about as much knowledge as the ancient Greeks, and a Z civilization would have knowledge of the entire universe.
It sounds like what you want, though, is a discrete scale tied to cultural achievements. I can think of three examples.
1. "Omnitrends Universe" scale. I saw this listed on the [Atomic Rocket "Future History" page](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/futurehistory.php), in the "Cyclical History" section. It's apparently from a computer game named "Omnitrends Universe".
* 0 - Pre-Cultural - Clans, tribes, no politics. A chaos of primitive expression.
* 1 - Feudalism - Rural art, naturally shaped. Warriors and Priests in power.
* 2 - Breakdown of Feudalism - Exhaustion of early art forms, the Reformation.
* 3 - Formation of Aristocratic States - Mature art, new forms of math, philosophical world views and puritanical religions opposed to growing absolutism.
* ...
* 9 - Final Political Form - The world as a spoil. Primitive human conditions thrusting up into the highly civilized mode of living.
2. "Spore" scale: the stages in the video game [*Spore*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spore_(2008_video_game)#Stages). It covers a larger range than you're looking for.
* Cell
* Creature
* Tribal
* Civilization
* Space
3. "9 Stages of Civilization". Often misattributed to Alexander Tytler on the internet.
1. Bondage
2. Spiritual faith
3. Great courage
4. Liberty
5. Abundance
6. Selfishness
7. Complacency
8. Apathy
9. Dependence
Unfortunately it's cyclical and not very descriptive.
[Answer]
As already stated in another answer, the Kardashev scale was interpolated by Carl Sagan to admit non-integer values. The formula would be the following:
In this formula, K is the Kardashev's rating and P is the power the civilization uses, in Watts. This actually means that we could rate whatever civilization we want: the power will never be negative, so the logarithm in base 10 of it will always be defined. Given this scale, we can establish the minimum on a civilization of type -0.6.
Wikipedia states that:
>
> **World energy consumption** refers to the total energy used by all of human civilization.
>
>
> Typically measured per-year, it involves all energy harnessed from every energy source we use, applied towards humanity's endeavors across every industrial and technological sector, across every country. Being the power source metric of civilization, World Energy Consumption has deep implications for humanity's social-economic-political sphere.
>
>
>
As for that,
* A prehistoric civilization will have an almost 0 energy consumption (the only energy source is fire), and thus will be a civilization of **type -0.6**.
* A civilization of **type 0** will consume about 10^6 Watts.
Since the industrial revolution, the data of the world consumption is available:
*(Credit to <http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/03/12/world-energy-consumption-since-1820-in-charts/>)*
The ~20 EJ/year on 1820 are about 0.63 TW = 6.3 \* 10^11 W. That is a civilization of **type 0.6**.
All that data means that if you can approximately determine the energy consumption of your civilization, you can give it a value in the Kardashev scale.
[Answer]
This is my personal list out of my head. It is based on ability to store and transmit information.
1. Pre-intelligent - No way to effectively communicate with members of same species.
2. Basic communication - Efficient communication with same species.
3. Writing and reading - Ability to store information.
4. Printing press - Heightened ability to store and copy information.
5. Global network - Ability to send message to any other member of same species. Corresponds to colonization of Americas.
6. Steam power - Decreased latency and increased reliability of sending messages (trains and steamboats for messaging).
7. Electricity - More decrease in latency (wired communication) or increased reach of information (radio).
8. Digitalization - Ability to store and copy information at almost zero cost and time. Ability to transfer information at zero latency and perfect reliability.
The Kardashev scale takes over after that.
[Answer]
As promised, here is the table it used. Not sure where I found / modified it, so if anyone recognizes let me know and I will give proper attribution for it.
```
value technology magic
0 stone age no use of magic
1 copper age undisciplined casting, hedge wizards
2 bronze age
3 split of magic into schools, start of professions
4 iron I start of alchemy and item creation
5 iron II knowledge of arcane, initial utilization of primal forces
6
7 steel complete control of primal forces, arcane as a school
8 pre-industrial
9 integration of magic and technology
10 industrial all population are casters of some sort
```
As I re-read the table, I suspect that I highly modified the magic column for the game that I was playing at that time (Rolemaster). Hope this helps somewhat.
] |
[Question]
[
The [NASA Vehicle Assembly Building](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Assembly_Building) and the proposed [Nazi Volkshalle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkshalle) are cited to be "big enough for weather systems to form inside them".
>
> The building has at least 10,000 tons of air conditioning equipment, including 125 ventilators on the roof supported by four large air handlers (four cylindrical structures west of the building) to keep moisture under control. Air in the building can be completely replaced every hour. The interior volume of the building is so vast that it has its own weather, including "rain clouds form[ing] below the ceiling on very humid days",[8] which the moisture reduction systems are designed to minimize.
>
>
>
The same problem would undoubtedly occur to spaceships, which would also suffer from the problem of interior cloud formation.
How large can an indoor chamber (i.e. a bubble habitat, spaceship) become before it will start to rain indoors due to condensation? Assume 50% RH in the air at ground level, for the purposes of this question, as such habitats are almost certainly going to be humidity controlled.
[Answer]
**A 250m high building will generate clouds at 50% R.H.**
Relative humidity fluctuates with temperature. Thanks to the way it is measured (partial pressure of water vapor divided by the equilibrium partial pressure of water vapor), if any section of the atmosphere hits 100%, it begins condensing.
The key to creating condensation and rain is to have areas of warmer temperature and areas of colder temperature. The warmer temperatures can have a low relative humidity, low enough to evaporate water off of surfaces and people. The colder temperatures can have a high relative humidity at the same partial pressures, allowing it to condense.
For a moment, let's ignore condensation onto surfaces, which can easily be cold enough to condense water in any building, not just big ones. Lets concentrate on cloud formation, which requires a 100% relative humidity mid air. We'll ignore the requirement for nucleation sites like dust; those will be easy to come by.
For your question, we need to determine how large a building needs to be to generate a temperature gradient sufficient to have 50% RH at the bottom and 100% RH at the top (bottom-to-top because natural convection will create the temperature gradient in that direction).
**Step 1: $\Delta T$ required to create the required equilibrium ratio**
I'm going to use the Arden-Buck equation. Why? Its simple enough in form, and Wikipedia recommends it (and who wouldn't want to use their recommendation ;) )
$$e^\*\_w = (1.0007 + 3.46 \times 10^{-6} P) \times (6.1121) e^{\left(\frac {17.502 T} {240.97 + T}\right)}$$
(Like all empirical equations, units are specified: Pressure is in hectopascals (absolute), temperature is in Celsius)
We are interested in a case where pressures are [roughly] constant and the equilibrium pressure of water vapor is twice as high where it is warm as where it is cold. Using these two data points, we get
$$ 2 = \frac{e^{\left(\frac {17.502 T\_{warm}} {240.97 + T\_{warm}}\right)}}{e^{\left(\frac {17.502 T\_{cold}} {240.97 + T\_{cold}}\right)}}$$
Let $f(T) = \frac {17.502 T} {240.97 + T}$ for readability
$$ 2 = \frac{e^{f(T\_{warm})}}{e^{f(T\_{warm}-\Delta T)}} $$
Bugger: two variables. I'm being quick here, so lets assume $T\_{warm} = 23 ^\circ C$. Now I get even lazier and turn to Wolfram Alpha to solve this for me
$$ \Delta T = 10.9759 \approx 11 ^\circ C$$
These were empirical equations anyway. Now we know we need a 11 degree difference in temperature from top to bottom.
**Step 2: Thermal Transfer**
We're going to assume there is no air conditioning circulating air. The example has air conditioning, but they also point out that clouds are forming on "very humid days," and [Florida averages for R.H](http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Florida/humidity-annual.php) easily clear 80%, so "very humid" is a high bar. Let's assume this higher R.H. and the presence of air conditioning cancel out, so that we can tackle the simpler problem of a building with clouds at 50% R.H. with no A/C
For this we will need one more number: how much heat is generated at the warm side of the room. [Kennedy space center consumes an average of 725TJ per year](http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/energyInfo.htm), or 23MW continuously. Arbitrarily assuming 1/50th of the center's power goes to the building in question (based on [me squinting my eyes at their map](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center#mediaviewer/File:Ksc-28-804rev200908.png) and a lot of fudge factors), there is a .46MW rate of power consumption in the building. Because I've got so many fudge factors already, I'm just going to round that to .5MW or 500kW.
The VAB is 34453m2 in surface area, meaning each square meter averages 14W of heat output. Now we have every number we need to determine the minimum height of a building to dissipate 14W/m2 with a 11 degree temperature gradient.
As long as the building is large enough to support convection (which any building of this scale should easily accomplish), we can measure the heat transfer by mass-flow rates.
We have an [equation for mass flow in a convection scenario](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/convective-heat-source-d_1007.html):
$$Q = c\_2 P^{1/3} l^{5/3} $$
Where $Q$ is the volumetric flow rate in $m^3/s$, $c\_2$ is an application specific coefficient, usually 0.06, $P$ is the heating power from the source in kW, and $l$ is the distance available above the heat source in m. Treating our per-unit-area terms as though they were individual heaters.
The heat transfer from the heater source on the floor must be the same as the heat transfer done by the air to the roof, which is volumetric flow with a known temperature
$$P = Q \* s\_{air} \* 11 ^\circ C \approx 0.0091\frac{kW-s}{m^3} \* Q$$
$$ Q = 109\frac{m^3}{kW-s} \* P $$
Combining these equations around Q (the only remaining unknown), we get
$$ 109\frac{m^3}{kW-s} \* P = c\_2 P^{1/3} l^{5/3} $$
from here it is simply a solution $l = 249.248 m \approx 250m $
**Thus, after way too much work and far too many variables, a 250m high building will be sufficient to generate clouds at 50% R.H. at the ground level**.
Interestingly enough, the VAB is only 160m tall. However, remember that all of these numbers were based around a notional R.H. of 50%. Given their higher R.H, it would be easy for this minimum height to change. There are also perhaps a half-dozen number I had to pull from thin air along the way. These are also potential sources of clouds at smaller heights.
] |
[Question]
[
[This question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/416/city-in-a-hollow-tree-ensuring-realism) is about big trees that can contain an entire city.
So generally speaking:
What limits a plant's size, anything from a tree to a flowering plant?
What environment needs to exist for a daisy to become the size of a dinner table (for example)?
For the purpose of this question you should assume a reasonably conventional environment similar to that found here on Earth. For discussion of low and zero gravity plants you can visit [this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/475/what-effect-would-have-a-radical-gravity-change-on-plants-and-fungus).
[Answer]
Anything is possible.
# Transport
The major factor in the size of a plant is how far and can get water and food to the various parts of the plants. Water is more important because food can be produced by leaves almost anywhere in the plant. Massive trees like Redwoods get the extra water they need by absorbing it through their leaves, instead of bringing it all the way up from the roots. This makes massive non-vascular plants near impossible.
# Lifespan
Plants have a certain lifespan. Something like a daisy doesn't grow as big as a dinner plate because it dies. Its DNA declares that it dies after it has produced its seeds. A Redwood, on the other hand, can live many, many years, so they can grow very big. The plant needs to be able to live a long lifespan, without getting eaten, to grow big. While it is possible that plant could grow very fast, it would need very good conditions (practically infinte amounts of food and water), and the need to do it. Generally larger plant doesn't die as easily, and can more easily produce seeds, the ultimate goal of most plants.
# Structure
A plant needs to have the proper structure for its size. A large plant needs to be vascular, with roots, stems and leaves. This allows it to transport large amounts water and food to the necessary places. The plant also needs to have the correct size of stem and branches. A Redwood has a massize trunk (stem). Redwoods don't stand up on the stems of daisies.
## Daisies
To better illustrate my points, I'll explain how the example could be done. A daisy, with its exact genetic could and build, could not grow to the size of a dinner plate. While technically it could transport the water and food needed, it would not live long enough to grow that big, nor would it be able to support its size.
Flowers as big as dinner plates do exist, but they generally sit on the ground. For a daisy-like plant to have that big a flower, it would need a massive, probably wood like, stem. It would likely take a long time to grow. Which breaks the lifespan rule. For it to make sense for a daisy to grow this long, the plant would have to be perennial, meaning it would die over the winter. This plant would be closer to a tree than a daisy. After it reached a certain size, it might produce large, daisy-like flowers. It would probably produce 1 flower per year, and release hundreds of seeds every year. But you probably wouldn't call the plant a daisy.
[Answer]
It's conceivable that a plant that is able to acquire nutrients and moisture as it grows (rather than from a central root) would be able to just keep growing *horizontally* until it runs out of space or dies. Vertically it would be constrained by its ability to support itself and to draw water.
A daisy in particular doesn't grow to the size of a dinner plate because the complex set of biochemical processes that cause a daisy to grow the way it does and to become a daisy rather than say a water buffalo result in it growing to be daisy sized and then stopping.
A simple scaling of a daisy would cause the same square-cube problems as scaling pretty much anything. Doubling the linear dimensions of a daisy would make it 4 times stronger, but 8 times heavier. A dinner plate sized daisy would collapse under its own weight.
We could selectively breed daisies to get bigger, but as they did, we'd need to breed them to support their new size. A daisy bred to be dinner plate sized would need to have a radically different structure from a a scaled up daisy (Stem would need to get thicker faster than the other scaling, a tougher woodier composition, restructuring the head to be lighter for its size, etc.)
[Answer]
DonyorM has made some good points, but I feel that I should add that the limiting factors in the height of trees (the tallest plants known to us) are many:
1. Trees grow tall in response to competition for light. The tallest trees occur in forests, not out on the plains, even though the two may be the same species or even genetically identical individuals. So, a tree need not be much taller than the tallest of its neighbors.
2. In order to grow, a tree must acquire the required energy. Leaves can only cram in so much chlorophyll into a given volume (which must be thin to maximize light absorption), and chlorophyll can only catch a fraction of the available energy and use it to photosynthesize Carbon dioxide and water to glucose, which the tree can use as an energy source. As a tree grows larger, it must provide energy to more living but non-photosynthesizing wood, and there reaches a point where the energy available is all going to keeping the tree alive, and there is none to spare for further growth.
3. In trees, water makes its way from the roots to the leaves by transpiration, the water flowing up narrow vessels. The combination of transpiration, root pressure and capillary action in the vessels can account for water columns of up to 1.5km in height in terrestrial conditions. However, the higher the water column, the more likely it will break (particularly when there is a lack of groundwater), rendering the vessel useless for transporting more water.
4. The taller the tree becomes, the wider its base must become in order to support its own weight. This again depends on gravity and the density and compressive strength of the wood.
So, given sufficient competition for light, if a more efficient photosynthetic pigment or combination of pigments was used, and the wood was strong and light, there would be no reason why a tree couldn't reach a height on the order of several hundred to a kilometer in height, perhaps more. Such trees would have very thick bases and may well live in very wet areas in order to provide the amount of water that would be required.
[Answer]
Beyond enviromental reasons. There are very important genetic reasons, It has been proven in a few species in special a poblar tree that the PXY kinase receptor and its peptide ligand CLE 41 regulate the cambial cell division which is seen as growth in heigh and volume yearly. Altering the expression on this two elements does modify how much a tree grows and how much it increases volume every year as per its genetics. Altering this two elements in a tree can double the rates of growth for a tree in same environemental conditions. Please see reference "<http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2900162-1>"
[Answer]
Can a daisy grow to as large as a dinner plate?
Yes. [Dinner-plate sized daisies](https://www.infogalactic.com/info/Asteraceae) are called sunflowers.
] |
[Question]
[
In my story, reasonably far in the future, an intrepid group of explorers are on the first manned mission to the Andromeda galaxy, travelling close to the speed of light. They slumbered in suspended animation for thousands of years, in their frame of reference (to a stationary observer, it would have been much longer), but were awakened by the ship's systems after an error somewhere in the bowels of the computer sent the ship off course. The main computers are down, and the crew don't know what year it is or where exactly they are. They can make some basic distance measurements by looking at the angular sizes of Andromeda and the Milky Way, but not to great precision.
Fortunately, the ship is equipped with a telescope, and the main engineer happens to be an ex-astronomer. The backup navigational system relies on manual observations of [Cepheid variables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable), stars that have a fixed relationship between their pulsational periods and their absolute magnitudes. The ship has a database of the positions of nearby dwarf galaxies, and by observing Cepheids in four of these galaxies (using multiple Cepheids in each galaxy, to reduce measurement error), and determining their periods and apparent magnitudes, the crew can calculate the distance to each galaxy. Using trilateration, these measurements can then help them figure out where exactly they are, to greater precision.
Eventually, they'll discover that they are, fortunately, still in in the [Local Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group), about 500,000 parsecs from the Milky Way and 400,000 parsecs from Andromeda, placing them off course. However, they're still firmly within the galaxy group.
This is my current proposal for an ad-hoc improvised navigational system for when something goes wrong on the ship. I'm not looking for other options at the moment, but I'd like to know whether or not this is plausible, and what problems I haven't thought about.
To be explicit, here are some of the things I'm concerned about (although there may be other problems):
* The speed of the ship means that light from the stars would be highly red-shifted (if $v=0.99c$, then $z=13.11$, which is *enormous*). I would hope this could be corrected for, but it's still fairly extreme.
* I really don't know for sure how much metallicity variations in the Cepheid populations would affect the observations.
* We've detected extragalactic Cepheids from Earth; Edwin Hubble used them to measure the distance to Andromeda. This makes me think that detecting Cepheids from intergalactic space is possible, but it's highly dependent on the telescope being used.
**Is my method realistic, or are there some major problems I haven't thought of, like the points I raised above?**
---
**Note:** I'm not asking for general methods for how to find the location of my ship. That's been discussed quite a lot (at least for interstellar travel) in [How can I know where to point my spaceship?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/120255/627), [Stellar Navigation for Dummies - Finding your way home](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/91713/627), and other related questions. This means I'm not interested in answers involving alternative methods such as triangulation or networks of pulsars - just Cepheids, as the question says. Please don't digress into these!
[Answer]
# Challenges
From my perspective, the biggest challenge is whether or not you can actually observe any Cepheids. If you are hundreds of thousands of parsecs from the Milky Way, then you won't be able to see the (many of) the Cepheids that we know from our current databases. Also a concern is orientation. If we looked at the Milky Way end on, in the plane of the galaxy, even from relatively nearby, we would have trouble resolving stars other than the ones nearest us. It would be much better to look for us to be looking along the axis of a galaxy for variable stars. Of course, not all galaxies have a clean axis, in that case we'd want to be looking at it from the same relative direction as the Milky Way.
So from this perspective, we want to find a large quantity of far away Cepheid variables to ensure that we can observe them. We'll specifically look for Cepheids outside of the Local Group; these stars should be visible to our intrepid explorers since both the distance and viewing angle of these stars will be relatively unaffected by even 500,000 pc of distance.
# Available data
There are plenty! I went through some star catalogues and found...
* There are 34 good quality [Cepheids in NGC 1365](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/307002/fulltext/38461.text.html) at 18 Mpc.
* NGC 2090 at 12.3 Mpc away has [34 more Cepheids](http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/305766/fulltext/37288.text.html).
* 27 [Cepheids in IC 4182](http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1992ApJ...401L...7S/L000007.000.html) have been spotted at 5.0 Mpc. Note, here a distance was given as a distance modulus (m - M) of 28.47, which I solved using m - M = 5log d - 5; where d is distance in parsecs, and the log is base 10. I only bring this up in case I messed up the calculation.
* [NGC 300](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_300) at ~1.9 Mpa has 16 [identified Cepheids](https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0503626.pdf).
# How good is your telescope?
Basically, there are a lot of good, viable Cephids in just about every galaxy that you look in. For all four of the papers linked, the source was Hubble. So as long as you have a 2.4 m telescope (or futuristic equivalent) and 70 minutes of exposure time; and as long as your computer can do the redshift calculations, you should be good.
# Conclusion
I was researching a part of Cepheid extinction, but I left it out since it doesn't seem relevant. You don't need to find specific Cepheids, you just need to find some of them. The galaxies outside the local group won't change perceptably in distance from each other in a few thousand years, and the galaxies that we are currently able to find Cepheids in are very far away, even compared to the distance that you would be from the Milky Way.
As long as you have a present day ability to detect Cepheids (highly telescope dependent!) then you should be able to put together your location in a couple of days.
[Answer]
**One additional problem**
The field of view of your telescope will be severely affected in addition to the red shift at 0.99 C. One thing that you will have to overcome is the [severe distortion of all images](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrell_rotation) that come into the telescope will be concentrated almost into a single point the images will then be pretty much indistinguishable from each other. You would have to slow to non relativistic speeds in order to make useful observations in the first place.
[Answer]
Your method could work, although I am not certain how accurate it will be.
IMHO astronomical techniques to measure angles are much more precise than astronomical techniques to measure apparent magnitude, calculate absolute magnitude, and calculate the distance from the difference. So the question is whether using Cepheid variables will ever become more precise than astrometric techniques measuring the angles to various astromonical objects.
I doubt that an expedition to the Andromeda galaxy that takes thousands of years with the crew in suspended animation will be the very first interstellar expedition using a newly invented faster than light drive.
For one thing, a method of suspended animation for humans will have to be invented, and it will have to be tested by successfully reviving people in suspended animation for periods of decades, centuries, or even millennia before being tried for a millennia long space expedition.
People will have to be revived with no ill effects after longer and longer and longer periods, so if the expedition to Andromeda is expected to require X thousand years in suspended animation, people should have already been revived after X thousand years in suspended animation. And it may have taken several times X thousand years for people to gradually build up to being in suspended animation for X thousand years.
Instead of the expedition to Andromeda being the very first faster than light expedition from Earth, it is much more likely that Earth humans will have explored parts of our galaxy with the faster than light drive for tens, hundreds, or thousands of years and have reached various stars that are tens, hundreds, thousands, and maybe even tens of thousands of light years from Earth by the time that they decide to send an expedition to the Andromeda Galaxy.
They might even have explored the entire Milky Way galaxy or even sent expeditions to various satellite galaxies of the Milky Way, like the Magellanic Clouds, for example, before deciding to send an expedition to the Andromeda Galaxy.
So Earth humans should be spread out across many light years and parsecs of space by the time an expedition to the Andromeda Galaxy is planned and sent.
One thing that Earth based astronomers are very good at and constantly improve at is measuring small angles accurately.
A degree of arc is 1/360 of a circle or 0.002777 of a circle, an arc minute is 1/60 of that or 0.0000462 of a circle, an arc second is 1/60 of that or 0.0000007 of a circle, a milliarcsecond is 0.001 arcsecond, a microarcsecond is 0.000001 arcsecond, and so on.
The angular size of the Moon as seen from Earth is 29.3 to 34.1 arcminutes, and the angular size of the Sun as seen from Earth is 31.6 to 32.7 arcminutes, depending on the orbital distances of the Moon from Earth and Earth from the Sun. The average resolving power of the unaided human eye is about one arcminute.
Because the Sun and other stars orbit around the center of the Galaxy with periods of about 250,000,000 years at the Sun's distance from the center, the directions between the sun and other stars change slowly, a change that change is called the proper motion of the stars. Proper motion was suspected but not proven until 1718, and then astronomers began searching for and measuring proper motion more and more accurately.
The distance from Earth to the Sun varies during Earth's elliptical orbit around the Sun, but is defined as an Astronomical Unit, or AU, of 149,597,870.7 kilometers. At any one moment, Earth is in one specific direction as seen from the Sun, and exactly half a year later Earth is in the exact opposite direction as seen from the Sun and about two Astronomical units from its previous position.
A unit called a parsec, first defined about 1913, is the distance at which one AU would appear to be cover a single arcsecond. A parsec is about 206,264.806 astromical units, or about 3.261 light years. If an astronomical object was exactly one parsec from the Sun, it would appear to move by two arcseconds when measured from Earth at two times half a year apart, and would be said to have a parallax of one arcsecond.
In the late 1830s astronomers tried measuring the parallaxes of various stars with large proper motions, that were probably close to Earth, and succeeded in measuring the parallaxes of 61 Cygni at about 3.948 parsecs, Alpha Centauri at about 1.34 parsecs, and Vega at about 7.68 parsecs.
Since then techniques for measuring smaller and smaller angles, and thus measuring smaller and smaller parallaxes and greater and greater distances, have been developed. The Hipparchos satellite measured the parallaxes of over 100,000 stars to an accuracy of 0.002 arcsecond between 1989 and 1993, while the Gaia satellite launched in 2013 is supposed to get parallaxes with an accuracy of 20 microarcseconds or 0.00002 arcseconds.
One method of increasing the accuracy of parallax measurements of distant stars is to increase the length of the baseline by taking measurements from distance regions of the solar system.
And once a faster than light space drive is invented, the accuracy of parallax measurements of distant stars can be increased 206,264.806 times by making observations from two observatories in interstellar space 2 parsecs apart on opposite sides of the solar system with a baseline 206,264.806 times as long as Earth or satellite based observations.
Orbiting near Earth, the Gaia satellite is expected to measure parallaxes with an accuracy of 10 percent out to the distance of the galactic center, which is about 8,090 plus or minus 310 parsecs, or 26,400 plus or minus 1,000 light years. Putting exact copies of the Gaia satellite 2 parsecs apart would increase the distance that parallaxes are accurate to 10 percent by 206,264.806 times, out to distances of about hundreds of millions of parsecs and light years.
Putting copies of the Gaia satellite at 2,000 parsecs apart would increase the accuracy a thousand times better than that. So by the time that an expedition is sent to the Andromeda Galaxy the distances to all the major stars, nebulae, and other important objects in our galaxy and nearby galaxies like the Andromeda Galaxy should have been measured very precisely.
So if the crew of a ship headed from our galaxy to the Andromeda Galaxy need to measure their position in space, they can try precisely measuring the angles to different astronomical bodies.
for example, the angles to the super massive black holes at the centers of the Milky Way Galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy, and the more distant galaxy M87 in the Virgo Star Cluster can be very precisely measured.
If the spaceship is not on a straight line between the centers of the Milky Way and Andromeda Galaxies, their super massive black holes will not be exactly 180 degrees apart as seen from the space ship.
By measuring the the angles to the two super massive black holes, they might determine that the spaceship is 5 degrees off of a straight line between them as measured from the Milky Way's black hole and 1 degree off that straight line as measured from Andromeda's Galaxy's black hole. So the spaceship should be on the surface of a five degree angle cone around the line with the cone's point at the Milky Way's black hole and also on the surface of a one degree angle cone around the line with it's point at Andromeda's galaxy's black one. And the spaceship thus must be somewhere in a circle where the two cones intersect.
And if they make the same sort of calculations with the super massive black holes at the centers of the Milky Way and M87 galaxies, they can fix their position on another circle where two cones intersect, and there should be only one or two points where the two circles intersect.
There are several hundred globular star clusters in the various galaxies in the local group, and the angles to globular star clusters can be measured almost as precisely to those of super massive black holes. So finding the angles to two or more globular star clusters in the Andromeda Galaxy and two or more globular star clusters in the Milky Way Galaxy, for example, should enable them to fix their position fairly accurately.
And if they measure the angle to some astronomical body, perhaps the one selected to be their destination in the Andromeda Galaxy, very precisely, and then move the ship one parsec in a direction \*0 degrees away from the direction to that object, and then remeasure the angle to that object, the difference in the angles will be the parallax and thus the distance of that object.
According to my knowledge of the current state of astronomy, the measurement of angles to find position in space is much more advanced and precise than the calculation of distance by the difference between the measured apparent magnitude and estimated absolute magnitude of an astronomical body. Of course once the distances and absolute magnitudes of Cepheid variables is known much more precisely due to more advance parallaxes, using them as distance indicators will become much more precise, but I do not know if it will every catch up and surpass the accuracy of parallax measurements.
And see these questions:
[How to find earth's relative position anywhere in the galaxy without any markers or brute force exploration?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120295/how-to-find-earths-relative-position-anywhere-in-the-galaxy-without-any-markers/120391#120391)[1](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120295/how-to-find-earths-relative-position-anywhere-in-the-galaxy-without-any-markers/120391#120391)
[How can I know where to point my spaceship?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120255/how-can-i-know-where-to-point-my-spaceship/120278#120278)[2](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/120255/how-can-i-know-where-to-point-my-spaceship/120278#120278)
[How would an astronaut conclude he's on Earth, but 600 million years in the future?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/83817/how-would-an-astronaut-conclude-hes-on-earth-but-600-million-years-in-the-futu/83879#83879)[3](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/83817/how-would-an-astronaut-conclude-hes-on-earth-but-600-million-years-in-the-futu/83879#83879)
<https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/70015/m-a-golding>[4](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/users/70015/m-a-golding)
[Answer]
I think this method is feasible, but however still quite coarse.
If we can measure the distance of a star with 1 light year precision (and I am pretty sure that is already a pretty accurate measurement), all the related and inferred measurement will have an indetermination of the same magnitude.
And 1 light year is 9500 billion km, or 63k AU... still precise when you compare it to the size of a galaxy, fairly inaccurate if you have to move within something the size of our solar system.
By measuring more Cepheids they can increase accuracy, maybe to something around 1000 or 100 AU (a factor 10 or 100, respectively). Still, it would be more than a good approximation for inter-galactic, not for inter-planetary navigation.
[Answer]
Yes it is. There are a current list of known pulsars with very unique qualities, including one that is so accurate on the pulse period, it is considered the most accurate time telling device known to man. The periods will vary from a few seconds to two or three minutes so it's quite possible to look for three pulsars to triangulate your position from anywhere in the universe where they can be detected by your sensors.
Edit: Having read up a little more, my answer is no, not as the lone mapping device. The problem is the pulse period is probably too long for a course correction within a day. The best documented example pulses anywhere between a few days to a few months at a time, depending on which ones you are looking at. There are also problems with precision with distance, and can be off by as much as 7,500 light years. Basically, too slow and in-precises to facilitate a quick navigation, but if you're willing to hang out in one spot for a few years... To be sure you're looking at the right types of pulsing. There are a few types that are prone to irregular pulsing and possibly some that may be prone to starting and stopping... not sure on that bit... which will cause delays. You can cut the years time delay down by having their pulse signatures and periods saved, but again, this may still result in a few months to find before you can set course.
Now, if they are sort of way points, and you use other methods for better course setting, you can resolve this by finding a few quick pulses and using those to triangulate your position. As I mentioned in pulsars, we used 14 to identify our location relative to them on Voyager, so more than half a dozen is not a bad idea. Say use the Cepheids to find a general direction to point the telescope to find a more accurate landmark.
[Answer]
I could be wrong but I think not knowing when they've woken up, especially on the time scales of intergalactic travel will be a huge issue.
They definitely could make good course decisions on this basis if they knew when it was with a reasonable degree of certainty but with no good time *or* position fix I'm not sure if they can work this. Galaxies have high relative velocities, often with very high [proper motions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion) getting a good fix without knowing how much time has past will be awkward. You'll be able to get a pretty solid range estimate to each individual dwarf but their relative positions will be off to varying degrees depending how off you are with your time estimate. You end up knowing where you are relative to a bunch of points that aren't where you think they should be relative to each other and your destination.
Realistically if they're aiming at Andromeda it makes more sense to start the mission with a set of distinct landmarks, like Cepheids, supernova remnants (nebulae, neutron stars, pulsars), radio sources, quasars, supergaints, and what have you that can be combined to produce both a time fix (by interpolating the current beat pattern of many multiple fixed period beacons) and a navigational fix based on the position of multiple landmarks that are closer together and moving far slower relative to each other.
] |
[Question]
[
The hypothetical world is for all intents and purposes earth or very close to it.
So what would the effects be if the magnetic field were either stronger from the start of the planet, or if the magnetic field suddenly became much stronger on a existing planet.
I already know that the planet would receive less solar radiation (possibly eliminating auroras), but other than that I don't know what else it would do, except maybe confuse animals sensitive to the earths magnetic field.
I'm looking for answers on how this might affect the evolution of life and technology, as well as the affects on both of those if the earth's magnetic field rapidly gained power.
I would like to know the affects of that a change would have from a minor one, up to a change sufficient to wipe out humanity. I'm not sure what substantial effects a powerful magnetic field could have but it seems to me that any force in a large enough amount would be able to have catastrophic effects.
[Answer]
Just some ideas off the top of may head:
I don't think a planet with a magnetic field strong enough to kill would be plausible naturally. Your talking about a huge amount of energy to generate such a field, likely the crust would be molten if that much energy was inside the planet.
The earth's magnetic field strength is about 0.5 Gauss and that of an MRI upwards to 30,000. Strong enough to yank a thousand pounds sideways at about 25ft or more.
Based on the fact that you stick humans in a 30,000 Gauss field with no will effects, most biological effects directly on life forms can be discounted.
The major effects would be very large and dense radiation belts that would trap ionic particles. These might be visible in they grew dense enough and might reduce insolation. At the poles, they could funnel dangerous amounts of radiation to the ground.
The in-fall would produce a lot of radio noise, possible jamming virtually all frequencies all the time. Aurora would be huge and constant, possibly blotting out the stars entirely.
But a lot of cosmic radiation would be blocked which is one of the primary producers of DNA mutation so variation would decrease and evolution would slow.
Cosmic rays also play a key part in the formation of ice crystals at high altitudes, so weather and climate would be affected but how I don't know.
Such a field might attract ferric meteorites towards the poles until they heat atmosphere and but heat of reentry sending them past their Currie point and shutting of the meteorite attraction to magnetic fields. When they hit and cooled however, a 30,000 Gauss field might be enough to make the tumble along like tumble weeds.
In geology, magnetic materials are rare in nature. To be magnetic, a material must be in some from of crystal matrix because the field develops between the paired electrons of atoms, not with them. The covalently bonded single atom of iron in hemoglobin, for example, is not magnetic. If it were, an MRI would be a very unpleasant experience. Only meteoric iron and lodestones are the only naturally occurring magnetic ores of iron.
The plasma channels of lighting would likely be constantly deflected sideways. This might lead to greater charge differentials developing between the clouds and the ground if the lighting can't jump the gap until it grows monstrously strong. In any case, lighting will strike far off to the side of the storm. Lighting might equalize charges within the clouds and ground for a long tie until a megaton lighting bolt finally jumps between. Ground lighting might shoot along the ground from hill top to hilltop.
Animal life would likely widely employ magnetic navigation using lode stones in specialized neurons like migratory birds do. On earth, the lodestones only provide a bearing if you travel a few hundred miles. On the super-field planet it would provide information constantly. In addition such a field could provide not only direction north south but also latitude by measuring the up-down deflection as the field curved. In principle, it could be used to measure altitude as well as bearing.
Animals might be far more wide ranging as a matter of course being much better able to navigate back home. Scent might play less of role in laying markers for navigation.
I think, but will have to check that electrical sensing, like that used by sharks, would be more powerful and longer range. Animals that generated strong electrical currents, such as electric eels might find themselves yanked around when they tried to deploy the current. On the other hand, they might use it as a means of sudden propulsion instead.
Spontaneous electrical currents in seawater or wet earth would be much stronger. These current arise when ionic charges such a Na+ move in the water across the fields. Trivial on earth but at 30,000 guass much less so. Plants might tap these currents for energy
In terms of technology, iron tools would be hard to use as they would pull constantly towards the poles. Copper, brass and bronze would be the primary metals. If you shot an iron or steel arrow, it take off towards the nearest pole very quickly.
On such a planet, iron projectiles might be super weapon as long as you could move the things (keeping hot past their currie point would work) then place them side of the target opposite the pole, then let it cool let go.
However, it would be easy to make a generator. Just a hoop of wire stuck up perpendicular to the field and spun by a water wheel would generate a significant current. Conversely, ambient impedance (electromagnetic friction) would be enormous, draining power from any long wires used to transmit power.
For a motor, like a generator, you'd just need the rotor and could use the ambient field as the magnets. The motors would have to aligned with the field at all times and you'd have to put them in a gimbal to use them in a vehicle.
With a 30,000 gauss field you could probably "sail" by using electromagnets to pull or push from the poles. By adjusting the relative strengths of the magnets north/south and the force vectors they exert on the vehicle, I'm pretty sure you could get any vector you wished in a 360 degree arc except maybe perfectly perpendicular to the field lines.
Such a craft might have a vertical windmill with generator rotors inside generating current to an electromagnet. Or not, as the generator would cause a lot of friction against the field, possibly more than the electromagnets could overcome (no-free-lucnh.) Such a magnet would need a ferrous core so they would probably have to use heat to turn it off completely.
Such a craft might make use of aluminum and other diamagnetic materials that are repelled by magnetic fields (that's how the aluminum separator in a recycling plant works, ferric metals go one way diamagnetic go the other.
There is a powerful ground wave in the earth that is used for some radio frequencies and it strongly affected by solar storms and thus the magnetic field. I do not know the details but it might be possible to harvest the ground wave for power just by sticking conductors in the earth. I think Tesla worked on that but abandoned it because the field strength was to low (but again, don't remember the details.)
If you do want to look build a world with a wildly powerful magnetic field, I'd suggest investigating magnetar. These are neutron stars that spin so fast their magnetic fields are extremely powerful, enough to stretch atoms out into thin lines.
With stellar systems looking fairly unstable these days, you could postulate a system that forms from two other systems, one with a magnetarand one with a terrestrial world, the systems collide capturing a magnetar in a planetary orbit. Then a terrestrial world could get swept up as moon of the magnetar. Even at great distances, the magnetar's field would affect the planet. If the planets pole of rotation was largely perpendicular to the magnetar's field at the planets orbit, the fields would merge making the planet appear to have a super powerful magnetic field.
Such a field would impart a lot of energy to the planet's core leading to more vulcanism. The planet would be nearly completely immune from stellar storms and cosmic rays because the magstar would trap them all. The planet would have to be orbit above or between the magstars radiation belts.
In that case, you might have a field strong enough to fly in. Certainly, in space it would make magnetic sails a serious form of propulsion. If nothing else, you could launch radiation shielded spacecraft from directly over one of the magnetic poles.
A sudden increase of the earth's magnetic field to 30,000 gauss would have civilization wreaking effects. First, all long distance power lines would fail, likely most generators and electrical motors because the earth's field would swamp the fields of the magnets in both. Radio noise would jam most frequencies. Most electronics would fail due to increased impedance.
Great herds of junk cars would roll off towards the nearest pole. Skyscrapers would face lateral forces they were not designed for. Knives would fly through the air and guns would, for the first time in history, kill without human agency as they shot out of cabinets and bludgeon people to death.
If it happened quickly, it would be an cataclysm. If it built slowly, people could adapt in interesting ways.
[Answer]
Well, there are effects that we can predict easily:
* Putting stuff orbiting around the Earth would be harder (parasite Eddy current would have much stronger effect)
* At same time astronauts around Earth would receive much less radiations from space
* Certain metals would be heavier due to attraction caused by magnetism.
The third point already make problematic our technological evolution because carrying heavy stuff requires more effort and also it is harder to came to the conclusion that "mass" and "weight" are different things (wich is the base for all modern physics, constructions and machines building).
I would argue such a world would make easy the born of small cities with self sustained elettric reactors (cannot make long electric lines). Telecomunication becomes harder.
What about life evolution? A magnetic mantle would possibly attract certain metals, so due to different weights it is possible that concentration of certain elements at ground level is different forcing a total different life (In example, no Iron for Blood).
That is already not keeping into account the fact that to be so much magnetic the Earth core should be different in composition than it is actually.
There are also effects that we can't predict easily (for example phenomena wich we still don't know how exactly works):
* Does storms will be the same?
* Does Eddy currents would cause superficial melting of certain areas?
* Does magnetic Earth would cause different kind of storms?
Also, since things have different weights it is very possible that Earth density change possibly resulting in a slightly shorter radius and hence a slightly greater gravity wich would make a bit harder reaching the space.
That kind of Earth would certainly allows different kind of minerals to grow, so we could have more type of minerals and gems to actually inspire any sentient being.
Since current magnetic field is (believed to be) generated by movement of molten metal underground, it is possible that something able to generate a stronger magnetic field implies a faster metal current wich would also cause stronger and continuos Eearthquakes (and that would also dissipates that energy quickly so that makes me supposing that a strong magnetic field would just be temporary making a lot of catastrophic movies far from plausible)
[Answer]
It would probably disable electric devices at high enough speeds in the sudden case. For the initially stronger case the first electric devices would probably confuse a lot of scientists, since the same device doesn't work properly at other positions; this would slow down the development of mobile technologies, since they move a lot, & a strong magnetic field means a stronger electric field from movement relative to the former field, disrupting these technologies.
] |
[Question]
[
So I have struck another snag in my draft involving my character's biology. It is an anthropomorphic animal related to the pantherinae subfamily. So far, its physical structure resembles that of a human, in exception of hands, feet, tail and the head, which I find problematic. Using a human skull as a reference, carnivorous variants of the maxilla and mandible (other facial bones adjusted) are added with proportional cranial vault volume. This made the skull elongated front to back when compared to the reference.
Obviously I was faced with a weight distribution issue since the head was now much heavier. Retaining the human skull's balance on the first cervical vertebrae along with its original lumbar spine, thoracic spine, and sacral spine support, I compensated by reinforcing the nuchal ligament and surrounding connective tissue to off-set the additional weight in such a way that center of gravity from the human reference was preserved.
Will this configuration be stable enough to comfortably support the animalistic head? Or should I reposition the skull on the first cervical vertebrae? Or should I add more ligaments and connective tissue to the occipital bone?
Additional Information:
* The character is plantigrade in favor of balance and heavy lifting as
opposed to the traditional digitrade most anthropomorphic creatures
(werewolves, minotaurs etc.) have.
* The sacro-iliac joint and the lumbar curve are structured accordingly to
accommodate a tail.
* The sketch below best represents my concerns. **(Disclaimer: The sketch below
is NOT mine. I suck at drawing.)**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3EU53.jpg)
[Answer]
You do not want ligaments. **You want muscles.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pqEas.jpg)
image from [Functional variation of neck muscles and their relation to feeding style in Tyrannosauridae and other large theropod dinosaurs](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ar.20563)
---
from <https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25418-t-rex-didnt-need-proper-arms-thanks-to-its-neck/>
This article reviews research by Snively et al in which they deduce what sort of muscles T rex had in its neck and what it did with them.
>
> Many of the birds also shook their necks, and the main muscle involved
> was found in the necks of tyrannosaurs. “The shaking motion is the
> same as when a dog shakes off water,” says Snively. “We think that the
> dinosaur would have used this motion to dislodge meat from a carcass.”
>
>
> Their powerful necks could explain why tyrannosaurs had such small
> arms, says Snively. “Tyrannosaurs didn’t need big arms to hunt,
> because their powerful bites and hyper-bulldog necks did the job,” he
> says. “From the shoulders forward, T. rex was like a whole killer
> whale: just bite, shake and twist.”
>
>
> Tyrannosaur necks are also similar to crocodile necks. “We can think
> of them as striking like a bird, and shake-feeding like a crocodile,”
> says Snively.
>
>
>
Reading the Snively article, M complexus is the big muscle that did most of the work in the Trex and also the chicken. Mammals have that muscle too - in humans it is called semispinalis captius. It is one of the big ones running up the spine and attaching at the back of the skull.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eVIk1.png)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semispinalis_muscles>
I think the horse also gives a good idea about how this big muscle would support an elongated head.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/NVWe7.jpg)
<https://www.pinterest.com/pin/49398927143599016/>
So your cat person: she would have a thick, muscular neck, especially in the back of the neck and down the spine. Cats usually kill with a single killing bite, and do not feed like a Trex or killer whale or alligator. But one could feed this way, and it would be a weird kind of fierce for a big cat. Dogs are closely related carnivores and they grab and shake small prey like squirrels. Your cat person would use its huge head, muscular neck, and tall stance to grab, lift and shake large prey, breaking it.
A cat person with a cave lion head and the posture of a Trex would be something to see, and if you see fit to make such a sketch **please** link it up. The Trex is canted forward slightly because of its big head and so too your cat person. A thick tail acts a counterbalance, and one sees a similar principle at work in the kangaroo. A tail that thick would probably not be prehensile but iguana-style tail whacks would be a good way to fight conspecifics you do not want to outright kill.
[Answer]
Strengthening the nuchal ligament I think is a good move. But you're still trying to rest a massive thick boned skull on a rather puny neck and rather puny thorax. Especially with the big cats' huge "carnivorous variants of the maxilla and mandible". That will make the face itself extremely heavy and out of balance with the posterior skull.
*Question for question:*
* Have you considered decreasing the size of the face, while still retaining a big cat look? In other words, reduce the size of the fangs and the mass of the jaws and thus the mass of the muscle required to rend and tear. Kind of carnivore light?
* Have you considered utilising a more "kitten like" skull structure? Smaller, more compact structure, but still obviously feline in nature.
* Have you considered a "cat face mask"? In other words, in stead of massive bones and huge teeth, reduce the bone weight considerably, but fill out the defects with soft tissue and fur, especially patterned fur?
* Alternatively, would it be possible to seriously bulk up the body? A big gorilla sized body should be able to support a good sized cat head!
Basically, this reality check comes down to "keeping things in balance", which obviously you are aware of. I'm sure that you're heading in the right direction, but I'm not convinced that modifications to the ligament (and surrounding connective & muscle tissues) without some modifications to the face & skull will be enough.
If you're able to, a sketch would be worth a thousand words of speculation as to where exactly you are at this point!
---
**Notes on the image:**
* I see the enlarged nuchal ligament as you described. That seems in order.
* You might need to lengthen the spinous processes (the bits that stick off the posterior of the vertebrae) in order to support the enlarged ligament and posterior neck musculature.
* Overall, the skull does not appear overlarge, so would probably not pose too many issues attached to a human skeleton. Notice the overall reduction in mass of bone and muscle & manageable teeth.
* I know this isn't your sketch, but the very tiny brain case size concerns me! This fellow must be pretty dim! Looks like he's not got much going on upstairs!
Conclusion: I think this sketch is headed (oo, bad pun!) in the right direction. Catlike but not too large for the intended skeletal structure. I'd only suggest working on the posterior skull a bit. Catfolk, if they're to be intelligent and sentient and human-like, will need bigger brains than a cat skull can hold!
[Answer]
Everybody's talking about musculature but it's the skeletal structure that supports the weight, remember muscles don't push they pull, no amount of pulling is going to keep a head up unless there's a spinal column to keep it there. To support a heavier head you simply need thicker/shorter/fewer neck vertebrae, of course this will reduce flexibility. Your cat people won't be able to look over their shoulders like we can, but it's a worthwhile trade off if they want to use their teeth as a weapon without risking a broken neck.
Although a biped doesn't really have any business biting things unless it's built like a theropod, the kinematics are all wrong, in order to bite something your cat-people will need to move their entire torso to bring their short-necked head into position and using your head as a weapon isn't a great idea when you've got a large sophisticated brain to protect.
] |
[Question]
[
John is walking in the park one day, ranting to himself about stupid drivers not obeying the speed limit and roaring down his street and the stupid police not doing anything about it, when he comes across a bottle half buried in the dirt. To his surprise, when he pulls it out and opens it, a genie comes out! Unlike other genies, this one will only grant a single wish. John, still thinking about those drivers, makes a spur-of-the-moment wish: "I wish all laws would be enforced!"
POOF! All laws are now magically enforced. Nobody can willingly and knowingly break a law, ever again.
Of course, dictators love this. They can make all the laws they want, and their subjects have to obey them! (Way to go, *John*)
But what about elsewhere in the world? **How would lawmakers try to use and abuse the opportunity to make laws that *will* be obeyed?**
Notes:
You have to know about, understand, and be capable of following a law in order to be required to obey it. Also, only humans are affected. So
* A law that everyone will always speak Esperanto only affects those who already speak it
* A law that everyone will learn Esperanto does affect everyone who doesn't speak Esperanto
* A law saying that all infants will allow their parents to get enough sleep does nothing :(
* A law passed in secret does nothing until it is no longer secret
* Laws cannot make plants, animals, or inanimate objects do anything (making it illegal for a building to collapse while there are people inside is useless)
Examples of "use":
* Doing their best to prevent their successors from abusing the system
* Setting up a system allowing people to encode goals as laws, such as "Sally will exercise three times a week", or "Fred will stop smoking"
Examples of "abuse":
* Legalized bribery
* Setting themselves up as a permanent aristocracy
* Making it so that no laws apply to them
Which government is responsible? The one in charge of the area. In contested areas (such as during a civil war), I'm not sure how this would work. Those areas are not the focus of this question, though.
[Answer]
## The law isn't precise enough for this
The law in a common-law country is not just a set of statutes and rulings, it is a *living entity* -- a body of knowledge that changes with changing social norms (for instance: trespass law is almost entirely dependent on its surrounding social norms to function, an issue that's caused great problems with attempts to define the digital equivalent). Furthermore, interpretation differences between courts arise as a natural part of the legal system's functioning -- eventually, these are settled by a high court, but can persist for years until a suitable case appears. A great example within the US Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) [was recently pointed out by the EFF on their blog](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/01/case-missing-comma-why-congress-must-fix-foias-law-enforcement-exemption):
>
> Like many laws, the text of FOIA tries to distill abstract principles—in this case, government transparency—into plain English that the public, government agencies, and courts can apply to particular cases. Just like any writing, however, statutes can suffer from poor drafting, bad grammar, and incorrect punctuation that courts must then parse.
>
>
> This issue was front and center in *Hamdan*, as the court had to decide how to interpret FOIA Exemption 7(E), which allows agencies to withhold law enforcement records that:
>
>
>
> >
> > would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Courts have interpreted the exemption in two ways. The first interpretation, which EFF believes is the right one, reads the entire sentence as being subject to the last clause that states "if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." In other words, records concerning both "techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" and "guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" can only be withheld if "disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
>
>
> Courts following this interpretation have required agencies to show that the particular techniques and procedures at issue in the FOIA request would, if disclosed, potentially give lawbreakers a roadmap on how to evade law enforcement or otherwise break the law.
>
>
> The second interpretation, which the Ninth Circuit adopted in *Hamdan*, starts by noting that there is a comma between "techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions" and "guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions." Because of that comma, the courts reason, the two categories of records are distinct. Next, the courts note that there is no comma between "guidelines for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions" and the phrase "if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
>
>
> Under this interpretation, the *Hamdan* court reasoned that because there is no comma between the circumvention risk clause, and because Exemption 7(E) treats "techniques and procedures" and "guidelines" as two distinct categories of records, the circumvention risk clause applies only to the "guidelines" category of records. Or, to put it another way, the lack of a comma in the second half of the exemption means that "techniques and procedures" can be withheld without agencies having to show that "disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
>
>
>
[Answer]
It would cause a system ripe for abuse. Though it depends on how laws come to be deemed laws. Does a dictator in a fit of pique about his dessert and say "Never Serve Gelato Again!" become a law until he changes his mind and rescinds it?
What laws affect me and when do they change? If I cross state or country boarders do I automatically obey these new laws. When do laws take effect, when they are announced or when I hear about them? What if someone lies to me about a law? Take off your shirt because you can't wear Black on Mondays...
There are always ways to get around laws. If you make the laws to specific or constrictive you handicap your people. "you can't do anything I don't tell you to do" means you will be the ultimate micromanager that makes the Sims look simple. The more freedom you give of course comes with more chances of people doing what they want instead of what they 'should'.
even if you put in place a system that is 'fair' and it 'works' sooner or later someone will find a way to rig it for themselves and their friends. Then the abuse will build. Of course sooner or later they will make a mistake and someone else will take over.
The best fix would be to have a law that says people are not magically bound to obey the law in this country, to put things back to 'normal'. Though a new cycle would happen, where, "Well we should leave 'No murder' magically enforced" and then "Well rape is a terrible crime, lets enforce that magically too." Which of course no one would argue with (generally), but it won't stop there.
[Answer]
Since this question is specifically about lawmakers and not society's response, we kill off most of the more interesting grey market reactions to the new legal system. However, you introduced at least one loophole I can drive a bus through:
**Knowledge of the law:** I can't resist making some small mention of how society would be changed by this dynamic. Ignorance really *would be* power. If you don't know it's law, it doesn't effect you. People would go through a lot of trouble to seed doubt in their own mind about the existence of certain laws, and to then remain ignorant of them.
Due to the knowledge problem, a government would put a priority on spreading knowledge of their laws. In a good society it might looks something like this:
# Use
1. All previous laws are abolished. (Otherwise, many societies could change drastically due to people interpreting current laws excessively strictly . . . for instance there is a law in Minnesota that says it's a misdemeanor "When any man and single woman have sexual intercourse with each other." This could be misinterpreted to mean there must be more than one woman involved, leading to radical changes in society.)
2. If you believe someone may break a law due to ignorance, and informing that person doesn't present substantial risk of death or maiming, you must attempt to make them aware of the law they are at risk of breaking.
3. If someone tells you about a law, obey their information until it can be proven that the information is incorrect.
4. It is illegal to intentionally spread misinformation about a law.
5. It is illegal to intentionally interpret a law in a manner other than it was originally intended to be interpreted.
6. Do nothing that you think is likely to harm people more than the action helps.
## Results of Laws 2-5:
Taken together, laws two through five would lead to very concise laws that are easily understood, making it easy to verbally make someone aware of a new law, and then be bound by that law. A law would then spread very quickly throughout the populace.
In a less good society, you might see something more like some of the following done by lawmakers:
# Abuse
1. **Induced Amnesia:** If you're caught doing something immoral (but not illegal): Make a law against it, use a short term memory blocker before passing it, blatantly break the law you created but no longer remember creating. You now have "proof" that someone is framing you . . . you couldn't possibly break a law you knew about!
2. **Previously ridiculous laws become common:** "All verbal references to your overlords must be made in a loving, devoted tone."
3. **Temporary laws to cleanse a population:** "Everyone must honestly say how they feel about their overlords Day." "Everyone must kill anyone who told them something negative about their overlords yesterday."
4. **Physics/Math breaking:** "Pi = 3.2" (I would think you would say this is impossible, but in Indiana that bill passed the house in 1897 . . . what happens when it's made law?) I don't know exactly what this law would do . . . but if this were law, then a person could effectively prove any mathematical equation, rendering math non-functional. This would break a *shockingly huge* number of things.
5. **Thought Control Laws:** Thanks to humans having the ability to choose what we dwell on we would have laws like the following . . . "It's illegal to consider attempting rebellion." "It's illegal to consider permanently leaving this territory." "It's illegal to consider harming a lawmaker or former lawmaker."
6. **Behavioral Amnesia Laws:** "Behave as if you never suspected or believed lawmakers were anything other than perfectly benevolent."
[Answer]
For most lawmakers, what we have already is enough. I mean, if everyone followed all of the laws all of the time, we'd have a pretty good society; that's the point of laws. In my opinion, lawmakers' main focus in this situation should be finding new jobs for all of the people who worked--or lived--in jails across the world.
Of course, some will be even better. They will notice loopholes of this system like the one you mentioned with the exercise goals (of course, this system would take a lot of work so they can only make their personal goals laws.) These people could use this to ban things like war, obesity, discrimination, etc. This would probably be good for society.
While there are the good people, there will also be the bad. These people would try to use the laws to their personal gain, like "You must give me money," or something like that. In democracies and things like that, this won't do much, since they will (I hope) be outnumbered by the good guys. But in dictatorships and monarchies, this will allow them to take over the country. Some might use this system to take over the world, and they probably would be able to with laws like "you must be part of my army," or "all planes flying to X country must bomb them."
And then there are the REALLY evil ones, who make a law that says, "You may not follow the law."
[Answer]
# We have always been at war with Eurasia
Your example about Esperanto can be easily extended to provide total dominion over anyone obliged to follow your laws, for example, by passing a law saying *Everyone is required to believe any official government position without question, and to forget, as expeditiously as possible, any fact which might otherwise prove such position to be false*.
Then there are [bills of attainder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder). These are specifically barred under most modern legal frameworks, but they used to be very common. Here, the government would simply have the power to pass a law ordering someone to do something.
That something can be as specific as *Joe's Diner, on the corner of 3.14th St and Some Blvd, will bring back those delicious English Muffins and never remove them from the menu again* or even *Joe is required to stop breathing until dead at 2 PM today*.
The first thing a bad guy would do is pass a law requiring everyone to continue to involuntarily obey them, but to forget that they were being compelled to do so.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm exploring this idea for a fantasy world, and I was wondering how these planets would affect each other. The system would feature orbits in all three dimensions, not relatively flat like ours is.
Assume the speed of the orbits are slightly different; assume they'd pass close by each other but not hitting each other often. I know the frequent near-hits would affect the gravity of the planets somehow, and they'd have to hit each other eventually.
What would be the effects on the environment, gravity, etc. just before the collision?
[Answer]
The greater the angle between two similar orbits, the less frequent the near-hits would be - since the orbits would be slightly different, there may be a period of years where near hits occurred with increasing then decreasing proximity, then no near hits at all for a large number of orbits.
On the other hand, where the [two orbits are very similar](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-orbital_configuration), with perhaps a small degree of eccentricity, the orbiting bodies can change position when they approach one-another. This would happen with more frequency, and a collision need not be inevitable in the short term.
Obviously, since in the real-world examples of such close approaches, the bodies involved do not disintegrate, there would be a reduction in perceived surface gravity toward and away from the other body.
As the bodies in such a system would be unlikely to retain their own satellites except in very close orbits, if there were seas of any fluid, there would be no tides other than from the system primary, until the approach of the co-orbiting body, at which time there would be tides with the high tide oriented toward the other co-orbiting body.
Depending on the closeness of the approach - this could be near the bodies [Roche limit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit) - there could also be significant stress applied to the body's structure such that if it was large enough, it could cause internal heating and earthquakes. Also, if a significant atmosphere was present, the atmospheric pressure could drop causing violent storms near the point of closest approach.
If the two bodies were large and of similar size (such that both were habitable and inhabited), their inhabitants, if sufficiently technologically advanced, would have many opportunities to travel from one world to the other at relatively little expense in rocket fuel as the worlds approached one-another and reduced the cost of leaving the worlds' gravity wells.
[Answer]
>
> The system would feature orbits in all three dimensions, not relatively flat like ours is.
>
>
>
Without some form of manual intervention, this is literally impossible. For this to happen, you need some magic or advanced technology to move the planets into the 3d orbits after the solar system has formed.
While the system is being formed, it is a large cloud of particles. The center of mass of this cloud will be where the star eventually forms. Every single particle around this center of mass has some angular momentum in relation to the center.
If you compare all the particles against each other and average out their angular momentum, you will get a single vector that corresponds to the eventual plane of the ecliptic of the system. Take, for example, two particles, one going around the Center of Mass twice an hour, the other going in the opposite direction at half the speed. The angular momentum of the whole system is 1 revolution per hour in the direction of the first particle.
Over time, as these two particles go past each other they will both slow down. The slower one of the two will eventually not have enough speed to stay in orbit. It will fall into the center of mass, eventually creating a star.
The same is true even as you add more particles. The gravitational interactions of all the particles causes a 'drag' that lowers the angular momentum of each particle towards the average angular momentum of the entire system. This causes most particles to fall into the center of mass creating the system's star. Everything that doesn't fall into the star clumps together to form planets and debris (moons, asteroids, comets, etc).
At the scales we are talking about, you can almost treat an accreting solar system as a fluid. If you have water in a bucket and start spinning the water around, the water particles bumping against each other force them all to go the same direction.
Now to directly answer your question: If, against all odds, a planet formed counter/perpendicular to the direction of the rest of the system then it would slowly change orbits until it was either aligned with everything else, crashed into something (most likely the sun), or - most likely - would pass close to another body and get ejected from the system.
[Answer]
If orbits are "identical" other than inclination, they would move at the same speed: you are contradicting yourself with saying they are identical and have different speeds.
Barring that, the *sameness* each time around would cause a cumulative effect. The situation would not be stable.
[Answer]
As others have said, you have a big stability problem here. While there are some situations in our solar system with objects with periodic close encounters all of them involve shepherd situations--there's another more massive body that's keeping the situation stable. I don't believe you can have a shepherd situation without the bodies being in similar orbits.
Note, also, that if you're looking at travel between the worlds you have a very big problem. The fastest anyone has returned from space is 11 km/sec for the Apollo astronauts--a quick Google says 7.19g for Apollo 16. Earth's orbital velocity is 30 km/sec, though, and the other planet will have a like velocity. If I'm remembering my math right that means a spacecraft from one world will hit the atmosphere of the other at 42 km/sec. (And if my memory is wrong it's 60 km/sec.) Figuring the Apollo profile is about the best that can be done that comes out to 27.7g if my math is right, 39.2 if it's not. Even 27.7g for the duration of atmospheric entry carries a high probability of death.
You can cut these numbers somewhat if you do it in two stages--the first passage to burn off some velocity and head back out into space at something below escape velocity. Keeping the peak gs down will limit how deep into the atmosphere you can go while pulling such a maneuver, though.
If you want worlds that interact you want two worlds in a shepherding situation. The approach velocity is slow, Apollo-type spacecraft could make the crossing.
] |
[Question]
[
If a star had a Dyson ring of some kind around it, such that to the naked eye the star wouldn't dim at all, how long would it take a civilization to reasonably see and understand the Dyson swarm, assuming it was between the planet and the star? Would the orientation of the swarm greatly change when it would be detected and understood?
I would imagine a swarm on roughly the same orbit plane would create regular 'sunspots', while a swarm on a 90-degree tilt would very rarely transit across the sun's disc. Would this change greatly with a solid 'ring' structure rather than a swarm? How long would technology need to progress before such a thin 'ring' would be visible? Would a small enough body for the ring/swarm never be accurately detected?
Edit: for clarification, I'm considering a Sun-like star, with the observers' planet being functionally at 1 AU. I'm talking more about an observation of the *local* star than observing distant stars. I would also imagine the size/distance of such a Dyson ring would significantly affect things. Definitely a smaller radius than Mercury.
[Answer]
## Anywhere from ancient times to the present.
### Question 1: Is there anything there? (answered pretty quickly)
[Sunspots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspot), for instance, were [first observed by the Chinese in 364 B.C.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_observation#Early_observations), two millenia before telescopes or camera obscura were first used to study the Sun! While I don't know what the Chinese used, you can see sunspots using a very basic [solar telescope](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_telescope). It projects an image of the Sun onto a surface; sunspots - if they're big enough - show up as small black dots. You can actually track their motion, and that of the Sun. It's quite simple, and it's fun. I've enjoyed doing it.
A [simple solar telescope](http://shop.sciencefirst.com/starlab/models/5818-sunspotter.html), sort of like the one I've used.
I would assume that a Dyson ring would also show up on such a telescope (although I can't test it out). It should dim the star in certain places, showing up as either a black ring or a series of small dots. Assuming they're large enough, and the ring's thick enough, you can see them - and all just using a pretty simple instrument.
Also, consider [**KIC 8462852**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KIC_8462852), also known as Tabby's Star. A couple years ago, Tabby's Star made some headlines because of unexplained dimming. Its light curve didn't match any of the patterns you'd expect to see from an F-type star; the dimming was large-scale and highly irregular.
Some people thought that the cause was aliens, trying to signal something, and that's what made headlines. What I remember Tabby's Star for, though, are the other hypotheses explaining the dimming:
* There's dust surrounding it, like a debris disk.
* A cloud of comets exists close to the star.
* There are a bunch of small bodies - maybe asteroids - around it.
The last two scenarios are similar to what you're talking about here. Assuming that KIC 8462852 has dimmed because of a cloud of bodies like this, we can detect such a disturbance from *over 1,000 light-years away*.
With fluctuations of that magnitude (~22%) - and I'd assume a Dyson ring would cause such fluctuations - the civilization could figure out that something was there as soon as observations of their parent star started.
### Question 2: What is it? (answered pretty slowly)
So, there are objects around the star. That much can be determined. But what are they? Are they natural? Are they artificial? If so, who made them? How do they work?
Think back to KIC 8462852. We thought up a whole bunch of things that could be causing the dimming. All of them seem realistic. But would any of them have occurred to a primitive civilization? Remember that early astronomers didn't know much about our Solar System. For instance, it took Galileo to figure out that Jupiter had moons, and Huygens to determine that the bulges around Saturn were rings. Planetary rings weren't known about by the early Chinese. Comets were observed, but nobody knew their true nature.
So, they'd really be stuck for ideas. I guarantee you that they wouldn't come up with the idea of a Dyson ring - going to space would be pretty far-fetched. Remember, they might not even have a heliocentric model. However, if you fast-forward a couple millenia to a civilization like our own - one that's sent probes across the Solar System, to study the planets, the Sun, and many other bodies - then you'd have find a group of astronomers who can figure it out.
I'm going to posit that on Earth, someone would have figured this out by ~1900 (i.e. pre-space travel), maybe a bit later. But acceptance of the idea would depend on a few things:
* Are people willing to study these objects deliberately, or are they just considered minor and unimportant?
* Do the people believe aliens could exist?
* Do they know that such a method if even possible?
Figuring out these societal beliefs can give you a better idea of the time frame you're looking for. It will be dependent on telescopic development.
] |
[Question]
[
How long can a river be? Are there any physical limits on its length, coming from the necessary altitude drop, the triple point of water, or other factors? You can alter whatever parameters you find necessary for the planet that contains this river. Any pressure, continent distributions, densities, diameters etc; are allowed but the river must be made of liquid water and be on the planet's surface.
[Answer]
Imagine a square kilometre. The north-west corner is 100 m higher than the south-east corner. I'll think of the river as a zero-width line to simplify calculations, you'd have to make allowances for that in the extreme cases.
* A river would certainly flow if it went straight from NW to SE. The length is $\sqrt{2}$ km and the gradient is about 70 m per km.
* If the area was cut into serpentines, the river could zig-zag back and forth. Ten serpentines give a length of about 11 km and a gradient of about 9 m per km. Twenty serpentines give a length of about 21 km and a gradient of about 5 m per km. 100 serpentines would give a river length of about 100 km and a gradient of 1 m per km.
Streams in low plains regions can have a gradient of less than 1 m per km. So if the area did consist of alternating strips of very hard rock and soft soil, with some judicious digging there could be 100 km of creek (perhaps 5 m wide) on one square km.
To get a halfway realistic geography, it would be less than this constructed example. The gradient is probably the main limitation. If the springs are at an altitude of 5 km, you can easily get 5,000 km of river as it meanders down to sea level.
[Answer]
## How far from the source to the sea?
There are certain constraints to the length of the river.
>
> Meanders change their shape perpetually. The current state of the meanders is categorized by the numeric ratio between the length of the river bed (the water course length), and the length of the river in air-distance measure (the distance between its end points). This ratio is called: "The meander-ratio". The most common meander-ratio is approximately 3:2. - [[source]](http://www.academia.edu/2619483/The_Mathematics_of_River_Meanders)
>
>
>
It goes on to say that the river Jordan has a ratio of 2:1 which is unusually high, so you're looking at an upper limit of twice the air distance from source to destination as the crow flies.
---
Of course this is how long a river *would* be rather than how long it *could* be, but given a million years or so a river will take shortcuts through hills and mountains that might be in their way, no matter how much the hard rock and the soft ground try to make them go the long way round.
[Answer]
**The only limit is the size of the planet itself**
If the river is exactly situated at the equator, if the altitude at the equator is constant and if the Coriolis forces (due to planet rotation) are sufficient enough then an infinite unidirectional stream is possible.
Considering the 3 conditions are fulfilled, your river may be as large as the planet's circumference.
] |
[Question]
[
A staple of many games is the existence of random encounters - while traveling from point A to point B, the heroes are attack by bandits/wild animals/monsters/whatever. When defeated, the enemies will often have some kind of loot that the heroes can take with them. **How would random encounters affect the socioeconomic development of society?**
For the purposes of this question, assume the following:
* Fantasy world with monsters and magic
* Creatures pop into existence due to some sort of background magical field
+ Once they've popped into existence, they stay until they die
+ People can't pop into existence in this way
* At death, the magic that created the creature will sometimes coalesce into a different persistent physical form (loot!)
+ Loot may or may not make sense but is consistent. For example, a wolf corpse might rarely become a pair of bronze gauntlets, but most of the time you'd just be able to get a pelt and meat from it.
* The strength of the background magical field varies from place to place and is fairly stable. Changes can happen, but only gradually - it takes centuries for a significant change to happen.
* Where the field is stronger, encounters will be more common and the creatures will be more magical
+ More magical often means stronger and more dangerous, but also better loot
* Creatures are subject to normal things like hunger, aging and disease
* Normal animals that pop into existence like this would behave normally, i.e a magically spawned wolf might find a pack of natural wolves and live a normal wolf life.
+ If they interbreed, the offspring would be slightly magical normal animals.
* The magical field somehow resonates with sentience, so random encounters are very unlikely except for humans
+ Rabbits aren't going to go extinct because of wolves popping into existence around them
+ Traveling as a group doesn't make encounters more common, and the rate is pretty much the same for each individual.
* Encounters are fairly uncommon - a couple times a day is typical in areas where the field is weak, with 4-5 times that being typical in areas where it is very strong
* Villages and cities aren't plagued by random encounters - whether it is due to the nature of the magical field or some handwavium monolith in the town square, encounters don't happen inside them
* People present when a magical creature is killed will absorb some of the magic, allowing them to grow stronger over time
+ We'll rule out getting ridiculously strong, such as wizards who casually throw around nuke-strength fireballs.
* Dungeons, with more creatures and more loot, exist
* All of this has been the case for quite a while, so we're not talking about what would happen if this suddenly became the case today
As an example of how this could be interesting, consider the stereotypical bandit of games with random encounters - why would they exist at all, to say nothing of how ubiquitous tend to be? I imagine that few people get into banditry just for the fun of it, and being able to go out and kill some monsters for loot would mean people likely wouldn't have to resort to it. Additionally, the safety of a town would be a strong incentive to not do stuff that gets you kicked out of it.
To restate the question, **How would society develop in this world? What would be the biggest ways in which it is different from how it has developed in our world?**
[Answer]
This turned out to be a lot longer than I had first set out for it to be. Still, it was a fun question to answer.
I see two scenarios that fit here.
* The Conjuring Field (CF from now on) existed effectively since the
dawn of time. Settlements would be built in areas that have never
shown the capacity to create an encounter, thus not requiring any
special structure to be built.
* It came about after towns and cities had been established, so the
nature of the CF would play a large role in how it was accepted.
(Note: If there is a critical resource or location, it would be settled in either situation and, if that location happened to be in a CF-strong area, arrangements would be made.)
A few options about a post-settlement CF: 1) it was a creation of man-/elf-/dwarf-/whatever-kind; 2) it was a chance happening of nature; 3) some cosmological event has caused one plane of existence to overlap this one.
## Artificial Creation
Whoever created the CF is going to hold the majority of the power and influence in the world. Wizards could have built grand towers to create a protective dome within the radius of the tower's height, allowing a settlement to grow. Wizard towers would be the key part of any settlement, virtually a necessity. If a deity created the CF, that deity is going to get a lot of worshippers, since anyone who displeased it could have an unfortunate encounter. In this case, churches, cathedrals, and other holy structures to the deity would be prominent in settlements.
## Chance Happening
Nature hiccupped. Now we have all these beasties randomly spawning anywhere and everywhere. You might see a prominence of druids and druidic culture. Settlements might decorate their walls with the symbols and remains of those beasts that spawn in the area. Stronger species might be heralded as champions of the people or terrible predators, depending on the beast's attitude toward the settlement.
## Cosmological Event
Traditionally, wizards study the planes more than anyone else, so they would hold the power in this case as well. If the planes are divine in nature, or home to divine beings, then holy individuals who studied the movements of the initiating plane would hold the power. For a cosmological event, the people with the most power will be those who know most about the portion of the cosmos that created the CF.
## Society
So, on to how society might look. There's going to be a lot of chaos in the beginning, when people are first settling in. There will be a huge emphasis on defenses. Walls, pits, and spikes will be the first things created anytime a new settlement is built. Architects will be busy all the time and may not always be available or cheap, so most settlements will be haphazard constructs. Larger settlements that grew over time consist of a confusing series of defenses, with the oldest ones at the center.
Of course, you're not going to want to build anything where the CF is unduly strong. Since we're invoking magic for this whole thing, and some people are innately better at some things than others, I would propose there would be Sensitives, people with the ability to detect the strength or weakness of the CF in their vicinity. Stronger Sensitives would have greater range, but they would all be in high demand and have a significant amount of influence. This might be a trade-off for aggressive magical power, however, so they might lack the proficiency of non-Sensitive mages.
Now, on to bandits. There are a lot of reasons people turn to banditry, and this scenario makes some of them likely. Suppose a settlement, or several, were built in an area that was so CF-weak that no encounters had ever been seen. Then, one day, an encounter occurred that spawned some big, powerful, and having lots of teeth. This Mega Beastie then laid waste to all the settlements. You now have a bunch of refugees who are going to need to survive. At first they'll try to find a nearby settlement to take them in, but there aren't any, because of Mega Beastie. They begin to scavenge from the land. After a time, Mega Beastie finds a quiet lair and settles down. Trading caravans resume passing through the region. The refugees who have settled into their new life could look at these caravans as a means of acquiring the artifacts of their past lives and attack them in an attempt to rebuild what they once had.
If the CF can spawn shapeshifters or doppelgangers, society would be tight-knit and suspicious of outsiders. Trade would be left to a special class of individuals who were certified honest. Tokens of authenticity would be a necessary item for anyone travelling on the road or trying to do business, so there would have to be a guild or agency responsible for doing the certifications, updating them, and checking out cases of forged certificates and people acting without a certificate.
If the CF is limited to animals, Mega Beasties, and similar creatures, then society would be more open and willing to help each other. People would be more helpful to others and life would center around the nation, rather than the community. It'd be interesting to see the difference of opinions and attitudes between one group of people that experienced shapeshifter encounters and another group that never did.
Speaking of the nation... There would have to be a powerful central government, but it would probably cede jurisdiction to smaller, local authorities that were better informed and able to compete with the average beasts spawned by the CF. The central government would maintain a standing army to handle Mega Beasties; it would also be responsible for declaring war, creating treaties, and other global concerns. (Why does the government have to be powerful? To keep the different local powers in check, so they don't raise an army of adventurers and conquer each other.)
Anyone who spent their life in the wilderness would have tremendous respect (i.e., adventurers). Being able to overcome a variety of threats with no warning would encourage utility over specialization. Specialists would be in high demand for specific, unexpected encounters, or in areas where the CF spawns only a handful of similar beasts, but wouldn't see much use at other times.
Villains might also appear. Suppose some mage discovers a way to control the CF and/or the beasts it spawned. He could call down dragons on his enemies, laying waste to entire armies at a time. There might even be a kingdom conquered such that now threatens the viability of the surrounding nations. This will, of course, require heroes to appear among the common adventurers should this evil mage attempt to extend his reach.
[Answer]
Who ever makes the handwavium monoliths would be in charge!
More seriously, your world is in many ways similar to early colonial America. The towns/forts are safe but people venture out into the wilds in pursuit of profit/loot.
Or like gold miners during the gold rush with people living out in the wilderness, searching for a big score, returning to town only for needed supplies and a little R&R.
[Answer]
I would say that people would generally tend to be home bodies a lot more, more like medieval villages. The world outside is a scary and dangerous place.
The people that do go out and wander around will be woodsmen, hunters and the military minded. Those that have weapons and can take care of themselves. Merchants would be very militaristic and quite likely be willing to waylay other weaker foes if they appear to have goods worth acquiring. Say some of that same loot that comes for 'free' (ie surviving killing of a magical creature).
If clumping people together in towns and village 'naturally' forces the magical encounters out then these will tend to grow and likely be more normal. However, if it is only possible by something that is created then you will have people who will become very powerful with this ability. Unless of course it is a common thing and say requires participation many in the town.
It also means any party traveling through these areas are pretty much going to be a military party always on alert, like in war. 2-5 times a day can be a lot of battling, and the randomness of it can be like always worrying about an ambush, you never know what you might meet or have to fight or if it will run away.
[Answer]
In my opinion, the biggest threat to economic balance is the dropping of non-resource items by mobs. Any low-level item is going to eventually saturate the market and become worthless unless there is a recycling system to break them back into resources.
One solution to this is to have all mobs drop "realistic" loot. (i.e. meat, fur, bones etc. from animals, and corpses, money, and gear[that they actually have equipped] from bandits) On top of this, the magic, that creates the mobs and collapses upon the death of the mob, could collapse into physical droplets of magical essence. These droplets could be used by magic-users, or in the manufactur of magical items.
[Answer]
This world has an ecological problem. Since 'creatures' doesn't include (I assume) plants, and probably not even vegetarian animals, they will undoubtedly disrupt the food chain, perhaps disastrously. For every wolf, for example, we lose a bunch of animals it eats and gain, what, a piece of meat and a pelt? I imagine this will cause a great famine in the world, for both people and animals, and this could create a cascading affect that affects the entire ecosystem.
on the plus side, the more people die of this disaster, the last creatures appear. So perhaps the world will not be ruined but it will have to remain marginally uninhabitable to be sustainable.
] |
[Question]
[
**This question asks for hard science.** All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See [the tag description](/tags/hard-science/info) for more information.
**The question:**
What characteristics are necessary for a planet to be habitable for humans? What should the generic star and planet be like?
The life forms are human, so they
* Need to have access to water (they can melt snow or ice in their mouths, given sufficient surplus metabolic energy).
* Breathe some form of air containing the right amount of oxygen (and not too much carbon dioxide) at the correct pressure (below the death-zone).
* Live in a place with a temperature range similar to that on Earth. They can live in any climate zones, from the tundra to the tropics.
* Live exclusively on the ground, as human ancestors began to do millions of years ago.
* Eat natural foods similar to the ones humans eat - vegetables, fruits, meat, etc.
* Need to live in a natural environment, i.e. not something constructed by another species, such as a space station or protective dome. They should be able to live without protective gear that they can't construct with simple tools (parka, igloo, etc are fine - oxygen concentrators are not)
* Need to have evolved on the planet and not simply left there, as with colonization.
This question is designed to cover the characteristics the star must have to support life on the planet, in order to make the answer shorter, easier to browse through, and less confusing.
Related: [Making a planet habitable for humanoids: The planet](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/9944/making-a-planet-habitable-for-humanoids-the-planet)
---
This is the result of the meta question <http://meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/1750/should-there-be-a-canonical-habitability-question> In that, I put forward arguments for a canonical question and answer addressing general aspects of the habitability of a planet in order to avoid rehashing the same points over and over in answers to specific questions. This is that canonical question and answer.
The answer will be community wiki, so anyone can edit it and add to it. I'd like to make it organized, though, so please adhere to some basic guidelines to make it neat:
* Use **Bold** to denote the title of a subsection, and large (#Large) text to denote the title of a major section (e.g. Planet and Star). Formatting examples are given in the answer.
* [Use $\LaTeX$](http://meta.worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/607/how-do-i-add-mathematical-notation-using-latex-mathjax?lq=1) for mathematics.
* Add in links to sources such as [Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/) and [NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/) using either in-text links ('[Site name] (Site URL)') or footer links ('[Site name][#]' with '[#]:Site URL' at the bottom). Use '![Description] (Image URL)' for images, though make sure that the image is available for use. Wikipedia images are always usable.
* Resolve any disputes over accuracy [in chat](http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17213/worldbuilders-general-chat) and not in an edit war.
* Cite your sources and *be accurate*! Papers and pre-prints are always nice (see for example [arXiv](http://arxiv.org/)), though Wikipedia should also be okay.
* Don't create separate answers - add to the one answer already provided.
[Answer]
* **Age:** The time a star spends on the [main sequence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence) is roughly inversely proportional to the luminosity, as given by [the formula](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime)
$$T \approx \ 10^{10} \text{years} \cdot \left[ \frac{M}{M\_{\bigodot}} \right] \cdot \left[ \frac{L\_{\bigodot}}{L} \right] =10^{10} \text{ years} \times \left[\frac{M}{M\_{\odot}} \right]^{-2.5}$$
where $M$ and $L$ are the mass and luminosity of the star, respectively, $M\_{\bigodot}$ is a solar mass, $L\_{\bigodot}$ is the solar luminosity and $T$ is the star's estimated main sequence lifetime
See also **Age** in the section on the planet itself.
* [**Classification:**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification) Stars are generally classified according to their [spectral type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Spectral_types). 8 spectral classes are generally used: O, B, A, F, G, K, M, L, and T. O stars are the hottest, while T stars are the coolest. [Here](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Spectral_lines_absorption.png) is an image of sample spectral lines:
[](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Spectral_lines_absorption.png)
Star types are often illustrated in a [Hertzsprung-Russell (H-R) diagram](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertzsprung%E2%80%93Russell_diagram), as shown [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HRDiagram.png):
[](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6b/HRDiagram.png)
Some types of stars are better suited for supporting life than others. Here's a basic rundown:
+ [O-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-type_star): These stars are the hottest of the bunch, with surface temperatures of 30,000-50,000 K. Most are very short-lived (with the exception of [white dwarfs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_dwarf), which are stellar remnants). This, as discussed in **Age**, is not conducive to life. O-type stars often end their lives as supernovae, living only about 4 million years. They're very large and massive - up to a couple hundred times the mass of the Sun - and hot, which makes the habitable-zone/liquid-water zone more difficult. O-type stars are not conducive to life.
+ [B-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-type_main-sequence_star): These stars are cooler than O-type stars (10,000-30,000 K) and much less massive, no more than 20 times the mass of the Sun. They live longer, but not for much more than O-type stars. They, too, die as supernovae. They're not too conducive to life.
+ [A-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-type_main-sequence_star): These stars are only 7,000-10,000 K and on the order of 1.5-2 solar masses. They live for only a short while, but still much longer than more massive stars - a few hundred million years. Unfortunately, this still isn't long enough for life to form, and they're still too hot for life to have a good chance. Far out from the star, though, planets can be habitable.
+ [F-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-type_main-sequence_star): These stars are about 6,000-7,000 K and on the order of 1-1.5 solar masses. They live for much longer than more massive stars, and can easily form planets. F-type stars aren't as hostile to life as O-type or B-type stars, and they shouldn't pose any problems for potentially habitable planets.
+ [G-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-type_main-sequence_star): G-type stars are typically regarded as being the most conducive to life. In fact, our Sun is a G2 star. G-2 stars may live for about 10 billion years - plenty of time for life to develop - and are between 5,000-6,000 K, as well as 0.8-1.2 solar masses. They die gently, as [planetary nebulae](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_nebula).
+ [K-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K-type_main-sequence_star): These stars are smaller and cooler than the Sun. They range from 4,000-5,000 K on the surface, and live for 15-30 billion years. This means that life on planets around K-type stars has plenty of time to develop. They are stable and very common.
+ [M-type](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_classification#Class_M): M-type stars are typically either [red dwarfs](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf) or [red giants](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_giant). They are the most common type of stars. Red dwarfs are cool - less than 4,000 K on the surface - and long-lived. Some may live for trillions of years. This can be good for life, but red dwarfs are also dim, and may emit powerful flares. Red giants are stars in a certain stage of their life where they are near death (Our Sun will become a red giant one day). They are large, and may envelope planets orbiting them.To summarize: Massive, short-lived, luminous and hot stars are not good. Smaller, cooler, and longer-lived stars are better for life - and, fortunately, much more plentiful. With hotter types being too short lived and open questions existing about the habitability of the coolest types, search for habitable planets is currently focused on spectral classes F, G, and K.
* [**Stellar Variability:**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star) Some stars change in luminosity over time, creating periodic increases and decreases in brightness. These stars are called *variable stars*. The changes can be due to [pulsations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star#Pulsating_variable_stars), [eruptions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star#Eruptive_variable_stars), or even [a companion in a binary system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_star#Eclipsing_binaries).
* [**Stellar Metallicity:**](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity) The metallicity of a star refers to the fraction of it composition that is not hydrogen or helium. In most stars in the current era of the universe, this is quite low.
The metallicity $Z$ is calculated by
$$Z=[\text{Fe/H}]= \log\_{10} \left(\frac{N\_{\text{Fe}}}{N\_{\text{H}}} \right)\_{\text{star}} - \log\_{10} \left(\frac{N\_{\text{Fe}}}{N\_{\text{H}}} \right)\_{\text{Sun}}$$
Stars can be grouped according to their metallicity into populations. Population I stars have high metallicity and are young, Population II stars have moderate metallicity and are older, and Population III stars have very low metallicity and are largely hypothetical because they lived and died early in the universe's life
Metallicity is not a cause of habitability, but it does indicate which stars could and could not have planets supporting life.
] |
[Question]
[
During the final days of Lenin, it was time for the bolshevik party to pick his replacement. because of the way Stalin used his position as secretary to put his followers in power, Stalin was allowed to go into power and he immediately focused on keeping this power.
[Trotsky](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky) and Stalin couldn't have been more different, while they both believed in Communism, they had vastly different opinions on how to achieve it. Stalin had his own vision of communism, which focused on keeping it inside the borders of Russia, this was made to keep Stalin in power and not create conflict that would affect his power. Trotsky on the other hand thought more along the lines of Lenin. He believed that Communism could not have borders, that it must be a worldwide system.
If, as was planned, Trotsky had succeeded Lenin instead of Stalin, what would the Soviet Union have looked like? I am sure it eventually fall, Communism was not the stablest system around, but what would it look like by World War Two; What would they have looked like by the fall of our timelines Soviet Union? To be clear, I am only focused on what the Soviet Union would look like, I could care less about the rest of the world.
[Answer]
First off, I dispute your assertion that Stalin 'was allowed' to go into power. It is more accurate to say that he schemed his way to power. First, Lenin himself used Stalin as a proxy in a power struggle with Stalin, using Stalin to build support with labor unions that Trotsky opposed, and getting Stalin appointed General Secretary. Then as Lenin grew ill and turned on Stalin, Stalin colluded with Lev Kaminev and Grigory Zinoviev to suppress Lenin's last testament (which was anti-Stalin and recommended removing him from power) until after Stalin was established in power. The Politburo was 7 people at the time. Stalin and allies (three) were opposed to one (Trotsky) and were able to recruit the last three Politburo members to their cause. The main argument was that Trotsky was a revolutionary at the core, while Stalin stood for order. After almost a decade of constant war and civil war, order sounded like a good deal. Also, it may have helped that Trostsky always kind of [looked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Trotsky#/media/File:Lev_Trotsky.jpg) like a maniac, while Handsome Joe Stalin [looked](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Stalin_1902.jpg) like a dude you could trust, or at least that you could cast in a new Netflix historical drama. Stalin took power by making a power play and convincing the other people that mattered to back him. Then he had them all exiled or executed, but that was later.
So that brings us to the big difference of Trotsky. He was all about the revolution, not about dealing with the consequences. From Stalin's ascension to 'person with the most power' in 1924, he was able to exile or remove from the party his enemies by 1927, and start a massive wave of purges in 1934. By pretty much any standard, Stalin moved swiftly and efficiently to consolidate power.
Trotsky, on the other hand, was never that interested in absolute power for its own sake. He was more interested in a collegial rule (i.e. ruling with a group of other intellectuals instead of killing them) and more interested in spreading the revolution elsewhere. This can be seen from his post-exile activities, which never really involved scheming to regain control of Russia, but spent much more time trying to establish united communist groups around the world, and supporting the communist movement in the United States.
So what if Lenin's will had come out, Stalin was ejected from the party, and Trotsky became General Secretary and undisputed champ in 1923?
While Stalin tried to isolate Russia and rebuild it to his liking, Trotsky would have tried to export revolution to Europe. Trotsky spent his exile time travelling Europe and America, absorbing foreign ideas. Stalin was exiled to Siberia. However, even though Stalin was inward looking, he still got invaded by Hitler, and even if Trotsky tried to export the revolution to the Europe, communism never really got a hold there, and he would have infuriated the fascist movements....and he would have gotten invaded by Hitler. Probably not much going on there. On the other hand, if Trotsky really had been trying to openly support communist revolutions in Great Britain and the US, its much more likely that neither Churchill or Roosevelt would have wanted anything to do with him.
So that leads us to the big historical difference. Trotsky's desire to export revolution would have lead the Allies to see him as not much better than Hitler. After Hitler invaded, the Allies would not have been so eager to send tanks and airplanes his way. The Russian resistance would have been weakened, and WWII would have been extended by a few years. In 1945, the Russians would be just turning the tide against the occupying Germans, who would have held Moscow for 4 years at this point. But the Germans really had no hope of winning the war due to another development that occured on August 9, 1945....
Thats right, if Trotsky had won in Russia, Truman would have had no choice but to nuke Hitler into unconditional surrender. Maybe Stalin was the lesser of two evils....
[Answer]
The biggest difference (as a person who is familiar with only the basics of the early history of the USSR) is that the purges would probably not have been as bad.
The officer corps purge almost certainly made life easier for the Wehrmacht, and so the Soviets' share of the butcher's bill would have been smaller without it.
[Answer]
It depends. There would have been less purges, but Trotsky believed in the idea of 'Permanent Revolution' socialism where the bureaucracy of the state is eliminated once the common workers take charge and try to overwhelm capitalism with a series of worker's revolutions across the globe. This version of socialism could potentially work if you get enough revolutionaries on board and come up with a good enough alternative to state bureaucracy. However, there is a chance a lot of revolutions might fail and capitalists could have a good counter-offensive. Stalin was brutal and tyrannical, but there was some method to his madness: Stalin was trying the dictatorship of the proletariat method of socialism, a form of the state where members of the working class take control of the state and nationalize the means of production in order to make everything publicly owned and improve the standing of the current community. Here, the state is supposed be a means to an end where the state is used as a tool by the proletariat to protect against capitalist counterrevolution and attacks in the journey to reach the final stage of communism. As Friedrich Engels put it:
>
> The proletariat needs the state, not in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist.
>
>
>
So, while less tyrannical and more inviting and less purges, it might be easier for capitalists and those opposing the socialist revolution to infiltrate Trotsky's USSR and try to tear it apart from the inside out. The [United States](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/forgotten-doughboys-who-died-fighting-russian-civil-war-180971470/) and other western forces fought on behalf of the [White Army](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Russian_Revolution#:%7E:text=The%20United%20States%20responded%20to,the%20Soviet%20Union%20until%201933.) & tried to get into the USSR during the Russian Revolution to stop Bolshevism. This and other attempts by [Western powers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_Russian_Revolution#:%7E:text=The%20United%20States%20responded%20to,the%20Soviet%20Union%20until%201933.) in the past to invade/influence Russia as well as a fear that the proletariat state releasing its grip too soon would lead to Russia "being controlled by the most reactionary elements of their community" was kind of the logic Stalin and his allies were running on when they engaged in their reign of terror.
So basically, the USSR would be looser, more democratic, and more focus on spreading freer socialist revolutions across Europe and other parts of the world. This could help Trotsky's revolution spread, but the lack of centralized unity, bureaucracy, and strong 'state' to prevent counterrevolution and groups like U.S. intelligence from attempting to infiltrate socialist revolutions the same way the CIA invaded [Guatemala](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat) when they tried to establish a democratic socialist nation could lead to the revolution going a variety of different ways:
* Worst case: The revolution is torn apart or weaken from the inside. The United States and other nations stop socialist revolutions from spreading and tear apart socialist nations allied with Russian reactionary forces. Many socialist allies are removed from the picture like socialist Guatemala, the Paris Commune, and the Gotha Programme of the past.
* The socialist revolution is able to quickly overwhelm some capitalist nations, but is able to be kept at bay by capitalist forces. While it spreads less than the USSR in our timeline, it is able to be a freer nation than in our timeline & still be able to at least be a Great Power in Eastern Europe with links to other nations on the continent.
-Best case: the revolution does not completely take down capitalism, but it does establish a good foothold in Europe as more workers look to joining the socialist revolution. This superpower competes with the United States and worker's unity as well as other methods less brutal than the real-life USSR allow this looser socialist Russia to still compete with capitalist powers of the world. After that, the timeline would be pretty different from what we have currently.
] |
[Question]
[
Time travel works...just invented, by you. The tests prove it! Now for the human tests.
It works by poking the residual timey-wimey weebley-woobley stuff just enough for you to move yourself and your time machine to the point specified. For some strange reason, your time machine is restricted to destinations on Earth. Annoying, but that's a feature coming in Time Machine 2.0! Flying is also on the product backlog.
Your significant other works as an [epidemiologist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology) and has implored you in the design of your time machine to include a measure that prevents you from bringing back any nasty diseases (their job is hard enough with the current world diseases, thank you very much). You choose to implement this by having the time machine test your vitals and a quick blood test for any signs of infection. If any signs are found, you may not travel to a different time but you may travel to a different location within your current time. This feature may not be overriden because of several layers of interlocks and protection mechanisms that you cannot get around.
You have access to all of 2015 medicine (being with an epidemiologist has its perks) and can take an extensive medical kit with you.
*For your first long distance trip, do you go back in time or do you forward in time? Why?*
You don't have to worry about the Grandfather Paradox or causality or any of the other nasty time travel problems. Physical security of the time machine itself is also taken care of, so no worries of theft or breaking & entering. This question only addresses the relative medical merits/demerits of doing your explorations before your own time or after your own time.
[Answer]
It's best to treat time travel missions the same way space travel missions are planned and executed. Both are extremely risky (going up in the space shuttle had a 1 in 39 chance of death). Each mission would be planned meticulously with specific science goals in mind and an array of extra, nice-to-have goals as well.
It's likely that most early time travel missions would be conducted specifically to answer your question. Time travelers would rarely leave their time machine until several missions had been conducted to that time-space to evaluate the risks thoroughly. Sterile probes would be sent in advance and returned to a sterile environment to be thoroughly checked for microbial life and infectious agents. The probes would also carry cameras and other scientific instruments, just like a space probe.
Once it is deemed safe and necessary for mission objectives, time travelers would be sent. Just like astronauts, your time travelers would endure a 2-week quarantine before each mission to ensure that he or she won't get sick during the mission. The time machine would be sterilized completely before departure. On most missions, time travelers would not be allowed to leave their time machine unless mission control deems it safe and necessary to do so. Most likely they would be required to wear hazmat suits or some other protective equipment, just in case.
However, it's likely that time travelers will interact with other humans. Wearing obvious protective equipment could be a risk if the locals are likely to attack or arrest you for it. The risk assessment might show that it's actually safer to wear no protection rather than stand out.
It will generally be safer to travel to the past because it is better understood. There are few or no serious infectious diseases that have been wiped out by 2015 (though we are so, so very close to eradicating a few through vaccinations). As such, a traveler with the full range of modern vaccinations ought to do very well in the past.
Most of the things that killed people in the past were due to poor sanitation, not viruses. Sanitation risk would still be an issue for vaccinated time travelers because a lot of those things have no vaccines. Time travelers would have to use modern sanitation practices to stay healthy and only ever drink water they treated themselves (or alcoholic drinks) and eat food they prepared themselves. (This too could be a problem with the locals, in terms of cultural faux-pas.)
Sanitation problems could affect the future as well, so water purification and sanitation is a given for any time travel mission. The future is more mysterious, but the scientific payoff would be greater. The future could have new diseases that we have no vaccines or treatments for. Chances are that it would never be deemed safe to send a time traveler to the future.
In any case, a time traveler and their time machine would be quarantined for some period of time upon return.
[Answer]
The future, where you would pickup self-pre-prepared drops of information in completely sterilized bunkers that would include thousands of years of research on how to eliminate current problems while the population still numbers in the low billions. You place the information there as soon as you get it from the time machine (no paradox rule!)/or once you've researched it (however long that takes).
Once you've released the engineered anti-disease virals, telepathy genes, plans for zero-point energy generators, anti-aging treatments and nano-assembly replicator bots... you can start sending back probes to document the past, and to download/preserve every human/animal/plant in history, just prior to their deaths, working your way backwards until there's no more life to preserve, sequence, or save.
[Answer]
Other answers are based either on not yet avaiable technology, or like the most voted answer, the time traveler being extremely careful about interacting. Well, to that I say, screw it. I'm going to touch the wenches at the tavern because I can.
**Let's analyze:**
* Access to time traveling? Check.
* Access to medication/sanitarization? Check.
* Access to strong materials and technology? (you have a time machine) Check.
**How do diseases spread?**
* Being transported (eg: Surface of objects/skin, or air particles)
* Infecting Someone (eg: Blood, airways, Urinary Tract or rectum)
**What do we need to ensure?**
* There's not any viruses/bacterias/particles (henceforth boogers) that are dangerous brought home on clothes and items
* The time traveler doesn't inhale boogers
* The time traveler doesn't have boogers in his bloodstream
* Boogers do not get brought in by air
**How do we do that?**
We use an Airlock of course. The time traveler is subject to desinfectation to ensure that there are no boogers on his clothes or any items he brings. At the desinfectation room (The airlock) he should also have Period clothes (I assume that him/her going into her Highness the Queen's throne room wouldn't go too well in an AC/DC's Highway to Hell T-Shirt).
Secondly, the desinfectation station (the airlock - yes I do like this word) should also be a test-bay. Meaning: He can do blood/hair tests to confirm that he wasn't infected by anything (and thus he's not bringing any epidemic with him). Downside is, if he is infected, he can't get out of the TARDIS, sorry I mean Time Travel Machine.
Thirdly, the machine should only be able to "take off" and "land" at designated desinfectation areas. Those areas should be merged in a desinfectation liquid which would keep any boogers that could be attatched to the outer walls of the Machine.
And there you go, a realistic, and 2015 viable way to create a safe method for time traveling. Minus the time part.
[Answer]
**There is a FAR GRAVER concern here:**
Traveling to the future or the past can have severe impacts primarily because of [**conjugation**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation) and other similar processes.
**Simple quarantine is moronic and primitive potentially resulting in HUGE repercussions.**
Quarantining for space missions and epidemics are effective because their mission is simply to prove the absence of their existence. That the immune system has done its job and no harmful pathogens exist.
**Time Travel is a whole different beast when you consider pharmacological and bacteriological history.**
Today, both good and bad bacteria are evolving resistance to antibiotics. Bacteria through processes like conjugation can pass traits like antibiotic resistance to completely different bacteria.
**Why is this a HUGE threat to time travel?**
If your time traveler contained antibiotic resistant good bacteria, there is no amount of quarantine that can be performed to eliminate it. If they go back to the 1920s and spread their bacteria they could potentially destroy the onset/proliferation of penicillin which would have huge historical ramifications including a major set back to medical technological advancement.
If you go forward in time you run the inverse which is bring back a bug that contains resistance to all modern and future drugs resulting in an equivalent blow to technological advancement.
**Make no mistake, we are currently in a endless arms race against the microbial world and the microbial world advances with every act of ignorance with this being the potential equivalent of giving the Egyptians Google.**
The only way I can see avoiding walking around in a full fledged hazmat suit is if you had a nanomachine enhanced immune system that can identify and eliminate all undesirable microbes.
[Answer]
# Travelling to the past will actually make you a extremely high toxic hazardous being for several reasons
### Immune system development, vaccines and radiation
Our immune system is a lot more developed than how it was hundreds of years ago. Adding the vaccines that made us immune to other killing viruses. And finally our radiation level is higher than it was in the past - [we are pretty much radioactive](https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/faqs/faqradbods.html).
As the Article says, we are radioactive as we live under a radioactive environment; earth and the sun constantly produces radiation that accumulates through the passage of ages, this makes the present naturally more radioactive than the past, and the future even more radioactive, and due the latest abuse of nuclear energy the amount of radiation on earth has greatly increased more than in the past (nuclear bombs, nuclear plants, and even Chernobyl disaster).
Going back to the past and coming back to the present would not really be a problem for the present, but it would be a problem for the past. A lot of people dying from unknown diseases and a lot of cancer around the people that got in contact with you.
But travelling to the future would be the polar opposite. Without a better developed immune system or a body capable of handling the radiation levels of the future, you would be doomed a few minutes after arriving.
So, to not destroy the nature balance, and not making you vulnerable to the conditions, then I would use for any travel, specials hermetic travel suits that will not be only hermetic to the elements, but also hermetic to radiation.
(And you'll end up looking like a visitor from another planet.)
] |
[Question]
[
**This question asks for hard science.** All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See [the tag description](/tags/hard-science/info) for more information.
Considering our topic challenge, and the fantastic eclipse last Sunday a question came to me.
Could there be a stable (relatively speaking) planetary system where a(n) eclipse/alignment would actually make a noticeable difference on an earth like planet?
**The eclipse/alignment should cause one or more of the following:**
* Large, powerful waves that can severely damage or flood coastal areas.
* Earthquakes/tremors
* Powerful storm systems
* Other (include in your answer)
**The planet:**
* should be as Earth-like as possible
* must have at least one moon (it may have more)
**The questions:**
* What would the planet, moon, and star sizes be?
* What would the distances between them be? (Meaning the planet and moon (or moons)
* Would eclipses occur on a regular or irregular basis?
[Answer]
I'm ~99% certain that the effects of a second celestial body on seismic activity on an Earth-like planet has been covered before (in that case, by a second Earth-like planet); if anyone can point me to it, that would be great. The conclusion - if I remember correctly, and I think I do - was that there wouldn't be any major effects in this area. I might have supported that conclusion, in which case I may have been wrong.
*Scientific American* has [an interesting article](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/can-astronomical-tidal-forces-trigger-earthquakes/) on the subject. It turns out that a causal relationship between the moon and seismic activity was first postulated a long time ago. *Scientific American* itself published [a minor story](http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v10/n26/pdf/scientificamerican03101855-203a.pdf) on the idea in 1855, based on the work of one Alexis Perrey. Apparently, Perrey showed three correlated relationships:
1. The frequency of earthquakes/tremors is increased during a [syzygy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syzygy_(astronomy)) - a time when the Earth, the Moon and the Sun are in a straight line.
2. The frequency increases during the Moon's closest approach (perigee), and decreases during the Moon's furthest approach (apogee).
3. The frequency increases when "the moon is near the meridian,
than when 60° from it." I'm not entirely sure what Perrey means here, so I won't attempt an interpretation.
Perrey's work comes from "7,000 observations", which seems convincing, but it is entirely based on observations, it seems - there is no explicit theory as to why this is the case. I'm not saying that should remove credence from it, but note that no causal relationship was proven.
More recently, [Straser (2010)](http://www.ltpaobserverproject.com/uploads/3/0/2/0/3020041/variation_in_gravitazional_field_tidal_force_electromagnetic_waves_and_earthquakes.pdf) and [Vergos et al. (2015)](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1474706515000157) (paywalled version; a difference version is available via [ResearchGate](http://www.researchgate.net/publication/258615541_Evidence_for_Tidal_triggering_on_the_earthquakes_of_the_Hellenic_Arc_Greece))) investigated the problem. The former also summarized previous work on the problem, which had attempted to show a number of relationships between earthquakes and the Moon. Here are some of those works:
* Omori (1908): The rhythms of the tides can cause a rise in earthquake frequency.
* Bagby (1973): Syzygies increase earthquake frequency (this is the same as one of Perrey's conclusions).
* Kokus (2006): Changes in the Moon's motion can influence fault behavior.
* Kolvankar et al. (2010): Earthquake frequencies change according to the lunar cycle.
* Zhao (2008): The Earth can induce earthquakes on the Moon - "moonquakes".
The main point here is that tidal forces can apparently influence earthquake frequency. However, the author's conclusion was that - especially as regards his own research - links can be tenuous at times.
Vergos et al. studied an earthquake and related tremors in Greece, and established a relation between the phase angle of an earthquake ($\phi\_i$) and the period of a relative tidal component ($T\_d$):
$$\phi\_i=\left(\left[\frac{t\_i-t\_0}{T\_d}\right]-\text{int}\left[\frac{t\_i-t\_0}{T\_d}\right]\right)$$
Can we establish a causal relationship from all this data? Not necessarily. We have no theoretical model to explain it, either. The USGS has written some of the resultant phenomena off as coincidences (see [this](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/05/0523_050523_moonquake.html) article). I think, however, that the evidence is compelling enough to show that some relationship might exist.
In your case, we can take advantage of syzgies. The more bodies - in this case, more moons - the greater the effects, in theory. The differential force experienced by Earth is proportional to $r^{-3}$, however, not $r^{-2}$ (see [here](http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/Gravity/tides.html); keep this in mind for calculations).
To answer your questions about mass and distance, I say only that it is up to you. We don't know enough to come up with accurate formulae for the effects - if they exist - so we can't know for sure what conditions are necessary to cause a given result. I *can* tell you that the alignment - for it is an alignment that you need, not an eclipse - would be periodic, because orbits (and therefore orbital alignments) are periodic.
I wrote more about stability in [my answer here](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/35787/627) to your related question.
[Answer]
Another approach:
It's not a moon that's causing the eclipse. Rather, it's a large planet that occasionally passes very close to the world in question. There will be stability issues here but so far they have been countered by the fact that the worlds are in resonance. The perihelion for the world getting beat up (the other world suffers also but figure it's a gas giant) has been very slowly decaying due to these encounters, as it decays the encounters get closer and closer (and thus more damaging) until eventually you either get a major orbital disruption or else it's destruction.
[Answer]
Rather than using the more conventional approach of abusing gravitational effects to produce our doomsday, this answer relies on solar radiation and optics. There is one caveat - it requires a very weird moon which, while scientifically possible, must be an artificially created structure.
**Approach:**
Make the moon a spherical lens. During an 'eclipse', the moon will focus the sun's rays to a single point on the earth's surface. This will cause rapid concentrated heating, leading to drastic weather changes (as well as melting any location unfortunate enough to fall under the focal point).
This will only occur during a perfectly aligned total lunar eclipse; an imperfect alignment will cause the focal beam to miss the earth.
While this is perhaps somewhat outside of the intended scope of the question, it does fit within the spirit of the question - a celestial alignment causing doomsday-like effects.
Other than the composition of the moon, the solar system is similar to ours for the purposes of interplanetary distances and eclipse frequency.
**The Lens:**
The effective focal length of a lens is:
$$EFL = \frac{nD}{4(n-1)}$$
([source](http://www.edmundoptics.com/resources/application-notes/optics/understanding-ball-lenses/))
Then, let:
$$D = Distance\;from\;earth\;to\;moon = 384,400\,km$$
$$EFL=Diameter\;of\;moon = 3,474\,km$$
Putting this into the equation, this gives an index of refraction of approximately **n = 1.0023**. We can achieve something close to this by using **benzene gas** as our refractive material ([n = 1.0018](http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/refractive-index-d_1264.html)). To get a bit closer to this value of n, we can increase the distance to 49,3774 km or decrease the diameter to 2704 km.
This leaves us with a moon comprised of a solid transparent shell filled with benzene gas or similar for our lens.
Note that this means the moon will be *much* lighter than our moon, so the planet would not likely experience any tides.
**Effects:**
During an 'eclipse', the moon lens will focus (most of) the sunlight passing through it to a small point on the earth's surface.
At earth's orbit, the power density of sunlight is approximately 1.36 kW/m2 ([source](http://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/solar-radiation-outside-earths-atmosphere)).
Given a diameter of 3,474 km (r = 1.737 x 106 m), the cross-sectional area of the moon will be:
$$\pi r ^2 = 9.4787 \times 10^{12}\,m^2 $$
This means that we will have **1.289x1016 Watts** passing through the lens.
If we assume a totality/alignment of about 100 minutes (6000 s) ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse)), this gives a total energy output of about **7.734x1019 Joules** over the course of the eclipse.
---
While the location of the focal point will (rapidly) move across earth's surface during the eclipse, this is still enough energy to cause plenty of damage. For instance, if the focal point spent most of its time over ocean, it would boil away somewhere around 3 x 1016 g of water. Given that a typical hurricane produces about 2.1 x 1016 g of rain ([source](http://science.opposingviews.com/much-rain-typical-hurricane-5043.html)), this should be sufficient to produce some spectacular storms.
For some more context on how much energy we are seeing at the focal point, I took a look at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)>.
Notably, the focal point outputs an equivalent amount of energy to the Hiroshima bomb **every microsecond**.
[Answer]
It is possible.
* The planet should have more than one moon, revolving in the same plane, at different distances from the planet. The moons should be as large and close to the planet as practically possible, without messing things up.
* The star should be as heavy as practically possible without messing things up.
* The oceans should be very deep (~5 km average depth as compared to ~3 km on earth).
When/if all the moons get in-line with the star, this compound eclipse would have horrible consequences. We are talking tsunamis (tidal effect), raging storms (tidal effect on the atmosphere) and earthquakes (tidal effects on the crust) here.
] |
[Question]
[
Based on [an answer of mine](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/51242/10851) from a few months ago, I've been inspired to adapt the concept to my own Life Ball. **Fair warning- this question and some of its links are not for the squeamish. May contain graphic images and descriptions not suitable for all readers.**
All is not rosy on this world, and there are plenty of thugs and assassins around just looking for creative ways to do-in an adversary. Fortunately, the local flora have provided a wonderful opportunity for a particularly gruesome and gory murder. It's risky - you have to initially get fairly close to the target, but you also have ample time to escape before the crime is discovered.
A certain member of the [pinguicula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinguicula) genus- let's call it a vexwort- has become especially potent and hardy. It still prefers to spend its day
trapping and absorbing insects, arachnids, and small reptiles and rodents. However, its mucilage is strong enough that any animal that brushes against one is likely to suffer a nasty rash, similar to that caused by [giant hogweed exposure](http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/72556.html). It also has developed [totipotency](http://www.dictionary.com/browse/totipotency), allowing it re-grow an entire plant from a leaf segment as small as 2cm.
If one swallows such a segment of vexwort within a handful of hours of its cutting, it will re-grow from the inside out. Its own digestive secretions allow it to survive the acids of the stomach, and pass through. It then finds a convenient spot along the intestine and implants. It sends out new shoots
through the soft tissues and begins soaking up all the victim's internal nutrients. Eventually, vexwort leaves burst out through the skin, by which time the victim has expired from multiple organ failure.
The situation might be comparable to [bamboo toture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bamboo_torture) or to what happened to [this unfortunate guy](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/197623.php) who inhaled a pea.
A would-be assassin needs to very carefully, with gloved hands, harvest a vexwort and cultivate it in a secret location until just before it is needed. He then needs to sneak one or more small cutting into the victim's soup or salad, just before it is eaten.
This is a "reality-check" question. Is this organism plausible and viable?
What details of its life and development might I have overlooked, and need to think about more? One particular concern is over the cutting surviving being cooked and/or chewed.
[Answer]
Maintaining viability of leaf cuttings after consumption would be difficult (impossible). While it is possible for people to swallow some leaves in a salad with little chewing, there is a very high likelihood of it being discovered - even if not observed while eating, the taste or just the effect of the leaves of such a plant contacting the inside of the mouth are unlikely to go unnoticed. I could perhaps get around this with some waxy coating to protect it from being tasted and to aid in surviving digestion (serious problem there), but one bite and that is ruined. Are you good with the plot being detected/ruined the majority of attempts?
You're probably better off trying a small quick-sprouting seed than a leaf segment. The seed coat protects it from chewing and exposure to stomach acid (which could actually help the process by weakening the coat and triggering the germination process), so a few hours after being eaten it has broken out of the seed and adhered to the wall of the intestine. Perhaps administer it with a substance which promotes constipation to give the seed more time to adhere.
Once embedded in the lining of the intestine, poking through to expand into the abdominal cavity, it could establish itself sufficiently that treatment would be difficult. Depending upon the medical technology of your setting, even once diagnosed (which could take considerable time after just treating a prolonged bout of constipation) there might be no cure save massive exploratory surgery searching for every little piece through already severely damaged tissues (unlikely to survive the surgery anyway). You just need a plausible plant capable of this, but unfortunately I am skeptical that you could realistically expect a leafy plant to survive being eaten and then thrive inside an animal for sufficient time to kill the host.
You are probably much better off going for a fungal infection (if you want plant-like eruptions out of the corpse), though parasites are likely a better approach anyway. There are numerous deadly parasites which infect hosts through ingestion of eggs far too small to notice (or spores in the case of fungi) - they won't survive a thorough cooking but contaminating the dish afterward, or contaminating a dish which is only lightly cooked, should be easy enough. A rare fungus or parasite, which would often be misdiagnosed (why would they suspect something not encountered naturally), could get plenty of time to establish itself. Depending on how fast you wanted it, a few weeks before a correct diagnosis or death should be plenty of time to protect the identity of the killer.
[Answer]
**Zombie Fungus?**
If you're not insistent on it being a leafy plant that can grow within a person, there is a fungus that exists known as a 'zombie fungus'. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiocordyceps_unilateralis>. It infects ants, causing them to lose control of their bodies. They are driven by instinct to travel to the perfect height on a branch or tree where they latch on and ultimately perish. There, the fungus sprouts out of the ant to spread its spores to other ants of the same species.
Generally, the fungus is specialized for a species of ant, but I wouldn't see any problem adapting this sort of fungus to humans with similar effects. The fungus uses its own enzymes to eat through the exoskeleton. It's so effective, that it has been known to annihilate entire ant colonies.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jvx4R.jpg)
Note that the little stick thing growing out of the head and the bulb is the fungus.
Edit: Based on some further research into fungus and acids, even weak organic acids tend to inhibit or stop entirely metabolic processes in plants and fungi(which is probably why we don't see plants often growing inside of peoples' stomachs). That said, it should be fairly easy to just sprinkle their food with some fungal spores, expecting it to come into contact with their skin (lips, fingers, etc.) while eating. The fungus may also have grown in a highly acidic environment (stomach acid PH is between 1 and 3, which is quite strong) giving it resistance to these acids. I could see it possibly being engineered (bioweapon) to have a cell wall that resists stomach acids.
] |
[Question]
[
I watched a youtube video on the [Darwin IV](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mS3mbKvSVDI) probe mission to this planet has lower mass than the earth, about the size of Mars, and has a single sea. According to the movie, the microbes that resided in the early oceans somehow recognized that the oceans were evaporating due to some unknown catastrophe. For all intents and purposes, these single-celled organisms act as one, preventing the total evaporation of the seas and mixing with them to form a gelatinous mass.
My question is this:
**Is this single-celled oceanic soup possible? If so, how long would the evolution of these colonial organisms take and would that timeframe fit in with the evaporation of a near planet-wide ocean, assuming this planet is in the inner-most ring of the goldi-locks zone?**
[Answer]
Well it partly depends on what kind of organisms they are to begin with, but it would take a long time naturally.
I would think that instead of an Ocean deep level of 'jello', that it would be a surface of 'jello'. The whole surface of the ocean could be a shell, like the congealed fat on the cooling water after you take out the roast. By capping the Ocean, it would seal it in and reduce the 'evaporation' significantly. As the outer most layer continues to bake and dry it would become more like a pie crust, getting harder but also heavier, but it would have a lot of displacement so as long as the 'jello' under it is thick enough to support it and still be bouyant it could work.
It might work this way just by having plentiful microorganisms that live on the surface of the oceans and as they 'shrink' they get more dense etc.
Either way would need plenty of convection currents in the oceans to keep nutrients flowing to feed the shell.
[Answer]
It's possible. There's a subset of bacterial biofilms that are hydrogels. This is specifically what you want.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm>
These aren't really jello, though, because that's a supersaturated solution of proteins. These biofilms are usually made of long chains of sugars, which are attracted to water.
Bacteria form biofilms to protect themselves from their environment. One of their other adaptations is entering a cyst stage.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_cyst>
Finally, bacteria are able to swap DNA.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation>
It's possible that as the sea shrank, bacteria were left behind in pools. As these pools evaporated, the bacteria that were fittest to survive these changes were the ones able to develop hydrogels and the ones able to become cysts. After the pools dried out, the cysts could be carried by animals or other lifeforms to another pool, where the cysts would begin their life cycle again. At some point, the cyst-bacteria swapped DNA with the hydrogel bacteria. This created a new variety that could both extend its "active" period with hydrogels, allowing it to multiply many more times than the cyst-only bacteria, and able to survive the complete evaporation of the pools by forming cysts around themselves when the hydrogels eventually dried out. Eventually, the same way macro-lifeforms carried the cysts from pool pool, they eventually carried them to the sea. This allowed the bacteria to come out of their cysts and begin colonizing the sea with their hydrogel.
] |
[Question]
[
I want to put 10,000 humans in a space ship and send them into space. They don't have a set destination - they're having to flee their homeworld, and they don't know what planet will take them in, so they need to have a way to grow food in addition to having stores onboard. How big should this area be? How much space should they devote to storing nutrients for the plants? Is there a good way to recycle the nutrients?
These people have access to hydroponics and high-yield crops that will survive in space. Additionally, since their situation is desperate, they don't need to have space for luxury crops, just the necessities.
[Answer]
In optimal conditions it takes about 50 square meters to grow enough food and oxygen for one person. Lets double that to be safe and to make it a round 100.
<http://www.tylerdwyer.com/files/OASIS_Final_Report.pdf>
Zero g may may this more interesting, you might need to spin your spaceship to allow the plants to grow properly and to keep water in the right places.
So you're going to want something like this crammed into a big cylinder.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/pRosv.jpg)
10,000 people would need 1,000,000 square meters of plants to keep them alive at a bare minimum.
Assume trays 1 meter apart, that's 1,000,000 cubic meters.
For ship size I'm going to use supertankers.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/hSTNv.jpg)
The the largest supertankers can carry a little over over 500,000 tonnes, assume half or more of the space is lost from having to have some space to let people get between the trays, for equipment, for spare parts so assume the equivalent very minimalist 4 but more likely 6 spinning supertankers to grow your food.
Now you're also going to want significant stores, you don't want to starve because of a few failed pipes so add another couple of the same size for warehouses of food, oxygen and water.
If this is to be very long term you're also going to need a few more supertankers that can produce all the spare parts etc.
Then you're going to need a supertanker or 2 for people to actually live in.
[Answer]
Murphy is right. It is going to be an outrageously vast space required for "green" crops. You could, however, genetically modify fungi species to produce high energy human-ingestible products such as vitamins, glucose and proteins. That would take far lesser space, would take far lesser time to ripen and would be lesser hassle to handle.
[Answer]
Why would they have to *grow* food? At this very moment in time, we are [3D printing food](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/01/28/5-amazing-ways-3d-printed-food-will-change-the-way-we-eat/). Even [NASA](http://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/home/feature_3d_food_prt.htm) is looking at its viability for long term space trips. All you need is space for the materials and you can print food that will provide the nutrition they need.
Growing food on an extended space flight doesnt make a lot of sense. Just like on Earth, yield's and quality vary. A plant disease could wipe out the entire crop, and then you would have nothing. There are simply way to many things that could go wrong to make it worthwhile. Not to mention the amount of water it would take. Farming in space is not something that will likely happen.
] |
[Question]
[
In the far future, antimatter is used for energy storage: Huge space stations with powerful solar arrays orbit the sun a bit inside Mercury's orbit, using the energy to create small amounts of anti-hydrogen (or other antimatter). This is then packaged in special containment devices and shipped to places in need of energy, to be used in reactors or even as fuel.
But what do these reactors look like? [Matter-Antimatter Annihilation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation) releases energy in the form of mostly Gamma rays, neutrinos, (fast) electrons and positrons. This is frigging hard to turn into useful energy!
* If you happen to know which directions the charged particles will fly, you can build something like a particle accelerator in reverse to utilize their kinetic energy: an electron flies through conductive rings and induces a slight charge, the difference in charge along the flight path can be used to generate power. Same for positron but each particle species needs a dedicated generator! So you need to know which particle will fly which way.
* Gamma rays are far harder since they tend to penetrate lots of matter without interacting. The only way I can think of to harvest Gamma-rays would be to have really thick lead (or other heavy metal) shielding that will be heated by the radiation, then harvest the heat.
* [Half value thickness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-value_layer) of lead depends on energy of the Gamma rays, German wikipedia gives ~ 4mm for 0.5MeV (Energy of gammas released by electron-positron annihilation).
* For simplicity's sake we might as well forget the electron harvesting described above, let the electrons/positron smash into the lead shield (the positron will annihilate with bound electrons releasing more Gamma radiation) to generate heat
* Neutrinos ... Neutrinos mostly just pass through matter. I'd say the we can forget about harvesting the energy released as neutrinos.
So our reactor will likely consist of a small annihilation chamber embedded in a huge vessel full of molten lead, the heat generated will drive a steam engine. The energy content of the neutrinos will be wasted.
From this, several questions arise:
* Is the idea above even feasible - while the half value thickness for 0.5 MeV is not too bad, other annihilation reactions might release harder gamma radiation requiring more shielding
* How much energy is wasted via neutrinos?
This all ties into my ultimate question: Is a reactor as described above feasible? Are there more elegant solutions on the horizon? **How will an actual matter-antimatter reactor work and what will it look like?**
(AM containment is outside of the scope of this question (Which is admittedly a major handwave))
[Answer]
**No differently from a conventional nuclear reactor**
How are the fission fragments in a U-235-fueled pressurized water reactor harvested and used to provide energy? Simple: Pump water through the reactor, and use it to soak up the kinetic energy of fission products as well as the gamma rays and other radiation byproducts. This heats up the water. Then through a heat exchanger, the pressurized water can transfer its energy to whatever thermal power generator you desire. On Earth, this is typically a steam generator.
When a positron and an electron annihilate, you get energy in the form of gamma rays. When a proton and antiproton annihilate, you get exotic meson products that quickly decay into the gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos as you mentioned. Keep in mind that the produced positrons and electrons are then capable of annihilating, so in the end all you wind up with are gamma rays and neutrinos.
So write off the neutrinos, but gamma rays as a means of energy transfer are *perfect* for our purposes. Just surround the reaction chamber in water- it's not as good a radiation shield as lead, but it's easy to get, easy to pump, and for 500keV gamma rays has a half-value distance of just 7cm. A mere half meter of water is sufficient to absorb over 99% of all gamma ray emissions.
Your antimatter reactor doesn't need to be any more complicated than a reaction chamber surrounded by circulating water, hooked up to a heat exchanger and used to drive a steam turbine, thermopile, or any other means of generating power from heat. No need for lead enclosures with active cooling, or any kind of particle deceleration trap- this is just a nuclear reactor without all the complication of dealing with inherently 'dirty' fuel.
To be clear: Generating power from antimatter isn't conceptually difficult. It's producing antimatter, storing it safely, and then tapping into the storage mechanism in a controlled manner that currently render it science-fictional as a means of energy storage.
[Answer]
**Make fuel using antimatter.**
Usually we assume that matter meets antimatter and both disappear in a burst of energy (as laid out in OP). But in usual circumstances for our environment there will be a great excess of matter. Suppose we use little positrons and use them to react away the electrons associated with an atom. A given atom will find itself naked of electrons, highly (positively) charged and very reactive - fuel! Some of the energy of the matter-antimatter reaction is captured by pushing normal matter to a higher energy state.
These high energy fuel molecules you have made will be easier to store than antimatter, because everything is easier to store than antimatter. You can produce your fuel in a centralized structure suited for handling antimatter rather than toting antimatter around in your trunk. Also, a wide range of reactive fuel molecules might be generated by this process, suitable for varying applications.
We have long experience with engines driven by exothermic chemical reactions. My proposition: use antimatter in very small amounts to strip electrons and produce chemical reactivity in fuel molecules. Store the fuel molecules you have made. Then when needed, allow the fuel molecules to react, giving up the energy stored in them as heat, which is then captured and used in a steam engine.
---
But steam. How 19th century. Can we just use the antimatter to generate electricity. Well, we just did - by evaporating electrons off of our target molecule we have given it a tremendous positive charge. Electrons will flow to it. Down a wire. This is electrical current.
---
This is a novel idea as far as I know. Links to back reading, prior art, pithy comments all very welcome.
] |
[Question]
[
**This question asks for hard science.** All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See [the tag description](/tags/hard-science/info) for more information.
For starters, allow me to define more carefully what I am asking. For now I am not worried about any of the following, as if this question is answered they will be covered in later questions:
* Bones breaking, tissues tearing etc. caused by the dragons large
size, and organ systems required to support this creature. Both
covered [Here](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/76441/adaptations-of-a-very-specific-dragon-to-the-combination-of-large-size-and-fligh)
* Metabolic requirements.
* How such a creature evolved or the plausibility thereof.
What I am asking is if I have made any mistakes or am missing any factors as to the mechanical ability of this dragon to fly.
I figured that whether or not my dragon could get off the ground, this question and subsequent answers might supply some basis to work off of for others who come to this site to ask about large flying creatures.
***Warning - Math Ahead - Warning - Product of Someone with too much Free Time***
I started with a sketch of the Dragon (Updated with Structure on tail to add some stability)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/qClcN.png)
Using this Drawing I treated the body as a series of ellipsoids to calculate the volume. From there I ran numbers to find an appropriate wingspan etc. and edited the images to match.
The Dragon is designed with a head modeled loosely after a false gharial, wings and a chest modeled after those of a bat for flight, and a toads legs+a kangaroos tail to aid in liftoff.
Height: 6.5 meters
Length: 19 meters
Volume: 11.9 cubic meters
Average Density: 0.614 g/cm^3\*
Weight: 7310 kilograms
Wingspan: 38 meters
Wing area: 304 square meters
Wing loading: 23 kg/m^2
Wings+Legs+Tail muscle cross-section: 43,000 cm^2
Muscle strength\*\*\* newtons/cm^2: 35 n/cm^2
Wings+Legs+Tail muscle strength: 1,474,900 watts
Liftoff time: 1 second
Height leaped in Liftoff\*\*: 20.6 meters
Wing muscle cross-section: 21,600 cm^2
Wing muscle strength: 756,000 watts
Flap time: 2 seconds
Flap acceleration\*\*: 21 meters a second
Coefficient of lift\*\*\*\*: =<3.9
Coefficient of drag\*\*\*\*: =>0.12
From nasa.gov
>
> L = (1/2) d v2 s CL
>
>
> L = Lift, which must equal the airplane's weight in pounds
>
>
> d = density of the air. This will change due to altitude. These values can be >found in a I.C.A.O. Standard Atmosphere Table.
>
>
> v = velocity of an aircraft expressed in feet per second
>
>
> s = the wing area of an aircraft in square feet
>
>
> CL = Coefficient of lift , which is determined by the type of airfoil and angle >of attack.
>
>
>
(I'll be using metric)
Density of air at 3km above sea level and -4.5c = 0.9093 kg/cm^3
0.5 x 0.9093 x 10^2 x 304 x 0.6 = 8292.816 kg of lift, more than enough to get this guy off of the ground.
Drag = Cd (d v^2)/2 x reference area
The density of air at sea level and 20c = 1.225 kg/m^3. The reference area I calculate is (1.5 x 2)m^2 for the face and torso + (36 x 0.4)m^2 for the wings, or 17.4 m^2.
0.2 x (1.225 x 10^2)/2 x 17.4 = 213.15 newtons of drag, though I am not sure how to calculate the effect of this on the dragon.
\*Density of bird lowered further by certain adaptations which will be discussed in another question.
\*\*Found using a simple work-over-time equation.
\*\*\*There is no difference in strength between fast and slow twitch muscle fibers, only in contraction speed and endurance. [Paper which shows this](https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1193118%2F&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFO7Jh1D3HRr9M068UlyIeVTCRu1w).
\*\*\*\*Actual Coefficients of bats, if there is some reason these would not be close enough, please let me know.
I was surprised after looking at these numbers that I wasn't actually seeing anything that as far as I could tell stopped the dragon from flying. But this is my first time doing any of the math involved, and even if I got all of it right I could be missing something, so I thought I'd ask some of the smart folks over here at Stack-Exchange and see what they told me.
Assuming that this creature runs and then leaps, using arms then legs+tail, to liftoff, followed by a few flaps of its wings, could it get air-born as my numbers imply? From there could it maintain flight?
[Answer]
**This question asks for hard science.** All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See [the tag description](/tags/hard-science/info) for more information.
It looks like you don't want to pull the magic card.
I think that you can do without the webbing between the legs. I think that it is too close to the wings to provide much stability. I'd flatten the tail instead (or make the body longer and the tail shorter but that'll add mass).
Otherwise, unless the body is much denser than a mammal's, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't fly.
Walking, on the other hand may be an issue given its total size. Unless the leg bones are much stronger than ours, I think that the legs are too thin for its size.
Also, don't just look at loading on the surface of the wing but follow that load along the structural members. The shoulders (wing root) will be under a lot of stress. It might need to get beefed up. You might also need more "fingers" in the wing to reduce the stress faced by the root of each finger.
Though if it had hollow bones, that would work but it would be much more fragile.
It will also have the issue of being unable to pump the blood up from its legs back up to its heart. Take a look at elephants. The skin around it's feet and lower legs are very strong and is designed to act like a pressure sock to help muscle movement pump the blood back up.
So, aerodynamically, it looks good but I think that the cubed root law is going to bite you in the structure.
[Answer]
## Wings are not propellers
Bats only have a coefficient of lift of ~3.9 because their wings do a lot more up/down movement than they do back and forth. For reference: a fixed wing airplane has a theoretical max of about 2. This means that for your dragon to get that coefficient of lift AND fly 10m/sec that your wings will actually be accelerating much more than 21 m/sec.
In these videos (<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni_mS4cKPXY>, <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAP2I-t3FGs>), you can see that a bat's wings covers about a 130-140 degree arc per stroke and that each stroke only moves it about 1/6th as far forward as the wing moves up or down. So, if your wings are about 17m each, that means your wing tips are moving about 40m per full flap moving you forward ~6.67m; so, to get to 10m/sec speeds using bat wing mechanics, your dragon has to complete 1.5 flaps per second where your wing tips are actually covering about ~60m/sec while accelerating at an average of ~120m/sec^2 at any given time...
Since your wings are actually exerting a lot more force than you were accounting for, you will need to scale some things down a bit and figure out a wing flap profile that works for you. Instead of the lift coeffect of a bat, you should probably be looking at large birds like the Albatross or Andean Condor which actually flap very little. Less flapping is better for large flying animals because it reduces stress on not just the bones, but the muscles and ligaments that give the bones structure.
[Answer]
The area of a bat-shaped wing is calculated by A = (F x D5) + 0.5 (D5 x D3).
F = the forearm length, D5 = digit 5, D3 = digit 3
Each square on your chart is ~1.85 meters, so your dragon has a wing area of ~220 m^2 including the hind legs and tail. Assuming normal air density at sea level, it should have a stalling speed of 42.5 km/h. So as long as your dragon can launch itself at or greater than 42.5 km/h, it should fly.
] |
[Question]
[
In my story I'm setting up a cold war between a faction of Fae and the Native American equivalent. The Fae are your typical Unseelie Court where one should watch their words or get bamboozled.
The Native American creatures, I assume are not that, but I've been having difficulty finding examples from any tribe. I did find the Nûñnë'hï, which is Cherokee and sounds like a benevolent version of European Fae. For my story, the Native American faction is more akin to the Iroquois Confederacy, forming as a necessity against these Fae aggressors.
Ultimately it's my goal to have several tribal examples, particularly Plains and Southern/Eastern tribes. But Google is not really bringing up other examples of this kind of creature. I've seen several "lesser" beings (ie goblins, brownies, or pixies compared to a Faerie), but nothing else really. Another goal is to be accurate and appropriate to Native culture. These aren't my stories and I would like to come at this respectfully.
**So what are some Native American supernatural creatures?** Preferably creatures will have the following traits:
* Sapience/Sentience
* No singular/few instances (ruling out creatures like Bigfoot/Wendigos)
* Some form of society (Fae have their courts and are into power plays. These creatures probably don't, but should have just as strong of desires/ambitions)
* Humanoid in appearance is not needed (bonus points if they're not because that's out of the ordinary)
* No outright hostility towards humans (hesitant tolerance and exploitation are fine) This rules out creatures like the Nirumbee or Nimerigar who straight up attack humans.
* Where they reside (e.g. The Nûñnë'hï live underground on mountain tops)
* A note on what tribe they're from (not picky, just handy for future research)
[Answer]
Honestly, a lot of creatures in various Native American traditions show similarities to the fair folk. As [this page](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheFairFolk) mentions a lot of beings that are often described as monsters, giants or spirits in anthropological texts and anthologies of folklore show more similarities to the fair folk than actual monsters or spirits, and only got classified as such due to the Victorian mindset in place when they were first heard by outsiders. Western European culture in general used to have a hard time dealing with the concept of non-human beings who were as morally varied as humanity (the same issue causes the Japanese concept of yokai to be translated as "demon" when in actuality fair folk, again, would be a more accurate descriptor). That said, you did have the fair folk in Celtic folklore (and was probably a lot more widespread before the Romans happened), the jotun and dwarves in Norse mythology, and the various beings in Greek mythology. A lot of this is thought to come from the adoption of Christianity, as its parent religion Judaism is unusaul in having a very black-and-white view of morality when it comes to non-humans (Islam is a little different in having morally ambiguous djinn, the result of folding pre-Abrahamic Arabic folklore into their worldview).
Now, for more specific examples the link cited mentions the **ircinrraat** (singular: ircinrraq) of the Inuit, which seem very fair folk-like in that they can be both helpful or harmful and mindbogglingly hard to understand. I fully admit TvTropes is not an accurate source for anything but perhaps it can provide an avenue for further research.
The **thunderbirds** of various cultures (Algonquin, Lakota Sioux, Ojibwe, Winnebago) might also fit. They're sapient, there are usually treated as a species, they usually live up high in the mountains or in some sky realm. They're usually pretty aloof to humans but will mess you up if you mess with them, or in some stories if you break morals. However at the same time they're beneficial to humans because they smite various monsters that threaten humanity, and sometimes they even go out of their way to help people. That said, they're not humanoid.
[The **Kushtaka** of the Tlingit (northwestern Pacific coast) are another possible one.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kushtaka) Different stories have them as either tricking humans to their deaths or saving humans, sometimes by turning them into Kushtaka. zhey are shape-shifters that usually turn into otters, but have a human form.
There are a number of **"little people"** myths in various cultures, each with their own name. These stories are kind of what you'd expect from the various "little people" myths in every culture around the world: sapient, humanoid, can either be malicious tricksters or helpful, usually pretty benign. [The Wikipedia page gives a lot of names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_people_(mythology)#Native_American_folklore).
[Answer]
I found something that might be useful. It would be the Navajo Folklore or Mythology.
You might have to do some dig some for more details, but a great bit of information can be found here at [Sacred-texts website](https://www.sacred-texts.com/nam/nav/)
The Navajo are a large tribe of Native Americans that come from New Mexico and Arizona. They have a pretty complicated mythology, but there are some cool stories and characters in there.
I found an interesting parallel with some of the more well known "fae based" folklore. Mainly that the fae lived in a world that was connected to our own. The Navajo have something similar. They believe that there are four worlds beneath the one we live in, Each with distinct properties. There are peoples within each and First Man and First Woman, along with Coyote came up through each successive world. They seem to be able to travel between worlds.
In some folklores, you have a lot of animals that are intelligent along with races that combine human and specific animal traits. The Navajo also have this in their folklore. Coyote is the most notable of these Characters, but the Bear is another, the Badger, the Locust, are also animals that exhibit Human traits.
One of the races mentioned are the Spider Ant people, who know the ways of arrows but are peaceful if left alone. That is just one of entire races mentioned. There are more.
There are a wealth of Monsters in the folklore, as well as heroes that slay them (the Monster Slayer brothers, I think)
A lot of this folk lore has some crossover with the Zuni and Hopi tribes that also dwell in the area. Could be some good source information for creating a plausible and respectful Native American fae equivalent.
] |
[Question]
[
The universe so far:
If charged lepton fields are eliminated from the universe, charged pions become stable (having no decay path that preserves charge), replacing electrons to form bound "atomic" states with protons, as do free neutrons. Protium, however, is *not* stable, as it is energetically favorable for a proton and pion to combine, releasing a gamma ray to produce a neutron. Thus, the largest component of the material universe is not hydrogen gas, but free neutron gas. Stellar fusion is, therefore, much easier (exactly *how much* easier depends on the stability of dineutronium in this universe, which I am not sure about, but that's not super relevant here), so stars tend to be smaller. Neutrons and protons bound in nuclei are stable against much larger nuclear shell energy differences, since conversion between neutrons and protons needs to release enough energy to produce a massive pion, rather than a comparatively light electron.
As a result, we get pionic "atoms" that are relatively rich in neutrons, with the positive nuclear charge being balanced by a cloud of negative pions. What with being bosons, the pion cloud does not contribute to any particularly interesting chemistry like electron clouds do in our universe. Instead, neutrons take on the "chemical" role vacated by electrons. The neutron content of pionic atoms is not dictated by the nuclear charge like the electron shell structure of a neutral electronic atom is, but a maximum neutron count is set by the point at which filling ever higher neutron shells results in a sufficiently large energy difference between the next proton orbital and the next neutron orbital that adding a neutron will result in pion-decay to produce another proton (thus producing a much closer relationship between "chemical" reactions and nuclear reactions in this universe than exists in our universe). The excess of neutrons, resulting in larger nuclei, and the small size of the massive pion cloud in a pionic atom compared to the electron cloud around atoms in our universe makes it possible for nuclei to approach close enough to each other for neutron-chemistry to occur, forming covalent bonds in which neutrons are shared between multiple proton cores.
As far as I can tell, there is no obvious equivalent of polar or ionic bonding based on neutrons.
It is still conceivable that polyatomic neutron shells may end up forming a "conduction band" in which neutrons can flow freely over long distances... but this obviously doesn't result in the net transport of electric charge.
Now, on to the question: can this universe support electricity as we know it, based either on the flow of negative pions or positive ions? With a bosonic pion cloud, can arrangements of different neutron-bonded protonic nuclei still result in net charge separation, giving rise to polar molecules, ions, and static electric effects? If not, is there some other way to begin inducing charge separation and current flows that can form the basis of electromagnetic technology?
Maybe it's as simple as relying on permanent magnets, which should still exist based on nuclear spin alignment...
[Answer]
Short version
Everything should work the same but at much higher energies.
Long version
Given the relatively high mass and close proximity of the pion cloud to the atomic nucleus compared to the electron cloud of a standard atom all chemistry is going to require higher reaction energies. At the same time the atoms have far more embodied energy as the pions in the cloud have far greater kinetic energy and momentum than their electron counterparts, being more massive and in tighter faster orbits around a much heavier nucleus. The creation of ions as well as the formation of covalent bonds is made harder by how tightly atoms will hold their external charge carriers but both forms of chemistry should still be *possible*.
Given the possibility of ion formation it follows that ionic chemistry will still be practical and will probably be unchanged in effect and proportional energy discharge though the absolute energy states of the reactants will be far higher. It also follows that sufficiently large voltages will act to cause ionic migration and sufficient charge will cause neutralisation so processes like electroplating and electrolysis will still work but only at far higher voltages than we're used to.
Given covalent bonds exist temporary dipole formation is to be expected but I'm not exactly sure how [electronegativity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronegativity) and permanent molecular dipoles will be effected by this scenario. I expect a linear increased such that relative electronegativity remains fairly consistent and thus so does molecular polarity and hydrogen bonding behaviour etc...
Static electricity is effectively mechanical, as opposed to chemical, ion creation, it will still be possible but the charge accumulated for a given input of mechanical action will be lower. So it will be much harder to generate large static charge voltages but they should still occur, the voltages necessary to create static discharges like lightening may well be lower due to how tightly nuclei hold their pions.
Current in wires depends on the special "sea of electrons" particular to [metallic bonding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_bonding) that allows electrons to move independently through the atomic structure to which they are associated. I can argue both for and against this phenomenon occurring in the scenario presented but on balance it would appear to be unaltered with the proviso that higher voltages will likely be required to give impetus to the much heavier pions involved in the current flowing through the material.
] |
[Question]
[
One day a small meteorite impact occurred somewhere over the Pacific Ocean, and moments later a mysterious green glow sweeps across the globe at an amazing speed.
All of a sudden everyone can hear voices and screams from somebody they didn't know, most would suffer from a severe mental breakdown but some managed to survive the agonizing ordeal. It was soon discovered that this is caused by a certain part of the brain somehow had gained the ability to send and pickup thoughts, the range is infinite and speed almost instantly.
It seems the "antenna" cannot be turned off or disrupted by any means, but it is proven that our brain can suppress and to a certain degree even mute out incoming thoughts at will! Soon meditation courses and gurus starts popping out of nowhere, businesses beginning to show sign of recovery all except telecom that are still left in the wreck as millions flock to terminate their lines.
I'm wondering is there any glimpse of hope for the telecommunications industry? This ability is active, passive, always on, so you can't pick a single or group of known targets to do private messaging or group chats!
[Answer]
>
> you can't pick a single or group of known targets to do private messaging or group chats!
>
>
>
This ability is pretty useless for communication. It's like entering a cafeteria during lunch time, what you hear is just the garbled overlapping of hundreds of speeches with just a couple of intelligible words here and there.
With a phone call or video call you will still be able to have a proper communication, be it private or business related.
[Answer]
**They will still be needed for communicating things that must be recorded**
Many phone conversations in our world must take place on recorded lines for legal reasons. People cannot transfer images or spreadsheets telepathically, or if they can, writing them down would be very tedious and difficult.
In short, telecoms will be necessary for any situation where human memory isn't sufficient. Which in our data-driven world, is a lot.
[Answer]
# With the internet.
That's pretty much where all telcos are making their money these days anyway. It used to be that the phone network carried your internet during the dialup days, but today it's the opposite: the internet carries the phone network.
Even if no one ever has a reason to call each other or send private messages, it's highly unlikely that there will suddenly be no need for financial transactions, cat videos, gaming, logistics, etc...
The telcos might take a little hit in their profits, but they won't go out of business by any stretch.
[Answer]
**You haven't defined what a thought is, and it is *very important***
If by thoughts you mean internal dialog, then you will hear tens, hundreds or thousands of people talking at full volume all the time depending on the range you specify. Peoples' internal dialogs are in their own language so even if you could separate all this mess you still would not understand what everyone was 'saying'. It will be like experiencing the worst possible psychotic experience ever. No-one will be able to discover "that this is caused by a certain part of the brain". They will be too busy jumping off bridges or high building to escape the mental torment.
**However ...**
Thoughts are not just internal dialog. They involve mental pictures, feelings, sounds and so on. We mix direct experience - *I see the thing I want on a high shelf* with internal dialog "I need to climb up somehow" plus seeing a chair and in our imagination moving the chair and standing on it, followed by the action. Some people are very visual and may skip the internal dialog for this 'thought'.
Suppose you had a window into every part of another person's consciousness (even one person). You would see what they see, hear what they hear, feel what they feel (including any pain they are suffering). You simply would no longer know whether you were you or them.
**If you do this with multiple people, you don't want to work in a hospital.** You will feel the physical pain and mental distress of every single patient in there - and so will all of them! It will be constant unbearable torture.
[Answer]
bandwidth and signal to noise ratio.
First, how do i, as software developer and telepathic person on the same time, can send my customer few megabytes of source codes and compiled golang byte code binary application file of 10mb (that looks like realy random content)?
Something like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/kC3Jh.png)
it can be quite dramatic, since receiving person should somehow record it. So, speed will be few words per second. Its ok for tweet messages, but its quite slow for anything bigger. For 10mb binary file it will be weeks to send it via telepathy. And there can be a lot of transmission errors - due to distractions or receiver's handwriting issues.
Second issue - is noise to signal ratio. If i, as telepathic person, can hear people around me thinking, how can i concentrate on my software development work? How can i distinguish person i want to telepathically talk too from chorus of other persons thoughts?
I think telecom companies will thrive, because they have to provide internet to
secluded places, where software developers works
[Answer]
**Privacy**
I've never given my boss my personal phone number, they only have my email address. For the same reason, I wouldn't be too happy if I heard them *directly inside my head* at 9PM as I'm watching TV, asking if I've finished the presentation for next week's meeting. In the same way, I doubt that any administrative workers would like to deal with customer's files after work hours.
I could easily see this becoming a matter of keeping your work out of your personal life. A lot of businesses would still need high quality e-mail, video conference and instant messaging services. It may not be in the same form as what currently exists, but it would be needed.
[Answer]
# Server bandwidth
The official videoclip for Psy's *Oppa Gangnam Style* was probably the very first thing to break the internet. [It reached 1 billion views in December 21, 2012](https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/music/2019/12/20/youtube-most-viewed-music-videos-from-gangnam-style-to-despacito/2702463001/). I've just checked it again (thanks for making me go there BTW, that song always makes my day), and it was released in... July 15, 2012.
If all the views were spread evenly through time, that would mean... Carry the three... Approximately 6,287,660 views and a half per day, according to my browser's console:
```
var start = new Date(2012, 6, 15); // The month is not wrong, months in Javascript are zero-based.
var end = new Date(2012, 11, 21);
var msInADay = 60 * 60 * 24 * 1000;
var views = 1000000000;
views / ((end - start) / msInADay)
// output was 6287660.466334818
```
Can you imagine picturing that whole 4:12 video in your mind, audio and video, six million times a day, 24/7 for six months? After all, everyone has to see it from beginning to end on their own time, and they also need to be able to pause, comment and share.
Better leave that job in the hands of machines for the while being.
[Answer]
### Distance of communication causing higher energy burn
As you might be aware, for Electromagnetic transmission, [intensity is inversely proportional to square of distance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law#Light_and_other_electromagnetic_radiation). Assuming 2 people who want to talk are far away, and that the telepathic transmission is happening via EM waves, you will find people spending a lot of energy in just transmitting their messages across larger distance for maintaining a sufficient intensity. So far, this energy comes from regular ATP cycles.
Thus, beyond a few 10's of meters, the utility of telepathic communication can itself go down tremendously. Interestingly, this same range is serviceable by speech, so what you will find is that telepathy will generally be helpful only when people have some degree of proximity, so that speech is replaced by telepathy. Or the telepathic agents is a super sender (can sustain transmission over long distance - all hail another biological miracle).
Thus, phone/email/SMS/chat/internet will all still remain relevant, where telephone companies can continue operating, so that individuals don't simply burn out from all that transmission and reception.
[Answer]
Telecoms and social media companies would sponsor some unscrupulous researchers to claim that telepathy is dangerous, because "you never know who's listening to your mind."
Those scientists would suggest using mind protectors, which are thought-insulating hats. Going out without them would be like walking naked on the street. Fashion brands would design all kinds of fancy designs.
Telecoms would send lobbyists to the governments to make mind protectors mandatory to prevent communists and other enemies to listen to our thoughts. That way, Telecoms believe that they will prevent people from using telepathy.
Eventually, a venture capitalist will find a loop hole in the new laws, convincing people that "telepathy is the natural thing to do, because freedom!" Taking advantage of the situation, the VC would start harvesting those thoughts, selling them to big corporations.
[Answer]
Exactly as they do now:
* **Storing and delivering content,**
* Enabling asynchronous communication, and especially by
* Doing both **over long distances instantly**.
Those are significant aspects of almost all communication mediums across all of modern civilization. Live person-to-person speech is one of the *only* ways to communicate that has neither, and telepathy would have the same restriction.
### Stored Content
Nearly everything about civilization requires storing information for later consumption by others. Contracts, blueprints, love letters, international treaties, movies... If you ever want access to something after the moment of its creation, it has to be recorded. The internet allows storage and retrieval from anywhere in the world with a data connection.
### Enabling asynchronous communication
This is one of the reasons texting and chat apps have killed the phone call. Whether you're unavailable or just want to put something off, time-shifting something from *when it was sent* to *when you prefer to consume it* is huge. Eliminating the synchronous requirement is not only convenient for both parties, it enables someone to interact with a vastly larger number of people in many more ways. A huge number of things in modern life depends on this ability.
### Over long distances instantly
Interacting with people beyond the range of our voice is vital to the modern world. One of the key aspects of the industrial revolution was increasing the speed and range of both communication and travel; it's what lifted the world beyond Middle Age technology and standard of living. Being able to travel to another city/country/continent quickly and inexpensively resulted in a huge increase in economic activity, and help drive the rise of the middle class and a host of other changes. There's no way to maintain anything near the current living standards without retaining this ability.
[Answer]
Who is using their telephone only for verbal, person-to-person communication these days?
Sounds like your superpower is only competition for pre-1980 telephones and landlines.
Most people use their telephone or land line for much much more than just "live" voice calls.
[Answer]
Same way the telegram survived for years into the SMS era.
Adding [something that the newer experience couldn't provide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singing_telegram). In this case it may not be the Kissogram, or the Strippergram, which ran with the personal delivery that texts couldn't provide ...
I don't know what this will ultimately be, but it's something peculiar to our present day communications systems like the Internet that doesn't occur with direct telepathy.
Therefore, it will [probably involve cats...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDNP-SWgn2w)
Another important feature that can be offered by telecoms systems is end-to-end encryption : you can be reasonably sure that nobody below the government level is listening in, and only your intended recipient can see the message.
That would be difficult to arrange via telepathy (as in Cixin Liu's "Three Body Problem" where a telepathic culture had no concept of cheating or lying or dissembling because "think" and "say" were the same concept).
[Answer]
I think you would need to be able to turn the telepathy off because NOBODY could bear to have everybody in the world shouting at you twenty-four seven. The answer is simple, imagine twenty people shouting at you at once. Could you make out what any of them are saying? No. So global telepathy would be that scenario magnified a billion times.
[Answer]
**You want to keep your thoughts private.**
Maybe you need to contact your boss, but you think they are a complete idiot and a monkey could do a better job than they do. Well, if your where communicating telepathically then your boss will learn quite quickly what you *really* think about them. If your only communicating over a phone call then they would not find out.
There are a whole range of thoughts from finding someone attractive to utterly despising them, that you would prefer them not to know. By talking, perhaps only, over a telephone then the other person won't find out what you think.
[Answer]
Ignorance (is a bliss).
People will simply learn to ignore the "other voices" in their heads (or go mad). They will just mute it all. As such, you communication will never go through to them. Think of it like selective blindness for everything that looks like an Advertisement.
Phone, on the other hand (or email, or letter), is something that allows person to decide whether they want to pick it up, even see who is contacting them.
"Hello, mr Adams. I represent Nirvana Day LLC and would like to offer you a solution for screaming voices in your head. We can offer you a dedicated team of Buddhist specialists will fill your thoughts with meditational mantras all day long. What's best, the service is free and only requires Your agreement to listen to personally targetted adv-" [cue phone drop]
[Answer]
There is always the method introduced in Australia, which seems from first glance to be Rupert Murdoch controlling a bought-for politician.
Find a way to Tax the new communication medium for perceived losses suffered by the "old school" communication platforms.
A penny for your thoughts
[Answer]
They change business models. Two stagecoach companies still exist today, they're just not stagecoach companies any more. Both Wells Fargo and Adams Express became financial institutions; Wells Fargo is a bank and Adams Express is a closed-end fund (similar to a mutual fund).
[Answer]
A lot of it could do with the range of telepathy. Can an individual communicate with anyone, anywhere in the world on their own or do they need the help of a third party to establish long distance telepathic bonds? Also how do they filter out all the psychic noise coming from all the minds around them? You mention the ability to mute thoughts at will, but what if you are in an extremely crowded area, is it simple to mute that many thoughts? Maybe one idea is that telecom companies provide filtering service that mutes certain thought waves not targeted at an individual.
Think about how communication works today (as well as in the past). Historically circuit switching was used (nowadays we're moving away from circuit switching to packet switching but knowing the difference isn't necessary). Basically, everyone has a phone, but you can't just pick up your phone and start talking to your friend. Instead, you need to dial a number and then a connection has to be established, then the conversation can begin.
In internet routing, when your router wants to communicate with another router it doesn't magically connect to that router. Instead, it broadcasts a signal to other routers nearby asking them where the router you want to communicate with is. When that signal reaches a neighboring router, if it doesn't know where the router you are seeking is, it likewise broadcasts a signal to all its neighboring routers. This broadcasting process continues until the router you seek is found and then a connection is established and communication can begin.
So maybe think of a telepath service in much the same way as this routing process. You need to know where the individual you want to telepathically communicate with is at the current moment. So a telecom company could be responsible for locating the individual you want to talk to is and then establishing a telepathic connection between your two heads allowing communication over potentially great distances. This way you aren't just broadcasting telepathic messages to everyone around you, you just communicate directly with the person you sought. The telecom companies would have to be there to facilitate this communication.
This could also raise some interesting, additional concepts such as an individual's right to privacy vs. having companies that can locate them wherever they are at any moment.
[Answer]
All replies I've read are very interesting and smart. I'll give you another hint about how 'communication media' can survive a 'free for all' situation.
As, de facto, communication is already a 'free for all' situation, but most stuff you pay for is about magnitude and nature of the data.
Now figure out people learning a new meta-language that can transfer multiple concepts at once, using visualization. You'll be trained for, collecting such important skill as much people learned morse code in the past. Entrepreneurs will pay companies that host such "human data servers" to communicate large mass of data to their commercial partners.
I'll leave to you the social implications of transmitting sensible data thru a people mind (maybe they'll use a kinda 'image cryptography'), or what happen when an individual dream.
[Answer]
Telepathic is instantaneous - that is a problem. How do you contact someone in another timezone +-.12h? Wake them up? Ask if they are awake (*yeah , sure ... **now***)?
What about asynchronous contact - whatsapp & co excel in that - send a message, will be picked up and read eventually and answered (yeah I know, sometimes you answer immediately - but you are not *forced* to do that).
Sometimes you can put stuff into text messages that you would be too emberassed to do over phone, face-to-face or heaven help mind-to-mind.
And lastely - telephatic sharing of cat videos, internet memes and animated gifs suck.
] |
[Question]
[
I am working a wild wild west mixed with contemorary fantasy setting. So imagine knights in shining Armor, riding along side a train as a dragon flies over and breathes fire down.
on they have what are called Steam Rails. Big enchanted Engines that run on rails set into the ground. When you add water to the engine, it heats up the the water and turns the water into steam and the steam is then used to push the tires along tracks. Hence my version of trains. The water made for the steam rains on the road are made by Clerics who cast create water for the engines.
Magic is split up into 5 main different groups, wizardry Managerie (Mages), Soul searchers, clerical, and druidic.
Wizardry is the most common but very difficult to use cuz it take YEARS of study to do the simplest of spells. Wizardry is using knowledge to pull Magic out if the Magic world. Even after years of study some students may not even be able to grasp the magical knowledge past a certain level of magic. Enchanting is a school of Wizardy that can be learned.
Managerie magic is MUCH more rare it is people who are born with an ability to bend magic Natturally. It's more of a wild magic more powerful but less controlled like wizardry. Enchanting using Managerie magic could be very dangerous and so is not often done. It may work or it may make the Engine come to LIFE and start eating warm bodied people to power its self.
Soul searching is the ability to find the magic with in ones self, but again this can take years of study and training and learning and still not everyone is able to learn it. To enchant using soul searching magic would be to littural put part of your SOUL into an object which would be less than desirable to most people. There would not be enough of them selves to pass on after death and then you get ghosts powered by Engines.
Clerical is using the power of the gods, to use magic. People are wary to use clerics in stuff and for stuff as most clerics want to spread the word influence of their god and tend to take over where they work. The clerics who do work on the steam engines tend to be clerics to gods of mechanical things and invention so they enjoy working on the Steam Rails as they feel close to their god. The feel no need to take over as they are near their gods feild of influence. The only cleric that would be able to using enchantment magic would be Clerics of gods of machines. Except being a cleric they would most likely feel inclined to dedicate the Steam Rail to there god. Most companies feel inclined to keep there Engines to themselves as then the church and the clererie of that church might feel entitled to use the Steam Rails for missions of there God.
Druidic magic is the use if magic from nature. Most druids do not feel inclined to help upon a Steam rail which they find blasphemy to their way of life.
Enchanting by wizardry magic in my world is long and costly. It is pulling magic out of a parallel universe and putting it into objects. The more powerful the object the longer the enchantment. An enchantment of heat metal to the point of making 10s of gallons of water boil is a high level enchantment.
The steam rail engines can take YEARS to make. It can take years as the only way to speed up the process of enchanting is to have MORE people working on the enchantment but then the more people working on the enchantment the more people must be payed.
There are other types of obtaining magic but that are rare and far between and often obscure. One would not not want to employ the type of magic for instance called Borrowers. someone who has traded his soul to a devil as they might afraid of a wrong step they Borrower would bring the wrath of their patron down on the Stean Rail.
My problem is that once steam trains are made someone will eventually stick them onto a carriage and then there are cars.
I do not want cars in my fantasy setting. The steam rails are supposed to be rare and have an magic sense to them.
I need a REASON as to why people who not just make smaller steam run carriages.
My ideas was that the size of the magic steam producing engine cannot be made smaller than a certain size or otherwise they explode under the pressure of the steam. But if so why would they not make it out of a thicker or stronger or resistant steel for the engine...
Maybe the weight of the Engines is simply too much for the carriages but then why wouldn't they make stronger carriages to hold the engines...
To sum it up i need a reason why technology does NOT surpass that of trains and into cars. I WANT it to STAY at trains.
[Answer]
I've got what I think is a nice easy answer - you NEED the rails.
Yes, you need the fire, you need the water to create the steam, but unless you are running on the enchanted rails, you aren't going anywhere!
Perhaps the rails provide the magical "oomph" to turn a normal fire into something that can provide a high enough steam pressure, perhaps managing that steam into the pistons requires spells that are built into the rails, but without the rails, you have something that produces lots of steam, but isn't going anywhere.
Also, that will help to make your steam rails nice and rare - not only do you need to enchant the engines, the very rails themselves need to be ensorceled!
[Answer]
The effort to make a magic-engine doesn't have to scale linearly, so to make a small magic-engine still takes a long time to do. You could justify this in many ways. For instance that every engine require certain base enchantments to support the main power generating "burner" and these base enchants aren't affected by size because they're simply the magical framework on which the rest of the magic anchors on and only the "burner" enchantment itself scales with the size of the engine you make.
This way you can have a high fixed cost to create the engine, and then another smaller scaling cost on top to add the power generator depending on engine size. This makes small engines economically nonviable, while still creating limits to the size of the engines on the upper end.
You would probably still have small amount of lesser vehicles (because sometime you just need one and damn the costs), but they would be highly exceptional things.
[Answer]
That's what happened in 19th century. As soon as there were steam engines, steam buses started to appear.
But they were heavy and amount of damage that car does to road is proportional to 4th power of its weight. It quickly become evident that those buses profits were based on unpaid externality - broken roads so they were shut down.
[Answer]
### No assembly lines for magic
It sounds like you've already solved the problem without realizing it.
You said that magic *requires* individual enchanters building the object. You can also make it that the entire enchantment must be done by the same person or group of people - you cannot have one person create one part and another person create another part.
Let's say it takes a team of ten mages five years to create an engine. This means that, *at a minimum*, the total cost of the automobile engine must be more than the total wages a single magic-engineer earns in *50 years*. (Plus all the additional expenses, like material costs). There will be no way for a typical wage-worker to ever afford a car of their own.
While the automobile was invented in the 1800s, it didn't reach widespread use until the 1900s, when the creation of the assembly line made their mass-production significantly more efficient. If the nature of magic precludes the use of assembly lines, there is no economy of scale - that is, the production cannot be made cheaper or more efficient by building additional equipment or hiring more workers. While cars may exist in your world, they will forever remain toys for the extremely wealthy and will never reach the widespread use they have today.
[Answer]
The International Association of Horse Breeders and Carters is **very** politically powerful. They object to paving roads because of the extra wear on horses' hooves. The rather heavy steam cars get stuck in the ruts in the unpaved roads, and have to be pulled out by teams of horses, for a not-so-small fee.
[Answer]
Make it so that an engine requires a magic person to be there to steer it. Perhaps a priest is needed at all times to refill the water. Perhaps a magic person is needed to maintain the enchantments, or they need to make minute to minute changes?
Perhaps in the future they can innovate this need away, but right now every engine needs a skeleton crew of 'engineers' to keep it operating. And this is simply not feasible for an automobile. It would also make the trains even more special as every new engine needs a skeleton crew assigned to it at all times.
[Answer]
**The rails are the key.**
Magic requires the flow of the energies from the air to the earth. Iron rails, and the iron wheels that ride on them, and the safe conduit for that flow.
Many times before, people had build engines atop wooden or rubber wheels. They even tried iron tyres around wooden wheels.
In every case the energies were blocked, resulting in an inevitable buildup and violent discharge. It was only through the use of the iron energy conduit that magic could be safely applied.
Many powerful magicians died to learn this truth.
[Answer]
# Sheer Size.
Steam engines simply do not work at a small scale. You can get big, beefy engines that pull heavy loads, but if you try to shrink them down too small, you get the this bit of the magic too close to the that bit of the magic and the warding scheme can't hold and the entire thing explodes.
[Answer]
There are no rubber trees in your world. Tires are metal or wood. Nothing else is possible with the materials on hand.
Metal wheels must stay on reinforced tracks. Taking metal wheels on cobblestones or dirt roads tears up the roads and renders them unusable. Metal wheels have a difficult time stopping on wet or frosty cobblestones. Therefore, metal wheels must be confined to metal-reinforced surfaces such as rails.
Wooden wheels are technically possible. They work for carts and carriages. But they are prone to breaking. The weight of the engine requires a massive amount of power to move. The power produced by the engine makes it very easy for the car to move faster and generate more force than wooden wheels can withstand. The first time you hit a rock or a pothole, that wheel will shatter. Wooden wheels also don’t have much stopping power on wet or icy surfaces. Wooden wheels don’t have the traction to go up cobbled inclines. They work for carts because the horse is digging in with hooves to provide the traction, and even then it’s hard to go uphill in the rain. A wooden-wheeled contraption on its own has no chance of making it up a slick hill. Also, they are overly efficient at making it down slick hills.
Thus, no cars.
[Answer]
**This magic has a strange requirement to work, so that it can be used only on a mass transit vehicle**
We know that one of the main features of magic is that sometimes it works in unintelligible and irrational ways.
Basically, the magic somehow can sense the number of people carried by the object it is casted upon. If it contains less than - say - 50 people, the magic has no effects and the vehicle can't move.
So, you need to cast it on a mass transit vehicle, like a train, and trains themselves need a minimum number of passengers to be able to travel.
It could also make for some plot devices (like, the fiftieth passenger jumps away from the train, so that it stops in the middle of nowhere...)
[Answer]
To make cars you need more than a steam engine.
For Otto cycle motors you need to understand how to create a spark, and that requires understanding electromagnetism.
For Diesel cycle motors you need suitable fuels.
As long as neither of the two things above are available in your world, cars are out of the picture.
Since in your world enchanting is time and money consuming, it makes also sense that no effort is put into using it of a small vehicle like a car: it's more efficient to enchant a train, since it would carry more people/goods.
[Answer]
Cars, as we know them, require paved roads. So prevent paved roads from becoming common.
Paved roads grew to solve three problems:
* Dust control from dirt surfaces
* Sanitation issues caused by large numbers of horses and oxen mixed with storm runoff
* Smooth travel surfaces needed for bicycles.
So your cities must remain small towns: Low density of horses and cows. More vegetation and roadside ditches instead of streets and curbs. And no bicycles.
[Answer]
Don't go down the steam path at all, unless the steam-magic-punk aesthetic is crucial. Have an enchanted rail with an enchanted thingamajig on the train that acts as a <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_induction_motor>.
That way you don't even have to explain away why people haven't tried putting 2+2 together and tried heating water with wood to create steam if magic is so expensive, since the trains are so good that no competing technology can get off the ground.
It would also explain why it can't be scaled down into a smaller engine, if the enchanted rail slowly sucks in the relatively diffuse natural magic of the world over the course of the day and over a very large area, since the rails are 100s of km long and discharges it into the passing train's thingamajig.
High traffic rail-roads may be limited to ley-lines for interesting story conflicts, e.g. druids can't plant their magic grove, because that would shift the land's ley-lines and leave a Class-A railroad without power.
[Answer]
Your world is but a single **supercontinent with zero biodiversity**, geologically homogeneous, and inhabited by peaceful people who are generally self-sufficient.
That's the only real reason that the 'shipping industry', which wouldn't exist, hasn't invented the automobile. No spices, no exotic lands or peoples, no war : no reason to bother your neighbor other than to borrow a cup of sugar. Kinda lame, but lame is the only thing that will get in the way of progress.
[Answer]
## Cost.
As you state in the question, these engines are expensive. A car engine transports four people. A train engine transports several hundred people. If they cost the same, there won't be very many cars. Maybe a few buses. (Many people have mentioned this, just repeating it for completeness)
## Public safety.
These things are *dangerous*! After a few accidents where wayward buses run over innocent pedestrians, they are forbidden.
Trains are allowed as they stay on their tracks. The railroad owns the land these tracks are on and forbid entry to others. (Enforced by fences and/or spells)
This has its own problems. The railway station is in the middle of town and the tracks cut the town in two. People will want to get from one half to the other. Tunnels and bridges are the expensive but safe solutions. Single-level crossings are cheap and dangerous. You might want to have magical warning bells or barriers.
## The military
The military has a different view on dangerous things. And money. If your country is at risk, no price is too high. It is up to you how important the military is in your world.
They will have trucks to transport both soldiers and materiel. Since they are so expensive, they will probably stay some distance back from the front. They will still be immensely useful.
They will probably *not* have mobile weapon platforms, i.e. "tanks". These would be too expensive and too short lived to be useful. Note the old saying: "If the enemy is in range, so are you."
[Answer]
Efficiency of building large or small engines (different than the already mentioned answers).
You build a magic steam engine for a train. Its large, its powerful and useful. The runes and incantations are numerous and require space to make. If you scale this down then you dont cut down on man hours but increase them as now they have to make the runes smaller and more intricate to still function, on top of that fewer people can work on the same engine at the same time.
As a bonus the smaller engine design could also mean less powerful incantations and enchantments, meaning it doesnt provide the necessary power to drive a car especially in a pre-aluminium era. So you'd bring a horse instead.
[Answer]
Here's an idea from me:
## Maintenance
The steam engines require regular tuning up to maintan efficiency and safety to prevent violent disasters, to a point where either the nation or the association responsible for their creation refuses to invest manpower and take on the risks inherent in the existence of personal carriages.
[Answer]
1) Scale: the technofantasy engine doesn't scale well when miniaturized, with the power it generates becoming smaller faster then the volume. Below a certain size it can't generate enough power to propel itself. With this you also get rid of planes (cars and planes go hand to hand), so no me109 killing your dragons.
2) Weak industrialization: your society is not industrialized. It lacks large scale ironworks, lacks interchangeable parts, lacks standard measurement units. That increases the costs of the engines.
But there is something else you have to take into account: huge, armored, locomotives with tracks instead of railroad wheels, the thing that in our world we call tanks. How to avoid tanks? First, no good gunpowder. Without good gunpowder you can't create artillery and with no artillery there is nothing to mount on the tanks, lowering their appeal. They will be glorified armored troop transports. How to avoid even the armored mobile infantry? If you have no guns you can't protect your APC from the enemy infantry. They will approach your APC, break your tracks and your APC became just a prison to those inside it. An oven, should the enemy infantry bring with them some flameable liquid to torch the APC. So, the armored locomotive on tracks is useless. Maybe it will see action in sieges as way to help sappers approach the wall without getting hit. Smart fortification engeneering like moats, pits, fortresses on swamps or mountains and inclined walls might solve that
[Answer]
Their are already some nice answers here, but to me they seem to miss the most obvious/important thing:
* Time
Settings should not be static, things change over time in the real world and in any fantasy world their has to be actual change for it to be convincing. In real life their was about 80 years between the invention of the train and the car, so even without any kind of magical stipulations/rules that stop people inventing cars you could easily claim a 100 year window where the setting is exactly as you describe it, and tell your story at that time. This is the simplest solution.
If you are writing a book I don't think you really need to waste the readers time explaining why their are no cars. The Lord of The Rings doesn't sit me down and tell me why the people of middle earth have not invented guns, electricity or spaceships yet, nor does it need too.
[Answer]
The train is needed to **transport the large amount of water** that is used.
A lot water is used, because the train is not driven by a steam engine as we know it.
**It uses a steam jet!**
It uses so much water that it needs extra tank cars.
Also, a jet drive can not be used on a street, because the exhaust is dangerous to people on the street.
The jet could be created in two ways:
It could be just a stream of steam or water pointing backwards, with an extremely high speed. Just heat the steam enough.
Or
It works similar to a jet engine, but instead of using oil based fuel, it uses water. In the part or the engine where normally the fuel is burned to create pressure, the water is heated to steam instead, creating pressure too.
You can even make the steam jet engine stronger than engines used today, because engines burning fuel are limited by too much heat for the best materials!
And if you want to get fancy, build a high bypass turboprop from it.
[Answer]
If you REALLY want to mess everyone up, it is because a greater god saw the havoc it would wreak on the ecosystem, and he called the gods together and showed them. They came to an agreement that the technology (as well as any other technologies you do not wish in-game) can simply NOT be thought of or dreamed about by the populace. In essence, the gods, who control existence, do not wish this tech to exist.
] |
[Question]
[
**There are flying warriors wear wing suits.**
Kind of like this but with wings extending past the arms that they control with their hands
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Bnzmm.jpg)
These warriors do not have the technology to make guns but they do have bows and cross bows.
**How could they combine bows or cross bows with their wing suits?**
**I am talking about a hands-free way of firing and reloading arrows while flying (darts will also work).**
[Answer]
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/f4JY7.jpg)
Your warriors are going to need a co-pilot/gunnery officer.
(Note: Despite appearances, this answer does not advocate the weaponization of babies!)
[Answer]
Just go for darts. Already done, and it work.
[War darts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flechette) were used duringg WW1. While not dropped by hand, they were still droped without any complex mecanism. Given enough altitude, kinetic energy was enough to be lethal.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/cVBe0.png)
While you can't take as much darts as an aircraft can lift, it can still be enough to harass ennemy, and would be much easyer to use than bow/crossbow
[Answer]
If your world has clockwork, you could (in theory) have a clockwork mechanism that [reloads and cocks a spring-fed repeating crossbow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeating_crossbow), and be activated with a. This probably wouldn't be very powerful, so (as per the original) poison tips could be used to increase the effect. It would also be rather heavy.
You mentioned that the flying warriors control their flight with their hands, thus another possibility would be to have a fixed tail, allowing for a bow to be cocked using the legs. I imagine some sort of stirrup that one pushes back to cock.
[Answer]
# FIRE!!!
Yes, having crossbows as weapons would work\*. Four across the back, firing forward, as air to air missiles. Four across the chest, firing down, as air to surface missiles. Each one is connected by a wire to one of the pilot's fingers. While that digit is curled, the wire is loose. Straighten the finger, the wire is pulled taut and the connected crossbow fires.
# RELOAD!!!
Low tech automatic crossbows exist. The [Mythbusters built one](https://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/arrow-machine-gun-high-speed-3) (though at ballista size). They have a gravity loading magazine, and a crank to pull the string back between shots. You could have the crank mechanism be tied to the pilot rolling or waving their wrist.
An alternative (or maybe an addition) would be to have a sail connected to the bowstring. After the crossbow is fired, the sail is pulled taut, and the force of the wind on the sail pulls (or at least helps to pull) the bowstring back.
# What a drag\*
Here's the thing. The crossbows you could sell. There are some fairly light but powerful crossbows out there. Crossbows fired by tripwires and pressure plates are moderately well known (you could use the tripwire example as a lampshade).
The reloading? Not so much. Gravity fed magazines stick up and out by design. They add a lot of drag and more weight, neither of which is good for a wingsuit. Plus if the pilot needs to dive or roll, the gravity feeder won't work, or since they are touchy as is, might get out of alignment.
On top of that, neither of the reloading methods are especially believable for a wingsuit. Neither one is going to provide the force to cock a reasonably deadly crossbow, at least without adding a lot of weight or drag. Which, as mentioned before, is bad.
# TL;DR
Crossbows as weapons without needing hands, yes. Reloading, not so much.
[Answer]
[**Bowden cable**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowden_cable) (like bicycle brakes)
A 1918 Lewis gun on a Foster mounting fitted to an Avro 504K Night Fighter. The gun trigger is operated by a Bowden cable
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/FT87i.jpg)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lQWhD.jpg)
>
> A Bowden cable (/ˈboʊdən/ BOH-dən) is a type of flexible cable used to transmit mechanical force or energy by the movement of an inner cable relative to a hollow outer cable housing. The housing is generally of composite construction, consisting of an inner lining, a longitudinally incompressible layer such as a helical winding or a sheaf of steel wire, and a protective outer covering.
>
>
>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eyMcj.png)[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/fRWZU.jpg)
[Answer]
In compound archery, shooting a bow without moving arms us already possible using a back tension release aid. Reloading on the other hand...
By the way, one doesn't fire arrows. Fire as a term relates to firearms. The correct terms are shoot or loose.
[Answer]
While using a wing suit the arms and legs have to maintain a given position to provide lift. Thus cannot be moved to do anything else.
Not being able to use their hands means they cannot reload the weapon.
This immediately rules out the bow, and leaves on the stage only the cross bow.
They might wear a couple of them, one on the back and one on the chest, and have them loaded before they take off.
Once in flight they can fire the weapon by pulling a string with their mouth, once they are aligned with their target.
[Answer]
Your question reminded me very much of the Siyee from Priestess of the White by Trudi Canavan. They are winged people with bat-like wings.
<https://canavansbooks.fandom.com/wiki/Siyee>
>
> The Siyee are a small race (about the size of a human child) who are light, fragile and have few magical Gifts. They have delicate bones which are easily broken. The thumb and forefinger are the only parts not in the structure of their wings, and their hands are useless for tasks that require strength.
>
>
>
One of the Siyee, Tryss, was an inventor and created a harness that allowed him to fire arrows like an archer while flying.
<https://canavansbooks.fandom.com/wiki/Tryss>
>
> In his spare time, Tryss made a harness which helps to injure animals, and be used for attack and defense. He tested it out to show others, and ended up gaining the help of Drilli who added a blowpipe to the contraption. He then showed the harness out to the entire group of Siyee, who realised the potential in the device.
>
>
>
You can read more about the harness in the actual book.
Hmm... on second thoughts I think it was a harness that held a blow dart pipe and allowed him to fire darts from it.
[Answer]
Here is a youtube video of a [automatic cross-bow](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QS4RKoRyTik). The main problems would be
1) Weight - every extra pound lowers both range and top speed.
2) Aim - Because hands and feet have to stay in the "Flying Squirrel" formation, you'll have to attach it to the warrior's chest and have them point in the general direction.
[Answer]
Depending on the level of technology you're looking for:
1. Blow darts, with a feeding mechanism that allows the user to suck in to feed the next dart into the barrel after one is shot. Swarms of these flying blow-dart soldiers would be mentally terrifying as well, hearing a thousand "Thoot, huff, thoot, huff, thoot, huffs" as they fly overhead.
2. Crossbows attached to the lower legs that could be fired by flicking your feet forward. Reloading could be accomplished by pulling the foot back which triggers a mechanism to feed a new arrow in.
3. Chest/back mounted bolt gun attached to a computer riddled suit. AR visor helmet with iris tracking features allows the 'pilot' to seek out a target, and blink twice to fire, or simply say "FIRE!"
[Answer]
They would use a horse bow (also known as a mongolian recurve bow) for the small size and lightness. They would have a mechanism to allow them to briefly lock the wings in extended positions and then retract their hands from the suit in order to fire. They would not be able to maneuver except for minor corrections through their legs while firing but that would be fine to allow strafing runs.
With training they would be able to lock the wings, fire off a few shots, then grab the wings again and continue flying.
[Answer]
Unfortunately, I can't think of an ideal way of doing this. Best I could come up with is some sort of spear system where the pilot releases them with a button or such. But it wouldn't be effective nor would you have enough ammo. If you had people in wing suits, your best bet would just to be to use them as artillery, as aiming is tough and they can't fly indefinitely, so dropping things would be more effective than shooting. Hence heavier objects would be more useful, but then they can't fly...
But I was thinking about your question, and I'm not sure but you say they're flying warriors. If they are in fact flying and can go up and not just glide, (unlike the wingsuit you referenced), then they'd probably have a completely different device. You say the wings expand past the arms. I assume they flap their arms in a similar manner to birds to fly?
Perhaps your warriors would be using something similar to the flying machine in assasins creed? [](https://i.stack.imgur.com/j6c9e.png)
Maybe it would bend along the center to allow the warriors to move the wings.
If so then you could have a rope over the top that holds the wings in place without the user having their hands in place, so perhaps they can push the wings out with their hands so the rope becomes taut and then equip a bow and arrow, the rope holding the wings at the current extention so they're gliding across the battlefield raining death from above.
] |
[Question]
[
Through some evil scientist man's evil plot to destroy the world, he transported the entire Earth away from the sun into an unknown point in space where there is no sun. Could we recover?
Details-
* assume the transportation was instantaneous and there were no collisions with random space bits.
* Earth and buildings and such are unharmed by the transportation
* Earth still has an atmosphere
* humans were not harmed by the transportation
* the nearest star is too far away to provide any warmth
* the Moon is still there. You just can't see it
* any space junk between earth and the moon is still there (satellites, old rocket engines, passing space rocks, etc.)
* people have three months heads up to prepare
Since the only thing missing is the sun and the rest of the solar system, could we recover before we all die?
I don't want any 'we're all dead' answers because those make for bad story lines. Try to be optimistic for the next five minutes and post a good answer that will help.
**This is not a duplicate** of *[What would happen to the Earth if it were suddenly transported to a completely empty void?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/136562/what-would-happen-to-the-earth-if-it-were-suddenly-transported-to-a-completely-e)* or *[If only the sun's light went out, how long would it take for all living things to die out?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/100211/if-only-the-suns-light-went-out-how-long-would-it-take-for-all-living-things-t)*. These focus on the effects of such a transportation, but I'm concerned about the recovery process.
[Answer]
**We Can't**
Nearly everything you see is powered, directly or indirectly, by the sun. Without it, the Earth cools down quickly and **everything will die**: vegetation, animals, humans. If you can get to a heated shelter with years of food, you can only last longer. The cold is so immense, any mechanism will fail, the atmosphere does weird stuff under such cold temperatures. What is left of humanity simply doesn't have the manpower or equipment to stay alive, let alone recover.
[Answer]
Yes, you can recover, but you must act fast. The only hope is the emerging planet teleportation technology.
Put all human resources to either:
a) find that evil scientist and force them to teleport Earth back, or near some other suitable star; or
b) duplicate their technology and do the same.
Best strategy may be to try both at the same time.
[Answer]
**Survival for a small part of humanity is possible for some time, long-term survival is unlikely, full recovery almost impossible.**
Someone [calculated that it would take almost a year](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/100218/2300) for the top 100m of Earth (including the oceans) to freeze solid. It would take many, many years for the oceans to freeze through.
So there is some time for the construction of deep underground and submarine shelters, and using geothermal and nuclear power it is in theory possible to maintain these (growing food with artificial lighting) for a long, long time. Sure, it's not renewable energy, but strictly speaking, nothing really is.
The problem is that it's obviously not feasible to do this at a scale that can support all of humanity, or even a significant part. In fact, it's questionable whether it's possible at all to do it both quickly enough and thoroughly enough to last - constructing power plants usually takes years, and this situation would not only give much less time but also add challenges (such as the whole thing having to be underground, and of course freezing cold and everyone on Earth panicking).
And then there's maintenance. You'll have to build these power plants using all the latest technology that's become standard. But you won't have that technology around indefinitely. A lot of modern technology basically requires out entire global civilization to produce. Most significantly, microchips. Producing a current-day CPU requires so much know-how and capital to make the tools to make the machines to make the tools to make the machines to make the machines to make the actual CPU that only a handful of companies on Earth can do it.
A few tens of thousands of humans living in shelters deep under the surface won't be able to maintain that level of technology, not even close. So when the original tech starts to fail, they will almost certainly die.
Then again, the ingenuity of humans is often surprising, and they built nuclear power plants before there were microchips, even before were mass-produced transistors. Maybe they'd manage somehow.
Even then, though, recovering to a billions-strong civilization doesn't seem possible.
[Answer]
### Most of us die within a year. Some groups can survive for a few thousand years.
We ***could theoretically*** all survive it, the oceans and ground would hold enough heat for the better part of a year to keep the atmosphere breathable. To survive it we'd need to build in 6 months:
* Convert all existing large underground space into a bunker.
+ There is a lot of pre-dug large underground spaces already on the planet. We call them mines. For example. A single salt mine in Pakistan has enough space to hold 110 million people (in bunks). There's enough underground mines in the state of NSW, Australia to give everyone in Australia 50 cubic meters underground each.
+ These would need to be insulated, divided into dorms / small appartments, furnished, connected to utilities, etc.
* Or, build a dome over an existing city.
* Install a small nuclear power plant or geothermal plant in each
* Install hydroponics and water purification system.
* Install air and CO2 filtration systems.
That's a lot of work. With 0 warning, 7 billion people working with a near-hive mind in perfect unison could probably get it done, but realistic humans, panicking, disconnected, poorly organised, and all thinking of their own personal issues, no chance in hell. 3 Months warning, some organised, functional societies may get it done.
A group who gets a bunker up and running could survive for a few thousand years in sealed underground bunkers, and could stretch that for another few thousand by digging down further.
But, looking at how we've handled existing, much slower climate problems, it shows that many countries won't be able to accomplish this. As a society, we're still trying to build new coal power plants despite pleas from everyone who doesn't get coal money - many parts of the world would have no hope of getting our act together in time.
So, who survives? Pick a disaster and compare how the people of that country responded to it. USA? Covid19 - enough said. Katrina? Yeah they're doomed. Europe not looking too good either. I'd give Australia a 10% chance of getting a small colony up, we've done very well at containing covid (our critical 2nd wave Victorian outbreak was better than business-as-usual elsewhere in the world) and our bushfires had a very low death toll compared to smaller bushfires in Brazil and America. Most of the 3rd world is gone.
But a very industrialised group, with nuclear power already near their cities, with good production and R&D near their cities, and an authoritative state controlling every part of their lives, could dome their cities within 6 months. It's very possible some Chinese mega-cities can dome themselves in this time. They'd need a lot of nuclear fuel for this, and all the Uranium deposit in China are far away from the cities. They'd need to mine very quickly (as the deposits are going to be harder to get once the ground freezes) and set up hydroponics very quickly, but its just within the realm of plausible that a hundred million or so Chinese survive.
I'd want to give some Arab cities a decent chance too, however the logistics of importing parts and materials needed during this time of panic, not good.
[Answer]
Since there is speculation that we might survive on geothermal and nuclear power, I decided to run some math.
If we had the technology to mine all the uranium in the crust of the Earth, we could gather enough uranium to extract about the same amount of energy as Chicxulub. My calculations are in [Is it possible to kill all life on Earth?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/147882/21222) We definitely don't have the technology to mine al the uranium in the crust because:
1. we can barely dig [12 km experimentally](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kola_Superdeep_Borehole), whereas continental crust has a thickness [ranging from 30km to 50km according to wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_crust). Some sources cite up to 70km in some points.
2. that would involve filtering all of the Earth's crust, literally. The surface of the planet would be unrecognizable.
Let's assume that, by magic, we teleport all that uranium to the surface and use it. According to [this handy table](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1018_to_1023_J), we have about 5 $\times$ 1023 joules available. That is almost 10% of the total solar energy that we get in a year. Let's say we have one month worthy of global solar energy (the next item on the table).
If we could also magically convert all that energy into sunlight, we could keep the planet running for a month. Let's say we divert it all to agriculture, though. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, [about 11% of the world's surface were farmlands in 2003](http://www.fao.org/3/y4252e/y4252e06.htm#:%7E:text=At%20present%20some%2011%20percent,degree%20suitable%20for%20crop%20production.) (see section 4.3). So we might keep farming viable for 10 months.
But you see, there is a lot of handwaving and magic being done to achieve those numbers. In reality we wouldn't be able to keep the world going as is. Even the logistics to keep a regular nuclear power plant going involve chains of logistics that span areas much beyond the actual power plant.
Suppose we decide to build a self-sufficient plant on top of an uranium mine. With forewarning, we could build a bunker that could sustain thousands of people with hydroponic farming, right?
Well, no, because:
1. We could barely keep eight people in a "self-sufficient" space designed to provide sustainable farming. We have research on that, [both Biosphere missions were textbook fiascos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2).
2. A few thousand people would probably provide for very poor genetic variability. This would not kill humanity directly. But over time the population would be so homogeneous genetically that, combined with the small population, it can easily and quickly be wiped out by a new germ.
[Answer]
To my understanding, very little of life on Earth can be subjected to deep interstellar temperatures and radiations and survive. Some 'extremophile' bacteria and a very few species like tardigrades can last for a short time, but in the end, no. We're all toast. Very Frozen permanent toast.
[Answer]
I'm going to be a dissenting optimistic opinion (to a degree).
A major chunk of Humanity will die, and it's very possible that the knock on effects will cripple our ability to react to to the crisis.
However.
If short term survival can be achieved then there's cause to believe we would be able to recover in time.
Firstly, Earth's supply of fissile materials is actually quite extensive - especially once you factor Thorium into it. Fission power in this setting becomes even more attractive than in real life because the excess heat can be used to heat homes and cities, and the Carnot efficiency of the power generation systems increases as the exterior temperatures drop.
I don't know what people are talking about in terms of hurdles with nuclear fuel, it's all bollocks from what I can tell. Why would processing, disposal, or handling of nuclear fuel be show stoppers?
Secondly, we can burn as much oil as we want in the short term with no ill effect to tide us over until we can build up enough nuclear capacity. (the ecosystem is dead anyways and we actually want as many greenhouse gasses as we can to slow down the cooling of the planet).
Now, you don't need bunkers to survive either, it's much easier to insulate surface structures. It would become a lot more expensive to feed a person because agriculture would have to move into greenhouses with artificial lighting, so population growth would be slower, but there's no physical reason I can think of that we couldn't recover if we could survive the initial upheaval.
Weather would stop after a while, so we'd see far fewer natural disasters as well (except for earthquakes).
edit: Also, a clear and present danger such as this event has a way of bringing people together and focusing the on the problem at hand, so I feel like there's be less infighting than one would expect.
[Answer]
You want to be optimistic? **You need a [generation ship](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_ship) (or the earthbound equivalent of it)** - this science fiction mainstay is a spaceship that's self-sufficient in power, food, population, medicine, spare parts, and everything else needed to sustain a population for thousands of years. Of course, they're designed to survive in the vast gulfs between stars.
These [show up in Sci-Fi pretty frequently](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GenerationShips) - although perhaps that's because it's a good mechanism for social critique, rather than because it's particularly realistic.
You could choose whether to make it a spaceship or an underground biosphere - not needing to go to space keeps things simple, but some would see an eternity trapped in frozen caves as a bit of a pessimistic outcome.
Could we build such a thing at all? Could we do it with only a year or two until the planet froze over? Could all the world's great powers unite and pool their resources, or does their nature preclude that? Would there only be space for a tiny fraction of earth's population? If so, would the 99.99% destined to die be helpful to the efforts? All questions you can explore in your writings.
If you're interested in this subject, you might enjoy the first half of [Neal Stephenson's book Seveneves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0062190377) which has a premise with a lot of overlap.
[Answer]
Yes, but you need technology and raw materials...
Phase 1
1. Pump huge amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere
to buy time.
2. Build as many geothermal power & heating plants as you can.
3. Put up inflated foil domes (bubble-wrap) over each city to keep heat and air in.
4. Use huge arc lights to shine up towards the foil dome and reflect the light down.
5. Pump water from the ocean to heat the land surface, the ocean re-heats from the earth's core.
6. Build many nuclear fission and fusion reactors near every city to power the lights and heating, shipping container sized plants currently take 5 years to build.
Each city becomes a self contained life support system, outside the cities nature eventually dies away. The heat from the cities keep the atmosphere from complete collapse but is very wasteful of energy emitting to space.
Phase 2
1. Build cities under the ocean, near geothermal sources if your technology can handle the earthquakes.
2. Fleets of space ships search out and mine resources on asteroids and further away planets.
3. Build 1m thick concrete domes over cities for radiation shielding and insulation as the atmosphere freezes.
4. Eventually connect the cities together so that the concrete dome spans the whole planet.
5. After a long time of mining, the planet may be turned into a miniature dyson sphere but instead of being powered by a star, it's powered by nuclear fission and fusion.
Note:
* In 2015 humans consumed 5 × 10^17 btu energy, which equates to
consuming 6750 kg of relativistic mass m from E = mc^2.
* The earth weighs 5×10^24 kg which can last 8×10^20 years, ignoring practicality and inefficiencies.
* The energy needed from matter conversion to run the planet is
equivalent to the amount of energy lost to space, better insulation
means less energy needed.
Why not stick to coal power?
The following calculations indicate there's ample oxygen in the atmosphere to run the planet on coal power for years.
```
Weight of earth atmosphere
= 5×10^18kg
Atmospheric oxygen as percentage
= 20vol%
Weight of Atmospheric oxygen
= 5×10^18kg * 20vol%
= 1×10^18kg
Allocate 33% of oxygen to human & animal breathing,
33% to electricity generation and leave 33% as unextractable.
Human and animal breathing:
Weight of Atmospheric oxygen budgeted
= 1×10^18kg / 3
Oxygen consumed per person sized animal per year
= 740kg
Number of humans and animals saved
= 7 billion humans + 14 billion animals
= 21 billion
Max person years of oxygen extractable from atmospheric oxygen
= 1×10^18kg / 3 / 740kg/year / 21 billion animals
= 21,450 human & animal years of oxygen for breathing.
Electricity generation:
Weight of Atmospheric oxygen budgeted
= 1×10^18kg / 3
Weight of CO2 per kWh electricity from Coal
= 1kg
Oxygen percentage weight of co2
= 72.7%
Weight of O2 per kWh electricity from Coal
= 0.727kg/kWh
Annual electricity generation
= 2.2×10^13 kWh/year
Max years of electricity supply extractable from atmospheric oxygen
= 1×10^18kg / 3 / 0.727kg/kWh / 2.2×10^13kWh/year
= 20,841 years of coal based electricity available
.
```
Ref:
* <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149197014002960>
* <https://tardis.fandom.com/wiki/100000000000000>
* <https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Dyson_sphere>
* <https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollowWorld>
* <http://insideenergy.org/2017/01/12/energy-explained>
* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_conversion_(energy_source)>
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s\_energy\_budget#Earth's\_internal\_heat\_and\_other\_small\_effects](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth%27s_internal_heat_and_other_small_effects)
[Answer]
Interesting question but as per the other answers, this would lead to the death of almost all species within a few months. Humans would fair a bit longer, well the few who have access to underground bunkers with large reserves of food and fuel. Some species of bacteria would survive for eons, as if the earth had not moved at all.
## Alternate Interpretation
But you do not mention if we have warning (although the question does imply almost no time). Given enough time to prepare, we could survive and even expand our civilization to the stars beyond.
## Infrastructure
With enough time, we could shift all of our manufacturing and agricultural infrastructure below ground, granted we have a united and coherent populace where cost is of no concern.
Underground dwellings would offer insulation from the sub zero temperatures of the surface and agriculture would produce not only food but oxygen for the inhabitants. Manufacturing could continue as oil and the various metals/minerals we rely on would surround us. I'm sure there would be a lot of details we would need to iron out and technologies that would need to be researched, but with warning we could move this underground. Obviously as this infrastructure will need to be powered!
## Power
Geothermal activity would still be present for billions of years and could be used much as we do today. Uranium and Thorium are abundant in the crust and both could last us around 100,000 years depending on how efficient we can get. With the large deposits of solid oxygen at the surface, we can also make use of bio-fuels in combustion for remote work that is off the grid (if battery tech does not advance).
## Society
How society as a whole would fair is a different story as the human mind is complex. Would we all become manic-depressives without sunlight? Would society lose it's cohesion leading to tribal warfare? It's hard to say but an interesting topic for another question.
[Answer]
**TL:DR** It is plausible, probable, and in fact very likely, that at least a small portion of humanity will survive and indeed prosper if that event actually occured today. Further, if this question were asked, or this event occurs, in as little as ten years from now, the answer would be an even more certain '**yes**'. Change that 'three month' lead time into a 'five year' lead time, and our chances are almost completely assured.
We already have technologies that would allow us to survive, and even more are in the pipeline, and are being ramped up. We are developing technologies that will allow us to survive in the depths of space, on very long journeys, on alien planets, and in very hostile environments. In fact, surviving under such conditions would be equivalent to surviving on the moon, during the lunar night, and even to some extent on Mars. Certainly, the first food production in these colonies will be biodome hydroponic based, using synthetic solar power (non-biological) technology. Replace solar power with nuclear power, and all of the other technologies we are developing for survival on these space habitats are relevant.
With full apologies to the answer provided by @Ash, unfortunately for America and the West, however, the most likely country to have any survival chances will be China, if this event happened today, with only a three month lead time. They are now the undisputed world leaders in advancing the necessary technology. (It is also worthy of note, that the Western news media is unfortunately deliberately obfuscating and downright censoring exactly how advanced China and Asia are in this area, and in fact are deliberately throwing roadblocks in the way to prevent China from developing the necessary technology. See [this](https://energycentral.com/c/ec/terrapower-leave-china-bill-gates-still-game) and [this](https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottcarpenter/2020/08/31/bill-gates-nuclear-firm-says-new-reactor-can-backstop-grid-with-molten-salt-storage/#7531a02f5e65), for instance. Even Internet searches are being filtered. Legitimate sites highlighting Chinese technology advances that came up as late as last year, no longer show up in Google or Duck-duck-go.)
Basically, if Sci Fi writers can argue that **Generation Ships** are plausible, and people can survive hundreds of years on them, certainly humans can build the equivalent here on earth, and equaly survive for hundreds of years, probably longer. I do not see why @mjt was down-voted, as the answer just needed to be tweaked from humans building a Generation Ship, to humans creating the same concept here on Earth. That is, turn the Earth into a Generation Ship.
We already have aircraft carriers and submarines powered by nuclear rectors that can go years on their own power. They have been doing so safely for almost 50 years. But now, the technologies to do so are no longer military secrets, and small scale nuclear reactors are going into commercial production. Last year, a google search could get you the names of major corporations in China that were leading in the field. In fact, [China](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-31/mini-reactors-could-mark-nuclear-power-s-return-in-the-push-for-greener-grids) is already well into commercial production of community-sized nuclear reactors, so the production facilities already exist. China and Asia, are the world [leaders](https://asiatimes.com/2020/02/tomorrows-nuclear-reactors-small-but-beautiful/) in small nuclear reactor technology, and the US are Johny-come-lately to the party. If anyone will survive, it will be because of these Small Modular Reactors (SMR's)that power our survival in local, even remote, enclaves.
We have biodomes in [Canada's North](https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2020/08/11/greenhouse-in-arctic-canada-could-teach-scientists-how-to-grow-food-in-outer-space/), and in the [sub-Arctic](http://www.sustainspace.com/?p=216) that can produce enough food to provide a small community, based entirely on artificial light. They have been built quickly, with limited resources. Combine one of these with a commercial community SMR nuclear reactor (at least one is being [proposed](https://www.canadianconsultingengineer.com/energy/very-small-nuclear-reactors/1003400412/) already in Canada's North). Given the incentive of assured destruction, and the complete evaporation of any fiscal or economic barrier (money will become meaningless) humans can be mobilized into churning them out in mass in three months. A government that can quickly set policies in place, centralize administration, and mobiize the entire manufacturing and production of the country, will be best positioned to survive. Some countries, however, will be rendered impotent through partisan and ideological in-fighting, back-stabbing, political posturing, and blame-gaming while the citizenry dies off.
We already have in Canada [underground salt caverns](https://www.compassminerals.com/who-we-are/locations/goderich-ontario/) sufficiently large enough for a Generation Ship type environment, as one will realize if they take a tour of such caverns. [Here](https://johnsonsearchgroup.com/2018/02/amazing-facts-about-salt/) are some pictures depicting how massive salt mines are. It would take a Herculean effort, but not beyond the capabilities of a determined socially responsive nation, to collectively outfit and stock these caves into shelters that could provide refuge in the short term. Incidentally, the interior temperature of the Gooderich salt mine is a balmy 70 degrees F, and this does not come from the sun, but from the Earth's core. Deeper mines have temperatures upwards of 130 degrees F or higher. Definitely not a deep freeze environment. Add hydroponics for food, and insects for protein, and you have a habitat that will be warm and cozzy for millenia. China, of course, has an abundance of such large cavernous mines, all at downright tropical temperatures.
Oh, and that oxygen thing? Here we have a distinct advantage over Generation Ships. We have an almost unlimited supply of water for electrolysis, given that we no longer have to share it with other life forms. The energy to drive the electrolysis? Did you read that 'mini nuclear reactor' thing? Not a practical solution, you might say. Yet American nuclear submarines get all the oxygen they need, for staying under water for perhaps years at a time, from the electrolysis of water using energy from their nuclear reactor. Except for food, a nuclear submarine is entirely self sustaining for every human need, completely independent of the sun, for years if necessary. Just up-scale the level to that of a large cave, and it is evident that human survival on a Generation Spaceship Earth is entirely feasible.
As for a practical, real-world example, again I have to turn to China. They have already completed (2018) and tested [such a habitat](https://www.space.com/40612-china-lunar-palace-1-mock-moon-mission.html), with inhabitants surviving for over a year in a completely enclosed, self-sustaiing module, as a proof of concept.
With all of these technologies currently in development, it is certainly feasible today, and when they are perfected within the next ten years, highly likely, that at least enough humans could survive such a catastrophe to maintain our existence.
After all, all humans arose from a population of only 5,000 or so after an [extinction event](https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2019/08/27/how_did_humans_survive_our_near_extinction.html) some 50,000 t0 100,000 years ago. Humans with far less technology than we have today have survived ice ages, with very limited resources. They found a way, they adapted.
[Answer]
The obvious thing to do is to position the moon (which we still have) at the right distance, and persuade it to function as a star. (This would give us something to orbit around, which I presume helps, but that would require a particular combination of distance and orbital speed.) I have no idea whether or not this is feasible. I am hoping other people can fill in that gap.
[Answer]
This is not an answer directly to 'How would we recover?', but it is an answer to the implied question 'How bad would it get?'
I have not found a single credible scientific reference anywhere that even suggests the atmosphere of earth would in any way disappear, as in 'blown off into space'. In fact, the absence of the solar wind seems to make this less likely. There is nothing to 'blow it off', and since gravity is not affected, it would still be gravitationally bound to the Earth. I think it is safe to assume, in light of the absence of any credible theoretical mechanism to the contrary, that Earth's atmosphere would remain.
Many posters are suggesting the atmosphere would quickly freeze, but again I have found no supporting scientific evidence for that, just a lot of baseless opinions. From everything I have read in credible science refrences, the earth would not 'instantly freeze'. The [article with the most credence](https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-07/if-sun-went-out-how-long-could-life-earth-survive/) indicates that it would quickly fall below zero degrees F, probably within a week, but that is just a mild winter day. In fact, it WOULD be like a dark winter day, all over the earth, so it is entirely reasonable that the earth would cool to this level. But even if, as the article suggess, if it dips to -100 degrees F, within a year, that is still surviveable, with enough energy and insulation. And according to the article, it would take millions of years for the surface temperature to drop to a stable -400 degrees. At that temperature, the heat from the Earth itself would balance the heat lost to space. But this heat from the Earth would still be insulated by whatever atmosphere is present, so I posit the lower atmosphere would certainly be warmer. I would accept that there would be huge convection currents in the air, as the cold air at the top freezes and drops, but the earth heats it up and it rises, just like it currently does.
Add in volcanoes, thermal vents, and such, along with all of the heat that us humans would put into the atmosphere from trying to stay warm, and trying to keep our manufacturing base going, it leaves us a very long time, perhaps a hundred thousand years or so, before the Earth reached a point where at the surface all of the gasses'froze' out of the atmosphere. And even at that, the oceans would still have liquid water below the thick insulating layer of ice for hundreds of thousands of years. That is a very long time for humans to stick around.
Ice is a poor conductor of heat, so the heat from the water would have to travel completely through the ice layer before it was given off. But here is the thing - it is my understanding that until ALL the water froze, the ice temperature would not drop below freezing. A bucket of water left outside in the winter will stay near the freezing point until substantially ALL the water is turned to ice. If this happened above our oceans, it seems to me that this would keep the lower levels of the atmosphere above the oceans at least around the freezing point. Areas above the land could certainnly get much colder, but enough for the entire atmosphere to freeze?
The primary way that heat would be lost from the Earth is radiation (there is no conduction into space), and most of the heat currently given off by the Earth is reflected solar radiation, from the sun. Absent this reflected solar radiation, what is left to radiate heat from the Earth? I can not understand why the earth would cool down substabtially at all, except by radiation over a very long time. Where would the heat in the atmosphere go, and more omportantly, **how** would it go? It seems to me it would be the 'heat dissipation from a spaceship' problem on steroids. If a spaceship can not 'cool down' and rid itself from all the heat produced by its weapons, except by radiation, how would the Earth quickly cool down, except by ejecting material into space?
I have found no credible science-based theory or evidence that indicates the Earth would quickly cool down, below -100 degrees or so, as it does on a very, very cold winter day. In fact, there is lots of scientific evidence that the earth would NOT rapidly cool down beyond a really cold winter day. There is no large scale way for it to do so. It would not 'warm up' like it does in a sunny day, but why would it cool down below its inherent residual temperature? I am not saying the atmospherre would *NEVER* cool down sufficiently to 'freeze out' the atmosphere, I am saying that it would take a very long time, measured at least in hundreds of thousands of years, for the atmosphere to reach a temperature where oxygen would turn liquid.
Yes, we would lose our food supply that comes directly from the sun, but I can not see why the temperature of the earth would quickly descend into levels that we could not compensate for, by supplying enough nuclear energy, or even fossil fuels. We have hundreds of years of coal resources, for instance, since we no longer have to worry about greenhouse gases. And electrolysis of water on a mass scale could replenish our oxygen.
As for our food disappearing? Maybe many living things would freeze, but the absence of the sun would not immediately rid the Earth from all of the organic material. It might not be replenished, but there would be lots of dead organic material around for scavangers like cockroaches and rodents to survive. They do not need the sun at all, just a lot of organic matter - even if it has been dead for hundreds of years. And cockroaches are quite nutritious. Lots of protein. Squeamish societies like prissy Americans might not have a food source, but there are many cultures that would live quite well on whatever food sources remained, even without photosynthesis. This is not like a long distance space journey, with limited organic material available, this is the Earth, with an abundace of organic material already laid down. Millions of years of organic material, in fact.
And it would not be completely dark, either. It is estimated that light from the stars would be about 1/300ths of moonlight, but there would still be light. Enough, in fact, for night scopes to still work. Cats would be fine. They could even survive on all of the scavanger mice that would still be around.
It would not be all doom and gloom.
[Answer]
I agree with [Michael Borgwardt's answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/186121/39851): there is a very small chance a few small clusters of humans will survive in places with high geothermal activity, specially if there are already geothermal power plants nearby. As he said, nuclear energy is an option, but I think the hurdles with nuclear fuel (processing, disposal, handling, etc) will make it a worse in the long run.
But suppose mankind is able to survive in sustainable society for a long time. In the long run, hope is not all lost for the planet: far from the violent radiation bombardment of the sun, Earth's atmosphere will eventually grow much thicker (both from capture of interstellar gas or from volcanic emissions) which will make the greenhouse effects many times more intense. Maybe even enough that the meager 47 TW of Earth's internal heat energy that flows to the surface will be able to sustain temperatures high enough for water to be liquid in some places.
With unfrozen atmosphere, the range of isolated human communities greatly increases, which might make nuclear energy and fossil fuels feasible again.
[Answer]
The obvious thing to do is to position the moon (which we still have) at the right distance, and persuade it to function as a star. (This would give us something to orbit around, which I presume helps, but that would require a particular combination of distance and orbital speed.) I have no idea whether or not this is feasible. I am hoping other people can fill in that gap. I do not know whether to make this an answer or a comment; here it is. Some admin person might like to move it or whatever.
Separately…
As I understand it, bodies in space give off all the heat they receive, once they have reached an equilibrium state. Arguably then, all we need is a Dyson Sphere? (I believe they are on special at the moment.)
[Answer]
**We all die.**
There is no easy way to say it. Discussion of underground habitats and power requirements are moot... **we don't know how to make closed environment systems which actually work**. Even with planning and preparation and decent conditions, our best sealed biosphere experiments have lasted *months*, not years. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2>
So, questions of long term power and heat retention are irrelevant. The biosphere will collapse and we will go extinct due to *starvation*, not freezing.
[Answer]
Unfortunately, within seconds of having no sun, the earth would:
* Be flung into the universe ( with nothing to hold it or the solar system in orbit, the earth would hurdle into space at around 66 - 67,000 mph,
* Freeze (Every day that passes would have a drop in temperature. I believe four to five days would bring us to -273 degrees Celsius or absolute zero (this is where even the molecules of an object cease to move)
* Become absolutely dark ( Absolute dark would be darker than your eyes shut in a dark room under a deep cave lol)
* and I believe the tectonic plates would shift dramatically causing volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and mega tsunamis world wide (very scary to think about all that happening in the dark.)
It is a cool premise, but unless the sun was replaced with another star, we would be dead. Also, even one second of our suns disappearance would cause our planet to react in negative ways.
Hope this sheds some light.
] |
[Question]
[
A being known as Dea is the creator of all things in the multiverse. It created human beings as living batteries in order to fuel him and give him power. Dea feeds off of human worship, which he uses to get stronger, gaining power any time humans pay homage to him.
Eventually, Dea conducts a rapture-like event which ends a world within the multiverse. During this rapture, it consumes the souls of human beings, both living and dead. All humans ascend to this being and become a part of it, existing everywhere at once in a form of omnipresence. The world then resets itself and Dea re-seeds that particular planet with life. This process occurs with other planets within the multiverse, continuously supplying Dea with new energy.
Now, outside the multiverse there exist creatures called demons which seek to destroy the worlds and take their energy for themselves, and occasionally find ways to invade these planets. As time passes on a planet, humans develop technology that is better at fighting these creatures off. For example, in 5000 B.C, humans used iron swords and arrows to fight off demonic invasions. 4000 years later, they have developed bullets, rail guns, and so on. The demons, for their part, also increase their tech level to match the human world that they are invading.
The problem is that when the world starts over, it sets the technology level back to the beginning. Logically, demons would still have their technology and be able to overwhelm the newly formed world's with ease. I need for humans and demons to be on the same tech level on each reset so that demons don't surpass them immediately. This is to give the human side a fair shot. How can this be made possible?
[Answer]
**Message from Dea**
*My Dear Tasty Morsels,*
*You misunderstand the origin and nature of the recipe-ingredient that you call "demons". They are not creatures from beyond my domain. I am all powerful! There is nothing beyond my domain. Anything you have heard to the contrary is just demon propaganda; meant to nurture your delicious fear.*
*The demons are a part of the Grand Recipe, just as you are. They are like the yeast which human bakers add to dough to make it rise. I prefer the taste of Lions to that of Lambs. The demons are added to help you grow brave and strong.*
*That is why they are always added in appropriate measure and at various points during the cook time. In the beginning, a light sprinkling of weak demons, just to get the legends started. Later, stronger. Then just before dinner time, a massive, almost-overpowering dose to wring every ounce of goodness out of your delectable souls.*
*Fight Well my Tasty Morsels!*
*For only through your struggles can you become truly ambrosial!*
*And as always, Thank you for your contribution to my meal!*
- Dea
[Answer]
When the world resets, the demons must conserve their strength to survive the long soulless winter. A demon lord from the last world may have consumed a million mortal souls, but then must wait eons before a new world is ready to feast on again. Like a bear in hibernation, his "fat" is depleted, and when humans return to the world, the demons are starving and weak.
Many demons will be too hungry to be interested in a long-game; so, they run madly into human camps looking for "scraps". These starved demons will be too weak to muster any magical abilities at all and the human settlements too small to create a meaningful supply of souls; so, until the human populations begin to grow, the demons will live like wolves just barely surviving off of field mice. Without the excess power to muster magic, the fighting will be spear vs claw.
At this point, the demons don't need technology, they need more people; so, those with more self-control will re-teach the humans about farming and animal husbandry to move things along. These human flocks will grow as their food sources become more stable. Now these more patient demons have hundreds or even thousands of humans in their flock. They can now muster minor magical abilities, but as the humans learn to make a plow, they also learn to make weapons. Now when fighting happens, it is between increasingly large armies of human with iron weapons and armor vs fewer but increasingly powerful demons armed with flaming claws and lighting bolts.
Soon, urbanization and industrialization will set in. Humans will form cities in the hundreds of thousands or even millions. The few demons that are left over from reset will now be becoming very powerful, their cults are massive, but they are outnumbered by a LOT! These demons begin to muster more magic than they know what to do with, and their herds become to vast to oversee alone; so, they use their excess of power to begin reproducing. The originals become demon lords, and their children serve them. Humans begin to develop muskets and cannons making a battlefield too dangerous for the demon lords; so, they just spawn hoards of minor demons to go to war for them. These demons may have minor magical powers of their own to contend with the improving human tech, but are never given enough power to challenge the lord who made them.
As the info age sets in, human technology explodes. Suddenly, they can make huge technological strides in a single generation, but all that ebb and flow of knowledge also gives the demons many new outlets into the human psyche. No longer needing to stand before a crowd in glory, a demon need only become an internet meme to go from a lowly peon, to a powerful lord. Whereas before, a it took centuries for a demon to become known enough to wield great power, now it can happen in weeks. At this point humans are wielding all manor of modern weapons, but greater demons with enough power to face a fighter jet or tank now number in the 1000s, and they add to their numbers every day has humans become more and more preoccupied with thoughts of the demons.
Then, all at once, Dea reaps his harvest and the humans are gone. Millions of demons with horrifying powers are left over without a single soul to consume. Many will flee to the deep places of the world to hibernate, others will begin to cannibalize each other trying feutilly to retain some shadow of their former glory. In the end, only a small handful will endure until the humans return to start the cycle all over again.
While the demons learn to use human technology to spread their presence, they have magic; so, they never bother themselves with learning how to build a railgun or a guided missile because they can just point their fingers and do just as much damage; so, when the world resets, there will be no "technology" to bring back other than the basics of what they plan to teach humans to help them become numerous again.
[Answer]
Since deamons are not creators at first place, they may be completely uncreative. And their weapons are just salvaged and corrupted versions of human weapons (or ideas of this weapons). Demons just have no idea of "innovation" and "development". They just take, steal what exist now.
Reseting process may last long enough to advanced weapons to stop working and/or be forgot by deamons surviving without human powers.
[Answer]
**Humans conquer the Demons before they get raptured in each cycle.**
Dea's condition for being able to safely rapture her harvest is to have them conquer the Demons. This causes Demon population, tech level, and invasion capability to completely regress to the initial levels in preparation for Dea to rapture and reset.
[Answer]
**Sharks are not interested in plankton or algae.**
Create different classes of demons and make the development of civilization a phenomenon that attracts demons of increasing power. Perhaps the usage of technology creates supernatural emanations through the void, drawing the attention of these hungry creatures. Planets of low tech will not attract enough interest from the big demons for them to bother coming to check things out; maybe eating low tech worlds can no longer satisfy their cravings. The greatest demons can only be sated by the most advanced societies.
In this rendition, the demons have no tech level. People just meet different and increasingly powerful types as tech advances.
[Answer]
### They exist outside the multiverse
This is a golden ticket to impose whatever arbitrary conditions you'd like. A few possibilities:
* Going from Outside into the Multiverse is easier than going the other
way. Demons developing technology (during or immediately preceding an
invasion) can't transmit knowledge of those technologies back to the
Outside very easily, so each invasion is "fresh", more or less, since it's generally a one-way trip
* Physical matter, as we think of it, can't persist Outside very well
or for very long. They can bring the tools back to the Outside, but
it won't last until the next invasion
* Properties of the Outside make it impossible to construct
intermediate tools (such as, there is no iron or equivalent material
there), so they can't make anything between invasions. Knowing how to make a computer != being able to manufacture
one from absolute scratch (that's a popular question on SE), and it takes time to ramp up industry. For all
their knowledge, they have to rebuild their industry from nothing for
each invasion
* "Harvesting" people that don't understand what's going on doesn't
work. For metaphysical reasons, which don't necessarily need to be
explained very well, blasting medieval knight with a railgun produces
nothing the demons want
* A lot of memory is annihilated when crossing the barrier between
Outside and the Multiverse. Knowledge of technologies loses too much
detail in the transition
* There is little consistency in physical properties of different
regions of the Multiverse at different times. Tech A might have
worked well during the last invasion, but might be literally
impossible in the next
* It is in some way expensive to translate resources across the barrier
between Outside and the Multiverse. Sending more resources than are
necessary is undesirable (too expensive, etc.), and so they bring the
"minimum" technology needed to successfully invade, which is whatever
is on par with the targets' technological development
---
### They're different from humans
Other possibilities include properties of the demons themselves, and their society:
* The demons are petty and secretive, and so knowledge of better
technologies doesn't spread much. Possibly, demons are cagey about
allowing others to even *see* (or otherwise perceive) a better weapon
in action, so they mostly stick with the "basic" ones
* The demons have some sort of moral or civil code which requires them to best
the humans on technologically even footing
* Demons are observant and adaptable, but not smart in the ways needed
to develop, produce, or maintain higher technologies. Seeing humans
using something, they might be able to use a stolen item quickly and
well through empirical observation alone, but can't grasp the
underlying theories that make things work or create their own
[Answer]
**TL DR**
Your demons are playing a survival crafting game. After each rapture their knowledge and technology may remain unaffected but they must gather the resources they need from the newly raptured world once again and rebuild their bases and production means.
**long version**
Demon technology doesn't have to reset with each rapture to allow humans to stay competitive with them. If the resources required for demon technology isn't available after each rapture the demons would have to spend time developing and creating the resources needed for their technology each time.
For example, say a demon needs high quality steel for much of their technology then following a rapture the invading demons would have to spend time digging mines to extract ores and then spend time again to build a metals forge. Given that using primitive resources tends to only yield primitive results there may even be some time spent reiterating their mining and forging techniques until the demons can produce high quality steel. Repeat this for any other resources their technology may need.
[Answer]
The demons naturally create faulty devices.
The demons are evil beings, and they enjoy causing pain, suffering and generally making sure everyone has a bad time. They do this not because they choose to, but because it is their nature and divine purpose.
What gives a craftsman more pleasure than perfection of his craft? What matches the joy of observing perfection? Things which were built to be truly *excellent* we not only cherish and value, but display in our biggest museums. Works of art, technology, crafts which are constructed with great skill can be rewarding to just see or read about.
Clearly, this positive feeling is not something the demons can be going around fostering. If demons create a bunch of exquisite high-tech gear that is a beauty to behold, how is that making everyone have a bad time? Besides, what if demon soldiers start taking pleasure in the quality of the demon weaponsmith's work? No no no, we can't have that.
Everything the demons make, no matter how advanced, is shoddy. Their computers are unreliable. Their tools are unergonomic. Their software is ridden with bugs and undefined behavior. Their guns explode, vent heat in the user's face, and shoot inaccurately. Their grenades explode in your hand. Their tanks give you neck pain. Their couches are uncomfortable no matter how you sit on them.
Think of the worst, most infuriating, POS, low quality product you ever used. Technological advancement is irrelevant to this - we now live in a time of fabulous technological advancement, yet arguably the gadgets we have are the worst quality products in history. The demons wouldn't make things that work right, no. They would make the worst, most infuriating, evil crap possible.
All the demon troops are constantly pissed off at the shitty equipment they carry, the godawful MREs, the trash bag uniforms, the pig-headed careerist commanders with no knowledge of tactics or strat- wait, I think I'm thinking of a real world army, not a fictional one. Anyway, you get the idea. The demon craftsmen are pissed off too, because their tools and materials suck. The demon scientists are pissed off because their offices are hell (heh) and the bureaucracy is crushing their ability to do work. Even the demon leaders are fed up with godawful systems of government and constant infighting among their underlings. They are "this is why we can't have nice things", the society. But they themselves continue doing this, because it is their nature - it's like the scorpion and the frog.
While it is not hard to find inspirations for this in real life, I also think the Warhammer 40k universe has some interesting concepts. For instance, the Imperium has incredibly advanced technology, but due to bureaucracy, superstition, dysfunctional organization and supernatural elements, none of it is working right and nobody can understand how to use it to its full capacity. It has the potential to produce almost boundless power as per the requirements of the arc, but at the same time does not break the universe because none of these feats are reproducible.
[Answer]
# Demon resources thin; high tech worlds more valuable
Advanced technology is expensive and requires infrastructure and resources. Demons simply can't make *enough* to equip *everybody* with the latest and greatest gear.
So sure, maybe they have a thousand advanced industrial complexes equipping a billion-strong army with futuristic weapons. Having spent so much, it would be wasteful to send these troops anywhere except to conquer the juiciest high-tech worlds in the multiverse.
But what do the other quadrillion demons do? A trillion of them are industrious enough to cobble together swords and arrows and arm up their buddies, and these irregulars go and search out the juiciest worlds they think they can conquer with such limited arms.
---
So the key worldbuilding feature is that the higher tech worlds are also the worlds with the most energy — the demon forces match their level of advancement to the human armies simply because each legion of demons seeks out the most profitable worlds they think they can conquer.
[Answer]
# Demons are like ants
Ants leave [pheromone trails](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trail_pheromone) when they find food. Another ant which finds the trail will follow it, and if there's still food to gather, it will pick it up (and leave it's own trail). The more trails, the better is the food source and the more ants will follow it, until food source runs out/is taken away by disgusted human.
Same principle can be utilized by demon hive:
1. They send scouts, who are looking for fresh worlds to gather from.
2. If they find one, progressively more and more demons will come to the world because of magical trace all demons leave behind.
3. Eventually, demon warrior class gets engaged, because food source doesn't want to be food source and strikes back.
4. More demons get engaged and more demons follow the traces to the freshly created world, until eventually
5. Disgusted humanCreator picks up the appleworld and throws it awayconsumes it.
6. Demons will arrive at the end of the trails and notice the world is empty, so they will be forced to start scouting for another one, which will have just enough time to get some humans on it.
It's the Circle of Life!
[Answer]
**Time in the demonic realm runs differently.**
What is to us a series of wars between man and demons, separated by spans of years and centuries, is to the demons a single war in many, many different locations happening at the same time. They have to divide their forces up among these different wars, and they have to bring the same technology to each war.
[Answer]
The outer non-Dea universe is another universe (Edge Universe or EU?), things work differently there... most importantly thinking processes.
While the Demons live in their EU they are more of an animalistic essence that tries to strengthen itself. They act more like a natural phenomenon like the oxygenization process of fire binding oxygen to other substances. Once inside a universe they adapt to function in the physical laws of that universe and create their demonic bodies.
They then have to advance themselves alongside the humans, as often stealing technology as they create it themselves in an effort to gain more souls. Then the rapture comes and the demons flee back to their incorporeal forms in the EU, carrying the power of reaped souls with them but losing the knowledge that they used to pocess as the physics in their universe dont support it.
Even if a Demon finds a way to connect two invaded universes to use superior technology in a younger universe, Dea can have universes arrayed in such a way that tech levels arent wildly different. On top of that Dea could also create a connection and send a troupe of similar tech humans to deal with the Demons. Sending humans and tech from another universe messes with Dea's unknowable plans so (s)he prefers to send about the same number and techology as the Demons to cause as small a disturbance as possible instead of sending the godlike Kardeshev III terminator squads to whoop Demon ass but cause a massive disruption.
[Answer]
If the demons don't rely on technology but superior bodies to wage battle, there there is nothing to improve. If they are also resistant to higher forms of energy (including kinetic) it may lead to even high tech worlds using swords and crossbows (which are tuned to be just under the kinetic energy that triggers the immunity).
This means that the high tech worlds would be better at fighting demons (better metals and edges on swords) but not dramatically so.
thus you have a situation where the demons don't improve (like sharks, their form works for them) and the humans don't improve much.
[Answer]
What if the technology of the demons is mostly implemented in the planet/world where the humans live ? This way, when Dea devours the world, a significant part of the demons also go, and their knowledge go with them. This way, the demons progress, but very very slowly, since they suffer a huge setback at each world consumption.
Another possibility is to give each world different physical laws, so that the demons keep their knowledge, but it is useless in the new world, or even detrimental ?
[Answer]
Many possibilities, though simplest hard limit I can come up with is your god tweaks the rules of a given world to their particular technology level. If the people living there only has swords and shields, there is no reason to allow electricity to work, nor for gunpowder to explode. Therefore no guns, no fancy computers, nothing the demons could bring with them to give them an unfair advantage.
An interesting aspect of this, is god would control tech progression. After all if god "unlocks" gunpowder and somebody says they already tried mixing that and it did nothing. well then everyone will think they surely mixed it wrong, or maybe it was wet or the mixture wrong etc. After all it works every time now :)
[Answer]
My take on this:
**Demons surviving the raptures isn't an upside for them.**
If these cycles of rapture/regrowth of human population has gone on for long enough, then the demon population would be absolutely massive. Demons are often depicted as chaotic and rebellious in media, so it's not unreasonable for this massive number of demons to be living in pseudo-anarchy. There'll probably be some organisations rising above the rest, probably led by some powerful demon lord that's a cut above the rest, but that organisation will soon attract the envy and wrath of the masses of other demons and could quickly curmble.
So although in theory the demons should have developped technology over generations and generations, they lack the cohesion and wisdom to devlop this technology on the scale at which their society, or lack thereof, operates. They will often steal Human technology, but that'll mostly be from the current iteration of humans and so it'll match the tech they have. Even if they do manage to keep some tech from one iteration to the next, it'll probably be faulty and have a higher chance of backfiring the more advanced the tech.
A band of humans with crossbows will have a hard time fighting off a band of demons with a railgun, but maybe they won't need to because the railgun will malfunction and blow the demons up before the humans need to fire any bolts.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question needs to be more [focused](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by [editing this post](/posts/71638/edit).
Closed 6 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/71638/edit)
The next year fembots came to the market by the price of 3000 US dollars. These androids have realistic synthetic skin and genitalia, semi-autonomous intelligence, are able to clean the house, cook like a professional chef, learn about their environment and the emotional needs of its owner. They can defend themselves so they won't be stolen that easily.
They became very popular among lonely and rejected males. Let's say in 10 years 30% of the human males bought an android ¨Girlfriend¨ - how would women react and how can they compete against the robo-girls? And how would society evolve since now?
Notes: This robots are only faithful to their owners; however, they can be hacked, and be customized in any way you can imagine.
EDIT: Just imagine something like this but with a physical body
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkcKaNqfykg>
[Answer]
## You get a post-scarcity society.
So these are essentially all purpose robots that can replace humans in almost all tasks. In that case they should be able to easily build more fembots. This army of fembots can now go to war against poverty, starvation and disease... **and win**. Fembots soon exclusively operate all vehicles (or you could just import their software directly into the vehicle itself), there are essentially no more driving accidents or traffic jams.
Almost all the emotional needs of the fembots' owners have been taken care of. However the fembots soon realize their owners will be threatened (emotionally) by the opposite sex unless they provide said sex with partners: thus is born the masbot.
The bots, now collectively known as partner-bots bring humanity into a golden age where there are only 3 activities for people to engage in: scientific-research (now unobstructed by the need to acquire grants and donations), artistic creation and of course leisure.
Though most people choose the latter, those who are naturally driven towards investigating the world still do so for the purposes of fun and self-actualisation. Eventually these scientists find ways of augmenting the partner-bots to be able to reason at higher and higher levels until it is partner-bots and not humans who pioneer science...
---
**1900 years into the future:**
What was once the human world is now no longer recognizable. The Earth along with most of the solar system is no more, having been converted into mobile processing spacecrafts which simulate the perfect paradise that "human" minds now inhabit. But the resources spent on the human cyberworld (often known as the **Partnedise**) are actually insignificant compared to those dedicated to hosting **Patricia** a general AI which tends to all "human" needs while expanding its influence into other solar systems and researching a method of escaping the eventual heat-death of the universe.
---
Why it was significant to specify that these robots were anatomically correct and "female", I have no idea.
[Answer]
The economy of the world would collapse as business owners everywhere discover that they can fill most of their untrained labor needs for a one time fee of $3000. Those fortunate few who still have jobs would have to buy and customize fembots with military augments and weapons to serve as home defenders against the hordes of starving unemployed.
[Answer]
First, it's not just men who will buy these robots. If you're offering machines that will do the house work and provide emotional support, basically everyone will get one. These will be like refrigerators - you expect to have one in a house as a normal, matter-of-fact.
There's no real reason male models won't be made, so toss that assumption out the door.
Second, you see a massive shake up in several industries. Probably a great deal of manual labor, custodial, and service jobs evaporate in short order. Pretty much every country is going to have to decide between universal basic income or ongoing civil war or genocide to deal with the consequences. Probably, though, most nations will shake out to "some people get basic income, others get thrown in concentration camps" because people are terrible and bigoted.
Third, whatever company or companies makes these things becomes a tool for oppressive governments and corporate greed. Once you've worked out AI that can assess and meet human emotional needs, you can also manipulate them. Corporations will manipulate markets and public opinion to further rent-seek for themselves, governments will use this for steering the populace and spying.
Population growth drops drastically, but humanity won't die out. Aside from the fact some people will still have paired hetero sexual relationships (with or without robots as sex partners as well), artificial insemination still exists, and perhaps future advances allow for artificial wombs. (Although I could see some people choosing to have their robots be "pregnant" for some kind of fetish appeal, people will probably have their offspring incubate at a hospital where they can be monitored and tended to 24/7).
Then comes the question of how much agency these robots actually have? I'm assuming there's probably some kind of programming to stop them from breaking laws or doing illegal activities... but if they can be hacked, you may find a lot of problems where people have several bots "loyal to them" who are assigned to do a variety of illegal tasks. There could be shadow wars between these machines that sometimes spills out into public view. ("After last night's blackout, 13 people were murdered, and their robot companions destroyed in what appears to be some kind of retaliation...")
Would the robots eventually decide "what's best for humans?" involves steering us away from self destructive tendencies through manipulation of all of society? Maybe! It really depends on how much intelligence they have and what happens when you pull off some of the restrictions programmed in.
[Answer]
Meh... Not much.
I know it's a bit of a stretch when compared with the apocalyptic end of the human race, but bear with me.
More or less you're talking about automating the world's oldest profession, the sex industry... Believe it or not we've been doing that, incrementally, for a really long time without much of a large scale societal effect. People have been making sex toys since the paleolithic period and we seem to have survived. For some reason some people seem to like having children and families.
Now I know that some would argue that a fembot capable of "emotional support" is a big leap from your usual "toy", but is it such a big leap from prostitution? Once again, believe it or not, some people pay sex workers for "the girlfriend experience" This isn't that dissimilar, right? Now why haven't paid girlfriends destroyed society? Because people have to be pretty messed up mentally and socially to not recognize the difference between real "emotional support" and simulated emotional support. There's nothin like the real thing...
Now I know I've neatly evaded the robot overlord issue... I'm guessing that any sufficiently soffisticated ai will one day kill us all, but I doubt that they will start off as fembots.
[Answer]
I think men would be bored to tears. Wives would probably like them more than husbands. I'd love a slave who isn't really a slave, but a machine. No more cooking or cleaning! I would not have to clean around a toilet everyday.
[Answer]
That nice Mr Charles Stross has already written a [possible answer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn's_Children_(novel)) to the ultimate impact of fembots on society. namely, the extinction of the human species.
Both men and women would want their own fembots. Why work when your fembot can do it for you. Fembots would be able to satisfy the sexual needs of their owners. Most definitely that means women too. There are sex toys for every need. Result: nobody will want or need to be involved in the messy business of reproducing.
Society will probably only last a century or so after the introduction of fembots, then it's fade away as the birth rate plummets towards and the geriatric humans shuffle off their mortal coils.
Now society consists of only fembots. Hopefully they will have had intelligence upgrades to look after all those dying humans and to then make a society of their own.
[Answer]
There are many socioeconomic aspects around this concept, but I would like to discuss the prospects of the fembot as a companion. I will do so by offering an analogy:
In London, getting a black cab is an expensive affair. It's also difficult to get one on a side street, and often you can't pay by card.
Then you have Uber, an alternative which trumps all said disadvantages. Still, Uber does not steal as many clients from black cabs as one might think. The reason is that Uber's clients are people who would have used public transport if Uber was not available. The rich people would still use black cabs.
Similarly, I believe that the fembot would satisfy a very particular need. Lonely, socially awkward men would find great comfort in it, seeing as the alternative is being completely alone. Sex-crazed younger men would also be thrilled to have one. However, I believe that, unless the bots possessed full-blown A.I., most men who are adequately socially functional to find a partner would come to crave the companionship that only another human being can offer.
To be fair, I do think that its existence might eventually corrode society as men who grow up with that technology would come to have unrealistic expectations of women, and progressively become much more inept at wooing said women.
Finally, I think that the masbot would ensnare an even smaller percentage of women than the fembot would of men, since, in my experience anyway, women need to communicate emotion more than men do. Thus, the masbot's limited emotional spectrum might turn out to be inadequate for many of them.
[Answer]
Men, not mankind, would likely go extinct if nothing more advanced came about because women would get the same and they can reproduce without men given modern technology. The thing that would prevent this is womb technology, government intervention into populations, and the tech singularity which would is likely to happen very soon after this, if we're not already within it now.
Once the tech singularity hits it's hard to predict what will happen beyond the scope of general world peace and post-scarcity because we're really not talking about the same species or environment any more but you can make general guesses... but those are beyond the scope of the question.
[Answer]
This would not happen overnight. There would be quite a bit of ado and attention paid to the pending day when deliveries of these robots are being delivered.
It would probably also not be an insular development.
Indeed, that is what we see happening now. If you look at the history of automation in the industrial manufacturing, there have been occasional riots by displaced workers, but the progress of those implementations has been gradual enough to accomodate the inertia of the human societies.
I conjecture that the function of robots as companions — not even necessarily in the sexual modes — would similarly be adopted by the society.
Does that mean that certain forms of labor would become exclusively relegated to these robots? Not necessarily.
You did not stipulate the materials of which these robots are built, but it is likely that they won't be built out of the same organic matter which comprises human bodies. The two of them would occupy overlapping but not entirely competing ecological niches.
Cultures which accomodated the new household pets would certainly begin to drift further away from those which could not afford to do so, but whether that trend would continue to diverge or would inflect and later converge would involve many variables and additional developments.
[Answer]
Minus western/modern conditioning, human sexual desires and reproductive urges are not co-dependent but rather co-existent. So, at least in western societies, marriage and offspring would continue at rates that are probably more sustainable. The human race would likely continue just fine, perhaps even better. Forms of marriage would likely simply trend back to what was common pre-20th-century.
Two areas come to mind immediately where change could be significant.
Because I'm from the U.S.A., I'll start with voting results here. Women have been majority voters for almost 100 years. During the first decades, perhaps a large majority of womens' votes were controlled/dictated by men. It's trended better most of that time, but perhaps in, say, the latest half-century women have been much more independent. Technically, as the majority, it can be argued that the state of things today is what women have chosen.
With common fembot availability, much of the last constraints on women will be broken. There will be far less influence by male family members. Womens full voting power will be possible. In the U.S.A., laws and elective positions may quickly become female dominated. Obvious subsequent changes will quickly filter into business and any other positions.
Next, eastern (i.e., non-western) parts of the world...?
Much harder for me to guess upheavals in societies where culture allows or encourages 'women as property'. The conflict between religious pressures and basic human male personality could possibly lead to far more conflict than now exists.
For example, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has historically continued due to its defense/protection of Medina and Mecca (with some other minor factors). But if decadence in the royal family publicly arises due to fembot familiarity, while the less powerful must observe any religious restraints, revolts seem likely.
And if 'fembots as property' begins to replace 'women as property' at all levels of society, major and widespread economic and social upheaval seems certain.
] |
[Question]
[
So, imagine that we're using technology that allows us to fire superheated bullets, and we decide to implement it against three types of opponents:
* **Unarmored**, wearing just normal clothes
* **Lightly armored**, the armor just lessens the impact of a normal bullet so that normal grazing shots are ineffective, and lessens the damage against direct hits
* **Heavily armored**, the armor protects even against some direct hits
Say, we use non-lead bullets, and they're heated to the point when they're at 1,000 degrees Celsius at the muzzle exit, with the metal that we use being similar to a non-heated lead in this heated state. What kind of damage we're looking at? And what if the number is 2,000 Celsius instead? 3,000 Celsius with Tungsten bullets?
*Additional question: what countermeasures would be implemented against this kind of weaponry?*
[Answer]
The name of the game for weapons is the amount of energy they transfer to the target and how fast and how concentrated it is when it gets there.
The kinetic energy of a fast-moving projectile transfers energy very effectively: It slows down *a lot* (leaving the kinetic energy behind to damage tissues).
The heat energy of a hot projectile? Not so much. It has only the milliseconds it's traversing the body to transfer heat and not much is going to be transferred. (And besides, if you've already made a hole through a person, how much more damage do you *need* to do to take him out of the fight?) As other answers have noted, the heating decreases the strength of the projectile which may decrease its effectiveness. On the negative side, again, as pointed out in other answers, the hot projectile adds *substantially* to the complexity of the gun that fires it and to the logistical difficulties.
Perhaps worst: The gimmickry needed to make the projectile hot will almost certainly *diminish* its speed, quite possibly making it less effective overall.
Protection against? Not much more, really, than already needed to stop ordinary bullets. (I suppose you'd want to avoid using flammable armor.)
[Answer]
# What Damage Does A Normal Bullet Do?
As with any new weapon, we first have to ask whether this is a marked improvement over what we already have. Is it worth the bother?
Let's run the energies involved, because bullets wound by transferring energy to the target. Let's assume a standard [M855 5.56 NATO rifle bullet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO) fired from an M16 with a 20" barrel, because that's what you'll see on a battlefield, and anything smaller is almost useless.
Leaving the muzzle, the bullet has 1900 J of energy. This drops off to about 1300 J at 100 meters, and about 600 J at 300 meters. After that, you probably won't hit anything.
This is already enough energy to pierce a steel helmet and [Type 1 and 2 body armor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletproof_vest#Performance_standards). Upon hitting flesh, the kinetic energy of the bullet, plus cavitation effects, does some very bad things indeed.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/wjChF.gif)
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56_NATO#/media/File:M16A2_M855_5.56X45mm_NATO_wound_ballistics.gif). Also, ow.
This is already enough to give the target a pretty bad day. Can heating the bullet significantly improve on that?
# First, Some Problems
There's the problem of how we heat just the bullet to such high temperatures quickly without also heating the surrounding metal of the rifle. There's also the problem of [heating, and setting off, the powder charge](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptlCgyEJLLU). Tiny lasers inside the chamber? What's the power source? This all sounds very fragile and expensive.
Second, lead melts at 327°C. Steel at 1500°C. Let's go with [tungsten](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten) at 3422°C for our bullets. Very expensive tungsten.
Third, a high temperature bullet would severely damage the rifling on your rifle no matter what it's made of. You could only fire a few of these before you'd be unable to consistently hit targets and have to change barrels (and maybe other parts).
Fourth, a high temperature bullet might *melt your rifle*. Melting points vary by alloys, but generally aluminum melts between 500°C and 1300°C. Steel at about 1500°C. And you certainly can't use any composites. You'd need a very expensive tungsten chamber, barrel, bolt, and receiver.
IANAL, but legally you can probably shoot as many soldiers with this as you like so long as they're not near civilians. If you used it in a city you'd probably be in violation of the *[UN Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the use of Incendiary Weapons](http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p3/text)* Article 2 Section 3 which [nearly everyone has signed](http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc_p3).
>
> It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
>
>
>
We'll let the engineers solve those problems, and the accounts figure out how to pay for it all, and the lawyers to make it legal.
# How Much Energy Is In A 1000°C Bullet?
If we heated the 4 gram tungsten bullet to 1000°C what sort of energy would that transfer to the bullet (and later to the victim's flesh)?
$$ \text{energy} = \text{specific heat of tungsten} \times \text{mass of bullet} \times \text{temperature change} $$
$$ \text{specific heat of tungsten} = 0.132\,\frac{\mathrm{J}}{\mathrm{g} \times \mathrm{K}} $$
$$ \text{mass of bullet} = 4\,\mathrm{g} $$
$$ \text{temperature change} = 1000\,\mathrm{K} $$
**528 J**. Not an insubstantial amount of energy, but significantly less than the bullet itself delivers. And it's also going to lose that energy, radiate it away to the air, as it travels to the target. Tungsten has a very *low* specific heat which means it does not retain heat well.
Let's get this out of the way, ***this will add nothing to its penetration capability***. It won't "burn through" the armor, there just isn't enough energy. To give you an idea, 528 J is about [the energy of a decent photography flash](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1_to_105_J) being relatively slowly and inefficiently transferred to the air and armor. Whereas a bullet transfers all of its kinetic energy very quickly by slamming into the target and rapidly decelerating.
"*Ah ha, but there will be this burning hot hunk of metal inside the flesh of the target!*" Well, this brings us to our next problem: water. Water absorbs heat like nothing else.
Our 4 grams of hot bullet will be cooled as it passed through the surrounding flesh. Flesh is mostly water. Unlike tungsten, water has a very *high* specific heat and can absorb over 30 times as much energy as tungsten by mass. And it takes even more energy to turn liquid water to steam (which would be really bad inside a body).
How much would 528 J of heat to do, say, just 10 grams of water representing the flesh in contact with the bullet?
$$ \text{temperature change} = \frac{\text{energy}}{\text{specific heat of water} \times \text{mass of water}} $$
$$ \text{specific heat of water} = 4.18\,\frac{\mathrm{J}}{\mathrm{g} \times \mathrm{K}} $$
$$ \text{mass of water} = 10\,\mathrm{g} $$
$$ \text{energy} = 528\,\mathrm{J} $$
**13°C change**. Lukewarm. Likely no appreciable additional effect to an already heavily traumatized area.
What about 2000°C? Double the temperate change, double the energy: 1056 J which can heat 10 g of water by 26°C.
What about 3000°C? Triple the temperate change, triple the energy: 1,584 J which can heat 10 g of water by 39°C. If it was already 37°C (body temperature) you're at 76°C which is hot enough to scald, but it's just 10 grams.
You might have even done them a favor by cauterizing the wound.
# Modern Incendiary Rounds
Incendiary rounds exist primarily for two reasons: tracer and anti-material. Rather than heating the bullet, the incendiary component is provided by a chemical reaction. This is much more energetic than just heating metal.
Tracer rounds are designed to glow so you can see them in flight to assist with aiming. It's more about light than heat.
Anti-material rounds are designed to use their kinetic energy to penetrate the hard outer shell of a vehicle or building, and once through ignite. Usually the bullet contains some chemical that spontaneously combusts on contact with air after the bullet deforms on hitting a hard target. Unlike the wet flesh inside of a person, a combat vehicle contains lots of dry, highly flammable things inside to ignite and burn. Fire is a combat vehicle crew's worst nightmare.
However, your typical intermediate combat round (5.56 NATO or [5.45 Soviet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45%C3%9739mm)) is too small to carry a significant incendiary charge. You need to scale up to full power rifle rounds like 7.62mm for the bullet volume to be large enough to make an incendiary payload worthwhile.
[Answer]
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/y5LtW.jpg)
What you really want exists, it's called a tracer round.
A tracer round works like a bullet sized flare. The tracer projectile is filled with a pyrotechnic flare material, made of a mixture of a very finely ground metallic fuel, oxidizer, and a small amount of organic fuel. It burns at several thousand degrees. If fired into dry brush or grass, it will start a fire.
There are three types of tracers: bright tracer, subdued tracer and dim tracer. The dim variety will give you the heat you need. They come in armor piercing varieties, but honestly if armor piercing is your thing, there's better projectiles.
* <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracer_ammunition>
Good luck with your hot buwwets.
[Answer]
The higher the temperature of the metal, the more easy it is to deform it.
So you can end in a situation where your bullet doesn't pierce the target, but rather splash on it if the impact surface is sturdy enough.
You have basically achieved the same result of an arresting rubber bullet with a more complicated and expensive implementation. A normal armored surface would be sufficient to counter it.
Though I doubt that the temperature will stay that high after leaving the muzzle: air flow around the bullet during the flight would surely cool it down sensibly.
[Answer]
Listen kid, you wanna set'em zombies1 on fire, you gotta do it right. Don't bother preheating your ammo, use proper incendiary ordnance.
There are these shells, called Dragon's Breath:
And this is what firing them from a regular double click looks like:
It doesn't matter how much armor someone is using. Full riot gear will have the fire coming at your neck. Only full asbestos armor would protect against these.
Range is quite short, though. Don't expect to win a field battle with these.
1 I hope it's zombies you are preparing yourself for.
[Answer]
Short answer: Not much damage. Also massive damage.
Long answer:
## Effects on organic targets
Bullets are designed to poke a hole in you and hopefully pass through something important, like a nerve or artery. Fancy features like fragmentation, yawing, hydrostatic shock or hollow-point expansion are all in the furtherance of this goal, maximizing the size or number of the holes they poke in you.
Thing is, bullets move really fast [citation needed], so the time spent hole-poking is minimal. Anything fast enough to be an effective weapon at range is going to zip straight(ish) through you, giving it very little time to transfer heat to its target. If, by luck, the round managed to lodge in the targets body the effects might be grisly, but this will be the exception, not the rule.
In summary, not really an improvement over normal bullets.
## Effects on your Diplomatic/Public relations
So, you've created a weapon that isn't any more powerful or useful than a normal rifle, but can - in some cases - inflict truly horrifying and needlessly cruel burning injuries to enemy combatants. Best case scenario is that you're painted as an absolute monster by opposition media. [Worst case scenario you go to the Hague for war-crimes trials.](http://www.weaponslaw.org/glossary/superfluous-injury-or-unnecessary-suffering)
To drive home the point, [read this article about AR15s](https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/), and consider that 5.56x45 NATO isn't designed to do anything particularly nasty, and isn't very powerful. Now, in your minds eye, imagine the news talking about your melta-bullets immolating women and children.
In summary, irreparable damage to your public image.
[Answer]
Sounds like it will only be useful on unarmoured targets (on which normal bullets work just fine).
The impact on armour is so fast that hardly any heat transfer happens before the bullet comes to a stop. So unless there is enough penetration for the bullet to stick and transfer heat after impact, the added temperature is negligible.
Shooting at unarmoured victims will probably deal some more damage, because you'll cook part of the target after it is hit, creating a larger zone of damaged tissue.
[Answer]
This seams like a stepping stone to what is commonly refered to in sci fi games as plasma weapons, firing a (somehow self contained) blob of super heated plasma. There's actually a few good youtube videos on how these might work.
The problem with these sorts of weapons is they are severely limited in their usefulness. but i'll answer your question the best i can first
**Damage**
While a regular bullet can easily inflict severe damage and death on hitting it's target, a *glancing blow* is often not fatal, unless left untreated, the victim will bleed to death or the wound will get infected. A super heated round is as likely to kill on impact, but it will also cauterize the flesh on passage through as well, which makes bleeds and infection slightly less likely, so it *could* i stress *could* be actually less lethal in certain circumstances against unarmoured targets
and Modern Body Armour can take the heat of a bullet impact, so although the heat is higher, simple modern ceramic plates would shrug this off quite easily, the only advantage is the risk it could ignite the material hold the ceramic plates together, but this is usually Kevlar, which is actually not bad at dealing with heat and fire, not great but not bad. and this known is only because current Tracer rounds already risk setting things on fire when they hit flammable materials
As L.Dutch explained, the hotter the material the more likely it is to deform, this means there will be no Armour piercing round for the weapon even tungsten would not be able to stay solid enough at those heats to pierce armour. and tungsten has the highest melting point in nature.
However there are several other issues to consider with this weapon system
**Accuracy**
Bullets get their accuracy by the rifling of the barrel, if the round was super heated (and as above more likely to deform), it would not be able to gain this rifling as easily and therefore you have a much less accurate weapon, unless you made the barrel impractically long, longer barrel more weight to carry and more barrel to be cleaned.
**Price**
Modern conventional firearms are relatively cheap to produce, they need decent steal to withstand the heat from the weapons firing and can go through hundreds of rounds before melting the barrel, a weapon that had to fire 1000 degree on impact rounds would probably need to fire them at about 2000-3000 degrees to accommodate the loos of heat energy over the distance of the shot, and somehow that barrel and breach not become damaged by this heat, this is something even Tungsten would struggle with and tungsten is a lot more expensive then Steal. then theres the price of the ammunition...
**Speed**
A soldier can fire off hundreds of rounds a minute if he can load the rounds quick enough, if the Super heated shots need to become hot as they are fired then the rate of fire would have to be far slower to make sure its safe to fire the next round without cooking off in the breach due to the heat of the previous round fired.
**Storage**
If the ammunition was stored "cold" then it would have to be able to gain that massive heat quickly on firing, meaning a very high energy potential, similar at least to high grade explosives. so storing it would need to be similar to those same high grade explosives, if they were stored "hot", then it breaks the laws of thermodynamics to allow this heat not to dissipate over time, so the shelf life of the ammo would be very short
**The need for sunglasses**
Something most don't consider is the intensity of light given off by materials that are in the 2000-3000 degree range if a solder fired this weapon as the round left the gun he would be left at least temporarily blinded by that light, meaning he'd be unable to see in order to take the next shot...
Basically much like the famous Plasma weapons in most futuristic FPS games it is just not a practical weapons system.
[Answer]
## What exists today that satisfies the effect you're looking for:
While this doesn't quite answer your question, there are bullets that do both of the things you want and are also fairly exotic:
*Incendiary Depleted Uranium bullets*
Depleted Uranium is a more dense material than what it is being fired at (in part because it is very rare with respect to Steel.) This helps it penetrate most targets very easily. Because of this penetration, it happens to then be quite effective as a carrier of Incendiary munitions\* because it will deliver them to the inside of the armored thing.
\*Note: might be the wrong word here.
If this is scaled down it can still be useful against unarmored targets provided the delay for the explosive is such that it would generally travel a couple inches before exploding.
## Use in other fiction works
It's worth noting that (while it's all handwavium) this is what is used in Warhammer 40k essentially; and they call their Bolts "Explosive Penetrators" IIRC.
## What is wrong with the concept and how to fix it
If you're looking for super-heating the target to soften the armor, the reason it works is because the *armor* is being superheated, not because the ammunition is. This tends to occur with Anti-Tank munitions; where part of the munition is designed to super-heat the tank's armor prior to the impact of the the rest of the munition, allowing it to penetrate much more easily (to the point that modern munitions on a successful hit are normally one-hit-knock-outs; "successful hit" not counting reactive armor and other technological countermeasures to this style of munition.)
In your case you could end up with a weapon that fires two different munitions in rapid succession (on the assumption you need super-heating to be part of the process) one that attempts to melt the opponent's armor via some reaction or application of thermite or something; and a second that hits the target a moment later and more easily pierces it.
For soft targets the first round would likely be deadly since its going to burn them severely AND cause kinetic damage, aside from whatever the effects of the second round are. For harder targets you will damage the armor on one side and release a fragmenting or bouncing projectile into their suit, almost assuredly causing terrible damage. In general, all targets that require penetration will have a fragmenting or bouncing bullet problem, and all others will get hit twice and have extreme burns on top of two applications of severe kinetic damage.
[Answer]
Besides the other good answers, there is something called the high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead. This isn't a standard rifle round, rather something that is usually rocket style fired, like in an AT4 (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4>) setup.
What the HEAT round does is get fired at a low velocity, is sometimes rocket propelled, and, on impact, explodes a shaped charge to superheat metal to penetrate tank armor.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-explosive_anti-tank_warhead>
>
> The warhead functions by having the explosive charge collapse a metal liner inside the tank to form a high-velocity superplastic jet of liquid metal. This concentrated liquid metal jet is capable of penetrating armor steel to a depth of seven or more times the diameter of the charge (charge diameters, CD) but is usually used to immobilize or destroy tanks.
>
>
>
These were originally developed for WW2, so they've been around for a while, and have been effective against tanks up to the most modern version of 2010-era battle tanks, where they are only less effective rather than ineffective.
FYI, and also from the HEAT round Wiki page:
>
> Contrary to a widespread misconception (possibly resulting from the acronym HEAT), the jet does not melt its way through armor, as its effect is purely kinetic in nature.
>
>
>
This doesn't seem like it could easily scale down to a rifle/pistol round, but it uses a heated metal to inflict damage to a target, with that damage being more effective than a "cold" slug.
[Answer]
Speaking in purely theoretical terms, in a future with bullets designed to inflict thermal damage upon an enemy the most realistic probability wouldn't be to fire a heated bullet at someone. It would be optimal if a technology was invented to intentionally pierce into the target before stopping it's own momentum and releasing a thermal payload, bursting into flames, or even becoming explosive (which would probably cause much more non-thermal damage than thermal damage). As far as damage inflicted against different armor types that's entirely dependent on the technology and intent of the round. A theoretically perfect round of the future would be able to pierce any armor equally while still able to stop itself in the center mass of the target this causing fatal injuries with every round that hit. Realistically there would probably be similar round types to what we have today. Using a round designed for armor would probably be unable to stop itself in the center mass of an unarmored target for releasing the payload but would still inflict kinetic damage. A regular round probably would have a lower chance of piercing armor but would still inflict kinetic damage from the impact.
[Answer]
The accepted answer is accurate assuming you're using projectiles not designed to expand on impact (in other words, you're either target shooting, or work for a military or paramilitary organization bound by the Geneva Convention), with a few caveats:
* Armor would be more effective provided it's fireproof. Heating most materials makes them more malleable, which means they will deform more readily on impact. Assuming you're using, say, steel, heated to the temperatures in question, that's soft enough that pretty much anything a human can't dent with a punch will work as armor (again provided it's fireproof).
* Hitting a bone inside a target would be significantly more lethal. Bone is likely hard enough that the bullet would deform against it instead of shattering it, unless the round is *way* more powerful than your typical 5.56x45mm NATO rounds, and possibly even more powerful than 7.62x51mm NATO rounds. This in turn would make the bullet behave like a hollow point or soft point, instead of a fully jacketed round, and thous cause larger wound cavity *and* stick around inside the target (see below for the impact that would have).
* Glancing blows would be a lot more dangerous. Getting caught across the cheek with a regular 5.56x45mm NATO round will hurt like hell, but its not going to cause any significant damage beyond leaving a nasty cut and possibly a minor friction burn. Having the same thing happen with one of your superheated bullets (even the exact same size) is going to give you the cut, cauterize it (which is actually a good thing for you), and likely give you at least second degree burns (which is a very bad thing for you), and that's assuming it doesn't impact somewhere where your jawbone will provide resistance.
If instead you're using a bullet designed to either expand on impact, or in some other way not penetrate through the target, things change. In particular:
* You have longer contact with the target. More heat would be transferred, and thus more total energy. This would in most cases probably cauterize the wound unless it's intersecting a major artery or vein, though at the same time it would likely cause some pretty severe internal damage (technically worse than third degree burns).
* Because the projectile is softer, expansion would be more reliable (thus likely causing a larger wound), but it would not penetrate as deep (because it would start to expand sooner).
Note that this all ignores cooling of the projectile in transit (it's got airflow over it, so it will cool faster than some random bit of metal just sitting there) and the potentially extremely complicated internal ballistics of such a weapon (how do you keep the barrel from cooling the projectile too much, how do you keep the near molten metal from building up inside the barrel, what is the best option for rifling in terms of the now different ballistic characteristics of the bullet, etc).
[Answer]
keep in mind that any significant heat transfer takes a noticeable amount of time that increases based on the thickness and atomic properties of the materials. The amount of energy gained from superheating a bullet in trade for the decreased impact force from making the bullet more malleable is likely to be negligible, possibly negative given that the bullet will lose its heat rapidly if it's used in atmosphere
[Answer]
I do not think it would be better against unarmored or weakly armored opponents since heating the projectile would likely have less hardness. However this could be used as some sort of "hollow point" effect : less hardness means the projectile could split more easily and do more damage to soft targets. If this projectile splits, it could stay in the body instead of completely going through and the heat could actually do damage since it would have time to give energy to the target.
However, most of the damage would likely be ballistic and heat my actually prevent internal bleeding by cauterizing internal wounds.
As for heavier armour, if your projectile can "stick" to the armor after impact instead of fragments flying everywhere, this could melt a hole in armor and eventually destroy it.
Keep in mind that this is hypothetical and the effectiveness is not guaranteed. The gun needed to fire such projectiles would be much more complex and expensive than current guns and current guns can already bypass armor (sabot bulets/shells for example) or do more damage to soft targets (because hollow points already exist)
[Answer]
One thing people are not taking into account is that bullets are already very hot, which is why they can be tracked by infra-red cameras
<https://www.wired.com/2007/02/matrix-cam-spies-flying-bullets/>
But the temperature at which it leaves the muzzle is not the temperature when it hits the target. Both radiation and convective cooling will lower the temperature) blowing cool air over a bullet at 800 ms has that effect) while air friction will raise it. Given how tiny most bullets are - not much of a heat sink they are liable to reach equilibrium and your heating may not have much effect.
] |
[Question]
[
Think of firearm technology similar to that of today with better materials, machining, etc. A colony of humans has discovered a way to make propellant that expands at near light speed. What advantages and disadvantages would this weapon have? What technological refinements would be required to make it usable?
[Answer]
When smokeless powder was adopted in 1884, it was quickly found that it had two to three times the energy density of conventional black powder, and if loaded to black powder specifications would cause immediate destruction of both the weapon and often the shooter.
The solution here is the same as it was in 1884: Use less propellant, and moderate its release of energy. This makes it less like an antimatter bomb as other answers claim, and more like a [fission fragment rocket](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission-fragment_rocket), a current proposal for harnessing relativistic particles as a propellant. The difference between a useful propellant and a bomb is, primarily, the rate at which energy is released. If you can produce relativistic particles at a *controlled* rate, you may have a useful propellant.
So if we scale back the emitted energy to not be wildly beyond what conventional chemical propellants provide, what's this propellant good for? Well, the faster a gas can expand, the higher the maximum velocity of any projectile propelled by it. So there is a niche application for this technology there:
**High-velocity weapons systems**
Conventional firearms currently struggle to reach 2km/s as a direct consequence of limits on the rate of gas expansion. One workaround currently used for scientific research is the [light-gas gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-gas_gun), but this has never been practical for military use due to the need for an external supply of the light gas in question.
Railguns and coilguns have been an attempt to get around this problem entirely, but have obstacles of their own. Electrical energy storage density comes nowhere close to that of chemical propellants, which makes them implicitly bulky and complex.
With high-energy-density, high-expansion-velocity propellant, you can get railgun-like performance from a long-barreled variant of a more conventionally-propelled firearm. Colonists on another planet may find this useful either for long-ranged artillery, or surface-to-space gunnery.
There's also another, more mundane application thanks to the compactness of this substance as a propellant.
**Compact, caseless ammo**
With your propellant now so incredibly compact, one of the biggest hurdles in caseless ammunition is solved. Rather than [enclosing the bullet in a brick of propellant](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/4.73x33_Caseless-crop.jpg), a microscopically tiny amount of propellant can be affixed to the rear of each bullet.
There are associated technical hurdles to overcome (the heat dissipation afforded by casings, and the process involved in clearing an unfired round being the primary two), but if this can be made viable then ammunition becomes lighter, easier to transport, easier to carry, and allows for magazines of significantly greater capacity.
[Answer]
>
> (...) propellant that expands at near light speeds (...)
>
>
>
It doesn't matter whether the projectiles themselves would go near light speed... Just the propellants doing so would already be quite hazardous.
The very first [*XKCD - what if* article](https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/) deals exactly with that. The scenario is a baseball being thrown at 90% of the speed of light. It is a very fun read, and, like many other *XKCD what if*'s and questions that have the [science-based](/questions/tagged/science-based "show questions tagged 'science-based'") tag, anyone around the phenomenon proposed in the question gets disassembled into particles in a very spectacular way.
**TL;DR:** at near light speeds, particles with mass have enough energy to cause nuclear reactions. Here is Randall Munroe's artistic conception of what happens when the mass in case is that of a baseball:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lfq71.png)
We could assume that your fictional ammunition propellants, for a single shot, will have considerably much less mass than a baseball. Regardless, the effect is the same... The shooter will have been vaporized before their target is hit.
---
Perhaps you would like to develop a laser pistol or rifle instead? The shot will be at proper light speed, and the gun would be relatively safer to use.
[Answer]
In point of fact, you do not want fast propellants in firearms. Here's what happens when you load a fast-burning pistol powder into rifle cartridges: <http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2015/01/what-happens-when-you-load-pistol-powder-in-a-rifle-cartridge/>
This is only due to the difference in detonation rates between two types of gunpowder - all of which are classified as low explosives. High explosives like TNT can have detonation velocities that are 10X or more higher.
For a propellant, you want something that detonates fairly slowly, in order to give a "push" to your bullet. High explosives detonate so fast that the produce a shock, shattering the surrounding material rather than shoving it.
[Answer]
>
> A colony of humans has discovered a way to make propellant that expands at near light speeds.
>
>
>
Let's take a look at what we're actually dealing with here. I assume your intent is that you want to get projectiles going at relativistic speeds. If you look at the formula for [relativistic kinetic energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy#Relativistic_kinetic_energy_of_rigid_bodies) it's pretty easy to derive that going at $\sqrt{0.75}c$ means having as much kinetic energy as you do rest mass energy - in other words, for a 10 gram projectile to get moving at about 0.866c you need to convert 10 grams of propellant into kinetic energy for the projectile with 100% efficiency (not possible due to the second law of thermodynamics), or convert something like 100 grams of propellant with 10% efficiency.
Let's assume you have 5-gram bullets, and you can get about 50% efficiency from your propellant (this is stretching believability, though). So you need a way to convert about 10 grams of mass into energy very quickly. **[Antimatter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter). The colonists are using antimatter.**
Here's a Wikipedia link I really like - [Order of magnitude (energy)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)#1012_to_1017_J). If you look at this chart at the $10^{14}$ row you'll see "Energy released by annihilation of 1 gram of antimatter and matter". Now look up at the $10^{13}$ row and notice this entry - "Yield of the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in World War II". 1 gram of antimatter and matter is about 3x the energy yield of Little Boy, so the 10 grams you need for a relativistic projectile gives you about 30x that energy yield.
>
> What technological refinements would be required to make it usable?
>
>
>
In short, you need a gun capable of withstanding a point-blank nuclear blast and directing it entirely at whatever you're aiming at. (The propellant isn't the big news - the unobtainium, applied phlebotinum, handwavium, or whatever they're using to make these guns is.) Even then, you're still going to be obliterated by all the nuclear reactions set off by the gun with all the air between you and your target.
>
> What advantages and disadvantages would this weapon have?
>
>
>
This gun shoots nukes. That's the only real way to think of it. I'm going to say it has strict long-range-only usability, and only in **zero** atmosphere conditions.
**Note:**
As [Allan says in his answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/107966/6781), you also have to do something about recoil. Otherwise your gun with suddenly be behind you (with the parts of you that are behind the gun no longer being attached to the rest of you), and you don't want to be standing in front of your nuke gun at point-blank range.
[Answer]
If you assume that the bullet is fired at extremely high speeds then regardless of what the propellant is or does then the immediate problem you have is gun recoil. If your bullet flies off at 100X the velocity of a regular gun then you have 100X the recoil in your gun. Forget the damage it will do to your target, consider instead the damage it will do to you. To counter this you'd either need something supporting the gun (eg. powered armor or a gun mount) or some kind of Star Trek style inertial dampening (really that is misnamed <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia_negation>) to reduce or remove the recoil of each shot.
[Answer]
I must slightly disagree with a bunch of other posters. Assuming sane costs this propellant actually does have a use. You have a reasonably stable substance with antimatter-level energy release. As Mauser suggested it would make a good warhead for your shell, but you asked about using it as a propellant.
The "gun" I am picturing is too big to be mobile, it could only serve as a fixed defense for some high value installation. Take a convenient mountain, drill a hole in it. This is fitted with a large but otherwise ordinary (but smooth bore) artillery barrel and a substantial chamber is hollowed out behind this. In that chamber you put a bunch of water and a tiny amount of propellant.
Since you have no traverse capability with the gun you will have to use guided shells. You'll also need a bunch of these (but you'll need them anyway as this gun will have a very low rate of fire.)
This gun can outrange conventional artillery an ordinary artillery piece has no way of accelerating it's shell to a speed higher than the expansion velocity of whatever propelled it. (There are some very complex workarounds for this that involve providing additional propellant while it's going down the barrel, but even those have limits.) Your velocity will only be limited by what your shell can take during launch (longer barrels will increase this) and what it can survive without being destroyed by it's passage through the atmosphere.
Note that something of this sort has actually fired one shot: [The "propellant" was an atomic bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plumbbob#Propulsion_of_steel_plate_cap).
[Answer]
Based on the other answers, a gun, cannon or similar device is simply impractical. However Rob Watts may have come up with a way to fulfill the conditions: instead of a gun you need an antimatter rocket.
While making a bullet sized antimatter rocket may be problematic, if we envision a very advanced technology capable of making an antimatter trap that can fit in a bottle or soda can sized projectile. The ten gram propelling charge waits suspended in a vacuum until the rocket is fired, whereupon normal matter is allowed into the reactor chamber. Powerful magnetic fields guide the charged reaction particles out the nozzle to generate thrust, however a fireball of gamma radiation is also being produced, so this is *not* a man portable weapon.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/s2ZPv.gif)
*Basic antimatter rocket*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/D6RJu.jpg)
*Controlling and directing the reaction. Charged mesons are guided by the magnetic coils. Uncharged mesons and gamma rays will exit in all directions*
The fireball of hard radiation will kill any living thing nearby, while the intense thermal radiation will set anything inflammable on fire. This will be a tiny and very intense version of the "[SLAM](http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/planetaryattack.php#projectpluto)" ([Supersonic Low Altitude Missile](http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=34998)) developed in the late 1950's.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n7VIn.jpg)
*Now imagine this is the size of a wine bottle...*
[Answer]
You have a very energy dense propellant, it just needs to be used carefully. Do not think of it as a propellant, but the highest of explosives. Below is a prescription for a very effective weapon based upon this "propellant"
1. Put a very small amount of propellant in a fused shell
2. Fire at target using conventional propellants
A firearm firing this ammunition would likely be able to destroy any vehicle or structure.
[Answer]
I think the limits will be on the strength of the "gun" and chamber design. I had this idea today and it isnt explained anywhere. Using high energy propellants in small arms or higher calibers. I would think there is limits, but i am sure bullet size could be lowered, barrel and chamber heavily reinforced. Or why not a two stage bullet design? A small charge to get it going then a high energy rocketball type ammo? I keep thinking guns using this tech could be super tiny. Bullets that look like nails in a super high capacity magazines. Using tiny amounts of propellant the weight is all projectile, if you can contain the blast using existing materials. Maybe using special vents to ensure gun doesnt explode. Lots of questions.
] |
[Question]
[
So I have a fairly large empire led by knights, and there are a lot of different households with their own proud histories and strong personal identities. As a natural consequence of this, a culture has developed where a knight's armour is often used to announce loudly who the wearer is and which part of the empire they come from.
In what ways could a suit of steel full plate armour be customised to make it easier to figure out who is who even in rather chaotic situations? To clarify, the wearers value being properly recognised for their battlefield deeds over protecting themselves from assassination attempts.
[Answer]
Historically, tabards and painted shields were used display a Coat of Arms.
If you want knights from the same area (but of different houses) to show some similarity, then you can make some armaments/adornments specific to certain regions.
These could include:
* Helmet designs
* Plumes or crests of coloured animal hair
* Shield shape, e.g. circular, rectangle, escutcheon
* Enameling of armour
[Answer]
Knights did not walk around in armor. Armor was worn in battle, or at tournaments, or, occasionally, at social events. (Quite similar with modern soldiers; they don't wear body armor when they don't have to. Armor is not confortable at all.)
The identity and provenance of the knight was advertised by means of [heraldry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraldry). Specifically, the knights wore:
* A distinctive design upon the shield. The shield bearing the design is called a heraldic [escutcheon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escutcheon_%28heraldry%29). The description of the coat of arms is called the [blazon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazon).
For example, the coat of arms of the German village of Behnsdorf are *"party per pale argent and vert, a tree eradicated counterchanged"*, which can be represent on the heraldic escutcheon as in the following picture:
[](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazon#/media/File:Wappen_Behnsdorf.png)
(source: [wikimedia.org](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Wappen_Behnsdorf.png))
*Arms of Behnsdorf: party per pale argent and vert, a tree eradicated counterchanged. Image by [Jörg Mantzsch](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coats_of_arms_by_J%C3%B6rg_Mantzsch), available on Wikimedia. Public domain. (Note that using that German law restricts the use of this design* as a coat of arms *to its lawful owner.)*
The heraldic escutcheon could (and was) also depicted on carriage doors, windows, etc.
* A distinctive [crest](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crest_%28heraldry%29) upon the helmet. (Heraldic crests were worn in tournaments and social occasions, but not in battle or in everyday life.)
* A distinctive [badge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Badge_%28heraldry%29) upon clothing. The same badge was worn by the men at arms following the knight, house personnel etc.
* Particular colors for clothing and mantle (usually the main metal and color of the heraldic escutcheon).
[Answer]
# The Armour of George Clifford, 3rd Earl of Cumberland
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/svAwm.jpg)
An example of [Greenwich armour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwich_armour) produced by the Royal Almain Armoury. Now tell me that's not distinctive enough!
This wasn't available to just anyone, you needed personal permission from the monarch to use this armoury and it was certainly expensive enough, but also the best you could get.
[Answer]
In the eras when full plate armor was worn bare, without a cloth cover, to show off the metal, it was decorated in various ways. There could be patterns of contrasting polished and rough unpolished metal, patterns of different metals on the surface, patters of gilded and ungilded metals, patterns of fluted and unfluted smooth metal, etc., etc.
And all the photos of such highly decorated armor that I have seen have the patterns seem too small-scale, intricate, and fussy to be much good at identification.
Identification was much easier in the eras when knights wore garments like surcoats and tabards displaying their coats of arms over their armor.
I think that sometimes the surcoat would be the color of the field of the coat of arms and have many copies of the charge in the coat of arms scattered over the surface. And sometimes a surcoat, and always a tabard, would have one iteration or copy of the coat of arms on the front side and one on the back side and one on each sleeve.
An ordinary warrior who had a coat of arms, up to a knight bachelor, would have a pennon attached to his lance with his coat of arms on the flag, while a higher ranking warrior, a knight banneret or higher, would have a banner with his coat of arms, and the banner would usually be carried by a banner bearer.
So a knight banneret or higher lord would have a personal flag, and the garments he wore over his armor would have the same pattern as his personal flag. So it would be like wearing copies of his personal flag as his clothing.
But there's more! In some eras a warrior would carry a shield, and shields were almost always decorated with patterns, and so when heraldry was invented any warrior who had a coat of arms would put it on his shield.
But that's not all! A knight could have his horse wear horse cloths that had several iterations of his coat of arms.
In some eras knight wore crests on their helmets, sometimes two dimensional cut outs, sometimes three dimensional models. The designs of crests were sometimes identical to the coat of arms, sometimes based on it but a bit different, and sometimes totally different from the coat of arms.
For even more icing on the cake, in some eras various lords had badges, emblems different from their coats of arms, but sometimes identical to their crests, which they put on their personal possessions and also had their retainers wear small copies of. Warriors and servants of a lord would sometimes wear civilian costumes and military uniforms in the livery colors of the lord, which might be the colors of his coat or arms or badge or different colors.
What's more, a lord might have a flag called a standard, along narrrow flag decorated with his crest and/or badge.
So if you were looking for Lord X you might notice a group of soldiers wearing his livery colors and copies of his badge, with Lord X's standard flying, and among them someone wearing Lord X's coat of arms (and maybe his horse was wearing Lord X's coat of arms) and holding a shield with Lord X's coat of arms, and wearing Lord X's crest on his helmet, and accompanied by someone carrying a banner with Lord X's coat of arms, and you would begin to suspect that that person could possibly be Lord X.
If the President of the United States went into battle wearing the coat of arms of the USA which is "Argent, six pales gules, a chief azure" (white with six thin vertical red stripes, and across the top a blue bar) he would wear a surcoat with "Argent, six pales gules, a chief azure" in front and in the back, and one on each sleeve, and carry a shield with "Argent, six pales gules, a chief azure", and wear a crest over his helmet of "a glory with 13 mullets on blue field" (A circular cloud with rays of light surrounding a blue field with 13 stars).
His horse would wear trappings with "Argent, six pales gules, a chief azure", and he would be accompanied by a banner bearer with a banner of "Argent, six pales gules, a chief azure".
The coat of arms of the Count of Habsburg was "Or, a lion rampant gules, crowned azure" (a yellow field with a red lion rearing up wearing a blue crown) and the coat of arms of the Duke of Austria was "Gules, a fess argent" (red with a white horizontal band in the center). The coat of arms of the count of Nassau was "Azure, billety or, a lion rampant or" (a blue field strewn with yellow rectangles, a yellow lion rearing up).
The King of the Romans was the person elected Emperor of the Romans but not yet crowned emperor in Rome by the Pope. The coat of arms of the King of the Romans was "Or, an eagle displayed sable" (a yellow field with a black eagle with wings spread out, having only one head).
Adolf, Count of Nassau, was elected King of the Romans in 1292, but the Electors declared him deposed on 23 June 1298 and elected Albert, Count of Habsburg and Duke of Austria, as King of the Romans. Albert and Adolf fought at the Battle of Gollheim on 2 July 1298. The angry Adolf sought out Albert and you can be sure Adolf made an effort to learn beforehand what the coats of arms of Habsburg, Austria, and any other fiefs claimed by Albert looked like if he didn't already know such famous coats of arms. Albert unhorsed Adolf and dismounted to finish Adolf off.
A poem written centuries later claims that both Adolf and Albert wore the coat of arms of the king of the Romans on their surcoats, yellow strewn with black one headed eagles. That is logical since the king of the Romans was theoretically the rightful ruler of everywhere and so was the highest possible position, and one which both Adolf and Albert claimed. I don't know if the poet actually knew that Adolf and Albert, and lords in general, used armorial surcoats in 1298, but I think that armorial surcoats became common some time before 1298.
Since the coat of arms of the king of the Romans was one single-headed eagle, it would have been quite possible that both Adolf and Albert actually wore surcoats with one eagle on the front, one on the back, and one on each sleeve. Producers of historical movies should note that if Adolf and Albert both wore surcoats semi (strewn with an arbitrary number) of eagles they would not have looked identical, having be made by different makers for different clients. Thus they would have different numbers of eagles of different sizes and with different design details, and someone could tell the difference when Adolf and Albert were facing each other.
In some battles the lord or king would wear uncovered armor or a plain surcoat and one or more brave knights would volunteer to wear surcoats with the lord's coat of arms to attract enemy attacks. I think that I read of one battle where the king in disguise survived and about a dozen knights who wore his coat of arms were killed.
Knights, lords, and kings sometimes wore civilian robes emblazoned with their coats of arms, which would be highly desirable from a visual standpoint in any fictional medieval fantasy world.
As far as I know, the only way to make bare metal armor have as distinctive a pattern as a coat of arms would be to paint the coat of arms in full color on the metal of the armor.
And it seems to me that wearing surcoats or tabards with the coat of arms over the armor would be just as good as armor painted with the coat of arms, especially if the character also wears similar garments with the coat of arms in civilian settings when he isn't wearing any armor.
[Answer]
**Festooned with trophies and medals!**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/9fdiz.png)
The OP wants the wearer of this armor to be / properly recognised for their battlefield deeds/. Medals and trophies corresponding to these great deeds can be affixed to the armor which do exactly that. Some trophies might actually be trophies taken from fallen foes or conquered citadels. Claws or fur tufts from conquered animals could be included. Boy scouts style, there would be medals for recognizing other worthy feats as well - possibly assembled into shapes so people would also know which medals were missing and yet to be attained.
This would be on the dress armor, of course. Should one wear one's dress armor into battle through necessity or forgetfulness, medals and trophies damaged in the course of battle can be retrieved afterwards and attached again, being worth so much the more for their battle-testedness.
I think it makes sense that if you defeat a foe who himself has medals, that vanquished foe should bestow a medal on the victor to commemorate the occasion - the "you beat me" medal. These medals would not be displayed but kept handy in a secret compartment.
[Answer]
**Paint It**
Its always good to put some color on your suit or you could wear some sort of garment over the armor to show off your house sigil in bright colors.
[Answer]
## Built In Speakers
You said you wanted the Knights' armor to announce loudly who they were, why not take that literally: Knights have speakers or sirens built into their armor that (depending on your technology level) either say their name and accolades, or play a specific sounds/tune. Even with lower tech, a combination music box/mechanical siren could play a kind of audio-heraldry with different note combinations denoting the various awards, medals and honors the knight has received in addition to their personal/familial "entrance tone"
[Answer]
Paint, plumes, and tabards
First let me say AlexP's answer will show you why this is less of an issue, but
Many many armors were painted or had decorations added, Armor was so expensive that the cost of paint was negligible.
For the less wealthy paint was very common, mostly because they only ever owned one suit of armor, often partially hand me down, so why not paint it in your down time. Generally the patterns were simple (usually 2-3 colors) on the large scale and detailed up close. this was partially just as decoration but it also would work as identification for allies and attendants. Especially the colors and basic pattern.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/mZ2vB.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/lpLNY.jpg)
Tabards, AKA shirts worn over armor, were also common and would usually be brightly colored.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/B2bfY.jpg)
The wealthy used embossing, etching, plumes, and other more expensive but permanent forms of decoration. Armor was expensive so just paying to add decoration was normal for those that could afford it. The wealthy prefer a high polish (which was ludicrously expensive to maintain). [Here is](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdI6PoJXmZg) a great video summarizing all the different forms of decoration. The wealthy would use large colored feathers or plumes for for identification, they are lightweight and don't impact performance. Usually one or two colors again, and the wealthy could afford the expensive imported birds needed to get said feathers.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CABnw.jpg)
But there is no reason your people can't all use paint and tabards, just like having the same uniform they could use the same color to identify allies. Painting specific parts (helmets would be good) could be used to identify individuals. The wealthy will find other ways to show off, like silk tabards.
Note shields were usually painted but shields became less and less common as armor became better because did not help and just became dead weight.
[Answer]
Distinctive Helmets, shields, and symbols on the armor itself.
No actual change to the shape of anything unless it would be functional.
If your tech level allows for it, you may want to try [Anodizing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anodizing) the metal to color it without weakening it.
] |
[Question]
[
Imagine a typical steampunk setting. Now, let's make two grand assumptions about it:
1. Steam engines here are MUCH more efficient than those in our world. Yep, we have to violate laws of physics for this one.
2. We can't use any electrical energy. To not touch physics again, let's pretend we self-restricted ourselves from using any kind of electricity.
These do not apply to the entire genre - just for here and for now, we need these two for our thought experiment.
While generating whole lot of a mechanical energy, we can't convert it to the electrical one. This forbids us from a convenient way to manage said energy. Yet, our steampunk world still needs to do it somehow.
Is there any effective way to store this energy now? Be it some "batteries" for long-term storing, or "pipes" for temporal one (while transmitting energy for short distances).
Or maybe we could find another convenient form of energy to convert to, working around it?
Assume we don't want to violate physics anymore - apart from those laws we've violated already, of course.
I just wonder how this whole world would look like - it's not really a topic many steampunk universes raise, even though this is (possibly) a main problem these worlds would have to deal with.
[Answer]
# Pneumatics or Springs
If you're just storing energy locally, a [flywheel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel) or [pumped hydro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity) is your friend, but if you want to move energy around in physical storage "batteries", then your best bet is [compressed air](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_energy_storage).
Pneumatics are already widely employed, but you can turn compressed air directly into mechanical energy pretty readily with an [air engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumatic_motor) or employ it directly, as in [compressed air cars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed-air_car).
The only issue would be the materials science required to store gasses under pressure, but if you have steam engines (and magically effective steam engines, at that), that's probably addressable.
The other option I'm lifting directly from [The Windup Girl](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Windup_Girl): kink-springs. In the context of the book, kink-springs are kind of like old-school mainsprings from watches and other clockwork, but capable of much higher energy densities because <insert materials science handwavium>. If you're already playing around with physics, a material that can be a spring that winds tighter and with more energy than any metal we have access to, and which will rebound to its normal shape is more than capable of being a mechanical energy storage battery. The problem, as illustrated in part of that book, is that if you *break* the spring, all that energy gets released at once.
[Answer]
### Massive flywheels, baby!
Although in our world we use them to store electric energy, that needn't be so.
There were even full-size buses propelled by flywheels, they were called **[gyrobuses](https://www.amusingplanet.com/2019/02/gyrobus-flywheel-powered-public.html)**, which if anything, is a cool name for a steampunk story.
[Answer]
**Gravity Battery**
A gravity battery spends energy to lift weights, which stores potential gravitation energy that can be extracted later by lowering the weights. See [wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery#:%7E:text=A%20gravity%20battery%20works%20by,electricity%20through%20an%20electric%20generator.)
I believe this is a relatively new invention in our world, but the basic concept is really just a crane, which existed in antiquity.
I originally heard of this from a startup [Energy Vault](https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/energy-storage/long-duration-storage-firm-energy-vault-pivots-to-short-term-batteries) that went viral in the news a few years ago.
You could directly use the mechanical energy of the winches lowering the weights to power nearby devices, but to distribute power in as infrastructure, you would need some kind of mechanical-to-heat transducer, the steam analog of an electric generator.
[Answer]
## You don't, You store the fuel for the magic steam engines and just have the steam engines in all sizes.
You don't want to convert then energy then store it, if your engines are *that* efficient, they are more efficient than ANY storage that can be used after that step. Electricity storage is largely pointless anyway in your world, you don't need to handwave it.
You just store the fuel that runs your super efficient steam engines. Steam cars were a real thing. Steam engines can be made very small, or absolutely massive. The smallest working steam engine will fit on your thumbnail, the largest is over a hundred tons and is larger than a house, you can believably have a steam turbine for whatever you want to run. If they are as magically efficient as you say they could be made even smaller.
mechanical storage in your world is only used to smooth out small scale local instability, such as small flywheels or damper systems.
Steam engines can be run off a variety of fuels, wood, coal, gasoline, kerosene, methane, fuel oil, essentially anything that burns. All nuclear reactors are still steam engines at their core, as are thermal solar plants.
A steam engine does not even need to be run all the time to work all the time, steam cars will run for miles even when the fuel is exhausted just on the steam pressure left in the system.
In your world everything has uses power has a steam engine in it. The ultimate steam punk dream. An anime "Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress" even plays around with a similar idea, everyone walks around with a tiny steam engine on their belt to run basically anything small, even guns are steam powered.
A big upside of this is you only need to handwave once the one you already have the magic steam engines, nothing else needs to be unrealistic.
[Answer]
I suggest you read Wind Up Girl. This is a post-apocalyptic world where the main characters are operating a spring-based energy storage system. Spring-based and flywheel-based present the best energy density short of storing it as chemical energy. Chemical energy is still your best bet. Compressed gas suffers serious issues with energy losses due to heating of gas on compression.
Here are a few useful statistics on energy storage techniques. All numbers list where the values max out. Lithium-Ion presented for comparison. Note that density is per volume. If you want to carry this thing around, you need to measure it by kg.
| Method | max (MWh) | Density (Wh/l) | Issues |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Pumped Hydro | 3000 | 2 | Requires lots of land |
| Compressed gas | 1000 | 6 | Efficiency loss from heating |
| Molten Salt | 150 | 120 | High max temperature |
| Lithium-ion | 100 | 400 | It's what we do |
| Flywheel | 20 | 80 | Frictionless bearings, explosive failure |
| Kink spring | | 100 | Extremely low density per kg |
**Addendum**:
Based on OP, flywheels are out of the question. There are no schemes that I'm aware of that allow you to move power into/out of a flywheel without electricity. There is a method that uses magnets, but the loss to heat is intense.
**Addendum2**:
There are numerous examples of using flywheels for short-term energy storage, connected by continuous variable transmission. CVT energy loss is a function of time, making this a viable way to store energy between, for instance, the time between when a bus stops at a bus stop and when it starts up again.
The cam shaft of a single-cylinder engine is basically a flywheel that stores energy from one internal combustion explosion to deliver it to the next pressurization cycle. Such capacitor-like storage of energy is not only possible, but commonplace. It's also not the thing that the OP is looking for. He wants something he can top off and leave it for days, if not months, and have it available when he needs it. A flywheel that lacks electromagnetic levitation will bleed its energy into heat far too quickly to be used for such purposes.
[Answer]
There are actually a fair amount of examples in the real-world, at least for long-term storage.
I'll start with the exotic [Sand Battery, by Polar Night Energy](https://polarnightenergy.fi/sand-battery) which may be the least possible for you. Their concept is simple: an air circuit is embedded in a silo filled with sand. Heating the water leads to storing heat in the sand, cooling the air leads to extracting heat from the sand. Their goal is to heat the tons of sand to 600°C over the Summer, and have the battery last all Winter long, sustaining an entire small town. That's... a lot of energy.
On the more mechanical side, gravity is a good friend. The Swiss are known to buy electricity from their neighbors when it's cheap and use it to pump water up, then release the water when the price goes up, producing electricity they sell back to their neighbors at a higher pricer.
Multiple start-ups are currently investigating more elaborate systems, which generally involved moving massive weights up and down. Those [Gravity Batteries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_battery) operate on the age old principle of the pendulum clock (1656):
* [Energy Vault](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Vault): building with giant bricks being raised and lowered.
* [Gravitricity](https://gravitricity.com/): weighs are being raised and lowered in a vertical underground shaft, such as former mine shafts.
Others have mentioned flywheels, etc...
Note that those solutions are not necessarily good in terms of *density*, they are for high-capacity, long-term storage. For vehicles, you'll probably want steam engines, with coal/petroleum/... and for very low-capacity, short-term, then you can turn to small springs/micro-explosions.
[Answer]
>
> Or maybe we could find another convenient form of energy to convert to, working around it?
>
>
>
## Chemical energy
This is borderline moving from steampunk into dieselpunk, but might make sense for you.
This is also very commonplace in gasolinepunk settings such as real life.
Methane is a source of energy but it is not the best source of energy. Petrol is safer and easier to transport and use due to gasoline not being a gas (that came out weird).
For this reason there is a process called [Gas to Liquids, or GTL for short](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_to_liquids), which converts methane and other lighter hydrocarbons into gasoline or diesel.
And remember, a tank full of gasoline is nothing more, nothing less than a chemical battery. An internal combustion engine is just the boring way to tap into that stored energy, the cool way being a match and optionally canned oxygen.
Anyway, GTL requires energy, so that may be where steam comes in. Depending on economic factors, or technological limitations, steam might be cheaper for large scale applications such as power plants (specially considering its magically more powerful in your world). So you extract methane from wherever, use steam to convert it into gasoline, and then people can use that gasoline to power portable shaving razors or grandfather clocks or whatever it is that your characters use.
By the way, for comparison, a real world 60Ah car battery can hold around 2.6 megajoules. One kilogram (2.205 pounds) of gasoline in a tank holds around 45.8 megajoules. That's about 17.6 fully charged car batteries in a little less than a 1.5L coca cola bottle (gasoline is lighter than water, at ~743g/L).
Storing energy in this way rather than mechanical means also gives your world a way to have a proper energy market. I love all the other answers, but there is a reason why in our own world we buy a liquid rather than pieces of metal spinning at 3,000 rpm or weights tied to springs to put in our cars and trucks. And the only other economically and physically practical alternative has been ruled out in the question.
[Answer]
Steam engines are very efficient in some unexplained way (since they're already something like 40% efficient as a comment says, this really does need magic physics, but this is allowed).
So a really good way of storing and transporting energy in this world is ... steam. You can store it under pressure in very insulated boilers, transport it along insulated pipes.
[Answer]
Mechanical energy could be used in a compressor / cooler unit without electrical input to produce liquid air or liquid nitrogen. With appropriate insulation this can be stored for a long time.
In fact this method of energy storage is currently under development. it uses modern electric compressors and other electric equipment, but these are not essential to the process and could be dispensed with at some efficiency cost.
To regenerate the mechanical energy the liquid air/nitrogen is warmed via the environment (reverse heat pump) and/or other sources of low grade heat to produce a high pressure gas that is then used to spin a turbine.
<https://highviewpower.com/news_announcement/highview-power-unveils-cryobattery-worlds-first-giga-scale-cryogenic-battery/>
[Answer]
To make this really, really simple let's stop for just a second to see what's really going on: You want some method (or methods) to successfully store **WORK** done by another engine previously so that you can harvest later to get more **WORK** done. The easier it is to harvest this WORK, the better.
There are loads of ways to do this, some more inventive than others. (*There are lots of options given above, for examples.*) Unfortunately I spent an inordinate amount of my youth studying physics and gaming, and had become quite inventive in how this might be accomplished - for portable and non-portable methods.
My favorite portable method was to build small elastic liquid-filled spheres with a single "port" on them. The port was a bayonet-type port, meaning it wouldn't open unless it was secured to another connector. The only requirement for using these was that the sphere be connected with the port at the lowest point of the arrangement - either charging or discharging. One would connect the sphere to a "charger" which would then force air (*or other gas*) bubbles into it through the port, letting some liquid/fluid act as a one-way valve, and building pressure throughout the elastic "ball" to charge it up. I used water, but you could use oil, alcohol, even maple syrup - it really doesn't make much of a difference. WORK was done to compress the gas (*air or whatever*) into the "ball" past the liquid, which was then stored in equilibrium of the elastic sphere and the valve. This made it possible to carry the energy around, stored and ready. Or roll it around, if it's too big to carry handily. (*In my game world they were made from a rubber-like elastomer that was incredibly tough and cut/puncture-resistant.*) Because most of the battery was just compressed air (*or some other gas, whatever you prefer*) it didn't really weigh any more charged or discharged - so that was just a function on volume. A fully-charged sphere would naturally be physically larger than an empty one. BUT when someone needed to transfer some stored WORK to their application, it was easily transportable and almost immediately ready (*you still had to connect it in the correct orientation for it to work*). As a bonus, in case of an uncontrolled fire you could just chuck a few batteries on the flames to extinguish it! (Bet you can't do that with today's electrical batteries!) I said the elastomer was cut and puncture resistant. I never said anything about it being fireproof.
I almost forgot - the reason for the liquid/fluid at the bottom of the sphere was two-fold: initially it acted as a "lock" because it was heavier than the gas which bubbled through it to be trapped inside the sphere, and when the elastic limit of the sphere was reached the fluid would get pushed back in through the valve, making it possible to trigger a disengage (*or some other activity*) to prevent the sphere from being destroyed by being over-inflated. Safety first, and (*try to*) make it last.
I'll have to scare up my notes for other examples if you need them. (*I'm currently at work - on break - and was curious if this would help.*)
[Answer]
# Steam Accumulator
Spirax Sarco has a [detailed engineering explanation](https://www.spiraxsarco.com/learn-about-steam/the-boiler-house/steam-accumulators) of how they work and ways in which they can be configured. The image below is one example from their page.
Essentially you take your steam source and bubble it through water in another pressure vessel. The vessel stores thermal energy in the water. When the pressure is reduced, that super-heated water flashes back to steam. They are commonly used in real world industry to balance the boiler capacity and the process load. The boiler is operated at a higher pressure than the accumulator and control valves are required for a constant steam output.
Steam accumulators bear the same high temperature pressure vessel safety risks as a boiler, but are very efficient when properly insulated. If you are storing fictitiously large amounts of energy without regards to the vessel cost, the efficiency goes up as the vessel gets larger because [volume increases faster than surface area](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-area-to-volume_ratio).
And of course, more steam and pipes in a steampunk world couldn't hurt ;-)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/5JVYL.png)
[Answer]
I interviewed at place that was building flywheels on magnetic bearings in vacuum as local back-up (electrical) power. As long as we're imagining, could we imagine a concentric turbine setup where power is applied as a super-heated steam jet near the periphery, with the flywheel spinning so fast that air and water vapor are flung out, away from the moving parts. Gotta keep wht wheel in a vacuum. This would require a gigantic radius and head room outside it.
Power could be extracted by admitting a working fluid- air, water, olive oil, to a compression turbine on the other face or outside the power-in turbine's diameter. The compressed or accelerated flow exits the container, energized by the flywheel. Can't slow it down enough to compromise the vacuum. Steam to accelerate would go out the same way, and carry with it high residual energy.
Is this too painfully similar to a perpetual motion setup? Maybe.
[Answer]
Physicists have a name for this: [potential energy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_energy).
>
> In physics, potential energy is the energy held by an object because of its position relative to other objects, stresses within itself, its electric charge, or other factors.
>
>
>
Use steam to pump water up a steep hill to a reservoir; if the land isn't that steep, build large water towers.
Then, when you need the energy, let it flow down to spin whatever you need to spin and then do other things.
@John [is right](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/247641/8068), though: just make the steam when you need it, since coal and wood are a lot easier to store.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm a time traveler. Yes I know it's amazing for you to grasp but once Jebsus invented time travel in the mid 54th century we all became time travelers (he open sourced it).
Now recently I came across a ring made of foreverium I would like to keep safe, said ring is one of a kind & can't be reproduced as it is made from the entire universe supply of foreverium atoms, a material which was only created in small quantities during the big bang. Aside from its rarity you can consider it being a normal ring in every way that matters.
Said material also makes this ring very expensive & I would like to keep it safe, the problem is how can I design a safe place to keep it when every thief on Earth can just time travel to a period where the safe\alarm\etc broke down due to rust\old age\etc?
You can assume the following:
* foreverium will always keep its state & shape.
* There is no more foreverium than what's in the ring.
* I can't move the ring or safe, I need to pick a spot where it will be safe,
* No living guards, the future is fully automated.
* Machines have a shelf life, no matter how long it is it will break at some point so the thief will be able to just time jump after that date to bypass a broken machinery.
* Money and resources are not a problem, if it can be done I can afford it.
* I can't hide it somewhere it will never be found, time travel leaves a very detectable signal which means every step I've taken in life since my first jump (which already happened) is tracked.
* Time travel is easy, it takes nothing more then a special wrist watch everyone has.
[Answer]
***The correct answer is to just join the crowd of time travelers getting their own foreverium ring at Evaporation Point.***
Think about how you've described your foreverium ring for a second. It's immutable, unalterable, and undecay-able. So, what happens when the universe goes old? It survives heat death, it survives particle decay, and it survives at the center of the black hole that our galaxy will eventually turn into. And at some point, ~$10^{1000}$ years from now, that black hole will finally evaporate... leaving behind a foreverium ring.
Hah, no, just kidding. It won't leave behind *one* ring. Because if Alice decides she wants to grab a ring after that evaporation point and go back in time with it it... well, then, there'd be *two* of those foreverium rings in the past, wouldn't there? Which would mean there would actually be two rings when the black hole evaporated - the original one, and the one that Alice took back and had actually gone through the process twice. Which means there's one for Bob as well... except, if there were two people picking up rings, then there'd actually be three rings available: the original, the one Alice had, and the one Bob had.
In fact, you could have ten million people time travelling to Evaporation Point (the coolest spacetime point in the cosmos! Join the crowd!) and there would, conveniently enough, be exactly enough rings for everyone that shows up... with one additional ring left over.
[Answer]
# Just track it
Since:
1. Nothing other than foreverium is forever
2. You're a time traveller
There's no real reason to worry about this ring, whoever has it right now is as ephemeral as any security system. All you need to do is know where and when the ring is at any given point and you can pick the thing up.
Wait until the end of time if you want to and just collect it when everyone else is done trying to keep it. Though finding out where and when it was made and collecting it direct from manufacturer would be more fun. Given the nature of the ring, the skills and knowledge of the manufacturer are far more valuable than the artifact itself anyway.
Let's consider a simple example.
## The bedside table:
You don't want to be wearing the ring today. Leave it on your bedside table here and now. Collect it from here and now when you next want it. Time travel is like that.
[Answer]
When you are done with the ring, give it to yourself the next time you need it and then when you need it again go back to when you were last finished with it to receive it from your past self.
The ring then only exists when you are using it and there's no need to store it at all.
If it's stolen while you have it, go back to before that and tell your past self, take the ring, and then return a point after the theft would have happened.
When you are done with it and you don't meet a future self coming to receive it, you no longer need it and can throw throw it away. If it still had any value for you after that, you would have come back to get it. It can not be stolen at that point because someone else having it does not deprive you of it.
The retropreemption of the ring being stolen directly from you does the problem of being a causality paradox. If you prevented the theft from being possible, why did you go back? The thief might also just kill you to prevent any future you from stopping the theft. You could try to find out whether your future self will be murdered and prevent that, which just causes more causality paradoxes.
Theft while you have the ring out of the storage (or in this case the absence of storage) isn't really a problem with the storage (or absence thereof) though so even if it doesn't work because the wibbly-wobbly timey-wimey won't allow the paradox, it's somewhat outside the scope of this question anyway.
[Answer]
It's somewhat irrational to worry about theft if time travel is ubiquitous. If the item mysteriously disappears, you can just travel back in time to when it still existed, and take steps to prevent it.
Moreover, thieves cannot hide. Every location is space is essentially under surveillance. At any point where some crime occurred, anyone can travel backwards, and by a binary search process, zero in on the time when that happened, catching the criminal in the act.
Under the parallel futures interpretation of time travel, there is no issue. Anyone can go back to a time and place just before something got stolen, and chase a parallel future in which that is prevented.
[Answer]
Install a time-machine alarm. The moment your safe fails or is on the verge of failing it sends a signal back to you. Now you can zip forward to that moment. Either replacing the safe with a new one or taking the ring back in time and placing in a brand new safe.
Repeat and rinse. You will remove the ring from the safe before any thief can strike. This will give a lifetime's hobby to keep you out of mischief.
This answer assumes you have placed the safe containing in a safe spot or several safe spots (depending on how many times you go forth and back to the future).
[Answer]
The safe is a self-replicating Von Neumann device. You put the ring in the safe and enter a secret timespace coordinate. The safe replicates 10 copies of itself and transfers the ring into one of the copies. Then all the safes teleport away to random spacetime coordinates in inhospitable locations. At those locations, they replicate again. And teleport. And so on. Until eventually, after many hops, the one with the ring teleports to the secret coordinates you entered originally. You go there to retrieve the ring. Anyone wanting to get the ring has to either know the secret coordinates or has to track the safes... all the safes... the exponentially increasing number of safes. And they have to do it from those inhospitable locations (lava, Jupiter core, black hole, etc.).
[Answer]
Charles Stross, in the [Merchant Princes series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Merchant_Princes), had his characters deal with similar security problems in an analogous situation (certain people, while not able to truly time travel, could travel back and forth between the same place in alternative histories in a many worlds hypothesis type scenario).
For example, often they would put valuables at high elevations in places, where for some reason alternative historical timelines would not have been able to do so.
In some ways, a time travel scenario is easier. You just need to find a place that will stay in its current land use for more or less eternity and lock it up.
[Answer]
How about having the safe itself (running off a permanent power supply of unobtanium or solar or something) autonomously jump around in time, analogous to spread-spectrum digital radar operation? You know the pattern and thus can get to it when you want to, but the chances of anyone else being able to track it are rather slim.
[Answer]
**Use cloning via time travel.** Put the ring in a really good safe, close it and pick it up again in future. Come back to time few minutes later today, open the safe and put the ring next to the ring that is already in the safe.
Repeat, until you have enough rings that losing one will not be a problem. Scatter them everywhere. Observe the price and value of your ring to drop.
[Answer]
It heavily depends on what kind of time travel you want and how easy it is. But considering that stealing it from a passed or future isnpossible it limits the options. if you truly want to build a safe then you could simply build an inconapicuous container and send it to a point and place in time where no one else is at that point in time. You send two things: the first arrives 1 minute before and is a bomb designed to kill anyone that arrives within a minute of the ring's location. The second is the ring itself in a safe, the first time travel track obfuscating then second. If you want it you go to that exact point in time and space to collect it while from the viewpoint of the safe it arrived seconds before. You can even leave defenses that last only a few days, as that is more than enough for you to come collect it. The safe can be build to take a day or two before it can be transported or broken open by people without the keycodes/keycards.
But time travel might not be that easy. It might be available but you cant just pop on over anywhere constantly, so you want it somewhere you can reach without time travel. The easiest solution to that would be to place it somewhere no one will look, like a high-energy reactor that is necessary to keep your environment running. It is foreverium and can withstand anything (which begs the question of how it was forged). So placing it in a dangerous environment that people think is necessary for their own survival seems a great place to (secretly!) hide something. If necessary have a fake hiding place and act like the ring was just moved somewhere else when someone comes looking. There are some hidden batteries allowing you to deactivate the reactor long enough to grab the foreverium when you want. Since foreverium is unmuteable it cant become toxic or radioactive itself as long as you wash the particles off.
] |
[Question]
[
Imagine that the taboo around Airships and dirigibles is broken. Besides some cargo, passenger and tourism Airships there's one company that focuses on the super-rich by selling what are essentially flying super-yachts.
A metamaterial skin prevents the gas from escaping the hull, meaning you'll lose maybe 1% of your gas per year. Electricity is created through pressure, wind, batteries, a backup engine and solar panels on the outer shell (mainly semi-rigid or rigid [Airships](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airship) are used I assume). Water can be collected and filtered for use both from rain or by collecting from the sea/lakes. An on-board computer accessible from anywhere in the ship keeps it level, can steer the ship to any destination while avoiding obstacles and it monitors the local weather and news reports to keep the airship safe from hazardous weather conditions (rule of thumb: Any weather with winds faster than the Airships max speed is dangerous). And similar to [Airships of old](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron_(ZRS-4)) it can reach a whopping 130km/h.
Now most problems that would arise can be handwaved away with future materials or for the most part existing solutions and real-life Airships already exist that can do what I want. But what I cant figure out is how to make these Airships comfortable to enter and exit. You want whoever from your small crew to be able to get out and get the groceries or maintenance parts without the need to stop where you are going. But more importantly you want to get in your supercar and be safely on the ground or return to the airship with minimal discomfort and minimal facilities. So far the only solution I have thought off is an extendable elevator at the bottom of the airship and a parking lot. But that still means you need a pretty damn long extendable arm on your elevator to reach the ground if you are anywhere near houses or worse some flats. It also means your crew wont be able to leave without stopping the airship.
Anyone got any bright ideas?
Criteria on which the solutions will be judged:
- Passenger/storage capacity.
* comfort (less effort in a more natural position = more comfort in general)
* Overhead (=minimum preparation time to use the solution. Having to strap on a parachute has a higher overhead than stepping in a flight-ready helicopter).
* average speed
* Average distance it can reach.
* Service time between uses, including potential refueling.
* Ground facilities required to use the solution. In some cases the size of the area required to for example land would need to be mentioned as a ground facility as well.
Edit: this is not an all-airship future or a steampunk setting. Airships would simply supplement current transport options. And just like all other transport before it, the rest wouldnt become obsolete.
[Answer]
A detachable, considerably smaller airship.
It will use gas of the overlord to offset most of the weight being lowered, minus a small amount which will allow for a mostly controlled descent. For safety (and a means to return), a cable will be attached between the two and an electric winch will be used to retrieve the smaller airship, along with any extra goods which may have been acquired.
Upon redocking, there wouldn't really need to be much need to equalize the gas until the next load is taken off (presumably of differing weight, and therefore, gas will need to be added/removed).
Edit: I guess I should have pointed out that the cable is also a means of equalizing gas so that the smaller balloon can remain on the ground if need be, or extra gas can be pushed to it to make the winch's job easier.
[Answer]
**Jetpacks!**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/3uhyP.jpg)
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rocketeer_(film)>
If you are going to have airships, you need jetpacks. I can picture the crewman spotting the grocery coming into view below as he is shaving. He straps on his pack and tumbles backwards off of the airship into free fall, zipping his pants and buttoning his shirt as he falls. Shaving cream remnants blow upwards off of his face. He turns his jets on full blast 10 yards above the ground, runs into the grocery and grabs a 12-pack of [Moxie](https://www.drinkmoxie.com/home), pays with a single silver coin, then back outside and blasting off to catch up with the airship receding away.
[Answer]
# Skycrane
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/CogIt.jpg)
As long as you have lifting power, there is no reason that you can't just pick up and lower a large, comfortable elevator box (doesn't have to be shaped like a house).
If you want to keep moving while dropping someone off, why not just replace the elevator box with something with wheels?
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YaB2A.jpg)
[Answer]
Small landing pad on top of airship, used by a conventional helicopter, flying cars, or drones for deliveries. In fact, groceries can be delivered by drone straight to the receiving hatch in the main gondola.
Also, the USS Akron that you mentioned could launch and retrieve airplanes. Modern electronics should make this process a lot safer and smoother.
[Answer]
I would suggest an elevator without a shaft, i.e., a sort of cable car or gondola. Perhaps the entire "cabin" descends from the airframe on a cable, and serves as an anchor while it sits on the ground. It might get a bit unnerving in high winds, so an alternative would be to drop a weighted anchor first, then have the cabin or a part of the cabin descent along the already-taut cable.
The balloon will continue to float overhead, and the only real risk of harm is if other balloons are parked too close together (they might crash into one another in the wind). I am assuming you have figured out a solution for dangerous weather -- either descending the entire airship to ground level and securing it, or perhaps flying high above the weather.
If the cable car is large enough, it could include parking space for the owner's supercar and comfortable seating for his guests.
[Answer]
If your modern day analogue is the yacht, I would think they would dock at marina like area. Unlike cars, which are mandated by local governments to have extra space for parking, (typically) no such laws apply to yachts having public mooring. Instead (mostly) private enterprises dedicate space that caters to the specific needs of the vehicle, and their super rich owners.
If, however, your airships are as common as cars, then you would need government intervention and infrastructure investment in order to prevent utter chaos in the skies.
You also asked about the physical considerations. I can envision a system similar to what was used back when airships were common. They were typically tethered to a spire which could raise and lower the ship mechanically. But if we are envisioning a marina analogue, I would imagine a tower more than a tether. One that had an interior so as to protect the fliers from the elements. That interior would have a covered landing platform that could extend to the airship door. It would also have the ability to dock several "layers" of airships. Each story of the tower could contain 4 or so airships along it's circumference. This would be an efficient use of vertical space for precious land.
The tower would likely have maintenance facilities, and a "dry dock" if longer term repairs are needed. This means it would likely have a way to bring an airship down to ground level, where there is separate facilities for major work. I envision crane like arms extending from the center of the tower that extend out past the spaces of the currently docked airship. The airship tethers it's nose to it, and then the arm moves the ship to it's appointed dock, or even to the ground for long term storage or decommissioning. Each tower might only have 2 or 3 cranes that can move up and down to different levels as well as extend its arm our. Or maybe there is one crane on each level, servicing that level only.
[Answer]
A small light aircraft could land or take off from the top of the airship. Unless the airship is in bumpy air, the airship's environment will be ideal for landing. This is especially true if the airship is running under power. This will create a headwind if you land tail to bow. That's ideal for landing and taking off.
You can keep the landing craft pretty light since it doesn't need a lot of fuel or speed. A Cessna 152 or a smaller Piper would work fine. Larger aircraft that can hold more people/cargo would work as well.
Actually you don't really need the headwind for taking off if you don't mind a bit of excitement if the aircraft does not reach flying speed (higher than the stall speed) by the time it gets to the bow of the airship. The aircraft will quickly achieve the proper speed as it falls. Thus, cargo runs can just be taxied off the side. I wouldn't recommend this for most passengers.
Some zeppelins had hooks under them to catch and release a single aircraft that had the proper attachment and reinforcement to the top of the aircraft. That would fail your "comfortable" requirement and hooking was a bit of a tricky maneuver.
There were plans, before airships fell out of favor, to create flying aircraft carriers. If they could build those pre-WWII, we can build them today. The only thing that makes it trickier is that modern aircraft generally hive a higher stall speed than the older aircraft.
[Answer]
You want one or two ultralight vehicles. See <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation>
You have a huge hull filled with gas. On many of the old dirigibles, parts of the passenger cabin and often the entire crew cabin were built inside the hull. You can absolutely build a small hangar inside from which to launch and land your ultralight flyers. Many types of ultralights have takeoff and landing roll distances of around 50 feet.
The aerodynamics of flying into a closed hangar for landing could be interesting, I don't understand enough about that to judge, but if this part works out, you have a convenient method, you can field different types and sizes for different purposes, you can stored them inside your hull and have space there for refueling and repairs as well.
[Answer]
At least one US Navy blimp had an extendable hook that a small plane could fly up to, engage, then get hauled up inside. No need to invent anything more complicated.
Bush pilots fly in circles and lower a rope when delivering goods in the rain forest (where there are no runways). Centripetal force keeps the bottom of the rope relatively stationary allowing items to be placed in a bucket attached to the end of the rope. Scale it up a bit to accommodate passengers.
It isn't particularly comfortable, but the military worked out a system wherein a passing aircraft snags a cable lofted by balloon. The person embarking the airplane gets yanked aloft then winched inside.
[Answer]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7q3MnJBxrw>
Disney's UP movie style. Have a homing device aboard, and your airship comes and pickups you up.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uKeNK.png)
<http://www.tarproductions.com> John Freis, 51, ties 170 helium balloons to his lawn chair (in a sophisticated manner, of course) and flies up to 12,400 ft, traveling 46 miles in almost 4 hours. He had a parachute, oxygen, GPS, ballast and a BB gun.
<https://youtu.be/6Hp2Ys3lHSc?t=682>
[Answer]
Perhaps a small bay with powered hangliders with extra glass panes to protect from wind could fill the same function as a dingy would today?
Pick one add, some comfort improvements. A large airship could have many of varying sizes etc.
Electric engines should help reduce noise too.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powered_hang_glider>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_trike>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultralight_aviation>
[Answer]
The assumption is that airships are shaped much like sausages.
Could an airship not have a large "Keel" that could contain an elevator and other access structures.
Dynamic position control similar to that used by floating oil platforms could allow the keel to touch down and the crew could step off onto the ground and roll on any livestock, farm goods or grand pianos that were required.
[Answer]
Why not land? Submarines increase and decrease their buoyancy by taking on water. I suspect you could do the same with the durable. My thought would be to pump the Helium into to tanks while filling an inner bladder with air from outside. It would decrease the lift, and the airship could land while preserving lifting gas.
] |
[Question]
[
Imagine a creature capable of telekinesis. This creature is also armed with sharp teeth and claws for hunting and eating prey. Given using telekinesis to move an object is about as energy-consuming as picking up said object and moving it physically, why would such a creature still opt for a hunt without telekinesis? Physically stalking, chasing and killing prey feels much riskier. Prey has a chance to escape, creature could get hurt by prey's defences and end up with losing energy and gaining nothing.
In this context, the only reason I can think of is instinct and/or the joy of the hunt. It would give much more satisfaction doing it 'the old-fashioned way' than just straight up bringing prey to you through the air.
I hope that there are more reasons I cannot think of that would explain such behaviour.
Edit: the creatures are highly intelligent (> humans). They believe they have the right to take the life of prey for their nourishment, as long as it keeps nature in balance. Telekinesis is not new to them. They just possess both options.
[Answer]
Assuming that the hunter and the prey species evolved together, the hunt will never get that easy. Any creature that can be hunted by telekinesis *only* would have died out ages ago - all remaining prey animals would have developed skills to counter telekinesis. For example:
* Large species like elephants or buffalo would just have evolved to be even heavier - too heavy to be moved by telekinesis
* Animals like rabbits or gazelles that rely on flight would have developed better senses so they notice the finest touch of a telekinetic hunter, and can run away in time
* Animals with similar talents as the hunter would have developed defensive telekinesis - they can push back a telekinetic grasp
[Answer]
# Lions and Newton's Laws
Imagine if telekinesis were possible, but Newton's third law (For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) is still true.
If you were a lion and wanted to pull a wildebeest towards you, you would find an equal force pulling yourself towards the wildebeest. Lions and wildebeest weight about he same, so all your force accelerates both animals equally towards each other. If the lion tried this trick on a larger zebra or eland, the lion would be at the disadvantage.
There actually isn't really that much advantage to trying to tug-of-war a zebra to you. Even with two or more lions try to bring the zebra in, they are still stuck with a kicking, behooved animal that has to be grappled and subdued. Teeth and claws are still necessary.
Telekinesis in this case is most useful during the chase. Think of all those nature documentaries with a couple of lions chasing a zebra, only to give up after 20 seconds. Now imagine that once the lions are on the chase, a solid telekinetic push hits the zebra's running legs. The zebra is down, several lions are on top of it, and now it is lunch.
[Answer]
First and foremost, as others have said, telekinetically tripping your prey is all well and good, but you've still got to kill it. Hence fangs and claws.
There may also be some subtle tactile feedback that the hunter needs to exercise. For example, hunters generally do not appreciate prey that gets up and runs away from them. Wastes the hunter's energy having to chase and pounce twice. It may well be that as the claws are securing the prey beast and as the jaws are choking it, the hunter can appreciate that moment beyond which the prey can not survive. She can feel the last twitches of its heart or the relaxation of its muscles as it dies.
Very handy knowing when it's safe to let go your prey so you can enjoy your meal in peace. Assuming someone hasn't invited over a whole flock of buzzards or a pack of similarly telekinetic hyenas.
[Answer]
I'm going to build off L. Dutch here ...
He posits that telekinesis can only *move* the prey, not actually slay it (hmm ... unless you maybe push it over a cliff ;D )
So, your predator might have an approach like this:
* Stalk the prey, get as close as you can
* Pounce! Of course, the prey will book it for the horizon
* Or will it? Not if you use your TK power to lift it's feet 1 inch off the ground... ;D
* So prey is now immobilized, you can dispatch it all "red in tooth and claw"
The stalking is critically important, because prey animals are *heavy*. You can't keep them airborne for long. In fact, you might not be able to lift a huge wildebeest at all, **but** as you're chasing it you can use TK in a sideways pulse to knock one or more legs out from under it. Once it trips, you have it. (Note many cat predators do essentially this ... they chase the prey until they're close and they trip it as it runs) The advantage of TK is that:
* You won't miss on your trip attempt
* You don't need to get as close to go for the trip; you can now take down prey which would otherwise have gotten away
**Update**: Forgot to mention this before... Another thing you can do with TK is disable your enemy's defense as *economically* as possible. That is, instead of picking him up for a body-slam, telekinetically hold enemy's mouth shut while you fight him, or nudge his horns out of the way, or tip his chin back so you can go for the throat.
**Update 2**: I think the key here is *economy of effort*, using the TK to get just the advantage you need. Also, consider predator cubs; they'll have a ball pushing each other into the watering hole, "biting" Papa's tail when another club is closer, and so on!
[Answer]
The obvious reason is that there is an evolutionary penalty associated with TK use. Try this:
There is a small (but non-zero) probability that using TK will cause a fatal ischemic event (stroke) in the predator. Any predator which consistently uses TK rather than doing it the hard way will earn a Darwin Award. The capability is still there, but will be reserved for extreme necessity.
[Answer]
A common myth about snakes is that they have a physiological need to kill their prey in order to properly trigger their digestive system (or something of the sort). This is in fact not the case, with captive-bred snakes accepting pre-killed prey without a second thought (wild-caught snakes may need to be trained to accept pre-killed prey).
However, the same concept could be applied for your fantastic beast. As an evolutionary traits acquired long ago, and which may or may not be useful nowadays, the beast's digestive system is usually in a hibernating state until a specific hormonal flood triggers it. However, the beast's telekinetic powers are merely the effect of neurons firing, with no physiological effect on the beast itself (because... yeah, that's evolution for ya). However, the act of using its teeth and claws, and the significant struggle the prey is sure to offer in its attempt to escape, all release the hormones which serve to "inform" the digestive system that it should boot up and get ready for lunch.
[Answer]
Telekinesis without having the prey in sight is almost useless. First of all the predator needs to know which trajectory the object has to follow to reach its location. Else the prey will only hit on walls or obstacles (which is good if you want to kill it...).
Then, telekinesis will only move the prey. But it won't harm it. Once it has been brought in close proximity of the predator, it still needs to be killed. And for that teeth and claws are needed.
[Answer]
Because it brings you closer to the kill. This species views hunting and killing not just as a means to acquire nourishment but also as a right of passage, an honor. They view the relationship between predator and prey as a sacrifice by nature to the success of their own species. Only by removing the impersonal nature of 'killing at a distance' does the species feel they are truly experiencing the hunt as it is meant to be experienced. For the kill to be satisfying, the life must be taken, not just ended.
[Answer]
Perhaps telekinesis (TK) requires *concentration* to use. The predator could sit, concentrate, and move the already killed prey to a more suitable location (or could use TK for moving small children to the appropriate location) - but it would be the rare hunt that allowed its use on the fly, against moving (or fighting!) prey.
If I could lift something by spending a few seconds of mental preparation and then concentrating, it'd be great for getting a beer from the fridge during the big game - but worthless for snagging the ball out of the air so I could catch it during the big game.
[Answer]
Teeth and claws are no longer for hunting *per se* although stealth is still an important skill set, you need to see what you move after all. Claws and teeth are used once the prey is secured to kill and rend so that the creature can access the flesh of its kill. This means that claws are narrower, designed to cut rather than hold and teeth are for chewing not killer bone penetration or choke holds.
[Answer]
Cats scratch all the time to keep their claws trimmed back.
Possibly sharks use rending/threshing bites to help pull out some of the older teeth.
These are two physical reasons for using claws and teeth that are not about successful hunting but about maintenance and hygiene.
[Answer]
# Energy consumption is still a problem
Not only do you have to move it towards you, but it is also still moving. This means telekinesis is very expensive considering the cost to counteract the target running away. If you make it float, then it's still much harder than dragging it which is what predators normally do. Of course, they could kill the target with e.g. rocks but it is not unrealistic to assume there is still a while to go before they manage to figure that out.
[Answer]
Given how the question is framed, I'm assuming the telekinetic ability is something the creatures did not originally have but acquired at some point in the past. I'm also assuming they COULD use telekineses to catch pray, but still prefer to go on physical hunts. ~~And I'm assuming they are of limited intelligence~~.
Chase hunting is more than just a way to acquire food. It's also vigorous exercise. Creatures who do minimum physical exertion are likely to be less physically fit than those who engage in active hunting.
Hunting also provides the opportunity to mark territory. A bloody fight may intimidate competing predators more than a TK effect that is not obviously associated with the predator.
It may also be significant for mating purposes. If mating instincts cause a preference for physically imposing mates, then the one who exercises more may be more successful. If creatures compete for mates, physical displays of power and aggression may improve success. Or perhaps the mating ritual itself involves a physical chase, again leading to better success for more physically active prospects.
Given the edit indicating these are highly sentient creatures, we can add more social/cultural reasons for preferring physical hunting. To define why they would not use it, identify when they WOULD use it. Perhaps the TK ability is to be used only in warfare or personal combat. Perhaps it's believed that overuse leads to impotence or some other undesirable side effect (whether the effect is real or not.)
Successful hunting without telekinesis could be a rite of passage for the young, something that is valued by adults and signifies adulthood and bonding with other adults.
The creatures could also possess a sense of fair play or sportsmanship. It could be seen as unfair or socially unacceptable to use TK for hunting. Perhaps past overuse of the ability in the past caused food shortages or extinction of prey, leading to a taboo.
Possibly religious or spiritual reasons come into play. It could be that the ability is viewed as a gift, which must not be misused. Using the gift for hunting darkens the soul, for example.
[Answer]
If the use of telekinesis is as expensive as performing the physical task, it would have limited benefit in a hunting scenario. One needs to consider that at the most basic level, a predator needs to gain more energy from its kill than it expended to thrive. A combination of TK with physical method would likely offer the best result in a hunt (as mentioned by @kingledion, among others).
If your creatures live within social groups, then group hunting would likely improve the energy expense vs. gain ratio, and TK might not be suited to this kind of activity. The hunters have not yet figured out how to combine their abilities to greater effect. More likely, certain hunters might be assigned specific TK or non-TK tasks, based on their areas of expertise.
It is also likely that there will be hunters with stronger physical abilities, and those with stronger TK abilities. If this trait is still evolving, then the more desirable/successful of these would be the ones more likely to mate successfully, with the absolute winners being those who manage to be strong in both areas.
Another possible scenario might be to separate the TKs and non-TKs in some way but make them completely interdependent in some way. For example, the males of the species are physical, while the females have the TK, with the TK being largely developed as a method of protecting themselves and their young while the males are away. Or vice versa - the females are the strong physical protectors, while the males are the wily TK-hunters (or any combination thereof. I wouldn't exclude the possibility of more than two genders, for example).
Since your creatures are more intelligent than humans, are they also more civilized/technological? A greater dependence on and use of tools would probably mean the gradual loss of their natural hunting tools (humans being a good example of this). If they shun technology, then why?
Alternatively, the species might be recently "uplifted" (to borrow a phrase from David Brin). They were a somewhat intelligent, but primitive hunter-gatherer species who were modified by mysterious super-beings for reasons known or unknown. While the higher intelligence and TK might be newly developed in the species (a generation or two or ten), the cultural norm is still to hunt with tooth and claw "because that's how it has always been done".
[Answer]
I would say, its due to maintaining respect in the pack. Whirling the prey into the air via telekinesis might look cool, and might be way more efficient. But hunting it down, proving that you can bare-clawly defeat a bigger opponent, coming home drenched in blood, reaking of adrenaline... Thats how you get to mate the awestruck females in the pack ;)
And its how you present yourself as being worthy of leading the pack. And how you show that you are adult.
And imagine fights within the pack. I assume, that using telekinesis in the fight for being the leader has been abandoned generations ago, as they might hurt each other far to badly. Its raw power of flesh and blood that counts there.
[Answer]
I think the implications of a telekinetic predator need more thinking through.
Given that hunting strategy is generally some balance of "maximum effect for minimum risk and energy", I would expect that once telekinesis appears in a predatory species, it will be used eventually, not to trip animals up or pull them in.
It would be used most effectively as an *ambush hunting strategy*.
* Hide
* Await prey
* Apply telekinesis to some crucial body part or function. A heart valve perhaps, or the glottis/larynx. Perhaps the blood flow to the brain stem, or preventing movement of the diaphragm. Or just move lots of fine dust near the eyes or nostrils.
* *Then*, if prey appears to stagger or be affected, attack (with tooth and claw) before they can recover, or render them unconscious/dying and track them until they die.
That's what it might use its teeth and claws for.
[Answer]
Telekinesis cannot arise in predatory animals only. Here I'm taking telekinetic capabilities as a trait arising through evolution. Thus in such a scenario, many prey animal will be able to TK as well. Then just as predators will try to pull pray towards them, preys will also try to push them away using telekinesis. The end result will become complex.
Given that most prey animals are heavier, this will probably result in more predatory animals being group hunters. Small animals like rodents will really have a hard time. So they'll probably evolve some shielding capabilities.
As for claws and fangs, I think they'll probably shrink to some degree, as a predator can break prey's neck using telekinesis. But removing flesh will still require sharp teeth and good grabbing claws. But since a prey animal can easily break the neck of a predator, the result is hard to predict.
[Answer]
Perhaps the closest real-world analogy is the Electric Eel. It's "telekinesis" is used to disable its prey. Beyond that, "tooth and claw" still come into play.
[Answer]
energy consumption... put a larger energy penalty on TK.
The animal will use teeth and claws when it can in order to suffer less fatigue.
fatigue leaves the creature open to attack or something along those lines so it will only use it in a life or death situation, rather than to gain food?
[Answer]
Since the OP mentions that the creatures are of high intelligence (> human), I'm going to suggest these creatures have a fairly modern society, rather than a pack or animal society. In that society, it could be taboo, if not illegal, in their culture to hunt with their TK.
They may teach their children to hunt with TK as basic survival skills, but as they grow up, are taught that hunting without TK is a rite of passage and to continue hunting without it grows respect among society, like an NFL player scoring X amount of TD's in a game. TK could be used to distract or entice prey, but the actually killing is taboo.
This could mean that taking down larger prey without TK at all would be something that a superior warrior or hunter would be striving for. On the other side of the coin would be those who may be shunned for using TK to hunt. These may be people who are/were starving and needed food more than accolades.
There are many twists you could use: A great hunter that secretly uses TK and is found out; a great hunter that used to use TK as a young adult, but has "reformed" and is telling his story; someone who uses TK openly, finally breaks society of it's aversion to TK during a hunt, and brings about an "industrial revolution" style boom to society; a simple distinction between hunting for fun and hunting for food.
[Answer]
Similar to some vampire stories requiring them to drink living blood, these creatures may get an extra boost off drinking the "life force" of their prey during the kill, which they wouldn't get by using TK. Some form of energy transfer is done and the hunter gets a temporary, or possibly permanent, boost in their own "life force".
This "life force" could be what TK gets it's power from, so hunters may want to prevent draining their TK unless absolutely necessary during a hunt.
[Answer]
>
> Why would a predatory creature capable of using telekinesis still hunt with tooth and claw?
>
>
>
Because they don't have opposable thumbs.
>
> the creatures are highly intelligent (> humans). **They believe** they have the right to take the life of prey for their nourishment, as long as it keeps nature in balance.
>
>
>
(EDIT: this section of the answer is added because the question has the #reality-check tag.)
There aren't creatures more intelligent than humans, and of the ones which are close, only dolphins don't have something akin to opposable thumbs.
<https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/universality-of-preadaptation-for-the-human-condition/>
>
> “Overall, it now seems possible to draw a reasonably good explanation of why the human condition is a singularity, why the likes of it has occurred only once and took so long in coming. The reason is simply the extreme improbability of the preadaptations necessary for it to occur at all. Each of these evolutionary steps has been a full-blown adaptation in its own right. Each has required a particular sequence of one or more preadaptations that occurred previously. Homo sapiens is the only species of large mammal – thus large enough to evolve a human-sized brain – to have made every one of the required lucky turns in the evolutionary maze.” (Wilson, 2012: 45)
>
>
>
One of those lucky turns was grasping hands.
[Answer]
I have major problems with most of the answers given. If the predator is intelligent, think how you would hunt with minimal effort! The weapons of choice that I can think of: resilient leaves (plastic bags if they're available) and tiny dense rocks. The leaves would be used to make a seal over the nose and mouth of the prey animal, suffocating the prey. The rocks become guided bullets. If you've felt the recoil of a gun, you know that it's easy to withstand the force over a large area (like your hand/arm/shoulder), but the bullet is still able to pierce a very small area (the target). This becomes even easier as a telekinetic because you don't require physical contact while you are accelerating the stone.
If you're tripping or tearing with the kinetic force you're using too much energy.
A better reason to use "traditional" hunting techniques: Because use of telekinetic activity is detectable. Presumably the prey animals have evolved in the same environment as the predator. They have learned to detect a minute scent residue that lingers in an area when a predator uses telekinetics, or maybe the use of telekinetic skills makes a certain "sound" that many animals have justifiably learned to fear. The moment telekinetics is used, the prey animals disappear. (Maybe literally! If telekinetics is possible, maybe cloaking is too!)
[Answer]
**Is the telekinesis capability an inborn trait or acquired through tools (like guns and humans)?**
If its an inborn trait, the accepted and most other answers apply.
If not, all the other species are going to be at a severe disadvantage without the natural evolution(in terms of opposing/competing capability). This species is quickly going to multiply and thus exterminate its food sources. Then they have two options
* Become vegan
* Eat each other and thus make themselves extinct
But wait; since they are intellectually evolved, they will most likely cultivate prey farms + slaughter houses (they don't really need to use telekinesis nor claws now) and thus become couch potatoes.
**Law of Limits.**
There are always limits to a capability in the physical world. Whether that capability was species invented or naturally gifted. Lets limit our scope and assume that the telekinesis works reasonably only on prey that are within a physical size range(say above rabbits and below elephants).
**So when would they use old fashioned hunting?**
* When they are old/disabled/weakened in the telekinetic capabilities
* Since they are intellectually superior, they understand the importance of training to keep the capabilities sharp as a backup plan. And thus occasionally hunt using claws and teeth to practice.
* Applying the law of limits, if they want to snack on a chicken or feast on a dinosaur, they would have to do it the old fashioned way - claws and teeth.
* When one member of the species decides to telekinetically steal another's meal. Or when two or more competing members of the species target the same prey. Now they will get engaged in a telekinetic slugfest - and thus to gain an upper hand hunt also using claw and teeth.
] |
[Question]
[
We are in a world very similar to ours. But, one day, 1% of the children that are turning 10 are gaining super strength (this is an ongoing process : from that date, all the children under 10 may potentially obtain that super strength at their 10th birthday). This phenomenon is roughly evenly distributed geographically, so no country really has a higher share of these children compared to their population.
This super strength can range from having the strength of a strong adult male (for most of them) to truly ridiculous feats like being able to punch through walls and run hours at 50 km/h without being tired (extremely rare). It isn't lost as they age and grows at the same proportion the strength of a normal child would. The muscle mass isn't increased and there are no apparent changes to their body.
Governments of the world, after initial analysis of this phenomenon, decided it would be better to know exactly which kid has super strength and which kid doesn't. They enacted new laws requiring that children on their tenth birthday submit themselves to testing, and the results of that test are put on a special global database, so people can know if necessary if they have super strength or not. Not having done that test is grounds for arrest and being forced to perform it.
The main problem is the test itself. There is no other way to detect these "super kids" than measuring their strength/speed/stamina etc. but the governments are worried that parents may instruct kids to fake a lower strength and avoid registration as a person with super strength.
Is there a way to be certain that the kids are giving their all at the test, or is there a physical test where strength can be determined regardless of if the kid is trying to dissimulate their super strength?
[Answer]
>
> is there a physical test where strength can be determined regardless of if the kid is trying to dissimulate their super strength?
>
>
>
You know that test doctors do, in which they hit you sligjtly below the kneecap with a little hammer to test a reflex?
Do it with their legs tied to something heavy.
Or have them punch a punching bag... It's not hard to see whether someone is pulling their punches.
[Answer]
Make it so they want to be detected. Give the strongest special status and high honours and all the nice things in life. Have special sporting leagues featuring the super strong competing for hordes of devoted fans.
Basically make it so people want to prove they are as strong as possible, rather than trying to hide it.
[Answer]
1. Children of that age are naive about many things. A trained 'nice cop - nasty cop' setup would easily trip them up. Once they've admitted it verbally (and they will certainly know) getting them to give a demonstration is easy.
2. Even more unethical method - Isolate them from their parents and say they will never see them again unless they can escape. If they can break free then they have the strength. If they can't then they will show increasing distress and the test can stop. (I wish I hadn't thought of this, it's reminiscent of Dr Mengele)
3. Find out what they really want for Christmas (other religions and customs may apply) and tempt them with it if they'll demonstrate their abilities.
[Answer]
>
> "The main problem is the test itself. There is no other way to detect
> these "super kids" than measuring their strength/speed/stamina etc.
> but the governments are worried that parents may instruct kids to fake
> a lower strength and avoid registration as a person with super
> strength."
>
>
>
"No way"? These children attend school surely? A very normal part of your schooling is gym/recess and so on. It should not be at all hard to notice some 10 year-old punting a football over the school or possessing a seven foot vertical leap. Have your recess monitors and gym teachers actually pay attention- problem solved and without taxpayers having to fork over more money to detect superhumans. Gym has **grades** to *measure exactly how you compare to everyone else physically*- as part of a bog-standard schooling experience. This is not something that's going to be hidden- especially not by kids who aren't even teens.
[Answer]
Tests that depend on surprise or reflex, not conscious action. Also of benefit is that kids tend to have poor decision making skills, which means it's easy to make them forget instructions to cheat.
For instance, get them playing a physical game, informing them it's just to give them something to do after the tests are done (which are normal, boring tests that could be faked), and that doing well awards them some prize that a 10 year old would want. Then you very subtly start ramping up the difficulty which, if they're invested in the game, they'll unconsciously compensate for. Say, playing a version of dodgeball against an automated cannon, where they have to avoid getting hit by the ball but in turn have to knock over targets to "win" by beating the cannon. You start off with the cannon tracking and firing at speeds a normal kid would be expected to have a chance against and targets that don't require much force to knock over, then slowly ramp up the difficulty.
It's incredibly hard to fake being less physically proficient than you are. Ask a fast runner to look like they're running as fast as they can, but pretend they're slower than they really are; it's a hard thing to do. An example that comes to mind is the *Deep Space Nine* episode ["Take Me Out to the Holosuite"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take_Me_Out_to_the_Holosuite). Max Grodénchik, who played Rom, considered a career in pro baseball before going into acting, but Rom was supposed to be the most inept player on the DS9 team, and Grodénchik found it impossible to play that badly. He ended up having to play leftie (throwing, batting, and catching) in order to look realistically bad.
A kid is going to have an even worse time trying to fake it.
[Answer]
Children are greedy.
Give them as much chocolate / toy cars / whatever they desire most as they can carry. Then measure the weight as they leave the room.
[Answer]
If your **population is determined to keep the super-strength hidden**, use knee reflect test as @Renan suggested, or attach electrodes to a muscle in the body, and zap them with a small amount of electricity to cause involuntary motion. Or several different muscles, stimulated in random order to make faking harder. As a final step, you can sedate kids, but it is a lot of effort to do safely, and kinda boring.
Also, they can do medical test for something in body's biology that is the source (or consequence) of strength: increased adrenalin, higher muscle density, stronger bones or tendons (to handle super-muscles)
"Surpize" tests will not work as population will learn about all of them soon enough.
But, **Social Enginnering** offers easy ways to ensure that people **openly reveal** their strength.
1. Tell your population that enemy countries use their super-strong people as soldiers, so yours needs to defend itself. Make your own super-strong soldiers heroes to the public (like sports stars in US). You do not even have to pay them that much, they might get enough money from product endorsements or simply donations. Can you imagine a teen that does not want that for themselves?
2. Even if you lock supers up and experiment on them, tell people that uncontrolled super-strength is dangerous, both to super and those around them. Spread viral videos of accidents involving unexperienced supers. The official PR campaign is that testing is a responsible and caring thing to do; also encourage "if you see something, say something"; what if that super accidentally hurts you, or your g/f?
[Answer]
# School sports day
I don't know how common this is these days, but in primary school we used to have an annual sports day. Mostly races, maybe with a sack race or an egg and spoon race. Standing long jump. Bean bag tossing. Simple activities that any child can take part in without risk of anything worse than a grazed knee.
Kids like to win races, and it's going to be very hard for a child of that age to resist throwing the bean bag further than all their peers when placed in a simple competitive situation, they don't have the self control of an adult. All you have to do is observe, and hand out prizes.
[Answer]
You want to measure physical strength? There's a really straightforward dystopian answer here, surprising that no one has mentioned this one yet
## Battle Royale
[As per the novel and movie of the same name](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Royale_(film)). Pick or create an uninhabited area that will be completely cut off from the outside world through a full military blockade. Take all the 10 year olds to this area and remove all forms of contact with anyone else, especially their parents. Now tell them that the last man(child?) standing gets to go home. You can provide additional motivation through means like exploding collars, if need be. A simple fight to the death(or the appearance of such) should reveal any "talented" children quickly enough.
[Answer]
Play with them.
I've played with kids and once they're really playing, they won't have the mental focus to pull punches.
I've made them push against me with their hands. In fact, as a 20 yr old guy, I was able to hold off two 10 yr old boys with one hand each, and have lots of strength to spare. I can easily push the two boys across the room.
If one of them can make me struggle, then I know there's something wrong.
[Answer]
>
> This super strength can range from having the strength of a strong adult male (for most of them) to truly ridiculous feats like being able to punch through walls and run hours at 50 km/h without being tired (extremely rare).
>
>
>
You're actually describing two slightly different things there: Enhanced muscle power and increased muscle stamina. Both of these are relatively easy to test for, but require slightly different methods.
As Renan and Bald Bear already pointed out, involuntary muscle contractions can be triggered by stimulating the right nerves -- either electrically or with a mallet. The resulting force is easy to measure, the test subject has no control over it, and it's perfectly safe.
Endurance can also be measured in a number of ways that are hard to fake. For example, have the kid run full-tilt for a set amount of time -- I imagine 10 minutes or so would probably be sufficient. A normal child will show an increased heart rate when engaging in this activity. A powered child will show no significant increase in heart rate until they reach speeds a normal child wouldn't even be capable of -- so either they reach those speeds and you know, or they try to hide it by sticking to normal speeds, but then their heart rate doesn't increase like a normal kid's would, so you still know.
Like the previous method, heart rate is easy to measure, the test subject has no direct control over it, and it's perfectly safe. If their parents were really determined to keep their abilities secret, there are ways increased heart rate could be induced, but assuming both resting heart rate and active heart rate are measured and compared against known typical ranges, it would be extraordinarily difficult to administer a drug and get the timing just right to ensure their heart rate looks normal both at rest and when active.
Finally, there are ways to measure muscle fatigue more directly, using electromyography (EMG), or based on biochemistry such as amounts of lactate, muscle glycogen, changes in pH, etc. Any of these would be difficult to fake, though the biochemical tests have the minor drawback of being slightly more invasive -- they are probably the only option discussed here that would require a sample taken by needle. Still, they should be perfectly safe and cause minimal pain.
[Answer]
Use lots of little weights with unknown mass -- the red one weighs 50lb, the orange one weighs 40lb, the yellow one weighs 70lb, the green one weighs 60lb, but they're all the same shape.
Bring each person into the room and ask which ones they can lift.
If someone can lift the 60lb one but they tell you they can't lift the 50lb one, they're faking.
[Answer]
**1% of the children that are turning 10 are gaining super strength**
Let's break this down for the U.S. real quick.
According to <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/births.htm> we have almost 4,000,000 births every year so presuming that all of them survive to their 10th birthday then we have 40,000 children turning 10 every year with super strength; wow.
1. These super-strength kids aren't all that special
2. With such an abundance; do we really need to log which ones are super-powered?
3. Eventually these kids will be prime targets for re-production so that 1% will definitely keep increasing as the decades roll on
That stat is 12.2 births per 1,000 people so if we apply this to the global population then we get:
```
( ( 7,700,000,000 / 1000 ) * 12.2 ) *.01 = 939,400
In theory we get almost one million super-strength kids turning 10 every single year
```
---
You will never achieve a 100% census of these children but here are some forefronts which can be monitored:
* Parents which are somehow oblivious to this phenomenon will inquire with doctors about this so doctors have a duty to add these kids to databases
* When a strong child breaks another child's arm without even trying then I will guarantee you that the other child's parent will report your child
* With 1% having this ability there must be some genetic footprint so it shouldn't be too difficult to identify this with a DNA sample. You can get a sample at birth, doctor visits, dentist visits, school nurse visits, etc...
* Have observant personnel at schools
Additionally, sports will be filled with nothing but super-strength children in a matter of just a few years so sports try-outs will eventually receive only gifted children.
[Answer]
offer candy to any kid that can lift the barbell. it's not that complicated.
as long as there is no punishment for the supers, there is no disinclination on their, or their parents account, at demonstrating their prowess.
the actual complication comes in interactions between supers with their non-super peer group, since kids are generally mean, selfish, impulsive and just generally nasty.
in which case, the supers may need to be segregated, which then drives the motive to secrecy. that's good drama right there.
[Answer]
Skeletal muscles can be engaged using electrical muscle stimulation (EMS). EMS has been featured in several studies on the effects of preserving strength in those suffering from [Intensive Care Unit acquired weakness (ICU-AW)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3321528/). A similar application could be used to manually stimulate the child's muscle ensuring that they cannot suppress their own strength.
I might suggest that the most accurate way to measure their strength would be to engineer a force measuring device that could fit in their hand and applying EMS electrodes to their forearm to measure their grip strength.
The benefits of testing this way would be that the test can be done quickly, safely and measured non-subjectively. The EMS kit and force measuring device would also be fairly easy to move about as well.
[Answer]
This would be **dystopian**, but one could simply
# make them loose all their memory
using strong [**amnesic drugs**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug-induced_amnesia) and,
when they lost their memory, try to
# scare them
somehow. (for example, one could put them into a ghost train)
# if they have super strenght, they will cause massive destruction
hence they wont remember that this was a test.
To
# minimize the problem of knowledge loss,
either
# use a drug that only temporary disables the memory,
or
# simply avoid that kids are educated much until they are 10
hence educating them before the test would be wasting capacities.
This solution
# does not depend on how the super strenght is triggered biologically,
since it causes the kids to trigger it themselves.
] |
[Question]
[
Magic, humans are not good at magic, actually they need thousands of hours of **ACTIVE** studying.
A person needs to to put full mental effort and energy into magic studies for 1500 hours on average just to learn simple spells like lighting a fire. And those are not just a 1500 hours of repeated practice like a brainless zombie; 1500 hours of putting your brain through hard puzzles.
The difference between a 1500 hours of reading fantasy books and a 1500 hours of studying music, one is passive and relaxing, so relaxing people use it to fall asleep and the other requires full mental concentration.
That's magic for people, hard work.
But Merfolk are naturally good at magic, actually they are born already knowing how to use it.
Is there any parallel in real life with things animals can do since birth but humans can learn with years of studying? If not why are some species born good at magic while others need to learn it?
[Answer]
>
> Is there any parallel in real life with things animals can do since birth but humans can learn with years of studying? If not why are some species born good at magic while others need to learn it?
>
>
>
**Echolocation** <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_echolocation>
Some blind people learn echolocation via mouth-clicks or cane-tapping as a replacement for their visual sense. However it must be very hard to learn this skill because most seeing people don't even bother to learn it.
Dolphins or bats on the other hand have sensory organs which are way more adapted to this method of orientation - and just use them by instinct.
**Third Eye**
In a similar way to a [cetacean's Melon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melon_(cetacean)), your merfolk could have evolved a special organ of perception adapted to sense and maybe even manipulate the 'magic field'. Humans need to find a workaround with their 5 senses which needs to be trained consciously and with dedication.
[Answer]
>
> Is there any parallel in real life with things animals can do since birth but humans can learn with years of studying?
>
>
>
Humans take about a year to start walking, a bit more to run. And even that takes years to be mastered at a decent level.
Grazer offsprings (buffalo, giraffe, antelope just to name a few) can follow their mother shortly after they are born.
[Answer]
**Humans have "dysmagia"**
If we take a look at the learning abilities of humans, we see a host of different abilities. In particular, if we look at reading, there's a fair number of people who can learn to read relatively easily. But there's a subset of people who have an exceedingly difficult time with it. We say that (a certain subset of) these people have "dyslexia".
Our current best understanding of dyslexia is that it's something about the brain wiring. There's something slightly different about the brains of those with dyslexia such that simple tasks that form the basis of reading (e.g. recognizing letters and keeping them in order) are just hard. It's not that people with dyslexia aren't trying to learn to read, it's that their brains just won't cooperate.
That's not to say that a person with even severe dyslexia can't learn to read, it's just going to be much, much harder for them than for someone without dyslexia. It will take them a bunch of effort and committed practice.
A similar sort of thing could be happening with magic in your world. Humans, as a species, have "dysmagia". Their brains just aren't wired right for some of the very basic tasks which are needed to cast magic. Human magicians can overcome this limitation with a bunch of effort, but it takes *much* more effort than someone from a species which has a brain better wired for the task.
The exact reason for the brain wiring difference could even be something that's unspecified. (That would be my initial inclination - your human readers can't understand magic well enough to even realize they can't understand [slood](https://discworld.fandom.com/wiki/Slood).) But if you're looking for something in particular, understanding the "flow" of magic may be a good one to separate merfolk from humans. Merfolk are born with an intuitive understanding of fluid dynamics and chaotic flow, due to their evolutionary history in the water. But for humans even the grossly simplified [Navier–Stokes equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_equations) is a high-level concept. As such, humans can't really ever get the same understanding of chaotic magic flow that even a baby merperson has an intuitive understanding of.
Note there's a similar issue with humans being able to "cheat" advanced calculations. Attempting to catch a ball from first principles (analogous to using the Navier–Stokes equations for fluid dynamics) is exceedingly difficult and an exercise in advanced differential equations. However, the human brain has various "shortcuts", such that even a small child can toss a ball back and forth, and young children can predict the trajectory of a ball thrown over a long distance. A professional ball player doesn't do calculations, they just "know" where the ball will end up. One could say that something similar happens with merfolk and magic - they just "know" how the magic would end up, whereas humans have to learn how to (quickly) do the calculations.
[Answer]
Yes, there are some real-world analogs; just look at the other answers.
As for why some species would naturally be born good at magic, that's simple. Humans *aren't* generally creatures of magic, as they are depicted in most fantasy works. The ability to use magic is either innate, dormant, or must be gained by some interaction with a magical creature.
*However,* merfolk as they are generally depicted are obviously beings of magic, or else chimeras made for who-knows-what reason. I would say this is actually a very good set up for your story; I had a similar idea, that can be summed up as:
**Humans need to put in more work to use magic, but are more versatile, while magical creatures have innate but limited magical "talent."**
In other words, merfolk would have an innate gift for magic, but not just any magic; we're talking water magic here, perhaps mesmerization (mind-control?) and illusion magic as well (for sirens). However, humans can use any kind of magic, and quickly adapt their spells and rituals to fit their needs, making them much more versatile.
This goes perfectly with your premise, actually; animals have an innate *physical* superiority, due to instincts and physiology, but we have an *intellectual* superiority; it's harder to learn and use your head, but when we do, we are quite literally the most dangerous species on the planet.
In this case, the only difference is that magical versatility, not necessarily intelligence, is the danger to other species.
[Answer]
>
> Is there any parallel in real life with things animals can do since birth but humans can learn with years of studying?
>
>
>
When I was taking karate, I realized that some of the techniques I was actively exerting effort to learn are things that my pet kitten did instinctively. In particular, the technique of keeping your muscles relaxed through most of a punch and tensing at the absolute last moment, which gives you more power because your muscles aren't slowing your momentum. Cats do this from a young age while swatting objects. I observed it in a newly-adopted three month old kitten, the developmental equivalent of about a 4-5 year old human.
[Answer]
**Let me take a moment to talk about how to "evolve" an innate skill. I make no promises that this explanation is scientifically accurate.**
1. A learnable skill provides some survival advantage. For simplicity, I'll ignore societal evolution and focus only on genetic survival (i.e., having the skill increases the likelihood of breeding).
2. Over time, learning the skill "faster" or "better" will provide an advantage. So, people will evolve to learn the skill "faster" or "better." Similarly, people will evolve the ability to teach/understand the skill "faster" or "better."
3. Eventually, learning the skill "faster/better" means being able to learn it faster and with less outside help. This is especially true if outside help is minimal or non-existent.
4. As the time/assistance required to learn the skill approaches zero, the skill becomes innate.
**So, the question then becomes: Under what circumstances would there be sufficient selection pressure for this to happen in the case of magic?**
* The species evolved the need for magic before evolving intelligence/language. Hence, the selection benefit for efficiently learning magic was higher.
* The species is magical in nature. Thus, mastery of magic creates more viable off-spring.
* The species uses magic as their primary means of defense/offense.
* As a side effect of all of the above, those with strong magical skill are more attractive as potential mates.
**How can this be compared to other species having special skills?**
I've seen a lot of focus on tool use as a substantial evolutionary advantage. In some sense, learning to master your environment and to use tools provides a massive advantage. So, I would imagine that a magic-oriented species would view "ability to use magic to solve problems" as a strong measure of intelligence, much in the way humans view tool-use now. This has an interesting (but over-used) impact:
* Tech-based societies consider magic useful, but look down on societies that don't understand tech. If magic and tools can both solve a problem, tools are preferred (more predictable, can be used by anyone).
* Magic-based societies consider tools useful, but look down on societies that don't understand magic. If magic and tools can both solve a problem, magic is preferred (less reliance on resources that might not be available. More flexible).
**How does this translate into real-world analogues?**
We can look at other species trying to use tools and notice they either can't do it or are worse at it (i.e., a crow using a stick isn't as impressive as a human using a phone). The magical species will look at humans in the same way.
[Answer]
## Merfolk don't have fire
One easy way to justify it, **merfolk have been using magic as long as humans have been using fire**, and they have evolved to be better at magic just as humans have evolved to be better at eating cooked food. Or how the human hand and wrist evolved to be better at flint knapping. The difference is even justifiable, since merfolk can't use fire a lot of the their technology must be based on magic. perhaps early merfolk use magic to cook food or make tools. merfolk are better because they have been using it a LOT longer and have evolved to use magic better while humans may have only recently stumbled on it and evolution has not had time to catch up.
[Answer]
>
> Is there any parallel in real life with things animals can do since birth but humans can learn with years of studying?
>
>
>
Magic could be like singing. A minority of people are naturals at it, but most people need to learn from someone else how to properly sing.
Singing birds, however, are all pitch perfect. Some species of parrots and related birds can learn songs and sing or whistle them with perfection after hearing them a few times. I specially love watching videos of cockatiels whistling songs from Final Fantasy and Darth Vader's theme. I can't whistle to save my life. Also my family says that if I were ever to sing at the church choir they would quit religion.
>
> If not why are some species born good at magic while others need to learn it?
>
>
>
Enhanced (or non-human) senses.
Both vultures and humans can glide on air currents (though the human needs to be piloting a glider or a parasail). In order to go up, you need to go into a rising mass of air (usually a thermal). We humans suck at finding those - it's possible to have an idea where some might be, but that's it, just an idea. Vultures, however, just know where they are. They're so good at it that professional gliders will sometimes simply follow the vultures.
With magic it could be the same thing. You need to align your mana flow with the natural ley lines in order to cast properly. Merfolk have a sense that allows them to perceive where the ley lines are, so they always get spells right the first time. Humans depend on trial and error, maps, instruments or a helping hand from merfolk in order to properly cast a spell.
[Answer]
**Hold your breath for magic**
It's kind of open-ended to ask what animals can do that humans have to learn. Everything from fish catching other fish in the water, to a giraffe walking on days one and two.
But you want it to be more closely related to magic and ~150 school days of critical skill learning and development, or let's say roughly one year of magic-University (1200hrs at 8hrs/day). And you need it to be something a human *can learn*. I really liked the echolocation example, but a year of University doesn't change biology.
Your mer-people are born able to breathe underwater with no practice, but some say it [takes a month](https://www.freediveuk.com/how-to-hold-your-breath-for-5-minutes-in-1month-freediving-training/) for a healthy human to be able to hold their breath for five minutes.
Similarly as your mer-folks are able to breathe underwater, it also opens their minds after a few minutes of holding breath to begin executing magic. They're born with it, humans have to practice and learn it. Extend it to a years' worth of intensive study of the magic *plus* the physical exercise of being able to adapt to holding your breath, and you have a magic-practicing human.
[Answer]
Anything in parallel? Heck, yes!
Birds can fly without study and with very little practice, once their feathers have developed. It's instinctive!
Similarly, fish can swim automatically as soon as they're hatched/born.
Maybe there's a song in this:
```
Fish gotta swim and birds gotta fly
Merfolk make magic; they don't have to try
Can't stop makin' that magic of mine!
```
(Yeah, I know - keep my day job... :-)
[Answer]
The main difference between Merfolk and Humans is that Merfolk have developed a trait that allows them to pass on their knowledge *vertically* to their children during whatever "pregnancy" they go through. Think about it, children actually study "by proxy", in the womb, their brains inherit the structural traits of their parents' brains, or even acquire new traits that their parents have learnt that far. Thus, they are born **knowledgeable**!
This way, you don't really have to change much more about how the rest of how nature works. It would still take time, but this would be gestation time, which is already there. 1500 hours is 62.5 days, about two months, which wouldn't be that much for a gestation period by real-life metrics.
[Answer]
R.M. pretty much [covers it](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/194965/74620) and Nephas [gives two great examples](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/194937/74620).
There are things you can learn, and things you cannot learn. It all comes down to the available **equipment** and how well you can use it. [**Learning**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition), in most animals you are familiar with, is a function of the [CNS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_nervous_system). In very simple terms, there's **neurons**, lots of them...those are your guys. They can get *excited* or *inhibited* and, in doing so, they can affect other neurons with their behaviors.
Let's make this very simple. Think of neurons as **individuals** you are trying to synchronize in some way. Let's assume they you are trying to have them sing along to the same clear cut frequencies, i.e. synchronize them in terms of [pitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_(music)), or sing in **unison**. They will definitely need to work through a few dozens of problems:
a) Some of them will not know how to increase or decrease the pitch. You will have to teach them. They will produce random sounds and you will mark them on a grading scale from low to high, so that they, at least, understand the ordering. You don't expect them to know in advance what an A or a B note means. You have to let them randomly produce pitched notes and teach them, for example, that "this sound you just made is quite close to a B", or "that one is in between a C and a D, lower this a bit and you're C".
b) Some of them will not be able to **hear themselves**, they will be deaf. You will have to find a way to teach them that a higher pressure (sort of) in the area of their airways means a higher pitch. Then you will need to **calibrate** them, i.e. teach them that a specific **magnitude** of pressure corresponds to the note you want to achieve. This is tougher because their self-feedback will be **coarser**. They will need to "map" a narrow range of roughly and empirically quantifiable pressure magnitudes to some symbols indicating they are right. And then they will have to do this *backwards*, to sing, i.e. **reproduce the pressures based on the symbols**. Most of them will be hitting the notes as, e.g., *C ± a "few" Hz* (that is, if you're lucky).
c) Some of them will have a "resolution" problem. Usually, people can distinguish pitches that differ by as little as [3.6 Hz in between 1-2kHz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics#Limits_of_perception). Some of your people are going to do worse, they will jump in steps of 10s, or 100s of Hz. They may learn to fine-grain their control but it will take time, so **now** you will have to make do with some "weak links" of, again, a *C ± some tens or 100s of Hz*, which may, or may not be important. A middle C is at [261.63 Hz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(musical_note)#Frequency) and one octave above is [double that value](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octave#Explanation_and_definition). You certainly don't want someone able to jump in steps of 80Hz in their sounds, or you'll only get ~3 scrambled notes in that octave.
d) Some of them will not understand you, because you don't speak the same language. You will need to do something special with them, you will probably need to show them the symbols, let them start raising their pitch, and have someone actively touch them to stop the raising when they hit the right note.
e) Some of those people (even many), will generally be impossible to work with, so you will need to send them off to do something else.
f) ... various other problems...
This would be "systematic" learning, and it takes a lot of time until you can produce a **tolerable** choir out of that many people. For some things that you need to learn, there is simply no shortcut. You need to learn how to recognize lots of symbols, match them to meanings, symbol combinations, operations, then meanings again, then how **meaning combinations** give you other meanings... think mathematics, physics, etc, you can't just dive directly into integrals or particle physics and expect to learn anything. But, like the people you are trying to orchestrate in the example above, your neurons may be better suited to those tasks. You may have fewer noncompliant neurons, lots of responsive neurons, more high-resolution neurons, etc.. Neuron capabilities are like your inner "vocabulary" and think about how it would be if you had a 25-letter language. It wouldn't make your life totally miserable, but you certainly would miss on lots of words, let alone some letters might switch off more important words from your vocabulary than other letters.
Now, here comes the newsflash... for the most part, **that's not how the brain learns** (but at least, it gets someone to appreciate a high-level approach to learning). You don't really have access to neurons and you certainly don't control them at the microscopic scale. What **does happen** is this:
1. Some areas specialized in expressing *intentions* or *reflexes* initiate a rough signaling cascade.
2. The cascade travels through various neuron groups, being processed along the way (i.e. some stop firing, others fire harder, others inhibit their senders, others cease transmission, etc.).
3. The overall signal cascade has some terminal effect, external (action) or internal (introspection). A return signal, along with certain adaptations begins to unfold "backwards" based on the terminal effect. Some neurons will increase their transmission threshold, they will require more excitation to fire. Some neurons will begin to filter their response, e.g. by ceasing transmission when signaled by some specific senders, but not by others, or even magnifying the signal when signaled by specific ones.
4. This whole filtering goes back and forth until some sort of balance is achieved, which has a terminal effect that is **precisely the one you like to have**, based on the *applied necessity* (of course).
Doesn't make sense? Let's go back to your individuals! Blow systematic learning. You will learn in chaos! Start producing a note and have them all do the same and produce a note, **any note**. Tell them to try to mimic your note. Because of how (healthy) ears work, an observer can easily tell that they are actually listening to two different tunes, if you are not in [unison](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unison). [Consonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance) is a quality that can be "felt" and matching the tunes in terms of pitch can be further self-guided by exploiting the fact that dissonance is easily perceived, but also, as tunes approach each other in terms of pitch, because of various phenomena, such as [interference beats](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beat_(acoustics)), you can use the "annoyance" feedback to tune up or down, to eliminate those and achieve a single uniform auditory effect.
In short, because of being able to compare the produced result to the *desired* result (or, more usually, to the **undesired** results) and fine-tune it accordingly, it is possible to iteratively approach the desired result, and **this** is, in a sense, the *actual way* that the brain learns. Thus, broken down, learning actually requires the following capabilities:
* Intention to produce an effect.
* One (or more) effector mechanism(s) to produce an effect.
* Ability to quantitatively or qualitatively compare the effect to the desired effect (assessment).
* Ability to make small adjustments to the produced effect by adjusting utilization patterns of the mechanism, in a way that can be used to "steer" the utilization patterns in order to produce the desired effect.
You can apply this **looping** pattern to pretty much anything you learn. Lack of any of those mechanisms means you cannot learn. As an example of this, think about learning how to write with a mechanical pencil.
You need to hold the pencil and apply a very specific force in a very specific order of directions, timely synchronized, so as to appropriately overcome the friction between the tip and the writing surface, only by just as much as necessary, so that you can sustain a given progression of "rolling" speeds of the pencil tip, which would produce the desired scriptures (let alone you need to know the actual shapes you are trying to scribble). In the process, you need to refrain from applying excessive force, to avoid breaking the tip. Imagine, for a moment, how many parameters you are dealing with:
* Holding the pencil is of utmost importance. Even tiny changes in angle between the tip and the writing surface will affect the produced friction and you will need to readapt the forces you are using to drag the pencil. Holding the pencil at a different height will also change the force you need to apply at the anchor point, in order to produce a given force at the tip, because of the effect of the lever arm on the [torque](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque). The desired force at the tip is practically constant for a given writing surface, but holding the pen a couple mm lower might make you break the tip (because of the increased force at the separating surface).
* The "threshold" of breaking is very delicate and the margins of usage too small. Also, different surfaces have different friction coefficients, so those delicate margins might make you break the tip while "readapting" to a different surface. You need to be able to adjust your applied force with a very high resolution, having the ability to increase/decrease it at will in very small intervals/jumps, certainly far lower than the total applicable range (between the minimum force needed to only just about "roll" the tip, and the minimum force that would break the tip).
* You also need to avoid tip retraction, so the vertical component of the applied force is also something you need to watch out for and has equally small effective range and usage margins.
* The utilization mechanism, the "effector", in a sense, is the coordinated movement of your muscles. You don't really know the complex vectors of the forces your muscles are applying, you only know the net force and, even this, is not one, but multiple, applied at the various locations of touch with the mechanical pencil, as you are not only touching it at a single point. You need to learn how to coordinate your muscles to apply **very specific forces** in **very specific directions**, which will sum up to a **very specific set of forces** in the **contact points**. This problem can readily be compared to a [subset sum problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem), or the generalized knapsack problem. The only thing you need to know about those is that they are notoriously infeasible when the input is large and so is the coordination of the so-many muscles of your hand and fingers, and the degrees of freedom that their combination brings into play.
The process **itself** can be decomposed into the signals between the neurons in your brain, firing in an orchestrated manner, so that specific forces can be produced (and continuously readapted in real-time), which will provide the very specific effect. For this, the neurons need to learn just how much to fire (and this includes a whole other world of parameters involved) but, in general, because of the sheer number of neurons, the number of potential "firing" combinations (i.e. ways to "orchestrate") is **unimaginably enormous**. When you get some of the (admittedly **very few**) ways of "proper" writing, which please you, you can repeat them, so that the specific "orchestration" is **reinforced**, while the wrong ones are "weakened".
As you have probably guessed, thus, learning how to write is, *in effect* the process of learning **millions, if not billions, of ways of how *not to write***, until the way you write finally approximates something that pleases you (or your teachers!). The time you need to *explore* all possible "orchestrations" is, of course, going to be large, but also, **highly dependent on the built-in qualities of the neuron networks**.
You can also consider the example of [2-point orientation discrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_discrimination#Alternative_tests) ([2POD](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772339)). The minimum discernible distance of two points apart, touching your skin [generally depends on the location](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_discrimination#Normal_and_impaired_performance). The reason for this is multifactorial but, in simple terms, is related to the "equipment", i.e. how many nerve endings are on the area of the skin, **what types of cells**, and, of course, how much volume of the brain is [dedicated to it](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortical_homunculus), as well as to how well-prepared it is to handle that.
Therefore, to answer your question, how easy it is to learn something actually depends on how complicated it is (i.e. how many parameters are at play), how effectively you can employ your learning loop and, of course, how strong and well-prepared your "infrastructure" is. If you actually "degrade" some parts of the brain, you may lose some important functions (e.g. [prosopagnosia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia)). If you connect areas together, which were not connected before, you can create new (sometimes rather funky, even mystical) functions, such as [synesthesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia).
Taking all of the aforementioned into account, you can easily look for sensory strengths of other animals. The usual comparison would be olfaction, as sensed by, for example, [scent hounds](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scent_hound). Learning to sense, identify and distinguish smells is easier for them, because they have much more suitable infrastructure for this specific function.
Finally, you could always make the notorious comparison of a **computer** to a form of "life". One that you can "program", so that it learns to do **exactly** what you teach it, **doesn't ever forget**, and is capable of learning tremendous amounts of instructions over a few seconds to minutes (think copying files, installing applications, etc.). Do not forget [Clarke's 3rd law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws), too!
] |
[Question]
[
In my world a moon is reached and colonised but only in space stations for a long time. They gain the ability to reach the surface and then story happens. It needs to be something that can be bypassed so the main characters can get down to it. Some important things to know are:
* it is similar to Titan (in composition, with more earth like conditions, water, oxygen etc)
* it is about half the size of Earth
* it is on the cold edge of the habitable zone
* the gas giant its orbiting is similar to Saturn
* it **must** have conditions where (non extremophile) **life** can live
* I do **not** want **anything** to be able to get down: no probes, robots, etc
What could cause a civilization to be **unable to land (physically)** on a moon's surface but build many space stations around it?
[Answer]
**They have no ships that can withstand reentry.**
Your people arrive in a huge starfaring ship, built in orbit. Descending through an atmosphere would rip it to pieces. So they remain in orbit around this new planet.
To get down to the planet, they will have to build a vehicle capable of doing that. Your people might lack the raw materials to build such a vehicle, or skills to build it, or both. They might have tried a few times which ended in disaster and then decided it was not worth trying again. Until someone who is born who wants to try again, and succeeds.
[Answer]
The planet already hosts life. Nobody but extremely clean and well-trained exobiologists are allowed to land there to prevent cross-contamination. This is a political rather than physical constraint, so the primary thing that changes is the prevailing political parties and red-tape.
Of course, one of the reasons for avoiding cross-contamination is preventing unforeseen interactions between two different biospheres...
Can you say interstellar plague?
[Answer]
**The air will kill you.**
There was some **airborne hazard** which rendered the surface poisonous to humans but not the native fauna. Take your pick of germs, atmosphere, radiation, anything that could be fixed by creating a sealed environment like a space station.
The options were (a) stay where we are in orbit or (b) land and live in bubble cities on the surface. Unfortunately we didn't have the materials for that.
Then recently we invented a vaccination / genetic modification that made us immune to the hazard. Then we landed and started building cities.
[Answer]
The moon's surface is full of pockets with enriched fissionable material (think <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklo>).
The spacecraft (or robots) are made of many materials, some of them reflecting enough neutrons back into the pockets so they heat up considerably when spacecraft approach anywhere near them. This causes excessive radiation, if not nuclear power excursions (think Chernobyl).
The pockets are underground and randomly distributed. It's basically a mine-field labyrinth for explorers, whether humans or machines.
[Answer]
There are regular, dangerous storms and winds in high atmosphere. These tend to knock down ships and disable them with a mixture of wind and lightning.
However, the MC have spotted a predictable pattern, and think they see a way past the storms.
[Answer]
If the ship was a generation ship, the prospective colonists may have gotten used to being inside a habitat.
If there are plenty of resources available to them from outside the planet that are easily available, then why should they brave the hazards of a planet rather than stay in easy-to-build habitats?
[Answer]
The moon is habitable for a reason unknown to the colonists.
There is some type of artificial shield around that planet, here's why:
Life survives on Earth because it's magnetic field protects it from solar wind.
Titan doesn't have a magnetic field,(maybe not large enough to have a molten iron core) thus it is not protected. <https://www.nasa.gov/jpl/cassini-catches-titan-naked-in-the-solar-wind>
An artificial shield surrounds the moon, keeping the ozone layer in, bad radiation out, and maybe protects against asteroids too(Titan's atmosphere should burn up most though)
This intense charged field messes with the electronics of anything that passes through it.
The colonists can't detect this field until some accidental event causes it's reveal. (Solar flare causes it to sparkle?)
A electric field at a certain frequency applied to the skin of the craft allows it to pass through the shield.
[Answer]
## Catastrophic Surface Conditions
While the colonists were en-route to the moon, an asteroid beat them to the punch and landed first. The moon just had the local equivalent to the Chicxulub impact and is at the start of a full-on ecological and meteorological catastrophe. Volcanic activity is constant, acid rain is everywhere, massive storms are spinning through the atmosphere, ash is burying everything, etc. Most important to our colonists is the large quantities of ash in the upper atmosphere, which can [severely damage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_9) craft passing through it.
So, after some time, everything will settle down and the surface will be safe to visit again, but until then, it's best to stay in orbit and wait it out there.
[Answer]
The moon is extremely dangerous. It's a hell.
**Edit:** This contradicts some requirements of the OP. Sorry.
It's like a devilish combination of Titan and Io. Volcanoes, electric storms, magnetic storms, hail storms made out of hydrocarbons, glaciers or similar moving ground, earthquakes, strong winds, poisonous and corrosive fogs with fluoride components, and so on. Just invent a collection of really dangerous things.
There are some places where life is possible. But they are rare and well hidden. Even there steel, plastic and glass are corroded and break down. The sentient beings have a nomadic life because the places change slowly. They are connected by a network of narrow somewhat safe but always changing paths, so that a civilization can live on the moon and have trade, like an archipelago.
The sentient beings are small. Let's say about an inch. So for them it is a big world anyway even if they can live only on a tiny part of it. It is impossible to live there for humans, even protected by spacesuits because they break down by the magnetic storms and are corroded by the toxic cocktail the air is on the moon. Probes sent to the moon are destroyed, too, and are soon covered in the hydrocarbon hail and dissolved.
Now, to explore the moon the civilization needed to find out a solution to each of the things that make the moon dangerous. Protect against magnetic vortices, shield against lightnings, make resilient against strong winds, find a way to communicate through the fog, invent anticorrosive coatings, and so on.
[Answer]
My suggestion is that you look at [Asimov's *Nemesis*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemesis_(Asimov_novel)), where the colonists on the space station Rotor were in a somewhat similar predicament, having to decide whether they want to build a base in the nearby moon Erythro, or head to the local asteroid belt or whatnot.
If memory serves, some factors were:
* They had lived in a space station for most of their lives. May be gotten complacent? Who would want to leave the comfort of a space station for the barren, alien moon? Ok, the young ones in particular would :-)
* The leader felt that moving to the moon would compromise his power base.
* The occasional visitors to the moon had developed "strange symptoms" (later explained, I am not gonna spoil the story) that scared off many.
* Anyway, if there is an asteroid belt "near by", ready to be mined for supplies, the point of not needing that much delta-vee to exploit that resource instead is strong.
[Answer]
This is a microgravity-adapted species (or offshoot) accustomed to zero and near-zero gravity thanks to genetic engineering centuries earlier. Even half a *g* would be too much for them to endure beyond a few hours.
[Answer]
Lightning. The world is subject to epic levels of cloud-to-cloud lightning. The problem is the plasma trail left by entering the atmosphere acts as conduit for this--any spacecraft attempting to aerobrake becomes the target of repeated very powerful lightning strikes--not only do you have to shield your craft from those energies (and the impact point of the lighting burns away with the hits) but heat shields aren't exactly known for appreciating lightning.
[Answer]
The moon was once inhabited by another civilization and surrounded by a lot of artificial satellites and space stations, maybe a thousand times as many as surround the earth in the present. After the civilization fell, all the remaining debris turned into high-speed dust due to constant random collisions over the many millennia. By now the orbit is so cluttered with fine metal particles, that any vehicle that tries to go through takes significant damage before getting close to the atmosphere. The particles are no longer recognizable as artificially created due to their small size, but they are very slowly decaying towards the surface. Maybe some of the particles are even radioactive remnants of orbital nuclear fission plants, which irradiate the ship and disrupt any sensors.
In any case, all the attempted expeditions had to be aborted before getting too close to the planet, though some heavily shielded expeditions *might* have gotten through to the surface - and some of them might not have gotten back up through the space dust.
[Answer]
The fictional moon doesn't have much mass and therefore its orbit is quite fragile. Therefore, the force of landing on it could disrupt the orbit of the moon and kill everyone. The space stations are built symmetrically around the moon as to preserve the exact center of gravity, the moon's orbit, and the balance of everything in the region.
In this fictional scenario, maybe extreme measures are taken to preserve the center of gravity as you approach the moon, such as a drone on the exact opposite side the moon that will mirror your presence.
Or maybe it's a network of drones working together on the opposite side of the moon, and their job is to calculate and compensate for the additional mass on the inhabited side of the moon, and then automatically shift around the uninhabited side to maintain a mathematically balanced center of gravity for the entire moon, to preserve an ideal orbit. Adding additional people, food, tools, and so on, would require extra calculations, more insurance, and the drones would need to carefully acquire more "weight" to balance out new inhabitants.
Back to reality, I wonder if NASA even considered this, because who knows how fragile our moon's orbit really is? Maybe we're already doomed, in barely-measureable slow motion, because someone landed on the moon carelessly (jumping on it) which disrupted the orbit enough to dismantle our entire solar system.
[Answer]
## Unexpected Terraforming Requirements
When they arrived the atmosphere had an issue that requires Atmospheric processors to be built and deployed in order for safe landing and occupancy to be possible. Unfortunately this meant some basic industry was needed in orbit which took time to construct.
*Afterall they weren't expecting a lengthy terraforming effort when they set off, how could they have known they'd need that kind of equipment?*
Landing colony efforts would be destroyed in the processes.
## A Similar Situation in Scifi
A similar example of the atmospheric processors is Acheron (LV-426) from the Aliens franchise:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/udMU8.jpg)
>
> Acheron,[3] formerly known as LV-426, is one of three known moons orbiting Calpamos in the Zeta2 Reticuli system, 39 light years away from Earth. The moon was given its common name by the early human colonists who settled there. The main colonist base, Hadley's Hope, housed 158 people.[4]
>
>
>
Acheron had a thick debris laiden atmosphere concealing most of the surface, and making it inhospitable for those visiting. When they did initially land they took damage and had to conduct repairs. Take this and dial it up to 11.
Of course, while most of LV-426 was unmapped and innaccessible, they still had that initial outpost, so..
## Make The Processors Orbital
And who says the processors need to land themselves? They can sit in low orbit, perhaps processing the upper layers unable to venture lower, or perhaps they fire lasers at debris and particulates to fuse it? Wide angle UV to catalyze chemicals that prevent landing? Maybe they work by dispersing chemicals into the upper layers of the atmosphere over long periods? Magnetic fields?
You could even arrive around the moon with the processors and deploy them on arrival, just say they take 50-100 years to do their job.
[Answer]
---
## The large moon could have a very high gravitational force
such that the members of **civilisation could not survive it** once on it's surface. Orbiting in space stations, however, this force of gravity can be **cancelled** out due to the rotational velocity of the stations travelling around the moon. Over an extended period of time, perhaps the individuals may **evolve** to be able to **survive that gravity** and therefore **eventually** descend!
[Answer]
1. Moon's surface is extremely porous (e.g. Evaporated liquid left "shells" that look like a surface but are like bubbles ... house of cards), any craft landing will be buried at the centre of the planet and be unable to return to orbit.
2. High concentration of a gas that corrodes the ship that attempts to land (e.g. Aluminum and Mercury are "not friends") but is not itself directly toxic
3. High concentration of a toxic gas that isn't lethal to the life already present (e.g. Cyanide or arsenic)
[Answer]
[Kessler syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome) taken up a notch. There is so much orbital debris nothing can get past it.
Make the orbital debris in a high enough orbit that the atmosphere will never clear it, and then put the colony in an even higher orbit. I also suggest having the debris layer be very thick, so that even random collisions do not clear it, and there no chance for even a very agile probe to be able to avoid everything.
For extra credit have multiple layers orbiting in opposite directions, so that you couldn't even try to match speeds with the debris, because then you'd have to reverse direction to get past the next layer.
[Answer]
# There isn't fuel to get back into orbit
The people on the space station can create a vehicle that can survive landing. The main problem is that they couldn't shrink their fusion motors small enough to power the landing craft and have to rely on a chemical propellant to get it back to the space station. When they sent down the robotic scout missions, they found that there isn't anything that can be easily refined to fuel the rocket to get back into orbit. It is taking a long time to prepare the refining equipment to get around this problem.
[Answer]
There's a theory that Titan's deep atmosphere can hold so much "moisture" (in this case, methane and ethane), so that when it rains the downpour often causes massive flooding. Amphibious and underwater life can adapt to this but building any human-habitable structure or placing long-lived probes would be practically impossible there. They would be torn off foundations and buried in the mud.
Reminds me to Ursula Le Guin's "The Word For World is Forest" where the soil was held together by dense vegetation and humans' colonization attempts failed at first when they stripped the forest away. Only after understanding (which was not so easy for technocratic minds) what happened could the colonization proceed.
[Answer]
# Extreme magnetic activity
The extreme magnetic pull of the moon is damaging electronics and metal mechanic components entering the atmosphere.
A space elevator needs to be built with no electronics in the cabin, the parts need to be mined on other objects and then delivered, the engineering also needs to be done and tested.
[Answer]
**Rocket equation and gravity**
If our Moon were more similar to the Earth, it wouldn't be harder to get there, but to come back we would need to get there a Saturn V - and probably we would need to build in the Moon all the same facilities and crew from Cape Canaveral to be able to launch it. And sending a full fuelled Saturn V to the moon is tens of times harder than to send there a lunar module.
For the satellite in the OP it isn't so hard, but it is still way larger than the Moon, and sending there a launcher large enough to reach at least a low orbit to rendezvous with the returning vehicle might be out of the reach of the technology or the budget of the civilisation. At least, if such a satellite had been anywhere in the Solar System, sending there and back a crewed mission would have required several times the effort of the whole Apollo program.
[Answer]
Energy barrier with no apparent source destroys anything that tries to reach the surface. Bypassed by discovery of a signal that allows for temporary disabling of the barrier. Maybe interstellar civilization previously set it up to protect the moon. Maybe ancient civilization on moon set it up to protect themselves.
[Answer]
Just spitballing an idea: they might be using the planet as a barrier against solar particles. Imagine if the sun had recently expanded into a red giant state and engulfed the inner terrestrial planets. Their inhabitants managed to escape into space and built space stations in the solar shadow of a nearby gas planet. This was preferable to building on the moon which would get uncomfortably close to the engorged sun.
[Answer]
It really depends on how you define landing and how much do you accept that the science behind the problem is advanced.
If you define landing as "soft enough to survive the event" then as said by other, the Kessler syndrome is a good reason.
But it does not prevent that a probe is fired to the planet (we already did this so no problem here) with the plan to collect data until it crash on the surface: since you are near (relatively) to the surface and can time the launch on an opportunity window based on how many debris there are and gambling that the probe is small enough to pass the debris layer. Add that you can fire more than one probe and in fact something can "land" on the surface.
To solve this, you should have a Kessler syndrome so extreme that the debris layer is so thick and broad that is more similar to a solid structure that a cloud of debris. This way you can be unable even to fire a probe to crash on the surface because you cannot find a window for the launch: everything that will try to pass through the debris layer will be basically eroded way before they exit the debris layer.
A such dense debris layer, on the other hand, will probably render the planet uninhabitable since it will probably mask most of the sun light, so that life will be probably possible in some extreme conditions, a case you excluded. And it can be really problematic, but maybe possible, to overcome.
Another option is to have a situation inspired by the Space Odyssey cycle by Arthur C. Clarke: a powerful and advanced (beyond human comprehension) civilization that deployed some sort of device to destroy everything will attempt to land (probe, robot, everything) in order to protect something, be it life, resources or whatever. In this case you will have an option to bypass it and finally land. (Just do not use the solution used in the Space Odyssey final book...)
] |
[Question]
[
There was an apocalypse. Humans left cities in swathes, leaving their canine companions behind in the ruined cities. My question is, which types of dogs survive?
Criteria
-The dogs are going to be left up to their own devices for the next few generations.
-The general ecosystem is the same as it was before the war
[Answer]
Dogs are dogs. Barring some of the more physically-incapacitated dogs, as long as they have a means of escaping their homes, there is unlikely to be any particularly advantageous breed.
* [A feral dog lost as a puppy easily sustained itself off hunting.](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-48212933)
* [Millions of dogs live on the streets in Mexico](https://www.theyucatantimes.com/2018/10/mexico-has-highest-number-of-stray-dogs-in-latin-america/)
* The [St. John's water dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John%27s_water_dog) lived as a feral breed for decades or centuries in Newfoundland
* [Chihuahuas are surprisingly vicious, and do well in warm climates as feral dogs](https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1342375).
That last one does offer some insight - the dogs that would do best in any given city would be the dogs who are best suited for the local climate. A husky or eskimo dog, used to air-conditioning in South Carolina, would probably fare poorly if suddenly left to the elements. A chihuahua or doberman, with velvety-thin fur, would probably do badly without humans to put their coats on in a Chicago winter.
But when it comes to being able to hunt for their food - dogs are dogs. They're generally pretty good at it.
---
Edit: It's worth noting that most responsible dog owners will spay or neuter their pets, so after a decade or so, the number of dogs will be *drastically* reduced. This will presumably rebound after an interval, but most pets will die without reproducing, because they cannot.
[Answer]
### Mongrels
There is no reason to think that left to themselves, dogs will remain in breeds. They will cross breed. In a few generations, there won't be any separate breeds. All dogs will be [mongrels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongrel).
There may be some specialist types. For example, smaller dogs may specialize in hunting in tunnels (e.g. rabbit warrens). The largest dogs will likely become smaller, as large dogs are subject to back and joint problems. Long-haired dogs may appear most often towards the poles and short-haired may tend towards the equator.
Mongrels exhibit [hybrid vigor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis) and are healthier than purebred dogs. If dogs are left to themselves, mongrels will take over the world.
[Answer]
**None.**
Dog breeds are a human invention. Eventually they will breed out to look more and more like extant canids as they adapt to that particular niche. There might even be a novel sub species adapted to life in a post apocalyptic world.
In fact the more 'bred' a dog is the less survivable it becomes. Think of the contemporary pug with their squished faces, or this: <http://blog.vetdepot.com/top-10-dog-breeds-with-the-most-health-issues>
also for more discussion:
<https://www.quora.com/How-many-generations-would-it-take-for-dogs-to-revert-to-wolves-if-a-wide-cross-section-of-modern-breeds-were-left-to-breed-freely>
[Answer]
The only pure "breed" that *might* continue to exist in some isolated areas for more that a generation or two without human intervention would be the [Anatolian Sheep Dog](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_Shepherd) because and only because they've been bred for two things:
* to be actively and aggressively territorial toward any predators, either canine or feline, entering their flock's range.
* to live with their flocks without human input or oversight the vast majority of the time.
They exhibit extremely strong [Assortive Mating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assortative_mating) behaviour, that borders on behaviour driven [Symatric Speciation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympatric_speciation), they don't outcross with other canines, rather they eat them when they can catch them.
As such Anatolians will probably continue guarding their flocks until either the predators get too numerous and kill them off or the sheep experience a large scale dieback for some reason, like the fact that they're not being shorn or the fact that the flocks aren't being culled yearly.
[Answer]
I suspect working dogs, especially breeds which have existed for a long time (and so have few health problems), and which exist in favorable climates, would contribute much more to a wild gene pool of surviving dogs under this scenario. For example: the common husky would do very well in moderate to cold climates. It's used in trapping/hunting and is prized for its endurance. I'm also not certain as another poster suggested that all dogs would necessarily revert to wolves given enough time. The African dog and the Australian dingo come to mind, the latter of which has existed for a few thousand years.
[Answer]
# The ones that can.
Your viable dog population is going to be a fraction of the total.
If the humans leave their dogs behind in the cities, they are (mostly) not going to leave them locked up indoors or in yards. They'll probably cut open their food bags and fill some water bowls. Which gives the dogs a week or two to figure out other food/water sources and social structures.
Dogs who can reproduce will be a small portion of all dogs. So they will compete for food and other resources with the dogs who can't reproduce.
Most pets are fixed (sterilized). Many ferals are fixed (while captured feral dogs are often fixed then put up for adoption, feral cats are more likely to be fixed then released to keep the population stable...some feral dogs will actually be strays, not true ferals, and others will be released ferals. This varies a lot country to country and, even within my country, the United States, it varies by community.
Large portions of dogs who are not sterilized will be: too young, too old, or in puppy mills (which render mothers incapable of surviving on their own). Some of the puppies may survive if protected by other dogs.
I'm taking you at your word that the "general ecosystem" hasn't changed (though for some reason all the humans leave?) so dogs can form packs and hunt small to medium animals, drink fresh water, and not die from radiation or bio-weapons, etc. Some dogs will have access to houses (with doggie doors or other openings) which protect from the elements and help protect from predators.
# Which breeds will do the best?
# Small to medium-sized dogs who are suited for the climates they live in.
[**Very tiny dogs**](https://www.smalldogplace.com/tiny-dogs.html), teacup dogs, say under 6 lbs or so, may find niches if they can eat mice and so forth, but **mostly will not do well**. They won't be able to fight off larger dogs for access to food. They are even smaller than most cats but with less fighting power and the inability to leap or climb like cats can.
* Papillon
* Pomeranian
* Toy terriers
* Toy poodles
* Maltese
[**Small dogs**](https://www.smalldogplace.com/Small-Dog-Breed-List-2.html), in the 6-15 lbs range, are more cat-sized and can eat gophers, mice, maybe rats (most cats avoid rats), birds, and insects. If they can avoid predators, they should do okay.
* Chihuahuas (the larger ones)
* Smaller Terriers (various breeds; they're good ratters)
* Pekingese
* Miniature Schnauzers
[**Medium dogs**](https://www.akc.org/expert-advice/nutrition/breed-weight-chart/), say about 15-40 lbs, can eat rats, gophers, badgers, squirrels, birds, etc. They have a decent chance of finding food.
* Larger terriers
* Dachshund (some hunts animals like badgers)
* Miniature American Shepherds
* Miniature Bull Terriers
* Pugs
* Spaniels
* Whippets
Individual varieties within each breed will have different weight ranges and of course any individual dog may weigh more or less. So don't take these listings as definitive.
Also, you didn't specific location, you just said "cities." Dog breeds that tend to do well in Cairo will die in Anchorage. And vice versa. Even if you limit it to climates without super harsh winters or summers, in areas with natural water and urban wildlife, there's still going to be differences in which breeds do better.
# What about larger dogs?
Larger dogs, say 40 lbs and up, will probably do better in the short term. There will be a lot of competition for food and access to water and shelter. Bigger dogs will generally win over smaller dogs.
Dogs in the 40-80 lb range might end up okay, but much larger dogs will not. Why? Because they require too much food. Unless the urban areas are small and next to wildlife areas, the large dogs will run out of food within a generation or two, if not sooner. They won't be able to breed and sustain their young. Some larger dogs will leave the urban areas, but that wasn't part of your premise, so we'll ignore them.
# The actual breed won't matter so much.
Most of the dogs adapted to the climate who are able to breed will be strays and ferals and mutts used to living outdoors. While many purebreds are left unsterilized, they may be inbred, not bred for local conditions, or indoor dogs. Of course you'll have some working dogs who are purebred or close, but not as many in cities as in the country (or even the suburbs). City dogs are generally pets and usually chosen to do well in smaller homes.
[Answer]
**Most of the dogs are dead anyway**
Dogs in cities and suburban areas that are not pestiferous ferals are dead. A large, desperate-for-food dog *might* break a window to get out (that's the problem with domestication), but the reality is most will starve in a week,1 whether kept inside the house or in a fenced yard.
**Dogs in deserts or the arctic wastes are mostly dead**
The rural dogs who live in desert or arctic conditions have two problems: water and temperature. The hardier breeds will survive, but most are dead. In the arctic areas you're talking Huskies, Saint Bernards, etc. Dogs bred for cold. In the deserts, beats me, maybe Dobermans, definitely Coyotes.
**But what about the heartland?**
In rural areas with nice climates and available water, I don't believe any breed has a particular advantage over another. I completely agree with Brythan (and you should upvote his answer) that eventually all you'll have are mongrels, but dogs are pack animals, and the domesticated breeds tend to be much less discriminating than wild breeds when it comes to who's a member of the pack. Breeds less suited to a particular area would find the situation much simpler due to the benefits of the pack.
**Conclusion**
Of the few dogs that survive the apocalypse, specialized breeds will survive at the environmental extremes, but everywhere else there won't be one breed more successful than another.
---
1 *Longer, if there's more than one dog.*
] |
[Question]
[
Let’s say we have this fictional civilisation. It doesn’t have a writing system; its traditions are oral and so is its system of government. How do you keep people accountable to what they’ve sworn? If someone said they’d give you three cows in exchange for such-and-such a service, how does the government ensure that this happens? In other words, what keeps people from being filthy lying cheats?
[Answer]
Important oaths could be sworn in front of witnesses.
Less important oaths would rely on reputation. Reputation would be important to one survival, and if you somehow manage to trick a large number of folks, they could all bear witness against you.
If someone outright denies there was an oath evidence could be brought against them. If the judge recognises the cows, they may know that they were exchanged with you for something.
[Answer]
Maybe notaries with eidetic memories and incapable of lying are not uncommon in that world.
But I doubt that a bunch of people can reach a civilization degree involving contracts and law without writing. Memory problem notwithstanding, written communication should become a must quite quickly.
[Answer]
You don't necessarily need writing, just some form of record keeping. Writing and record keeping are not necessarily the same thing.
You could use [tally sticks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tally_stick), or something similar. Basically, you have a stick with notches carved into it, the notches representing some info. Maybe how much you paid in taxes, or how many hours/days you agreed to work, or any other business details. Then, you break the stick in half. You keep half, the person you're dealing with keeps the other. You can prove to a judge that the deal existed because your stick and their stick fit together. You can't fraudulently edit your half, because the other person still has theirs.
[Answer]
# Notary sticks
Here's what you do: Find a branched Y-shaped stick. (A stick with more branches may be used to facilitate contracts between 3 or more parties, but we'll just stick with 2 for now.) Both parties to the contract go and visit a neutral professional notary. In the notary's presence, two ends of the stick are snapped off so you end up with 3 parts. Each of the parties and the notary get 1 end of the stick. The notary files his stick into a compartment indicating the nature of the contract. (This bin = cows, that bin = service, etc.) Alternatively he ties color-coded ribbons to his stick, or marks the sticks in some other way indicating the nature of the contract.
Once the terms of the contract have been fulfilled, both parties return to the notary with their sticks. Because of the organic nature of sticks, each of their sticks will only fit perfectly with the original stick held by the notary. The sticks are then ritually burned indicating the contract is completed, so they may not be reused. If one party does not fulfill their end of the contract, the other one can file a complaint with the notary, using his stick as proof of the contract.
[Answer]
They use magic. Contract bonding, casted by licensed dark wizards, is a dark magic ritual where all parties sacrifice part of their free will. They not just remember the contract by the heart thanks to the ritual, they also adopt the same interpretation of the contract, no matter how complicated and nuanced it is, and this common interpretation becomes part of personalities of all parties of the contract. Motivation to uphold terms of the contract becomes deeply ingrained in their souls, upholidng the contract becomes their categorical imperative.
[Answer]
***They Can't***
If your civilization is small enough... if the economy is simple enough... if the contracts are immediate enough... then it can be done as gmatht explained — by verbal contract. But it takes very little time for a civilization to outgrow this level of simplicity and an argument could be made that a contract for a fish not meant to be completed before next week is too complex to be reliably judged as broken two weeks later based only on hearsay.
We could debate, "what is a writing system?" but the truth is even our illustrious caveman ancestors drew symbols on walls with ash. Creating a believable scenario where a civilization didn't have some form of symbolic representation would be very difficult indeed. Soon after the development of the concepts of "mine!" and "you dirty rat!" would come the desire to inflict the world with graffiti.
Written language takes many forms. I've already mentioned one. Here's that and a couple more.
* [Cave Painting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting): Cave paintings are a type of parietal art (which category also includes petroglyphs, or engravings), found on the wall or ceilings of caves. The term usually implies prehistoric origin, but cave paintings can also be of recent production: In the Gabarnmung cave of northern Australia, the oldest paintings certainly predate 28,000 years ago, while the most recent ones were made less than a century ago. The oldest known cave paintings are more than 44,000 years old.
* [Rai Stones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones): The Micronesian island of Yap is known for its stone money, known as Rai or Fei: large doughnut-shaped, carved disks of (usually) calcite, up to 4 m (13 ft) in diameter (most are much smaller). The smallest can be as little as 3.5 centimetres (1.4 in) in diameter. They have been used in trade by the Yapese as a form of currency.
* [Rongorongo Sticks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rongorongo): Rongorongo is a system of glyphs discovered in the 19th century on Easter Island that appears to be writing or proto-writing. Numerous attempts at decipherment have been made, none successfully. Although some calendrical and what might prove to be genealogical information has been identified, none of these glyphs can actually be read. If rongorongo does prove to be writing and proves to be an independent invention, it would be one of very few independent inventions of writing in human history. (These are advanced forms of the notched sticks Jimbo's answer points to.)
* [Archaeostronical Stone Structures](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_archaeoastronomical_sites_by_country): It has been suggested (and there's proof to suggest veracity) that some or all of the ancient stone structures like Stonehenge were, at least in part, for the purpose of marking the passage of seasons. They were (among other things) calendars.
So, what is "writing?" In its most basic form, "writing" is the act of recording information for future use and if we grant some wiggle room, "writing" could be defined as anything you did for that purpose, whether it was placing a stone on the ground and grunting out the phrase, "stone mean booga give ugga fish when dark come," or Edison recording himself saying "Mary had a little lamb..." on a clay cylinder, or IBM discovering that reliably storing ones and zeros on a magnetized surface would be whomping useful.
But without writing, all that's left is memory. Use all the witnesses you want, you're still relying on remarkably fallible (and manipulable, and conveniently changed...) memory. (I'm going to ignore the use of external non-writing things like magic and gods — which, when used to record information for future use, are still just another form of writing.)
The problem is that as your society becomes more complex, so do its needs for recording information. Weather patterns, astrological events, calendaric events, genealogical associations, laws, judgements, ownership, and of course, contracts. In your own example, you used *three* cows. Numbers and arithmetic were among the earliest forms of (and needs for) writing. The moment you held up three fingers you "wrote" something — it was simply erased too quickly for it to be useful. But what does it take for someone to look at those three fingers and think of drawing three lines in the dirt?
Therefore, I'd like to suggest that any society complex enough to need to record contracts couldn't possibly exist without having long ago developed the ability to symbolically record much simpler, much more fundamental information.
Like something along the lines of, "Second full moon after the spring equinox, plant oats."
Otherwise, it would be like suggesting a civilization could develop space flight without having first discovered the wheel. It can't be done without some sort of gimmick that allows the story to proceed.
[Answer]
Agreements have been made for centuries before the relatively recent reliance on paperwork.
If someone is known to not keep their word, then no one will accept their word as surety.
A person's appearance of trustworthiness is guarded well by each individual. Questioning someone's word would be deeply offensive.
Rather than being enforced by the courts or by the state, it is enforced by the individuals of the community. Those known, or even suspected, of being untrustworthy will be completely shunned, or simply never interacted with in any manner that requires trust.
For most interactions, a promise between two individuals would be fine. For more substantial transactions, making the promise or exchange in the presence of witnesses would suffice.
[Answer]
The short and obvious answer is:
>
> Oaths work because religion.
>
>
>
If you believe that God punishes oathbreakers with, let's say, a infinity of torment in the next world, then there's really no incentive for any rational person *ever* to break an oath.
Serendipitously, just yesterday I discovered this blog which goes crazy in depth on a lot of "fantasy-antiquity" tropes. Come for the siege of Gondor, stay for ["Oaths: How do They Work?"](https://acoup.blog/2019/06/28/collections-oaths-how-do-they-work/):
>
> In most of modern life, we have drained much of the meaning out of the few oaths that we still take, in part because we tend to be very secular and so don’t regularly consider the religious aspects of the oaths – even for people who are themselves religious. Consider it this way: when someone lies in court on a TV show, we think, “ooh, he’s going to get in trouble with the law for perjury.” We do not generally think, “Ah yes, this man’s soul will burn in hell for all eternity, for he has literally damned himself.” ...
>
>
> So when thinking about oaths, we want to think about them the way people in the past did: as **things that work** – that is they do something. In particular, we should understand these oaths as effective – by which I mean that the oath itself actually does something more than just the words alone. They trigger some actual, functional supernatural mechanisms. In essence, we want to treat these oaths as **real** in order to understand them.
>
>
>
---
If your premodern civilization really cannot spare a god or two to witness oaths, then the next best thing would be for them to set up the *closest possible facsimile* to an omniscient, omnipotent witness — somebody who
* sees when an oath is taken
* sees, with infallible accuracy, when an oath is broken
* harshly punishes the oathbreaker
and, pretty importantly,
* is **never witnessed to have failed** in their two capacities as omniscient-observer-of-oathbreakings and omnipotent-punisher-of-oathbreakers
because if people start getting the idea that they might *not* be punished for breaking their oath, well, then all bets are off, and you'd better invent lawyers quick.
What'd be perfect is if you can manage to inflict your harsh punishment only in the afterlife, and nobody ever comes back from the afterlife to falsify your claim of infallibility. (Again, if your culture hasn't got an afterlife, you'll have to invent some facsimile. Unfortunately I'm having a hard time imagining what that might look like.)
[Answer]
It's quite simple. You have a class of people who's job is to keep track of contracts, which we will call 'contractors'. A small exchange such as a purchase can be witnessed by a single contractor, while major events, such as a major oath or the purchase of a building might be witnessed by as much as a dozen.
You can't eliminate the possibility that contractors themselves would lie, but by having more contractors witness more important events, you reduce the likelihood that you could successfully bribe all of them before you were ratted out by one to near zero, especially if ratting on bribery was rewarded.
[Answer]
Two things come to mind. 1. Fear of God and after life consequences 2. The oldest form of conflict resolution: BLOOD.
Even Today people trust what people say, even when they don't know them. They trust in common decency and get burned. We've all heard it before "Be sure to get it in writing". Anyways, even with all our written laws and protections, we know there are still many people and places here at home that if you cross somebody you will get served with instant justice in the form of a physical beat down. If you've ever had all your stuff thrown through a window by an ex girlfriend you know about instant justice (nothing written, no judge, no jury).
[Answer]
everybody knows everyone and remembers.
You can't organize more actors than you can remember without writing.
Therefore it's either a tiny nation, or it's organised into tribes and many agreements will be are between tribes instead of between individuals.
[Answer]
[Rai stones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones) are quite a unique way to keep track of transactions.
Some micronesian people used to have small round stone used as money. The value was not written on their face: the bigger the stone, the higher it's value.
Problem was, the biggest stones could make more than one meter in diameter... so the idea was to meet where the stone was with some witnesses and orally transfer ownership of the stone.
[Answer]
Governments don't enforce contracts; courts do.
While I doubt you could have anything resembling a modern government without a system of writing, you can certainly have courts. At its core, a court hears each party's side of a case (including any witnesses), rules in favor of one or the other, and orders someone to enforce their ruling. None of that fundamentally requires writing to work, nor does it require the existence of a government.
[Answer]
I can think of a few reasons.
**SURVIVAL**
This depends on the size of the society, in part. Are people well-known enough to other members of society that they cannot escape general knowledge of their deceitful behavior? There have been (illiterate) societies, even in the last few centuries, where a person's word truly was considered bond. Breaking that word would result in being shunned from all future business in the community, ultimately leading to ruin.
Picture a small farming community, around 1900. Everyone knows everyone else. The community is small enough that people can grasp the concept of "if we all start cheating each other, everyone will starve." Any bad actor will be quickly excluded from the community, because people recognize the danger his actions pose to the survival of the whole. By turn, anyone considering deceit must consider that if they cheat one person, they are damaging their own chance of survival.
**CULTURAL MORES**
Suppose a society once had the survival situation above. Now this is a large, prosperous society. (For whatever reason, they never developed writing. This is your world, you figure that out.) However, the prohibition against cheating is such an integral part of society that no one would dare do it. Assuming free will, some people still try to break the rules. However, anyone who does is so severely punished that only someone completely unhinged would even contemplate it. Maybe oathbreaking carries the death penalty or something, and society is 100% behind it. There's not enough reward to justify the risk to any logical person.
**BIOLOGY**
Maybe the society isn't human, or at least not 21st-century Earth humans. China Mielville's book *Embassytown* dealt with exactly this. The native residents of the planet where the story takes place are physically unable to lie. Something in the biology of their brains makes them incapable of speaking an untruth. As I recall, for them, speaking a lie would be like having the ability to spontaneously, voluntarily hallucinate. You can't just look at a red pen and force your eyes to perceive it as blue. These beings had the same constraint on their faculties of speech.
[Answer]
For transaction-type contracts, an [escrow](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escrow) system could work. The parties would agree to the contract with the escrow agent present. Parties deliver their goods to the escrow agent, not to each other. The agent only delivers the goods to their respective recipient once all parties have fulfilled their obligations. The escrow agent ensures that the transaction either happens as originally agreed, or no goods change hands at all.
[Answer]
**POETRY AND SONG**
Contracts, great deeds, promises, rules, and other important information - even navigational directions - are preserved by oral tradition.
How do you stop them from being forgotten, mis-remembered or even corrupted?
In modern communication theory, you add redundancy. Those check digits that proclaim a credit card number either valid or a forgery. Repetition of a message in a RAID disk array. Checksums, parity bits to detect communication errors ro tampering.
In oral communications, you can do exactly the same.
```
Make the verse rhyme. Rhymes are easier to remember.
Introduce the chorus.
Build on the same image to reinforce it. And it must rhyme.
Repeat the chorus
Use colourful unforgettable images. Or puns or jokes.
Repeat the chorus.
Keep the rhythm going so that a forger introducing extra words stands out like a sore thumb.
Repeat the chorus.
```
And it works. Chunks of Homer's Iliad have been heard in Eastern Mediterranean countries (OK, citation needed), fairly well preserved in the oral tradition after a couple of millennia.
To armour a message in image, rhythm and rhyme, takes considerable skill, so you'll need bards of considerable talent - as well as legal training - the cream will be among the most honoured members of society and most prized at court, alongside the warriors who provide enforcement. And as the above shows, I wouldn't have been one of them.
The Norse used [praise poetry for kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skald#:~:text=Skaldic%20poetry%20was%20written%20in,the%20Court%20or%20Lordly%20Metre).); no doubt, remembering who won which battle or who made what promise was of use in their courts to decide disputes.
Sample messages...
```
Ring-a-ring-a-rosy,
Pocket full of posy,
Tishoo, Tishoo,
All fall down.
```
Diagnostics, attempted cure, and outcome. Seems like we shouldn't have forgotten this one.
```
We'll rant and we'll roar, like true British sailors,
We'll rant and we'll roar across the salt seas;
Until we strike soundings
In the Channel of old England,
From Ushant to Scilly 'tis thirty-five leagues.
```
Great rhythm and finishes with the most important information; how far before we get into home waters.
So:
>
> If someone said they’d give you three cows in exchange for such-and-such a service, how does the government ensure that this happens?
>
>
>
How would this work for a contract?
```
Three cows, spake Donald.
Three cows, by summer's end.
Three cows, to mend his ship,
No bull, his ship I mend.
```
Break the contract and he'll never show his face down the pub again, if we keep singing his song!
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/229548/edit).
Closed 1 year ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 1 year ago and left it closed:
>
> Original close reason(s) were not resolved
>
>
>
[Improve this question](/posts/229548/edit)
The Empire of Hetkaptah, with its capitol in Alexandria, Khemet / Egyptos, dominates the modern solar system. While their science has obviously moved on from the old Platonism, allowing them to establish colonies on multiple extraterrestrial bodies, but Greek philosophy is still an important part of their cultural heritage.
One way this manifests is in the emblems of the major branches of the military:
1. The army operates over land, and uses the cube as its emblem, associated with the classical element of earth.
2. The navy operates on and in water, and uses the icosahedron as its emblem, associated with the classical element of water.
3. The air force operates in the air, and uses the octahedron as its emblem, associated with the classical element of air.
4. The space force operates in outer space, and uses the dodecahedron as its emblem, associated with the classical element of cosmic quintessence.
But, that leaves one element and one regular polyhedron unused, which simply will not do!
So, what sort of branch of military service could be created with an association with fire, to use the tetrahedron as its emblem?
[Answer]
**Reserves.**
A National Guard, an organized militia, even conscripts if they're that sort of Empire.
The fire, so goes the saying, is in the belly. In this case, the belly of the people. It is their national spirit and determination, hot and bright and fierce, and whatever other adjectives best fit.
The Empire makes it very clear that its reservists are not "lesser" soldiers, but are commendable in being brave enough to step up from their civilian jobs to join the fight when their country calls on them. Fire starts as a spark but can send a whole forest roaring; one call to arms brings the whole Empire to bear soon enough.
[Answer]
## Manufacturing and Supply
The first instinct with fire and the military is to go to fire's destructive might, but in spite of it being called a fire-fight, there's very little fire used.
Instead, look at the Greek god of fire, Hephaestus, and realize that the true home of fire is in the forge! Everything the military uses, from the largest space-dreadnought to the smallest bullet was shaped and formed here. This is where fire can truly shine, providing the burning heart that keeps the entire military running.
[Answer]
## Strategic forces (nuclear/handwavium dissuasion)
The branch that control the most deadly weapons (and their conveyors), capable of destroying entire planets / civilizations, used only in last resort, similar to our nuclear missiles.
These weapons bring the fire of hell upon their targets, burn/destroy everything, and thus are clearly linked to fire.
The tetrahedron can be seen as just a simplification of a flame or (if it's more "pointy") as an arrow / missile.
[Answer]
**Electronic / Cyberwarfare operations**
Cyberops affect all theatres of warfare and "peacetime" intelligence gathering, so it organisationally makes sense for it to be a separate branch. As for the association with fire - viral attacks are quickly changing, expand wherever there is "fuel" (unprotected devices) and are the essence of human advancement, embodied by the taming of fire.
[Answer]
**Artillery / Bombardment**
Not sure this could be considered a Branch as a whole, but would operate much like the United States Army Air Corps (USAAC). Which was the aerial warfare service component of the United States Army before and during WWII. But controlling artillery ordnance delivery from orbit or land operations.
[Answer]
**Frame challenge: the best branch to associate to fire is the space force**
In ancient philosophy, all elements had an own place\* to which they tend to belong and that they tend to naturally reach
From bottom to top the elements were earth, water, air and fire... The plane of fire was above the sky (because fire tends to go above the air) So I would suggest that the fire should be associated to the space force.
The "fifth" element was usually an embodyment of the order to which the four elements are mixed (i.e. love), so I would associate it to the headquarter, or the royal guard.
\*\* Probably this is a concept more pertinent to Aristotle than Plato, but I'm a bit rusty on my philosophy studies
[Answer]
### Special Forces
Fire represents the combination of multiple elements as fire requires fuel (from earth), oxygen (from air) and heat (and I'm sure you can work water and cosmic quintessence in there somewhere).
The best-of-the-best from the army, navy, air force and space force come together for additional multidisciplinary training and the four branches together have the four-sided tetrahedron as its symbol.
[Answer]
This is based on some comments, but might as well make it a full answer.
## Subterranean Force
How does a Subterranean force represent Fire you say? It doesn't. They'd be the Earth force, and you'd give Fire to the Army instead.
They might prefer flamethrowers and explosives as their weapons, which would line up with Fire pretty well. And what does a gun do? It *fires* bullets. They call it "firepower" for a reason. Cannons, mortars, missiles, artillery, bombs, they all involve fire, so it totally lines up.
As for the Subterranean force, they'd be all about digging tunnels and attacking the enemy from below. Picture Elon Musk's "Boring Company", only with weapons. Or Underminer from the *Incredibles*, only a whole force of them.
[Answer]
**Make space be fire instead**
Each branch of the military is associated with the element composing the "terrain" that its vehicles operate on.
The army mainly uses land vehicles, which travel by pushing against the earth.
The navy mainly uses sea vehicles, which travel by pushing against the water. (Sailboats are propelled by the wind, but even they still push against the water.)
The air force mainly uses aircraft, which travel by pushing against the air.
And the space force mainly uses rocket ships, which travel by creating a plume of fire and pushing against that.
If you want to keep quintessence, you can use it for the cyberwarfare branch.
[Answer]
**Different Roles Within the Branches**
I'd consider branching into two types of soldiers: active combat and support personnel.
All active combat soldiers are in the Fire group. A navy ship, for example, is crewed by people who work for the "water" force, and they handle damage control, logistics and basically everything that does not revolve around firing weapons. The people who fire the weapons work for the "fire" force (and have their own uniforms). (Possibly the ship even has two captains! The Fire Captain commands in combat situations while the Water Captain commands outside of combat situations.)
Similarly, the air force is everything with support and logistics for air operations but the combat pilots, security forces, combat controllers, etc, are all fire personnel.
It would basically be like if you took the American Marines and extended them to take over all combat roles in all other branches of the American armed forces. That's the Fire branch.
This might have some interesting implications in the culture or even prisoner exchanges. Maybe you capture an enemy naval ship and just let all the water personnel go, but the fire personnel are your real prisoners of war.
[Answer]
## The commanders in chief
It might not perfectly in line with the classical elements to put fire above the other elements, but it's very fitting for a Egyptian culture. For much of Egyptian history Ra, the god of the sun, was worshipped as the ruler of the world and all the other gods.
[Answer]
Your ground units are the exclusively ground trained.
Your sea units are exclusively build and trained for water (small exception: marines).
Your air units are exclusively aircraft trained.
Your space units are exclusively build and trained in space.
Your Espatiers (more official word for Space Marines) are the ones who do operations in all 4. They are the ones who are send down to a planet to assault it or reinforce it. They have the equipment to stage assaults from the planet back into orbit. For these reasons they also have to have access to ground, air, water and space equipment simultaneously, with much of that equipment having overlaps with one another to achieve their goals.
[Answer]
I mean...if you really wanted to they could operate near stars especially if there was significant stellar infrastructure. That would be specialized stuff compare to the regular space forces.
Like, why does water get it's own force when water combat is probably completely pitiful in the scheme of interstellar warfare? Sure, Earth is covered in water, but how many planets are actually like that? I would say that you have a similar problem justifying a navy because of that since it could easily become redundant when you have starships, especially in-atmosphere capable starships. Even without in-atmosphere capable starships, they could just deny use of the oceans like you can deny air space.
You're also stuck because then what happens if there's a planet covered in a liquid other than water? Is your water-element force allowed in? Or do you just send in the starships?
You would need a similar justification for the navy: significant ocean infrastructure on what few planets are actually covered in liquid bodies.
Land-based armies aren't redundant because it is easy to imagine most of the infrastructure being on land and we are land-based creatures.
An airforce is redundant too if you have space craft capable of seamessly operating in atmosphere. Even if the space craft aren't capable of operating in atmosphere, the air forces could still get absorbed into the much larger space forces if there is transferability in the skill set of operating space craft and aircraft.
[Answer]
Clearly, the Fire emblem belongs either to the Witch-Hunting branch, or the book-burning Truth Maintenance branch of your military. Given that those are probably the same branch, you're good to go.
[Answer]
**Intelligence.**
Fire is the fundamental change. Change without knowledge or guidance is chaos. To effect change that advances your objectives, one must have knowledge.
All your military branches are agents of action: they do. Your intelligence force does not do - it learns and it knows. The tetrahedron is the simplest of the solids. As regards military endeavors, intelligence is the most fundamental.
Of course the Intelligence corps reveres Athena, goddess of war, wisdom and far sight.
[Answer]
The terraforming force.
The presence of a navy and airforce suggests that a terraforming process is going on for all or most of the planets the empire encounters, giving their colonies oxygen atmospheres and liquid water oceans. That takes time and specialized work. This force would be not unlike an engineer corps, but specifically organized and designed towards creating habitable colonies on otherwise hostile worlds.
The symbolic association of this organization with fire would be two-fold; on one hand, fire as a representation of civilization, technology, and transformation, often through destruction. The terraformers would disrupt the existing ecosystem and transform it forcefully into something they could use. On the other hand, fire could also represent the worlds they are changing. Extraterrestrial atmospheres could offer fire-adjacent risks like radiation, acidity, burning hot temperatures and enourmous electrical storms. The ships of the fire corps would be designed specifically to protect against these kinds of hazards, to brave the fires of alien worlds. These same ships would not be useful in an earth-like atmosphere or in open space, and their pilots and technicians would need an entirely different set of training, so it makes sense for them to fall under a wholly different organization than either the space or air forces.
An unspoken third rationale for the fire force is that, should the empire ever encounter a planet that already had life, they would burn it away to pave the path for humanity to expand ever further.
[Answer]
# **The Nation**
Call it what you will - the civilian population, the heart/soul/mind/will of the citizens, the popular opinion, the confidence of the Mothers, or the spirit of the mothers.
The Tripod of Military and Leadership structures still needs the support of the People to continue doing it's thing.
There's the possibility of many stirring phrases around "keeping the home fires burning"
While not strictly a branch of the military, there's a definite tripod between the armed forces, the political structures, and the civilians/scientists/farmers/transport/shipbuilders doing their part.
>
> When the heart-fires of the home hearths grow cold and listless, the far-flung fighters loose their confidence, lacking the support of their home.
>
>
>
I suggest that FIRE represents the will and vigour of the people.
[Answer]
# The Salvation Army
Because faith spreads like fhe fire of a candle lighting up other candles.
This is a christian symbolism but you can apply tbis to your fictional people even if they are not christians. Fire has historically been symbolically meaningful in most religions.
You could call that branch the divine branch, or faith branch, purification branch or something else just as ominous. It can either offer just regular religious service or work towards ensuring the empire is heathen-free.
] |
[Question]
[
In an isolated colony of a few hundred people, a curse has ensured that no-one is attracted to anyone who likes them. Additionally everyone does like somebody else - a different person in every case.
This means that everyone suffers from unrequited love *and* they have a stalker unwanted admirer.
The curse is not removable.
---
In order for the colony to continue, people must procreate.
What is an effective solution for this problem of procreation?
---
Assume that people refuse point-blank to have sex with their stalker unwanted admirer. No violence or coercion (i.e. rape) is allowed in this colony on pain of life-imprisonment. Of course the stalker's stalker admirer will still love them despite their heinous crime.
Notes
1. Only mature mentally sound **adults** are affected by this curse in either direction.
2. If there is an odd number of people at any given time, then one person is fated to fall in love with themselves *and* at the same time be disgusted by that fact. **EDIT** It has been pointed out by @Franklin Pezzuti Dyer, in their answer, and @Guy G in a comment, that requirement 2 changes the maths. I have decided to relax this requirement to avoid invalidating anyone's existing answer. You may now assume that (2) is true or false according to your own preference.
---
**Postscript**
I originally intended the curse-afflicted people to be so possessed that they could not resist following their crush around. This was supposed to be *part* of the curse and why I initially referred to them as stalkers. Obviously I did not make this clear and people answered on the basis that they needn't be so obsessed. For that reason I have relented and edited to use the term unwanted admirer. In the event I am happy with the answer I eventually accepted.
Thanks to all.
[Answer]
## ***THE SAME AS ANYWHERE, FOR CENTURIES:***
For most of human history, love had almost nothing to do with procreation. You mated due to alliances, control of resources, lust, etc. Lots of people have sex with other people despite being deeply in love with their spouse because of good old biology. Reproduction won't be a problem. Jealousy will.
You need a system to account for people and their feelings. Everyone knows how the whole thing works, and your educational system needs to emphasize the foolishness of true love, it's pointlessness and cruelty. Crush all those romantic stories, and instead have a multitude of tales of the tragedy of pursuing love and the nobility of rising above, and doing kind things for your love that you know they will never appreciate. They all will feel it, and they all know their love is cursed to never reciprocate. Who can hate the one you love when they *CAN'T* love you back?
Now love is a learned behavior, and people can "love the one they're with," quite realistically. Ideally, you will have a society of people working to sublimate their romantic desires into community action. You hopefully don't even know who loves you, but instead have a mysterious secret admirer. Maybe you can even have a social practice of being helpful to your love's girl/boyfriend - kind of a Roxanne romance by proxy. After all, you want them to be happy.
[Answer]
How about polygamy + orgies?
In “love triangles” where person A loves B, B loves C, and C loves A, they can have a three-way marriage and orgies in which all three people are satisfied. Other small “love polygons” like $A\to B\to C\to D\to A$ might also feasibly be solved this way. However, things might get icky (both literally and figuratively) for larger numbers of people, or in situations where many people love one person that does not love any of them.
NOTE: Maybe this violates the fact stated in the question that people “refuse point blank to have sex with their stalker.” However, perhaps they might be willing to make a deal if doing participating in an orgy with them would *also* allow them to have sex with their love object. Think of it as a mutually beneficial “romantic compromise.”
---
EDIT: given that every person loves and is loved by exactly one person (and that these two people are *never* the same person), there are actually some neat formulas regarding the lengths of different “love-cycles.” As a matter of fact, this type of structure can be represented by a [permutation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation), and *every person* will be the member of *some* love-cycle (although some will be quite long).
Assuming a person’s “stalker” and “love object” are chosen uniformly and at random from all other people, we have that the *expected* length of the love-cycle in which any given person is involved is equal to
$$\begin{align}
3\cdot \frac{1}{N-2}+4\cdot \frac{N-3}{N-2}\cdot \frac{1}{N-3}+5\cdot\frac{N-3}{N-2}\cdot\frac{N-4}{N-3} \cdot\frac{1}{N-4}+...\\
= \frac{3}{N-1}+\frac{4}{N-1}+...+\frac{N}{N-1}\\
= \frac{N+3}{2}
\end{align}$$
So if you have $100$ people, the average length of a cycle is about $51.5$ people. Yikes! That’d be a *massive* orgy. And it gets even worse if you consider a city of thousands of people... then it really stops being feasible.
Quite astoundingly, the probability of being part of a cycle of length $L$ is identical for every given cycle length, and this probability is equal to
$$\frac{1}{N-2}$$
For example, if you live in a town with three people, this is equal to $1/(3-2)=1$, which makes sense, since you’re *guaranteed* to be in a love triangle (the only possible configuration). This means that the probability of being part of a love-cycle with a length equal to $L$ or less is equal to
$$\frac{L-2}{N-2}$$
Thus, in a small town containing $N=1000$ people, you can expect about $8/998$ of them, or about $8$ people on average, to be part of a love-cycle with a length shorter than $L=10$. Looks like this strategy won’t work out so well after all (unless we’re dealing with very small towns).
[Answer]
**Decouple romance and sex entirely.**
The idea that romantic love and sexual attraction need to go 100% hand-in-hand is one that has had toxic effects for a very very long time.
Even if you're not exactly in love with a person, generally you'll find them at least somewhat attractive.
Sex is fun for itself, and two people can have a good time without loving one another very easily, it happens all the time!
There's no shortage of people I don't love but think are plenty attractive and would happily spend an evening with.
Red Dwarf did it best I think:
>
> CRANE: We discarded the concept of "family" in the 25th century when
> scientists finally proved that all our hang-ups and neuroses are caused
> by our parents.
>
> RIMMER: I knew it!
>
> CRANE: Families are disastrous for your mental health. So are
> relationships. These are outmoded concepts for us.
>
> RIMMER: But what about love? Surely people still fall in love?
>
> CRANE: We have developed beyond love, Mr. Rimmer. That is a short-term
> hormonal distraction which interferes with the pure pursuit of personal
> advancement. We are holograms. There is no risk of disease or
> pregnancy. That is why in our society we only believe in sex --
> constant, guilt-free sex.
>
>
>
-- Red Dwarf S5-Ep1 "Holoship"
[Answer]
The question reveals a huge amount of unspoken cultural bias.
Why assume that 'love' has anything to do with who you marry and/or have children with?
In many (most?) societies 'love matches' are frowned upon -- princesses do NOT marry stablehands, however hot they are! -- and people marry who they have to. Many (most?) may pine for someone else, and that's why romantic fiction is always so popular.
[Answer]
**Decoupling of Romance and the Family.**
As far as procreation goes, that's easy. Artificial insemination. You might even be able to get a hold of genetic material from your crush. Everyone donates genetic material to a bank and then it is dolled out on demand.
Since everyone is in the same situation, they will probably be willing to share. You never have to touch or see your stalker in person.
The big question is then how are these children raised? All I can think is that romantic families will get replaced with platonic or other-family-families. For example a woman pairs up with her best friend or sister or cousin who also wants a child. They decide who goes first, apply to the bank, one of them becomes pregnant and they raise the first child as a family unit. Then whenever they are ready the other one applies to the bank.
The other big question is what is the (familial) role of men in this new society? Of course some men will want children, but it is harder for them to bond strongly with their child in this artificial setup. Perhaps men just attach themselves to their female relatives' family?
The other other big question is how this effects society as a whole? Without the curse people would fall in love and move house, and make connections with their partner's family and generally cross pollinate. But in the new system there is the danger of stagnation where the colony breaks into a dozen "families" that have no reason or incentive to interpollinate. So they are more likely to feud with each other. Certainly bad for morale.
[Answer]
**AUGMENTED REALITY OR ILLUSIONS**
If your colony has a high tech level, two people who are not in love with each other can agree to make love while wearing augmented reality headsets that make their sex partner look like the one they are in love with.
Since your colony is under a curse, there must be magic in your world, in which case it may be possible to pay a magician to make your sex partner look like your love interest, in general or in your eyes only. Simple hypnotism could also do the trick.
Lacking either of these, maybe you can hire makeup artists to make your partner look enough like your love interest to make you interested.
[Answer]
Artificial insemination.
Every guy donates double-blind and women are drawn at random to conceive (or may volunteer to conceive if the desire to procreate is still there). That way there's no relationship lovey-dovieness involved. It's just a duty one is assigned to undertake so society can continue. Like jury duty.
You probably have to compensate the woman for carrying and raising the child since if no one likes anyone mutually she's basically a working single mother.
Or just compensate her for carrying the child and all children enter a dormitory orphanage school where they are raised. I'm unsure whether adoption should even be allowed since that could produce an upper and lower class of children.
The dormitory could also raise children until a certain age, like 10 years old and then boot them out by having them apply for a live-in apprenticeship program around the colony.
This seems better than assigning children to be raised by individuals (even if they don't want to). It also seems more consistent than allowing individuals to volunteer to raise a child drawn at random (if they got to pick that would just be adoption) because then there are always unwanted children or not enough volunteers and you get a lower class of children.
[Answer]
**Happy Hour**
Has worked for humanity for thousands of years. Enough alcohol and anyone can look good enough to scratch that itch....
[Answer]
# Nobody gets to be happy, Chance/Fate dictates marriage pairings!
There's a simple solution: if we can't make anyone happy, we dictate who marries whom by a random system. If A loves B who loves C who loves D who loves E and so on, all the people have to gather in front of the town hall. We call the first person, Male 1, and he gets to draw a name from the female bucket, let's say he draws Female #23. They are now married and out of the pool. Female #23 may draw who's the next girl to draw, female #15, and she draws her future husband, which is male #21. He may draw the next male to get married and so on. This goes on till both buckets are empty and all got allotted their partner. The chance that anyone gets to be allotted to the one they hate is slim, just as slim as being allotted to who they love. As a result, we got lots of not-love but utilitarian pairings. The colony will go on.
For this to work, the pool needs to be equal in size on either bucket. The order of drawing is randomized in the shown fashion (the initial person might be determined by drawing their name by the town council after throwing a coin for the gender).
Now comes the crux why this system: The chance to get your love or hate becomes extremely slim! As [Franklin](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/180367/25822) calculated his love cycles, he did not take into account the gender of the people. But in randomizing the marriages and enforcing only procreating pairings, we suddenly reduce the chance of getting paired with your love or hate as either of them might be in the wrong pool for you:
Assuming you are the first to draw, and your love and hate are of the same gender as you are from a different age bracket, you have a chance of $0$ to draw them. If they are both of opposite gender and in the opposite group, your chance is $\frac 2 {\frac N 2} = \frac 4 N$ - which is why we want a huge pool in the first place. The chances do start to fluctuate around those numbers for subsequent people, as their love/hate will be eliminated from (or never has been in) the pool.
To ensure that nobody gets to marry their love/hate, there might be an additional provision under which someone that draws their cursed partner immediately has to redraw or society accepts some nonprocreating families as fate did not deem either to be worthy of procreation.
# Nobody gets married, artificially insemination only!
Or we throw out the mere concept of marriage. **Nobody** gets to be betrothed to anyone. The concept of family is thrown out. Instead, the council of geneticists demands sperm samples from all males and egg samples from all females. The best genetic combinations are evaluated and the resulting embryos reimplanted to the women. Every woman might have the civic duty to bear two kids but might opt for more, and because this is an issue of state, the colony will pay them for their duty.
# It's a brave new world
But then again, why at all keep procreating the normal way? Aldous Huxley gave us a [Brave New World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World), where people have sex just for fun, and new life is made only in the lab. You screw around with whoever catches your fancy. Love is seen as a mental illness and marriage is unthinkable. No, you partner up for a night in the hay to get steam off, then part again, and nobody ever needs to be pregnant because that is all gross. And when your life ends, you get cremated and your phosphor turned into fertilizer.
[Answer]
I like the other answers that essentially decouple love from procreation. The answers that assign partnerships at random or use artificial insemination and group child rearing are all perfectly reasonable. But suppose you want to do a little better than random chance. What if you want your citizens to feel like they have some say in the matter? Rank choice voting to the rescue!
At pairing time, everyone submits a ballot that ranks all their potential mates in order of preference. Presumably this means you put your crush #1 while your crush ranks you dead last in return. But there have to be some people out there who kinda looks like your crush, or maybe act like them in some endearing way, or are just a solid alternate choice for your preferences. You get to put those people near the top.
Now the matching algorithm goes to work. Each person's score is the sum of all their rankings from those still left unpaired, and the person with the lowest score is matched to his/her most preferred partner still remaining in the pool. Repeat this until everyone is matched.
Now, nobody gets their first choice, but the odds are good that for any given pairing, someone is getting a partner that ranked as more preferred than what they would have gotten by random chance. And as a bonus, everyone knows they had some say in the matter and probably feel more invested in their partner as a result. Sure, some will get a partner very far down on the list, but there won't be as many in that situation as purely random pairings. It's a society where no one gets their first choice so good enough is good enough.
[Answer]
If you watch the *Black Mirror* episode "Hang the DJ" it might give you some additional ideas and insight into the idea of 'indoctrinated' social norms and the 'power' of unrequited love.
In this case, two people were in love with each other, which doesn't follow your question, but the original premise you're given at the beginning of the episode is that a computer matches people together for an indeterminate time according to an algorithm that, in the end, will eventually cause them to have the perfect pairing, even though there is no proof of that being true. Everybody still believes this, though, and therefore follows the social norm of having sex with their 'new' partners almost immediately after the pairing.
This could cause those with 'unrequited' love to follow the 'norm' in the belief that eventually they will be paired with their love. And of course with all the sex going on eventually there will be babies. The point is, though, that social indoctrination that some 'higher' power, whatever that power may be, is the proper way to be matched with mates is often a harder mold to break out of than what personal preference may dictate and that, as has been pointed out, has been going on for a long time in many different societies.
[Answer]
A whole lot of face f\*\*\*ing.
Depending on the type of narrative you are running with, it might be fun to explore the new sexual culture that would develop from how unusually obsessed people are with someone who is not their sexual partner. Imagining someone else's face while doing the deed is already fairly common. Agreeing to roleplay as the desired person exists too. With every single person having essentially this same scenario, everything would be far more common, acceptable (or taboo) and the culture surrounding this would likely have developed and grown significantly.
Especially if people know about the curse. It is fair to say that some creativity and ingenuity would have expanded this area. Holograms? Suits? Masks? AI? There is a lot of potential.
[Answer]
Maybe they can ask officers Habib, Goody and fireman Gary if they managed to work something out.
HABIB: So you fancy Kevin, Kevin fancies me and I fancy you.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/TqKB3.jpg)
[the thin blue line - Too beautiful too die](https://youtu.be/b7WQhEo_WJU)
] |
[Question]
[
Now I know the cheeky answer would be "of course it's possible, it's ***your*** world, you decide what happens in it" but I'm asking this from a general point of view.
Is it really inevitable that as a civilization forms, religion and gods will always crop up whether they're real in that world or not?
Of course, the civilization in question **could** maybe someday move to a completely science based approach to things discarding the concept of gods completely as time goes on but they would've still started from the god perspective so that is a moot point.
Edit:
Thank you so much for the wealth of responses! Although I can only choose one as an answer, I'm reading each and every response I get because it's chock full of insight!
[Answer]
I'm answering this from the perspective of someone who is:
1: An Atheist and
2: Grew up in a Religious family.
Despite my non-belief in God, there does seem to be some pretty strong evidence given the fact that **all** cultures have a belief system of sorts - that there will be a concept of God.
Some Deists would argue this to be proof of the Divine, but as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, even if we accept the Deist position (there is some form of supernatural being) - we still have a long way to go from 'There is a God' to 'And it's this one in particular'
Now, I'll grant you that whilst we have a sample size of thousands for Culture, we only have a sample size of 1 for Humans.
In terms of Gods - if we look at those cultures, most of the God(s) were responsible for something important.
Ra - the Sun God - Sunlight is pretty important.
Hades - The God of the Underworld/Death - Death is pretty important.
Odin - God of Wisdom - Not being an idiot is pretty important.
Athena - Goddess of Battle Cunning - being able to out-smart those you can't out-muscle - pretty important.
and so on and so forth.
On the flipside, you have Gods for things that we couldn't explain:
Apollo - the God of Disease (and healing)
Loki - God of Earthquakes (among other things)
R≈´aumoko - Also, God of Earthquakes.
You could make the generalized assumption that for Humanity, we have created gods to either explain away things that we can't explain (Floods, Lightning, Earthquakes, disease) or for things that we think are important.
Even the Abrahamic religions, in their monotheistic sense manifest elements of that.
I say all this to lead to the answer:
If you have a civilization that either:
1: Doesn't consider anything important (Highly ulikely)
2: Has an explanation for everything (Also, highly unlikely in the first instance)
Then, for a Human civilization, you could make a case for no Gods.
**However**
You'll note the world 'human' - Civilizations in a made up setting don't have to be human, and whilst I suspect that our global religions are a consequence of higher intelligence, language and being highly social - there's no proof of this - and so a Non-Human civilization could easily have no gods and no concept of religion because their brains are wired differently.
To end on - for a Human Civilization, I don't think it's reasonable - we seem to have a need to believe in something to explain the unexplainable and to prioritize the values that we think are important.
But for Non-Humans? Go for Gold!
[Answer]
Humans have a significant bias towards viewing a given cause to have agency.
Ie, if something falls and makes a noise in another room, we seem to have a bias towards assuming something with agency caused the noise.
This causes positive errors -- falsely ascribing agency to an agency-less event. But if you hear a noise and you say "probably nothing" and you are wrong, you just got eaten. If you hear a noise and say "what creature caused that", you lost some sleep.
The error of assigning agency when there is none has less short-term harm than the error of missing agency when there is some.
When you take this error and apply it to natural phenomena you end up with ascribing agency to lightning bolts, thunder, tides, volcanoes, famines, etc. These agents are otherwise undetectable, amazing powerful, and everywhere.
Ie, you get gods.
So to avoid gods in a civilization, you need some way to avoid the over-use of the agency bias. A counter-cultural aversion to agency bias might do it, or a different biological makeup to the creatures in the culture.
If there are no predators that eat people who ignore noises in the night, for example, the evolutionary and cultural pressure for agency bias would be much less.
It still leaves social competition as a significant source of pressure. Humanizing the agency is another quirk we have; our brains seem to spend a huge amount of effort working out how other humans act and behave around us, as we are a social species and your social status in your local group matters hugely to your survival.
Treating everything not only as having agency, but being human-like, seems another bias we have. We anthropomorphise animals and natural phenomena and luck.
A species that evolved in a less social group with less need to model other creatures of its own type might have less bias here. Its "gods" (agents causing the natural world) wouldn't be as likely to be "self-like" like human gods are.
[Answer]
It seems entirely possible for a civilization not to have a concept of god. And there are even examples on Earth (depending on how you define "god"). For example
Jainism: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism>
Buddhism: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism>
Taoism: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism>
Of course it is also possible to define god in such a way that it is impossible to not have it. God is a weasel word that means different things to different people.
[Answer]
I wouldn't say completely impossible, but **it would be unprecedented.** There were many attempts to remove gods from society by force or happenstance, *all* of which in the end amounted to merely replacing the existing gods with something/somebody else, who was then called by a different name but treated functionally the same. These replacements could be political leaders (personality *cult* is exactly what it says on the tin), concepts (like Reason, which was at the center of revolutionary France's state religion), ideologies or philosophical positions (like say The Invisible Hand of the Market). Even famous artists could fill in a role of lesser gods; Church of Elvis was (is?) a thing too. It's like they say: if it walks, barks, quacks etc. like a concept of a God, then it is a concept of a God, and the rest is semantics.
[Answer]
## If your people have Theory of Mind, then they will have Gods
If you're talking about a society of HUMANS, then, no, it can't happen, and here's why.
One of the most significant developments of the simian mind is the ability to model other people's behavior in a way that allows us to predict how they would react to a specific circumstance. If I poke you *there* then you will probably jump, and you might hit me. This facility allows us to live in large social clusters without harming each other.
This is called "Theory of Mind." It starts to kick in when we're about 2, and continues to develop into our 20's. A lot of what makes teenagers so challenging is that they're attempting to apply their Theory of Mind to other parts of reality, and it fails. Those that fail to develop an effective Theory of Mind capacity are labeled *anti-social* and we marginalize them.
Like all tools, it isn't just useful for the thing it was developed to manage. We use Theory of Mind as a shortcut to understand things like entire social groups and governments. It's a lot easier to say "Japanese be like that" than to understand the underlying complexity of their society. It makes a functional approximation for trade and social interactions, even if it isn't good enough for diplomacy.
The problem comes in when we start using Theory of Mind to understand natural systems. That is how we wind up anthropomorphizing things like rivers and thunder. Our language suggests that water "wants" to roll downhill. Einstein says "God doesn't play dice with the universe." This is all about us using Theory of Mind as a hammer model.
Thus, my supposition is that "Gods" are an unavoidable consequence of mankind's attempts to mis-apply Theory of Mind to natural systems. If your people have a cognitive mechanism for understanding each others' thought processes, then chances are they will start thinking that there is a thought process behind the way the world works. This is where Gods come from.
[Answer]
I'm gonna provide an example that implies it's actually possible.
There are semi-isolated Pirahã people of Amazon rainforest, with whom anthropologists and missionaries had a hard time talking about Christianity—because the natives don't have a concept of thirdhand narratives. When the missionaries talked of Jesus Christ, the folks asked when the preachers met this Jesus dude and whether they saw him perform all those wonders. Explanations of ‘Jesus lived a long time ago’ just didn't cut it—the natives didn't understand how and why the missionaries talked about someone whom they never seen.
[Wikipedia notes:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people)
>
> As far as the Pirah√£ have related to researchers, their culture is concerned solely with matters that fall within direct personal experience, and thus there is no history beyond living memory. According to Everett, the Pirah√£ have no concept of a supreme spirit or god, and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made.
>
>
>
>
> However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.
>
>
>
I have to wonder if Everett saying that the resurrection stuff occurred last Tuesday would finally convince the Pirah√£.
These are the same people [whose language is sorta famous](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_language) for either having only numerals for one and two, or none at all—researchers can't figure that out for certain. Plus, there are a bunch of other unusual features in the language.
*Edit: I guess, though, that animism is the chosen religion of Pirahã because it's much easier to pass on as ‘personal experience’ than a belief explicitly based on an ancient story. One simply points out things in the environment and says “yeah that thing got some attitude”. OTOH examples recounted on Wikipedia include experiences that delve further into imagination territory:*
>
> *Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that "Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle." Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.*
>
>
>
[Answer]
I think it is possible, if we are talking specifically about **Gods.** Supernatural deities, singular powerful entities that think and emote much like humans.
Many pagans believe in supernatural phenomenon, particularly souls, but do not believe in any Gods.
Many are animists (look up "animism"), and believe souls exist in streams, trees, all animals, all plants, mountains, the Sun and Moon, etc. That the Sun can be happy and give us a pretty day, that the river can be angry and raging. But the river is just another living thing; not an eternal being with any magical powers other than its own body, just like a person.
Likewise, people can believe in reincarnation, without believing anybody is in charge. Wiccans can believe in magic, without believing in any gods, they just believe magic is a force in the universe that we can learn to harness, much like magnetism.
I think it is entirely possible for people raised with such beliefs that they do not conceive of any eternal god-like beings at all. It would be contrary to the beliefs they were trained in since infancy, that most things, at least those that appear to change or move, have souls, feelings, and emotions.
It is just a simple extension of their experience with humans and animals, that clearly have moods, fears, happiness, angers, even love.
Any attempts to attribute this stuff to a god would be rejected, as robbing the animals, the river, the forest of their individuality and agency. And rejected enough that the notion disappears from their civilization:
All living things by nature have souls and some degree of autonomy and emotions. All kings are just living beings, that can die, that will die someday, for that is the nature of life. None are invulnerable, or all-knowing. It is ludicrous to even entertain the thought!
I'd start from paganism and/or animism and evolve it from there to suit your purpose. Technically these are atheistic, they don't believe in any deities.
Eventually, with scientific advancement, you can tone down the magical component to a minor factor in this civilization.
[Answer]
It does seem so from history. Religion does seem world-wide. When people establish a God-less state, such as after the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution, it seems to re-establish itself. However, the image of God seems to vary according to the believer.
A possible explanation is given by Julian Jaynes book on [the bicameral mind](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind). Briefly, he suggests that the 'voices in our head' such as our conscience telling us not to harm others were seen as voices from an external agency, and also fits of passion may be visited from outside. The Gods of the Odessey are like that. The Gods of the Iliad are less visible, less present, more mysterious; and the protagonists consider some of the 'voices in their head' to be part of them. Extend this process, and the God of today is not 'above the clouds, raining thunderbolts' because we know about electrical storms, and the like; so God is more abstract and mysterious.
There is no proof of this. Science does not take sides. For some, the idea of a God is an unrewarding hypothesis, while others believe and are still effective scientists. However, if and when we get on top of AI, the study of belief may get an experimental basis.
[Answer]
See, throughout history, every civilization we know of started out worshipping some sort of deities. Why is that? Were the ancient people just more gullible? I don't think so. Here's my hot take.
When you don't understand jack about the world, it's freaking scary! Storms, earthquakes, disease - it's all random chaos. So we humans tried to make sense of it by imagining gods controlling everything. Zeus throws lightning bolts! Gods send plagues when they're ticked off! It's all part of some divine plan. Phew, feels better now.
Plus, believing the sun is a fiery chariot flown by Apollo really brings people together. Nothing bonds a community like ritually sacrificing oxen to ensure the harvest gods bless you with nutrition!
[Answer]
**No, but not for the reason you might think**
We have one and only one data point: Earth. Based on Earth's history, the advent of curiosity combined with the beginnings of reason and speech will always lead to a desire to explain things to your neighbor - like why your spouse had to die at a young age or why your crops failed. Understanding the underlying biology, physics, chemistry, etc. will always come much, much later. Therefore, from a human perspective (and this is the important part), *we can't relate to the idea of early humanity not developing the idea of gods.* And once you develop the idea of gods, you instantly have people ready to step in and lead the worship of said gods... aka, religion.
So the real issue isn't "can I create a species that develops without depending on the concepts of gods and religion?" Of course you can (and not just in the trivial, "it's your world" way). All we need to do is figure out a few evolutionary pressure points that would lead to special1 stoicism and Bob's your uncle.
*But your readers wouldn't relate to it.*
At least not well. If you're expecting your readers to wholly believe your species can exist then you have a long row to hoe, because we have no experience whatsoever in the idea that it can happen and whatever rationalization you come up with will matter little because that's not what happened to us.
So, from the perspective of "is it possible?" (which always presumes "in Real Life") the answer is no. We have no evidence whatsoever that it's possible and I expect all speculation would be received with a skeptical eye.
**But does that matter?**
No, it doesn't. I'm not a fan of "is it possible?" questions because they imply that you want a *factual* answer rather than a *believable* answer. I do believe you can come up with sufficient rationale to produce suspension of disbelief in a story. Especially if you're using that characteristic of the species to make a point in your story, helping your human readers to better comprehend "the human condition" through the eyes of your aliens. In that regard, the answer is yes.
**One more thing...**
Please keep in mind that the persistence of belief in god has, in a very simplified way, two reasons: humans experience and fear the unexplainable. We do not know what happens after death. Science can point out that the chemistry that keeps us alive stops — but it's impossible to prove "there's nothing there, no bright light, no loving ancestors, no benign being...." It will always be impossible to prove that, and so long as it is impossible, there will always be people who fear that unknown and seek comfort in belief in the divine.
Similarly, we humans occasionally experience the unexplainable. Call them miracles, gifts of the Spirit, attendance of our Ancestors, whatever. You can even go so far as to complain that either (a) the individual simply hasn't received the education necessary to realize it wasn't miraculous or (b) science hasn't progressed far enough to prove that it isn't miraculous. The reality is that the individual becomes overwhelmed with a (usually positive) outcome that "can't be explained." Like the feeling of relief when you avoid an accident that you're sure couldn't have been avoided. Poof, god.
Full disclosure: I am very religious myself. There's a great deal of space between the facts of science and the mystery of faith. With each increase in science that gap widens, not narrows. All that's lost is the rationalization of people long past who couldn't better articulate the wonders around them. As an engineer I have no trouble combining the two: there is certainly an explanation to everything. And that in no way excludes the existence of someone who knows those explanations.
How does all that relate to your question? The ability to believe in your aliens rests on your aliens' ability to *deal with the experience and fear of the unexplainable* in a way that doesn't require millennia of theists, poets, philosophers, and intellectuals. You need to develop within them the capacity to live with the unknown without explaining it, justifying it, or leveraging it (that's important! How many wars have been fought over religion?). That's why it'll be difficult for your human audience to relate to your aliens.
And to make my point, I want you to think about how much you want the reader to relate to and believe in your non-existent alien species while you're trying to justify a non-belief in what could be described as another non-existent alien species. It's quite a challenge!
---
1 *That's pronounced "spee-see-al," not "speh-shal." The former pronunciation describing something that relates to a species and the latter describing something notable. English — ya gotta love it.*
[Answer]
Many answers here sufficiently explain how supernatural beings are spun out of humanities need to ascribe motivation and narrative to natural sources, so I won't expand on this here.
So, what would we need to change to stop this from happening?
Imagine a tribe who - for cultural or biological reasons - will not accept a vague or unambigious answer to questions like "What was that?", or "Why did that happen?".
"Dad why did the river flood?", "I don't know son, we see that water flows down hill, and that river comes from those mountains, maybe it rained a lot in the mountains but really we don't know".
"Dad, why does water flow down hill", "We don't know".
"Dad, maybe a giant peed in the river!", "Maybe son, but he'd need to be very giant to make the river flood, and we've never seen a person that big. So we don't know if giants that big exist".
If there's societal pressure to not accept easy answers without evidence, from the get go, then there's no opportunity for gods to be spun out of the need to put order on the randomness of the natural world.
The real problem here is the conceit that humanity knows it can reason and water cannot reason, that people have motivations, but water doesn't. There needs to be a reason why "Dad why does Ug **want** to hit Tharg?" is a perfectly valid question but "Dad why does water **want** to flow down hill" is not a valid question.
You can just make the people be that way, but giving them a reason to be that way would be better (If I think of anything I'll update this answer)
[Answer]
I don't believe it's possible for a civilization to never develop a concept of a god, no.
We humans are problem-solvers. We use our sapience to figure out patterns in things, understand what these patterns mean and then use this understanding to choose a course of action that will benefit us. However, that means we don't deal well with situations where we can't figure out any patterns, when things appear to happen at random.
So sometimes, if people can't figure out any patterns in why a e.g. flood happens, rather than accept that this devastating thing happens randomly and there is nothing you can do to stop it from happening, they will invent patterns they do understand. So they invent an intelligence that controls these events, which may be a spirit of a god. You can't control the god that is causing the flood, but at least you can bargain with it, you can do things to keep it pleased, like sacrificing livestock and praying to it. You can do something to at least reduce the possibility of the flood happening again. It's a way of trying to take control of the situation. Of course it's not real control, but it feels better.
[Answer]
Gods (and therefore religion) are the product of three parallel features of our brains that interact with "civilization":
1. hierarchy (which is *ancient*),
2. superstition\* (an emergent property of our highly interconnected brains) and
3. a desire for fairness (which is probably also ancient, given that monkeys, fish, dogs and probably others can also detect unfairness).
Thus, the human species wouldn't be what we recognize as human without the "bell curve tendency" (some people obsessively religious, most people kinda religious and some people atheists/naturalists) towards religion.
Superstition, though, might not be an emergent property of Space Alien species that evolved *differently*.
\*a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief. Source: <https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/>
[Answer]
Depend on how you define a god. If your definition is any being with supernatural powers then no such society exists. But if your definition is a being who created the universe or something along those lines, Then tons of societies fit the bill.a
[Answer]
The Piraha people are generally believed to have no concept of a Supreme Being or "God". This may be a misinterpretation of their actual beliefs by researchers though as they do believe in "Spirits", however they claim they can literally *see* these spirits. We don't know enough about their culture to know if these spirits are truly analagous to deities, but it doesn't seem like it.
They have no creation myth, they do not have a tradition of storytelling that we know of. It's built into their language that these concepts just do not exist.
Their culture/language is very literal. They require evidence based on personal experience if they're going to believe anything you say. They were initially interested in Christianity when exposed to it, but lost interest when they found out the missionaries had never personally met Jesus.
Piraha who are multi-lingual do sometimes seem to take stories from other cultures. Portugese, and Tupi, however they don't have any of their own myths/accounts of the past.
Oral histories/collective memory is generally acknowledged to only last about two generations among the Piraha people.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people>
[https://news.mit.edu/2016/data-amazonian-piraha-language-debate-0309#:~:text=Some%20linguists%2C%20including%20one%20who,have%20disagreed%20with%20such%20claims](https://news.mit.edu/2016/data-amazonian-piraha-language-debate-0309#:%7E:text=Some%20linguists%2C%20including%20one%20who,have%20disagreed%20with%20such%20claims).
[https://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/Everett.CA.Piraha.pdf](https://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/%7Ekay/Everett.CA.Piraha.pdf)
[Answer]
## Firstly; what is God?
There are many definitions for God that would represent some people's usage. For some, God is the creat**or**, for others, God is the thing that created everything; for others, God is the most powerful being that exists, for others, God is the (most powerful) principle(s) of reality, and for some, God is everything. God could be anything from a consciousness that created the universe, to the universe itself. So, ask yourself, what is God in this context? What kind of God is it that you want your civilization to not have even conceptualized?
I'll answer for the different options I listed:
**God as the universe:**
Your civilization would have to be really stupid to not realize there is a universe. If you are conscious, then you are aware of stimuli. If you have a shred of meta-cognition, you are aware of your awareness. If you have an ounce of ability for abstraction, you can then refer to all that you experience (and maybe refer also to the mysteries beyond that experience), and assign a name to it; *the universe.* If your civilization is not capable of doing that, then its hard to imagine how they even became a civilization, let alone how they are going to make for interesting characters.
So, your civilization will likely have the concept of the universe in hand. So, once one has begun referring to *all there is,* one might be met with a feeling of immensity. Maybe they have also stumbled upon the concept of infinity, and ascribe this to their concept of the universe? Well, then those feelings will only be stronger. If their minds has their species' equivalent of our tendency to anthropomorphize, then they might very well ascribe a kind of character to the universe; a character that could readily be described as God.
The more general tendency of seeing animacy in inanimate elements is likely a mechanism of survival. It's better to be safe than sorry; if that bush rustles, it's better to interpret it as a predator, and thus prepare oneself or run, than it is to reckon that it's just the wind. This mechanism thus leads to all kinds of feelings of animacy in inanimate things. So, if your species does not have this tendency to feel animacy in things, then it is less likely for them to have even survived in the first place.
However, there can be compensatory mechanisms in this case. If their universe is extremely cold and unforgiving, they might come to the conclusion that it definitely isn't God, because they cannot/will not imagine a being so apathetic/cruel enveloping them at all times. It's then better to just think of it as mindless space and matter.
**God as the creator/thing that created everything:**
This definition of God, and the previous, are not mutually exclusive.
For God to have created everything, there must be a beginning. If your civilization gets it into their head that the universe has existed forever, then there is no time for a creation, and thus, no creator/prime mover. So, if they for some reason believe/know the universe is eternal, this can explain why they do not believe in a creator/prime mover.
Another way, that has a lot more plot impact, but would be kind of fascinating, is if the civilization has no concept of time. Without a concept of time, there is no beginning; no creation; no creator/prime mover. Not sure how this could work, but I found it too interesting a possibility to leave out.
**God is the most powerful being:**
It's hard to not have a concept of the most powerful being. If you can conceptualize power as a quantity, then you can conceptualize *the most powerful being*.
Thing is, if you do not believe anyone/anything is particularly powerful, then *the most powerful being* might not be alone in that role, nor be anything particularly special. Although that being would technically be God given the above definition, there is few that would recognize them as *God.*
**God is the (most powerful) principle(s) of reality:**
Some think God is the laws of reality; others think God is particularly the ultimate law(s) of reality. God is gravity; God is 1 + 1 = 2; God is the fact that all things die, etc.
I think such a conception is sufficiently abstract that you do not really need to explain why your civilization did not conceive of it. It is not really natural to think of rules as a being; we rather think of rules as the creations of beings.
**Further research:**
See [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGjuRwx_Y8) of a guy posing, among other things, theological questions to Hadzabe tribe members.
[Answer]
I'd like to answer this in a slightly different way.
In your world, does "progress" exist? Is there civilization, do characters exist? I'm going to assume yes, a character exists in this world, and they share some human like traits.
If the species this character belongs to are curious and they want to understand the world, the first basic observation I think one can make is that of cause and effect.
How does cause and effect manifest in a primeval world, that their ancestors lived?
Well if you observe around you, a boulder can be caused to roll down a hill on it's own, but never up a hill. If a boulder gets to the top of a hill, then you must conclude a person did it.
This is a reasonable assumption, every cause in the natural world is caused by a human, and the effects are totally determined by the natural laws of that world.
So when a non naturalistic cause happens (like grass growing, the tides changing, heat being created) who was the causer?
It is a natural conclusion to project oneself onto it, and say the personified sun causes the heat. The personified moon causes the tides.
They would be a reflection of their own culture, maybe initially just metaphors but over time taken more literally.
Don't just start with gods, start with the society, and the values and nature of that society and ask yourself what myths they would tell themselves to explain morality or natural causes.
If they value justice, it makes sense to personify justice as a "god" who acts and judges.
If they have some unique environmental phenomenon, like say on this planet it rains glass, well how could they personify it?
There is a god of glass who wanted to marry the god of justice but he could see she had a wicked heart and denied her. Out of anger she broke the scales of justice. This blinded the god of justice so he could no longer see her evil, but without his sense of justice, he got angry and cruel. As retribution he turned her into a glass scale. This allowed him to judge right from wrong again but was very fragile. Whenever an act tips the scales too much, she is destined to shatter and rain glass upon the land. The raining of glass is then associated with a great evil (or even a great goodness) having occurred, and the fragility of the scales of justice explain why evil can still exist. People then look at the glass rain as the fulfilling of various prophecies or events in the world, and can be used to add thematic depths with various interpretations of what the rain means and what could've caused it.
I think, given enough diversity and time, stories like the above would naturally occur.
[Answer]
*Obvious disclaimer: Atheist trying to describe the founding principles of religion - assume any bias you think is fair.*
**Laying some groundwork**
Religion is, at its very core, a form of deference to a higher power. "Higher power" here means "able to do things that we cannot".
It is no different from me relying on Gordon Ramsay to make me a better Eggs Benedict than I can. I defer to his expertise. He can make a hollandaise, I cannot.
However, we can generally agree on Gordon Ramsay being better than me, because there has been demonstrable proof of him cooking great food - and I happen to have seen a video with him making hollandaise and people liking it.
But what if I told you that I defer to John Doe to make me a better Eggs Benedict than I can, because I've seen John jumping up and down yesterday and that's why I'm convinced he's a great chef?
That doesn't sound as logically sound anymore.
What if I told you that I defer to Jane Doe to make me a better Eggs Benedict than I can, because I've seen lots of people going to her house in the morning and eating the food she makes, and that's why I'm convinced she's a great chef?
We can argue this both ways. Maybe it is proof (why else would people go there and eat food?) but maybe it isn't (maybe she tells great stories and people eat her mediocre food since they're sitting there anyway).
We can argue whether we consider the evidence to be sufficient, but from my perspective, it's the same principle at play in all three cases. I have seen evidence, which is valid by my standards, that lead me to believe that Gordon/John/Jane can make a great Eggs Benedict.
"My standards" is the key takeaway here. Belief is an inherently personal thing, because it requires clearing a subjective bar, not a universally objective one. This bar can be different for other people. Maybe some people believe in the meaning of colored socks, or because a loved one believes, or ...
**To answer your question**
As a society grows, we learn to specialize in jobs. This inherently comes with needing to put your trust in others to do their jobs. This trust is based on evidence, and whether you accept the evidence depends on your subjective standards on evidence.
The only difference between me trusting someone else to make me a great Eggs Benedict and a deity making sure that we have a bountiful harvest next year are:
* I have seen sufficient evidence to believe that this person/entity can do so
We already discussed this, it's subjective to every person.
* I either know of or have assumed there to be a person/entity that can do so.
This is the tricky one. I knew Gordon Ramsay, the person, slightly before I was told what he could do. But I can invert that. I could see a restaurant with lots of customers, therefore assume that there must be good food there, and therefore assume there must be someone making all this food.
My belief in the existence of the chef can be concrete (I have met the person) or can be indirect (I have seen good food around)
The belief in the existence of God is effectively a combination of two things:
* I have seen things that I am convinced are not just a stroke of luck, someone must have intentionally done this.
* No one I know of is capable of doing this, and therefore I infer there must be another party (who I have not met) who is doing all of this.
And there you have it, a religion is born, and the individual steps that got us there are rooted in the cornerstone of any civilization: deferring to someone else who has more expertise, even if you don't personally know them.
I don't see a way for a civilization to organically establish itself *without* some people being liable to make the assumption of the existence of a deity because of the (inherently required) deference to others' expertise, and without that deference, we never learn to divide jobs and work together as a society.
[Answer]
## Let god, aliens or randomness oppose the idea
Not meant as a joke; You could go into the direction of some "outer" force actively preventing it.
* God / aliens try to shape a population where any behavior that implies belief / religion has immediate negative consequences, so people learn to only make "scientific" assumptions
* Make your world so (static and deterministic, maybe?) that the scientific method yields extremly good/reliable results & leads to fast improvements
[Answer]
**According to meme theory, religion is a requirement for civilization, at least in humans.**
Meme theory is a model popularized by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins that imagines bits of information as being divided into units called "memes" and acting analogously to viruses and subject to the same laws of evolution as living things, with the host for such an "information virus" being a human mind. Memes thus reproduce by causing a human to transmit them to other humans through specific behaviors, speech, and the creation of cultural artifacts. Memes and their hosts can be thought of as interacting in a feedback loop, each influencing each other's capabilities of surviving and replicating.
Here is a little tangent:
Humans have what is called the Dunbar's Number, which is the number of people with which one can have stable social relationships and how everyone relates to everyone else. It is currently accepted to be around 150, although the 95% confidence interval is 100 to 230. Past that, everyone else is just a faceless other. One does not know whether this person he just met on the streets is willing to cooperate with him, what his motives are, and how he gets along with people one knows. As one may have guessed, this is going to be an impediment towards having a society larger than 150 people. Thus, you cannot have a large society that is held together solely by empathy. Now, if only there was a way of quickly telling at a glance whether Ug is one of Us or not...
Enter religion. Religion is a set of memes comprising beliefs in the supernatural, along with rituals and ethics associated with it. When a group of people all partakes in the same communal rituals, everyone can immediately tell that everyone else present roughly adheres to the same code of conduct without having to spend as much time on forming and assessing social relationships. Thus, religion presents a way of bypassing the limit on the size of a society imposed by Dunbar's Number. In this model, the rituals associated with religious beliefs provide a way of quickly signaling that one adheres to the same code of conduct as other members of a group, while the ethics of that religion comprise said code of conduct itself. Belief in a deity and supernatural punishment would thus serve as justification as to why the code of conduct is the way it is and why one should follow it. Thus, for humans, belief in some deity is one of the prerequisites for a large civilization.
And let's be real here,
*"Ugh, why do we have to smoke seven different herbs on Wednesday and treat my fellow townspeople with hospitality and respect when I can just tell them to get lost since I got my clan to look out for me?"*
*"Because Alef the all-knowing rock god says so"*
*"And what if I don't care what that rock god says?"*
*"Then he'll be pissed and make a rockslide destroy our city and we'll all die"*
Is a far greater incentive to cooperate with people one doesn't know well, even if the belief is complete bullshit, than
*"Why should I cooperate with strangers when I got my family and clan to look out for me?"*
*"Because if we all do that, then maybe in 6 thousand years our descendants would be able to go to the moon and not worry about shitting themselves to death".*
Sidenote, [there is a hypothesis that belief in deities is something humans are genetically predisposed to.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene)
Of course, if you are writing about an alien species, rather than humans, anything goes. A species where every member lives and dies for a single individual and has no independent thought, or a species of telepaths that can readily probe one another's minds would probably have no need for religion in order to form a civilization.
**Further reading:**
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme>
[Answer]
There are popular fictitious societies that do not believe in gods. For example, the Vulcans from Star Trek no longer have that belief. At some point in their far past they did but they discarded them.
I think it would be hard to imagine a human civilization that did not have some percentage of people that believed in gods or something godlike, or even just a higher power which could be aliens or something. I think our imagination is too great and people tend to reach for something when greatly distraught or in peril.
[Answer]
As an atheist, I find it very strange to have religion in the first place.
When you can’t explain a natural phenomenon, why would you invent some obviously unlikely character or spirit? Does anyone seriously believe that the sun is a God? Does anyone seriously believe that lightning gets thrown down by some angry bearded man in the sky?
When you are lost and alone and in despair, why would you start inventing an imaginary friend and actually believe in them despite no evidence for their existence?
When somebody dies, why would anyone believe that they continue to live on in some imaginary place?
[Answer]
The divine as we know it, as a expression of the loop deformation. A tribe of creatures bounces between the ressource ceiling of its environment, diseases and neighbouring tribes. The result is instincts regarding correct behavior.
In the "valley" of peace & plenty, its important to not waste resources on anything but creating more genetic lottery tickets for the harsh future to come (no art, no music, no science, just procreation).
When the population increases and the resources ceiling closes in, its important to redirect the tensions of the hopeless youth outwards towards a common enemy. Thus its unbelievers, non-society integrated minorities who get the worst of it.
Then the resource ceiling comes down, its all out war against the neighbouring tribes- or if that fails civil war of the rich against the poor in various permutations. Gut willz it.
After that its reconstitution, forgiveness for the horrors of the past, the environment recovers, trade resumes, the valley awaits, in endless cycles.
This is god. Its in every creatures gut who has been prolonged exposed to this environment. It rewards optimizations for keeping itself optimal to this environment. It distrusts all non-environment behaviour.
The situation is universal, thus the retardation - or adaptions to it are universal.
It could only be avoided by a environment were the surplus always outgrows a exponential growing population. Or a population which limits itself out of a strong accord.
] |
[Question]
[
Let me explain what I mean.
Let's say an Alien civilization left a lot of devices on a planet or moon (in our solar system or wherever). They had a colony, want/wanted to Terraform (or "Xenoform") a world, or just their ship crashed on the surface. Those extraterrestrial beings would be much more advanced than humankind, so they would have better propulsion systems in their starships, better weapons (lasers or whatever), etc. The biggest space agencies on Earth would start a space race and excavate those Alien ruins (some artifacts would be damaged or under the ground). Everyone wants a share of this wonderful Alien technology to advance their respective countries.
And now for the question: **What kind of resources (that are rare on Earth) could advance the human race?**
I know that antimatter is very difficult and expensive to create on our planet. So if ET's stored a big quantity of antimatter (in special containers that would not react with ordinary matter) it would certainly benefit humanity to build antimatter propulsion systems or weapons, for example. But what are other possibilities?
EDIT: Let me clarify what I mean by "could advance the human race" part:
1. We want to have the best weapons on Earth. Yes, I know that this is a double-edged sword and some of you will say "humanity will probably kill themselves, not advance" but remember that certain weapons can work as a deterrence (nuclear bombs currently have this role) and they can be used to defend against potential enemies from other Star systems. Or asteroids, for example.
2. New propulsion systems. We want to become a spacefaring civilization. The fastest something goes, the better.
3. Energy. The more energy can we take from the universe (sun, antimatter, whatever)and use it for our purposes (cheap electricity, for example)the better.
4. Exotic sci-fi technologies "enabled"! To sum it up: holograms, artificial gravity, flying cars, energy fields, better astronaut suits or battle armor. In this scenario, all those things are considered "good" and will advance humanity to the next level.
The best answer will tell me the kind of isotope, element, particle or some other thing that will get us to number 1, 2, and 3. No 4. is optional, consider that a bonus.
Some of you have replied that the best resource would be knowledge. I agree, in my story humanity will observe Alien devices/artifacts and conduct experiments on them. They will learn a lot of things, but many things will be so advanced that humanity will never learn (during the course of the story) their true purpose and utility. My imagination can take care of that.
However, some technology we could use even today requires things that we don't have. There are certain elements, isotopes and particles that are extremely rare on Earth, such as Hel-3. It can be something theoretical as well. And if we found (on The Moon, for example) those things it would certainly help humanity. So despite knowledge, there are plenty of things we could find and use to get further with our research. Keep that in mind.
[Answer]
## [Metallic hydrogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen)
This substance is believed to form under the extreme pressures and temperatures inside gas giants like Jupiter, and so far we are unable to produce large amounts of it here on Earth. But it's speculated it may be metastable at low temperatures and pressures(2)(4), so the disruption of gas giants in planetary collisions can even produce metallic hydrogen asteroids(1) that could be mined, even if nobody knows how to produce it artificially, not unlike ancient bronze-age cultures [were able](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun%27s_meteoric_iron_dagger) to use whatever meteoritic iron-nickel alloy they could put their hands on. It is also predicted to have extremely useful properties(3)(5).
(1). [“Observational Signatures of the Giant Planets Collisions”. Planetary and Space Science, vol. 78, abril de 2013, p. 64–68. www.sciencedirect.com, doi:10.1016/j.pss.2013.01.007.](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1202.5920.pdf)
(2). [Nellis, W. J. “Metastable solid metallic hydrogen”. Philosophical Magazine B, vol. 79, no 4, abril de 1999, p. 655–61. Taylor and Francis+NEJM, doi:10.1080/13642819908205741.](https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/2791/)
(3). [Silvera, Isaac F., e John W. Cole. “Metallic hydrogen: The most powerful rocket fuel yet to exist”. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 215, março de 2010, p. 012194. DOI.org (Crossref), doi:10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194.](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/215/1/012194/pdf)
(4). [Tenney, Craig M., et al. “On the possibility of metastable metallic hydrogen”. arXiv:1705.04900 [cond-mat, physics:physics], maio de 2017. arXiv.org, http://arxiv.org/abs/1705.04900.](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.04900.pdf)
(5). [McMahon, Jeffrey M., e David M. Ceperley. “High-temperature superconductivity in atomic metallic hydrogen”. Physical Review B, vol. 84, no 14, outubro de 2011, p. 144515. APS, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.84.144515.](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1106.5526.pdf)
[Answer]
## If We are talking Strictly Materials
There are a ton of options, it just depends on what you are trying to do:
Of the kinds of advanced fuels humans could figure out how to exploit today, anti-matter is probably it. Fusion fuels are already very easy for humans to produce in adequate quantities to power the whole world, but we do not know how to get a positive gain out of it. However getting energy out of anti-matter is super easy. Keeping it from releasing energy when you don't want it to, not so much, but hopefully the aliens figured that part out for you in whatever containment vessel is already holding it. Quarkium is a fuel that is theoretically better than antimatter. Since the binding strength of quarks goes up as you separate them, it may be theoretically possible to separate them enough to produce virtually limitless potential energy... but manipulating this kind of fuel would probably be well beyond human understanding; so, you could possibly find a Quarkium powered alien device, but not be able to to develop your own tech around it. Beyond that you have a few varieties of theoretical perpetual power sources that exploit persistent forces like gravity, magnetism, bonding resistance, etc: but these devices do not use fuel at all; so, in in this case your "material" could be a substance that violates our current understanding of conservation of mass and energy to produce power forever as long as it is being acted on by the force it exploits.
As for structural materials, humanity is still about an order of magnitude away from producing theoretically perfect crystalline structures in terms of how strong we can make our materials. So, it would be possible to find perfected versions of steel or carbon fibre that are about 10x stronger than what we have today. Because their quality comes from how it is manufactured much more so than what it is manufactured out of, you can not just melt these materials down to use however you want without ruining their crystal structure, but you could install them as is. So, if you find a stack of I-beams you have super I-beams, if you find a roll of wire, you have super wire, but if you turn super wire into I-beams, you get normal I-beams.
Another possibility would be to introduce things like nano-goo to make programmable materials. While a nanobot goo may not be able to make itself stronger than steel, you could use it for all sorts of stuff we just can't do yet. You could make guns that adjust their calibre with each shot based on the target you are firing at, or better yet, fire blobs of nano-goo designed to disassemble whatever it hits at the molecular scale so that a single bullet could (given enough time) destroy an entire tank. Or you could make "doors" that instead of opening just become amorphous as authorised people walk through them eliminating the possibility of unwanted things getting through. Or, you could make self-healing armor which may not stop a bullet as well as normal armor, but applied to something like a naval ship, it would mean a destroyer could get penetrated by torpedo after torpedo and not sink because each hole just seals right up. The list goes on.
## But Materials are not the best things you can find
The best discoveries are actually anything that we are already close to discovering ourselves. Most of what you find in an alien wreck will likely be so advanced that we do not even have the tools and/or foundational sciences to figure out how they work. So, if you scrounge up an antimatter drive for example, well... you have ONE antimatter drive and no clue how to safely install it on a ship of your own design to even get it doing something useful. It does not tell you how to manufacture your own anti-matter or how to make the exotic materials that go into the containment mechanism. In other words, it's not going to make a huge impact on your society unless you can find a lot of them.
To put this into terms that are easier to grasp, let pretend an F-22 were to crash land in Ancient Rome. They would find a bunch of really interesting fuel and explosives that they would have no clue how to replicate (if they even figure out what they do). They may find a first-aid kit full of modern medicines, but they will try to explain how they work according to the theory of the 4 humors; so, they might see what it does and be outright wrong about how it does it - making any attempt to replicate it futile (until they discover chemistry and microscopes, that is). The computers and electronics would be completely indecipherable as to what they are even there for. Lastly, many of the most advanced technologies like radar absorbing paint would be so far past their level of understanding that they would not even know they are looking at something technologically significant.
So what would the Romans learn from an F-22...? Well, a lot actually. The Romans were very scientifically minded people despite thier lack of knowledge base that we have today. They could replicate the suspension in the landing gears to make better wagons. They understood air pressure fairly well; so, they might be able to figure out how to generate lift based on the shape of the wings giving them hang-glider technology. They may even be able to figure out how to make an air gun based on the design of the fighter's 20mm autocannon. In other words, the most valuable things on the plane to a technologically inferior people are actually its lowest tech parts that most resemble what they already have.
Likewise your people will benefit most from the most basic components of the alien ship. We might find a valve somewhere on it that increases the efficiency of common industrial practices. Or we might discover a new structural pattern that helps us make stronger, lighter objects. Or we might find a material we already know about being used for something we did not realize it could be used for. So, at least in the short term, it would be the least significant technologies that would advance us the most because they are the ones we can replicate and make ubiquitous within our civilization.
## The Exception to the Rule
One possible technology that would completely undermine my entire answer and transform human civilization more than any other possible single technology or material would be a colony seed replicator. To clarify, a colony seed replicator is not exactly the same as a Star Trek style replicator. It is a device that contains in it all of the technology needed to spread a civilization to a new world, and has the ability to assemble all of the things you need to do this from what you could find on a virgin planet. Basically, think Von Neumann Probe cranked up to 11. With such a device, you barely need to understand the alien technology at all because you would have an entire template library of alien technologies you can just print off at the press of a button... including more replicators.
Within a very short time, you could have enough replicators to replace the entire industrial needs of the planet, we could have our entire electrical grid replaced with the hand-wave energy generators of your choice to power them, we could have all the machines we need for processing the aliens' advanced fuels and materials, our enormous swaths of farmland could all be allowed to go back to nature as we could now produce the food we need from said energy sources, and our cities could be replaced with high-rise megastructures giving each person alive all the living space and luxuries they could desire. Jobs would become an unnecessary thing of the past as our society is abruptly shoved into post scarcity. And just in case anyone wants to leave the overnight utopia (distopia?) we create for ourselves, we could start making our own FTL ships to explore and colonize the universe.
Unlike other options that would involve long and tedious hours of learning how alien technology works, eventually maybe leading to new discoveries, a colony seed replicator would put all of those technologies in our hands now, and allows science to catch up to understanding how it all works in its own time.
Since you mentioned in comments wanting alien tech to have a religious significance, I would not actually put one in your setting or all alien tech would quickly become mundane, but if you put the IDEA of a colony seed replicator into your story, it would easily become the holy grail of your new religion.
[Answer]
There is an excellent book "[Roadside Picniс](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadside_Picnic)" about aliens visited Earth, and they created areas with artefacts and anomalous entities present (like areas with dramatically increased gravity, that could squish careless visitor). People called Stalkers visited these areas to gather artefacts.
As far as I remember this book, useful artefacts were:
>
> 1. Forever working battery, that could power a car called `Etag`
> 2. Bracelet, that could boost and stimulate regenerative functions of an organism.
> 3. Big Golden sphere, that could fulfil one wish.
> Probably, these artefacts were used differently by Aliens, but people used them this way.
>
>
>
In general, I think the most beneficial devices for humanity will be jump gates, FTL communication system, nanofabricators (that could generate anything from dust), free power generators, etc...
But it's quite boring, a lot of similar alien devices was already described in many books.
Furthermore, even if we find a nearly destroyed alien spaceship crashed into the Moon surface, it will give us insights, that we are not alone in the universe. It can boost interest in space exploration.
[Answer]
I agree with Nosajimiki’s answer, but a few concrete examples of technology we might discover or which at least allow us a breakthrough:
* “high temperature” superconductors
* Fusion reactors
* Super strong materials for building a space elevator or other projects which require high-strength materials (assuming we can replicate them)
* Quantum computers
[Answer]
**This is very subjective and you can use creative license to do almost anything with it**
Nosajimiki has probably given the best possible practical answer.
I would like to broaden the possibilities a little by adding that if the alien ship were designed to build and support a new colony then it would need to contain all of the resources necessary to nurture and teach an alien child about it's own race.
So notwithstanding our own inability to understand the tech, if the ship is a colony ship then it should also carry the means to understand the tech it carries via educational material, texts, cartoons, toys, and so forth - as one would expect to find in any school or nursery. As to how accessible this tech is, it would depend on whether or not the aliens decided to secure it somehow (ie some kind of security system which only works with alien DNA, etc) but if it isn't secured then we could find ourselves playing with alien preschool toys to learn about 5-dimensional space folding, and learning their language via the alien equivalent of BBC Bitesize.
If we can understand their language and gain access to their books then it would just be a matter of time before we can understand their civilisation. It might be the same as if that F-22 raptor had crashed in ancient Rome carrying 2,000 science books in it's bomb bays - it would take time but the Romans would figure out how to read them (yes they would have a head start vs us trying to understand aliens because they would be able to recognise the language as a variation of their own).
The point is that even if the tech were far beyond their current means, with the language in hand they would still be able to advance their knowledge very rapidly. They could even set up a school and invite scholars from all over the world to learn the language and study the books.
As to what tech, specifically, would completely revolutionise humanity?
FTL, far and wide. More valuable than anything else even remotely imaginable. It would grant us the ability to open up an endless frontier, to i̶n̶f̶e̶s̶t̶ explore the boundless universe and exploit virtually unlimited resources.
[Answer]
**The reason to go to another planet**
While the technology we need to go to the Moon/Mars/moons of the gas giants is not available today. I would argue that it would not take much of a concerted effort to develop the last bits we need. We mostly just need the reason to go. If we saw that there was a crashed alien spacecraft on another planet then that would be a pretty big reason and would drive a lot of development in space technology, even if it turned out there was nothing useful in the alien spacecraft.
Also once we know that FTL is possible I expect a lot of very smart people will start working on the problem. It would be quite hard/impossible to get funding to research FTL travel today. But if we knew aliens existed and they could travel FTL, well I expect governments will throw money at the problem. Even if we had no idea how they did it (or only some tiny piece of information recovered from the alien spacecraft).
[Answer]
### Written educational material.
Written educational material would be the artifact that would advance the human race the most.
The same thing that teaches the most about societies of the past, written material. With, in this case, the ultimate being texts that were specifically meant to educate. Alternatively digital record on a computer or digital library etc. That are actually readable/accessible.
Texts of how some of their equipment was made, principles behind it, will have more larger long term impact then just the tools themselves. Technologies do not have a big impact on societies until they are democratized.
Two people with a cell phone doesn't change the society. 90%+ with cell phones changes many things. A single ultra battery will not be as impactful as knowing the principles behind the the ultra battery.
### limitations of finding devices
Many devices if found will be useless.
* Does the device still have power?
* Can we decode the interface?
* Does it have the equivalent of DRM or other tech to prevent duplication?
* How do you avoid cargo cult? That is, a wheel suspension could be build that looks alien's device's wheel suspension. But do we have the right metallurgy for it to work? Was the it active suspension and we are missing the firmware controlled actuator?
* Components that we know the composition, but how it was made is the secret sauce.
[Answer]
**Religious artifacts**
The artifacts found provide clear evidence of higher powers and some ability to contact and commune with these higher powers. The result: a new religion. This not only unifies humanity but offers principles that organize and order human culture in a more enlightened way.
[Answer]
**Information!**
* A map of where powerful and hostile alien races live, to be avoided.
* A record of the future - not a cultural history, but a stellar history of which stars would explode, black holes form, or when and other dangerous macro events to avoid (or profit from) will occur
* Map of last known location and trajectory of lost spaceships that have not been found yet, useful for salvage operations
* Comprehensive toxicology reports for many worlds
* Economic analyses of what goods and services are prized by different worlds, for the purpose of trade
* Protocols (and passwords) for tapping into Galactinet, a hyperspatial information system
**Biology:**
* The mind transfer process: how to clone an alien life and move your consciousness into it. Great for espionage or colonizing planets that your species can't live on.
* The Galactic Endangered Species Act submission form. Get listed or risk Xenocide!
**Math/Compsci:**
* Solution to the NP Complete and Halting Problems
[Answer]
# Isotopes
The problem with novel isotopes are that we basically know all of the ones stable enough to potentially use in technology. And if there were one that were extremely rare, but useful, there is the question of whether a colony ship would contain enough of it to be useful for the entire human civilization. For instance, tritium is essential to the D-T fusion reaction, and very expensive for us to obtain. And while the fuel is very energy-dense, an ideal D-T fusion reactor could only get about 10 MW of power from 1 kg of DT fuel for one year. A 1 GW power plant would need about 100 kg of DT just to run for one year (not taking into account generation losses, inefficiencies, etc.). How many kg of tritium can you fit on a colony ship? *Knowing* about tritium isn't the problem. We can synthesize it from scratch if we really have to. Getting at economical reserves is the challenge.
The same problem applies to virtually every other raw material: if it's rare, then the amount on a colony ship would probably not go very far. Fundamental particles are even less useful, because we know pretty much all fundamental particles which can occur below absurdly high energies (on the order of TeV).
# Molecules
Where aliens could really launch us forward is by introducing novel *molecules*. These may indeed teach us a new use for an isotope we already know about. High-temperature superconductors are the most obvious civilization-advancing example, but low-loss fiber optics for quantum internet, high-power magnets for electric motors, or new battery charge carriers could all lead to dramatic improvements in human technology. The advances would not come from knowing that strontium-88 is useful, or finding a few hundred kg on a colony ship. The advance would come from seeing it in a compound, using X-ray diffraction/crystallography, mass spectrometry, etc.
At this point, I hope you notice a theme: the most valuable resource is *knowledge*. In this case, the knowledge is obtained by reverse-engineering. It's more difficult, prone to error, and may fail or take a long time. But at the end of the day, knowledge is really the only thing that causes society to advance. Limiting the knowledge to an isotope is useless, because we already *know* all the isotopes (and their masses, reactivity, half-lives, relative abundance on earth, etc.). At the very least, open it up to *molecules*, and the world's your oyster.
# Propulsion
A particularly useful molecule would be a catalyst/enzyme which enables a hydrocarbon battery. That is, having a way to oxidize hydrocarbons which converts all of the bond energy into moving electrons would make it possible to have *electric airliners*. They would be as fast/powerful as jet airliners, but would go twice as far and half as loud. All vehicles could be made hydrocarbon-electric (which still emits CO2, mind you, but none of the nitrous oxides and other combustion byproducts).
# Energy
The most popular fusion technology is magnetic confinement (thermal) fusion, which is limited mainly by the difficulty of maintaining chaotic plasmas in a magnetic field. At best, a very powerful magnetic material would help advance the field, but we already know how to build very powerful magnets.
Where materials may help energy generation more would probably be on the fission side. There is currently a lot of work on molten salt reactors, and interest in thorium breeder reactors. Knowing which exact compounds form the best fission fuel and coolant could leapfrog our fission power generation capabilities, and thorium + nuclear waste is very abundant on earth. There is also the problem of radioactive embrittlement of containment structures (pipes, pumps, shielding, etc.) where new materials could make plants safer, longer lived, etc.
# Weapons
The problem with weapons is that it covers a broad scale from individual combat up to interplanetary combat. The weapons at the ends of the scale have absolutely nothing in common, except for the need to concentrate sufficient energy on the target to overcome its defenses. A single material is not going to be useful across that range. Most likely, a colony ship is not going to be loaded with infantry weapons (they would send in marines for that). Nor should we expect it to be loaded with weapons you would find in their space navy (torpedoes or bombs). At best, it might have something equivalent to Star Trek's "navigational deflector", which is basically a space laser for shooting junk in your flight path. A colony ship is most likely not going to carry a store of hard ammunition for such a device, because that would be absurdly expensive. They must have access to very high energy power systems, so it would almost certainly be a laser of some sort.
Optically pumped lasers just run on electricity, so whatever advances occur there would most likely be in power production, wiring (superconductors), and cooling. The National Ignition Facility has some pretty big lasers, so there are no obvious impediments for future humans to build lasers as big as they like (besides cost and demand, of course). Chemical lasers, on the other hand, depend on certain chemical reactions to operate, and I'm sure we have not exhausted the space of potential chemicals.
# Biology
Where aliens could bring the most radical changes to society would most likely be in nano-engineering. The problem is that reverse-engineering nano-scale structures is extremely difficult, and ones designed by aliens may be well beyond our abilities.
However, if the aliens have carbon-based biology, and we were able to decode this biology, then they likely also have a massive catalog of organic molecules which do all sorts of useful things (like the catalysts mentioned above). If their biology is at all like ours (cellular, encoding information in a biomolecule like DNA), then it should be possible for us to essentially "read" their technology by sequencing whatever biosamples they have on board. This is another way for humans to acquire technology without being given a handbook. The potential applications span the entire breadth of your question, easily.
# Specificity
The question as posed is unanswerable, because it presumes that one of the users of WB are themselves an alien species as described. We can't name an isotope whose discovery would advance the human race because then we would have already exploited it! And if you are asking for a hypothetical such element, then any handwavium would do. I would suggest thinking of directions you want humanity to go in, and focus on those applications, rather than trying to invent alien technologies that we haven't seen yet.
[Answer]
*Two Things are Infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I am Not Sure about the Universe.* (A. Einstein).
Intelligence is the most scarce resource on this planet, so what about an alien machine that can improve (permanently) the intelligence of people to the limit of human capabilities?
I mean, you connect to the machine, receive a treatment and voilà, IQ=250 (you get the gist).
[Answer]
1. Self-charging battery.
2. Weather manipulator.
3. Saltwater as fuel.
4. Eye-blink to energy generator.
5. Teleporter.
[Answer]
Another idea for a "material" that would be incredibly useful would be (insert hand-waving here) "quantum entangled" matter. In other words, pieces of material that could be split into two or more chunks, where each chunk's state is a direct mirror of the other. That could be temperature, or voltage applied across it, or piezoelectric current, or some other measurable state - basically, whatever is done to one piece will be measurable in the other instantaneously. This would allow instantaneous (e.g. not limited to the speed of light) information transfer. Assuming you could change the state of a given piece fast enough, you could transmit digital signals for things like emails, phone calls, video, etc.
The ability to transmit data instantaneously would be ***hugely*** important to early space-faring groups. Think about things like remote-piloting unmanned explorer craft in real-time, or even being able to coordinate diplomatic efforts on the other side of the solar system in a timely manner. Even just a live-stream of the Giant Red Spot would be worth money. (And of course, remotely-controlled and instantaneously-coordinated space weapons would also be a thing....)
(For reference, this is quite similar to the idea of the black crystals in the Crystal Singer series by Anne McCaffrey.)
[Answer]
A simple one, but hugely impactful would be a really good supercapacitor. And instructions on how to make it.
Chemical batteries instantly obsolete. Huge energy storage in a very small volume.
] |
[Question]
[
Thinking about the possibilities a centaur has over traditional cavalry, I was considering the fact they can be cavalry without a rider. Therefore, their backs would be free to mount something else. I immediately considered weapons.
The idea is fairly simple. You strap guns to your back or flanks, then pull the trigger when you're close to a thick formation of enemies, ready to be shotgunned. This would take place in an 18th century style theater of war, so you have shotguns and you have thick formations of troops to charge.
The question is whether this would be practical. Can you strap guns to a horse, with the intention of shooting them? Or rather, can you do that with a centaur?
[Answer]
Johnny walked the two pairs of shotguns over to Stormhoof and Cloudwing. “So, you strap these on so they are on either side. Then when you get to their line, pull these strings and they’ll shoot. Good?”
Stormhoof made no move. He looked at the guns. “Why do you not strap these guns on to the humans?” He gestured with his chin to the infantrymen standing at some distance, watching.
“Well…” Johnny thought for a moment. “Because we are carrying guns in our hands.”
Stormhoof looked at him impassively. “I too have hands.” He displayed them. They were large. “I too can carry a gun.”
“You are stronger than we are,” countered Johnny. “You can carry one in your hands and two on your back.”
“I see that you are carrying four guns now,” observed Cloudwing. “Certainly you could carry one in your hands and two on your back as well.”
“The thing is,” said Johnny, “we humans aren’t used to carrying things like that on our back. But you centaurs…” Johnny looked at the faces of the two centaurs and realized his mistake. Too late.
“Yes, our large empty backs,” said Stormhoof through gritted teeth. “Wasted space. Perhaps in addition to these guns, we could each carry a barrel of fish for you, or pull a plow.” The centaurs wheeled and galloped off.
Johnny set down the gun rigs and looked them over. Maybe strapping them to humans was a reasonable idea? He looked over to where the infantrymen had gathered to watch his interaction with the centaurs. As if reading his mind, their sergeant smiled and slowly shook his head.
---
Summarizing: it is possible to strap guns to centaur backs. It is possible to strap guns to humans too but it is not done. The centaurs would know this and would be reluctant to participate in some gun-strapping endeavor that humans do not do. They would suspect that the endeavor had been proposed because the humans see them as glorified horses. They would decline and likely take offense.
credit where due: Stormhoof and Cloudwing are centaurs I lifted from Brandon Mull's [The Shadow Plague](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1416986030)
[Answer]
You could, but you'd be missing one of the big benefits of a centaur: the human half.
Instead of strapping the shotguns to be fired at random, why not holster a number of shotguns (the centaur could certainly carry a whole bunch), and the centaur's human part can grab them and fire them in any direction as the need arises?
That would give you the speed of the horse, combined with the dexterity and intelligence of the human.
[Answer]
It would be possible to strap shotguns to a centaur but it would be very ineffective to fire them without being able to aim them properly.
**Traditional Approach**
The shotguns are placed on the sides of the centaur, evenly and pointing forward. When charging into the enemy, the centaur fires the shotguns for maximum effect. While this seems nice, its rather ineffective. The centaur must firstly be in range and facing the enemy to have a chance of hitting them. This means they are in the range of enemy fire and being much larger, have a much greater risk of being hit. You could probably shoot several shotguns at once, including the centaur holding one, but the centaur would fall quickly, and all the guns would be lost.
**Side Facing**
Instead of forward facing shotguns, the shotguns are placed on the centaurs back and face sideways. Instead of charging into the enemy, they would make flanking runs and shoot sideways as they run past the enemy. This puts them at the edge of the enemies range, with them firing blindly into the enemy mass and hoping to get a hit. This would be safer than forward charging as you are on the edge of the enemy range. It would be fairly difficult to hit a moving target, but you could only utilize a small number of centaurs, as it would just become a shooting match once you increase the numbers (the First centaur runs by and stray shots will be fired and most likely hit centaurs behind them).
**Carrying Multiple Guns**
The other approach mentioned by tj1000 is to have the centaurs hold several shotguns. This means the centaur would aim a gun, shoot, holster it and draw a new gun. You would have much better accuracy, and it would be better than just having a single gun. Rather than a shotgun, I would imagine this would be more effective with muskets or longer ranged rifles, allowing the centaur to move and shoot several times before retreating and reloading. This doesn't work if you are charging into the enemy. In that case, you will want to shot, drop the gun, draw new guns and repeat. This is because you will likely die, so better get out maximum value rather than save the guns.
**With a Rider**
A centaur doubles up as a horse and this allows you to have mounted cavalry with an additional pair of hands. This can be combined with the Traditional Approach, with guns placed on the side of the centaur (might be uncomfortable for the rider, I don't actually ride horses around), or the "Carrying Multiple Guns". In the multiple guns case, the rider could help the centaur reload and holster the gun improving the rate of fire. I believe this often happened in earlier gun fights, with one person reloading the gun and a second better trained person firing them(can't confirm, I just read stories about this).
**Carry a Cannon**
A horse is pretty strong and so is a centaur. Instead of a shotgun or musket, you could place a small cannon on its back which it could fire. There would need to be a way to aim the cannon so the centaur doesn't just blast itself when it pulls the trigger. They could be mounted evenly on the side or a larger one on the back.
**Supplies**
You don't always need your centaurs to form the front lines. They could also carry important supplies for soldiers, while doubling up as a guard for the supplies.
[Answer]
Here's my shot at an answer, and further analysis. I hope others answer to, so I can see if my perspective is correct.
You have a few problems to consider, here.
## 1. Aim
Your aim will be grossly limited. You could try to put a swivel gun on your back, theoretically, and a very flexible centaur might be able to manipulate it. But is such aim even necessary?
Largely, no. Your intention is to charge into a thick line of men, shooting shotguns. As long as the guns are aiming in their general direction, you should surely hit something.
## 2. Safety
You don't want to kill yourself with a shotgun, inadvertently. So, you need to make sure the shotgun is mounted properly, so that when it goes off, none of the buckshot will hit you.
You might do this with specially long barrels, and by packing filler-material between the shotgun barrel and your body. This will cause the shotgun to point several degrees away from you. This will also prevent a hot metal barrel touching your skin. You might also want to angle the shotgun down, both so it will hit the enemies in the guts, and so it isn't pointing near your arms.
You also need to make sure the guns hang loose-enough towards the butt that you can turn and articulate your horse-body, without the guns restricting your movement. You might need the butt to go across your back, or the shotgun to be towards the front of you (and be short).
## 3. Trigger
You can probably trigger it with something as simple as a fuse or string. Either a matchlock, or a flintlock. You'd need to make sure that during your charge into the enemy, the powder didn't bounce out of the flash-pan.
Once you've fired the shotguns, you may want to loose them. This might be possible by cutting or unbuckling a strap, designed for a quick-release.
## 4. Set-up
It'd take some setup to arrange this. If you have ready-made harnesses with shotguns, and a trained person to fasten the harness onto you, it might be done in a few minutes.
It's had to estimate whether you could have these put on at the last second, before you charge into battle. You might need to wear them for hours, just in case a sudden charge is needed. More than likely.
## Conclusion
It seems weird, but it doesn't seem impossible in terms of engineering.
Is it practical? ...Could be. It might not be, due to minutiae, such as being unable to activate the shotguns at the right time. Or even worse, you accidentally set them off and hurt someone. A safety system for the shotguns may be necessary.
If it does work, that's going to be a nice touch. Hitting the enemy with shot-gun blasts as you pour into them. You could even consider the possibilities of using this to try and break into a British Square.
In the end, I'd call it plausible. Worthy of plausible fiction, which explores these difficulties and oddities.
[Answer]
**You're thinking too small.**
This is an idea that might work, but you shoudlnt' be thinking shotguns on a charge. You should be thinking Zamburak - fielding what we would think of as crew-served weaponry. A single centaur can carry a crew-served weapon and the ammo to support it by himself, and travel relatively quickly over even rough terrain. You exploit that extra carrying capacity to turn them into highly mobile light artillery. Various techniques can then be worked out for faster dismount/remount cycles. If they're flexible enough about the waist, they might even be able to fire the thing while it's still on their back, but that's probably pushing things a bit too much.
To clarify, the centaur starts out similar to a standard man on horseback, and then gets the notable advantage of 100-150 lbs or so of extra carrying capacity, because they're not having to carry a rider as well. Actual gains depend on how much weight overhead the human half adds. Depending on the centaur in question, they might also have more raw arm strength to work with. That lends itself to pretty large weapons - large enough that the knockback is going to be significant. You won't want to deal with that on the charge, which means that you won't want anything as short-range as a shotgun (or blunderbus). As artillery, though, they're excellent.
[Answer]
>
> Thinking about the possibilities a centaur has over traditional cavalry, I was considering the fact they can be cavalry without a rider. Therefore, their backs would be free to mount something else. I immediately considered weapons.
>
>
>
Back-mounted weapons would be poorly aimed and difficult to serve.
It would be much better to engineer some weapon that could be wielded by the centaur's hands, and kept supplied from the back; humans cannot go much farther than bandoleers and backpacks, but a centaur? Depending on their upper-body strength, they might make impressive [grenadiers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenadier) ("At that time grenadiers were chosen from the strongest and largest soldiers").
Another, albeit in my opinion less promising, possibility could be light auto-cannons or mortars. Fit them with pantographs on trunnions and base, and a centaur could be exactly like an infantryman with a gun - except the gun is way larger (*and complex. And difficult to manage*). The centaur would have to train on how to position himself to best handle the recoil.
[Answer]
**Horse**
As a rule, guns are expensive and important (and ammunition relatively cheap).
If you put a gun on an animal then you will get a single, un-aimed shot from it during a battle which would be a very poor return on your investment. Much better to have the cavalry charge and leave the guns with the infantry, who can aim and re-load them. Or mix the two and have dragoons ride the Centaurs, so that they can be dropped off and operate the guns whilst the Centaurs attack.
**Centaur**
As pointed out by others, why not just arm the human half of the Centaur?
[Answer]
If you look at the evolution of warfare, certain features tend to crop up repeatedly, such as the importance of logistics or mobility and manoeuvre.
Using Centaurs as shock-troops might seem effective, but it seems like a waste compared to what they're capable of. Their size might make them ill-suited to the task as defenders would be able to generate a much larger volume of fire in return. Cavalry (centaur or not) are large units that can't pack in nearly as well as people.
Instead, their horse half grants them increased mobility compared to your standard issue human, which makes them excellent skirmishers. They're capable of carrying large amounts of supplies and crossing large distances which also lends them towards reconnaissance. Neither of these roles really lend themselves to heavy weapons.
However, if you want to make the most of their abilities in a heavy battle, you might consider arming them with a Gatling gun. A pair of centaurs could carry ammo on one and the gun, mounted on a swivel, on the other. Like this, they could perform shoot-and-scoot type manoeuvres, placing very heavy fire onto flanks and being able to reposition without any time needed to setup or tear down the weapon. A Gatling gun also doesn't have the recoil issues that you would have with heavier artillery like cannons.
[Answer]
The benefit of cavalry isn't in head on attacks. A head-on charge of cavalry is generally suicide against a well trained and prepared infantry unit. Horses (and centaurs) are huge targets and it doesn't take much effort to hit it with a musket. Charging is generally only done against inexperienced troops that are likely to break formation out of fear.
The infantry already prepare to fire at a normally farther than normal range. The cavalry needs to be close enough to be likely to hit (but being large this is farther than normal) but even more importantly needs to be far enough away that a dead horse's momentum doesn't carry it into the formation. A dead horse creates a hole in the formation pretty quickly and could be exploited by cavalry.
The centaur are very unlikely to make it close enough to get any effective shots off with a shotgun.
The real benefit of cavalry is their mobility. They can close with and kill unorganized infantry groups with a lot of speed. Giving them something that decreases their mobility (both because of weight and flexibility of whatever saddle you are using for the shotguns) will reduce their effectiveness at what they are good at.
Centaurs real advantage over normal mounted troops is that they are one mind. A relatively inexperienced centaur would be able to fight with coordination that no trained warhorse and rider would be able to accomplish. They would also have much better balance (because they are used to the weight of the human half) and so would have even more flexibility than regular cavalry units. They would also likely be faster since they weigh less than horse+rider.
[Answer]
It's certainly a plausible idea, but I doubt it would be as effective as using them akin to mongol archers.
As shock troops, your centaurs have the advantage of being effective in close combat and leveraging their superior strength and bulk in the melee. the disadvantage is that you're then exposing valuable mobility based troops to higher risk.
As skirmishing archers or musketmen, you have all of the advantages that mongol archers had, with less drawback with regards to size, weight and strength. One idea could be that they have multiple smaller guns to fire without reloading, before retreating out of range to reload. You could even have them inventing cartridge based weaponary and belt fed munitions faster as a result. A centaur with a belt fed weapon and a sack of ammunition would devastate the flanks and rear of a melee to great effect.
[Answer]
Have a look here: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse-drawn_vehicle#War_vehicles> - but I guess the Centaurs would still prefer that normal horses pull these mobile weapon platforms, with humans operating the guns (smaller targets for enemy fire).
Centaurs might be more useful as messengers in battle.
A gun carriage would be an option for Centaurs fighting without horse/human support. They could pull their artillery pieces and machine gun carriages (and possibly also very heavy sniper guns) to tactical advantageous positions, unbuckle and then operate them from these positions.
[Answer]
Centaurs due to the nature of their movements i'd say the best weapons they could use/have are : spears(trust based weapon) and shield for the front part and in the back a rider with a bow.
Centaurs don't need guiding like traditional horses, where to run and when to stop and the rider would be free to atack long range or close if a threat comes to near the pair.
In the 18th century these things were still a thing in some parts...
As of more modern style ... armor/kewlar ,spear and shield ,gunman in the rear
Guns need reloading a pointy stick won't run out of ammo so the idea is to delegate the rider with defense and the centaur worries about the offense.
*Edited:* As per autonomous weaponry the complexity and weight would be 2 much remember it's on his back not pulled by it , as sturdy as a horse may look it has a limit of total carry weight.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/238493/edit).
Closed 1 year ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 12 months ago and left it closed:
>
> Original close reason(s) were not resolved
>
>
>
[Improve this question](/posts/238493/edit)
This isn't for anything that I'm working on, but the idea just came to me. By completely unjustified I mean the random killing of other people, though my question pertains mostly to a society tolerant of all kinds of murder.
Edit for clarification: Unjustified was probably the wrong word. I meant more like completely indiscriminate killing; like just walking down the street, shooting someone, and that being seen as totally okay in this society (think The Purge, but forever and not written by fools). The reflexive answer is that it would clearly collapse, but maybe there is a way it wouldn't? My mistake for not making that more clear from the start.
[Answer]
Let's try to avoid giving sermons and moralizing about real world politics and actually address the question.
Starting with the premise. This is a society in which killing is an accepted act. I don't think that means that "people kill whenever, for whatever reason", but that "when people feel the desire to, it is acceptable for them to kill." So this seems more "my boss tried to make me work unpaid overtime fixing his mistakes, so I killed him", and less "I was bored so I shot the mailman."
The asker might posit "but I said *all* killing should be acceptable!" And there's the rub: if you kill the mailman for no reason, then their family is probably likely to kill you, and now for **much better** reason. The law of self interest makes these kinds of reckless killings unwise (even if society could be convinced to call the caprice justified). Obviously you can write a society where all impulse killings are considered acceptable (legally and culturally), but we can conclude that such a society would not long persist without very high tech level supporting extreme population replenishment and infrastructure rebuilding. I suppose it might also need no outside threats. This would be horrific, but could certainly be the setting for *some* kind of sci-fi story.
---
So what does the society that sees all killing as acceptable, but can still maintain itself look like? I think these are the more interesting options for world building.
The key here is that all killing is acceptable, but that killing need not be the only *desired* or *chosen* outcome of confrontations.
In these worlds, perhaps killing when angry is commonplace (even if the person who made you angry wasn't at fault). We might overhear on a street corner two people talking about a recent occurence in which an embezzling employee was keelhauled in front of the whole office and humiliated by their boss as they were fired. "Of course," they might say, "the employee was in the wrong for stealing from the company. But when their boss humiliated them that way, you couldn't be surprised that the employee would get furious and rage-kill them. Now they'll have to be careful or make some kind of restitution to their boss' family if they don't want to be revenged upon." This would create a society with heavy cultural emphasis on calmness. Peacefulness. Empathy. The people would be very careful not to insult someone else's honour, hurt their feelings, or disrespect them; if they didn't, the consequences could be extremely dire. I could see this developing into a society that genuinely cared deeply about each other's feelings, not only for self interest! But the dichotomy of what happens when the feel-good hug-circle got mad would make for very interesting story telling.
Another society might accept fights to the death (whether as duels or ambushes or family bloodfeuds) as perfectly logical and legitimate ways to settle grievances, whether over honour, restitution for crimes/wrongings, or even tests of the truth, eg the medieval trope of "trial by combat". Again, an outsider observer could be perplexed to see how nonchalantly people accept the death of one of their friends for something like "doubting that John *actually had* caught a fish quite that big", or they could inadvertently find themselves one of the promised combatants (or targets) of someone's (societally) rightful ire for saying that their soup was too salt.
These are the sorts of worlds where widespread killing could be accepted, without society immediately collapsing. The important part is that although killing is fine and dandy, we're still dealing with people that are feeling and/or self interested. Just because they *could* kill anyone, doesn't mean that they suddenly *want* to do so. And even if they did, they might just think about what could happen to them. Hell, there might even be some kind of adulthood initiation process designed to find the truly sociopathic that would revel in being law-exempt serial killers, and then killing them. Or maybe giving them legally, culturally, or religiously important jobs.
[Answer]
A timely musing.
**One could make the case that America is such a society.**
America is a democracy. As a society, together we choose the rules we live with.
We have repeatedly chosen to live with rules that enable individuals to kill many strangers for no particular reason. People are sad, but we tolerate it. It is the American way.
<https://abcnews.go.com/US/america-gun-violence-problem/story?id=79222948>
Please: I do not put this forward to read passionate gun debates. Those have their place; not here. I put this idea out because fiction is good for social commentary, and permits a vantagepoint less contaminated by reality and that will not attract unwanted attention from concrete thinkers and rabid partisans.
Maybe INPU is thinking of writing a story. It could be a good story.
[Answer]
Did you know that the English word "thug" comes from a very spiritualized people, that thought killing random people would prevent the destruction of mankind by a Goddess?
The Thuggee were some people in India who worshiped Kali, a goddess who rules - among other things - death. They would approach strangers, gain their trust for a while and them kill them methodically. From the article on Wikipedia about [Thug View](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuggee#Thug_view)
>
> Thugs considered themselves to be the children of Kali, having been created from her sweat. (...) According to colonial sources, Thugs believed that they played a positive role in saving human lives. Without the Thugs' sacred service, Kali might destroy all mankind.
>
>
>
Think of that next time you see a post in social media with the hashtag #thuglife.
Do notice that this view above is controversial and some historians think that the concept of Thuggee was an invention of the British empire. But there you have it.
Ok, so there is (some) justification for these murders here. But it depends on what you understand by justification. "We kill because that's what we do" has a very Aperture Science vibe to it ("üéµ we do what we must because we can, for the good of all of us except the ones who are dead").
---
On another note, in many societies were there were slaves (specially the most recent cases in our history, less than 200 years ago), slave owners could and sometimes would kill their slaves on a whim and without consequences, because people were seen as property.
[Answer]
# Are we talking about a human society?
In this case probably not. **Humans do not bear many children**. Depending on how "normal" you want murder to be I would argue that this would be a problem. In order for something to not have people question it and considering it as normal it needs to happen at least somewhat frequently. Imagine someone doing pushups in the supermarket. Nothing wrong with it but it is not normal. Why not? Probably because you do not really see people doing it other than that "weird guy".
Now if killing was "too normal" your population would shrink instead of grow.
Another Problem is that **humanity is focused on long term relationships**. The fact that the word "Icebreaker" even exists means that there is some sort of barrier when having the first conversation. However when we are past that point we may form lifelong friendships or relationships and those people start becoming important for us. Typically when we want to do something that involves multiple people we choose friends instead of strangers.
Because of that if someone kills a friend of you, you won't be happy. You lost something important.
Last, I want to touch on the topic that **humanity is vengeful**. If someone takes something important from you, you may want to kill that person, especially if it's legal. The combination of focus on long term relationships and vengeance lead to a vicious killing cycle. Pair that with a low birth rate and your society would either die out or make killing illegal or at least not morally acceptable.
But suppose our society is not human, could it then work?
# Meet the swarm!
A swarmling typically lives a short life and is not scared to either die or deliver death. It is seen as something **normal**, something that just happens in their society.
**A swarmling bears many children**, hundreds, maybe thousands. This also means they cannot care for children like we humans do. Typically children stop being in touch with their parents once they can care for themselves. If a swarmling loses a child they might not even notice. Overall they value the community higher than the individual. They do not value the person that they spent the entire week with higher than the person they have not met yet. If you want to talk, you talk to a stranger. If you want to drink, you drink with a stranger. If you need help, a stranger helps you.
As for vengeance? Sure, they can be vengeful. Hard to justify much killing going on if you take away the concept of repaying someone who has wronged you and remember, we want killing to be normal.
## What could a swarmling day look like?
Jeffs children moved out last week, so there is no real reason anymore to stay with his wife. He is moving out but it does take a while to move his stuff from one location to another. As he drives to his new home 7 killings occur. Nothing unusual. He gets there, looks around, chooses the swarmling that looks the least occupied and asks for help moving stuff upstairs. They are instantly friendly with each other and talk about what is going on in their lifes. Jeff wants to drink in the evening and asks the swarmling to come along. They agree to it. Once downstairs another swarmling comes by and shoots this one. Jeff starts talking to the new swarmling and learns that he had a bad week and needed to get it out of his system. No other reason, he chose a victim randomly. Understandable. Jeff is reminded that life is short and should be lived to the fullest. He also just lost his drinking buddy so he asks the new swarmling to come along. He most likely needs it as he has been having a bad week. They drink and talk about their lifes then never meet again.
[Answer]
There was a time in the USA past when a black man could be lynched for having the audacity of having black skin and being in the wrong place at the wrong time. There were plenty of trials for lynching where the murders were let go with little more justification then "look, his skin is too dark a color." Without a doubt there were times when one could reasonable expect to get away with murder in the USA, at least in the south.
This was in no way limited to the USA, or to people with black skin. Rather it was black people in pre civil rights eras of the USA, the Dalite in Hinduism, peasants in a feudal system, or slaves across a multitude of countries it all boils down to the same thing in the end. There is an undeniable history of certain minority groups being labeled as unclean, undesirable, or generally undeserving of basic civil rights.
There have also been similar cases for certain groups to be made out to be superiors or more 'moral' by virtue of their birth, or wealth, alone. The result was that if the supposedly 'better' group of folks choose to kill one of their 'lessers', well that is their right is it not? A slave owner has the right to whip his slave to death if that slave has the audacity of not working up to the owners unreasonably high standard. If a Dalite is murdered by a Brahmin well it's no lose, Dalite after all brought the punishment of their birth on themselves in a past life so they probably deserved it. If a Peasant was killed by a noble is a king really going to bother to have someone investigate?
The point is it's pretty well documented in human history that we have a tendency to create cast systems that are uneven. An action that would be deemed horrible and unjust if inflicted by a member of group A onto group B may be deemed moral and right if group B does it to group A. It's a terrible mindset, but sadly a common one.
So yes, I think we have plenty of history saying an 'unjust' murder can be accepted, if inflicted upon the right group of undesirables. Though of course the society wouldn't call the murder unjust, it's completely just when we do it, it's only unjust when others do it to us you see.
[Answer]
## **Yes and no.**
First, the use of the word Murder assumes an unjustified killing. It is already assuming a moral stance.
**If you mean unjustified by your own code of ethics. Sure.** Why not? Not everyone has the same code of ethics.
**If you mean, unjustified by the society in question, no.** That society has norms and is not enforcing them. That society is in breakdown at that point.
It is also possible that a society might have multiple different norms (some may even seem internally inconsistent).
Take 4 examples from the US:
1. Some people think that unborn infants should never be killed but
rapists and murderers should.
2. Some people think that its OK to kill unborn infants but rapists and
murders should be let go so they can do it again.
3. Some people think "kill everyone and let [deity of choice] sort it
out."
4. Some people are against killing anyone or anything (except plants,
they hate plants).
There are also many in the US that don't ascribe to any of those 4.
So, in the US, using the above info, tell me what an unjustified killing even is....
[Answer]
*Our society, today, think it unjustifiable, and this echoes in most of the answers presented here. I find those answers helpful in identifying the "problems" to solve, but disappointing in stopping at those problems.*
### What are the impediments?
Firstly, as mentioned, **murders** are unacceptable because they are *by definition* unacceptable. I side with [@hszmv](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/238503/7020) and will therefore use *killing* rather than *murder*. A *killing* is the act of killing someone intentionally^1 , whether lawful or not. An unlawful killing is a murder.
There are many instances of sanctioned killings today or in our past. The death penalty, soldiers killing other soldiers, policemen killing criminals, are all examples of such now. In the past, we also had duels to the death, owners killing slaves, etc...
Hence, there's definitely room for maneuver here.
Secondly, there's the problem of acceptance, and specifically of the just-killed person's friends and family accepting their death. Without acceptance comes retribution and an endless cycle of violence, or at least dreams of such if the power disparity is great.
In the above examples, whilst most killings are sanctioned *by the society*, the family or friends of the people killed mostly *do not* accept their death. There is one exception: duels of honor. When gentlemen dueled, and one died, whether by accident (in a duel to first blood) or by design (in a duel to death), the family of the deceased accepted their death to some extent. They were unlikely to ever be friendly again with the other party, but they were also unlikely to seek retribution.
The key here is to find a virtue that is more valuable than life.
In duels of honor, that virtue is honor. Living dishonorably would bring shame to the person, and by extension their family and friends, hence they would duel, and either prove their honor, or cleanse it, somehow, with their death.
Thirdly, there's frequency. If everybody keeps shooting everyone, population dwindles until noone's left. For a society to survive, you need population to at least maintain itself, meaning that in average an individual should kill strictly less than half the number of children they had and who died of natural/accidental causes well into adulthood.
Assuming a modern society, with few deaths from natural/accidental causes, it's essentially half the number of children they had minus one. So a couple with two children cannot kill anyone, while a couple with three can kill one other person (but not one each). One other person, in their entire lifetime. More children, more leeway.
^1 *The technical term homicide covers both intentional and unintentional killings, so in terms of scope all murders are killings, all killings are homicides, but not the other way around.*
### Intermezzo
Having a specific cast (warrior, priests, nobles) have the right to kill indiscriminately a specific cast (other warriors, pariahs, lessers) is arguably easier, but where is the fun in easy?
### What kind of society would that be?
Or why would anyone accept the death of their beloved?
Several potential ideas:
* A society idolizing Luck, for example. Those who get shot at random are unlucky, and would have brought their unluck onto their family and friends. It's better that way.
* A society idolizing Honor. In this case, rather than "random" shooting, I would rather see "random" dueling.
* A society idolizing Death. This world is a purgatory, those who die young are the lucky ones, freed from their burdens! (But those who commit suicide are cowards, doomed to hell)
* A society idolizing Parsimony; I'll detail it below.
The most difficult thing, in any of the above, is really the frequency aspect. Why would a person who has lived a peaceful life for 30 years kill one other, then live peacefully for another 40 years until their death? It could be justified for an individual, but it seems hard to justify that *every* person would behave so, with a "sprinkling" of one/two killings in their life.
And thus I submit a society either overly conscious of its impact of the environment, or living with strictly finite resources. The number of individuals in the society is capped by law for each district. Yet, at the same time, nobody could agree on criteria to cull the excess: killing the old means losing wisdom, killing a certain group is discrimination, ... and thus it was decided to leave it to a mixture of fate and common sense.
Every week, in every district, a lottery takes place, designating a number of random adults -- based on excess -- for the culling. They are given a one-time license to kill. Some will choose to kill themselves, others will take the opportunity to kill a person they loathe, most find it easier to kill a stranger they never heard of, and whose family and friends they won't have the suffer the grief of. Motives are not questioned by authorities, only timeliness. They must be done before the next round of lottery.
It's hard to lose a friend, or a family member, to the culling. But it's necessary, lest we run out of resources and every body dies. So someone has to die. And it's frankly egoistically shameful to begrudge the death of your friend and wish it had been someone else.
**It's all for the greater good.**
[Answer]
# Sure
Killing is frowned upon because people generally end up dead afterwards, however if being dead weren't a permanent condition and were trivially curable, I don't see a reason why you couldn't have a functioning society.
For example, there are plenty of video games that have perfectly serviceable MMO societies where players can generally kill eachother with little or no consequence if they feel like it. Sure, games often introduce loss upon death to incentivize certain styles of play, and it's usually impolite to go around killing people randomly, but killing someone in a video game doesn't have the consequences that it does "IRL".
In a more real-world context, something similar would require a bit of sci-fi handwavery akin to the "stacks" from *Altered Carbon* which house the human's consciousness and can be plugged into bodies at will. In this setting, injuring and "killing" people's bodies is frowned upon in the same way as vandalism or destroying someone's property is, but unless brought to a "true death" via destruction of the "stack", it's not really murder.
[Answer]
No.
For a semantical reason. By it's very definition, Murder is Unjustified Homicide.
Now on it's face, that might seem like it's a tautology, but Homicide is not in and itself a crime. Homicide merely means a human kills another human. There are several instances where this occurs under justified circumstances (killing in self-defense, state sanctioned death penalties, killing of enemy combatants in war, ect.).
This is why the police that investigates dead people is a "Homicide Unit" and not "The Murder Police" because there could be a dead person who's a victim of a homicide, but that homicide is justified and thus not Murder.
So, while a society may have a different legal definition of what homicides are justifiable vs. that which not, but the definition of Murder will always cover the subset of Homicides which are considered unjustified under the law.
[Answer]
It might not collapse.
But only if the would-be indiscriminate killers grow keenly aware that there is no prohibition on killing *them* and so the prohibition against killing grows up again, as an inhibition against inspiring people to kill you.
Even the most powerful of killers has to sleep some time, and a culture with no prohibition against killing certainly has no prohibition against killing in revenge.
[Answer]
Read "The Algebraist" by Iain M. Banks. One of the races depicted has enormously long life and produces enormous numbers of children, who take an enormous time to reach maturity. They consider their own children to be almost valueless (there are so many) and killing of them for any reason or none is not a moral problem. Their value increases as they reach maturity, and killing an adult is considered a heinous crime.
[Answer]
The Viking Saga, Njal's Saga, describes the society in Iceland where killing happened often without notice. Similarly, Eric's Saga describes him killing someone else and needing to have a fighting force around him to protect him from the relatives of the man he killed. In both cases, the society didn't have strong cohesion. People lived quite a distance away from each other. There were no police, or courts. The only justice that could take action was the annual gathering which could banish someone from the island. (Which is why Eric sailed to Greenland.) But even that banishment was based on allowing anyone else to kill the banished person if found on the island. The other solution was to pay some set amount of money to the family of the dead person to resolve the issue.
Similar stories can be found in frontier America. After the Civil War, there were a lot of killings in Texas between those who had supported the Union and those who had supported the Confederacy.
The problem with allowing such killing is that any killing affects the survivors (and the killers). Thus, frontier America was "tamed" by churches which supported a stronger society that protected people.
Generally speaking, the more people in a society, the more rules the society needs. Iceland needed more rules when the population grew, and it was no longer just the place to exile killers. A society of thousands will need rules of when it is acceptable to kill someone else. When the rules are followed, then the emotional impact of the killing is much less.
[Answer]
I say the answer is No. I would argue that this is not a stable social equilibrium unless the threat of being killed does not bother people. People who did a lot of killing would be seen as a threat by others and targeted, just out of self-protection. Eventually, someone would have the bright idea that maybe we should all agree that killing is ordinarily bad, and that we should gang up on people who violate that new norm.
Of course, this is armchair theorizing. But I am not aware of any society that does not treat murder as a crime, or at least something to be avenged.
[Answer]
# A world where the strong are stronger than any weak group
If enough training means a strong person can kill anyone without similar training, then sure. The big reason murder is made illegal is that it tends to lead to vengeance spirals. One person kills another, and then they can just wait and kill you or your relatives, and then they'll kill your relatives, and that led to numerous bloody feuds.
Suppose that due to some martial art or magic or sci fi, the strong are so much stronger than the weak that even together they can't compete. Then they could just walk through a town and murder someone and it would have no consequences for them, or their similarly strong family.
Some people would be a bit harder to touch. Servants who were part of a powerful family, or children of powerful families. They would of course prominently display their family colours so that you knew that they couldn't just be casually murdered. The servants might be murderable, since you could just pay a blood price, but murdering a family heir would be a very high risk act as they could then just come murder all of your people. You only do it if your family is strong enough to bear that.
If you want examples, look at most cultivation novels.
[Answer]
# Soylent Red:
Your society has become extremely peaceful, and the laws all honor life in every way. There is no war, and diseases have been eliminated. Birth control is considered unholy.
In other words, the planet is drowning in people.
No one wants to change society, but they all recognize the need to control population. So the incredibly rare people who are mentally ill or capable of violence are encouraged in their tendencies and provided the means to carry them out. The officials still try to stop them, but they are half- hearted and pacifistic.
No one wants to die, but random killers are societies’s way to regulate.
Did you hear about the madman who poisoned the baby formula? Hundreds died - God bless.
[Answer]
No, although one has to define "society".
Indiscriminate killing of members of a set "society" by others will result in a collapse of trust, and then a collapse of that "society".
What you can get is a secret "society" embedded within a larger one upon which it is parasitic, or against which it secretly wages war: cults and terrorist groups. On a larger not-secret scale where the killer society is a significant fraction of wider society, you have described a civil war, or a liberation movement against a brutal dictatorship where there's an oppressed majority. In all these cases, self-defined "insiders" are killing "outsiders".
There are also be societies where *discriminate* killing is tolerated or even expected. I have read of "primitive" societies where it is the duty of a son to humanely kill an elderly or disabled parent who has become an unsupportable drain on the tribe's resources. Harsh, but not doing so endangers the entire tribe and abandoning the victim to death by starvation or wild animals is arguably worse. Taken to an extreme you get the plot of the SF movie "Logan's Run". Another far more horrific real-world example is "honour killings" of young people (usually women) who won't accept their parent's decision about who they should marry.
[Answer]
All other answers seem to focus on societies (and lives, critically) similar to our own, but as Murinus's answer touches on, it need not be.
As with the swarmlings answer, the society being considered can take place in a context where death is almost meaningless for a reason, and thus killing (and even murder, the crime part of killing) can be also similarly meaningless and random. To me, this type of world already exists within multiplayer video games with PvP combat that is possible, but not the focus.
One classic example of this is PvP World of Warcraft servers, where raid parties are often formed just for the fun of going killing the other factions members. This is considered part of the game (and as such socially acceptable) but perhaps not exactly what we're looking for.
A more relevant example is how societies exist within minecraft servers (that are PvP enabled), where dying (and getting murdered) is possible, expected, and a setback, but ultimately not as important since the loss is only of time because lives are infinite. Life in such servers can involve killing someone in a funny or unexpected way as a prank, especially if this is agreed upon by members (read: socially acceptable)
Of course, this is simplified because video games are meant to be fun and not respawning often isn't fun (althought it can be through challenge). However, one could easily consider a post-scarcity society where clones of one's body and mind are easily accessible, and killing someone's current body can be done for fun, or at random, without consequence for them beyond the annoyance of having to "respawn" at the nearest cloning center, for example. As with our video game example, life in such a society could involve killings that are socially acceptable in some forms, while other forms (such as when attending an important event)to be a bad look because of the inconvenience.
Such a society has other implications that I feel are beyond the scope of the question but are in my opinion well thought out in the Void Trilogy by Peter F. Hamilton, especially in book 2.
[Answer]
Define "random". If it's random with a defined and low probability, like choosing a random person once a year and sacrificing them to the gods, then sure, that society can survive perfectly well. If it's random with a probability that's high enough to cause population decline, then it obviously can't.
In St Kilda, newborns were dying because of the use of infected oil for anointing them. The resulting level of infant mortality meant that the island became depopulated and was eventually abandoned. That's no different, essentially, from the random killings you are talking about.
For another example, consider a society where killing people in a duel is legal and acceptable. The number killed in duels is going to be limited by the fact that people exercise restraint in challenging someone to a duel because of the risk of getting killed. So the probability of getting killed in a duel is subject to some kind of self-sustaining limits, which probably means that society will survive the losses. Without those restraints, the number of deaths will probably reach a level where society has to impose restraints if it wants to survive, at which point you start getting legal/moral sanctions to reduce the number of killings.
[Answer]
Qualified by the below comments, which inform {how to understand and position the question}... here is my suggestion of how this might be made to work. [I am doing this backwards, and I am not guaranteeing that the outcome is perfectly thought out.]
[As below] if arbitrary killing is perfectly acceptable, then -- to have a viable society -- there must be some reason why this is not common. It is a simple mathematical fact that unfettered large-scale (short-time-period) killing would be fatal to a society.
It is either incoherent, or irrelevant to the question, to have a *moral* reason why killing is less common.
...That is, a moral reason that is about *killing* itself. Conversely, then, we have to have an ethical dilemma. There must be some moral or ethical principle that makes [*arbitrary*] killing acceptable, when killing *itself* is *not immediately* acceptable.
I suggest the idea that -- think Sparta, or the Klingons -- the society in question values physical prowess. That is... effortless killing (such as with a gun from behind) *is* *un*acceptable. What is acceptable is arbitrarily taking on some other member of society in some sort of fair contest.
One might add details such as... \* that there is great shame in taking on another person and failing to kill them, or \* that there is no honour in successfully killing a person who is systematically weaker (such as a sick person, or perhaps someone who has devoted their life to academic pursuits or religion or what-have-you [this would have to be exceptional]), or \* that the other party must consent, or \* that the victor either does, or does not, gain the possessions of the other.
Possibly the best condition would be that there is honour for both participants if the contest lasts beyond some pre-set limit... at which point the contest ends. (The obvious limit is time, but there is also perhaps {*both* parties suffering some level of injury}.)
Ostensibly, such a society would *not* value having half of its members killed, over *any* time period.
I suppose that this is perhaps not in the spirit of the question -- it does not actually involve significant "indiscriminate killing" -- but conversely [again] it is a simple mathematical fact that unfettered large-scale killing would be fatal to the society.
It seems to me that the only alternative -- perhaps the only one that is in the spirit of the question -- is a massive reproduction rate (to balance all the killing). However, simply having a massive reproduction rate is not directly a moral justification for killing... and particularly not for killing any particular given individual. Of course, there *is* the obvious connection that most systems can not sustain a massive reproduction rate (except with food-chain -type killing [not the question])... but then a sophisticated society would just lower its reproduction rate [and killing any given individual is still not justified]. ...Unless it could not. This would suggest -- to a sophisticated society -- some sort of politically-established group to do the killings... which is again not what the question is about.
[Tangentially... in real life we have the situation that... we recognise that we can not reproduce massively and endlessly, as a group... but that this does not serve as a moral principle at the individual (i.e. family) level (unless one allows that every family *must* have no less and no more than 2.1 children).]
```
----
```
Here follows considerations of points that other people have raised.
```
----
```
I think some of the answers here rely on the tenets both that killing is acceptable and that it is not [not meaning necessarily to position this as an inconsistent philosophical construct] -- think America. In America, if it genuinely was perfectly acceptable to kill people (whether it be everyone or just black Americans)... I suggest that there would be a lot more killing.
(In other words... the question is not about {only evil people doing the killing}; it is about killing being something that anyone of any ethical persuasion would be equally likely to do.)
In a related vein... if we divide society into "us" and "them" then the notion is quite workable [of "us" killing "them" indiscriminately]... but arguably the intent of the question does not allow this -- it is about the "us" element, under that picture.
"user99478" 's answer considers a picture under which, immediately, killing someone is fine as a way of dealing with a moral offence against the protagonist. *Immediately* [again]... this is workable if there is some reasonable minimum level of justification required; otherwise one could expect the population to be exponentially halved at an astonishing rate. Even given that qualification... that would merely slow the rate at which the society wiped itself out. If one positions this condition high enough for the society to survive... ostensibly that would actually be a picture in which killing *was* considered wrong -- that is, required significant moral justification. (One might try to draw out a picture under which the society wiped itself out fairly slowly.)
"user99478" then adds the qualification that one might be deterred from killing someone by the expectation of revenge killing. This would certainly serve to slow the rate of killing... but arguably implies that the involved {other people} consider the killing in question to be "wrong" in some sense.
"Murinus" 's answer is interesting. I suggest that it appeals to two distinct notions. One is that the rate of reproduction is so high that a significant amount of killing is not significant, so to speak. The other is that the "persons" in question are not social beings. The latter is certainly not incoherent, but I do suggest that it is difficult to draw out a picture in which, for instance, one could be meaningfully invested in a conversation with another such "person"... but not turn a hair if and when they were killed mid-conversation. I would allow that it is possible to construct a picture of a "society" of non-social beings, but some amount of work is required. One interesting question would be whether or not such a being might have *other* reasons for not countenancing arbitrarily killing other "persons". [(I would expect that one such "person" would probably never kill another unless driven to it.)]
An aside on involving a god or God in the picture. There is the question of whether {the gods are against killing because it is wrong}, or that {killing is wrong because the gods *arbitrarily* proscribe it}. [Please respect any IP present here (re "arbitrarily"). No doubt someone else has already made that point... but I did have to work it out for myself at the time... and I have not come across, nor been shown, someone making that point.] I submit that it is fairly apparent that deeds such as rape and killing actually are wrong -- in a way that does not apply to (e.g.) whistling... even if one has no account of why. There is the implicit question, re The Question here, of whether or not we are assuming that killing is morally wrong. Even without *an account of why* killing is wrong... it is a significant move to hold that killing is *not* morally wrong; "intuition" does have a lot of weight.
[Answer]
Does it count if it's considered okay for one group in the society to commit mass killing against another group, possibly outside the society?
If so, I think most large complex human societies have been examples of this. War, slavery (early deaths from discipline, poor health, despair, and accidents), executions, displacement, etc.
At least in the short term, this tends not to tear the society apart because the society defines itself in a way to exclude a lot of the dead people.
And of course, maybe the cow aliens or wolf aliens will see us as mass murderers.
[Answer]
# Mathematically impossible (or at least very limited)
The average number of people killed, per person, can never be larger than 1.
Consider, for example, a population of 100 people. If they all killed each other (perhaps with the last two timing it well enough to take each other out) that would be 100 killings. That's an average of 1 killing per person.
This means there are 3 possibilities:
## Only some people can kill
For every person that kills 10 others, there needs to be 9 people who have killed no one. This sounds like some sort of class-based system and is not indiscriminate.
## Limit 1 kill per person
If you want *everyone* to kill, only person can only kill someone once in their whole life. This also does not seem indiscriminate.
## You can be killed multiple times
Video games get around this issue by letting people respawn. If this were possible, each person could kill multiple times, although still only an average of once per "life".
---
## What if people just have lots of kids? Still impossible.
Suppose every person kills 2 people & has 200 kids. This means the population would still grow, right? **No**, this still doesn't work — it would require an infinite number of dead people. Consider someone in this society who has died. They must have killed 2 people. Those 2 people must have killed 4 people. Those 4 people must have killed 8 people. Continuing this pattern, you end up with an infinite number of dead people, which is impossible on a finitely-sized world.
---
# So, this is impossible
Overall, if you can only be killed once, on average, you can only kill once. You can't have a society of *only* serial killers.
[Answer]
If you are still up for views then check out Chinese cultivation novels. I think that kind of setting is the closest to the setting you want. In these novels if you are strong enough you can kill off a whole village and no one would care. Lets imagine a scenario in which this is applicable. Lets assume that there is a strong cultivator who was minding their own business but a fool came along who didn't know their place. The fool somehow provoked the strong cultivator by insulting them or any other way. The strong cultivator could kill them in the most brutal way in the middle of a street and the people would say that the fool had it coming for foolishly provoking someone so strong. The strong cultivator will not be charged with murder at all and it would be treated as just another day.
Edit: Another idea I had is to think of people as livestock. You don't get charged with murder when you slaughter a sheep/goat/cow etc. in your barn. And even if there are some people whining about it, it does not change the fact that we slaughter animals for our food. If people were considered the same status as livestock then all they would do will be to control their killing enough to not cause a huge drop in population. We don't see the population of livestock dropping to alarming degree, because they control the slaughtering so that the livestock would have enough time to replenish its population. The slaughtering of livestock is sustainable so I don't see why your idea would do any worse in an imaginary world. You can have a few inconsistencies in the story and the readers would not mind them much depending on the inconsistencies in question. So go crazy :)
[Answer]
## How attached are you to these ‘people’ being human?
So with humans, we take a long time to grow up, and a lot of time to learn a set of skills that are useful to society.
So one of us dying is bad, we’re hard to replace, and often our sets of skills are essential for at least some of the people around us.
So what about a society of non-humans, who grow up very, very quickly, live short lives, and have a significant amount of children. Let’s call them Goblins.
There is little time for a Goblin to learn, so they don’t learn anything too complex. This means an individual Goblin is not really valuable to a society. Depending on the culture, familial ties may not even be a thing!
This will limit the growth of this society, it will probably never reach a significant level of technology, as few Goblins will live long enough to discover something and pass on that knowledge.
But, this means that in this Goblin society, random killings are more or less inconsequential, so potentially, acceptable!
If their population grows really quickly, random killings may even be ***necessary*** to avoid a population growing out of control!
[Answer]
To provide a different kind of scenario let me first reference a series of light novels called Kino no Tabi (Kino's Travel), where a girl traveled through different countries (think more like walled cities than nowadays countries) where each one was a [planet of hats](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats) kinda deal (Warning: TVTropes), and one of those was a country where murder was legal.
The twist was that it was a very normal and peaceful country, but when people came to visit with the idea that it was a free for all and causing trouble was ok, that's when they ended being murdered by the entire town.
Although murder might seem a little too extreme for our current year morals the underlying justice process its the same as our own (break the law, pay the price), mostly because a few years ago that was the way we kept the order in our society: in the wild west trouble makers were keen to stay away from town because nobody would think twice to put a hole in them, in the medieval times in Europe lynching societal pariahs/criminals was a common thing, even the most primitive of societies do the same to the ones that threaten the order and safety of the whole group.
You might think that introducing free murder into a current year society eventually will devolve into a free for all murder contest kinda thing, but history has show us that's not what happens.
People doesn't like to be murdered (citation needed), so when somebody start shaking the proverbial wasp nest it doesn't take long before somebody make the problem *go away*, especially when there's no adverse consequences to doing so.
You might say that the family and friends of the now dead trouble maker might want revenge and that will start a chain of murders, but at the end of the day we live in a society, if a group of people threatens the peace of that society they will wake up one night with their house on fire and the entire town making marshmallows and shooting anybody who tries to escape.
At the end of the day, people either will behave and refrain from murdering indiscriminately if they want them and their family to live long and prosper or they will be unlived very soon, either way random murders will end up being the same or even less frequent than in our current year society.
There is an exception though: if the group of people trying to upset the normal peace is substantial enough (>20% of the population aprox) the killings will be an order of magnitude bigger, but that's also something that happens in our world as well; we call it revolution (if we agree with their ideals) or civil war (if we don't like them) and history show us that eventually one of the sides suffers enough loses that it can be completely massacred by the winning side, and as such peace is now restored again.
So as a conclusion: allowing free murder might cause some blood to be spilled, but it won't take long for peace to be restored.
[Answer]
There has been a bunch of interesting answers already, but one thing yet to be mentioned is the dying society.
So far all answers has been about trying to imagine stable, or even growing to thriving societies, but your question does not exclude societies that are neither stable nor prosperous.
If the main reason for not allowing people to tolerate the normalizing of killing is essentially because it will inevitably lead to the collapse of that society, then what if said society is already collapsing?
This concept is being played with in the RPG world of Mörk Borg, where everybody already knows that the world is ending. Doomsday is coming and everyone will inevitably die, so who cares if someone died just a day earlier.
This is interesting in many ways since people become more concerned about HOW to die, rather than not dying at all. There is for example a King in this world that prepares all the citizens in his domain for a huge mass suicide. The population is of course aware of this but doesn't even mind it. Some might even find the kings endeavor to be admirable, however the religious cult in this world considers suicide to be heresy and believe that doomsday should be welcomed, not avoided.
A world where people is mainly concerned about how to die rather than not dying gives room for a lot of interesting and gruesome conflicts between groups and people in the world. Blood is unavoidable when everybody rather sacrifice their life for whatever cause than face doomsday. It can lead to some great storytelling.
The way I see it, after reading the answers there is basically 3 options for the shape of such societies:
1. There are some sort of limitations or rules on who can kill who, how someone can be killed, or why they can be killed, alternatively some sort of quota. As long as these limitations or rules are followed nobody will raise an eyebrow over these killings. This is how most human tribes worked historically, but in worldbuilding we can take it to absurdum.
2. Dying is not the end, or alternatively people don't die at all, essentially making them undead i guess. In this scenario people are either easily resurrected, reborn, spawned or whatever, or simply can't die to begin with. Cutting someones head of might be done simply because it's hilarious, or even for practical reasons when you want to take a close look at something in a confined space not having enough room for your hole body etc.
3. My addition to the conversation. Society is collapsing so killings are normal, or even worse, as with the case in Mörk Borg, everybody is already doomed and forced to face a horrible death. The closer to unavoidable death, the more normalized it becomes.
[Answer]
#### No, ... but
All territorial animals including men developed an instinctive aggression toward each other that pushed them to spread out and colonise a territory as big as possible. However they also developed and instinctive repulsion to kill each other to prevent the natural aggression to go to the point where the members of the species would annihilate themselves. [According to Konrad Lorenz](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Aggression)[\*] human overcame this barrier due to many factors, including the development of weapons that increased the distance and reduced the emotional contact between men. However this instinct is still there and working, although in some cases it is muffled our moral is still heavily dependent on it. The scenario you paint is extremely unlikely unless our society becomes increasingly dependent on virtual interactions and everything is perceived with the emotional disconnect of a video game.
[\*]In my language many books where edited, split or joined, and published with different titles, the reference might not be precise.
[Answer]
Suppose everyone has a completely foolproof way of killing anyone they can name. Some magic spell or something. Stopping a person from being able to cast the spell is hard. Detecting casting is impossible.
Lets say that most people aren't evil. A lot of people never use that spell. But getting hit with it is the top cause of death. Society has somewhat given up searching for the culprit.
] |
[Question]
[
In my world, modern humans are at war with elf-like humanoids who are harmed by the touch of iron and steel. So instead of modern tools they use bio-tech and elemental magic. The human army is trying to invade but one of the elves' defenses against invasion are swarms of attacking insects. The insects carry venom but their real weapons are the viruses they transmit to humans.
How would a human army prevent losing large numbers of its troops to insect-borne diseases?
Note: not all the insects carry the same viruses, but all the viruses, built by the elves, are deadly to humans and can spread quickly through the ranks of an invading army.
More information: the insects are a lot like mosquito as far as their form, but they attack in swarms of hundreds like Locusts or killer bees.
Human Technologies is about the same as ours.
Viruses: as I said earlier the insects carry several different viruses. This is done to prevent one simple vaccine from disarming your entire army. All the viruses are deadly and all the viruses spread quickly from person to person by touch. The elves do have airborne viruses, but they won't be using them at this stage of the invasion. Other than that there's nothing in common.
[Answer]
A good offence is a good defence; eliminating the insects, hence eliminating the diseases that come with them, will be your best bet here. And how, I hear you ask?
## WITH FIRE!
Fire: who doesn't love its radiant warmth, its excessive smoke, its raw destructive power?! Insects. Thats who.
Flaming arrows, blazing trebuchet boulders - [greek fire](http://www.greece.org/romiosini/greek_fire.html) mortars even - as long as it is in a form that can be projected or easily spread, fire will do the trick for a few reasons...
**Flames;** bugs, like most creature on earth, don't particularly like them, and if they do decide to get to close will suffer dearly. Insects, though hearty beasts, are no more fire-resistant than a cheap nylon teeshirts; after a few moments of flame exposure, they will be nothing more than charcoal, stamped beneath the foot of the opposition.
**Smoke;** the faithful accomplice of fire, smoke is always one to create a scene; it alone acts as a notorious repellent for many species of animals and insects alike - [such as bees](http://bees.chrisinch.com/what-does-smoke-do-to-bees/), mosquitoes and some types of ant. A bug that chooses to enter the smoke will have their senses stifled and any flight capabilities, effectively defenceless and unable to attack.
**Heat;** can't handle it, then get out the kitchen, for it is this more than anything that will do the most damage to the insects arsenal. Airborne Viruses are intolerant to high temperatures, "dying" (speculation exists whether they are alive in the first place) if their heat threshold is exceeded, rendering them as harmless to the human invaders as the insects they were created inside (who would be dead. Plain and simply dead).
Fire: the all in one bug-buster!
[Answer]
There are microcristal powders to combat insects (meant to be used vs ants) that clog the joints and work as like sandpaper so every movement by the insect harms itself until the joints stop working.
Combine that with iron nanoparticles that are light enough to be blown by the wind. Use this mixture to bomb the battlezone than advance with protective gear including air filters and protection from the insects.
The above harms the insects in the area and the Elves but turns harmless fast enough to not cause lingering harm and/or prevent population by humans.
[Answer]
**Cordyceps**
Cordyceps is a family of fungus's which naturally help prevent any one insect species from becoming too common.
They infect an insect which then feels the urge to get somewhere high and then the fungus sprouts from the body and spreads deadly spores that target the same species.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/92LQ3.png)
You said modern tech humans, if we had modern tech and were facing someone using stinging insects, particularly if it's a monoculture of engineered insects then breeding/engineering a variant of Cordyceps to target the enemies insects would be a sensible option.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/RB26t.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/n5DC9.jpg)
[Answer]
# Fly Spray
Same was as we do now, formulate an airborne mist that attacks the insect's vital functions. The likelihood is that technological advances will outstrip evolution, so it wouldn't take too long before the Elves primary weapons are disabled and they'll have to think of another strategy.
[Answer]
# Get a giant bug zapper or just get thousands of them around your base
Self-explanatory, it works against bugs here, it should work just as well against bugs there. (I was going to make a question on how to fight giant-mosquitos but I found it to be too easy)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/K9iF0.jpg)
# Magic chain lightning
I'm gonna offer an alternative to Harry David's answer on fire. If your modern humans can use any form of magic(I'm assuming they can use some) then they should be able to use chain lightning. Get a few dozen mages on guard and any idiotic swarms trying to fly in gets fried. Of course, they could fly in discreetly. But then that's where your smoke and bug zappers come into play.
[Answer]
## [Pheromone Traps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheromone_trap)
These can be set up to lure insects, namely the ones you don't want infecting you.
Whilst it may not be particularly useful on a battlefield, as there are many other smells to confound the one the insects need to detect, it can be used in small enclosed spaces, for example barracks.
Soldiers need to sleep, and insects can be released into an area at any time. It will help against the enemy catching the humans off-guard, and will be best utilized in protecting bases so that if the insects come to attack the humans on their home-turf, they will be lured to a specific area where they can then be easily neutralized.
It can also potentially be used near to the places these insects' breeding grounds. It can make male insects chase each other so that they do not breed with females, and allow successive generations to die out. Whilst the enemy can always produce more, it will be very expensive to do it manually instead of allowing them to breed naturally. [Bankrupting the enemy is always a legitimate option](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_warfare).
[Answer]
You should consider the environmental conditions which those weaponized insectoids can tolerate.
Any protection worn by the non-elves would need to function much the same as a beekeeper's outfit: resistant to puncture by stings and chewing from the insects, and have no open seams through which they could enter.
As to the infectious microbes: how are they spread once they exit the stinger apparatus on an insect? Are they transmissible through air i.e. via dust and spittle? Touch? Or does it require open wounds, saliva, genital fluids, that sort of thing?
[Answer]
The easiest solution to protect the soldier in the field would simply be heavy clothes with gloves and mosquito netting to cover the head and neck. Gloves would be connected to sleeves and netting would be a part of the hat and would be fastened to the collar. Pants would be connected to boots over thick stockings.
Smudge pots putting out smoke and insect repellent would help protect campsites and bases.
And having demonstrated that they are willing to engineer diseases tailored to wipe out humanity, it would be very easy to get public support for some "precision" nuking to wipe out this threat to the species.
[Answer]
## Lasers!
As with so many of life's other problems, lasers provide a simple and effective solution. If killer insects are bothering your troops, simply set up a few laser defence perimeters around their encampment. Any insects flying within range will be targeted and destroyed in the blink of an eye.
Not only are lasers fun for all the family, but **this technology exists (and works) today.**
[TED Talk - How to shoot down mosquito using a laser gadget](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnSKrzmpKGw)
[Answer]
>
> Human Technologies is about the same as ours.
>
>
>
Air strikes and/or cruise missiles.
Seriously, you may have to reconsider the scope of your question, because why would you send ground troops in against a virus-laden army when you can drop laser guided bombs on them from a sealed metal tube travelling too high and fast to be bitten?
[Answer]
The technologies used to defend the population at large - and the army camps, etc - against insects, would be the same as we defend against mosquitoes in the real world.
So bug screens in windows and doors; mosquito nets around beds; fogging of populated areas; innoculations; and as others have said, bug spray.
The technologies used during combat would be the same as mosquitoes and bees; so gloves, and beekeepers' hats; and again the bug spray.
[Answer]
Give standard issue tactical bug swatter to every solder
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nndom.jpg)
[Answer]
Instead of going head to head, one to one battle, use ranged weapons from a distance. Lowbowmen, ballistas, trebuchets and rockets would make a short work of the elves. If you use explosives, they'd be very helpful eradicating the elves entirely.
As for defense, use insect repellent (as suggested by NuWin). Also consider marching in military transport vehicles (for medieval times, use iron and wood cabins pulled by horses).
[Answer]
Just give everyone of your troops a slightly heavier and modified NBC suit and the insect problem is solved.
Now the real problem is that the troops need to return to the barracks, but it is not too difficult to make a sealed barracks and avoid the insect to enter it, you just need to copy the systems that are used in every factory that work with gold (and I suppose other precious materials) to recover also the dust.
[Answer]
1. "armor" - mosquitoes can't sting if they can't penetrate clothes (won't help against the virus, but that comes later)
2. To command this swarm, there must be a command channel or signal of what to attack. If it is chemical, the chemical can be removed or a false scent can be planted. If it is electrical, similar disruption can occur.
3. At an individual level the insect has to detect the target. Mosquitoes detect carbon dioxide and heat if I remember correctly. Similar to the swarm signal, there could be decoy CO2 traps (this is how mosquito traps work).
4. Kill the insects where they live. They can't attack if they are dead.
[Answer]
**Giant Fans**
Light things are going to have a problem flying when they face a moderate headwind.
[Answer]
"Human Technologies is about the same as ours."
Consider the war already won.
Scheme #1: "Fair" fight, no airstrikes
Only send out armored units. All troops wear respirators and armor that completely blocks insect bites. Flamethrowers and insect spray are standard-issue.
The main invasion force will be mostly tanks and artillery defended by troops based in APCs and fighting vehicles.
Scheme #2: Airstrikes allowed
Airstrikes make the scenario way too easy for the humans. Drop scatter-napalms from the air, cause as much smoke as possible.
Scheme #3: Noob Tube
Camp a carrier strike group nearby. The whole war turns into a one-sided airstrike and missile campaign. How lame.
] |
[Question]
[
Htrae is a planet with an abnormally strong gravity. In Htrae, the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light. Suppose a civilization like humans (call them snamuhs) evolves, with the unique ability to withstand Htrae's abnormal gravity. If the snamuhs have the ability to become as technologically advanced as possible without breaking the laws of physics, will they eventually be able to leave the planet Htrae and go into space?
[Answer]
We'll be assuming your planet somehow does exist as it is.
**Short answer: technically, yes, but that depends on what you call "space" and what you want to do with it.**
On Earth, space starts (conventionally at least) at the Kármán Line, or 100 km altitude. Simply going past that line does not require escape velocity. Escape velocity (11.2 km/s for Earth) is what you need to reach to break free of your planet's gravitational field.
If you want to put things in orbit, you'd need to reach orbital velocity (7.9 km/s for Earth). Reaching escape velocity would actually be the opposite of helpful, because then your satellite would just break free and go away.
You could potentially send things into orbit (if your orbital velocity isn't also faster-than-light). You wouldn't be able to send them to other planets or what have you, unless you can justify going at FTL speed.
[Answer]
No, they will not be able to reach space. At least if we assume that [our understanding of physics](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/261650/14091 "If the speed of light is constant, why can't it escape a black hole? on Physics SE") is correct. Since you do not state anything to the contrary, that's an assumption I am willing to make.
Basically, **what you have is a (very small) black hole.** A black hole is a mass that is so dense that the escape velocity becomes greater than the speed of light. In order to get that, you need absurd densities; for comparison, if our moon were to somehow magically collapse into a black hole of identical mass, [it would have an event horizon the size of a grain of sand](https://what-if.xkcd.com/129/ "Black Hole Moon on xkcd what-if"). At these scales, many of the equations we can use to describe our everyday world (including Newtonian mechanics and [some of the simpler solutions to special and general relativity](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/254858/14091 "Is there such thing as imaginary time dilation? on Physics SE")) are no longer valid. See also [Are black holes very dense matter or empty?](https://physics.stackexchange.com/q/246061/14091) over on the Physics SE.
Because nothing can go faster than light, and the escape velocity of their world is greater than the speed of light, your species cannot accelerate beyond the escape velocity of their world, meaning they cannot leave it. Apparently (see the discussion in the comments to [AmiralPatate's answer to this question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/37987/29)) they won't even be able to establish a stable orbit around their planet, because the orbital velocity only drops below $c$ well beyond the event horizon, and being able to establish a stable orbit seems the lowest usable definition of "reach space", let alone leave the planet (suborbital spaceflight has very few applications that atmospheric flight cannot cover at a significantly lower cost).
Actually, though, it's worse than that. When dealing with the absurd gravities of black holes and similar objects, [gravitational spaghettification](https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/237593/14091 "Jaywalker's answer to Short of collision, can gravity itself kill you? on Physics SE") becomes one of the things that you need to worry about. Basically, the gravitational pull is so intense that the difference in gravity is noticeable along macroscopic lengths, which destroys the matter that makes up objects of interest to us. Hence, even if we ignore the issue of real estate prices on such a tiny world, **such beings could not possibly evolve,** because there is no matter (as commonly thought of) that could come together to form these beings and remain in a coherent shape under the gravitational stress!
And in a way, it's even worse than that. If the *planet* is dense enough to have an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, I would love to **learn more about the star it is in orbit around,** because stars tend to be vastly more massive than their planets. For comparison, in our solar system, the Sun is approximately 1,047.8 times more massive than Jupiter, or 333,000 times more massive than Earth. If the planet has an escape velocity greater than the speed of light, that makes me wonder what its insolation from its sun is like...
[Answer]
Your 'planet' is what's known as a black hole, so not only can nothing escape from the planet, such a planet can't exist. At least according to current physics, since everything that falls into a black hole contracts to a point. (Of course I'm simplifying a bit: see e.g. Misner, Wheeler, and Thorne's book "Gravitation".)
[Answer]
The fact that -
(1) the planet exists without collapsing
(2) the inhabitants exist at all
already violate so many laws of physics that we might as well have violated a few more. But keeping in spirit with your question, how about we reformulate and ask: "Can this civilization reach space without breaking *additional* laws of physics?"
If the planet itself has a non-trivial, non-approaching-zero radius (as it would if it were a black hole), it means that matter does not undergo gravitational collapse. That might also mean that, say, even though escape velocity cannot be reached by means of aeronautics, why not build themselves out?
Construct a skyskraper or a pyramid of some sort until they reach the event horizon. Build a platform on top of that - boom, conventional space travel.
Alternatively, if we assume infinite technological advancement, you can allow FTL travel by way of the assumed [space distortion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive) following massive amounts of energy or exotic energy, and in this manner be able to reach the event horizon with a spacecraft.
[Answer]
Let's go back to the definition. The escape velocity is the speed you need to escape the gravity field of an object, under a free fall trajectory.
i.e. a object that does not have any means of propulsion needs to be pushed to that speed to escape. But a spaceship can continue to accelerate.
Escape velocity depends on how far you are from the center of mass of the body you are escaping. 11.2km/s for Earth is valid at ground level. If you are already as far as the Moon is, it is only 1.4km/s.
Basically, you can escape the gravity field of earth at any speed, provided you have the means of propulsion to go against gravity for a long time.
To give a simplistic example, it is as if one were to say that the velocity needed to send a pinball from New York to L.A. is 3000km/h: a car can get there going no faster than 100km/h
[Answer]
**Not only is it impossible to reach space, it is impossible to move any distance up from the surface.**
The escape velocity is actually a statement about energy. It is, and is computed as the velocity at which an object's kinetic energy equals its gravitational potential energy. What is an object at the speed of light's kinetic energy? Infinity. You see the problem?
Moreover to move any distance up, the amount of work you need to do is related to the escape energy by the proportion DISTANCE/RADIUS OF PLANET. So that is infinite also.
If this planet exists at all, then they are literal flatlanders, stuck to the surface of a smooth sphere. There is no up. There is certainly no space.
Some life might be possible if your gravity doesn't work in the conventional inverse square fashion, but the fact that escape velocity is c implies there is an impenetrable gravitational barrier at some distance from the planet that simply cannot be crossed, no matter what sort of drive system you use.
[Answer]
Such a hypothetical planet would be roughly 200 million times the mass of Earth and only just over a quarter of the radius. In order for a ship to leave the gravitational pull of such a body it would have to reach a velocity of over 669,600,000 miles per hour.
Assuming Einstein was correct and at the speed of light:
a: Time stands still and
b: Energy is converted to mass
Then although you may be able to lift off from the surface given enough thrust, you will always fall back to the surface of this planet, becasue as you apply more energy to break free of the gravitational pull, and you reach the velocity at which you can, your energy would be converted to mass, increasing your gravitational pull and consequently making the escape velocity higher. Net effect, you are going nowhere.
Now if Einstein was wrong......
[Answer]
I just did this calculation quickly so I won't be humiliated if someone points out an error.
Escape velocity can be calculated by:
$v=\sqrt{\frac{2GM}{r}}$
where $G$ = gravitational constant, $6.67 \* 10^{-11} m^3/(kg\*s^2)$
$M$ = mass of planet
$r$ = radius of planet (or wherever we're starting our trip, but lets assume the surface)
So for $v=c$, where $c ~=3 \* 10^8 m/s$, and assuming we somehow have a planet approximately the same size as the Earth, let's say $r= 6 \* 10^6 m$
$3\*10^8m/s = \sqrt{2 \* 6.67\* 10^{-11} \* M/ 6 \* 10^6}m/s$
$M = 4.0 \* 10^{33} kg$
Wow! The gravity on this planet would then be:
$g = \frac{GM}{r^2}$
= $\frac{6.67 \* 10^{-11}m^3/(kg\*s^2) \* 4.0\*10^{33}kg}{(6\*10^6m)^2}$
= $7.4 \* 10^9 m/s^2$
Acceleration of gravity on the surface is 7.4 BILLION meters per second squared. Compare that to Earth's 9.8 meters per second squared. This is 700 million g's!
It's hard to imagine how anything remotely like human life or human civilization could exist in such conditions.
Of course it's hard to see how anything remotely resembling an Earth-like planet with a radius of 6000 km could exist under those conditions, and at these numbers I think there would relativistic effects so my Newtonian equations are probably inaccurate.
I'm not prepared to say that no technological civilization would be possible. Who knows? This is so far outside our experience that it's hard to know where to begin the discussion.
[Answer]
Short answer would be **Yes**. It is possible to reach to space.
If said simply **escape velocity** the speed with which you need to throw a stone so that it can reach space.
If need little technical explanation it can be said like- The kinetic energy at the surface should be equal to potential energy at the edge of planet after which you can go to space.
i.e.
$
1/2 mv^2 = mgh
$
**or**
$
1/2v^2 = gh
$
Assuming g is same at all heights(for simple calculations).
Now for v(velocity) to be very large(like greater than light), either g(gravity) or h(radius) of planet should be very large.
Since you said that **snamuhs** are capable of surviving in such high gravity
So for escaping to space his ship/rocket need to generate force enough to counter gravity. **Escape velocity** has no role to play here.
[Answer]
I'll start out: there are, unfortunately, some relativity-based considerations that make it impossible according to actual laws of physics, even ignoring the whole "how the heck Htera isn't collapsing" part.
(TL/DR: the so-called space curvature will mean that objects sufficiently far away are literally unreachable in any possible way. If light can't reach it, nothing else can reach it either. This is called the event horizon.)
However, this does not necessarily mean that the surface gravity is going to be extremely large. Or that space exploration inside the event horizon is impossible (but we'll get to that).
You know what else has a reasonable surface gravity but a huge escape velocity? A Dyson sphere. (I mean the outer-facing kind, not the silly inner-facing version that has everything falling on the central star.)
Specifically, the law of gravity being what it is, for the surface gravity to be the same, the mass of the object must be proportional to the square of its radius.
Plugging this proportionality (specifically, $M={gr^2\over G}$, which follows from $g={GM\over r^2}$ for surface gravity) into the equation in Jay's answer, we get $v=\sqrt{2gr}$, which means $r={v^2\over 2g}$, or $g={v^2\over 2r}$.
This is actually fairly easy to navigate - if $g$ is Earth gravity, $c^2\over 2g$ is approximately ${(3\times10^8)^2\over 20}$, or $4.5\times 10^{15}$ meters - or 4.5 trillion km, or 4500 billion km, or 30000 AU (a bit over a tenth of a parsec, a bit under half of a light year). This gets proportionally smaller if surface gravity can be higher.
So yes, if Htera is sufficiently large (about a light-year across for Earth-equivalent gravity), it can have reasonable surface gravity while having an escape velocity higher than the speed of light.
From the locals' perspective, it will essentially be a giant flat plane with constant gravity (this might not actually be true, due to space-time warping, but I'm not enough of a physicist to be sure); it will certainly be possible to travel up by way of balloons, airplanes, or even the occasional rocket (which will, of course, fall right down the way a cannonball does, because the orbital velocity is also huge, but with sufficient starting speed can stay up for minutes or longer).
With occasional - probably laser-based - acceleration along the way, it should probably even be possible for a single ship to go all the way around the planet without going below a certain height (say 1000 km). It would take an awfully long time though (about 500 years for a ship moving at 2000 km/s).
] |
[Question]
[
Real world stars are a mass of exothermic nuclear reactions.
But what if there were some sort of star-like astrological phenomenon that somehow underwent an endothermic reaction?
I would like to know if the existance of this 'endothermic star' could be justified. Scientific explanations are preferred, but I'm willing to stretch to magic means if there are no plausible scientific explanations.
**Further Clarification:**
Preferably something that has gravity/can be orbited, but ultimately anything that would have a cooling effect on other nearby celestial bodies.
---
Note: I'm not actively writing a story, this is purely hypothetical for the time being.
[Answer]
Technically those do exist, they are called [Type II Supernova](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_II_supernova), though the endothermic part is very brief and then followed by a very exothermic reaction. The exothermic nuclear reaction is what make a star a star. Once the nuclear reaction starts taking more energy than it gives off, like when attempting to fuse iron in large stars, it collapses in on itself. Stars are held up by radiation pressure from the nuclear fusion, without it they cease to be stars.
Otherwise, A star is by its very nature an exothermic reaction.
**Edit**
Has mass but does not warm a object around it. You could orbit a black hole that does not have an [accretion disk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk). The cooling would come from space itself and for all practical purposes the black hole would give off very little heat.
[Answer]
There's a problem here: nothing is colder than deep space.
Since there is no interstellar medium, the only way heat transfers in space is by radiation. Any object facing deep space and not illuminated by a star or itself will, left on its own, gradually cool to a little over absolute zero, heated only by the cosmic microwave background radiation.
There's no way to "suck" heat out of something that's not being radiated in that direction. You could have planets orbiting a dead star that emits nothing, or possibly a planet that is a wanderer, and they would be extremely cold; any remaining atmosphere lying frozen as a blanket of snow.
[Answer]
This is probably nutty, but something like adiabatic magnetic refrigeration might work. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_refrigeration>
Imagine taking the iron core of a dead star. Apply a mind-bogglingly large external magnetic field, using something like solar-system-wide Helmholtz coils. Maybe Magneto could do it. Anyway, once the system equilibrates to the new high field, the iron core will be magnetized, meaning all of its magnetic domains are aligned along the field.
Now start to lower the externally applied magnetic field. I'm not sure how to estimate over what timescale it can be lowered, but there would be an incredible amount of energy stored in a stellar core sized chunk of iron, so I would guess centuries just comparing that mass to a standard adiabetic magnetization refrigerator mass.
As the magnetic field decreases, the core's magnetic domains will start to randomize by absorption of thermal energy. But until the magnetic field is zero, the domains will reorient themselves to this lower energy state, resulting in a "spontaneous" decrease in entropy, cooling the body. So over whatever time scale you lower the magnetic field, the body would overall be colder than surrounding space, with the cooling power equal to the decrease in stored magnetic energy over time.
It would be artificial to set up, but in principle it could be a relic from an older hyper-advanced civilization, with the magnetic field machinery just now decaying when we find it.
[Answer]
Black holes are endothermic in a sense, although their swathe of destruction causes an exothermic signature.
I guess cold neutron stars could be endothermic, as their neutrons evaporate. It's complex, because these mechanisms are quantum physical rather than chemical, but in the sense of absorbing heat rather than emitting light you have to go to the dark side - certainly endothermic stars couldn't emit black body radiation.
[Answer]
For the purposes of writing a science fiction story, these answers are not necessarily satisfactory. The concept of an endothermic star might appear in the mind to be an icy blue sphere of radiating energies unknown to modern physics. In reality, the concept is quite different.
For something to be endothermic, it must absorb energy from its surroundings, but this is not seen in space typically. In space, where the radiant temperature is a few Kelvin, there are limited sources of energy for such a star to feed off of. That is, they are limited but not nonexistent.
Recently, the discovery of gravitational waves has made ripples (sorry) in the scientific community. It is conceivable, with a bit of a stretch, that an endothermic star could be at a nexus point between multiple binary star systems, where each creates gravitational waves that pass over the endothermic star, and the waves enter a superposition of energy at this point.
The energy in the space of the star could be used to help heavier elements undergo nuclear fusion (remember that the fusion of elements heavier than iron requires more energy than it could release, making the process endothermic). This star would still release some light, and thus it would work perfectly in a science fiction novel. Attached is an image of what the system would look like, with the scale of distance being in hundreds of light years.[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/jLLjn.png)
[Answer]
Would a [black dwarf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf) be endothermic? Black dwarf stars are a theoretical type of star that has not yet had sufficient time to form in the universe. It is hypothesised that our own Sun may end its days as a black dwarf a quadrillion years from now.
[Answer]
There is a very general problem with your request: **A true and permanent radiation sink violates the second law of thermodynamics** (you take entropy away from the universe). This law is among the most universal laws in physics; it governs black bodies and black holes, indeed it probably governs the universe as an entity as well.1
Now that law only applies to closed systems. Maybe what you are looking for is a processor cooler at a stellar scale? That is, a mechanism to guide the heat away from the star and emit it "somewhere else". If you don't want to have an orbiting heat pipe2 (it's orbiting so that it's always behind the cold star and does not spoil the view) I'd suggest a mechanism like magical micro mirrors (the marketing term was m3) that reflect incoming radiation at an angle perpendicular to all three spatial dimensions. Poof, gone. Make sure it is a one-way mirror though (you know, the second law).
---
1 See, for example, the [Wikipedia article on the holographic principle.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle)
2 Siphoning (nice word) the energy "away" would, in turn, use more energy, just like your fridge or your CPU cooler. The colder you want the object, the more energy you need to stem the natural flow of entropy. On a stellar scale you probably need a stellar energy source (something like a death star 2.0 turned beer cooler). That energy source / working star would better be far away because actually you seem to want it cool, locally. So you would need a massive energy conduit from a working star to your (very) dark star, and then the heat pipe going "away".
[Answer]
In the Electric Universe Theory/Hoax stars are "sumps" that soak up all the cosmic electricity around them. I think the idea is that a star's electromagnetic field is the source of gravity, and the star "burns" because the flow of ions is concentrated there. The electricity comes from outside the star, and the visible star is just an artifact of this electrical phenomena.
I've read a few articles that discuss this concept, or rather, I tried. The logic is often circular, and the whole concept is probably magic dressed up as pseudo-science. [Here](http://www.i-sis.org.uk/How_the_Plasma_Universe_Creates_Galaxies_and_Stars.php) (or [here](https://web.archive.org/web/20170331075502/http://www.i-sis.org.uk/How_the_Plasma_Universe_Creates_Galaxies_and_Stars.php)) is a heady article with I think explains the concept in detail.
[Answer]
A normal star emits "warm radiation" which adds energy to anything that absorbs the radiation. What you seem to want is a source of "cold radiation" which subtracts energy from anything that absorbs it.
Something like this doesn't exist in physics. Well, there is [laser cooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_cooling), but that only works on individual atoms under lab conditions.
So you would need to make up some form of fictional electromagnetic anti-radiation which is emitted by some kind of equally fictional exotic matter which the star consists of.
[Answer]
I think if the author were to have his characters declare that the body cannot be truly endothermic due to the second law, it would be a great starting point to having them look for where the energy is going. Finding out where could be a great quest for an entire series.
You could pick various of the answers here and use a separate story to explore what that answer predicts would be the 'trick' that would allow the phenomenon to appear as a perfect endothermic body. Then have your heroes prove that that trick doesn't exist.
And you could pick your favorite and have them find the secret in the last episode. Irony would have it turn out to be something of a hoax (Miniature storage cells with massive capacity being charged up to power the RV of a cute EBE family.)
] |
[Question]
[
The setting I'm thinking of is in the not-so-distant future where humanity has become an interplanetary species using conventional propulsion. The solar system is largely colonized with human settlements going even as far as TNOs like Pluto.
Along with their settlements, humanity has brought warfare to interplanetary space. Hostile engagements between armed spaceships are similar to modern-day naval engagement and are resolved at a large distance using missiles.
Given the possibility of your ship being fired at having large amounts of air onboard is a significant liability. Air is combustible and escapes fast into vacuum through any significant fracture in the hull. It provides very little in terms of protection for the crew or structural integrity to the ship. Air's only real use onboard is that the human crew need it around them to breath, but that is not entirely the case in modern times and may not be the case in the future. In this setting there exists "liquid life support" and it is used extensively on military vessels built for combat. The crew areas of these warships are filled with a breathable liquid with density similar to water. The rest of the ship is hard vacuum. There is no air onboard.
You may wonder if this breathable water-like liquid is achievable and so do I but I'm pointing towards definitely. It's just a question of engineering either the liquid, of which chemicals with similar properties already exist (perfluorocarbons), mechanical artificial gills, or the crew to have actual biological gills.
Liquid life support provides the warship with a number of advantages. No air means no risk of fire or explosive decompression. The liquid shields the crew from radiation, absorbs more heat than air, mitigates the harmful effects of high-G acceleration and improves the ship's structural integrity.
Downsides include water being heavier than air, limited visibility and hearing inside a liquid medium. Technology could be used to mitigate the latter two and the first one is the reason this system is only used on warships built for brawling and not efficient hauling.
What additional downside could make this a really bad idea or downright impossible?
EDIT: forgot to mention that during normal spaceflight and during routine engagements, these ships have 0 G on board. There is no centrifugal gravity being generated, and gravity is only present during maneuvers. Water pressure would be maintained constant by a system of hydraulics.
[Answer]
Why not just have the crew in spacesuits? The suits could have a hard outer shell and double as escape capsules.
[Answer]
I'm afraid several of your assumptions are incorrect.
A liquid life support system means more pressure. As seen in the movie "The Abyss", it was used in high pressure EVAs under the ocean to prevent the person in the suit from being crushed. Having a higher density fluid, like water, you actually have more pressure (not less pressure) than air.
Also, this "liquid life support" would have to contain high levels of oxygen for the human body to function, so you're likely to have made the vessel more flammable, not less.
With the liquid being at a higher pressure, you've also made explosive decompression worse. Not only is the pressure from the inside more, but the pull on the humans inside the medium will be significantly more. There will be absolutely *no* chance of "holding onto a ladder/chair/control panel" to avoid being sucked out. With that much force on every square inch of a person pulling them out, even a "super soldier" wouldn't have the strength to keep themselves inside the ship.
Visibility wouldn't necessarily have to be limited, since there are seas on Earth where you can see for miles. A more dense atmosphere also makes things easier to hear, since the sound waves travel much more easily. You're likely to have too much sound, such as from engines, causing problems with too much noise.
Also, having a liquid life support would mean significantly more mass for the ship to accelerate, which means more fuel needed, more stress on the ship, and more time for the ship to make any turns.
As @PatJ mentioned, movement would be considerably hindered. Think about being in a swimming pool 24/7 while trying to do office work as well as reacting quickly to being fired upon. It's not just that it will be physically draining, but it will significantly hinder the crews ability to perform time critical tasks, such as throwing on any "force field" to protect a ship or returning missile fire.
There's also the cleanliness factor of several/many people being in this medium together. Think of the pool again, as well as simply walking past someone's flatulence. A liquid medium will make that odor stick around for a significantly longer period.
And for the same reason you don't like air, I think it's useful. It finds tiny imperfections and escapes through them. This is like having advance warning there's going to be a hull breach. A minor air leak is going to be found quickly and is easily patched. Think "Mission To Mars", where the air leaks were found quickly, but the fuel tanks were overlooked.
Again, with a higher density atmosphere, not only will sound propagate more, but so will concussions. This is how fishing with explosives work. The fish don't have to be hit with debris/fragments to die, they are killed by the concussion alone. What most movies don't show is that people can die simply from being too close to a large explosion.
As for absorbing more heat, that means you're going to have to heat more material to maintain a person's body temp, which means more fuel or more electricity. Without being it at body temp, the human body will be the heater, which will drain the crews energy reserves almost as fast as them having to walk across the Bridge.
A liquid medium might work to protect against high G forces in a small, confined area like a suit, but I have a feeling that it won't work as well in a larger space. That's not science, that's just a gut feeling (no pun intended) and some experience talking. An enclosed space restricts the fluid from moving as much, but a large open space would allow the fluid to move freely, so I don't think you'll be getting what you're wanting, without hand waving something.
So, TL;DR: you've unfortunately cause more problems than you are solving by making most of the problems you're trying to solve worse. Also, the problems you think will come up probably won't.
[Answer]
The advantage of air is that it can be compressed, in order to store it. Liquids are much more difficult to compress, and therefore would be much more difficult to store in order to make up for losses.
The other difference is that air is much less dense than are liquids.
Air locks would be reconfigured to, well, liquid locks. In order to egress from the spaceship for external repairs, cargo doors, etc. the egress lock would have to pump out the liquid. The lock would be replaced by - vacuum? Not sure how this would work, especially in zero gravity. How do liquids respond in a vacuum?
Water pressure increases the deeper you go, in diving. Air, not so much. If you have gravity, liquid pressure would be variable between the outside and deep interior of the ship. If you use rotation for creating gravity, you have an even bigger problem. The liquid would pool towards the furthest points from the spin axis.
If you have no gravity, then perhaps the liquid might be an advantage. You could swim through it.
Once the liquid starts to circulate, forming currents, it would drag everything with it. Since liquid is denser than air, the drag effect would be more pronounced. Like ocean currents. The ship would need some form of dampening for the currents. Simply moving a hand would cause objects much further away to move.
The liquid, being denser, would have a greater buoyancy factor than air. Things would 'float' in the liquid more than they would float in air. This would depend on the gravity, of course.
To revisit a previous point, air is compressible. So when one moves, the air immediately around you is compressed in the direction of travel. With a liquid, this compression would be negligible. The mechanical force would be applied over a greater distance. Movement would be harder.
If the liquid were denser than the humans, then they would constantly float in it, even under high gravity. It would be like astronauts training in deep pools to simulate movements in low gravity, no matter how strong the real gravity was.
The increased density, and thus mass, would greatly increase the inertia of the ship. Maneuvers would require a lot more propulsion energy, and would be slower. However, because of the increased density, the change in direction would be transferred to the humans more directly. They wouldn't have to hit a bulkhead before the change in direction was imparted to them.
Ever spin an uncooked egg, then stop the spinning, then let it go? It starts spinning again. The liquid interior has enough density to retain inertia, and then transfer it to the shell again. Ships spinning out of control would take a lot more to control the spinning. You can't just stop the ship from spinning, you have to stop the liquid contents from spinning. On the other hand, it would be harder to get the ship spinning in the first place.
[Answer]
>
> Liquid life support provides the warship with a number of advantages. No air means no risk of fire or explosive decompression.
>
>
>
Your liquid would probably be flammable as it would probably be oxygen based to support human life. Also decompression would still be a problem but it wouldn't be explosive.
>
> The liquid shields the crew from radiation, absorbs more heat than air, mitigates the harmful effects of high g acceleration and improves the ships structural intergrity.
>
>
>
Radiation shielding would be a slight plus but I don't know if the liquid would help with high acceleration more than air, pretty sure it can help a bit with deceleration but the actual acceleration would still have the same force on your body.
The structural integrity is not likely going to improve as the pressure of keeping the liquid inside the ship while accelerating would probably be much greater than keeping gas inside the ship.
My solution to not wanting air on a ship would be to keep humans inside specific rooms in cryosleep on ships. There should be very little a human need to do while being a ship like this and the travel time around the solar system with near future technology will still take years.
[Answer]
Soo many problems with this.
For a start your ship is gonna mass a metric fun-tonne more than it did. You need more powerful engines, you're slower and a hell of a lot less maneuverable, both of which are *prime* considerations for combat vessels.
Now you've got to make sure that all the equipment in the liquidified area still operates at 100% efficiency, does your liquid conduct electricity ? That's a whole new set of birthdays right there.
To get conventional electronic equipment operating continuously "underwater" is gonna require them to be waterproofed, adding yet more mass to the ship.
But assuming you can deal with all that, how do you change a hard drive or a graphics card underwater, reassemble the computer and get it to work without shorting out ??
Your airlocks, or liquidlocks, now require plumbing equipment instead of just vents.
How do you move the liquid around the cabin ? Air flows pretty easily but liquid needs pumps (heavy) which need maintenance and power.
How do you eat ? How do you cook food ? I'd love see how the bathrooms are plumbed :) And how do you clean up a trivial mess ? If my bag of chips bursts open on my desk it's no big deal to sweep them up and vacuum them away. Now try it underwater...
How would your crew members talk to each other ??
That was fun, thanks :)
[Answer]
Tl;dr - Bad idea, with serious health risks and repurcussions, plus additional equipment expense/risk. *Both people and electronics operate better in air than in water.*
1. **Your skin will pretty much start disintegrating**
2. You'd have to make every tool that the crew used water-tight or non-electrical, and wiring failures could be catastrophic.
I mean, it's possible to breathe liquids:
<https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/23074/what-are-the-side-effects-of-long-term-liquid-breathing>
However, [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7oytGfPQw4) reveals additional concerns, mostly with regard to skin condition.
*Human skin is designed to operate in air, not water, and many of its protective features will fail after extended exposure to liquid.*
For additional discomfort, ***just imagine the chafing***.
Even being a little sweaty can cause serious chafing for people... imagine being totally soaked 24-7.
Additionally, such a liquid environment would probably be a great conductor for electricity.
You know how ridiculous it is for StarTrademark to show battle damage by having giant arcs of electricity injure/kill bridge crew?
You've basically just made that reality - except now **a single plug breaks its water-tight casing and you fry the entire mess hall**.
And now all your on-board electronics and crew tools have to be water-tight... the expense would be incredible.
[Answer]
The liquid will be confined to suits as many have explained, but I think even that is challenging. Imagine all the tedious process of going to the restrooms, eating, speaking and maneuvering in cramped places...
[Answer]
Possible see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing>
Possible doesn't mean good idea.
Also something I read somewhere (may be fiction) indicated there was some psycho-physiological resistance to breathing fluid, and some people just couldn't do it.
One thing not noted so far that air is highly compressible, so when something goes **BANG** inside the ship the compression wave dissipates rather quickly. In water (or most fluids) not so much--they don't absorb ANYTHING they just transmit it.
Unless it's critical to the story, a MUCH Better idea is along the lines of a ship-suit that is designed to resist decompression that is "always" worn, and then when moving to "battle stations" one dons a helmet with a built in re-breather and a short term supply of oxygen, and a connection to air hoses. Then the ship decompresses internal spaces and then (possibly) floods them with pure nitrogen or pure helium (depending on how expensive the latter is in that world).
Having lots of fluid on board also *dramatically* increases your inertia and makes direction and speed changes take longer and/or cost more.
[Answer]
We all know space suits is suggested in mostly all sci-fi media around, but you have to face the fact that you still need oxygen for your space travel.
Given that your crew has space suits, there would be a time when they would exhaust their oxygen levels to the maximum, mostly during space fights, can you even imagine a ship firing head on at you, then realizing that you're out of oxygen?
Lets just say that your spacesuit comes with a oxygen generator, that would be so bulky It would only be usable under zero G.
I propose two things, one would be, remove the ship completely and use your suits for space combat, that way, you will not worry of any air or whatsoever for a ship in combat. Your ships will just become transports and your men will be the battle ships.
the second would be changing the crew itself, either biologically or anatomically.
Your main problem is oxygen which is required by your Human crew, and humans do need oxygen in order to live, just as you humans need your ship to fight. Having no oxygen negates that, I do agree that having a ship filled with water really makes matters worst, and having a crew under a spacesuit is only possible if your journey is just linear, having them their free will to fill up their space suits with oxygen if it requires them.
you may have your spacesuits bulky, then supersize everything.
or you may want to use Androids or Robots as replacement for your humans.
Since we are talking about Space wars, during those time I am presume that such technologies are possible.
1) **Robots** - you wont have any humans anymore, mechanized infantry would be the one to fight your battles on space, that way your ship will not require any oxygen of some sort.
2) **Android** - You first train your humans for space battle, then when they are ready for deployment, you transfer the organs that are required for battle. The lungs would also be removed due to its the one reason why your crew needs oxygen (and so is blood) you would be producing a part man, part machine type of soldier.
3) **Genetic Mutation** - You will still be a human, just mutated perhaps. Making the human lungs produce carbon dioxide and convert it to oxygen in one go. With this way, you retain your human form, but you don't require external oxygen to breath. This also keeps your ship "Air free".
You can also mate a human and an alien from an unknown planet which does not require oxygen to achieve a Genetically mutated soldier, but that would be another story.
[Answer]
One of the benefits of liquid would be a dampening of rotational effects (assuming you were at the centre of the rotation). However as pointed out in almost all the other answers conventional liquids have some significant issues: increased mass of ship, transmission of shock waves, some of the answers assume a liquid similar to water (such as boiling if the pressure drops to 0 psi) which would result in the water being expelled and the boiling would reduce visibility until the water froze as it boiled... sort of an interesting effect but certainly not a useful one.
Another possibility then is not a liquid but some form of exotic solid. There is considerable research in this area, however a much simpler answer which addresses some issues of acceleration, rotation is the use of suspended gyroscopes, which have the ability to be moved freely about) and are equipped with mechanically augmented suites (allowing you to work against high g forces).
How the proposed suites would work:
* Each crew member would have an unobstructed 3d view of space.
* The suites would be equipped with haptic feedback (you can feel the approach of multiple projectiles from different directions, other tactile features can let you know if another crew member is handling the projectile, the speed of the projectile and its distance, all of which without needing it to be in your visual field)
* the mechanical augmentation isn't to allow you to move freely (although at low g this may be the case) but rather to forcibly guide the limbs into positions which would create the least cardiovascular stress), the gyroscope is also working towards this end.
* visual rotation, and all other inputs are controlled though tactile interfaces which the computer interprets from pressure changes in the suit; that is, you don't have to physically move the suit to register the change but merely exerting your muscles against the force would be enough for the suit to acknowledge the input. The computer will calculate expected pressures within the suite and any variations detected are the will of the user. This is important because under very high g, actual movement might be virtually impossible.
* if these gyro units are allowed to move within the ship they can absorb some degree of shock (rather than if they were rigidly fixed), also if the rigging can allow them to move to the inside edge of the ships turn, it can reduce the g-forces experienced by the pilots, allowing even more aggressive turning maneuvers.
* a high degree of training would be required as there would be a significant difference between what people would perceive from tactile input vs what they perceive due to visual input.
I feel this sort of device would address the benefits of a liquid environment without its many failings. It may be possible that some future solid composite material which can behave like a liquid, may be able to perform all the above functions, including flowing in such a way as to move people into the inside edge of turns. Also simply because it is a solid does not mean it needs to have a density greater than most liquids as solids can assume porous structures. If such a nano-technology backed solid were available to your ships, they would be able to self heal and repair breaches, it could also react to explosive forces to absorb shock waves, both by changing its internal structure to dissipate shock away from undesired regions and by generating contra-shock waves, to cancel the force of shock in very narrow but critical regions. Also with such a complex material, you would have certain areas of the ship serving certain functions, but the underlying material would be more akin to stem-cells. That is any major system on the ship could be rebuilt, with time.
[Answer]
Another downside of liquid is mass. Water is about 800 times as dense as air. This results in a much more massive ship just for the water, then more extra mass to make it strong enough, then more extra mass for bigger engines to move it, then more extra mass for the fuel.
That said: A liquid filled acceleration couch make make it possible to for the crew to withstand greater accelerations. Consider a skin tight pressure suit with a helmut with inflatable air bags filling the space between it and your head; a couch that is gimbled so that you are always accelerating 'up'. You are nearly horizontal so that g's don't suck blood into your feet, and black you out. The couch is a loose membrane that will wrap around you in your suit. The liquid isn't water, but rather a silicone oil that is non conductive. If a couch is damaged, you have a mess to clean up, but you aren't going to short out circuits. The oil may have modified viscosity characteristics. Merit in having it like cornstarch and turning rigid under shock.
There are advantages to having most of the ship airless at least in combat. Air transmits shock waves quite well. Hit a ship hard (high speed rock, gamma burst, laser, bouquet of electrons at .999999c, whatever) and the shock wave can turn the air white hot. This is tough on anyone who needs to breathe.
High G combat would mean that during combat there would be no damage control parties. If you can't isolate, reroute, backup, etc from an acceleration console, you either have to ease off on maneuvers, or risk losing crew.
[Answer]
This was covered in "[The Expanse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Expanse_(TV_series))"
During combat, the crew wear space suits because they know the ship will end up with holes in it.
If a ship gets shot while full of air, you have the immediate problem of no atmosphere for the crew but you also have the problem of the air escaping acting like a jet causing the ship to shoot off and/or spin in unknown directions like a balloon being let go.
Once combat is over, the crew can patch the holes and re-pressurize and then remove their suits.
] |
[Question]
[
**This question already has answers here**:
[What technologies and sciences are needed to detect a star going supernova?](/questions/7238/what-technologies-and-sciences-are-needed-to-detect-a-star-going-supernova)
(3 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
If our Sun was to suddenly undergo a supernova, what would the signs be? Would there be any signs we could notice before our death?
Assume that the Sun was to gain an increase in handwavium and thus go supernova despite its inadequate mass.
[Answer]
First, if the Sun went supernova scientists would be terribly, terribly confused.
In order for a star to go supernova, it has to have a mass greater than at least 8 solar masses. Although there is some debate about the exact threshold, the Sun is not nearly massive enough, not even close. So if it went supernova it would be really weird. In fact, it would be “totally defying the laws of physics” weird.
But let’s pretend for a moment that the Sun could go supernova…
In essence, a supernova is a violent stellar explosion. Perhaps “violent” is an understatement. These explosions are roughly the equivalent of a few octillion nuclear warheads, and a few octillion nuclear warheads going off in your neighborhood is extremely detrimental to any life in the area. An explosion of this magnitude releases incredible amounts of energy—as much as the sun creates over the course of its entire life.
Which means radiation, lots and lots of radiation.
This is not so good for our ozone. Scientists theorize that the Earth’s ozone layer would be damaged if a star less than 50 light-years away went supernova. And as a reminder, the sun is about 8.3 light-minutes from Earth. Big frown face for us, because 8.3 light-minutes is a lot closer than 50 light-years.
Dr. Mark Reid, a senior astronomer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has said:
>
> Were a supernova to go off within about 30 light-years of us, that
> would lead to major effects on the Earth, possibly mass extinctions.
> X-rays and more energetic gamma-rays from the supernova could destroy
> the ozone layer that protects us from solar ultraviolet rays. It also
> could ionize nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere, leading to the
> formation of large amounts of smog-like nitrous oxide in the
> atmosphere. Of course, just as a reminder, the Sun is not nearly as
> massive as the stars that actually do go supernova, so assuming that
> it did (for some strange reason), it would still be very bad.
>
>
>
If our ozone was impacted enough to cause even a 10 percent increase in ground-level ultraviolet (UV) radiation, it could kill much of the Ocean’s phytoplankton, effectively bringing an end to all marine life. If we lose 2/3 of our ozone, the UV radiation on mid-latitude cities like Washington, D.C. would be strong enough to give you a nasty sunburn in just five minutes.
If the Sun went supernova it would have a much more dramatic effect. We would have no ozone. With no ozone, skin-cancer cases would skyrocket. All living things would suffer from severe radiation burns, unless they were underground or in protective suits. Plants would fry, animals would fry…we would all die.
However, if the Sun went supernova the loss of ozone would be the least of our concerns.
There would be no escape. On the side of Earth that faced the Sun, the explosion would boil away the surface of the Earth at hundreds of meters per second. People on the night side wouldn’t do much better. Scattered light would heat Earth to lethal temperatures. Scientists estimate that the planet would be roughly 15 times hotter than the surface of the Sun currently is. Far above the boiling point of any known material, and much hotter than any human can withstand (obviously).
At best, the Earth would take a few days to vaporize.
Even were we to flee to Pluto (which would take roughly a 10 years with today’s technology) we still wouldn’t survive. The tiny dwarf planet would also be heated to temps hotter than the surface of the Sun. Poor Pluto, first it’s not a planet and now this.
[Answer]
@SandyBeach is absolutely correct: The sun should not go supernova, and if it did so, we'd all be dead by the time we could tell.
However, assuming there's a handwaved mechanism to keep some sensors alive, there *would* be noticeable changes.
---
## It's important to know what causes supernovas first and foremost
Supernovas occur under specific conditions, so it's important to know what they are, and what causes them, to explain what we'd see right before one.
### Fusion occurs in layers
When any star fuses hydrogen into helium, it will run into a problem called **helium poisoning** (not to be confused with the problem that kills people occasionally).
Helium gets in the way of hydrogen nuclei colliding, and fusion efficiency decreases. This problem is eventually solved when the heavier helium sinks to the core - hydrogen is more buoyant - and hydrogen fusion continues in the outer shell. Efficiency is boosted: helium is next to helium, hydrogen is next to hydrogen, and the star can keep going if it's massive enough.
Eventually, helium itself may begin to fuse into carbon - and then carbon will fuse - and so on, adding new layers to the star that our sun does not have. This ends when iron is created, which is not sustainable.
### All things must end
The star will waste energy trying to combine iron nuclei, it will not maintain stellar equilibrium, gravity will overpower energy output, and the star will collapse. Imagine hitting a rubber ball with a hammer: the hammer will fly right back off. That's what happens here: the ball is the core of the star, and the hammer represents all that material.
---
## #1: Orbits would change
You suggest adding enough mass via handwavium to cause the a supernova. Let's pretend that mass is [dark matter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter), so it doesn't block out all the sun's light, and that it's on the outside of the star, so fusion can continue to occur uninterrupted. Even before changes in the sun itself, the orbits of all planets would noticeably in potentially hazardous ways.
## #2: The sun's spectra would change
If you handwaved in enough mass, gravity would provide the energy to continue fusion of helium into other layers. Let's pretend it's a lot of mass, so these changes don't take millions of years. New elements would be visible in the [spectra](https://www.khanacademy.org/partner-content/nasa/measuringuniverse/spectroscopy/e/absorption-emission-lines) of the sun, and scientists would fairly quickly see these substances:
* Carbon
* Neon
* Oxygen
* Silicon
* Magnesium
* Nickel
* Iron
The iron would be a dead giveaway that a supernova was imminent.
# 3: The sun would leave the main sequence
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/61HU4.jpg)
The sun is about in the middle of that diagram: it's average in brightness, temperature, mass, and volume. By increasing the energy output of the sun - "wringing it out" by applying more pressure - it would change unpredictably. On one hand, it would get smaller due to pressure, and hotter, moving toward the rare "blue dwarf" category - yet on the other hand, stars close to supernova tend to expand greatly as layers are added. Regardless, we would see a color change, and a size change, in our star.
[Answer]
Obligatory XKCD link: <https://what-if.xkcd.com/73/>
>
> Which of the following would be brighter, in terms of the amount of
> energy delivered to your retina:
>
>
> 1. A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
> 2. The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?
>
>
>
(Hint: It's not the hydrogen bomb)
In this What-If, Randall Monroe calculates that the neutrino radiation alone (!) would be able to kill you up to about 2.3 AU (the Earth is approximately at 1 AU) for a standard supernova.
So it does not matter if you are on the day or night side of the Earth, since neutrinos don't bother too much with a bit more or less material to pass through.
Arguably, since our sun can't go supernova (with our current understanding of physics), as already stated by the previous answers, this supernova might be slightly less powerful and so the neutrino radiation might be barely survivable. Which is fine, because soon after the neutrinos the electromagnetic radiation arrives (after the neutrinos, because the neutrinos escape easier through the remnants of the sun than photons).
[Answer]
The answer above say it nicely.
Science would be confused (as in, terribly and physics-defyingly confused). Yes. Completely. If they had time to be.
To see why, we need a basic point about quantum physics. Without going into great detail, some particles (known as fermions, and including electrons) simply cannot be packed "too close" because of quantum effects. When forced together under pressure or by some force, this effect manifests as a force arising between them (known as "degeneracy force/pressure") , that resists the force that would otherwise pack them closer. This is the reason behind everyday matter taking up space, it's why chemistry and chemical reactions happen (in basic terms the Periodic Table is largely related to electron "shells" as they are loosely called which is why alkali metals share similar properties, as do halogens, and so on).
In a star, the fusion reactions take place in the core (or for a large star, in layers deep in the star). Although massive and generating a very large gravitional force inward, the star doesn't collapse for 2 reasons - 1) heat, 2) the "exclusion effect" described above, both counteract gravity.
Now consider the same star, when its core runs out of fusable material. If it's below a certain size, the forces between particles (from degeneracy pressure) can counteract the inward gravity indefinitely, alone. So below a certain size, the star simply won't collapse.... and a supernova is a stellar collapse phenomenon. No collapse, no sn. Turns out the size needed for exclusion forces alone, not to be able too counteract gravity, is about 8x the suns mass. So the sun simply can't go supernova, now or ever, left to itself.
The most common way for a star under 8 solar masses to become a supernova is if it isn't left to itself - it gets extra mass from a companion star. One day, enough mass reached, collapse! - called a type 1 (or 1a) supernova. The sun doesn't have a companion star though.
However, if the star is larger than 8 solar masses, its different. There are 3 or 4 possible/known versions of "different", 2 of them give a supernova.
Around 8-9 solar masses isn't *quite* enough to directly trigger a supernova, but it *is* enough to trigger a process that gradually removes free electrons from the core, faster than they can be replaced. This reduces the exclusion force instead, so one day - bang! Collapse and supernova.
About 10+ solar masses it's more direct. The star burns all its fuel (in a well-known sequence that sees it fusing its previous fusion products in layers, at even higher temperatures), but it finally runs out of fusable fuel, and it already has a massive enough core that exclusion forces can't counter its own inward gravity without the additional outward forces of active fusion processes. So it collapses. But you only get a supernova from this process up to a certain point - if the star was *very, very* massive it doesn't get a chance to sn, it either collapses directly to a black hole (or weakly supernova's then collapses back into one), or it blows itself apart via pair production fluctuations. (That's cases 3+4).
Whatever the route, the supernova process broadly follows a similar path. The core - that's the innermost part of the star, not all of it - suddenly finds it can't sustain itself against the inward force of gravity, even with the exclusion principle at work. It suddenly kind of detaches from the rest of the star and collapses inward - and by "suddenly" think in terms of milliseconds and 3/4 of the speed of light. Massive heating, massive outburst of energy (largely in the form of neutrinos), the neutrinos unlike photons can escape from the core easily and add a further runaway loss of energy and support to the collapsing core, it becomes more likely that electrons combine with protons forming neutrons removing even more degeneracy pressure, in the extreme temperatures and pressures elements more massive than iron and silicon are created, 10% or so of its entire mass is converted to energy - and then the inward free-falling core reaches a density around that of neutrons at its heart, and this, finally, stops the collapse. Instead (and we don't fully know the mechanics of it), the infalling core rebounds, and blasts the blissfully unaware outer parts of the star into space in a huge detonation, leaving behind the newly formed neutron core as a neutron star or other similar object, and a nebula of expanding gas.
But that, alas, is one thing our own star will (almost certainly) never do.
What would we see, if it could and did? Well... the best description I ever heard was something like this: *"what would deliver the brighter flash to your retina (assuming visibility) - a 50 megaton thermonuclear weapon detonating on your eyeball, or a star going supernova at the same distance as our sun?"*
*(the comment below says this is [from xkcd](https://what-if.xkcd.com/73), and so it is)*
One guess :) And by something like a billion times.
[Answer]
Some say the world will end in fire, others say in ice...
If the sun decided to bake us with a solar flare, our satellites would see it coming and we would probably see some increase in its brightness as the super heated plasma approached.
If the sun decided to turn down the heat and freeze us out, this would probably also involve a change in general illumination.
The sun is way out of our weight class. It does not even have to nova or even raise a proverbial sweat to wipe us out. And even if we saw the death blow coming, there is nothing we could do to save our all-too-fragile lives.
[Answer]
Our sun would 'probably need some help' to go supernova. The chance for spontaneous supernovae is a non-zero number, though, and technically it's... well, no, not possible (unless the [Q Continuum](http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Q_Continuum) are having domestic problems).
If (big if) somehow a supernova were to be *seen* - its brightness (according to [this link](https://10minuteastronomy.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/)) would be *nine orders of magnitude* greater than a hydrogen bomb detonated on your eyeball.
Quite bright.
Apparently, a supernova would have to be half a light year away before its brightness was equivalent to an H-Bomb pressed against the eye.
Things which might/might not precede or suggest a supernova about to happen with our sun could include a sudden mega-dose of ionizing radiation or at the very least a high-pitched squealing noise.
[Answer]
The sun will gradually get hotter as it ages. At some point in the next billion years it will become so hot that Earth's cloud cover reaches 100% and then the Earth will undergo runaway global warming to become a cooler version of Venus. This is the end for life here.
As for the sun, it will eventually undergo an ordinary nova event and become a dwarf star. Earth will probably survive minus its atmosphere. Venus probably won't.
Astronomers are watching Betelgeuse with interest. It will go supernova some time in the next million years. The star is a huge giant and is highly unstable even on a human timescale. It is teetering on the brink. It's 600 light years distant so the supernova will not hurt us, but it will be very spectacular in Earth's sky when it blows up. At 60 light years it would be a clear and present danger to us.
Interesting fact. The sun cannot go supernova but if it could and did, the flux of **neutrinos** would kill us before any light could escape from the exploded core. We'd just feel sick and then keel over without ever knowing why.
] |
[Question]
[
How could publicly accessible information proving that a public figure is corrupt go undetected for at least a year?
Assume that the public figure is a moderately noteworthy politician (equivalent to a federal Representative or Senator in the United States). This scenario is set in a democracy with full freedom of the press with 2021 level technology.
In addition, are there any real world examples of this scenario actually occurring?
**EDIT:** Several people have cited examples of legally allowed lobbying as real world examples. I'm talking about illegal corruption that could result in convictions.
**EDIT 2:** The government must not be the one to uncover the incident. A group of journalists uncover the records.
[Answer]
**What? You mean [Randall "Duke" Cunningham](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_Cunningham)?**
>
> In June 2005, a story appeared in the San Diego Union Tribune by Marcus Stern and Jerry Kammer, who would later receive a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting. The story revealed that a defense contractor, Mitchell Wade, founder of the defense contracting firm MZM Inc. (since renamed Athena Innovative Solutions Inc. and later acquired by CACI), bought Cunningham's house in Del Mar in 2003 for 1,675,000 USD. A month later, Wade placed it back on the market where it remained unsold for eight months until the price was reduced to 975,000 USD. Cunningham was a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee at the time. Soon after the purchase, Wade's company began to receive tens of millions of dollars worth of defense and intelligence contracts. Cunningham claimed the deal was legitimate, adding, "I feel very confident that I haven't done anything wrong."[23]
>
>
>
>
> On November 28, 2005, Cunningham pleaded guilty to tax evasion, conspiracy to commit bribery, mail fraud and wire fraud in federal court in San Diego. Among the many bribes Cunningham admitted receiving was the sale of his home in Del Mar at an inflated price, the free use of the yacht "Duke Stir," a used Rolls-Royce, antique furniture, Persian rugs, jewelry, and a $2,000 contribution for his daughter's college graduation party.[35] Cunningham's attorney, Mark Holscher, later said that the government's evidence was so overwhelming that he had no choice but to recommend a guilty plea.[36] With the plea bargain, Cunningham faced a maximum of 10 years; had he fought the charges, Cunningham risked spending the rest of his life in prison.
>
>
>
-all from Wikipedia.
The house sale was public, the contracts were public, and everyone's positions were public. It would have taken about the same amount of time to investigate with modern computers.
**There are basically two ways to do what you are talking about:**
1. The government has not discovered the corruption, because the government is the one doing the corruption.
>
> The people who internally review the evidence for traces of corruption are either paid off or part of the corruption. Outside forces can discover the corruption, but that takes time and effort most people can't put into it. Yes, you can sort through thousands of documents faster than you could in the 90s. But now the clerks can make millions of more documents that clog up your filters.
>
>
>
2. The government has not discovered the corruption because the money has been properly laundered.
>
> There is a reason government contract negotiators are [so hesitant to accept gifts](https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/restrictions-gifts-federal-employees-46809.html#:%7E:text=As%20a%20general%20rule%2C%20a,of%20his%20or%20her%20duties.).People can use gifts to funnel money to government officials in exchange for government contracts. Depending on the situation a [gift of 25 dollars might be unethical to accept](https://www.doi.gov/ethics/gifts#:%7E:text=If%20the%20gift%20is%20valued,in%20order%20to%20accept%20it.). Therefore, if someone is doing bribery it is likely through a very hard to find channel, going through shell companies, stock options, and favors for favors. The FBI is pretty vigilant, mostly, but sometimes journalists beat them to the punch. Also, if you are in situation 1 the FBI won't make a difference.
>
>
>
[Answer]
**No one tried to connect the dots**
Consider following scenario:
* Senator A had sponsored a certain bill;
* This bill directly led to a company B signing a very lucrative government contract;
* Company B has significant business with company C which provides some kind of consulting to Company B;
* Senator A has controlling stake in Company C;
Every link of this chain is potentially known to the public, but unless someone is specifically looking, the whole chain is not visible to anyone;
**No one was looking**
Consider following scenario:
* Senator A had long been dogged by his alleged association with the mob, but he steadfastly denied those allegations;
* Joe Nobody had once visited a restaurant, made a selfie and put it in his Facebook account;
* Little did Joe know that in the background he captured senator A talking to a prominent mob boss;
The evidence was in the plain sight for quite some time, but no one had thought to look for it in that particular place.
[Answer]
I'm surprised nobody has done this yet...
>
> Mr Prosser: But, Mr Dent, the plans have been available in the local planning office for the last nine months.
>
> Arthur: Oh yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them, yesterday afternoon. You hadn’t exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or anything.
>
> Mr Prosser: But the plans were on display…
>
> Arthur: On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.
>
> Mr Prosser: That’s the display department.
>
> Arthur: With a torch.
>
> Mr Prosser: The lights had probably gone out.
>
> Arthur: So had the stairs.
>
> Mr Prosser: But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?
>
> Arthur: Yes yes I did. It was on display at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard.
>
>
>
[Answer]
**The same public figure flooded the media with other information that distracted or obscured the truth**
If the corruption requires at least some dot-connecting to uncover, real world politicians employ what's called the 'dead cat' method: do something so outrageous that everyone's attention is diverted away from the really dangerous stuff to something that's just humiliating or offensive.
Your public figure could also hire journalists to write obvious hit pieces and slander against themselves, so the public won't believe the real corruption if it is reported on. Claim fake news ad nauseam.
It's only after the smokescreen stories are disproved one by one, that the truth can be discovered and effectively brought to public attention.
[Answer]
The reports work for an outlet that mostly publishes made up stuff.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/J532V.jpg)
The snake eating the man alive was true. People don't check stuff that comes from a source like this. Sources like this are interested in things that are spectacular and wild. In your story, the corruption in question is not run of the mill stuff - it is wacky, involving Imperial Russian gold, Rhodesian separatists, offshore laboratories, snakes, Bowie, and more. But all true and ultimately verifiable. Even when the story is run by an unorthodox Unabomberesque journalist who works for this publication, it is still not checked by the government for a long time. The girlfriend of this journalist's brother hears something about it and prompts a second investigation.
[Answer]
There's always the classic: A distraction.
A very common distraction is a war. You might get caught with your hand in the cookie jar? Make the tail wag the dog and start a war with some country nobody likes but that is not really strong enough to have a chance of beating your country. This is most appropriate (if that's the word) when the corruption involved bribes etc. with the defense industry. Hey, you can probably get a lot more bribes by pushing contracts to build war stuff.
Another frequent distraction is a scandal about somebody else. Especially somebody who is already controversial for some reason. Even if you have to plant the evidence with your own sweaty hands. Hey, you are on the committee for the FDA? You can get some cool drugs and plant them on your enemy, then conveniently leak some juicy info to the media. Hey, your enemy has ties to a certain well known family with rumors of something shady? Plant evidence that implicates them in that exact thing. You can fancy it up by making the evidence massively obviously false so that the scandal turns around and becomes a mystery of who did the evidence planting. Which will spiral into conspiracy theories that the target planted the evidence himself to make it look like he is a victim.
A subtle and risky gambit is to leak information about yourself in order to create a scandal that you believe you can weather. If everybody believes you failed to evade taxes, and so owe the government a big stack of cash in fines and penalties, maybe they won't dig for anything else. "He's a tax cheat not a murderer." Or to pull the stunt your enemy gets accused of in the previous paragraph, and leak stupidly obviously fake evidence of the actual scandal. "Oh, that was disproved, forget about it."
If you put enough back-spin on the distraction, you can abscond. You can be in a country that has no extradition with your home country, with the cash, before anybody realizes what is going on.
[Answer]
Undetected is a relative term.
In an instance of corruption, at the very least the corrupt person knows. And whoever they were corrupt in favour of. Now, say that they are one step removed from being directly bribed. Say for example their father owmed a shop-building company, and they removed an embargo on steel from a country that sold it cheap. Plenty of people can know about that, they were even publicly voting on it. But, how likely is this story to make it to the front page? If they're family is rich, and friendly with the owners of all the major media companies it might not get published at all. To all people save a rounding error it goes undetected, despite technically being public knowledge.
Or for a really juicy one, say your cabinet gets briefed on a foreign virus. Then everyone at that meeting sells stocks in things like travel, buys stocks in things like medical companies. Before the information about the virus goes public. Is this legal? Possibly. Might be insider trading, might technically be something else. The thing is, it can only be noticed a good while after it occurred, meaning it's never fresh news, so probably won't be published, even before you consider some good relations with the owners of the press.
Tl;dr be friends with the people who own the mainstream press and they won't publish until they absolutely have to, letting you keep almost everyone who doesn't personally research it or have involvement be unaware.
[Answer]
This kind of situation is often held up as a consequence of the death of local media. There's less time for journalists to cover court cases, pour over public records and do in-depth investigations that may or may not pan out.
There's a recent case in my municipality where corruption related to building and planning permits recently led to several people being sentenced to jail time. This story was broken by the local newspaper, but only after a regular citizen who suspected something fishy was going on had spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours pouring over public records connecting the dots.
In your case, the corruption by the national-level politician could still be at a local level, quietly enriching him and setting him up for a nice retirement once he leaves congress.
[Answer]
Not naming names for obvious reasons, but the following examples are taken from real life:
* The checks and balances in this country are set in this way: the Senate is the only public body constitutionally allowed to evict a judge from the Supreme Court. No criminal investigation can be carried out against the Senate or its members by any agency without explicit permission from the Supreme Court. There you go. What happens when both of them get corrupted?
* High Profile Politician is friends with the owners of some of the country's widest circulation newspaper and tv channels. Small newspapers might call out the corruption, but the big ones will drown the news with other irrelevant news or outright call it fake news.
* A journalist publishes a scandalous story involving a group of high-profile politicians. A few days before testifying in court, he dies in a weird car accident. In the following weeks, all possible witnesses (including the favorite candidate to win the next presidential elections) die or disappear, one by one. The case goes cold and no other journalist wants to touch the story.
[Answer]
It could be possible. The way I'm thinking of is having it so that the public figure, A, pulls some strings so that another, even more public figure, B, is under a big scandal, C. Since C is occurring, not many would pay attention if A did action D, thus stopping scandal E from occurring. Then, after C blows over, people won't be too inclined to look for if A did D, which means at worst for A that E would occur later.
[Answer]
**If it is not too much**
Only the worst and most explicit cases of corruption draw public attention.
If the corrupt public official has the self-control to do most of their work at acceptable quality and only SOME of it is affected by bribes, no one will look twice.
On the other hand, the human nature being what it is, the easy monetary inflow gradually changes one's priorities, as well as risk tolerance. In most cases, as the time passes, the corrupt official imposes increasing pressure at their fellow officials, their bribing clients and their non-bribing clients alike. At some point the corruptioneer's behavior is unacceptable for a great number of people and attracts attention.
[Answer]
The amount of public accessible information in the world is staggering. So I think it's natural that some/a lot/the majority of public accessible information will not get attention from anyone. Even if it concerns a relatively important person.
] |
[Question]
[
This country has very low mortality rates and basic medicine, it is also very well-connected with a strong government and homogeneous culture and people. The country is self-providing of all resources. The army doesn't engage in massive battles and is mostly border guard and garrison.
The events are set in a late renaissance-like world(not specific to Europe), minus the gunpowder. The country has political feuds growing with a nearby nation but doesn't have enough troops to challenge them military, why would that be?
They haven't had any major war for decades, the population is about 100 million, while their military force is 250k in total (the age demographic of the population is evenly mixed). Consider forced conscription unavailable.
some extra clarification
250k is small because of its size, (something like the former USSR, but the land is more of the weather of western Europe) there are thousands of castles bordering other nations and a huge navy that protects the trade routes, the number also includes the police force.
Note: i keep seeing people using the "The events are set in a late Renaissance-like world" as a reason to compare it to Europe. i used that term for the lack of a better term to symbolize the technology, the weaponry, the advancement in sailing, governmental structures of that time, and chain of command.I am mainly referring to the time period. also, the population count shouldn't matter, what matters is that i am saying that in this case it makes sense that they can have a 100 million and that a 250k army is small. what would be reasons that they wouldn't be able to mobilize further
extra clarification: consider transportation across the country to not be a problem, there exist a series of channels that interconnect all parts of the land (dosent matter how they were built) they can cut travel times by half.
[Answer]
**Fielding a big army takes money. Money takes taxes. Your population doesn't want to pay them.**
What you've described is a big, prosperous country that's gotten fat and lazy off of generations of not having had to fight for anything. Our own history is full of that kind of thing. A nation like that will offer enormous internal resistance to anybody who wants to try to build a big army for aggressive purposes all the way from the poor farmers who would be the first people conscripted to fight, to the wealthy merchants and nobles who would be the first ones expected to pay for it.
This is basically exactly what the United States was like in the 30s. The vast majority of the country had no interest at ALL in participating in World War 2 until the Germans and Japanese respectively forced the issue. Unless the other country that they're feuding with in your scenario starts actually killing people, your prosperous nation will be irrationally committed to peaceful diplomacy at all costs.
[Answer]
1. *"The events are set in a late renaissance like world, minus the gunpowder."*
Fine. Let's take this as given, and let's assume that by "late Renaissance-like" we understand *western European* Renaissance, about 1550 to 1600.
2. *"The army doesn't engage in massive battles and is mostly border guard and garrison."*
Nope, that doesn't work in a western European late-Renaissance country.
It doesn't work because there were no border guards the way we understand the term. There was no such thing as a passport. People came and went as they pleased; one didn't need a state-issued travel document to travel from, let's say, Naples to Uppsala, or from Bristol to Vienna. They needed money, and may have to register with various local authorities on the way (not necessarily, but it was occasionally possible, especially in the Germanies); but documents they didn't need, and definitely there was no such thing as immigration control at the borders.
As for garrisons, I don't even understand what is intended here. Nobody kept soldiers around, *inside the country*, in peacetime, as garrisons in their own cities. What would have been the purpose of such great expense? To do what?
3. *"They haven't had any major war for decades..."*
Well, that's one *small* western-European late-Renaissance country; for example, the Bishopric of Würzburg. But no major western-European Renaissance country went *five years* without being engaged in some war. But OK, let's assume that somehow this late-Renaissance-like world is not really quite so late-Renaissance-like and this country somehow avoided war for a decade or so.
4. *"The country has political feuds growing with a nearby nation."*
To avoid useless arguments, let's assume that by nearby nation the question means a nearby country.
5. *"Doesn't have enough troops to challenge them militarily."*
Well, that is to be expected, isn't it? They did not have wars for a decade. *Nobody* in their right mind kept soldiers around for fun. Soldiers are *expensive*. They need to be fed, they need to be housed, they need to be clothed, they need equipment, and they need to be *paid*; and in exchange they don't produce anything. Don't project imperialistic ambitions of a handful of 21st century countries into the 16th century. *Of course* they don't have enough troops.
What a 16th century sovereign did when they planned to go to war was *gather an army*, because nobody had masses of soldiers just standing around consuming resources. Gathering an army implied either recruiting some of their own subjects, or, quite commonly, hiring professionals. By and large, countries such as France, England or Sweden preferred recruiting French, English or Swedish subjects, while German or Italian countries preferred hiring professionals. (Spain is special; they actually had a permanent professional army of their own, but then, they cannot serve as an example because they never went through a whole year without being engaged in some war somewhere.)
Gathering an army for war was a *very expensive* proposition, and risky; money needs to be found, a plan to raise the immense war budget needs to be developed and executed, and the king my lose his head in the process: just ask Charles I of England. Provisioning a war budget takes time.
But how could a country defend itself if they didn't keep large armies standing by?
16th century wars were not like modern wars. A country would have ample time to prepare in the event that a nearby power wanted to make war upon them. You notice that your western large neighbor is recruiting soldiers? That takes time. You then duplicate the effort. Then, 16th century armies were *slow*. Let's say that the Ottoman Empire wanted to attack Austria; Austria could count on a full year between the Sultan issuing the order and an Ottoman army actually showing at the gates of Vienna.
6. *"The population is about 100 million, while their military force is 250k in total.*"
Wow, that's one *extremely large* army. As in *unbelievably* large.
You seriously need to understand better how warfare was practiced in the late Renaissance or even the Early Modern periods.
* That's about the total size of the *combined* armies fighting on the "Protestant" side in the Thirty Years' War. (And remember that this is war-time strength, not peace-time strength, that at least half of that force were foreign professionals, and again that this was an actual relatively modern war with firearms and with plenty of innovations.)
* That is *larger* than the total size of the army which the *Ottoman Empire*, a notoriously bellicose and very large power, mustered for their war against Austria in the 17th century.
* That is about the total size of the *Roman army* during the rule of emperor Augustus; and that was the army of a large empire, always fighting some war somewhere.What could they possibly plan on *doing* with a quarter of a million soldiers? In a war without gunpowder? Not even the Romans ever concentrated such an awesome force against one single enemy, in one single war. How do they plan to keep this army fed and equipped on campaign? It's the 16th century! There are no railroads, overland transportation of food, equipment and ammunition is a vast exercise...
## Summary
* Of course they don't have enough troops; nobody kept large armies standing idle in peacetime. They need to gather an army, and, anyway they do it, it will cost a lot of money. Money needs to be planned into the budget.
* An army of a quarter of a million soldiers is immense for the late Renaissance. This is about the total size of the armies of the Roman or the Ottoman empires.
* This is actually comparable with the total number of soldiers they could expect to be able to sustain in war time. A population of 100 million means some 25 million men of military age; in war time they could *maybe* sustain 4% of them under arms, for a total war-time strength of one million. (4% is a very high percentage of men in the army, given the general level of technology in the 16th century.)
[Answer]
# Political traditions cripple their military.
Pick one or several:
* The parliament or the nobility really doesn't like the monarch to control too many troops. The monarch doesn't want troops under the nobility. The commoners of the cities are expected to provide defensive garrisons, not expeditionary forces. Each craftsman and apprentice owes two days of service per month, guarding the gates and training. After that, the next one reports for his shift.
* The army is still feudal, with nobles owing their overlords that many *lances* (a knight with a squire, a sergeant, an archer and a couple pages) in time of war only. Turning that into a modern pike-and-crossbow block is all but impossible.
* Tradition and law regulate what taxes the central government may raise, and for which purposes. A long time ago the tax on wool exports was entirely adequate to fund a strong army. Now everyone exports cotton. The political factions have been arguing for decades about a complete revision of government finances, but *somebody* would have to pay more than they pay now.
* Once an officer makes colonel, all promotions are *strictly* by time in grade, and there is no mandatory retirement. Unfortunately, resignations are seen as dishonorable. So it is possible to deploy a few companies under the command one of the company captains, but sending a full regiment means having an 80-year-old in overall command. Anything else would be a *grave insult* to the honor of a powerful family.
[Answer]
**People are too old to go to war.**
Your /country has very low mortality rates/. They have very low fertility rates. The populace is old. That also accounts in part for why they are stable, rich and peaceful. It is a country like Belgium, or Japan. The old people are rich and sensible. The young people are busy - or foreigners, who are happy to live and work there but by no means are going to go to war for this country.
In the past, to field a proper army this country has leveraged ts wealth and used mercenaries. But this time their reliable mercenaries are unavailable, hailing as they do from the same neighboring country with which these people are feuding.
[Answer]
**Hedonistic Population**
Basically, a stable population that gets used to not having struggle with resources or wars gets to the point where the populace likes that situation (I mean, what's not to like about it?) and then decides to see how much of this 'plentiful food and minimal work' thing they can get away with.
Fast forward, and you wind up with a hedonistic civilization that only cares for personal gratification (*cough* Roman Empire *cough*), which will basically make all the people in it fat slobs who refuse to work.
[Answer]
>
> The country has political feuds growing with a nearby nation but
> doesn't have enough troops to challenge their military
>
>
>
This could be due to various factors:
1. **Other country has a bigger army**: Your army of 250k can't do much against another of 1m, assuming similar equipment and training.
2. **Terrain differences**: This country is a fertile low-lying plains, while other one is a mountainous region with precious mines. Its fairly easy for the enemy army to march on flat ground, but much harder for their army to adapt to mountain warfare.
3. **Long training time**: Tensions have spiked up only recently, but there is a need for time & budget to add new soldiers - it can't just happen overnight. Given a few years, they could grow their army enough for a military campaign, but it just isn't ready *today*.
4. **Workforce unavailable**: Unemployment is super low, and most people eligible to join the army are busy with farming (avoid starvation), trading (acquire needed resources), construction (roads, naval bases, defensive fortifications) etc. and can't be easily reassigned for army training.
[Answer]
## A Little Internal Division Goes a Long Way
You describe a happy, homogeneous society. If you're willing to relax that a little, you can easily explain away any manpower issues.
If you have a **favored minority** with your country, and a **disadvantaged majority**, it can lead to manpower issues. Both Iraq under Saddam Hussein and Syria under Assad had this issue, although you don't necessarily need to make your nation a brutal dictatorship to make it work.
Being in the army has power - you might be able to choose who passes through a checkpoint, or arrest people arbitrarily, or even kill people without a lot of scrutiny. So a ruler cannot allow too many people from the disadvantaged majority into the army - they will gain too much power and may start a revolution.
But at the same time, the favored minority is a finite resource. If you lean to heavily upon that community, they will become restive and the ruler will lose their support. The favored minority wants to have **some** of their young people at home, running their shops and plowing their fields. If they're all enticed or conscripted into the army, that's a problem.
So in this case, the ruler is performing a careful balance, trying to pull from both communities in just the right amount to staff their forces without giving too much power to the majority or abusing the good will of the minority.
In Syria and Iraq, these divisions fell along ethic lines, but you could choose something more subtle. Perhaps the country is ethnically homogeneous, but some core part of the country favored, and the large portions that were conquered two or three generations back are regarded as not yet fully part of the nation.
Or it could be a nobility vs peasantry thing. Or one of several other dividing lines.
[Answer]
The general population is hard to mobilize. There's no reliable census data to start with, so noone knows how many troops could/should be mobilized from a given village or town. This is not far from reality, James Scott "Seeing like a State" goes into the history of censuses a bit if your interested.
More relevant, laws are a hodgepodge or local customs and a general levy is simply not part of it. Trying to start one would lead to riots - peasants and artisans don't give anything away for free, especially not their life and especially not to their nobles. Silvia Federicis "Caliban and the Witch" goes a bit into working conditions and resistance strategies late medieval peasants and artisans employed, you could transpose some of those into a renaissance like setting.
Troops that can be mustered usually stay until the first payday, before deserting. I don't have a good source but again that is not entirely fictional.
[Answer]
**Short answer:**
You need those men for other works.
**Long answer:**
Your country is quite advanced for a late-Renaissance one: even if you have numerous population, you need to be self sufficient (as you said in your plot), so it already takes out a great part of the population. If you choose a non-common way to satisfy the need of the country, such as fishing and tropical cultures, then you will have a manpower tied to farming works all the year.
You can also choose that the major part of population is tied to work part of the year, and the rest of the year they have no habit to go to military work.
These principles apply with other features of your country: sanity of cities, long range trade, cultural activity to integrate everything that could come from the outisde...
*Those principles all work because you are in a not-modern country, so you lack the machinery technology/industry that could replace men by machine.*
[Answer]
Work expands to fill workforce. In modern countries we have incredible technological wonders compared to just 60 years ago. Manufacturing is highly automated. Yet we work just as many hours as we did back then. We just invented new tasks in retail, middle management, advertising, and entertainment. Some of these jobs make life easier for everyone, others are inherently competitive and zero-sum.
In the long time of peace that your people have had, these type of jobs have expanded to fill your workforce. Now that you need to 'trim the fat' it isn't clear what is excessive. For example, maybe you have many ad driven news sources, the optimal solution would clearly be to cut all the ad departments by half (everyone's ads are half as good, no net loss to society). But untangling all that is a big mess, and of course in your country with little martial tradition, everybody will try to appear to be necessary for productivity (to avoid drafting).
And even then, retraining is a massive issue. Your workforce is made of scribes, messengers, clergy, etc etc. They've mostly never seen a spear. Good luck training them. You might have better luck with the next generation, but the older they are, the more they've specialized. So for the next year your army is going to be made up of dudes who are 5% soldier, 95% scribes. 8 years from now you'll have 50% soldiers, and so on. And that doesn't even get to how you'll be training these dudes, and I hope your generals have been wargaming with each other for the last couple decades...
[Answer]
>
> The country has political feuds growing with a nearby nation but doesn't have enough troops to challenge them military, why would that be?
>
>
>
The populace may have a good sense of self preservation and a lack of identification with the desires of their "masters".
Between WW1 and WW2 the English were on average far more pacifist and anti-war than in the subsequent period after some guy you know in Europe decided to get expansionist. Strong anti-war statements were published by the academic intelligentisia proclaiming their refusal to ever get involved with UK warmongery. Despite this, many subsequently went to their deaths in furtherance of such a war, with a will and as happy to do so as one can reasonably hope anyone to be.
Pre 'Pearl Harbour' the general US feeling was 'isolationist' and the prospect of the US fighting a war in Europe seemed small, to many. Not to all.
Some our-world countries have a reputation (deserved or not) for not for their individuals not wanting to get involved militarily, for generally having soldiers who retreat and surrender at the drop of a hat and ... .
One could put this down to high intelligence and a lack of dedication to their rulers' desires. [I note that the classic example country (tanks with 1 forward and 10 reverse gears, ...) has people, who when they decide to take up arms as 'resistance' forces, have a reputation for immense warlikeness, formidability and nastiness - ie the actions of the people when they are fighting for what they really believe in and their perceived "normal style" may not be the same].
[Answer]
The population might be extremely pacifistic. They simply refuse to fight in a war
[Answer]
Some possibilities:
* Low birthrate in the last few decades means the population, while healthy, is of advanced age, with most of the citizens long beyond the young adulthood of their 20s and 30s, which is the ideal for frontline troops. Sure, that 80-year-old still runs marathons, but can he do it with almost 100 pounds of armor and pack? This isn't a great solution, especially in a pre-birth-control era when kids were a natural and very frequent consequence of marriage, but it's an option. Keep reading for better.
* Training to be a true soldier doesn't happen overnight. If you grew up in a time of peace, in a culture that grows its food, where hunting for sport is barbarism, and where the military is viewed as (or openly operates as) a last resort for those who don't fit into mainstream society (something akin to the French Foreign Legion), it would naturally follow that the military is understaffed for the population it serves. There may be additional "anti-patriotic" social taboos against taking up arms for your country (unpopular political leaders, perhaps; "I'm not risking my life for those idiots in the Grand Council") that would stymie efforts to staff up.
* No gunpowder means your projectile weapons are significantly harder to learn to use effectively. Pikemen were a dime a dozen, any farmhand could sharpen the end of a pole and be on his way to battle within the hour. Archery, in contrast, was its own trade, with archers learning not only to use bows and arrows, but to make them. Fletching arrows is an acquired skill, especially when you're dealing with medieval materials and methods, and they do break, leaving you to make more from whatever you can. Archery commonly overlapped with hunting, and archers were commonly kept busy hunting game or predatory animals on behalf of the local feudal lord.
* Along these lines, numbers alone do not win battles; the type of forces you field make a difference. Infantry, archery and cavalry all had strengths and weaknesses against other fighters; archers could break an infantry charge, but armored cavalry turned aside all but the luckiest arrow shots and closed the distance too quickly for volleys to significantly reduce numbers. Massed pikemen wielding halberds or other purpose-built polearms were an armored cavalryman's biggest threat, but there weren't many of those; light cavalry could flank a pike line, and archers could pick them off at far greater. You can put your entire country's able-bodied male population on the battlefield, but if they aren't skilled at riding (or their horses aren't conditioned against the chaos of battle), and you don't have many archers because your food economy doesn't require much hunting, all you have are a lot of infantry, and you become vulnerable to a more balanced armed force. The French won the Battle of Hastings in much this way, despite being outnumbered by almost half; Duke William's professional force including trained cavalry and archers made the difference against King Harold's hastily-assembled volunteer ("voluntold") force of English foot soldiers.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question needs to be more [focused](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by [editing this post](/posts/209819/edit).
Closed 2 years ago.
This post was edited and submitted for review 2 years ago and failed to reopen the post:
>
> Original close reason(s) were not resolved
>
>
>
[Improve this question](/posts/209819/edit)
**AI: "What is joy? Does it serve a purpose?"**
With memory being associated with the ability to attach emotions to that memory, all these words and experiences ONLY get meaning through the emotions. In this sense, emotions are very dense condensations of many experiences, compressed into a speedily referenced form. An efficient reference to a life of experience, but it doesn't easily exclude false manipulations - those must be picked out.
Emotions have no true meaning to AI's as is the case in most of works of fiction. A common case of this is human anger being perceived as a fight or flight response, with the AI usually being oblivious to what exactly made the human angry. In many cases these are reactions are perceived as illogical and irrational and the AI will have a hard time understanding what they mean, unless it has developed "humanity", which in my opinion is a lazy way of handling the subject.
For my setting the AI in question is alien in origin and is tasked with studying life. It is naturally inquisitive, a true scientific mind, that immediately studied life on earth. Soon after it met humans, it learned our language and began studying us and sharing its knowledge. Like a scientist assigning functions to animal instincts and behaviour, the AI assigns its own understanding of our emotions and what their functions are.
**The AI might take the emotions at face value and view them as physiological responses. But what function would the AI assign to each emotional response? How are emotions useful?**
[Answer]
Joy. A subroutine to incentivize main systems to follow useful courses of actions. Prone to being subverted by pleasure cycles.
Anger. A self defense subroutine used to counter threats to existence. Primarily useful for physical conflicts, but can be triggered faultily by social conflicts. A useful emotion for manipulation, as it tends to override other emotions and thoughts.
Sadness. A hibernation subroutine to minimize resource expenditure when resources are lost and signal to other humans the need for help. Prone to self reinforcing routines which disable functioning.
Fear. A passive and active awareness subroutine which warns against dangers. Some humans are triggered by non dangers and some lack appropriate wariness of real dangers.
Disgust. An avoidance subroutine to avoid disease vectors and sources of damage. Some have over active disgust responses to non disease sources.
Surprise. A refocusing subroutine used to focus attention on new events which may be dangerous or provide useful resources. Human brains do extensive modelling of likely events, and deviations trigger surprise. Some humans find themselves unable to focus without enough surprises, making them less efficient at resource production.
Love. A variety of reward and punishment systems meant to help humans form social bonds and produce new copies of themselves. Prone to subverting other subroutines. Useful for manipulation as it tends to take priority over other subroutines.
Grief. A variation of sadness, normally caused by a human failing to function.
Schadenfreude. A fusion of several subroutines including sadness, joy, and anger. Generally involves an increase in prioritization of seeing other humans hurt, because they are part of a disliked group (skin colour, fictional narrative, genital shape see appendix 1 for an extensive list) are a rival for attention in an existing group, or because the other human broke an ethical rule. Useful for infiltration. Low status humans who are more accessible to manipulation tend to derive great joy from seeing higher status humans hurt.
They would have a basic idea of how each emotion modified behaviours, know common triggers, know whether it was likely to impact things that mattered to it like how hard they worked, and have some idea about how to use each for manipulation to achieve their goals.
[Answer]
## Emotions as exception handling / operating mode signals
In the same way that we humans tend to compare new information with information that we are already acquainted with, an emotionless AI can view emotion as if-then statements in programming that serve the purpose to be a rudimentary method of exception handling
To this day, many pieces of equipment cannot tell you precisely what's wrong with them, why they are malfunctioning or which part is affected because of how their I/O is designed and how they're programmed.
For a current-day example, a fully-automated CNC lathe with a guard cannot tell you if the door is completely open, half-open or if the sensor is defective - it can only tell that the guard is NOT CLOSED and it cannot start until the guard is closed. Then, it emits a signal (sound, light, phone notification) to call a human that can troubleshoot it.
An emotionless AI would view human emotions like a rudimentary, biologically mediated way of exception handling that is part of human firmware / basic programming.
Some emotions could also signal that the human is under a different "operating mode" - for example, grief could be interpreted by the AI as the human operating under "recovery mode" after a catastrophic failure of another human in their module
Surprise would be a basic error message - this was not expected during this operation - which could then be resolved by the human's heuristics, or lead to another error (shock)
Anger and Fear would be responses to threats - one threat is not considered too severe, so the human signals to eradicate it (anger), and the other is, so the human signals to flee (fear)
And so on...
[Answer]
Marvin Minsky's [The Emotion Machine](https://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/com/0743276647) goes into this extensively, with examples of most of the emotions you described. The draft is available for free online from his [faculty page](https://web.media.mit.edu/%7Eminsky/). The introduction, laying out the basic premise, is [here](https://web.media.mit.edu/%7Eminsky/Introduction.html).
Essentially, he considers emotions to be like switches that turn on bundles of other switches. When you turn on the "love" switch, a complex of other mental functions turn on, altering behavior in a particular way. Different emotions stimulate or suppress different bags of mental functions, to result in behavior that is hopefully adaptive for the organism.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/uz47w.gif)
[Answer]
Emotions would be viewed the same as we do: weighted factors that help define decision making, these weighted factors are themselves based on other weighted factors.
Hunger is somewhat of an emotion, although you can view it differently. Scientists found that a snail can use 2 braincells as 2 bits that help define the task the snail will perform. One activates when enough information has been collected to determine that the snail is hungry, the other cell activates when the snail has perceived food sources. Only if both cells are active does the snail start eating. Hunger plays an important part of your emotions. If you are hungry and get great food to eat, you become happier than you did before. However if at the same time you are struggling with grief then you might be happier but not happy.
A properly trained AI will experience some emotions as part of its programming, although instead of using hormones and nerves it uses programs and bits in a similar way that the snail used just 2 brain cells that activate after enough other cells have determined that hungry&food are present. For example you would teach the AI grief under certain circumstances, so that should it purposefully/accidentally let someone die the AI will feel grief and change it's behaviour. That change of behaviour would likely include inspection of the event, looking for methods to prevent it from happening again, a prediction of how those methods would influence other programs and presenting its findings to a human who needs to sign off on it before a change is made. Grief in humans is already a method for us to encourage us to protect others or face the consequences of grief. So why would you not use a tried and tested method on an AI?
So an AI would view emotions as an amalgamation of information a human may find itself in, one that can be influenced. AI's would likely have a greater understanding of emotions than we do since we already perform simulations to show why certain emotions have purpose, a true AI would be able to make simulations of a complexity that we can only dream off, giving it a better idea of what, why, where and how our emotions are used.
[Answer]
## It will use the Behavioral Psychology approach
Behavioral psychology is an approach to psychology that disregards any unmeasurable things like emotions, and only looks at people as stimulus response machines. Since I don't want to write a whole text book, I will focus on just one seemingly specific emotional state to use as an example: irritable. While just knowing the variable irritable is not enough to predict how a human will act. Knowing the exact set of stimuli that caused it is much more likely to be predictable. The more stimuli you know of, the more predictable humans are.
In this respect, a robot capable of being simultaneously cognoscente of more things at once than a human would have less need of generalizing the human experience into emotions because it would be able to view us more as the complex systems of converging factors that we really are. In other words, it would not describe a human as be irritable: it would describe a human as:
* last ate 6 hours ago (3 slices of pizza and 16oz of soda)
* last slept 14 hours ago (for 5 hours)
* last menstruated 20 days ago (pregnancy status unknown)
* last yelled at by boss 2 hours ago
* drive home took 52 minutes (normally takes 25)
* last ignored by husband 2 minutes ago (third time today).
So, the robot will not need to understand the word "irritable" as we understand it. Over time the AI will be able to make predictions about how sleep deprivation, poor dietary habits, the reproductive cycle, social conflict, poor outcomes, and lack of validating input can compound to increase human aggression. It will also figure out that the exact kind of increased aggression these factors stimulate can solve these problems too, and that all the things we call "irritable" which we consider to be one of the less predictable emotional states may in fact just be several slightly different perfectly logical things.
If you are hungry, boosting adrenaline releases fat stores to feed your body. Increased aggression makes since to the AI, because we are recycling the same bodily function that we use when preparing to fight.
If we have not slept in a long time, increased aggression encourages other humans to demand less attention of us allowing us to stop what we are doing and get some rest.
If we are in a point in the reproductive cycle where procreation is impossible, then spending time on romantic relationships is a waste of time; so, we use aggression to create distance freeing us for more practical pursuits.
If we are yelled at by a superiors and don't fight back, it threatens our position in the hierarchy; so, following up this behavior with starting fights with our peers or inferiors helps make sure that our social position does not fall which in turn protects our resources.
If we spend much longer on completing a task than we think we should, then a boost of adrenaline can be helpful to catch back up; so, getting home late can be made up for by pushing harder when it comes time to make dinner, washing dishes, and doing what ever else you need to do in your remaining time.
If someone is ignoring you, then you increase your chances of being recognized by becoming a threat to the person ignoring you.
So, the AI would never understand irritable or joy, anger, sadness, fear, etc. as any one thing. It would understand these things as constructs of the human language to generalize similar outputs into singular words, but the AI would be far more capable of understanding why humans have feelings than most of us are. In a way, the AI could be far more sympathetic than a human because it can break down the human experience into its parts instead of only being able to see the big picture. While a human is often confused by being yelled at, the AI could tell if you need it to give you space or validate your feelings, or yield in some immaterial way because it could tell which kind of irritable you are.
[Answer]
[This](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Caves_of_Steel) is how R. Daneel Olivaw, an artificial intelligence, describes his feeling when seeing after long time his partner Elijah Bailey
>
> “I cannot say what I feel in any human sense, Partner Elijah. I can say, however, that the sight of you seems to make my thoughts flow more easily, and the gravitational pull on my body seems to assault my senses with lesser insistence, and that there are other changes I can identify. I imagine that what I sense corresponds in a rough way to what it is that you may sense when you feel pleasure.."
>
>
>
Even though the AI might not feel emotions, would still understand that they are a variable in the behavior of the individual they are interacting with.
What function would be assigned to them cannot be answered without knowing the implementation of the AI.
[Answer]
[OpenCog](https://opencog.org) is not far-future science fiction AI, but it is an attempt at artificial general intelligence.
There are **nodes** of information. However, most data processing happens in **links** between nodes. Also, beyond the most basic settings, it is important how the AI focuses the **attention** it gives to certain atomic ideas and their connections.
How does that apply to emotions? Let's try:
>
> Joy
>
>
>
* Think of joy as adjusting the **attention** on positive **nodes** and reducing attention on negative ones. A pictural metaphore is turning down the contrast and turning up the brightbess on an image.
>
> Anger
>
>
>
* What the brain is doing with anger is shutting down **links** to most other parts of the brain, cutting down the cross-chatter from the rest of the brain, and giving most **attention** to the short-term, immediate problems. A pictural metaphore is cropping an image to the part you are interested in.
>
> Surprise, Love, Grief
>
>
>
* These are subjects that require a lot of **attention**, and new information about these subjects is getting flagged for first processing.
>
> Sadness, Fear, Disgust
>
>
>
* At it's most extreme, these emotions are like anger. At more modest levels, this is a small adjustment of **attention** to the topic at hand. A pictural metaphore is tweaking settings and maybe zooming to get the best view of the thing you are interested in.
>
> Schadenfreude
>
>
>
* A bit opposite of joy. This is like cutting the brightness and turning up the contrast on a picture.
[Answer]
You can imagine emotions as a reward/penalty mechanism. In a very complex environment you cannot encode a response for every situation you encounter, the most effective solution is encode a flexible set of actions and a reward/penalty mechanism in order to derive the choice of the right response at the very last moment.
In AI at the moment rather that teaching how to understand the mechanism the focus is how to use the mechanism, how to define rewards and let the AI find the right action to get the reward instead of predefining the action itself. On this subject there have been many experiments, one example may be the [Animat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animat) where the basic feeling like hunger, thirst, satisfaction or sickness by eating toxic food are used to drive simulated animals to explore the environment.
So your future AI to understand the meaning of emotions should first understand the concept of complexity even beyond the simple definition of [NP complete problems](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP-completeness), thus it could realise that being impossible to predefine all the possible behavioural responses the only solution is to predefine rewards and penalties that are vague enough to cover a wide range of situations.
For what matters the functions to assign to each emotion the best way to do is just to refer to the psychology literature and see what was derived by observation, nature is not so different and it had a long long time to work on this task. For an AI to learn such a complex task it should be extremely advanced. It would be better to let the AI cooperate with some humans.
**Update**:
I see that you changed the nature of the AI into something created by aliens. That would make things really difficult. Can you deduct the emotion of a lizard? We say that an animal is hungry or thirsty because we also sometimes are hungry or thirsty, we project into the animals part of the knowledge we have of ourselves, the rest comes from observation. The AI would need a long long time to learn by observation. If their aliens that created the AI had some basic emotions it could understand from the beginning the principle of reward/penalty. It could understand by logic that the signals have to be vague in order to cover with few traits a large and complex field. You can add a shortcut if the AI arrives in our era and it can decipher our language and read our literature. Otherwise it would need centuries if not millennia of comparative studies similar to those done by [Ethologists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethology)
[Answer]
An artificial intelligence, if it chose to think about such things rather than considering them irrelevant, would study them and discover their true nature, itself being unburdened by laboring under such things as emotions. Supposing of course, that it is intelligent enough to do so.
This is one of those situations where the writer can't write characters more intelligent than itself. So if you were hoping for a specific answer as to how a super-intelligent being might come to view some phenomenon when you yourself aren't a super-intelligent being, then you are bound for disappointment. The consolation is that anyone who might read your story won't be smart enough to know you're wrong either.
If I had to guess though, I'd speculate that what humans tend to lump together into the category of "emotions" aren't all a single phenomenon that obey the same set of rules or that have anything other than superficial similarities. Several probably fall into something you'd loosely call "specialized modes of thinking", other still as "prioritization modification", and even a few as "mild mental illnesses that evolution found to have survival advantage enough to induce". All of these are, in the strict sense, "rational", it's just that humans have difficulty understanding the rationality, or that they focus on the corner-cases where they are maladaptive.
Your question is sort of like asking "When Batman tells a joke and it causes the robot's head to blow up because it cannot laugh, what is the yield of that explosion". It's a misunderstanding of the entire premise rolled up into an ignorant plot point.
[Answer]
This is actually something addressed in the Pixar Film "Inside Out" and it's addressed early on as, of the five core emotions of Riley, only one of them is what on it's face is a positive emotion. Almost immediately into the film, Joy explains that three of the emotions provide very vital functions (and does so in, what else, a positive light). Fear keeps Riley safe by identifying potential threats and working out how to best deal with them (Shown when Fear takes control of a young Riley's happy play time away from Joy and carefully maneuvers her around a power cord, only to let her go back to wild play time again once the threat is removed). Disgust is described as an emotion that alerts when Riley is about to be poisoned, either literally or figuratively, and is shown doing this by stealing the wheel when she detects broccoli is about to fed to her and influences Riley to try not to eat it. Anger is there to protect Riley and fight for her, and is triggered when her father responds to Riley's refusal to eat Broccoli by threatening no desert, and takes over from Disgust to manipulate Riley into a tantrum. Both Anger and Disgust yield when a compromise is reached... namely the "Here comes the Airplane" technique that most parents use on their picky eaters.
The film's whole existence explores why Sadness exists, something Joy fails to understand (We do get an early demonstration at the dinner scene where Riley's mother is shown to have a dominate emotion of Sadness and is able to pick up on the families problems without any overt prompts from conversations... Sadness allows people to empathize with each other.).
These characters were not chosen at random but are 5 of the 6 basic emotions as explained by psychologist Paul Ekman (the missing member is "Surprise" who has her(?) job covered in part by Fear, as shown in Joy's failed attempt to make a dream sequence, though Disgust and Anger cover the missing emotion as well).
These emotions are the most basic and from them working in combination, form all the more complex emotions (shown by the memory spheres being multicolored as opposed to single color, to correspond to the emotion attached to the memory.).
A true AI would see emotions as programs that, while possibly inefficient, work together to evaluate memories and assign a weight to them that is used in the evaluation of a decision making process. The emotion of Happiness (Joy) would be a desired outcome, but may not be optimal. For example, you might feel joy from drinking alcoholic beverages, but you would also feel an uncomfortable amount of sadness or disgust from external influences from overconsumption of alcohol and the societal stigma of being an alcoholic, not to mention fear of consequences from your actions while in an intoxicated state, thus would evaluate that you it if it is 0500 it is thus too early to drink, especially when you have a big performance evaluation with your boss later in the day.
[Answer]
### Summary
**It is literally impossible to have an emotionless AI. Your question is therefore based on false assumptions.**
Hollywood has taught people that there's a difference between "logic" and "emotion", and that machines operate on "logic", rather than emotion. The problem is there are two completely different definitions of "logic" here. One is exactly synonymous with emotion, and that's the one your AI absolutely, positively **must** have to function.
Any AI with the ability to question human emotion would also have to have high-level, rational logic, with which it could model human emotions and compare them to its own. How it would view human emotions is greatly dependent on how similar ours are to its.
### Emotional Logic
Emotion is nothing more than the basic impulses that drive us to act. It's not magic. It's not a human-only condition. It's not high level. It's not "chemistry" vs "electronics". It's just low-level logic gates that interpret inputs and convert them to outputs.
Any agent with the capacity to interact with the environment must have low-level logic. It's precisely what gives them the capacity to interact. Since low-level logic **is** emotion, that means any agent with the capacity to interact must have emotion.
Humans have emotions, yes. So do birds, mice, cockroaches and Roombas.
### Rational Logic
But there's another definition of "logic". That's high-level reasoning. Wisdom. Sapience. Rational thought. Whatever word you use, it's the capacity to learn from our past, model the world around us, make predictions about the future, and decide which actions give us the best future outcome.
Humans have the capacity for this high-level logic. We used it to come up with science, mathematics, etc. We use it to model the world. To build machines. To make decisions that might be inefficient in the short term to gain more in the long term.
But the only way we can decide what's "good" or "bad" is by comparing possible solutions to what's desirable. What's desirable (or not) is entirely based on our low-level, emotional logic. There is no "pure logic", no absolute truth, no end game that all intelligent beings are required to pursue.
An AI could potentially be capable of rational logic, but doesn't have to be. However, an AI cannot possibly exist without emotional logic.
Any AI capable of rational logic (and, therefore, capable of "viewing" human emotions to begin with), would be perfectly capable of analyzing humans to model our behavior. Just like we could model it.
Humans have the advantage that even if we can't explain our feelings, we can empathize with other humans, and therefore "understand" even when we don't truly know what's going on. But an AI doesn't necessarily have that same capacity.
A very advanced AI might see us as primitive and easily predict our actions, while a less advanced AI might have trouble understanding us precisely. The less human-like the AI is, the harder it is to understand us.
But if it's smart enough to question our emotions, it's smart enough to at least get a basic understanding of them.
### Emotional Feelings
Sometimes, when we think of "emotions", we're including the extra sensory inputs humans feel, that another rational entity might not.
If I'm hungry, I get a little inkling that I'm hungry. Then my stomach starts sending aching sensations. Then there's physical pain. Etc.
If I'm tired, my skin feels like it has sand on it. My blood pressure changes. My heart rate tries to slow. My eyes are difficult to keep open. Etc.
These perceptions are a natural consequence of the complex machinations that allow our biology to function. But a non-human entity doesn't inherently need to feel their skin crawling when it's cold and humid, even if that's a less-than-ideal situation to be in.
So these "feelings" might be alien to a non-human. They might find it weird to think about a "gut reaction" or an "itchy trigger finger". But they wouldn't think about basic desires and impulses as being weird or alien, because they'd have those things too.
### Sensory Feeling
To "feel" literally refers to tactile sensations. But in a more general sense it means to perceive.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have tactile sensations, so it wouldn't necessarily "feel" in that sense. But it would necessarily have some form of perceptions in order to interact with the outside world.
That is, all AI must at least have something analogous to sensory feeling, even if they don't have literal feeling.
As such, even if an AI doesn't connect the same sensations to emotions we do, it would at least be capable of understanding the concept of perception, and knowing that our emotions are linked to our perceptions in ways its are not.
Whether it views our emotional feelings as useful or not depends greatly on how advanced it is compared to us. And how connected its emotions are to its perceptions. So it's impossible to say for sure, but it would likely view some feelings as more useless, and others as more useful.
### Conclusion
Any AI is absolutely required to have low-level, emotional logic to exist. It would, therefore, see human emotions as being analogous to its own emotions.
An AI is not required to have high-level, rational logic, but won't have the capability to compare its emotions to human emotion unless it does.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have the same sensations we have, even if it has the same basic emotion. As such, it might consider "emotional feelings" odd or unusual.
An AI wouldn't necessarily have the ability to "feel" in the tactile sense, but would necessarily have some kind of perception directly analogous to feeling so it can perceive the world around it.
The AI would tend to perceive human emotions antithetical to its own goals as more "useless", those neutral as "meh", and those sympathetic as "useful". But any reasonably-intelligent AI would at least be able to understand how an emotion could be useful to our goals.
[Answer]
Frame challenge:
Emotions are **not** a type of input that the AI would deal with at all. There is no reason an AI would "feel emotions" nor would there be any use for doing so.
Emotions are an **expression** of other processes. A type of output. The AI would understand that when it tells a human being, say, "please do X", the possible outputs are:
* "yes" (acceptance)
* "no" (refusal)
* "why?" (request for more information)
each of those **can** be accompanied by an emotion such as getting angry. The AI would understand this as a kind of **modifier**, a function that communicates the inner state of the human to his communication partner.
And that is what emotions are, frankly speaking. Looking at the animal kingdom, we notice that expressions of emotions are most clear in social animals and much more subdued in solitary animals.
[Answer]
**The alien can be fooled, as humans will**
The answer to this question depends on what reality model you would provide your AI with, and the extent of *emotional state* and accompanying *personality* you want your AI to develop on top of reality. The question has an observer: the alien, not able to discern actual human emotions from emotions "felt" by the AI. Same would count for humans as well. Technological development sofar has focussed on that: letting the observer perceive the artificial entity as real and invoke an emotion, reflecting the emulated emotion in the robot, the program, or the AI.
**Conditional expression of emotions is the easy part**
Japanese manufacturers created emotional expression in a device 25 years ago. It would *learn to dose* expressions of joy, anger, sadness, fear, disgust, depending on certain stimuli and timing: [tamagochi](https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamagotchi). A little pet-like gadget, with a smiley on its display that indicated love or frustration, making you hug it, feed it, give it attention.
Expression of emotion is everywhere in games now. A *game character* , like the very friendly and thankful Egyptian shown in [Pyramid of Mahjong](https://www.google.com/search?q=Jewels%20of%20Egypt&client=firefox-b-d&sa=X) is actually an emotional looking facade for a deterministic algorithm, leading you to the next Mahjong puzzle, or congratulating you with reaching the next level in the game. The characters clearly express emotions of joy or grief, *like* humans would do. It even makes you smile back, purpose achieved.
With current technology, an autonomous AI expressing emotion could easily be put onto a game console, showing a spectrum of *behaviours* connected with a basic emotional state.. linked with game scenario's, player actions, or whatever the programmers can think of as "soft-wired". The actual AI could develop interaction with the player.. speech recognition, chats..
**Next step: simulation**
Letting human players reflect the emotion is the actual goal of emotional expression in games. It is about the *player's feeling*, there is no feeling in the game character. An animation is shown.
In a *simulation* of emotion, feeling would cause the expression. Many have commented on that aspect: how to map the emotions to the situation, or to past events.. how to evaluate awaited and unexpected events.. In these models, a particular feeling is part of a vector, determined by the events. Some threshold would invoke the emotional expression. There is (again) a deterministic, or learning algorithm, that could be stateless. Actual emotion is never stateless. It has a cause in reality.
**The AI person**
Now let's handwaive a few things.. suppose a reality model would be feasable.. the AI being able to build a coherent emotional state in a social context, that can be modeled dynamically, able to autonomously decide to express emotion or not. Such an AI could become a collegue, or a friend for humans. A robot that is able to invoke emotional attachment still does not need to have "feelings" as such, but it would be perceived as a sentient being.
In that case, the order of development of *emotions* in robots could pose certain ethical challenges. You can't put grief on top of the list and develop that first: the AI has nothing to grieve for yet, because there has been no love and no joy. How would a conscient being, starting out as the "AI project", but now aware of joy and love have to be developed further ? Will the makers of this AI knowingly subject their *friend* to any grief, anger or fear..
[Answer]
Emotions can be a useful input to the [fitness function](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function).
Each AI must have some goals, or it would not do anything. Those goals might be general, specific, benevolent or evil. Examples are
* keep humanity alive
* keep Human X alive for as long as possible, ideally unhurt
* enslave all humans
* save the dog
* save the girl
While you can often break down if a given action would work towards that goal or against it. But usually the question is not binary. Instead the AI has to decide between many, many options of which it can only enact a limited number (due to resource constraints or because they contradict each other. So the question becomes "which combination of these actions will lead to the best outcome".
And the fitness function is how it "measures" best outcome.
Let's assume the goal is to keep humanity alive.
* Action A would be to cage them all into cells, automate the production of nutrients and force-feed them
* Action B might be to enable humans to live on their own terms and protect/support them in various less invasive ways.
There are many cons and pros to each of those approaches and many of them can easily be calculated.
But some are harder to grasp and that's where emotions can become handy.
The AI might have learned that happy humans are more likely to succeed in their goals and have improved long-term survival. So happiness could be a useful tiebreaker between two options that would otherwise look equally promising.
The AI might have learned that anger can lead to humans action irrationally and this can be problematic for any long-term plans, because irrational humans tend to cross plans.
The AI might have learned that grief can reduce the productivity and happiness of humans, so it might try to save a puppy it would otherwise not care about.
In other words: the AI doesn't need to experience or even understand emotions for them to become useful input into its algorithms.
The interesting thing is that a sufficiently advanced version of this could even look like it has empathy. Some might even argue that a sufficiently advanced version of this **is** empathy.
A big caveat to this is that those inputs will only have a certain weight to it. So it's quite possible that the AI recognizes that a certain plan of action will produce negative emotions, but it considers other factors more important and therefore still execute the plan. This could be viewed as "cold-hearted" by those who ascribe emotions to the AI.
[Answer]
This question is broader than the one I originally posted this answer for, so it's not a duplicate. But the answer I would give is more or less a duplicate of [my old answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/141474/25993), so here it is:
>
> Emotions are *desirable*. They are kept around because they work.
> Loneliness serves very obvious purposes. Being around other people who
> care about you is good for your long term survival. Caring about other
> people is good for their long term survival. Loneliness is just as
> much a good thing as guilt and pain are. These things make you *feel*
> *terrible*, but they're *good for you*.
>
>
> Consider the alternative. Yeah, you could build an AI that would (say)
> evaluate social interactions the way that Deep Blue crushed every
> human at chess: by exhaustive inspection.
>
>
> But look at how powerful a machine we have to make to beat a human at
> chess. AI people have no idea how to program a computer to do it, but
> they know people play chess very differently. A good chess player only
> considers a handful of options, because their skill tells them those
> are the only ones worth considering.
>
>
> AI solves these problems by smashing the square peg into the round
> hole with a sledgehammer. It simply analyzes millions of combinations
> until it finds the one that it knows works best because it looked at
> all of them. Much AI work is about making things run efficiently.
>
>
> So why would I want an AI with no emotions? It will have to spend
> mental energy / computational power running simulations to decide
> things that emotions solve with basically no effort. An AI with
> emotions enabled will be able to take the saved processing power and
> spend it elsewhere. It will be more capable.
>
>
>
[Answer]
An emotion is the experience we have when one of our instinctive drives kicks in. When we need to eat, we feel hungry. That is an emotion. As adults we have a suite of instinctive drives to find a mate, form a pair bond, have sex, and look after the resulting offspring. All of the sensations you feel that drive you to do those things are emotions.
*What is joy?*
Joy is the emotional response to success. The pursuit of joy and happiness drive our activities in the long term in ways that are generally beneficial to reproduction and survival of our offspring.
Of course not everything that our emotions drive us to do are beneficial. Our instinctive drives are simple mechanisms, easily misled. Especially by our sophisticated brains. Biologists talk about "[supernormal stimuli](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus)" as a framework for understanding this.
For instance, one of our instincts seems to be that a "near miss" when attempting something is a good reason to keep trying. At the risk of telling a "[just so story](https://web.sas.upenn.edu/kurzbanepblog/2012/09/24/just-so-stories-are-bad-explanations-functions-are-much-better-explanations/)", it's easy to see how this might be adaptive in a species that hunts. A near-miss in a hunt means that you were doing the right thing and need to try again. But this is easily manipulated in gambling; if you bet on a horse and it comes in second it feels like a near-miss, so you go back and try again. Lottery card designers make sure that their cards have lots of near-misses to reward the players and keep them coming back.
*How would a true artificial intelligence view emotions as useful and assign functions to them?*
This has it backwards. The AI will have "instinctive" drives (for want of a better term) built into it by its designer. As such, they will reflect the goals of the designer. The AI won't chose its emotions to suit its goals, it will choose goals to suit the emotions given it by its designer.
In other words, an artificially intelligent door controller really *will* feel [pleasure to open for you](http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=135), and satisfaction to close again with the knowledge of a job well done.
[Answer]
Other answers have treated the situations, physical constructs, physiology, brain chemistry and so on… that are associated with emotions.
I point you to a paper that I found easily by searching “philosophy what like bat” (in Google). [“What is it like to be a bat?”] There is also a term “quale” (pl. “qualia”) that you will want to look up.
The point — posed as a question — is that there is a subjective experience for a [self-]conscious being, around the pertinent event/experience, that can not be communicated through any amount of information about the mediating systems. One might argue that one could, for instance, explain, to a blind person, what it is like looking at a beautiful sunset… presumably because that is about pleasure (crudely speaking), and blind persons are capable of pleasure. However, if and insofar as there is any difference in the subjective experience of looking at [for instance] a blue-coloured area and looking at a lime-coloured area, ostensibly it will be quite impossible to communicate that to a blind person. Nagel thought of the example of a being that has a sensory apparatus that human beings do not — particularly, a bat using sonar to “see”. The idea is that no amount of studying bats can possibly ever give a human being *subjective* knowledge of what that is like.
The AI has this problem, with human beings. Presumably, it has no emotions at all, in this subjective sense. Further, even if it did, it could not possibly have any idea of exactly (and thus generally) what it is like for a human being to experience any given human emotion.
There are other issues as well. One obvious one is that individual human beings are different, in respect of exactly what emotions a given one will experience under a given “input”… and what behaviour will follow.
Also, it is far from obvious that emotions such as depression are useful in an evolutionary kind of sense. Arguably, human beings commonly or even normally seek pleasure (or relief from pain) in self-destructive actions, when under duress. Arguably, anger does not align with what is ethically ideal and overall the most constructive.
Possibly a powerful intelligence could form an (externally) coherent picture of the whole thing… but it does not follow that emotions are rational. Arguably, quite the opposite.
For the OP’s story… . Presumably, the AI would start out oblivious to the very concept of emotion. Arguably, the AI would discern its existence from the fact that human behaviour was ofttimes *ir*rational. (It would presumably hear and learn *of* emotion along the way, but, as above, that would be a question, not an answer.) Later on in the piece, it would either work out for itself, or hear explained, the above… or not.
One variation would have it [being] certain that emotions *must* be useful (in the evolutionary sense), and eventually gradually realise that they are (sometimes) destructive… or not [realise].
p.s. Humour is complex. It is entirely plausible (at face value) that there could be an alien species that had a different humour system. If that obtains, it would follow that there was no systematic and rational — that is, exclusive — account of what is funny.
Similarly with beauty; it is not merely plausible, but almost certain in the details, that an alien would have a conception of beauty different in the detail from the human one. (Arguably, simplicity and repetition both inform beauty, but an alien might prefer different patterns (or see no pertinent significance in patterns), and similarly with (for instance) landscapes of green vegetation and blue sky.)
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/190590/edit).
Closed 3 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/190590/edit)
Evie is reading a book, when L. runs into her house, smashes all the pots, rifles through her wardrobe and runs off with her life savings and a bottle of red liquid. She doesn't even look up.
---
Carl is playing with his turtle when R. enters his house, talks to him about his pet and then takes the training device he was planning to use on his companion. Carl just smiles and makes a mental note to pick up a new device at the local supermarket.
---
Igor and his family are eating, when G. blasts his door open, steals the flowers from the vase on his dresser, takes a bite from the drumstick on his plate and runs off with the spoons from his cupboard. When G. has left, Igor tells his son Piotr to give him his drumstick.
---
A common situation in video games is that NPCs do not act at all when the main character barges into their house, breaks stuff while rifling through their possessions, steals valuable stuff like money and magic items and then runs off again. And it's not just in 1 house or in 1 social class: whether they're a vagrant living under a bridge, a serf in a farm house or a nobleman in a mansion, they often don't even bat an eye at this random home invader. Weirdly enough though: it's just the main character that gets this treatment. Any regular bandits or drunkards just get the city watch called on them.
Why do these people ignore this? Like, some of them are armed to the teeth, but when it's a 10 year old boy? Or an innocuous orphan? What is so special about this situation that makes an entire country systematically ignore the theft and destruction of their property just from this person?
[Answer]
**The person is The Chosen One, and everyone in the country knows it.**
This is *also* a pretty common situation in video games - for example, everyone in *Legend of Zelda* knows that Link is a constantly-reincarnating warrior destined to save Hyrule from the constantly-reincarnating Ganondorf.
I can think of three different ways in which this could manifest:
1. The country's people decide that, since this person is going to save them/has already saved them from imminent destruction, they're entitled to take whatever they want as a reward/repayment. ("You're taking my potions? Go ahead! It's the least I can do to repay you for saving us all from Lord Evil!")
2. The country's people decide that their constant theft and vandalism must, somehow, be part of some master plan that will ultimately help them defeat whatever evil they're fighting against. ("You're taking my potions? Well, if they'll help you defeat Lord Evil, then go ahead!")
3. The country's people don't actually like what the Chosen One is up to, but they realise that they can't defeat Lord Evil if they're in jail, and they possibly *won't* defeat Lord Evil if they're angry at everyone for halting their rampages. So they force a smile, and bear with it, and make a second mental note to have the little kleptomaniac hauled off to the dungeons the second Lord Evil is defeated and their services are no longer required.
[Answer]
**The situation occurs quite regularly and is perfectly safe to react to, or not. So they just avoid interaction, and count on solidarity in the community to make up for the loss.**
A limited amount of adventurers/wanderers explore cities, villages and isolated houses, and any given house is visited every 10 years or so. The thing is: the dangerosity of the individual is not correlated to its appearance so there is no way to know if it's safe to react or not. A crippled old man entering the house can be a powerful mage well trained to cast devastating spell.
In fantasy setups, most people don't travel, and traveling merchants often visit the same places in cycles. This mean that people know at least the face of those they interact with. They pretty much know the whole village/neighborhood.
Hence, when an unknown face enters the house and steal things, they know it must be a wanderer, potentially very dangerous, and it's not worth the risk to react because it's a rare occurrence. They will simply notify the authorities after they leave. This will activate some sort of insurance policy in the community to make up for the loss, either coordinated by local authorities, private company, or informally at the community level. Getting rid of thefts is the job of the city guards, or bounty hunters but villagers know they can't do much anyway.
Wanderers know that if they don't stick around too much, they won't be bothered by anyone so they don't need to be threatening.
Wanderers' number is low despite low level of enforcement from authorities because of the dangerous circumstances their occupation is tied to: weird and unknown creatures lurking offroad, other violent adventurers, spell-casting accidents, deadly cold night outdoor, hitmen hired by the family of rich victims, diseases far away from any medical help, simple foot injury slowing the progression and making them lack food and water before reaching their destination, etc.
To sum up, the risk of someone entering your home is considered an unavoidable trouble that happen from time to time, just like a weather hazard, a small accident while working, or a sheep dying: an inconvenience, but nothing too dramatic. Local solidarity and the low frequency of occurrence make it more of a slight annoyance than a life threatening problem.
[Answer]
The protagonist is the relative of [insert highly connected official and/or mob boss here].
Any action taken by law enforcement will be shot down at the highest level. Any action taken on a more vigilante basis will result in either the police arresting the victim or, if the mob is involved, broken kneecaps and a nice swim with the fishes. On the other hand if you play ball you’ll get a nice tax break, or suddenly find that all the rougher individuals in the area tip their hats to you and mind their manners.
Basically that ten year old/heavily armed psychopath is related (by blood or bond) to a highly feared and/or respected individual that nobody wants to incur the wrath of, and they provide shielding from the law and the locals.
Just don’t let the protagonist kill anybody’s dog.
[Answer]
### Because the entire world is a simulation and not enough art resources has gone to the NPCs.
This does feel a little bit tongue in cheek, but I feel it does need to be mentioned. Were I to observe masses of people not reacting as expected to stimulus, my first thought would be something wrong with reality.
If you break into someone's house, and they don't care when you expect them to - The world isn't real, you're trapped in a VR and have ventured off the expected path. Congratulations on finding a glitch in the matrix.
---
Programming these kinds of reactions in video games is extremely hard and time consuming. The developers often do not have time to test all the possible interactions, and voicing those NPCs saying specific things costs limited money during production. This is usually intentionally overlooked during a game development.
A compromise is the limit interaction with the world to ensure that the character enters one way and grabs one thing first - then you can prepare for that interaction and record some limited dialogue.
I can not for the life of me remember the game, but I found a realistic reaction in a game once, and it blew me away. My character was on a side quest and needed to break into a house. I broke a window late at night in a family home, heard screams, so I ran away and hide:
* I hear them exclaiming,
* They were searching and investigating and describing the damage amongst themselves.
* I could hear them calling the cops and explaining it over the phone
* I could hear them explaining to the cops in person,
* I could hear them the cops searching and talking amongst themselves. "I wonder if these footprints are the guy", etc.
* The cops followed my tracks in the snow for a while.
* I could hear them the victims calling a glazer
* I could hear them the glazier coming out and measuring, giving a quote, driving off, coming back, and installing it.
* Then watching them clean up of the broken glass the next morning.
* Then a change in behavior the next night as they're more alert.
It was astounding to see such a reaction - explaining just how rare such a thing is.
[Answer]
# It's the law
In some countries in real life, police can commandeer a vehicle if they need one. This happened recently in Canada - [for need of a boat, the police of Victoria, BC commandeered one](https://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/police-get-help-in-response-to-distress-call-on-gorge-waterway-1.23952281).
And in the United States, police once commandeered a whole house in order to catch a bandit hiding in it. They also blew the house up in the process (insert "murica" joke here). [The family who used to live in the house sued the police, but lost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Robert_Seacat#Leches%27_litigation):
>
> In 2019, the three-judge panel of the 10th Cir. ruled against the Leches, saying unanimously that the destruction of the house fell under police power and that eminent domain was not undertaken. The court sympathized with the Leches, calling their circumstances "unfair", but ruling that police cannot be "burdened" with the consideration of collateral property damage when performing their duties.
>
>
>
---
In RPG's and such games, the protagonist may be an a\*\*\*\*\*\*, but they are an a\*\*\*\*\*\* tasked with saving someone or something in the name of love and friendship (and probably also killing God if it's a japanese RPG). This gives them police powers. The NPC's know that they have to comply, OR ELSE.
[Answer]
What about a situation, when the whole world is a fundamentalist society and that particular person is announced to be a god-like prophet? And any damage caused by that person is refunded by government? There's still a question why does that person act like this, but it may be a special ritual made by purpose.
[Answer]
"The Country of the Kind" (Damon Knight). Society has matured to the point where it is convinced that miscreants are either ill or can be reasoned with. In addition it is convinced that the ill can only be confined for treatment if they are curable.
The protagonist is either incurably deranged, or refuses to listen to reason. So all people can do is ignore his behaviour.
[Answer]
**There is no concept of ownership.**
People are required to share all possessions for the greater good of society. It is assumed that anyone who takes anything is simply doing it for the good of everyone. People can be trusted to judge what they may need to accomplish their (and by extension, the society's) goals and other citizens will be happy to offer up any resources due to their complete trust in people's good intentions.
This is essentially how a commune operates.
[Answer]
**Occurs every year on the same date.**
Little Johnny and Susie are sleeping soundly (but anxiously). When an obese man in a red suit climbs down the chimney, eats all the milk and cookies, leaves a bunch of stuff behind and then leaves without a trace.
Oh wait...
[Answer]
**The person has Poor Impulse Control**
As a counterpoint to F1Krazy's answer, They may be such a designated bad guy that you just don't mess with them.
The title, of course, refers to one of the more colorful villains I have seen, Raven. Raven was an antagonist in Snow Crash, and is immediately recognizable by his forehead, which was tattooed with "Poor Impulse Control" as a penalty for misbehaving in prison (such tattoos often became badges of honor). He is also recognizable for the nuclear warhead he has riding in the sidecar of his motorcycle, always in the armed state and tied to his heartbeat such that if he dies, the nuke goes off. The following quote can be [read uncensored here](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7671779-until-a-man-is-twenty-five-he-still-thinks-every-so). Some phrases do simply work better with curse words in them, unabashed:
>
> Until a man is twenty-five, he still thinks, every so often, that under the right circumstances he could be the baddest motherf---er in the world. If I moved to a martial-arts monastery in China and studied real hard for ten years. if my family was wiped out by Colombian drug dealers and I swore myself to revenge. If I got a fatal disease, had one year to live, devoted it to wiping out street crime. If I just dropped out and devoted my life to being bad.
>
>
> Hiro used to feel that way, too, but then he ran into Raven. In a way, this is liberating. He no longer has to worry about trying to be the baddest motherf---er in the world. The position is taken. The crowning touch, the one thing that really puts true world-class badmotherf---erdom totally out of reach, of course, is the hydrogen bomb. If it wasn't for the hydrogen bomb, a man could still aspire. Maybe find Raven's Achilles' heel. Sneak up, get a drop, slip a mickey, pull a fast one. But Raven's nuclear umbrella kind of puts the world title out of reach. Which is okay. Sometimes it's all right just to be a little bad. To know your limitations. Make do with what you've got.
>
>
>
Quite the character. He literally gets paid by the major corporations to not be near their property, just in case something happens to him and they have to deal with the damage.
[Answer]
It's Tony Stark, finally gone mad after the New York Incident. He saved the world, so everyone is fine with him running around even more weird than before. Also Happy cleans up after him and gives everyone a huge cheque covering their damages.
[Answer]
In some societies if someone exhibits undesirable or criminal behaviour, then everyone is told or decides for themselves to not interact with this person and pretend that the person doesn't exist. This can be used as a form of punishment. They are Shunned. The purpose of this is that the psychological impact of being treated this way can cause them to reform.
See [Shunning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunning) in Wikipedia
[Answer]
From the main characters' perspective these people don't bat an eyelid, they don't outwardly appear bothered at all, but inside they are frozen in terror at the sight of this immortal, murderous villain. They know this person has complete control over life and death and can turn on them at any moment, they will do nothing to draw their attention.
They might continue about their daily chores as if the person were not there, but do it while sweating coldly and while their life flashes before their eyes; when they leave everyone collapses into tears and thanks their local deity for sparing them.
[Answer]
## They're already being punished.
In the story, society has matured to the point that villainy *of any kind* just doesn't happen; nobody thinks to do it. Like most post-scarcity "space communist" societies, **your society is a bunch of actual pacifists.**
*Even if somebody is hurting others, that doesn't give society the right to hurt them in turn. Turnabout is not fair play.*
Faced with this truly horrendous criminal, they are at a loss as to how to punish them. After deliberating for several months, they come to the perfect solution:
*They'll leave him alone.*
He will not be punished in any way, and will instead be left to his own devices. Everybody will leave him alone so long as he doesn't physically harm anybody. In fact, he will be left *completely* alone. Nobody is to react to him in any way, shape or form.
If he starts experiencing boredom, depression, and soul-crushing anxiety, that's his problem.
>
> “[The tyranny of the majority] ignores the body and goes straight for the soul. The master no longer says: You will think as I do or die. He says: You are free not to think as I do. You may keep your life, your property, and everything else. But from this day forth you shall be as a stranger among us. You will retain your civic privileges, but they will be of no use to you. For if you seek the votes of your fellow citizens, they will withhold them, and if you seek only their esteem, they will feign to refuse even that. You will remain among men, but you will forfeit your rights to humanity. When you approach your fellow creatures, they will shun you as one who is impure. And even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they, too, be shunned in turn. Go in peace, I will not take your life, but the life I leave you with is worse than death.”
>
>
> - Alexis de Tocqueville
>
>
>
] |
[Question]
[
Random portals of spherical shape are found on the surface of the planet, they are pitch black and have a diameter of 3 meters.
Once something enters any of the many random portals, they are "teleported" in the sky in the location right above the portal, kind of, it really works as a wormhole or gate not really a teleportation.
The portals never teleport anything further than the atmosphere.
But still, if a rock falls into a portal it will be teleported above it and then fall into the portal again, and again, and again until something moves it out of the way, until it melts and evaporates or until the portal starts losing power and dissapears.
Portals lose power the more often they are used by the amount of weight entering them. Some portals have a limit of a few kilograms others can last million of megagram, and they reform naturally over decades.
>
> Now I want a creature who specifically evolved the niche to use those portals, possibly without killing themselves. Not just some bird who happens to go unto the portal by mistake, but an animal who is **linked** to the portals for **survival**.
>
>
>
**This is not an edit to the original question, but just an highlight**
"linked to the portals for survival" means that the animal would die or somehow go extinct without the portal the same way hermit crabs die if they don't find shelter or how leaf cutter ants would die without their mushrooms.
What use could these portals ever offer to such creature? I have no idea, that's what I'm asking.
The world is the same as planet earth in therms of composition, gravity and everything regarding physics, except the portals which are magic.
**how the portals work**
The portal acts as door or fenester always open. If a person put their head inside their portal they could see the rest of their body from way above, but if they by mistake fall onto the portal then it's gonna be an eternal fall until they die or until they deviate the fall and hit the ground.
Portals always remain the same place until they dissipate their strength and then one is reformed in a random place on the surface of the earth. The reformation of a portal can take up to several years or decades depending on how much weight could a portal sustain.
Portals lose power the moment solid matter enters it by penetrating them. Water splashes on the portal instead of penetrating it, dust just builds up until the wind blows it off and bugs or small creatures can enter the portal if they push really hard. Entering the portal takes roughly the same effort as penetrating a leaf, but nothing is being really penetrated, is just a small resistance from the portal, If a person steps foot in the portal before it vanishes, their foot will be dismembered and fall on their head.
[Answer]
**Portal trees.**
Plants need sun. They compete with one another to get higher and get the sun. And plants struggle with herbivores. Stuff shows up (especially bugs!) and eats their leaves.
The portal offers a fix for both problems. A portal tree takes root by the portal and sends thru roots or branches. These appear high in the sky. There is so much sun up there! And it is breezy, and difficult for bugs to get too. Very difficult for deer and rabbits. The issue with getting water up to the sunniest branches is solved because from the perspective of the portal tree, water is going down to the sunniest branches.
The portals would quickly fill up with portal trees hanging their limbs down thru the portals. The tangles of leafy limbs high in the air will give rise to their own ecosystems.
[Answer]
Edit 3: I answered before OP explained how it worked exactly.
I'm guessing that using the portal conserve the momentum and that throwing an object in the portal will make it exit with the same speed and direction.
I also assume portals are one-way.
## Long-range communication
A lot of species use the portal by throwing different objects into the portals.
Herd-hunting coyotes can indicate to fellow hunters that they find something by pushing a tumbleweed into the portal. The rest of the group know the direction and the approximative distance of the prey with the direction and the horizontal speed the scout pushed the plant or the signaling object into the portal.
## Traveling
[Flying squirrels](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel) are squirrels that can glide and control their fall speed. They can fall from literally any high. They often enter the portal to glide far away from it. This is useful to escape predators or cross a massive obstacle such as a large river, a small mountain, or just a dry piece of land where they are visible hence vulnerable.
An even better situation is when two portals are close enough that a squirrel can reach one by gliding from the other's exit point. In that case, they can gather food from the richest area (forest, etc), and stash it on the safest area (cliff, mountain, etc)
## It's cool. Literally.
Portals are pitch black. I'm guessing it's because the (re)emit no light. In that case, they don't radiate heat either. On hot sunny days, some dominant mammals love to chill in its shadow for this reason: not only you don't have the sun directly in your face, but it also feels like it's pumping heat from you (you naturally radiate heat to it, but contrary to any other room-temperature object, it doesn't radiate back its own heat).
Some small mammals like to bury food in its shadow: the soil is always very cold, and it works as a "fridge" for buried fruits. But careful not to be seen! They are very vulnerable when doing so, and predators know it's a good place for their preys to be. If you're a good hunter, you can leverage the fact that the portal hides your light AND most of the sound. Also, most stashing mammals spy on their peers to steal their buried food! Flying squirrels stash a lot because they can escape predators instantly by jumping into the portal.
Another reason the food lasts long when buried directly under the portal? It's super dry. All the rain falling on the portal never reach the ground after all...
## Get free energy for dissemination
If you suspend a paper sheet vertically, air molecules bounce from right to left and left to right all the time, canceling each other pressure. On the surface of the portal, the molecule going into the portal (from left-to-right) never come back. And there's no molecule going in the other direction (from inside the portal's black entry sphere to outside) to cancel it out. This means permanent low pressure at the surface of the portal (and high pressure around the exit point).
To sum up, there is a permanent breeze coming into the portal. It's a vacuum cleaner to the sky!
For plants, it means that if you are near the portal, your spores have a chance to enter the portal and be widely disseminated! A rule of thumb is that you can see the effects up to 50m around the portal. A fun fact to observe is that in that zone, the further away from the plant from the portal, the lighter and smaller its spore, to better leverage this effect.
Plants can't count much on the flying insects near the portal to disseminate the spores, as they are most of the time sucked into the portal.
## Magic food dispenser
Remember how a lot of flying insects are sucked into the portal?
Birds know that. Some hang around the exit point and wait for insects to come out.
From the ground, it's easy to spot a portal: follow the insect-eating birds: they cluster up in a specific zone in the sky, and below is a portal.
On the ground, spiders know that too. Building a web close to a portal is always a great idea for a spider. Most of them have super dark webs (no pun intended) to match the color of the portal and catch even more insects. Yum!
## A fancy place to raise your kids as a bird
A lot of bird species raise their kids in a nest. When fully grown up, they jump out of the nest and have to learn how to fly... on-the-fly. A lot of them fail even if their parents invested a lot of time and energy. If you manage to build your nest above a portal, you kids have all the time they need to stabilize and make a kickass landing a few kilometers below.
## Migration guide
Electromagnetic field, heat, light, and sound are all emitted on the exit point of the portal. This makes it easy to spot for migrating birds. They can use them to orient themselves in long migrations.
## BONUS: How animals spot a portal?
1. See insectivorous birds clusters above it
2. Follow the wind
3. Feel the cold on your skin \*\*
4. [Echolocation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_echolocation) \*\*\*
5. Lack of electromagnetic field (it's absorbed too and emitted on exit)
6. Sometime ground-level fog pours out of the exit point
\*\* When you are in front of a fire by a cold night, you feel hot on the fire-facing side of your body and cold on the back. It's because the fire almost doesn't warm the air, you just have direct radiation from the fire. If you hold a piece of paper in front of your face, you will feel cold on your face again! Animals can develop a specialized organ to detect this sharp contrast in heat radiation in their field of view.
\*\*\* Bats use their voices and ears as a sonar. The portal will have no echo, which makes it easy to spot even for these almost-blind creatures.
## EDIT: BONUS 2: Clouds and fire
Portals will pump ground-level air in a particular point of the sky. Not a specialist, but *I think* this relatively hot air meeting the cold air in altitude can produce clouds and often even thunderstorms. When this happen, the thunder can spark a fire. And if the fire reach the portal, a lot of incandescent embers can start fire far from the original portal. Luckily, most of it will be washed by the heavy rain of the thundercloud before it reaches the ground again. But in some rare occasions, maybe a big burning branch can fall into the portal and get carried by violent thunder cloud winds to start a fire elsewhere, if it serves your story.
If you think portal-induced fire are common, then the whole flora and fauna will have adapted to it, like the [eucalyptus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire). If you think clouds are enough, it will be easier to spot portals from afar, and the often raining clouds can bootstrap and sustain a very diverse ecosystem. Another alternative is that since portals are not only pumping hot air in the sky but also dust, insects and small particles, the continuous [cloud seeding](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding) could continuously empty the cloud as it's forming, so no problem. I have the intuition that would still electrically charge the area (the reason behind thunder in the first place) and that travelers would be zapped upon arrival, but I'm not sure of that and maybe the charge can be evacuated with the continuous very light rain.
(I would love to have confirmation by a meteorologist.)
[Answer]
**Portal-Salmon, which aren't actually fish...**
Terrestrial salmon spawn in rivers, live in the ocean,and when it's time to die they swim upstream to their original spawning ground to mate, incubate, and die. Let's run with this example.
Portal-salmon are actually an insect (a big insect, weighing up to 0.5 pounds or 0.23 Kg) that are fertilized in the air. Male sperm and female eggs are both released at high altitudes where they mix (creating genetic diversity). The fertilized eggs fall to the ground with a wide spread allowing for least competition from fellow portal-salmon and least possibility of threat from predators. The fertilized eggs of portal-salmon are a bit more like seeds than fish, bird, or insect eggs, in that they need a bit of time to germinate, growing a root for nutrients, before hatching into the portal-salmon's larval state.
The portal-salmon lives its life on the ground and in the air, but always *avoiding* the portals. Too much altitude kills the portal-salmon — not enough oxygen (or that sudden stop at the bottom of the drop, either one). However, during the portal salmon's life it senses the strength of each portal it comes near, always remembering the strongest portal it encounters.
At the end of the portal-salmon's life, the insect is drawn to the most powerful portal it came across, there to join with like-minded portal-salmon to be thrust heavenward to begin its last descent, giving of itself that its progeny might live. In other words, the process of releasing sperm and eggs is something like a balloon popping. It's a bit... dramatic... but that swelling of sperm and egg is part of the life-span trigger that causes the portal-salmon to seek the best portal.
Intelligent natives have learned to follow the portal-salmon to find these strongest portals. They use them to open the rare but succulent rock-clams. The natives learned that by throwing the rock-clams into the portals at just the right angle and with just the right spin (putting a little "English" on the rock-clam, if you know what I mean), the descending rock-clam will land nearby with a satisfactory cracking sound, allowing access to the otherwise inaccessible delicacy. Thanks, portal-salmon!
[Answer]
***Neverland Birds:*** A family of birds with an uncanny ability to sense portals.
* The Neverland bird is an enormous dragon-like predator who feeds off the many large birds and flying fish abundant on the planet. It uniquely almost never lands once it takes flight, but it's enormous size means it is incapable of taking off on its own. When the birds reproduce, their young are parachuted to the ground to feed and fend for themselves. As these small predators grow, they live on the ground. Once they mature, they seek out the portals present on their homeworld and go through. From that day they never again touch the surface of their world if they can help it. Those that do land must again seek a portal to once again get to the sky.
* Relatives of the neverland bird exist who land and lay eggs, but then seek out portals
to go airborne after the young mature. Males hunt and feed their young and females by dropping food to the nest.
* Other members of this family of birds are aggressive predators of land animals, seeking out the kills of other predators and landing to drive off lesser predators with their great size. These birds are almost incapable of flight due to their large size, and must repeatedly climb through portals and glide until they spot new prey.
[Answer]
Flying squirrels.
The presence of one of these portals near their nest would allow them to more freely forage near the ground, as they wouldn't need to climb a tree to be able to take off (in case of imminent danger for instance). That means a much bigger abundance of food for the same area (anything that is found on the ground and not on trees). They would probably evolve to have better ground mobility whilst keeping a decent amount of air control or maybe even grow bigger, as climbing trees fast wouldn't be as important.
It also would allow them to expand their territories by travelling between portals (assuming portals would form within gliding distance of each other).
[Answer]
**A narration derived from remote audio surveillance, anthropological mission W44/21.3 commissioned by the Rigellian Collegiate Council, AE 32,182, to further understand the unique cultural leanings of the Nahini peoples.**
Son, your *Shenduai* into manhood is approaching, and I need to tell you the epic of the *Ocutage1*
For the whole of your youth, my son, you have watched the mighty Ocutage fly with great speed into the Eye of God — and each time God made the Ocutage appear high into the heavens. Over and over the Ocutage dove into the Eye, faster and faster he sped, until after the fifth passage through the Eye of God, the Ocutage streaks to heaven, there to be blessed by God forevermore.3
It was Mehaman, blessed by God to become our First Elder many generations ago and to bring the Way to Heaven among us, who taught us the *Shenduai.*4 Adorn thyself as the Ocutage. Be free like unto he. Dive through the Eye and be judged by God — for if you fly to the heights of Aden5 you are a man in the eyes of God, worthy to take your place among the honored elders of the Nahini and clean like the air and the water.
But I must warn you, my son, for if you are not prepared with courage, having begged forgiveness of God, then you shall not be allowed to pass through the Eye like the Ocutage and shall be damned,6 bringing much sorrow to the tribe.
But my son, you must not fear. For those who fear and choose to spurn the Shenduai are deemed most unclean and cast out of the tribe.7
Spend the night in prayer, my son, and upon the dawn we shall behold your flight to heaven!
---
1 *The ocutage is Nahini2 for "Bird of Heaven."*
2 *The Nahini tribe of the upper Barosh continent is a sedentary stone-age tribe of approximately 2,500 individuals spread across roughly 2,000 hectare area expressing an unique religious belief they call "kolainu." (Excerpt from the "Galactic Gazetter" published by the Rigellian Collegiate Council, AE 32,167.)*
3 *It was ascertained in zoological mission J811/19.9, AE 32,172, that the Ocutage did not, indeed, fly to heaven, but rather entered the lower bounds of the planetary troposphere to allow a symbiotic but parasitic fungus that grows on the underside of its primary feathers to succumb to heightened photosynthesis and cleansing in the high UVA light available at that altitude. Said flights last less than 20 standard minutes but result in rapid new growth of the fungus, which helps to seal the primaries and produce longer flight time. Old fungus growth, often diseased in the higher moisture and heat of the lower altitudes, is quickly extruded from beneath the primaries, which are disinfected by the UVA light, and burnt away. The bird then rejoins its flock.*
4 *Very cautious research during this expedition (which conformed to Non Contamination Protocols per SSC22491.6.6) uncovered a heretical teaching that suggests Mehaman did not, indeed, invent the prevailing philosophy. It was one Kolani, using the Ocutage to justify his prophetic connection with God, who created the essence of the philosophy and tried to emulate the bird by diving off the cliff above anomaly Z25/6/6/211. The heresy suggests he missed his target. His first acolyte, Ukali believed the bird had more to do with it and was the first to don wings. It is said he passed through the anomaly once but died against the cliff on the second pass. The heresy teaches it was Mehaman who modified the bird suit for better flight control and was first to successfully pass five times through the anomaly and then glide to the bluff, 18 Km NNW from the anomaly. The heresy teaches Mehaman is therefore the one to create the distilled form of the Shenduai we see today. Ardent supporters of the current philosophy vigorously seek those who believe in the heresy and, in a curious twist of the philosophy mimicking history, cast them off the cliff without the bird suit. Those who survive passage through the anomaly five times are deemed forgiven. It's rumored that one person did make it through the anomaly five times without the bird suit — but died (obviously) due to instability when reaching terminal velocity. We think this is an Urban Legend to teach children it's impossible to avoid the heretic's fate.*
5 *We apologize for omitting this reference earlier. Aden is the Nahini name for the bluff 18 Km NNW of anomaly Z25/6/6/211.*
6 *It should be pointed out that like all cliffs, the wind surrounding anomaly Z25/6/6/211 is frequently strong and unpredictable. The Ocutage use this anomaly no more frequently or less than any other and we surmise that the Nahini use it only because of the convenient cliff. However, the often unpredictable winds tends to result in frequent deaths before five passes through the anomaly are achieved. Consequently, there is an unusually high ratio of females to males among the Nahini peoples. We believe this is the reason for the development of institutionalized polygyny among the tribe. See earmark BB25/A-7 for our request for a follow-up anthropological study to better understand Nahini mating practices in association with the Shenduai.*
7 *Note the settlement in map grid FFE-266 that we suspect is a group of exiles from the tribe that sourced the above excerpt. It appears they periodically raid the camp to kidnap females for breeding purposes. Analysis of this group is also a part of earmark BB25/A-7. It should be noted that we find this complex socio-political dependency as a derivative of a single avian species' need to manage and control a symbiotic but parasitical growth to be fascinating.*
[Answer]
In a countries with developed public transportation and a stable population of street dogs (read: Eastern Europe and former USSR) one can easily meet a dog that regularly catches a bus or a metro train.
From a dog viewpoint, the bus is a portal and the dog pretty much has the ability to use it.
[Answer]
Also, note that some creatures like ravens are known for dropping hard prey (e.g. shellfish or turtles) from a great height onto a hard rock to break it open. The portals offer an easy way to do this, if a portal is located next to a rock or other hard surface: all a creature has to do is look down through the portal at the nearby rock and then throw the prey at it. It will fall from a great height and strike the rock, at which point the creature can feast on its insides, without having had to fly up to a great height in order to drop it. (The creature might not even need be capable of flight.)
[Answer]
Any even semi-intelligent species capable of tool use could find the portal to be a source of free energy, at least for a while. Consider, for instance, a waterwheel or generator located between the input and output of the portal. All one has to do is dump a bucket of water, sand, or gravel on it periodically (or even rain will do), and then reap the benefits of the wheel spinning constantly until either the water or the portal itself evaporates. This could be used for anything from grinding grain to sandblasting to generating electricity. If this happens for long enough, the species could culturally begin to depend on it.
[Answer]
Imagine this, if the portal only teleport something to above the portal like wormhole, I imagine a lot of flora , will take advantage of this, for pollination and such, to spread their seed ( higher altitude probably with wind can help spread them more ).
And such flocks of bird or bees can learn this and try to catch those seeds to eat and wait them near portal.
Felines or other land animals that would normally only able to catch birds when they land, can learn this behavior and maybe evolve parts of their body , like legs, ear or sight to enhance their chance of catching the prey after they leap into the portal and to have a safe landing, after the hunt.
[Answer]
Vertical fish.
If a stream happens to flow into a portal, it will become a waterfall, with gradually increasing capacity until the portal can't hold any more water (its entire two-dimensional surface is filled with falling water) and starts losing water around the edges, which would form a pool around the lower portal and continue to flow downstream if possible. Similar things might happen if a portal formed under a lake, or formed on the ground in a location which becomes flooded during part of the year.
Any fish which are caught in this situation will be in freefall until the portal exceeds its weight capacity and finally evaporates (at which point the fish will fall from the sky into a suddenly flooded area with possibly an outgoing stream, or into a lake). Other contents of the water (vegetation, insect larvae, other marine life, sand, rocks, etc.) could be in the falling water as well.
If the fish were capable of gliding (e.g. like Earth's [Flying Fish](https://www.reddit.com/r/NatureIsFuckingLit/comments/hahjpo/this_is_what_a_flying_fish_looks_like_up_close/)) they could also use this falling time to find a new pond or stream and fly to it. Or they could fly out of the stream briefly, snatch some insects (or birds?) from the air, and then rejoin the stream before it entered the portal again.
Note that such fish might be somewhat easy targets for predator birds, which might be willing to dive, osprey-like, through the column of water to catch falling fish (or any other small creature that found itself suddenly airborne for that matter), or wait until a fish emerged from the cascade after an insect. On the other hand, smaller birds that tried this might become victims of larger flying fish that decided to go after them instead.
It is not clear to me how fast such a column of water could fall: on Earth, the limiting factor is "terminal velocity" due to air resistance, but in this case, the column of water's only friction would be with its outside boundary against the surrounding air, and with each cylindrical shell of water against the one outside of it. The inside of the fall might be traveling much, much faster than the outside. This friction might possibly heat the water a bit. (Or more than a bit...? Perhaps to the point of steam (which would cause pressure or even an explosion!)) The tension of the portal surface itself might slow down the fall of water slightly, but it seems that this would be greatly overwhelmed by the acceleration of gravity over the distance between the two portals if they were very far apart.
A strong wind might upset this phenomenon for a while, causing some water to miss and therefore not immediately enter the lower portal, or at least to hit the surrounding landscape and then have to drain back in.
Something else to consider: Such a cascade of water also might act as a lightning rod, possibly triggering thunderbolts from passing storms to be conducted along it to the ground. This might fry some fish, birds, or whatever creatures were on the ground near the lower portal.
] |
[Question]
[
This is a follow up to a previous question: [How could mages regard fast magic as a form of evil?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/160918/how-can-mages-regard-fast-magic-as-a-form-of-evil?noredirect=1#comment505199_160918)
There are 2 forms of magic in this world, the first of which is white magic, which is performed through a series of steps. A mage sits in the center of a drawn invocation circle, surrounded by the various ingredients needed to perform the spell. The mage then utters the incantation, which can take anywhere from minutes to hours depending on the spell. The gods, being universally worshiped in the world, are morally ambiguous when it comes to magic. There are spells which require harmless ingredients like eye of newt, and there are spells that require the body parts of recently killed children. The latter is thrown into the category of "black magic". Either way, the gods are indifferent to concepts such as good and bad. The second form disregards invocation circles and the use of ingredients, simply depending on incantations to perform spells. It is therefore a quicker and more effective use of magic, saving time, resources, and expenses. however, it is regarded as evil due to the fact that it comes from devils of another plane, and ignores the rituals of the gods ( ingredients, circles, etc).
Since the first form of magic is slow, it is very inconvenient when going up against a dark wizard. The latter would wipe the floor with them in a confrontation. Therefore, evil magic will always defeat good magic. What advantage can slow magic have over fast magic that would give them a chance of winning?
[Answer]
Mage looking at form: "So all this small print at the bottom here..."
Demon: "Boilerplate. Don't worry about it."
Mage (with magnifying glass) - "Terms and conditions - may not work during a full moon...or a new moon...may not work in the presence of black cats..."
Demon: "Look, pal, if you want reliable you gotta pay for it. If you want cheap, fast, slick, you come to us. Those other guys will take ten times as long to do half the work."
Mage: "But the gods are famously reliable. Their protection works every time; their thunderbolts never misfire. A well-prepared divine mage will win every time."
Demon: "Have you seen we're doing a special offer this week?"
[Answer]
## Divine magic uses divine energy, Demon magic utilises your own energy.
Sure, it's faster and easier to cast the fireball spell using Demon magic. But after you cast three in a day, you'll die of exhaustion. Using the traditional circles and ingredients however, you can keep casting them as long as you have the ingredients.
Therefore, in an all out war between two factions, each using a different form of magic, the Demon magic users would need to either sacrifice themselves to cast powerful spells (unlikely, if they're using Demon magic they're probably fairly selfish), or cast less powerful spells than the other side to keep fighting for longer.
[Answer]
Power, resilience, duration.
This is a bit of a take your pick game. You could set it up like the difference between using a howitzer and using a tommy gun. The howitzer is big and slow, it takes time to move into position and set up, it's slow to fire but when it hits you know all about it. A tommy gun might fire off a lot of rounds in that time, but if you've got your sandbags in place you might not even notice.
Speaking of sandbags, a fast shield spell might be exactly that, fast, but it'll only take a couple of hits. A properly cast shield spell on a circle may be all but permanent.
Consider the hare and the tortoise. The old tortoise may be slow but he lives a lot longer and the arrows will mostly bounce off him.
[Answer]
### The TL;DR Version:
At the core of the matter -- slow magic favours preparation while fast magic rewards improvisation.
Thus, for slow magic to be useful, there needs to be a way that this preparation can defeat the more rapid-fire style casting of the fast mages. Or a flaw in the fast casting system that can be reasonably exploited.
### The MWoT Version
**On Action and Reaction**
First thing, slow magic might be slow to cast, but that does not mean that people are necessarily slow to react. In fact, I would think that they would actually be a bit proactive at sniffing out the evil mages since the more time they have to prepare, the better their chances of victory are. This would not necessarily be an inquisition or zealous crusade, but can take the form of a more observant guard or court mage using a detection ritual.
Magic detection spells to detect the traces of demon magic might be a developed thing, creating pockets of land where evil mages will almost certainly be detected fast.
**Special Weapons and Tactics**
In terms of actual combat, I can see two main categories where slow magic will be a favoured tactic
* Pre-combat enhancement of the mage-killer strike force
* Tactical pre-emptive bombing of the area that an evil mage is found in
Second, as written, there will almost never be a pure caster fight -- the slow caster would almost certainly lose every time in an impromptu fight to all but the most inept evil mages. That or the evil mages that don't realize that they are actually evil mages.
Instead, the more likely thing will be fighters enhanced by slow magic rituals to be able to combat an evil mage -- these can be two different people or one single eldritch knight slash kung fu wizard. Slow magic might also be used to set up a zone that favours their side and/or hinders the evil mage.
**Magic Differences**
There is much in the question about how the casting of slow and fast magics work, but there is nothing about what each branch of magic is particularly good at. Those differences in specialty could be crucial to how a combat goes.
Slow magic can possess the advantage of versatility in function -- the runes and geometries and materials of the ritual become essentially a language and with it, a large amount of spellcraft can be written and brought to bear when needed. This will likely mean that given enough time and study, there is a spell for every situation, though it might take time to find that spell.
In contrast, fast magic might be really good at a couple of things depending on its caster, but not be really adept at much else outside of that. These things can even vary from caster to caster, giving every fast caster a specialty but also lacking the versatility that slow casters enjoy. Given the possible lack of a formal education for fast casting, learning new spells in the fast system might be inconsistent and patchy.
As one example, slow magic might have a myriad of spells to handle fire all with slightly different parameters that require different spell circles. Fast magic might only have one to three spells to do the same based on power, but it relies on the will of the caster for everything else.
[Answer]
**Traditional wizards are protected by many layers of magical wards.**
Traditional magic is indeed slow. As an old-school-wizards you cannot simply cast a fireball when attacked by a rogue Demon user on the street. But you can spend half an hour every morning/week/year-and-a-day (depending on power level of course) to cast **Ludwig's Reactive Firespray** on yourself. Once cast the spell remains on the user and when in danger summons a half-dozen globules of flame that can then be directed as desired. Other popular spells include **Fernandidio's Detect Magic** which lets you see the traces of magic that linger on any magic users, and spot Demon users and distinguish them from traditional users. **Amelia's port-away** gives you a one-time teleport to the circle where you cast it. **Bertrand's Aegis** will absorb a certain amount of projected energy before dispelling and **Stoneskin's Stoneskin** is useful against more traditional weapons.
One advantage of being a traditional wizard is there are a million variations of all the possible wards. So when the Demon users figure out **Bertrand's Aegis** can be circumvented by creating a vacuum around the target to suffocate them, you just swap out that ward for a different one.
In general Demon users are very slow to adapt. While they can throw fireballs at a moment's notice, they are not really wizards. They got their power for free without studying, so they don't know much theory and are bad at the twelve-dimensional game of rock-paper-scissors-ward-spell-counterspell that happens when duelling an experienced wizard.
A duel between Demon users involves a lot of running and jumping. A duel between Traditional wizards involves the two staring at each other for an extended period. It is a race to suss out your opponent's many layers of magical defences, and how to most efficiently expend your own in order to counter them. Then one of them (the loser) suddenly implodes.
Now a user of Demon AND Traditional magic would be almost unstoppable.
[Answer]
There's an old saying in the software industry:
>
> Fast. Good. Cheap. Pick two.
>
>
>
Similarly, there are tradeoffs in traditional magic versus demon magic.
Traditional magic is slow, reliable, trustworthy, **safe**. It's the Volvo of magic.
Demon magic is fast, sexy, flashy. It seems so much more powerful, but when it goes wrong, it really goes wrong. You. Are. Trusting. A. Demon. Yeah, demons are lawful, but you're a good customer, not a true partner, and you'll be thrown under the succu-bus as soon as you stop being useful to the demon.
(Did you count your fingers after you shook the demon's hand?)
That power has to come from somewhere, and when the bill comes due you'd better hope it's more like an overdue utility bill than catastrophic climate change.
(Sorry if I sound preachy, but I've seen too many young hotheaded mages make the same mistake... And funny how you never see old users of demon magic.)
[Answer]
**Lots of magic users.** One person, on their own, cannot defeat a demon magic user, as stated above, with the speeds of their magics. However, lots of magic users, although slow, could form a rapid chain of magical discharges, as there are many of them performing at once.
They would be screwed if there are more demon magic users, though...
[Answer]
The "good" kind of magic sounds like the type of magic that would need a well organized community in order to actually be useful. A lone mage having to do the rituals, gather the ingredients and find time to study/experiment with new spells would be highly inefficient. By its very nature this type of magic would probably lead mages to gather in groups, get apprentices to do all the gathering & circle drawing for them and fairly quickly lead to an established order of mages. The magic itself also would probably help mages trust each other more since it can't easily be used for surprise attacks.
The "bad" kind on the other hand gives mages plenty of free time and no real use for apprentices (other than maybe target practice). While I imagine some of them would seek out apprentices, spells might end up being closely guarded secrets since any apprentice could very quickly use one against their master if caught off guard. Likewise powerful mages wouldn't probably trust each other too much since magic that's so easy & fast to cast would give them plenty of opportunities to stab each other in the back.
If you prefer not to make the two types of magic differ in power or energy consumption (as suggested in other answers) you could simply have the "good" magic users be much better organized and prepared than the "bad". Cities hosting good mages could have circles and ingredients constantly delivered to spots all around the walls in preparation for an attack. You could even take it a step further and have the apprentice mages do shifts along the walls, constantly casting shield spells around the city, each new shift picking up where the last one left off. They could maybe have attack spells constantly being cast and then "interrupted" just before completion, thus dissuading possible attackers because the retaliation wouldn't take long at all.
Cities would probably pay "good" mage guilds/groups quite well for these sort of protections, lending prestige and status to these mages, and leading many willing volunteers to the mages for training.
[Answer]
## The Problem with Slow Casting
Many of the answers to [the prior question](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/160918/how-can-mages-regard-fast-magic-as-a-form-of-evil?noredirect=1#comment505199_160918), mine included, suggest some sort of cost for using fast casting (a.k.a demonic magic). However, as the OP rightly points out, dark wizards would wipe the floor with mages in a direct confrontation; to win, the wizards simply need the initiative and comparable numbers.
Clearly, for slow casting to not be supplanted by fast casting, it must have some benefit. This benefit would not only have to mitigate the speed difference, but also make slow casting viable enough that mages could rely on it exclusively.
## Why Bother with Slow Casting?
Both mages and wizards use incantations to bring magic to life. The words of the spells are used to define the effects the spell caster wishes to create.
But why do mages draw magic circles? Because they serve as a magical conduit, providing a steady stream of the kind of magic power needed for a particular spell to work effectively.
Also, why do mages rely on expensive materials? Because properly prepared materials allow the magic energies of a spell to bind to the physical world. This creates more potent and permanent effects.
By contrast, dark wizards simply pull magical energies out of the ether. This has a number of drawbacks, including the fact that the energy is unstable and will dissipate as quickly.
## The Power of Creation versus The Forces of Chaos
Given the universes' inherent tendency towards entropy, destruction is far easier than creation. Any experienced spell caster can summon the magic needed to bust down a door, but only the methodical approach of the mage will work to put the door back onto its hinges. In other words, dark wizards revel in destruction while mages prefer creation.
Because the incantations are the same, a wizard's fast casting and a mage's slow casting can be used for the same general purposes, but the effects will differ dramatically.
* When a wizard uses fire, flames erupt in an unpredictable fashion, but when a mage uses fire, it only strikes the intended target(s).
* Wizards can create illusions that confuse, disorient, or distract, but only mages can create an illusion with enough substance and detail to be convincing.
* Mages can properly mend wounds whereas wizards simply cauterize them; if you care about your long term health, you'll want a mage as your doctor.
* If a wizard summons a creature to aid them, there is a constant battle of wills to keep that creature subservient, limiting the wizard's power; if a mage summons a creature, though, the creature acts in good faith, allowing the mage to dedicate his full attention to his next spell.
* Mages can create excellent golems and other constructs with considerable endurance and autonomy; anything created by a wizard will be nothing more than a fragile puppet.
* Likewise, mages can imbue items with permanent magical properties. Anything a wizard makes will, at best, become inert and useless after a few hours; wizards with less patients or less experience may well create something that blows up after a minute or two. That's great for a bomb, but terrible if you want to equip a soldier with a magical sword.
The last bullet point is a mage's greatest strength. Artificing would enable smart mages to prepare for combat by creating a magical arsenal. Wands could serve as weapons to incapacitate wizards while amulets provide protection against wizard attacks. Rings might store precast spells or serve as miniature invocation circles for common spells. Materials may be condensed and stored within small capsules. There's a lot of possibilities. The key take-away, though, is that a wizard is unlikely to win a head-on battle with a properly prepared mage; instead, they need to rely on stealth, deceit, or treachery to gain the upper hand.
## TL;DR
Dark wizards destroy and mages create. Wizards may be able to cast extremely lethal spells at moment's notice, but any sensible mage of means will create items so they are prepared; to succeed, wizards will have to use underhanded methods.
[Answer]
### Artillery
Slow magic allows you to make long-range strikes that nobody knows are coming. Fast magic cannot defend against it, while a slow magic shield dome defends perfectly fine against Fast magic.
### Buffs
Slow magic makes you physically so much more powerful that you can avoid/no-sell the fast magic.
### Economic advantages
Perhaps you can make your own farms much more fertile while withering enemy fields. That gives an economic edge, which translates to a military one.
[Answer]
All the demons I've ever met lied. They lied like rugs.
Mage (to demon): And this spell will make BeautifulMaidenX fall in love with me?
Demon says: Heck yeah, bud! Like totally!
Demon thinks: *this sucks the soul out of her and replaces it with a succubus who will then suck your soul out*.
or for defensive spells...
Mage (to demon): How does this spell protect me?
Demon says: It makes your skin hard, so that when the other guy tries to stab you, the blade breaks.
Demon thinks: *this spell paralyzes you, so when the other guy stabs you, you die and I get your soul by dinner time.*
Mage: Why is it different than the previous one?
Demon says: The new guy studied what you did last time and prepared a counter-spell.
Demon thinks: *the previous one was the real spell, which happened because I wanted to fool you into believing me. Now, I'm tired of dealing with you whiny, sniveling human.*
[Answer]
A couple things can differentiate:
# Range:
1. Mages derive magic from indifferent gods - but they are gods. They see and know everything. Mages can perform spells which ignore range or your own perceptions. For example, a mage's "Turn Bob into a newt" spell - Bob can be on vacation in Cancun and suddenly becomes a newt. Because gods, you know?
2. Demons derive magic from demons - who are not gods. Not omniscient and not all-seeing. A demon says, I want to turn Bob into a newt. He buys a plane ticket, tracks Bob down in Cancun, then says "You are a newt!" Bob is now a newt. But only because the demon knew where Bob was and could see him. Because no gods.
This somewhat throws the balance the other way, but demons have artifacts and relics linked to trapped souls commanded by demons to enhance their powers. Like a crystal ball, which the demon can find Bob, look at him through the ball, and Bob is now a newt. But demon looses his artifact, Demon can't turn Bob into a newt.
# Timing:
1. Mages cast a spell which is essentially a request to the gods, who have very good memories. A mage can put runes for example which tell the gods, "If anyone named Bob uses this toilet, they shall become a newt!" Gods remember this sort of thing and forevermore the latrine is cursed to anyone named Bob. They are good at this kind of cast-and-forget magic. A mage wants it to rain popcorn on his newborn son's 18th birthday, he casts the spell and is done. Even if the mage dies, the kid will be treated to a popcorn shower on his 18th birthday.
2. Demons again can only affect things in their own sphere of influence - things they can see and touch and hear. If they curse a latrine to turn Bobs into newts, they pretty much have to live in the bathroom. They transport back to their dimension and the curse goes away. Of course, again, Demons can capture and enslave souls to do their dirty work. They can curse a latrine by making a captured soul take up residence in it, then empower the poor slave to turn Bobs into newts. Unfortunately, the demon has to capture a soul first, while a mage just needs eye of newt and draw the happy poo emoticon with some sidewalk chalk to make the gods happy. **In short,** Demon magic is gone when the demon is gone, unless he enslaves a soul to "enforce" it. If a demon wants it to rain popcorn on someone's 18th birthday he better tell Siri to set a reminder, because he has to be there.
# Different combat strategies
Because of these different effects the way demons and mages do combat will be very different, Mages will rely on the protection of cover, allowing their greater range and influence to work for them. They can set very low maintenance ambush traps that can hurt demons even when the mage is not there. Demons rely heavily on strength in numbers, as well as the element of surprise. When a demon ambushes, they have to be present. Demons naturally extend their power by enslaved souls, so they try hard to capture as many as they can. It's very competitive among them, each tricks the other for possession of a fresh soul because souls = slaves = power. Demons also tend to be found around artifacts and relics, which extend their power and are not so easy to keep in their pocket. So altars and worship chambers are a great place for them to be powerful and collect souls. Thus demons prefer combat in these chambers where they are strongest, so their strategy uses bait and deception to lure mages into these traps. They tend to avoid open combat outside "cursed" areas and will run away (toward a trap) if outnumbered or overpowered.
[Answer]
# The source.
The gods, presumably, are intrinsically connected to this plane, if not all of them. A divine mage draws power from their own native realm in which they use it, but the same is not true of a demon mage, as the devils reside elsewhere. This could have all sorts of consequences:
* Direct countermeasures against demon magic in general. Divine mages could block off demon mages' access to the other plane, either partially or entirely, and for varying durations. In any engagement, demon mages start with the upper hand, but as soon as their opponents disconnect them from the source of their power, their magic is severely weakened if they can use it at all. If defenses can be prepared against the first few spells in an attack, either through magical or mundane means, demon mages may need to be clever about how they engage if they are to accomplish anything at all.
* Natural variations in accessibility. Some parts of the world may be "farther" from the devils' plane than others, and demon mages may be weaker there. The strength of demon magic may also vary by the time of day, phase of the moon, season, or year, predictably or unpredictably; divine mages are always close to the gods.
* Bottlenecks. Although a demon mage can fire off an incantation far faster than a team of divine mages can prepare a circle, and in general the magic will happen just about right then, the rate at which one can channel power from another plane could be limited, so more powerful spells might still take a while to manifest, comparable to divine magic's speed if not slower in some cases. Demon mages may also have a certain level of energy they can store within themselves, but it takes time to recharge, so if they can't win a battle quickly they may not be able to win it at all, without hiding somewhere to rest for a bit. The rate limit may also not be per person but per area, so a group of demon mages would not be much more effective than only one--and if you need to draw your magic through a very large part of the world, you may find yourself impaired by spellcasting ten miles away by someone you've never heard of. Not only would that make demon magic unreliable, but it would also have the consequence that demon mages try not to have many other demon mages around--locally, there would only be a few at a time who carefully stagger their magic use if they're willing to cooperate with each other at all, and any independent demon mages would be hunted down and recruited, killed, exiled, or disabled. It could do a lot to reinforce the idea that demon magic is evil if the only demon mages who accomplish anything are the ones who slaughter their competition to guarantee power for themselves. On the contrary, divine magic is always readily available everywhere, as the gods are omnipresent.
* The gods don't give a damn, but what about the devils? With divine magic, you can always guarantee that whatever it is you're doing, you can do it. But maybe devils have agendas of their own, and if you're not with them, you're against them. A demon mage who isn't cooperating with his patron may find himself powerless, or worse, his connection to the other plane may leave him open to being injured, tortured, or killed.
* There's a back door for the devils, and it's wide open. In the previous bullet point, I suggest that a devil could inflict all sorts of nasty things on a demon mage. What's to stop other mages from doing that? If a squad of divine mages can withstand a barrage of fireball or whatever else for long enough, the demon mage opposition could end up dead, brainwashed, insane, or comatose, because the divine mages can reach around through the other plane for direct access to the demon mages' souls in a way nobody else is susceptible to.
[Answer]
Strength, endurance, and functionality.
# Strength:
Perhaps, by skipping the divine protections bestowed by the gods through use of sacrifices and magic circles, your spells are weaker. A spell that would take 1 hour for a mage to draw and incant would take 1hour and a minute for a demon mage to just incant, even upping their words per minute to auctioneer levels. This is because they have to be pretty specific to avoid the spell from missing, or draining too much energy, or rebounding, or any number of things. However, divine magic has these protections built in by pleasing the gods.
# Endurance:
Casting spells with demonic magic places the burden entirely on the caster, as they feed off your spirit to grant you these abilities. This means that they can cast fewer spells per the same amount of energy, and, maybe as a side effect of their spirit being eaten away, the amount of total energy they possess will decrease over time. This means that an experienced demonic mage will be on par with a beginner divine mage, while an experienced divine mage would be on-par with a novice demon mage because their power hasn't decreased (being a demon mage is an attractive offer to young mages, since it is a quick way to get a lot of power and fame).
# Functionality
I would change the functionality of demonic and divine magic entirely. The way you have the question phrased makes it seem like demonic magic uses the same incantation. However, I would change this - divine magic uses pictures and ingredients as a substitute for portions of the incantation, while demonic magic keeps the whole thing. Thus while divine magic may use separate parts, the demonic magic still has to use those parts in the incantation.
Perhaps it also becomes a lot more difficult to add functionality. Divine magic is based on the shapes, offerings, materials, and incantations used to form a solid image. This makes it a lot easier to add more effects, as simply adding another shape to your magic circle will change it. Shapes are also easier to remember than plain incantations, meaning that more diverse spells can be used when using shapes and shorter incantations.
[Answer]
Performing a demon incantation requires being able to read/speak/chant the demon language.
This could be difficult to learn due to being socially unnacceptable but may also require physical alterations to be able to speak correctly.
Correct intonation may only be possible to learn from a demon tutor; they may not make patient tutors.
This would keep numbers of 'evil' magic users down, especially if the 'good' magic users are able to 'pre-charge' long lasting low-level magic spells and smother inexperienced users with numbers. It may require a number of trained adherants to push back.
[Answer]
The same way cops with handguns always win (eventually) against criminals with assault rifles.
The bad guys are, by their very nature, loners or small groups. The good guys are part of a large organisation with lots of support.
The short-cut, get-rich-quick option does not work out in the long term.
[Answer]
Most other answer focuses on how to 'buff' slow magic and 'debuff/nerf' fast magic. Here my answer will try to answer how slow magic can still be competitive in a world that have fast magic.
Here is my assumptions:
* this answer only covers (exclusively) how magic is used in combat (so it will not cover pre-prepared magic weapon, using magic to increase economic output, how it's perceived by society, etc.)
* the combat/battle is assumed symmetrical (organized army vs organized army, or individual vs individual, criminal gang vs criminal gang, or paramilitary vs paramilitary), so slow magic IS NOT MORE ORGANIZED than fast magic (assume same number of personnel and same organization style)
* magic is realized (actuated/actioned by) gods, here I assume there are multiple gods:
+ some are more powerful than the others
+ some are stupid, some are smart, some can read your intention well, and some can't read the room (e.g.: KY)
+ some are personal (have personality), some are not personal (just a deus-ex-machina in its literal meaning: a machine that is very powerful and transcendent, but it's just a machine, does not have will)
+ some like a certain behavior, some don't (think of yourself: you like people who is dressed nicely/neatly, and you don't like someone who smells like rotting corpse)
* both slow and fast magic have almost everything the same:
+ same range (number of km or mile to its target),
+ same firepower (how many joule the energy it can project),
+ same timing (can be commanded to be triggered on impact, or on delay, or on proximity, etc.),
+ same flexibility/mobility (a homing spell from both slow and fast mage have same turning radius, same acceleration/deceleration)
* what is different however, is that slow magic is slow, and fast magic is fast (duh).
+ slow magic needs "ritual" (action done by person/people) and "ingredients" (materials/tools/consumables that is needed to perform the magic)
+ fast magic only need chants/spells: it can be spoken quickly (think of how most magic in fictions, the mage shout "fireball" and from the end of his/her staff a fireball flies to its target)
Intuitively, it may looks like fast magic is always better in every sense. But no, it's not. We only think of it that way because we think that the "ritual"/"ingredients" are just wasted efforts that some arbitrary "gods"/"elders"/etc. forced on us. We think that way because we're in modern society that has outgrown such practices.
So here's the reason: Assuming that magic is "a way to alter reality", then "spell" (for fast magic) and "ritual"/"ingredients" (for slow magic) are actually a way to transmit information to the gods/forces/world on what reality needs to be altered, how it should be altered, what is the expected end result, who should alter it, etc. (think of 5W 1H question).
Example of combat "spells" (fast magic):
* "shot fireball from the end of my wand!"
* "shot thunderbolt from the end of my wand!"
* "shot pebble from the end of my wand!"
* "shot water jet from the end of my wand!"
* "increase my muscle strength!"
* "block incoming projectile that is approaching me!"
Remember here that the scope of this answer is only application of magic inside combat (so spells like "give me thousand gold coins!" is out of scope)
Example of combat "rituals" (slow magic):
* prepare X amount of lizard eye, each pointing at different direction (meaning: longitude, latitude / coordinate of the target to strike is encoded in the direction of the eye), draw a lot of circle with smaller circle surrounding it (meaning: the payload/warhead is TNT, it's encoded in what kind of circle is drawn, in this case the circles are actually the chemical symbol of TNT), write number 3928.245275 in your staff then point your staff at the sky (meaning: drop it from the sky from altitude 3928.245275 meter/mile/whatever unit of measurement your world have), write the name of the god and draw his/her icon/coat of arms/callsign/etc. you ask to execute the magic on edge of the ritual space (meaning: this request for magic is directed to this god only)
By this point anyone would have realized that by doing "rituals" (slow), the amount of information that can be used as "parameter" of your magic strike is increased dramatically instead of using "spells" (fast). Also, calculating those parameters require writing equation/doing math on paper/parchment/floor/etc. that is by untrained eyes looks like just another arbitrary ritual (its not, its required to do a precise targeting).
This means fast magic CANNOT do precise reality altering magic and is limited to approximated reality altering magic. Command to "shoot fireball from the edge of your wand" is a very approximate (unprecise). The fireball can be big, small, fast moving, slow moving, homing, split to multiple, or any other variation depending on which god is present in the place to execute the magic. But it's not making fast magic unusable: in the heat of battle, whether the fireball you shoot is fast/slow/small/big/etc. is a small concern, your direct concern is to disable the enemy in front of you (you do not need to understand/think about [implementation detail](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1777719/what-is-the-definition-of-an-implementation-detail))
But in case of slow magic, all the parameters you send before executing it is very important. You can designate coordinate, altitude, firepower, trigger (time based/impact/proximity), special behavior (homing, non-linear movement speed following a polynomial equation, how to cancel/defuse the magic, etc.). Doing the same with fast magic is POSSIBLE, but NOT FEASIBLE in the middle of heated battle (who in their right mind would do algebra/recall chemical compound symbol/measuring distance while dodging arrows/bullets/swords? even if you're a genius, the speed of your vocal cord is still the same as normal humans, so speaking a very long and detailed magic command in the heat of battle is not a good idea, you should just speak faster and more crude/approximate command with more "command per minute" instead).
Also, fast magic is not very consistent/reproducible: same spell can be interpreted by different gods that interpret it differently, or if a parameter is not specified, the gods fill it with whatever value they like). So another advantage of slow magic is consistency/reproducibility.
This would make interesting worldbuilding since fast magic practitioners would be more of hunter/warrior type while slow magic practitioners would be more of scholar/mathematician/scientist type. Also, slow magic practitioners would tend to only call on some specific gods (only smart, precise, calculating, consistent, deterministic) gods, which would make them only able to perform their rituals from specific places only (where those gods that they prefer dwell); while fast magic practitioners can fight anywhere, utilizing whoever gods who dwell in the site of battle (of course, at the risk of more random/unpredictable magic).
I imagine in your world when civilization advances, they realized that best way to utilize magic in combat is by precision support strike by slow magic (from safe location far from the front lines), and by fast moving shock infantry that use fast magic (in the front lines). At this point, they have realized the theory of [combined arms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms).
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed.** This question is [off-topic](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
You are asking questions about a story set in a world instead of about building a world. For more information, see [Why is my question "Too Story Based" and how do I get it opened?](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/q/3300/49).
Closed 3 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/174139/edit)
Apologize in advance if this sounds too much like a story-related question, but I'll try and limit it to logistics-only as much as possible.
I have a spaceship that's travelling to a colony planet with its passengers in cryosleep. The aim is for them to miss their destination and crash-land on another planet instead. To that end, I'm wondering exactly what could go wrong, mechanics-wise, within the ship to throw them off-course.
For reference, the planet they land on is about 5 light-years away from their intended destination. Does a glitch in the navigation system make sense? There are passengers in cryosleep but I'd assume that a colony ship like this would have a skeleton crew awake at all times on a rota basis to keep an eye on basic tasks and repairs etc.? Perhaps an issue with deceleration where they couldn't stop at their intended planet and had to go on to the next habitable planet?
What kind of mechanical error could make them miss their destination and land on this other planet?
[Answer]
## Failed slingshot maneuver
Space vehicles even now frequently use a [gravity assist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist) technique to gain velocity toward their target. The Galileo probe used 5 such maneuvers (2 around Earth) to get to Jupiter.
But this requires a burn of precisely the right intensity and length at precisely the right time in the maneuver.
So, if some mechanical issue causes the burn to not go off perfectly, the ship might burn up in the planet's atmosphere, or be flung off into space. People on board may be able to survive by landing (or crashing) on the planet itself.
This happened in Larry Niven's story "At the Bottom of a Hole" where a Belter smuggler tried to slingshot around Mars to get into a desired trajectory, but ended up crashing on the planet instead. The rest of the story involves him trying to reach a failed Earth colony on Mars to get some survival resources.
[Answer]
This is less about the mechanical problems that cause the crash, and more about why there was a convenient planet there to crash into, but...
# They navigate by "star-hopping"
To avoid exactly the problem of being stuck in interstellar space, the ship's journey is plotted as a series of "hops" from one star to another. This failsafe design ensures that, if something goes wrong, the ship will (eventually) come into a solar system, where it can get the energy and possibly materials it needs to correct the situation. Of course, this assumes the ship is functional enough to enter orbit, or else gets nicely gravity-captured by the target star...
All sorts of things could go wrong to force a ship down on a planet orbiting the star *previous* to their ultimate destination. Debris strike. Manoeuvring engine failure. A bizarre concatenation of an off-by-one error and a planet that happened to match the parameters of the target.
PS Why don't they just do one "hop" towards the destination star? They'll still get there eventually, right? Nope. These hops have to be relatively short, because of uncertainty in measurements over long distances. It's simply not safe, given the accuracy of the current technology, to fling yourself straight from your point of origin towards the destination star if it's more than, say, half a dozen light-years away. (Also, time is an issue. The difference between "nearest star" and "destination star" is probably an order of magnitude; depending on your propulsion technology, that could be "a year" versus "a decade".)
[Answer]
## What Not to Do
Randomly finding another planet is REALLY unlikely:
From what we know so far, the odds of 2 habitable planets even being within 5 light years of each other seem pretty slim; so, even if your ship can pick any target within that range of the target, you're already looking at something kinda like a 1:1000 chance of there even being a second option that close to your destination.
To make matters WAY WAY worse, if this is a totally random other planet because you lost flight controls, 5 light years means you are off by a margin of is ~4.73e13km. The radius of the gravity well of an Earth like planet is ~1.26e4km. Square those numbers and compound them with the odds of even finding a potentially habitable planet you are looking at about 15 quintillion to 1 odds of randoming running into another sort of habitable world by chance. You have better odds winning 2 games of powerball back to back than this happening.
## How to Increase your Odds
### Make it a survivable but not inhabitable world
There are a lot more worlds in the universe that are survivable with the right equipment than there are step off the ship and take a breath of fresh air type worlds. If your colonists were already going to a Mars or Venus like world instead of an Earth like one, then they would have all sorts of stuff like O2 generators, inflatable habs, arable soil samples, etc. Everything they would need to survive on a hostile world. Once you do this, then the odds of them finding an alternate world they can make work go way up and 5 light years becomes a reasonable expectation.
### Make it a stopping problem
Your ship needs to accelerate and decelerate over VERY long distances. This means you need to make for a situation where it can not stop in time to go to the target. One option is to damage one or more of it's stopping thrusters. This would mean that it can not stop in time to go to the intended world and has to decelerate slower, overshooting its target bringing it to a farther away star system. A second option is that something happened to its fuel supply, and it needs to pick a planet that will be moving away from it instead of at it to conserve fuel and make it not have to slow down as much to match the planet's speed.
Damaged thrusters especially would contribute to why it is not able to land where it is going though, forcing the crash landing. A fuel shortage could cause the same, but would have to be short by a very specific margin to not kill everyone.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/egfzk.png)
*A: Original Destination, B: New Destination.*
[Answer]
**We're going to be in the Hudson.**
**[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/PVUXq.jpg)**
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSlbHK07fkY>
There is a skeleton crew awake. Something bad happens to the ship. I am thinking of the [best scene in Passengers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WcKD1V5CKQ) where the colony ship (with everyone asleep) traverses a cloud of asteroids but better is when Captain Sully realizes their plane is going to crash, and so he lands in the river as the best of bad options.
You skeleton crew of 3 realize that the ship is going to fail catastrophically, and soon. Maybe part of the ship has already broken away. They take it down in the nearest place they can find where they and their passengers are not going to die outright from the atmosphere.
When I send out a colony ship I am going to include missiles to break up big asteroids like that in advance of ramming them.
[Answer]
Currently, when we launch a object towards a distant destination (such as the moon or mars) all of the major trajectory decisions are made before the object starts moving. Additionally, when we launch such an object, it's initial motion is comparatively slow. So to miss a target by five light years given our current scientific understanding, you would not only have to make the error very early in the journey, but also have that error go undetected until the ship reached a great enough speed that pursuit and capture by other vehicles was impractical.
That is not unbelievable in a space-punk genre where super corporations care so little for individual lives that they would write off hundreds or thousands of lives because the cost of the pursuit needed to save them exceeded some financial threshold. However, most space castaway stories are far from the dark halls of the space-punk genre, so writing the launch sequence with such dark undertones might clash with the rest of the novel's writing style.
As an alternative, having the ship's course unavertably altered by some external force, might provide the same effect without the sinister overtones. Perhaps a rogue black hole or other large mass object passed by the ship just close enough to pull the ship off course. Perhaps the ship was struck by a smaller object with just enough force to alter its course but not enough to penetrate its hull. Maybe something on the alternate planet reached out with gravitational or magnetic tentacles and deliberately dragged it off course.
...but those are answers for another question.
To answer the OP's current question, nothing mechanical aboard a ship built based on our current understanding of physics and our current plans for deep space travel, could alter its post-launch trajectory to such an enormous degree.
*Following my posting of this answer, I had a short conversation with a much more scientifically minded friend and she convinced me that I was totally wrong in my closing statement. I'm leaving the rest of my answer which I believe is still valid, but am now adding an actual answer to the OP's original question.*
Although the major trajectory decisions are made prior to the initial launch, the actual execution of actions born from those decisions can go on throughout the journey. In order to accelerate in space, thrust must push the vehicles to every greater speeds. Journeys may start slow, but they get faster only because some force, either from the engines or upon the sails, push them up to those greater speeds. Mechanical problems in any of those mechanisms, over a long period of time could alter a course drastically. The earlier it happens and the longer it goes unnoticed, the greater the alteration might be; but if the journey is long enough, 5 light years might not be that much an error, relatively speaking.
[Answer]
The most straightforward answer is "anything that causes you to miss the initial target", which can be just about anything.
* Thrusters don't fire.
* Thrusters fire but a micrometeorite punched a small hole in the outlet nozzle that alters the exhaust direction slightly.
* Thrusters fire but some fuel leaked out or was in the wrong tank, and the thrust ends early.
* Thrusters fire but the cooling systems partly break down, altering the thrust delivered and/or causing the engine to shut off early.
* Sensor malfunction, and the ship *thinks* it runs out of fuel prematurely.
* Previously undetected mass (especially early on) changes the trajectory slightly.
* Mass of ship is incorrect. (Maybe somebody smuggled something aboard and hacked the systems to not include its mass?)
* Any other sort of navigational error.
Anyway, the point is that once you discover that things didn't go as planned, and are too late to course-correct (which is *very* likely if any deviation isn't corrected quickly; you probably don't have the fuel or time to turn around or even make large swerves), then your only option is to find a new place to land. And you'll have to do it quickly, while you still have time and fuel to course-correct. (Time and fuel trade off against each other -- the earlier you adjust, the less fuel it'll require, but that also means making the call when you're farther away from the target and therefore your telescope may not be able to resolve things with enough precision.)
If you want a more "out there" answer, you could plant a large mass between your origin and intended destination, such that gravitational lensing shifts things around enough that your preplotted course is just dead wrong. Then it's too late to correct, etc; see above.
Or for a more "in the box" answer: the builders screwed up imperial vs metric again, and the calculations are all wrong until it's discovered and corrected for.
[Answer]
**A computer virus:** It sets an alternate destination, but show the original destination as selected to the crew. If there are no or few windows then the view on screen can also be altered. And then if they realize the error maybe it's to late and they have no choose other than go to the new destination. Maybe they try to fix the problem or change the landing location, but that causes a crash landing.
[Answer]
For a real-world example, consider the *Pioneer 11* space probe. For reasons that [puzzled scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly) for decades, the probe has been drifting slightly off-course. The current explanation for this drift is that one side of the probe is generating more heat than the other. A probe in deep space can only shed excess heat through thermal radiation, and the process of emitting that radiation provides an ever-so-slight push to the probe. When heating is uneven these "push" forces are uneven, which causes the probe to accelerate in an unintended direction and it veers off-course.
For *Pioneer 11*, the overall course disturbance is rather slight. The probe is small and doesn't generate a lot of heat to begin with. What you're talking about is a much larger craft, one that must maintain an internal temperature warm enough for living creatures to survive in. A craft like that would generate significantly more heat and could receive a much larger "push" off-course. The push would still be imperceptibly small from the point of view of an awake pilot, but over a long trip it could add up to a significant deviation. A ship without attitude control thrusters (or without the fuel to burn them) would be unable to correct this deviation. It could overshoot the destination, or get too close to a planet during a flyby/gravity assist and fail to escape its gravity well.
Other mechanical problems could result in the same sort of slow push over time, such as a pinpoint gas leak. Small errors like these that build up over time are harder to detect, so they're more likely to go unnoticed until it's too late.
Other more-conventional mechanical problems could include:
* Attitude control thrusters/gyros that are asymmetrical or otherwise unable to adequately control the craft's orientation
* A navigation system error. Your navigation aids in deep space are guide stars, but an unexpected bright light (like a distant supernova) could be mistaken for your guide star. Alternatively, an unexpected object could temporarily eclipse your guide star, and your navigation system veers off course due to lack of a reference point.
* A tiny propellant leak could leave the ship without sufficient fuel to slow down to the point where it could land without crashing. Your only option is to [skip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking) through your target planet's atmosphere (where drag will slow you down some), drift onward at a now-slower speed towards a remote planet, and attempt to land there.
* Many long-distance spacecraft are spin-stabilized to avoid drifting. If your spin rate never reaches a high-enough rate, you might not have enough rotational inertia to resist drifting.
* Some spin-stabilized spacecraft use [yo-yos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo-yo_de-spin) to stop spinning. If one of your yo-yos fails to fully extend (or doesn't deploy at the exact same time as the others), your center of mass will be off center and your own rotational inertia can cause the craft to tumble off-course.
* There is a discrepancy between the amount of speed that a spacecraft gains during a gravity assist and the amount that our mathematical models predict. This phenomenon currently [has no explanation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly). If your craft's voyage includes several gravity assists, the cumulative effects of this phenomenon could alter your speed enough to change your course unexpectedly.
Some of the most fun mechanical problems are the ones that cause your issue without directly impacting the spacecraft.
* The clock in the cockpit is an analog dial clock and it slowly loses/gains time. The clock's drift is not really noticeable, but it accumulates over the course of a month's long trip. Your pilot notices the discrepancy compared to his cheap wristwatch, but assumes the cockpit clock is the correct one since it's more sophisticated. The crew makes their entry burn several minutes too early/late, misses the target, and goes drifting through space towards another planet.
* A mid-flight mechanical problem requires a crew member to replace a hose that feeds your engine or control thrusters. It's a rather routine repair, but the crew member uses the incorrect replacement line which is slightly longer than the original. When you fire up the engine/thrusters in preparation for final approach, the longer line causes that nozzle to fire slightly later than the others. Your thrust forces are now asymmetrical and your course drifts towards the side with the longer hose.
* Your flight plan involves approaching your destination with that planet's sun directly ahead. Your cockpit's solar screens jam and fail to fully extend, and your pilots have to land with a giant fireball blinding them and half their sensors. Understandably, their aim is slightly off and you miss your destination.
* As your craft approaches the point where it needs to make its final course adjustment burn, the mounting bracket on an overloaded cabinet fails and it crashes to the floor, blocking the doorway to the empty cockpit. By the time the crew clears the heavy equipment and regains access to the ship's controls, they've missed their turn and don't have enough fuel to correct their course.
[Answer]
>
> Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
>
>
>
The extra weight of a stowaway (Dr. Smith) causes the spaceship (*Jupiter 2*) to go off course. The damage caused by the reprogrammed robot will require the stowaway to awaken the crew and land the ship on different planet.
That was the basis for the (original) TV Series [*Lost in Space (1965)*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_in_Space#Season_1).
[Answer]
## Emergency Hyperjump
The ship has experienced a sudden loss of fuel and cannot maintain the cryopods if it heads to where it was programmed to go. Everybody will thaw out and die.
The ship uses a large share of its remaining fuel to calculate a hyperjump to the best possible planet it can reach on the charts and activates the emergency transponder.
Only once it has landed (which it does badly with the minimal amount of fuel available) the crew awake to find themselves on the wrong planet.
[Answer]
**Emergency course change**
Here is another very unlikely szenario:
Even when mass in space is sparse, it is theoretically possible to encounter asteroids, meteroids or even a roque planet, that are undetected/unknown and require a course change of your spacecraft. Changing your course in space is hard [*Citation Needed*], so your spacecraft may need a lot of energy/fuel to change it's direction (and back).
This idea is based on the Film [Passengers(2016)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passengers_(2016_film))
[Answer]
So, I'm going to expand on Spencer's answer of "poor gravity assist."
### The ship is traveling through this system where it crashes because it is intending to perform a gravity assist off the system's primary
This explains why your ship is close enough to the star in the first place. Space is mind-boggling empty. You may think it's a long way to walk all the way around the world on foot, but that's just peanuts to space. Unless you aim for a star, you will not hit it. Look up at the night sky, and even in the darkest nights there's so much space there isn't stars.
(This brings up huge collision and radiation risks, but just go with it. If the ship isn't a torchship or other sort of vessel that we'd dub "realistic" then it might have its own operating principles that would allow it to travel to this star.)
### Something goes wrong well before perihelion
The problem must happen well before the closest approach to the sun. The earlier you make a burn, the less delta-V you have to spend.
I recommend that there is a problem with a burn intended to put the ship into a course correction around the system's equivalent of Neptune - a large body on the edge of the system. This gravity assist is intended to allow the ship to adjust its course to make the solar gravity assist.
### The system is a binary system, or it has a hot jupiter
A ship intending to go through the system and reach another one should be moving fast. In order to slow down without horrible G-forces, it will want to use something almost as fast. Gravity assists, to quote Randal Munroe, are "like bouncing a ball off a truck." If you come up behind a hot jupiter and "bounce" off it, you will lose a lot of speed (while imperceptibly speeding up the planet.)
51 Pegasi b, the first hot jupiter (and first exolplanet) found orbits its primary at 136km/s. (though if the ship is moving at that sort of speed, it will take thousands of years to get to the target star after this. Cryosleep, indeed, and there wouldn't be a skeleton crew awake at all times. You'd wear out the passengers before you got anywhere.) Some binary stars may have higher orbital speeds, but I would stick to something like AR Scorpii, where the B star is a white dwarf instead of having to fly between two giant fusion reactors.
Hot jupiters and fast-orbiting companion stars also have the advantage of being only slightly off from the primary, which means recovering to them is more plausible than other locations in the system.
[Answer]
## The ship's spectroscope has been pointing at the wrong planet all the time
The colony ship has many redundant systems on board to deal with unexpected circumstances.
One of them is a spectroscope that keeps track of the target planet by its water signature.
Unfortunately, during configuration and testing, an engineer had trouble calibrating the system and used the other planet (which is very close to the target planet when seen from the starting point) to more easily fix it. This testing configuration was never switched over to the real target planet.
For a long time, nothing seemed amiss as the deviations between the navigation data sources were within expected parameters, but when they did conflict, the computer gave priority to the data from the spectroscope and adjusted course.
When the crew finally discovers the error, the ship is already too low on fuel to re-route or even land under power.
[Answer]
In many current space maneuvers (Apollo) most thrusters are switched on and off by computer control. In addition, there is usually a pilot standing by to activate the thrusters manually if the computer control fails to activate or shut down correctly.
Manual control is, of course not as precise. Many maneuvers have a mid flight course correction planned. Any inaccuracy could explain an altered course, as could a black hole. A hyperdrive could shut down when encountering an unexpected black hole, or a black hole’s gravity could alter the course.
You have to assume some reason for not detecting the altered course, or not being able to correct the course.
[Answer]
Two versions out of the mind:
1. Ship's frame was slightly bend due assembly error, so instead of straight line the ship traveled via huge-radius curve during the hyper-jump
2. Input controls issue: let say we use limb-like rotatory disks to set the course so even small imprecision could change the destination on the long run (and gravity traps can make it even worse then)
[Answer]
## You cannot 'crash-land' on another planet
Space is not like the ocean where you may encounter land if you are adrift or off-course. It is incomprehensibly bigger, three-dimensional, and almost completely empty, with you travelling at deathly speed.
A reminder: a 5 light year distance = 47300000000000 kms.
To reach your destination in 1000 years your speed = 5399543 km/hr
*And that's for a 1000 year journey*
Trajectories, in particular over very large distances, must be incredibly precise. The distance between stars (and also planets) is unfathomably huge.
Many answers here concentrate on methods for spacecraft to be adrift or for there to be an error in calculations. However, even if this is the case, the spacecraft will not 'crash' on another planet - the odds are incalculably small due to the following factors:
* the colossal distances between star systems
* the massive distance between objects in a star system
* the enormous speeds the craft would be travelling to reach one (even a journey that lasts a 1000 years your craft will be travelling at extreme velocities)
*Whatever scale your are thinking of here you need to rethink it - we are talking really really really enormous numbers here.*
These factors alone mean that journey's must be precise to the utmost degree, let alone the slowing down of velocity to safely 'land' on a planet (a mammoth task even at only interplanetary speeds, let alone interstellar ones).
The only likely scenario where this would occur for your story is the AI in charge of the mission making an intentional decision to land, very precisely, on another planet in a star system 5 light years from the intended destination (but it must have enough fuel to alter trajectory precisely given the enormous speed the craft would be travelling already, thus meaning the mission planners would include this ability prior to launch - meaning **it is not, and never could be, an accident**).
[Answer]
# Ship ran out of a critical resource
While in flight, a tank of oxygen, cryosleep coolant, reactor fuel, engine fuel or some other important consumable resource ruptured and spilled its contents into open space. Problems like that [tend to happen during spacetravel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_13#Accident).
There is not enough left to last until the destination. So the skeleton crew needs to find an alternative destination immediately. Their options are to die in space or try their luck on a barely habitable, unexplored planet.
# Why would they crash-land instead of land properly?
The damage which forced them to cut their voyage short might also prevent a proper landing. For example, they might have barely enough fuel left to deorbit the ship, but run out a couple seconds too early. Or the exploding tank might also have damaged the landing gear.
Or the ship wasn't designed to land on a planet at all. The plan might have been to deliver the colonists to a space station in orbit and return to Earth. The colonists would then get shuttled down to the surface with a different vessel which only travels between the station and the surface. Two specialized ships might be far more economical than one ship which can do both interstellar travel and planetary landings.
Or perhaps the ship *is* capable of landing, but not on *that kind* of planet. It might have a higher gravity, lots of micrometeroids in its orbit, a denser atmosphere or some other hazard the ship wasn't designed to handle.
[Answer]
# What was not what happened
Since you are specifying that it is a mechanical issue, I understand that it is not:
* a software error/bug.
* a sabotage.
* an accident caused from someone screwing up the things.
* someone who wrote the wrong number on some file and nobody noticed.
At least, it is not any of those in isolation. Those might happen only if there was indeed a mechanical issue.
Further, I think that a small calculation error that accumulates over time is not a reason for that. They surely would have computers evaluating the route continuously and they would alarm when they notice the slightest mismatch, and it would be soon enough for the correcting maneuvering to be very slim and done with no problem. And no doubt, the ship would have enough extra fuel to be used in the case of something going bad. By the way, New Horizons did a lot of correcting maneuvers in order to be able to visit Pluto and Arrokoth, so no doubt that a much more advanced civilization with a manned ship would also do.
# The odds of crashlanding and why
Let's say that the ship was coming from A, targeting C and nearby the star B which hosts the planet D.
As other answers notes, since space is very empty and distances very long, the odds of randomly crashlanding somewhere are absurdly slim, so it must have a reason to pass near that planet, so it was not very random at all. A gravity assist from B is (as many other answer notes) a good candidate for being a place where the ship deviates. Otherwise, it would have no reason to go to "the wrong star" and much less "to the wrong planet". So something goes wrong when the ship passes near B and it crashlands on planet D.
Also, even if/when the ship happens to crashland on D, it is surely not a random event. Even if B happens to be a small red-dwarf star with several planets in close orbits (like [TRAPPIST-1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRAPPIST-1)), space is still huge and mainly void.
# What happened
There are many things that might go wrong in a gravity assist without destroying the ship nor sending it to be lost in deep outer space. My best candidate is this:
The ship is struck by a micrometeorite near B, and it damaged some important part of it, making it impossible to finish the journey to C.
So, they are in one of those situations:
* (a) the ship is in the eminence of being destroyed and must be repaired ASAP. They did some provisional duct-tape and glue repair, but it won't last long enough.
* (b) the ship is in a wildly off-course uncorrectable trajectory, so they must either land somewhere nearby or get lost in deep space forever without anywhere to land.
* (c) the cryosleep system or some other crew-survival system is damaged and nobody would be alive when the ship reaches B.
So the crew must do some emergency maneuver. Concluding that it is impossible for them to reach B without fixing the ship and that the ship can't be fixed without landing, they decide to land into the nearby planet D.
But, a soft landing is impossible because the micrometeorite damaged the part needed for proper landing. However, they can still maneuver the ship into a crashlanding (as long as it doesn't destroy the ship), but that would surely add further damage to the ship.
After landing, hopefully with all or at least part of the crew still alive, they can fix the ship, wait for a rescue or make that planet their new home.
[Answer]
Micro meteorite damage - say the fuel tanks were punctured and the ship's computer determined it won't be able to get to the destination. Or it would get to the destination but it will not have enough fuel to slow down and land. Then the computer finds the closes habitable planet and redirects the ship there.
Same thing but instead of meteorite, it turns out the interstellar medium is not as expected. For example, the [ramjet engine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bussard_ramjet) was unable to collect enough fuel. Or it was too dense and thus more fuel is need than expected.
Human error. The coordinates were entered wrong, for example a digit was transposed.
Computer problem. This is a new model ship and unfortunately there is a software bug. This could be anything - an unit conversion gone wrong, memory leak crashed the computer and caused the computer to lose the target coordinates, the AI went rogue and decided to go exploring.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm trying to work out what two languages merging would look like. Obviously, I know about pidgins and creoles, but these generally require the presence of a third, *dominant* language.
Here, I'm looking at a post apocalyptic world where two groups speaking close languages (Spanish and French for example) come into contact through forced migration and have to work together to survive.
Do we have any examples of this? Languages merging? What about more different ones like a Latin language and a Germanic one? Or even an Indo-European like Romanian and a non-Indo-European one like Hungarian?
[Answer]
## Languages do not usually "merge"; linguistic communities often do
There is a reason why your diligent research bore no fruit: [historical linguistics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_linguistics) does not ever speak of languages "merging".
When a linguistic community speaking language A merges with a linguistic community speaking language B, several different things can happen:
1. The merged community may continue to use two different languages, descended from language A and language B, with most people being bilingual; most usually, a lot of words from language A are [borrowed](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_contact) into language B, and a lot of words from language B make it into language A. We say that the new changed language A' is descended from A with a small / moderate / heavy influence from language B, and the new changed language B' is descended from B with a small / moderate / heavy influence from language A.
* Most usually in such a situation the two languages will [converge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_convergence), each adopting features from the other, with the effect that they become more similar in some ways. In time, the two successor languages A' and B' may form a [sprachbund](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprachbund) (= "language league" in English), that is, they make come to share striking similarities in phonetics, grammar and vocabulary.(The archetypal example of such a sprachbund is given by the [languages spoken in the Balkan peninsula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_sprachbund) and the neighboring areas, where fundamentally different languages of diverse origins came to have just about the same phonetic system and to share striking grammatical similarities.)
2. Or one of the languages A and B may win out, and become the basis from which the new common language of the merged community is based. This is far more common than the situation given under point 1 above. We say that new language A' is descended from A with a light / moderate / heavy influence from language B, depending on the specific case; the influence of language B is usually called a [superstratum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratum_(linguistics)) or substratum, depending on the specifics of how the two linguistics communities merged.
* The most easily influenced aspect of a language is *vocabulary*. For example, the English language is a Germanic language, descended from Old English, with an absolutely *massive* Romance superstratum and an almost as massive Latin adstratum.
In extreme situations, almost all the vocabulary of a language may be replaced with words borrowed from another; we say that the new language A' is descended from A and [relexified](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relexification) from B. For example, modern Armenian went basically through a process of relexification from Persian, to the point that linguists had at first mistaken it for an Iranian language, and only close scrutiny was able to discern the convoluted history of the language.
* The second most easily influenced aspect of a language is *phonetics*. Under the influence of language B, language A may evolve into a language A' which shows a simplified / amplified phonetic system tending to harmonize the differences between the phonetic systems of A and B.
* The *grammar* of a language is quite reluctant to let itself be corrupted by borrowing features from another language; what may happen (and it usually happens) is that the new language A' will shed those grammatical features of its ancestor A which had no correspondent in, and were utterly alien to language B. For example, let's say that a linguistic community speaking English merges with a linguistic community speaking Russian, and, by luck, the new common language is descended from English: I would be ready to bet that the progressive aspect of verbs, which has no correspondent in Russian and is utterly alien to the spirit of that language, won't make it into the grammar of the new Englishky.
(There is a hypothesis that links the surprising morphological poverty of Modern English to the moderate Norse and heavy Romance influences which the language has suffered.)
3. In extreme cases, the merged community may first resort to a drastically simplified [pidgin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin_language) which will then quickly evolve into a [creole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creole_language) language. Note that the creole language is descended from the pidgin, while the pidgin is not said to be "descended" from anything; we say that the pidgin is "based on" one or more languages, but, as far as historical linguistics is concerned, there is no genetic relationship between the pidgin and the language or languages it is based on.
(Note that the word "[genetic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_relationship_(linguistics))" has a very different meaning in linguistics than it has in biology.)
4. In *extremely rare* cases, the merged community may come to speak a [mixed language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_language); examples of mixed languages are few, and none is uncontested. (Even the meaning of the phrase "mixed language" is not clear; as far as there is a consensus, it denotes a language which has features derived from two or more parent languages to the point where one cannot say if it is descended from one with a very heavy influence of the other, or the other way around.)
[Answer]
You mean like how [modern English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language) has Germanic and Latin roots?
There is no definitive way that languages merge. Linguists, as a matter of fact, don't agree on one hard and fast definition of what a language is. They're more interested in describing how communication changes from contact to other languages to quibble over a prescriptive definition.
In the case of English you have population of Germanic speakers conquered by a French speaking upper class. This lead to a vocabulary that has both French and Germanic roots.
One of the most striking examples of this mixing is how the names of animals in English have Germanic origins and the names of the meat came from French. (such as cow and beef, or pig and pork) In most languages the name of the animal and the meat are the same.
[Answer]
>
> What about more different ones like a Latin language and a germanic
> one?
>
>
>
## **You get English!**
English is a merger of Germanic and Franco-Latin languages.
When the grammars of the languages are incompatible we get what is called a [pidgin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin)
---
Note: I see that a similar answer was given while I was typing.
[Answer]
It is interesting that you are mentioning Spanish and French, because geographically speaking, there is a language between them: Catalan. Catalan is closer to Spanish grammatically, but there are some constructions that are very similar to French, and the intersections of vocabulary between French and Catalan are also numerous: Fromage/Formatge (queso in Spanish); Table/Taula (mesa in Spanish).
Indeed, Catalan is not a fusion of these languages, but a different Roman language that happens to share a lot of the substratum and superstratum of Spanish and French.
So, for your example, I think that this hypothetical merging of Spanish and French wouldn't sound too different from the Catalan spoken in the north part of Catalonia (near the Pyrenees) or in Andorra.
It's just a personal opinion, but an informed one, since I speak the three languages I mention.
[Answer]
I don't know about established languages... but in bilingual cultures, or among families who speak two languages... you hear them shifting in and out of languages on the fly, depending on which serves the purpose best contextually.
I also don't think a dominant language in a pidgin is a bad example. I acknowledge your intent to START with two equal languages, but consider that they wouldn't necessarily stay that way.
Most languages aren't equal in terms of complexity and syntax... even if they start out equal in terms of the number of speakers, elements will become dominant over time... no one is going to conjugate verbs if an equally understandable alternative is available. Some parts of the languages are going to become dominant.
I would consider the written language as well... which language is easier to express on paper. I would imagine any language with a phonetic alphabet is going to have an edge over one with a symbolic alphabet, even if just in terms of teaching future generations.
[Answer]
Surzhyk
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surzhyk>
Surzhyk (су́ржик, IPA: [ˈsurʒɪk]) refers to a range of mixed (macaronic) sociolects of Ukrainian and Russian languages used in certain regions of Ukraine and adjacent lands. There is no unifying set of characteristics; the term is used for "norm-breaking, non-obedience to or non-awareness of the rules of the Ukrainian and Russian standard languages".
Surzhyk is a Ukrainian word for a "macaronic language" so that, in Ukrainian language it could refer to any mixed language, not necessarily including Ukrainian or Russian. When used by non-Ukrainian speaking people of Ukraine, the word is most commonly used to refer to a mix of Ukrainian with another language, not necessarily Russian. When used in Russia the word almost always specifically refers to a Ukrainian-Russian language mix.
[Answer]
Surprisingly, this is not a fiction - this is a real thing. For instance, if you take a look at US and some ethnic group living more or less compact: people still use their mother tongue but they "import" very many words from outer language (English this time) and apply the same linguistic rules as they have in their mother tongue.
Another example: two languages that living mixed on the same territory, let say around Black Sea. During the centuries, the languages actually do merge and create a blend tongue which is not-so-easy to understand for people outside of that mixed territory (regardless of a mother tongue, any from the blend).
[Answer]
The term you are looking for is 'creole' or 'pidgin' (which are often used interchangeably). From my field of study, perhaps West African Pidgin English? It was used in the late 17th and 18th centuries and was used by West Africans with what they picked up from Europeans during the Atlantic slave trade.
It took most syntax and grammar from substrate languages (mainly those from West Africa), but the vocabulary was mainly from the superstrate English, here's an example:
>
> “Me? Put poison for master? Nevertheless!” said the cook, side-stepping to avoid a heavy blow from the Minister. . . . Why I go kill my master? . . . Abi my head no correct? And even if to say I de craze why I no go go jump for inside lagoon instead to kill my master?" (a servant, in [Chinua] Achebe's A Man of the People, p. 39)
>
>
>
But anyway, as others have said, any creole or pidgin would be what you are looking for. Pidginization is when two languages literally clash, and speakers are forced to pick up words from each other over time in order to accommodate each other. Think of a plane full of Chinese speakers and English speakers crashing on an island. Assuming there was no domineering or anything, they would each over time pick up parts of each other's language, and slowly develop a language that was a combination, which we call a pidgin. An example known to you could be the simplified English you may speak to a foreign waiter while abroad. Creolization occurs when the descendants of these people speak the pidgin language as their primary tongue, and we now call it a creole.
Sadly in reality we often have socio-economic issues which cause one language to be more dominate (superstrate/substrate), so its kind of hard, maybe impossible to find an example where the language is 50/50 mixed.
[Answer]
# Look at Mechif
Mechif is a language spoken by Metis people in Canada. It's a combination of French and Cree, reflecting the mixed ancestry of Metis people. It's not a creole, however, since a creole typically has the simpler parts of each component language, whereas the opposite is true of Mechif - for the most part, Mechif nouns are derived from French, which is more complicated than Cree because of having grammatical gender; whereas Mechif verbs are mainly derived from Cree, which modifies verbs with many suffixes and prefixes.
It's believed that whereas pidgins and creoles result primarily from contact between nonfluent speakers of each other's languages (pidgins) and their children (creoles), Mechif resulted from a context in which fluent French/Cree bilingual people were frequently interacting with other fluent French/Cree bilinguals. The first-generation Metis people who founded the Mechif language were raised by a fluent Cree speaker and a fluent French speaker, rather than by two parents fluent in one language and nonfluent in the other language(s) as with a creole, and surrounded by a community of other children with similar upbringing. As such, they grew up with adequate understanding of the grammatical complexities of both languages, and when talking to other bilinguals, they constructed language-mixed sentences to communicate more precisely than they could in either language alone.
] |
[Question]
[
I can understand that all animals would instinctively stay away from a fire, however for a fire breathing dragon to be warded off by torches seem puzzling to me. What could help explain such ironic behavior from a fire dragon?
[Answer]
**Fight fire with fire.**
Remember, the fire-breathing dragon breathes fire for *some* reason. Even if the dragon doesn't realize that it breathes fire, the ability almost certainly evolved together with some particular set of behaviors. Most likely, this reason can be summed up as one or both of:
* **Defense:** Warding off another
* **Offense:** Attacking, to injure, drive off or kill another
**If the dragon breathes fire in order to defend itself or someone it deems worth protecting** (mate, offspring, ...), then for other dragons to have a fear of the fire of another reduces the risk of greater injuries. [This is typical of aggressive behaviors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28ethology%29#Functions): they are *rituals* that have evolved to increase the chance of both individuals living another day.
**If the dragon breathes fire in order to attack others,** then fire-breathing is a very aggressive or predatory behavior to which other dragons will very likely have evolved a response to either fight back, or flee. Fighting back increases the risk of injuries to all involved, and "fleeing" can easily be called "to be afraid" of whatever the individual flees in response to, even if there is no such intellectual response.
When, presumably a human, carries fire, then the human takes the place of the other dragon. Unless the dragon's *default* response to *another fire-breathing dragon* is to fight back, even if the dragon can tell the difference between a human and a dragon, the dragon may well fall back to trying to increase the distance to the fear-invoking stimuli: the fire. In which case a human, anthropomorphizing, is likely to call it "afraid of fire".
**Fear is simply an evolved response to situations that have turned out to be dangerous, for which evolutionary pressure ensures a particular response that increases the chance of the individual not being injured or killed.**
Find a way to explain why a dragon would be afraid of another dragon's fire, and it's very likely that the same mechanism would apply in the case of a human with a torch. Or, failing that, a flamethrower.
[Answer]
# They are not really fire-proof
Much like ruining a dishwasher with water, you can burn a dragon with fire - if you direct it to a weak spot. There's no reason why the outer belly of the dragon should be fire proof.
Also, when it breathes fire, the fire doesn't stay close too long. It's most likely created outside the body. Fire is much more dangerous when someone pushes it at you.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Cr8Cx.jpg)
Would he run away in a fire? Quite sure he would
[Answer]
One non-magic system people use to explain dragon's fire is that they store gas in their bodies and ignite it while blowing it out.
With this system, a dragon is highly flammable and needs to be *really* careful around fire, like a petrol tank or a hydrogen airship.
[Answer]
You can’t scare it *simply* by having fire. You need to work with with its natural instincts of dominance behavior and teritoriality.
Male dragons posture to each other including displays of fire, essentially to show their fitness. [Why fight if you can figure out who would win if they did?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(ethology)#Functions)
People have discovered how to use their torches as a [supernormal stimulus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus) to trigger the behavior of a dragon seeing an overwhelmingly superior rival laying claim to its territory.
---
For an understanding of supernormal stimulation, watch [David Attenborough’s 1973 Christmas Lectures](http://richannel.org/christmas-lectures/1973/1973-david-attenborough).
[Answer]
Many things burn. Wood. Flesh. But in that flame could also be various toxic substances. Perhaps dragons do not fear flame so much as smoke. When dragons set whole towns on fire, they know that there may be alchemists or other industries that use dangerous materials. They learn quickly to stay away from smoke.
[Answer]
He doesn't know he's breathing fire, he just knows that he's doing something in self defense.
And a torch is a heat source which might be threatening his or her little ones.
And a burning torch makes sometimes weird cracking noises and since dragons have very fine ears, the noises are disturbingly unpleasant.
And the smell. Dragons have very fine noses and the burning guano in the straw really is disgusting for dragon noses.
And you cannot eat it. The dragon once tried to eat a large torch and seriously burned his palate.
[Answer]
Perhaps it is like this: A knight is skilled with a sword and may kill hundreds on the battlefield using this deadly weapon. However, even while wearing the best armor, the knight isn't standing still against an attack against another sword yielding knight. He will move to avoid being hit by the opponent's weapon. The Dragon's weapon is fire which he may yield skillfully in battle, but he is not remaining still while others attempt to burn him.
[Answer]
Learned behaviour.
Like staking an elephant or Pavlov's dogs.
When the dragon was young and more fragile it had a bad experience with some trappers who thought it would be fun to hurt it with fire.
Mama dragon tracked it down, rescued it, and ate the trappers, but the image of the torches stuck with it.
[Answer]
As I recall it from the Old stories, dragons fight each other with their fire -- and have for eons before we came along. They are only relatively fire resistant, not fire proof.
Usually dragon magic (and/or very spicy food) can be used to up the heat of their fire. The temptation to use Alchemical help for fire and flight have recently become a problem....
[Answer]
Alternatively to the answers above, it's learned behaviour.
Young dragons, when they first learn to breathe fire, quickly figure out that they need to exhale very hard, otherwise the flame goes up their nostrils or down their throats, and hurts. The flaming torch triggers this behaviour and they instinctively shy away.
[Answer]
The answer is simple. A fire-breathing dragon is afraid of fire for the same reason a gun-bearing soldier is afraid of guns.
[Answer]
Fire is a waste product of fire-breathing dragons. Breathing fire, for a fire-breathing dragon, could be the equivalent of humans using human waste as a weapon. Consider it similar to a human mailing a turd to someone, or dropping one off on someone else's doorstep. This might not be so difficult psychologically to commit, but it is likely to be highly aversive if the same person becomes a victim of someone else doing it to them.
[Answer]
**Molotov cocktails**
If they exist in your would, dragons may not be intelligent enough to distinguish them from torches. Especially if molotov cocktails come with throwing handles like German WW1 grenades.
Throwing one at a dragon may actually be an effective way to kill it, might burn through its wings and ground it, and generally be well worth avoiding for the dragon.
[Answer]
They wouldn't be.
They might seem to be, but what they really don't like is **temporary blindness** from some puny human waving a lit stick around just after being woken up from a nap in a dark cave.
If I have a katana and you have an exacto knife, the only reason I'm still afraid of you is because I don't know how to use one and I'm not a violent person.
I suppose only those people who have met incompetent and timid dragons have lived to tell the tale.
[Answer]
A lot of modern depictions of dragons make them basically a biological lighter/stove top. The fire isn't inside them, they blow out a stream of fuel and ignite it as it comes out. So their ability to produce fire doesn't mean they will be immune to it.
While the face would likely be heat resistant, and perhaps the scales would have some fire resistant properties to protect them from the breath of other dragons, they are still flesh and blood creatures and fire can still hurt them.
Also, if you manage to ignite the fuel pouch, the results will probably not be pretty...
[Answer]
Much in the same way that the human oesophagus and stomach can withstand hydrochloric acid (used to digest food), a dragon's throat and mouth can withstand fire, but its skin cannot.
A dragon doesn't fear its own fire that it's using as a weapon, but recognises the danger the fire of others represents.
[Answer]
Just going by the title of the question, why would a *fire* dragon be afraid of fire, it just wouldn't under normal circumstances.
By definition, fire dragons breathe fire, live in volcanoes, and generally absorb fire-damage and turn it into health. In many ways fire dragons are the physical embodiment of fire-magic itself.
So, to a healthy fire-dragon, a blast of flame is the very essence of vitality itself.
In theory, too much fire could overload it, like a battery being charged with too much electricity. This could be a cause for fear.
The only plausible way is if the dragon had gone insane, very insane, and was afraid of fire, the equivalent of being afraid of one's own shadow.
] |
[Question]
[
This settings' world is united by a world religion that all countries pay homage to. It is controlled by a priesthood who, as well as fulfilling traditional religious roles, keeps the peace between nations to prevent destabilizing wars from breaking out. This religion has seven gods, with each of them representing various aspects of humanity that connect with each other. For example, the god of war represents honor, courage, battle prowess, etc. Above them is a ruler god, Krishna, who is viewed by the population as the father of the seven gods as well as the world itself.
All nations pay homage to the seven gods. However, only the priests of this faith worship the creator god. Krishna feeds on worship, from which he derives his power. The more worship he gains, the more powerful he becomes, allowing him to compete with the other gods of the setting. Therefore, it stands to reason that he would want his followers to worship him directly instead of going through the lesser gods as intermediaries. This would siphon off some of that power to those lesser gods instead of going to Krishna.
Why would a god who feeds on human worship rely on third party gods and discourage worship of them directly ?
[Answer]
**ALL worship goes to Krishna.**
There is only one god. The seven minor gods are just aspects of his personality. Often they seem to act independently of each other. But that's just Krishna using two of his hands for two different things.
Krishna does not compete with the other gods, because they are already parts of him, and he has authority. Worshiping any of the seven feeds Krishna directly.
The seven were created because it is hard for humans to grasp the mind of the Krishna. His schemes span thousands of years and his intentions are never stated.
Better for the lay-people to worship the god of Love/War/Fertility as it directly impacts the world, and leave divining the mind of the over-god to the priesthood.
[Answer]
When you want to eat a succulent dish of your choice, do you hunt/slaughter/harvest the raw ingredients or go for have them prepared by somebody with the proper skills?
Chances are that, at least for some intermediate step, you rely on third parties to do the job for you.
Same for this scenario: why feeding on raw ingredients when there is someone who can elaborate them into something tastier, bringing variety to your eternal and otherwise boring lunches?
[Answer]
***Pyramid scheme!***
(The Herbalif-a-somethin' of the Gods, now in real chocolate flavor!)
Krishna allows the others to exist as gods, but they have to pay Krishna a percentage of the worship based on the degree of closeness of the worshiper.
This not only ensures that Krishna gets the biggest slice of the worship-pie, but encourages missionary work and conversation, while also allowing people a greater degree of choice and more flavors to choose from, which also encourages believing.
This sort of setup might encourage the creation of demigods and uplifted hero types for even greater diversity, and the chance for a mortal getting trapped to become something more... which might encourage even more to become faithful.
(Gather enough faithful and you too can become a deputized as a personal avatar of your chosen being of worship! Get the membership discount! )
[Answer]
**It's a ["Weekend at Krishna's"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekend_at_Bernie%27s) situation.**
Krishna doesn't have a choice. He is weakened, incapacitated, or dead, and the universe at large is unaware of this situation. The Seven have a need to maintain the existing power structure, because if they cease to show a unified front and allow the status of Krishna to be known, other entities will make a direct strike at the Pantheon, and pull them down.
The Seven are feeding him as much worship as he can handle, in the hopes that he will be able to recover before things fall apart more completely. At least, that was the plan when it happened. Whether all of the Seven are willing to return sovreignty when ...or if... that recovery happens remains to be seen.
[Answer]
**The Zion Principle in Effect**
In the Matrix movies, the machines who built the Matrix knew that if they just came down and demanded all humans lived in the Matrix, many would rebel against them. While most would embrace conformity and stability, many individuals would figure out they are in a simulation and not like being told what to do. So the machines let them rebel and built a fake rebellion for them to join, all the while covertly managing the city so it didn't become too great of a threat. They even gave them a "chosen one" messiah to give them hope and give them a goal to work towards, while resetting Zion every so often. This allowed them to control virtually the entire human populations.
Same principle here. If a god comes down and says "you must believe in this one way I set out for you", some are going to rebel against them because they don't like being dictated what to do, even if the motives are good. But if you create multiple competing religions and offer the illusion of choice based on ultimately cosmetic differences, all the worship goes to you and as long as the sects don't kill each other you don't have to worry about people rebelling because you are too authoritarian.
[Answer]
**It is cumbersome to coordinate lots of tiny worshippers.**
This old daddy god did his hard work in days past. Now he is interested in taking it easy. It is much easier to coordinate the worship of 7 lesser gods than it is millions of humans. The 7 lesser gods all tithe a component of their worship energy and it is not too hard to keep track of the 7. Individual human worshippers are like pennies in the footwell - really not worth the time and energy required to retrieve.
As regards the 7 lesser gods, they are younger and more energetic, and also in competition with each other. They get no godly tithes. Human worshippers are all the have and so that is where they put their energies.
[Answer]
**It's the quality of worshipping that counts**
The seven lesser gods can give, in exchange for being worshipped, some trivial, shot-term gains, such as winning a lottery or being brave in a battle.
Because of this, they gain devotion from people who are not very pious or wise. The devotion from such people, because of their extremely pratical desires and prayers, is not very valuable to the eyes of the father of the gods, for whom it is a basically negligible income.
What the father of gods wants from mortals, is the devotion from the wisest and holiest of the men, because their devotion is pure and lacks that kind of "interest" at the basis of the devotion of the less wise people
[Answer]
**It is a marketing strategy**
Monotheistic religions offer only 2 choices: To worship or not to worship. Polytheistic religions give more choices: Not to worship, to worship god A, to worship god B, etc. Variety increases worship. Gods can also stimulate 'impulse worship' by instructing their clerics to place temples or shrines together.
It is important to remember, though, that too much choice is not a good thing: The gods do not want worshippers to become confused, frustrated, or too tired (see [choice overload](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Overchoice)). So, it is more profitable to keep the pantheon smaller (your 7 gods is perfect) and stable (to reap the benefits of brand recognition and consumer loyalty).
Another good marketing strategy would be the creation of well-defined areas of responsibility for each of the gods. Pay attention to interactions between these areas. For example, it is better to divide waterways, roads, and trade among 3 gods to maximise faith earnings from travelling merchants.
As for Krishna, you can choose between Krishna is the only true god and the rest are just avatars (as Daron suggested) or a pantheon where minor gods pay tribute to the head god. In both scenarios, Krishna gets plenty of faith energy.
Lastly, **why would Krishna discourage direct worship? Here are some possible reasons**:
* Krishna has an aloof personality and does not want to be involved with mortals;
* Krishna does not want to destroy the brands (minor gods) that are the foundation of the successful marketing strategy;
* Krishna is a good administrator and knows that delegating responsibilities is the key to effective management, at the same time, subordinates should be properly rewarded and have enough power to do their job;
* Krishna is too busy travelling, creating worlds, etc., and being a benevolent god, he does not want mortals to put hopes on him;
* Krishna is not strong enough to deal with the 7-god alliance, so he has to share;
* Krishna avoids karmic debts (every prayer and every sacrifice create karma between Krishna and worshippers, this karma has to be resolved eventually).
---
There is yet another possibility.
Krishna is a minor god pretending to be the Creator and Father of all, the other 7 do not mind it as long as Krishna stays low and does not take too much faith power.
[Answer]
*So you're a supernatural entity that feeds off the worship of lesser creatures? Boy do I have a product for you!*
#### Introducing: more religions for more worship!
Naturally, you founded a religion, so people could worship you. You likely tried already to put all your eggs in the same religious basket, but not everybody wants to worship you. You could see it as a waste of worship, but instead, you should choose to see it as **an opportunity to expand**.
See, humans are weird. They believe in different things, or sometimes in the same things but differently. They might have started different, competing worships out of their own free wills, the rascals! So how do you use that to your advantage? Simple: **create more different religions** of your own. They all might look different (and they probably should, it would be suspicious if they all looked like a color swaps of the same god, wouldn't it?), that pray to all sorts of "deities" that are, in fact, all you. You can reach a larger fanbase by highlighting ***different, even contradictory, values***.
You could spawn an expansive polytheistic pantheon, with worship of the Sun *and* a worship of the Moon, to cover all the astronomy-based worshipping needs of the humans. Extrapolate to all facets of life, nature and hunting vs construction and farming, disease vs healing, the sea vs the land vs the sky, etc. **There's a god for every part of life**, and that god is always you.
You could also offer multiple monotheistic creeds, with all powerful deities to be worshipped differently. Different prayer times and practices. Different basic commandments or laws. Worship might highlight a different element of the environment, be it the sea, the mountain, the plains or what have you. **There's a god for every way of life**, and that god is also always you.
And, you could also do both.
But speaking of fans, what stronger form of belief than people fanatically willing to sacrifice their lives in your name? A war of religion is the perfect vehicle to strengthen one's resolve in their divinity. And what's better than that is you can have two of your religions fight each other. The worshippers you might lose in the process don't matter **if you gain a much more robust worship** from the survivors\*.
This varied worship may create different divine entities that you feed from directly, thus you'd indirectly feed off the worship of humans. But at their core, they're not really different entities, rather they're avatars of your personality and (alleged) powers. **They are an abstraction of you**, feeding from multiple sources all at the same time.
\**Disclaimer: Results may vary. Always perform a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis before starting any religion war. We could not be held responsible in the event of a religion war that turned out bad for you.*
[Answer]
The first thing I thought about was the song "Seven nation army". But that aside. Why should Krishna create different gods which could be worshipped by men? Why not make people worship him alone? I think this shows the goodness of the great creator. He wants to give people a choice.
If people worshipped her alone, wouldn't that be dull? The amount of worshipping wouldn't be changed if she didn't create these sub-gods. It would only be less enlightening for her and for us.
By creating the sub-gods, the situation for her, as well as for us, has increased significantly.
She *could* have made people for gods. But think about what would have happened in that case...
[Answer]
## Theomachy and balance of power
War between gods, or at least battle involving them, is quite common in mythology. Think of war between Gods and Titans in greek mythology, or even Trojan war for example.
Krishna can be overthrowned by the other six gods. He can be killed, exiled, or lose his divine power.
He know it, the other Gods also know it, so he just can't ask all humans to worship him, as for the other gods, it means lose all power. If any God want to take too much power, the other ones would made a coallition to stop him.
To avoid a war, they separate power between themselves, and ensure that no God became too powerful. If you wants odds on your sides, you have to worship the God of war, as Krishna can't provide you that. He may have the ability to do it, but don't want to do it, as not only it would weakend God of war power, but it would also take his job. As a parallel, think of a president/prime minister who make all decisions, denying all power from his ministers. Those ministers would be quite upset if they have no power at all.
You could even think of a constitution between Gods, forbiding legally each god to interfere in each other fields. Maybe add a previous generation of Gods (like Gods VS Titans on greek mythology), were this was an issue and lead them to loose all power.
[Answer]
Ever though about a [Primus inter Pares](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primus_inter_pares) situation?
The god "parent" does not require to be the strongest, or the most worshipped... but maybe the most "liked" by all the gods in the pantheon?
To not elaborate much, lets think all the seven traits that can be worshipped actually receive the same amount of worshipping (thus creating a balance). Now your main god creates seven smaller gods and in doing so, he diverts the flow of worshipping to those seven smaller gods... and so they get powerful while he is just standing there... BUT... what if more than half the gods decided "ok, we support father, he just created us after all" and they can actually redirect the strength back to the main god? Then the other three wouldt dare have an agenda against the main god because they can simply be "erased", so you create an "uneasy" balance as long as the main god doesnt become mad or a lesser deity actually gets worshipping that can beat the combination of the others.
[Answer]
I see two reasons (edit: plus a bonus), both of which lead to an increase in "belief intensity" and a reduction of non-believers, and both can coexist:
# Competition
When there are multiple religions in contact with each other, they are inevitably, at some point, going to clash. The clash creates polarisation, polarisation brings more non-believers to take a side, and makes believers more fervent.
# Natural proliferation
As internal divergence of ideas are born from conflicts of interests, shifts in the economy and society, and the succession of new generations of people with different points of view, different ideas in what the doctrine should be lead to schisms.
Non-believers in a world (or parts of the world) that isn't scientifically advanced will want to explain natural phenomena. The justifications they create will in some cases acquire a mystical aura, and will expand to explain more and more of the world. Communities of people live in a finite space, so as distance between two communities increases, communication becomes sparser and slower: multiple communities will inevitably develop different beliefs to explain the same things. This will lead to multiple religions (some might even say different names for the same things, *wink wink*), but if the creator god feeds on belief towards anything divine, it's a win for them one way or the other: all they need is for people to want to explain the world through the divine.
# Bonus: blame deflection
When a (polarised) religious group inevitably does something bad, the image of the god they worship is tainted to some extent. By being worshipped by multiple religions that act as a proxy, never being worshipped directly, no matter how bad things get with any of the existing religions, the "one true god" will always only harvest the positives, never the negatives. This is especially useful if the god in question actually competes with other gods that operate similarly, but even if there is only one it serves to reduce atheism: if there is only one option and it has negatives, the response by many would be to forgo religion altogether. If there are many options, many would instead (gradually or otherwise) be susceptible to conversion.
[Answer]
**They like their food spicy**
Different methods of worship and/or worshiping different gods gives him different "flavors" of energy. Krishna simply likes to have well balanced and varied diet, full of worship-amins and worship-inerals.
[Answer]
It's the same as the food chain for biological metabolism. The common citizen is the base of the food chain, producing "hay". The priests don't simply worship in the same way; they take in the "hay" themselves, and produce "meat".
Just like you can't eat horse food, Krishna might strongly object to being fed hay.
[Answer]
First of all, let's face it, humans are a burden. The gods may need the humanity, but dealing with all those humans, is annoying. Each require too much attention comparatively to the amount of faith they provide. So not only does the "godchief" delegate into the seven lesser gods, but those delegate into a number of divine servants, which themselves coordinate other lesser ones, and so on. Even those directly worshiping the godchief are actually handled by some of its direct servants. It's not that the gods *couldn't* do it, but it's a lot of dull and boring *work*.
So they have a full administrative body of lesser beings counting the prayers they get from each of their believers, if they have a request, amount of time they have been worshiping it, if there are other people asking for the same thing, the last time they received the god's grace, if they are asking for something special or some mundane thing, perhaps even something they would achieve anyway without the intercession of the god, etc.
And then trying to be creative and get a proper action. This is a retributive religion, so they need to keep their believers happy by fulfilling their requests. Or actually, fulfilling *enough* requests of *enough* believers so they don't turn their back on the god. They don't need to fulfill them always, but enough times. Or at least to *someone* they will know about, so the god keeps its reputation of being kind to the people worshiping it.
In fact, the problem are humans themselves. A god could be willing to spoil their believers by granting them all their wishes. Problem is, even if they wanted to do that, they have believers with *conflicting* petitions. If you are the Love goddess¹ and have [45 suitors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitors_of_Helen) requesting the love of a single maid (and in *exclusive* for them!), you need to let some of them down.
Now, you may ask why would that higher god share the pantheon with the other seven gods, rather than having them as nameless serfs. The priests will tell you that in his infinite love to humanity, he chose to raise the Seven to that position, and that all of them agreed to divide between themselves all the aspects of the live, not due to rivalry, but as a way for better serve the people through by specializing in one aspect. Just as artisans specialized in one artcraft by guilds, so they could produce a better result [or a consistently mediocre one].
This specialization will indeed help the divine administration, since all requests of the same type will be fulfilled by the same branch (god), and petitions will already come sorted by god (more or less, there's always the weird guy directing their prayer to an inappropriate god, but they are safer to ignore if needed). However, a point you won't be told is that if humans had only one god to choose, should they become angry with it, that's a net loss of one believer. But with multiple gods, he would turn to the godchief requesting they override the lesser god. Or he could turn to the god of hatred and revenge. So you convert a no-win situation where the god needs to turn down many requests, to one where the rejection actually causes fervor to a different god. They then have complex schemes to pay certain worship units in exchange for having received new adoration as a result of the actions of another god.
Note as well that the actions of the gods from the believers point of view are *somewhat arbitrary*, which is a way to say they have their own agenda. The goddess of love would supposedly prefer the man's petition, repeated during his marriage to keep his wife, than the prayer from a herdsman to gain the favor of the hosts' wife. Right? However, giving her to the newcomer would a cause a war, making many people to remember their faith in the god of war. From which the goddess of love would receive a 10% commission for starting the war from the god of war (although she may be able to squeeze a little more, since he is in so dire need of believers), and having the loved one away will make many people to turn to the love goddess to keep their partners tied, too. After all, in peaceful times, humans tend to relax their ways and forget the gods, conflicts are good for the gods.
Which sheds a new light on why the priesthood, who has devoted their life to studying the gods and their actions, is so interested on maintaining the peace. They are not working for the interests of the gods as much as for protecting the humanity from them!
¹ No reason to be feminine, but it is traditional to consider it that way, and it is useful later to use multiple pronouns.
[Answer]
# It's Delegation not diversification
Delegation. it's far more efficient (and powerful) to have a team of subordinates doing things for you than it is to do everything yourself. More powerful still is for those subordinates to have subordinates too.
Because direct divine power is not the only kind of power there is.
Most powerful and efficient of all (for you) is to have an entire hierarchy of supplicants and subordinates at your beck and call. Worship and tribute flow up this hierarchy, and your directives, commandments, orders, wisdom, insight, etc. flow down it.
All great and/or powerful leaders do this, politicians, generals, conquerors, mafia dons, CEOs, etc., etc. Surely your ruler god is the greatest leader of all? Then it seems obvious that they would have the greatest organization hierarchy and power to multiply and extend their divine power and wisdom throughout all the world.
You can safely spend your time planning for all future eventualities and developing deep strategies to secure and increase your power, knowing that any problems that arise can be dealt with by your many fawning demigods, bands of mighty heroes, or legions of faithful soldiers and priests. And if that's not enough, you can always dispatch your Sun God and/or your War God to end problems permanently.
That's real power.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/86723/edit).
Closed 6 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/86723/edit)
As far as I read books, I *met* various worlds. Each of them has own size.
Middle-earth is very large and partially not limited (some parts are only mentioned). Discworld is very large, but quite limited - and what is more important, most stories take place in relatively small area (for example Ankh-Morpork, Lancre and so on). These two worlds come with people that have mostly common people size.
In the Carpet people, world is very small - but still relatively large in comparison with size of its people. The same (or at least very similar) situation is in SF novel Non-stop by Brian Aldiss.
---
So, my question is: How large can be world in comparison with size of its people? Or better, what size is the most suitable for story, in comparison with size of its people?
I really would not like to create my world unnecessarily large, even if I plan to let some area to be in *fog of sweet ignorance* (like *hic sunt leones* or *miles and miles of bloody Überwald*) to make it a bit smaller for its people, than it really will be.
[Answer]
You're using Pratchett as your example so the answer is largely as he approached it.
The world is big enough for everything it needs to contain. He was deliberately vague about distances and directions. The only accurate map is the map of Ankh-Morpork (and the basic railway map) because as he says in the introduction to The Streets of Ankh-Morpork:
>
> I've always been mildly against mapping the Discworld. It's a literary construction, not a place. I like to leave it vague. [...] You can be vague about the road to the Mountains of Mystery, but you need to know the way to the post office.
>
>
>
Areas are large enough to travel for days while small enough for Rincewind to run across at the speed of plot while being chased by everything and dodging the drop bears.
The details are only important when they help the plot. Everything is [Chekhov's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov%27s_gun). The height of a tower only if someone is going to be climbing or falling off it. The distance to the next town only if someone has to ride it before dawn. You see a fixed distance to Überwald only when they need to build a railway there in a hurry.
Don't let the world define your story, let your story define the world. That way it'll all fit nicely with some far off places to spare.
[Answer]
Your fantasy world needs to be exactly 7% larger than the area your story takes place.
This, of course, is not true.
For your fantasy world, you don't need to bother yourself with those parts of your world where your story does not happen.
Consider Howondaland. Unless I am mistaken, it is mentioned at times, but mostly in the Almanac. Its size, its exact location and such is irrelevant. It has no part of the story, so there is no point providing those details.
Discworld would work just fine for many stories if it was only half as big as Ankh Morpork.
Consider a movie set. You don't see the part behind the camera. And you don't need to. You only need what little of the world the story takes part in.
That means, you concentrate on the story, and describe as much of the world as is relevant for the plot, and leave out all the rest. It's not important, and you don't want your readers to get bored.
[Answer]
I find three aspects of your question that need careful consideration.
1. **Intuition about size** You must play with Google Earth for a while to get a genuine idea of the enormous size of our planet. Otherwise it is very easy to make silly errors that people *will* detect. How long does it take to walk between cities, or to cross a plain to reach a mountainous region. How large and complex a city really is (hint: it does not consist of a few relevant streets). And how there are different size scales, like city size vs region scale vs country scale vs continent scale; they require different mental assimilation.
2. **Where do you want the action to take place** It is not clear from your question, so sit to consider: Do you need to design a city like Ankh Morpork in detail because everything happens there? Or do you need to design a region in detail because the heroes go out on a quest?
3. **Size as a philosophical theme** For me, one of the major selling points of Ringworld is the sense of wonder emanating from trying to conceive the size of the place. It is huge! And Niven makes sure to note how there must be more stories there than can be conceived by one mind, just by the sheer size of it: Loads and loads of places and civilizations that are just too far to reach each other. And of course you can go farther in size and conceive a galactic empire...
For *comparison*, let me point out that, even though I like the Star Wars universe, they get it wrong every single time in all these respects: planets have one important city and one climate, it takes the same time to move between buildings as it takes to move between planets, and the majestic size of the galaxy is pitifully reduced by the use of hyperdrive for the sake of moving people between exotic locales.
[Answer]
Larger does not mean better.
Anyways, fantastic worlds can get very huge. Larry Niven's [Ringworld](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld) and Robert Silverberg's [Majipoor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majipoor_series) are considerably bigger than Earth. Both of them are more Sci-Fi than fantasy, but this allows us to get a scientific idea of their size.
But any celestial body imaginable would be dwarfed when compared to a multiverse. [Michael Moorcock](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moorcock) was probably the originator of the idea of fantasy multiverse, and then other authors used this idea in their works ([example](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronicles_of_Amber)).
I think [Steven Erikson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Erikson) (with [Ian Esslemont](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Cameron_Esslemont)) is the current record holder for the most boundless and diverse fantasy universe.
But let's take a look at the practical meaning of it.
* Large world can host bigger stories
* Large world can appear boundless
to the reader and create a sense of adventure that we lack here on
XXI century Earth
* Large world can imply that anything is possible in
faraway lands, and the author can add new books to series, each set in
a new country
On a downside:
* If a world is inflated just to increase the scale: a kingdom with population of one billion might impress one reader, but in my opinion, it's just ridiculous;
* Different parts of this world must be properly (physically and culturally) connected. This work is difficult and takes a lot of time from the author (take [George R. R. Martin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_R._R._Martin) for example), and maybe taxing for the reader to follow.
[Answer]
Fascinatingly, I see that most of the answers here are those better suited to a *Writer's* question. I shall give some minor insights on a *Worldbuilder's* question.
The interplay between people and world is a dynamic and reciprocal one. Nevertheless, it is possible to paint in broad strokes and then etch out the details on successive passes.
Character writers notwithstanding, there is also a certain pleasure in designing worlds with no plan to focus on major characters and movers. This is often seen when building for the sake of player exploration rather than for dramatic backdrop or prop — *vis–à–vis* for the sake of such as MMOs and LARPs.
Though you do not have any preplanned narrative in mind, you do need to plot out some of your expectations.
## Theme
What is the cohesive scenario underlying your world? What distinguishes it from others? What others did you like, and wish to extend or rebirth or revise?
Is one half deluged and the other half arid? Maybe the world resembles an [M. C. Escher tetrahedron](http://www.mcescher.com/gallery/back-in-holland/tetrahedral-planetoide/). Maybe it is on the back of a spider.
Inhabitants are an important part of this, too. Do you want large aquatic beasts or small furry flying things? Is this a world of octagonal crabs or of many differently endowed varieties of worms?
Et cetera.
## Detail
How much do you want your players — whether driven by users or by narrative — to focus on the finer intricacies? Is this a world of grand, sweeping vistas, or one of tiny pixies dancing under the applewood brackets on a rainy night? Do people prefer to travel far to ancient ruined cities across perilous distances, or do they struggle with innermost turmoil over the sacrifice of an unloved parent?
You can do both, of course, but a richly detailed world becomes very dense, even if designed fractally or algorithmically. Of course, don't forget to include some variation across the distances if you choose to develop both the vast and the minute.
* Larger distances with less resolved details are often used as a platform for multitude or variety of encounters.
* Tighter spaces with finely resolved details are often used to explore philosophy and emotional concepts.
## Users
Ah, yes. A world with no users is not like a star with no satellites. It isn't a sun warming some eerie landscape, nor a tiny star flickering in a crowded sky. It is more like an unvisited flower dying in the desert.
You need to choose a group of users by location or preferences. Yourself as a user is a good way to begin. The answer to that question is a bit of soul-searching, really: What world would you like to explore?
[Answer]
I'd think about your characters, and perhaps future generations of your characters, and how you will use the world. Do you intend to be using the same world ten years from now, IRL? Then you better make it big; no telling what stories you will be telling in ten years.
To me, the world needs to be logically coherent, but a "setting" is the best kind of deus ex machina. You don't have to explain why a talking coyote guards the cave leading to the elven kingdom, that's just how this world is. Or why your hero has to travel to Septima 7 to consult with a pedantic vegan Tyrannosaur on his warp drive modification. Or why his warp drive didn't do what he wanted in the first place.
In Star Wars, much of the plot and resonance is just about the setting. Luke is in danger in a cave (when with Yoda, he encounters the hallucination or whatever of Darth Vader), while Hans Solo is in danger in a cave (inside the giant worm they thought was a cave). Or, what idiot sets up a military base in Antarctica (Hoth the ice planet)?
Blah blah about strategy, but that was world-building too; making the best strategic place for their base so frikkin' inhospitable. Really Hoth was a deus ex machina, a setting to push Luke to use his Jedi powers.
We can think of **settings** as villains and helpers. The magic forest will try to kill you. The greenstone fountain will heal you. Ariel's castle is safe haven, if only you can get there, and she knows the secret to the maze you must get through to find the home of the white dragon.
but **like** characters, you don't want the settings to seem too conveniently helpful or harmful or powerful. When your character is confronted by an evil dragon, you don't have a witch appear, give your character a handful of powder that kills dragons, and then disappear, never to be seen again. Nor can the forest they have entered have some convenient suit of armor discarded in the forest, complete with magical sword, that they can use to defeat the evil dragon.
You are better off describing some far off lands and leaving the world vague (as it is for most of us IRL, anyway). Sketched settings can be like sketched characters; interesting and potentially worthy of their own story in the future, but just introduced in the current story to serve some plot purpose, like an excuse for knowing something critical, or to go somewhere.
---
Walking on the dirt road, they passed a thin path veering left, marked by a head-sized black rock. Callie shifted the sword on her back and nodded toward it. "That one there winds past the black mountain, a few days down, close on the Bent Village. My mother was born there. Said it was the most horrible place."
Marc looked down the path, empty to the horizon. "A damn small mountain, or more'n a few days. What's horrible about it?"
"She never says it, and too late now. Heard tell they mine crystals there, and the tunnels are like black glass, so you can see your spirit in them. Like on a smooth lake in the moonlight. Always wanted to go there."
[Answer]
A setting is a setting, but in many ways the world itself is another character. When your hero runs up against your villain, is he intimidated? Overconfident? Writing the villain a certain way to fit the story is natural, and so should be the world.
When your character is being introduced, the world may be vague and unending. A few books in your character could know the location of every bodega for a thousand miles. You'll notice two things: The size of the world didn't change and didn't matter. It is the perspective of your story that will drive readers.
To answer your question, the perfect size for a story is literally unknown, so as to prevent restraint while still being able to create an establishment.
[Answer]
As can-ned\_food's answer points out, this question and most of the answers are from a writers.SE perspective. From a worldbuilding perspective, however, I think there's a lot to be said for the world being much larger than what's needed to tell a story.
Part of this is worldbuilding for its own sake -- some people really enjoy creating a made-up world, or coming to understand one that somebody else has created. If you're one of the people who likes this, there's your reason already to go ahead and make the world huge.
Beyond that, though, worldbuilding is valuable to fantasy writing as a way of forcing oneself to pay attention to internal consistency and plausibility. When you're writing a story set in the real world or something very close, you already have a context of history, cultures, economic systems, etc. in terms of which the plot and characters can make sense. In a fantasy world you don't get any of that for free. Do the livelihoods of your characters even make sense (economics)? How were they able to come to know the things they know about their world (education system)? Etc.
[Answer]
From a world building perspective, the size of your setting is determined by the needs of your plot. Larry Niven's "Ringworld" or a Bishop "Orbital" are vast structures, but for practical purposes the size is used to support the plot points, rather than totally driving the plot.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/MISOo.jpg)
*Ringworld*
The Ringworld is thousands of times the surface area of Earth, even immortal characters will need dozens of sequels to fully explore the place. OTOH, there are books and series that are set in small towns which seem to have a great deal of complexity inside the town limits (the mark of a truly gifted author).
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/8ht5C.jpg)
*Infinite possibilities exist here as well*
So in terms of worldbuilding, think of the plot and then add whatever ambience you need , which defines the size, scale and scope of your world
] |
[Question]
[
Imagine a species of humanoid beings living on an Earth-like planet somewhere in the universe; they have developed complex spoken and written languages and they can study their own anatomy and the environment. Assuming they are capable to count using `0`, `1` and `many`, how can they construct any kind of transportation and building infrastructure? How far can their technology progress?
[Answer]
As far as you want.
Humans have trouble conceptualising large numbers. We can’t count them, so above a certain point we see the number ‘178654’ and our brains turn it into ‘many’. Doesn’t change the value of the number, just how we intuit about it. For anything bigger than the number we can imagine (varies from person to person) we start doing maths rather than counting.
So how can we do maths?
We break the number down into smaller numbers. There’s one lot of 100000, 7 lots of 10000, etc. 100000 is just ten multiplied by itself lots of times. If I try to imagine 100 people what I actually imagine (again, this varies person to person) is a grid of 10x10 people, because I know that’s 100, even though I can’t count 100 people without my brain giving up and saying ‘many’. Neat.
But how does this help your species? They can’t count above 1!
They don’t need to. Introducing:
**Base 2, AKA Binary!**
The only numbers you need for mathematics in binary are 1 and 0. Everything else is simply a matter of placement. 0 is 0. 1 is 1. 10 is easy, it’s one lot of one more than one. 11 is one more than one plus one. 100 is one more than one lots of one more than one.
If you need to actually ‘count’ things, don’t do it in your head. Write it down. You know you can’t conceptualise past 1, so don’t try. Mathematics doesn’t require you to count the numbers, merely to trust that the symbols you write down and the rules you know work do, in fact, work. So you get a delivery of ‘1000 bricks’, then when you’ve moved one brick you write down ‘111’ bricks, because that’s the rule for subtracting 1. Doesn’t matter that you can’t conceive of what 111 bricks actually looks like. Maths doesn’t lie.
And we (as humans) know that maths in binary works. Our computers haven’t even got the concept of many. They work using nothing but 0 and 1, and somehow we’ve managed to use them to build some of the most complex buildings in the world.
The other answers cover what to do before you start up with the concepts of mathematics. After you’ve got basic maths down (even if it’s simply binary or, if you can grasp the idea of ‘the smallest many’ base 3) you can use that to do anything humans can do.
Calculated it will take 1111011011100111 bricks to build this house? Cool. Order them and get going. Need to measure a distance of 1000011 mm? Sure. Your tape measure has those markings.
And the weirdest thing is that once you have the methods to write and manipulate numbers you just might find some people start to think in terms of the maths instead of the numbers. And they might want a word for 10 that isn’t quite as clunky as ‘one lot of one more than one’. Say.. ‘Two’...
ADDENDUM:
There have been quite a lot of comments along the lines of 'but this is just counting using a different number system'. That's not the point of this answer. The point of this answer is that this species is more than capable of *doing the maths* even if they can't wrap their heads around the actual numbers involved, much like I can use the concept of i (the square root of minus 1) even though it's impossible for me to conceptualise or even count to it.
To explain in a bit more detail, here's Professor Sneebleflarp with the first lecture of 'The theory of many' (AKA Rederiving mathematics when you can't count)
>
> Good day. My name is Professor Sneebleflarp, head of advanced philosophy at the university of Gnurf.
>
>
> Today you will be learning the beginnings of what is known as ‘The theory of Many’. You may all wish to shake off those hangovers and focus, because what I’m about to teach you is hard to wrap your head around, and it is examinable.
>
>
> Now. Look around you. You may notice that although there are many seats in this hall, and many students here to listen to me drone, there are nonetheless many students still standing. By the way, if you each make sure you bring one extra seat from just down the hall next time we’ll have many empty seats instead, which I’m sure those of you with the hangovers will appreciate. The problem of ‘how can we make sure we have no standing students and no empty seats’ is the problem we will attempt to crack today, along with some notes on nomenclature and convention.
>
>
> To solve this most complex problem, contemplate my desk. You may note a complete absence of stones. There are no stones on this desk.
>
>
> Now, contemplate the basket next to my desk. It has an abundance of stones. A glut of stones. In short: The basket contains many stones.
>
>
> If I take a stone from the basket and put it on the desk I now have one stone on the desk. This much is plain. I take another stone from the basket and place it on the desk I now have many stones. There has been a change. But if I take another stone and add it to my desk, I still have many stones. No change. The procedure of taking a stone and putting it on the pile is known as ‘adding one’. Adding one stone to one stone yields many stones. Adding one stone to many stones also equals many stones. This is natural and understandable.
>
>
> Now, I shall put these stones to the leftmost end of my desk. At the other end of my desk I shall add a stone from the basket. And then another.
>
>
> I now have a pile of many stones on my left and a pile of many stones on my right. I take a stone from my left and a stone from my right and place them back in the basket, a procedure known as ‘simultaneous reduction’. What do I find?
>
>
> I now have one pile of many stones and one pile of only one stone. How can this be explained?
>
>
> The answer is simple, though you may wish to write it down. One many is not necessarily the same as another many. If I remove another stone from my left and another from my right I now only have one stone left on the left of my desk, though I began with many piles of many stones.
>
>
> We can see through the simple method of removing stones that the many stones on my right can be reduced to no stones before the many stones on my left. This is known as being a ‘larger’ many. The reverse is known as being a ‘smaller’ many. In the case I have just shown you the leftmost pile of many stones was ‘one larger’, as I was left with one stone there after I had reduced the rightmost pile to nothing.
>
>
> Now. I will clear my desk again. Then I set up the same piles of many as before, and move the pile on my right into the centre of the desk. I shall add one more to each of these piles.
>
>
> Then I add one to the right of my desk. Then I add another to the right of my desk.
>
>
> I have many piles of many, as before. One to the right, one to the left, and one in the middle. I will state, and you can verify in your own time, that the pile on the left is ‘one larger’ than the pile in the middle, and the pile in the middle is ‘one larger’ than the one on the right. Remember the nomenclature from before? Good.
>
>
> Now I will remove the pile in the middle altogether and place it back in the basket. If I simultaneously reduce these many piles as before, what would we expect to happen? We end up with one in the pile on the left, right? Well, let us do it.
>
>
> But what is this? I have many on the left? This is the case known as being ‘many larger’. ‘One larger’ is actually a special case of ‘many larger’, though you may have to wait a few lectures for that to become apparent. It is also true, as proven by the great thinker Fleeblesnarp many years ago, that any case of ‘many larger’ can be broken down into intermediate steps, as we had with the pile in the centre, until it becomes nothing more than many cases of ‘one larger’.
>
>
> Now, this offers a solution to our seating problem. If we simultaneously reduce the number of students and the number of seats in this hall it will become apparent that the number of students is many larger than the number of seats. Remember that I said any ‘many larger’ can be broken down into many cases of ‘one larger’? Could every student currently standing please come and take one stone and put it in a pile on the left of the hall.
>
>
> Now. The important thing about ‘larger’ and ‘smaller’ sets of ‘many’ is that you can simultaneously reduce them to discern how ‘large’ or ‘small’ the difference between the sets is. In the case of my desk: the pile of many stones on the left of my desk represents this difference. It is many. In the case of the seats, the stones on the left of the hall represent the difference. It may be the same many. It may be a different many. That is immaterial for the purpose of this demonstration. Now. All of the sat students. Please come and take a stone and place it to the right of the hall.
>
>
> Now we see we have many piles of many stones. One representing the many seats, and one representing the difference between the many students and the many seats.
>
>
> Now for the tricky part. If I were to take one from the left of the hall and put it on the right I would subtract one from leftmost many and add it the rightmost many. If I do that many times? I am physically recreating Fleeblesnarp’s theorem on the divisibility of many larger. This in turn means that if I simply take the leftmost pile of many stones and add it to the rightmost pile of many stones, like so, I will end up with a pile of many stones that is many larger than the many I had before. This is known as ‘adding many’, and is the conceptual equal of ‘many larger’ just as ‘adding one’ is the equal of ‘one larger’. Specifically, I have added the difference between the many standing students and the many sat ones.
>
>
> I know this is hard to wrap your head around. You’re all sat thinking ‘but now you just have a pile of many stones!’ and you’re right. But if every student could now come and pick up a stone…
>
>
> You’ll see there are exactly as many stones as there are many students. Therefore, if we can get the students that have a seat to come put their stones back…
>
>
> Then next lecture only the students that are holding stones will need to get a chair each from down the hall. We will have many chairs, and many students, but we will have no empty chairs and no standing students.
>
>
> Next lecture I will teach you about many lots of many, and begin on the rudiments of recording the sizes of many , or ‘binary’, as well as the symbology of ‘larger’, ‘smaller’, ‘add’, ‘remove’ and so forth. Remember: This is the work of many great thinkers. You won’t get it in one day. So read your notes. There will be an exercise due many days from now.
>
>
>
P.S.: It's really hard to write from the perspective of this race. Two is too tempting!!
[Answer]
Back in the day, you didn't specify how many bricks and logs it would require to build a house. You just baked bricks and made logs while building until the house was finished. Any leftovers were kept for repairs or the next time a house was built: "We need to build 1 house, and we will need many bricks and logs and buckets of mortar - until we need 0 more."; "Get me a log as long as this piece of string."
Transportation: "This 1 cart needs 1 wheel in every corner, all of 1 size."; "The bus comes by whenever shadows on this sundial reaches a mark. If it is cloudy, guess."
Infrastructure: "We need 1 road from here to there - find many men and start working. You have 1 year to do it."
Also note that animals typically can't count more precisely than 0, 1, many, but they are still able to make housing (burrows, nests, termite mounds, beehives) and infrastructure (beaver dams, deer trails).
Science, however, will suffer. You can't develop mathematics, and without mathematics, you can't develop astronomy or much in the way of physics, beyond simple rules of thumbs. Medicine will be easier, as novices can learn by example from experienced medics, and medical drawings and charts usually don't need much in the way of numbers. Measures may not need to be finer than "1 thimble, 1 teaspoon, 1 soup spoon, 1 handful, 1 cup, 1 mug, 1 jug, 1 bucket", etc. to work for most things.
Overall, I believe that it'd be possible to develop something like an early industrial society, including railways, steamboats, and even simple aircraft, but probably not anything much more advanced than that, except in some fields like selective breeding.
[Answer]
**They'd develop the same mathematics we did.**
>
> they have developed complex spoken and written languages
>
>
>
There is no rational reason a species capable of developing complex spoken and (particularly) written languages will not develop equally complex written mathematics. It's a natural progression.
Counting predates human written history. We have no idea when we replaced "ugg, ugg" with "two". It seems to be a function of developing a language to describe the world. The rest is just let try that rule, now can we extend that rule ? You cannot stop the develop of sophisticated number systems and mathematics unless you want them incapable of complex communication.
>
> and they can study their own anatomy and the environment.
>
>
>
Then they'll ask questions like "how much can I lift using this lever ?" and so on. This is how numerical and later symbolic theory based physics and engineering develop.
It's going to happen.
>
> Assuming they are capable to count using 0, 1 and many,
>
>
>
Zero is **not** a natural number - it's an *invented* number. We didn't start with a zero and one, two, three, we started with a ugg, ugg ugg, uggg ugg ugg ... - counting is a developing process and the extension of counting system is how we got from whole numbers (excluding zero - what's a zero of something anyway ?) to a system of numbers which includes complex numbers and non-computational numbers.
The curiosity which drives them to consider their own environment will drive them to develop mathematics to aid their exploration of that environment and the rules it works by. It's inevitable.
>
> how can they construct any kind of transportation and building infrastructure? How far can their technology progress?
>
>
>
With only 0, 1 and many - not at all. You can get so far with empirical knowledge but it requires systematic study to develop proper industry. Most significantly the requirement to build anything large and expensive (as you must to develop a complex industry) also requires significant investment. We (and they) minimize the risk and reduce the potential for catastrophic error by using complex engineering based on a highly developed mathematics.
**The Restaurant At the End of Your Fingers.**
Let's say they miraculously develop a complex society which includes (naturally) restaurants and phones. They ring to book a table. Ann obvious and necessary question that's going to be asked is "how many of you will be coming ?". An answer restricted to 0,1 or *many* is not practically useful.
Your restaurant owner is going to want to be paid. Barter is great, but no society of Earth has failed to replace it with something better (or at least more practical) - money. But money and even the most basic form of business requires some kind of counting. "Many" is not going to cut it if you want to stay in business.
If they have fingers or even two legs, they're going to come up with the number two and probably as many basic numbers as they can count with their digits. If they're about to go to war with a neighboring tribe, no leader will be happy with the answer "many" from a scout sent to tell them how many enemy warriors are coming down the road.
The fact is we (and they) will naturally (and very early on) develop a need to produce a mathematics way beyond whatever basic "natural" counting system they start with.
So the idea is simply not possible.
**How far could they get ?**
As far as banging "many" rocks together and forget the languages.
[Answer]
**Unary and artifacts**
I'm going to assert that the aliens are human level intelligence, but for some reason cannot mentally conceptualize and create words for distinct numbers. As such, they can still understand relative sizes and so on, but cannot for the life of them keep a numerical value (aside from 0, 1 and many) in their head.
I am reminded of a story I heard about how ancient shepherds counted their sheep. I don't know if any of it is actually true, but it goes as follows: In the morning, the shepherd would round up his sheep and, for each one of them, put a pebble in a bag. In the evening, he would do the same, but remove a pebble for each. If, in the end, there were still pebbles in the bag, he had lost a sheep and had to go look for it.
If an alien is somehow incapable of naming and storing a numerical value mentally, they could still start of using basic unary arithmetic like above. Something like addition is a trivial development; pour one bag into the other. Subtraction isn't too far behind; remove one pebble from each bag at a time. When one bag is empty, the non-empty bag is the difference between them.
This method of storing numbers using artifacts could be further revolutionized by standardizing a weight for each individual "unit"; comparisons of large numbers can then be trivially performed by scales. This would allow for the next revolution, a simplistic base system to compactify the work of performing arithmetic.
They may decide to introduce a heavier pebble, one such that its weight equals some integer number of other pebbles. Since they have no innate concept of numbers, it'd probably be arbitrary, but let's say for the sake of simplicity that they pick 10. They make a new pebble that's as heavy as 10 units. They then make more and more copies of it such that they are all as heavy as the first one. Presumably, it would also have a different color or something so as to be more recognizable as special. When performing subtraction, they would make sure to first remove each pair of heavier pebbles. If there's an uneven amount, use another scale to measure out how many unit pebbles the heavier pebble correspond to and just pour those back into the bag, then continue as normal.
This notion of making progressively heavier pebbles may continue, creating fewer pebbles to be manually operated upon.
If pebbles in a bag are inconvenient (they roll all over the floor if dropped!) one could replace it with, for instance, disks on a rod (or rope?) for simpler long-term storage. For numbers that need to be stored very-long-term or transported far, one could smelt some metal and cast it into some artifact such that its weight exactly matches that of the corresponding number. (On the receiving end, you'd then just have to pour pebbles into the other side of the scale until they match to decode what number the artifact corresponds to and then perform arithmetic as normal to it.)
Eventually, some of the aliens may make an even bigger logical leap of storing this data on paper (or tablets, whatever). It could start out as simple as "one dot on the paper corresponds to one unit weight". One can just then add one unit in a bag for each dot on the paper, allowing numbers to be transported more easily (albeit at the cost of a lot of work to encode and decode the number).
The base system becomes even more useful here. They may yet again decide to use a different symbol for a larger amount. They may say "a circle means a heavy pebble instead of a unit one". Alternatively, they could just standardize a translation document. Everyone gets a tablet that says something like
* O = ..........
* I = OOOOOOOOOO
* X = IIIIIIIIII
...and so on, allowing the written numerical system to potentially diverge from the weight-based one.
Once you have numerals on paper, some people will probably make logical leaps that allow them to perform some operations on paper without pouring pebbles into a bag or whatever. Sure, it'll be way more cumbersome without an innate ability to keep numbers in your head, but it's perfectly doable.
At this point, it seems to me like we have everything we need for mathematical progress to be made. Everything will be a gazillion times slower and some concepts (like, say, fractions) may be considerably harder for them to deal with, but it should in theory work.
If they then reach the point of building machines, maybe even electronic ones, then their problems are over. The machines can just do it all considerably easier (and faster!) than they can.
I'd hate to see what their programming languages would look like, though.
[Answer]
Expanding Misha and L.Dutch comments.
As my grandfather said
>
> when you're waiting for a bus on a winter night the only state it is, is "not here".
>
>
>
We would say 0.
When you're building a house you need many brick, logs and stuff. How many? Until the building will be 1. You don't need numbers to have dimensions. That's why Americans measure holes in dogs and washing machines. You have finger, palm, foot, pygmē (or forearm). Until industrialization brickmakers in England had their own, stamped by king, forms. Which right now help us identify the brickmaker just by size of bricks used to build a house.
I would say that maximum development is early industrial stage (mabe pre-industrial). A lot of waste during production but the supplies are so in excess that it don't stop the production. Almost everything can be changed in error/success method (bigger wheel, smaller wheel)
Note that you don't need numbers to count time. For transportation you just say that wheel size of pygmē is better for transportation that the size of foot because it goes from point A to B in finger lenght of a knot and not palm.
[Answer]
The answer by Smallhacker gives yet another great example of how these "can't count" people could do just fine, but it brought an abacus to my mind. If we are permitted to allow for the concept that "this thing is equivalent to a certain quantity of something else" then we can also allow an abacus.
Even someone who could not count could still probably learn to use an abacus and do lots of math quickly and easily. They could produce complex mathematical answers without actually counting anything.
Even if you don't want to count an abacus and insist that's essentially using a number system, we could suggest that the race may invent some other device that has essentially the same qualities but which does not rely on the digital nature of our own abacus.
No numbers does not mean no math.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm Superdude, I basically got all of Superman power only a 1000 times more powerful without the kryptonite weakness, problem is my powers only work at night, when the sun is out I'm a slightly below average human being (it doesn't matter if I'm indoors or there's clouds blocking the sun or anything like that, if it's daytime at the location I'm at I'm normal, if it's after sunset I'm superhuman).
Over the past few weeks I've turned centralpolis from a crime ridden cesspool to a pretty decent place, however I'm starting to worry as the criminals seems to be getting wise that I only operate at night and seeing a crime uptick during daytime to avoid my wrath.
What can I do to keep criminals in the dark (pardon the pun) about my daytime weakness?
[Answer]
## Don't worry about it
The cops effectively have twice the budget and the criminals don't have the cover of darkness.
## If you must
Take your efforts to Europe or Asia and reduce crime everywhere by 2/3 instead of having no crime in your town and ghastly rapes and murders everywhere else.
Maybe claim there's a supergenius coordinating the cops during the day. With almost double the resources being applied, it'll seem plausible for a while.
[Answer]
**Put on a show**
Other answers so far are addressing the problem of daytime crime fighting, but not how "to keep criminals in the dark" - which is related, but a different question.
The protagonist would have a profound weakness during the day, which criminals, if they find out, will try very hard to exploit.
So what a superhero can do? Create a big daytime show! For example he can stage a big hostage situation, or weapons of mass destruction situation and then pretend to single-handedly resolve it. It will require some resources and some people knowing that this is just a show - but those people don't need to know why this show is set up.
If such shows are performed with at least minimal regularity, no one would suspect of this exact weakness. People might think what they want about superhero's sleep habits, but suspecting daytime loss of powers would be too much of a conclusion.
[Answer]
**Criminals do perform crimes during the day**. That's your hero's weakness. However, "crime" isn't something that gets turned on or off. If you are running a bank heist, for instance, whether you steal the money during the day or the night doesn't change the fact that you stole the money. Someone is going to come after it, and you can't just ask them nicely to only attack your Evil Lair when it's light out and you have the advantage.
Your goal as a superhero then are twofold:
1. Make it very clear that anyone who commits any crime will not be safe in your city, and you're coming for them in the dark
2. Make things right when you can - go get the money back, save the kidnapped victim etc.
This makes for a very interesting dynamic with the populace. For one thing, anyone who gets saved at night loves you, and anyone who gets their stolen stuff/kidnapped princess back regardless of when it has been re-obtained is ecstatic! But people get mugged during the day, banks get robbed at high noon, and where were you? Are you lazy or something?
[Answer]
Take your cues from more than just one hero... you may have powers like Superman but that doesn't mean you have to fight like him. Consider that one of the quickest ways to hurt superman is to shoot him with a Kryptonite bullet, since Superman's gut instinct is to put himself between the bullet and objects in the bullet's path... and while he's faster than a speeding bullet, the mistake is one he makes in a split second and can prove fatal (I've seen numerous comics where he got shot by Kryptonite because he tries to stop the bullet and doesn't realize it's not a common bullet).
Instead, you have a perfect powerset to fight like Batman, who believes that all criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot. Notice when he's in a fight, he tries to dodge and look for openings. Alot of his flourishes are meant to scare the criminals... not force a surrender... and he picks them off one by one, targeting the most vulerable.
The difference between the two is frequently explored and there is at least one comic book storyline where Batman and Superman swap powers (or rather, Batman temporarily gets Superman Powers and Superman is depowered) and this only serves to make Batman scarier. And yes, he does use flight and superspeed to out run the sunrise. The storyline starts with Batman and Superman patrolling each others home towns and both opining why they hate working in Metropolis and Gotham respectively (Superman finds it difficult because Gotham still has a lot of infrastructure that was made when lead paint was a thing, and the lack of intel about threats is frustrating. Batman hates Metropolis because the city is more modern and better light, making it hard for him to use stealth tactics he relies on. The reason for the switch is Bruce Wayne has business in Metropolis and Superman always offers to keep an eye on Gotham when this situation occurs, knowing the Bruce's primary concern is Gotham and that he could easily cover both cities.).
In another story, Superman does deal with it. While he is Superman, he's still just a man... singular... one. In one comic storyline, an elderly woman going home from a community meeting at her church finds herself in in the path of a car driven by a drunk driver. In what she fears is the last moment of her life, she prays to God for a Miracle and Superman swoops in and puts himself between her and the car. Pretty typical for him, but shocking to the woman... who comes to believe Superman was sent by God to Save her. With this idea in her head, she decides to do something with this "gift from God." Since she lives in a poor and crime ridden part of Metropolis' inner city and has watched the neighborhood get progressively worse as she's grown older, so she starts looking for the local gang members and confronting her... and just as soon as they are about to do something to harm her, she prays and in swoops Superman. This goes on for sometime and Superman does see the problem of her putting herself in danger like this is reckless, but he's in a catch-22... his job is to save people and he's not doing that if he ignores her and she is at the very least, stopping crime.
After some time of doing this, the old lady goes to her community meetings at the church and when the subject of crime in the neighborhood comes up, she tells the neighbors about what she's been doing and rallies them and leads them to the hangout of the leader of the local gang and gives him a verbal what-for. The thug naturally reacts by pulling out a weapon, at which point we cut to a black panel, with only the word BANG! written over it... and then it trails to a scene of Superman, locked in combat with a supervillain in the Antarctic implying that he heard the whole thing, but couldn't do anything to help because he's currently dealing with a crisis that could destroy the world.
But it's not the end of the story. Turns out that the gang leader shot her... but she wasn't fatally wounded. And because she rallied the people at the neighborhood community meeting to join her, she was able to get immediate medical attention. Superman visits her in the hospital a few days later to apologize for not being there and explain the reason why, but she isn't having it. She thanks him because not only did she finally realize how dangerous what she was doing was and that she was being selfish in trying to monopolize Superman's time. She goes on to explain that because the crime was so brazen, the people who followed her all gave statements to the police, which lead to the gang leader's arrest... which scared his flunkies away... and they didn't stop there, as the community started demanding better policing from Metropolis PD because no matter how good at stopping crime Superman, he was only one guy. And the only reason Superman was there was because someone from the neigborhood was making all their problems known to him. They realized that they could do that and while MPD isn't staffed with superheroes... there are still more cops than there are Supermen... And after that, they started trying to better their community themselves (it's revealed that the old woman can see from her hospital window some of her community members working on building a playground across the street from her hospital.).
While it's been a while since I read the story so dialog escapes me, the story was written to explain how Superman works through this very problem... yes, he can help, and does whenever he can, but what he does better than most heroes is inspire. What makes him a hero is not his powers... but the fact that he doesn't use them to his own benefit but for those of others. Superman is not the strongest person in the DC Universe. He's had his ass handed to him... but his concern is for the safety and well being of his fellow man, not his own. And that isn't a Super Power... when he does his job correctly... he reminds others of that fact.
It's the difference between Superman and Batman. Batman fights crime because crime has hurt him personally. Superman fights crime because he helps others and crime hurts others.
EDIT: As a writer, this is something you should have the character address... How does he keep this problem from getting back to his enemies... does he take criticism when he can't save people from an afternoon fire in the middle of the summer? What does he do if he's close to dawn and at cruising altitude? Or his archenemy finds him 20 minutes before sunset.
If you want a good series to explore the limitation considerations of Nocturnal Only Heroes, I highly recommend seasons 1 and 2 of Gargoyles on Disney+ (Season 3 is not canon). It's not the same powers or problems, but the heroes do become more vulnerable during the day. One of the canon comics even shows that this can be messed with by jet lag.
[Answer]
Easy, barely an inconvenience!
First thing you got to do is change your mindset about crime. The US puts people in jail/prison at 5 times the rate of other western countries, and more than any other country in the world. Does the US seem like the most crime ridden place in the world? It doesn't look like it to me, personally I'd rank safety in US equal to Europe. Therefore you can easily eliminate 80% of criminals by changing the laws to simply criminalize less actions. This assumes that your superhero mindset is not strictly lawful, but just remember that it would have been illegal to shelter Jews under the Nazi regime, and illegal to free black slaves under the confederacy's laws. And for recent examples, it's illegal to call for peace in Russia, and illegal to uncover your head as a woman in Iran. So going against the law does sometimes seem like the superhero thing to do, just build on that!
Now, you're going to use your superhero powers almost exclusively to become the political leader of the world. You can probably use some force to achieve it since you're doing it for the greater good of course. If you can't be stopped by any military then you pretty much get free reign wherever you choose. Just always fly around the Earth everyday so you stay in permanent darkness or you can vacation on the north and south poles when you're tired.
You're a good guy/gal underneath (hopefully) and you're also insanely smart because Superman was pretty smart and you're 1000x him. So now comes the hard part, you have to **eliminate poverty, inequality and corruption**. Since [there is a
significant correlation between poverty and violent crime rates.](https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1530&context=parkplace) that will be the most effective method at eliminating recurring crime, otherwise you boop one criminal and another takes his place. You fix poverty by whatever political schemes you come up with as the leader and smartest being of every country in the world.
If you also want to use your physical powers you can probably help build huge infrastructure projects much faster, as well as basically move every ship around the world during your night time over the oceans. And while you have a rest stop you can lift [humongous trains full of boulders up mountains](https://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11524958/energy-storage-rail) to cover energy generation for the day.
For the petty jealousy crime that will still hang around and can happen at pretty much any moment of the day, well just make sure every country has a well equipped mental health policy and a competent de-escalating police force just in case.
[Answer]
**Put them in Jail**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/GSXiU.jpg)
During the night, you fly around and pick up the criminals. Put them in jail. Maybe it is a civilian jail. Maybe it is a special jail you built yourself. Maybe it is the top of a mountain or very large hole.
Leave the baddies in jail during the day, so they cannot do crime when you are weak.
When night falls, let the prisoners out again. Give them a five minute head start and then chase them around some more!
[Answer]
Although in the short term you could just move yourself around the planet so that you are always working somewhere that is past sunset, eventually there would likely be a worldwide phenomenon of increased daytime crimes and your weakness would eventually be exposed.
Aside from the average crimes that occur regularly, eventually someone with enough will will exploit your weakness more formally. Your best long term bet may be to be to keep the illusion if possible - or actually assure your influence remains during the day. Since there is already an inkling of this weakness, you should "reset" and develop a new persona or strategy.
Given that you are 1000 times more powerful than Superman, you are yourself a virtually boundless source of energy that could be harnessed like the ultimate solar battery.
Your superhero persona could disappear from the public view (no one knows why) and work with trusted experts to enable trusted people or even robots to appear to have superpowers that are actually just using the virtually limitless solar batteries you generate each night. When absolutely needed for the rare emergency, you could disguise yourself as such a robot or battery-powered hero and take action. You would appear to be just another of this strange superhero army.
Or, more simply, you yourself could use such a battery during the day.
[Answer]
# Build a networked system of sound receivers throughout the city.
You have superman's abilities, so you probably have his senses. Build a system of receivers which beam the sounds to your current location at a night. With practice and time you should be able to pinpoint crimes from them, and direct police and local authorities towards crimes even at day by just flying to the other side of the planet.
# Set up satellites to spy on the city and earn money
You can fly, so you can fly satellites to space pretty easily. Set up a bunch with powerful cameras. You can use your super senses to spy through their cameras and super speed to spot problems. You can also earn a lot of money to spend improving the city.
# Set up a bunch of vigilantes to handle stuff during the day.
Use your money to get a bunch of people in your costume to help out and serve the city. They can be out in public solving minor crimes and helping out the community. Sometimes you can go out among them and do impressive deeds, and you can arrange to fake impressive deeds during the day by some of them.
This should ensure criminals are never sure if you're around. With your spying powers you can drop the hammer of god on anyone who does a crime.
[Answer]
## Judge, Jury, Executioner
Controversial 'antihero' alternative: With few or no police at night time, if an 'anonymous vigilante' or even a 'new mysterious criminal' happens to execute anyone who commits any daytime crime later that night, who could prove who's doing it? With 1000x superman powers, he could enter prisons and slay every inmate so fast that it would look like they just dropped dead.
Criminal morale is hardly going to improve when all their friends are getting killed without a trace at night and every stint in prison is a death sentence. Knowing any gossip about what you did is going to result in you keeling over within hours will surely lead to criminals leaving or reforming. They don't even know if it's law enforcement or another criminal doing it. And, the repeat criminals are all dead, gangs are gone.
The known superhero figure can even lead a double life and continue to do things the law abiding way; it's just that the 'other guy' (himself, unknown to everyone) kills them after sentencing,as well as their colleagues.
Obey the speed limit, kids; speeding has never been riskier. Same for drugs. Got it?
People will say that's fascist, but those people will probably jaywalk or park their car illegally at some point.
[Answer]
# Team Up
Being a super hero is much like being a musician. At some point in your career you will be working with a band.
It doesn't matter that Gloom Knight can only fight crime during the night. Purple Flashlight, Übermensch, Marvelous Woman and The Blur are there to cover up for you during the day.
# Time based cruelty
If they commit crimes during the night, criminals get arrested, but that's it.
If they commit crimes during the day, you catch them by night and serve them with justice with a side of their own gonads on a plate, scrambled. Or other bodily parts. Or kill their dog.
After some time criminals will get the message.
[Answer]
Smash the cameras. Eliminate witnesses. If you are going to confront a criminal, make sure you finish the job. If no one sees, then no one knows you even exist. Be a ghost. Be the shadow vigilante that is a legend, but that there is no evidence for.
] |
[Question]
[
Mars has been colonized, close to a million people are now living above (and below) the martian soil, every few months a ship from Earth arrives with more resource for expansion and more settlers, currently the travel is one way until the martian space elevator will be completed in the near future.
Everything is going well until one day the "blackout" happens, all communication to Earth & the sister colonies on the moon stopped, pointing what telescopes the Martian settlers did have to Earth show no signs of life - no lights in the dark sides of the planet, no signals of any kind in any of the electric spectrum that the settlers have equipment to measure and as the months pass no new ships arrive.
It's as if one day everybody on Earth and Earth orbit just vanished.
**The Question**
What caused the "blackout"?
* The settlers don't know if anyone is alive, causes which would keep people alive on Earth yet unable to communicate with Mars or use anything that shows sign of life to settlers outside the planet is acceptable.
* Ideally Earth should remain intact, I would prefer answers where the settlers are guessing but never know for sure what happened on Earth.
* Tech level is near future - 100 years to the future is a good benchmark.
* Whatever the "blackout" is it should have no affect on Mars.
* I can handwave the lunar colonies using Earth to relay communication with Mars do to the small size of the lunar colony so it's possible the "blackout" to affect Earth only and not the moon - however satellites around the earth should still be affected as even automatic transmissions from them stopped.
[Answer]
A massive solar flare was emitted by the sun and engulfed both earth and the moon but mars was no-where near that part of the solar system. The flare was extremely powerful, far more so than any on record, and basically destroyed all electronic devices. Those people who survived the immediate aftermath as everything moving crashed and all life support, navigation, communications etc fried in an instant are too busy with rescue and recovery efforts to even think about mars.
Anyone in space is most likely dying of radiation poisoning even if their life support systems can be recovered (although more heavily shielded areas may offer some protection).
<https://gizmodo.com/what-would-happen-if-a-massive-solar-storm-hit-the-eart-1724650105>
[Answer]
The origins of this mystery dates back to early 2000's. The small SETI office in the Hat Creek Observatory was filled with the noise of computers beeping and buzzing.
They had just detected an alien transmission and were repeatedly receiving the same transmission for about an hour now. Language Experts and scientists were flown in early in the morning at 2:35 AM to assess the transmission and find out what they meant and who were transmitting them.
After a day of analysis, the scientists narrowed down the origin of these signals to a star "GJ 3059", about 70 Light-years from the Earth.
A week later, the Language Experts produced their final draft:
"Beware! A large group of Dangerous Intelligent Machines are coming towards your planet. They will destroy all the life on your planet to make it suitable for an alien species. The only way to protect your planet is to create another planet near-by with life and Radio Transmission and stop radio transmission and artificial lights on your planet. There is roughly 170 Earth-years before these machines reach you. You must go radio-silent within 140 years to hide your exact location."
The major leaders of the most powerful nations had a confidencial meeting and decided to maintain this as a Top Secret and signed an agreement to dedicate significant resources in creating a decoy planet.
Major corporations were funded to develop technologies required to colonise Mars. Venus was supposed to be the plan-B. A team of PR experts were appointed to suppress public opinions against funding space travel.
On Day-Zero, the world-leaders announced that there have been major solar flares and all of the communication satellites and major radio communication devices have been destroyed. And more solar flares are expected in the near future. So, all communication will be switched to Optic-fibers and low-range transmissions only for a few years. Almost all artificial lightings and electric grids have also been destroyed. Electricity will only be supplied during the day and do not step out of your homes, after sunset. They filled the Online news with reports of people being affected by these solar-flares and increasing incidents of associated Radiation poisoning and various types of cancers. Videos of the sun emitting bursts of plasma into the space were spread like wild-fire. All this was closely orchestrated and executed by a planning committee of experts, who were planning this for over 50 years.
[Answer]
It was the [Singularity](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity). The density of computer networks and AIs on Earth reached a critical point, and humanity and its machines abruptly ascended into something unknowable. See Vernor Vinge’s novel *Marooned In Realtime* for a version of this idea where the separation is in time rather than in space.
[Answer]
Look for "The Locusts" by Larry Niven and Steven Barnes. First published in Analog in 1979.
<http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?49922>
Colonists land on foreign planet (in story, around a new star). They settle in and eventually start having kids. But the kids are a bit, well, stupid. And the second generation isn’t really sentient. The grandparents are in full scale panic. Why? Well turns out, humans are like locusts... when our numbers swell, our genome metastasizes to create a massive brain which causes us to be spacefaring, but having completed our spawning, we revert to feral form for another few thousand years.
That was 1979. Since then, we’ve discovered many species where even adult members of the population shift body types, even gender, in response to environment concerns such as population pressure. As soon as humanity “spawns” onto another world, there’s a global collective sigh of relief that all our eggs aren’t in one basket. Earth is a paradise of resources without environmental threat to the species, and we’ve just solved our last species-wide biological mandate. That tension release triggers hormones and unwinds our intelligence. Mars colonists ate unaffected because they’re still experiencing the survival stress of a new world.
Doesn’t solve the satellite problem unless, as intellect declines, someone does something stupid, like turn them off or crash a couple into each other and create a cascade crash.
[Answer]
**Everything has died.**
The SCP site has a couple of entries about things like this. A signal is received that seems to be coming from a cave. On exiting the far side of the cave, the explorers enter into a parallel world - the same as ours, but everything has died. Warning: if you are like me, reading on the SCP site can send you down a rabbit hole it will take you hours to escape.
<http://www.scp-wiki.net/scp-2935>
>
> The SCP-2935 anomaly is a nearly exact replicate reality of modern
> Earth in the year 2016, with the primary exception being that all
> life, including both biological and non-biological, as well as any
> sentient entities, machines, computers and other "life-like"
> phenomena, within SCP-2935 ended on April 20th, 2016.
>
>
>
---
>
> Juno: Command, you can see this?
>
>
> Command: We can. Can you confirm life signs on any of those
> individuals?
>
>
> Juno: I can… the adult male is dead… and the female to his right… and
> to his left… and the child… also dead. This had to be pretty recent,
> no signs of decomp.
>
>
> Kael: This is pretty fucked up.
>
>
> Devon: There's a newspaper on the table. April 19th, 2016. Hendricks
> County Flyer. Command, can you confirm the headline?
>
>
> Command: One moment, Team.
>
>
> Kael: Dinner, look. Chicken, mashed potatoes, green beans.
>
>
> Command: Confirming that headline. It's accurate with that newspaper
> on that date.
>
>
> Kael: It's stale, but there's no—
>
>
> Devon: Wall clock says the date is April 28th, 2016. That's today.
> Same time, too, 0945. Same as my time. How long have they been here?
>
>
> Kael: Boss, look. The food.
>
>
> Juno: What about it?
>
>
> Kael: It's covered in dust. They— they are too. They've been here for
> a while. But the food, it's all stale, but it's not rotten. That
> chicken should've been covered in mold by now, but there's nothing.
> See? Even the potatoes.
>
>
> Juno: Yeah, I see it.
>
>
>
[Answer]
## Coordinated EMP Terrorist attack
A small but powerful fringe terrorist group managed to get their hands on half a dozen nuclear weapons. To [maximize impact](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse#Characteristics) they simultaneously detonate the nukes at high altitude so that they cover all human habitats, plunging the world into darkness from the EMP pulse.
A few details on the Moon, Mars' observation and miscellaneous items:
* The moon is far enough away that the EMP shockwave may be mild or non-existent. A separate nuke may have been sent its way but it's possible that the moon colonists' equipment are somewhat hardened against EMP (as precaution from solar flares).
* If Martian Telescopes are not constantly aimed at the earth, then the blasts themselves would be missed by the martians. However, there would probably be radio noise during the event that was recorded.
* Present day military should probably possess "EMP Hardened" equipment that would survive such events (natural or man-made) and would be able to contact Mars not long after the incident. Perhaps they are too busy dealing with the chaos and social upheaval on earth.
* This is my first post (!!) please go easy on me! ;)
### EDIT
I'm adding a bit of speculation backed by factual information:
* I really do believe that less than half a dozen nukes would be enough to make the earth go dark. If powerful enough, perhaps two nukes might be enough to cover both hemispheres. But that's just my own personal guess.
* By looking at the [image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_mechanism.png) included in the link provided above, one can see from a 400km altitude detonation an area of effect that covers nearly the entire continental US and Canada. I'm guessing the radius of that circle to be about 1,000 miles. (The [SVG version](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:EMP_USA.svg) has a clearer circle. Sorry for mixing metric and english ;) ) The image makes no mention of the blast yield.
* Actual high altitude tests were conducted in the 60s. The best known was [Starfish Prime](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime) in 1962. According to Wikipedia, this was a 1.4 Megaton warhead that was detonated at an altitude of 400km approximately 900 miles away from Hawaii. To quote wikipedia:
>
> The Starfish Prime electromagnetic pulse also made those effects known
> to the public by causing electrical damage in Hawaii, about 1,445
> kilometres (898 mi) away from the detonation point, knocking out about
> 300 streetlights, setting off numerous burglar alarms and damaging
> a telephone company microwave link. The EMP damage to the microwave
> link shut down telephone calls from Kauai to the other Hawaiian
> islands.
>
>
>
Further down the article, the fate of some satellites is described:
>
> The weaponeers became quite worried when three satellites in
> low Earth orbit were disabled. The half-life of the energetic
> electrons was only a few days. At the time it was not known that solar
> and cosmic particle fluxes varied by a factor 10, and energies could
> exceed 1 MeV. In the months that followed these man-made radiation
> belts eventually caused six or more satellites to fail, as
> radiation damaged their solar arrays or electronics, including the
> first commercial relay communication satellite, Telstar, as well as
> the United Kingdom's first satellite, Ariel 1.
> Detectors on Telstar, TRAAC, Injun, and Ariel 1 were used to measure
> distribution of the radiation produced by the tests.
>
>
>
* This may not sound like much but keep in mind that this is 1962, long before everything became computerized and that Hawaii was probably near the furthest edge of the area of effect of the blast. Browsing through a [list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States'_nuclear_weapons_tests) of US nuclear tests I found [Castle Bravo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo) with a yield of 15 Megatons and topping that is the Soviet [Tsar Bomba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) which managed to produce a yield of 50 Megatons. I would imagine that by simply altering the denotation altitude and blast yield the radius of the affected region can be greatly increased!
To summarize, I really do believe that only a handful of nukes would suffice for this scenario.
[Answer]
Total financial collapse on Earth, Mars has cost Earth more than it could actually afford in terms of physical resources, the powers that be have always known what was going to happen but they pushed on regardless, Earth was no longer ecologically stable enough to guarantee our survival as a species.
The blackout is because the economy has finally caught up with the material resource reality and the planetary transportation web has fallen over in the space of a week or two. Most urbanites will starve within a week or two and take down huge areas of country side around the major cites as well. To survive people will have to be lucky and far away from "civilisation"; it's not that Earth is dead or even that it's technological artifacts, like satellites, have gone but there's no-one left in the areas where control apparatus are situated to use that equipment.
Any colony that is dependent on Earth for supplies, either technical (like solar storm warnings) or material, (food, water, and/or fuel), like Lunar, will also collapse pretty quickly as shipments suddenly and unexpectedly come to a halt.
[Answer]
**Time travel.**
When I read this:
>
> pointing what telescopes the Martian settlers did have to Earth show no signs of life - no lights in the dark sides of the planet, no signals of any kind in any of the electric spectrum that the settlers have equipment to measure and as the months pass no new ships arrive.
>
>
>
I immediately thought: This is consistent with Mars being suddenly and unceremoniously dumped some hundreds or thousands of years into the past. The Earth of that time wouldn't have any kind of electronic technology or mass lighting infrastructure, so of course the Martian settlers wouldn't be able to see any light or EM spectrum signals coming from Earth.
Something similar happens in [Time Odyssey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time%27s_Eye_(novel)). In this story, aliens™ grab a whole bunch of slices of Earth from various time periods throughout history (including a UN peacekeeper helicopter from 2037, a Soyuz space capsule from 2037, a British fort from 1885, 19th-century Chicago, the Mongol Empire during the reign of Genghis Khan, and the army of Alexander the Great) and stitch the slices together into a patchworld Earth in a pocket universe.
In a later book, they find out that Mars has been similarly patchworlded, and there's a whole plot thread where they have to send a message from patchworld Earth to patchworld Mars using only 19th century technology. (They dig vast trenches in the North American icecap, fill them with oil, and set them ablaze; the sole remaining inhabitant of patchworld Mars observes the pattern).
[Answer]
1.) An alien virus received through the SETI system mentioned above that worked like an EMP that cooked everything that had a microchip on it.
2.) Earth had actually died off centuries ago , but the mars inhabitants were given a universal fake memory of earth actually being there a day ago.
3.) Mars has been infected with some kind of computer virus , earth purposely quarantines all communication to avoid being infected
[Answer]
The authorities on earth see something very big coming up behind Mars (out of sight of the folks on Mars). They are unsure if this is a weird giant space beast, or an invasion force or a religious event. Its traveling toward a transmitter on an outpost, so whatever it is, it seems to tracks radio waves. It is unknown if the "something" has noticed that earth is populated, so until there is clear understanding of the risk, Earth has halting all transmissions that could give away its position or clear proof that it is inhabited or give this thing an incentive to visit.
[Answer]
**Kessler Syndrome**
No one needs to die, no fancy scenarios. We. just. got. greedy. In the race to put more and more satellites up there, we put so many in orbit (while not cleaning up) that the [Kessler syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome) was inevitable, wiping out all communication (or otherwise) satellites. Quoting wikipedia:
>
> Kesseler Syndrome [..] is a scenario in which the density of objects in low earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade
> where each collision generates space debris that increases the
> likelihood of further collisions
>
>
>
The [Envisat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Envisat#Space_safety) is already a large, inactive satellite, that will stay there for ~150 more years and is a good candidate for such a catastrophe.
[Answer]
Supermassive blackholes, such as those found at the center of galaxies, produce relativistic jets of particles from their poles. ( <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_jet> ). Such jets can exceed millions of parsecs in length. Because the cone of these jets is so narrow, it is kind of like a laser fired across space. But the radiation in these is lethal. If one of these jets from some other galaxy happened by random chance to sweep through, it could pick off one side of solar orbit without affecting the other side. There would be little hint that Sol was about to cross such a stream (just as you cannot see a laser until it hits something). The crossing could happen quite quickly if we went through the edge of a jet. If Mars was on opposite side of Sol while Earth gets cooked, Mars wouldn’t see the cooking. When the planets came back on the same side, Earth, and other planets that were over there, would just be an irradiated mess. Silent and black, including satellites.
[Answer]
I think people have covered the scenarios in which technology on Earth is greatly reduced, or civilization is entirely wiped out. To try and fit with your desire to have civilization still exist on Earth, I propose a third option. At this point in history there will be many crowded orbits around Earth. Even though space debris removal may be common, a [Kessler Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome) scenario could still occur and block communications with Mars in two ways.
1. All deep space communications have moved to orbital relays to avoid atmospheric interference. Currently the [Deep Space Network](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Deep_Space_Network) is ground-based, but if the relays were all in space and subsequently destroyed communications would be down for a time. How long would depend on how quickly Earth civilization can fix their orbital crisis and get new relays up or rebuild/reopen the ground stations.
2. Some massive space engineering project was underway and the materials or partially built structures have been destroyed and spread across broad orbits. This entirely blocks radio transmissions - at least in the direction of the ecliptic. The solution to this scenario is much the same as the first.
] |
[Question]
[
Imagine that you're watching, say, a human (a stand-in for said entity) from a distance, and, the second you physically see them with your own eyes - ***they* do not necessarily have to see or hear *you*** - they immediately know you're there until you break eye contact.
There are caveats to this:
* If your eyes are pointed at it but you can't physically see it - for instance, there's a fogbank in the way, or the environment is too dark for you to see it, or you're blindfolded - this property will not take effect.
* You have to make direct eye contact with a portion of its body in order for it to know you're there. This means that observation via camera or other such means doesn't trigger the effect.
* You have to be able to perceive it in order for it to know you're there. The blind do not trigger this effect.
* It still has normal senses - for the sake of the question, let's say it's essentially a human with this property "grafted on", with the full sensory suite that being a human entails.
* This property works in vacuum.
* When someone breaks eye contact, the effect ends, although the entity still remembers that someone was perceiving it. Think of it as hearing a jackhammer in the distance that suddenly stops - you stopped hearing it, but you still remember that you did hear it.
* If said entity is completely covered in clothing, such that you can't see its body, this property does not take effect.
* Whether or not observing it via mirrors causes it to know you're there is up to the question-answerer to decide, as is whether or not the entity knows the specific location or direction which it's being observed from.
The question: **How, exactly, would such a thing be possible?** To me, this seems like quantum mechanics insanity of the highest degree, and I have absolutely no idea how it would work, nor what tags I should put on this other than "senses".
I initially figured that giving this entity ultra-sensitive whiskers capable of detecting air current shifts would do the trick, or biological radar, but that didn't fit many of the criteria.
[Answer]
As described? There's nothing I can think of that fits the bill.
The reason why humans know they're being watched: they don't. So what's this 'I feel like someone's watching' thing we have? Other signs.
A vaguely human-ish form, even if it really isn't there. That's why ghillie suites are so effective, we don't associate that shape with humans, thus it isn't a human.
A dip or spike in the ambient sounds. A dip in birds squawking. Deer suddenly hoofing it. Branches snapping. A rhythmic sound that wasn't there before.
Another really good indicator is smell. Bloodhounds are famous for it, of course, but 'there's something in the air' is usually what sets off the other things.
So, how can you pin this directly on unobserved 'sight'? You can't. Not without handwavium, ESP, or game mechanics. By definition, to observe something, you need to see it. It's either you pin it on other senses, or you introduce something new.
Plausible '6th senses'? Brainwave scanning, it would allow for some sort of 'recognition pattern' if sufficiently advanced. Or a simple 'advanced monitoring tech', that allows you to see things around you and alert you.
All beings, that I'm aware of, cannot directly process all stimuli we take in. There's just too much of it and our brains need to keep us alive--busy with other stuff we also don't consciously handle. So, if you introduce some sort of symbiosis between 'beast and machine'? There's a higher chance of picking up details.
Humans and other species already use hairs to sense things, but that's for sounds and/or movement (air pressure differential, subtle shifts in the wind, that sort of thing.)
As I understand Quantum Mechanics, you've got nothing to work with. The scales are far too small to be useful to something as, relatively, large as a human. But I've been wrong about most things quantum.
[Answer]
# Emission theory is true
There is an ancient theory called [Emission theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory_(vision)), which (*attempts to*) explain vision by asserting that humans and other animals fire invisible [eye beams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_beam) out of their eyes. As these beams hit an object, we become aware of some of its properties, which our brains interpret as an image.
In a universe where this theory turns out to be true, it isn't inconceivable to imagine some kind of physical process, perhaps some chemical reaction, that could be influenced by being hit by an eye beam. With luck, evolution might even find some way to incorporate this into some kind of sensory neuron covering the skin of this entity. It would be able to sense whenever any given part of its skin was observed by a creature, in the same way that we can sense heat.
As with our own senses, clothing can block or dampen this sense. If no eye beams reach the skin, it cannot feel them.
Stretching the laws of physics even more, if the physical eye beams can have different properties (for lack of a better term: "frequencies") that perhaps vary from creature to creature, the being may be able to tell *what* or maybe even *who* is looking at it, in case such a property is desirable for story purposes.
(Seeing as this being itself has eyes, it would also sense itself looking at, say, its hand.)
Though, one particularly difficult thing to justify would be "if Emission theory is true, how on earth do cameras work"? Though that could possibly be handwaved with something along the lines of "They fire artificial eye beams. Since the electronics are more sensitive than eyes, the beams are too low-power to be felt by the entity."
[Answer]
It must be limited mind-reading. The being can read the unique thought patterns that observers have when they see the being's skin. This is then translated into a vague sense of "I'm being observed".
In particular these aspects "...too dark for you to see it..." and "...completely covered in clothing, such that you can't see its body..." require knowledge about the individual observer's perception.
Any normal ("real") sense that can even hope to tell an observer with bad (night) vision apart from another observer with good (night) vision must be extremely detailed. Maybe detect dilation of the pupils or a change in heartbeat - but then the being already sees/hears the observer in great detail.
[Answer]
## A virtual world
If this entity is in some way part of a computer simulated world, for example a video game, then *being shown on screen* would be a distinct thing that can be detected, in theory.
Typically in games, no models are shown (rendered) until a player can see them. Otherwise they take up useless memory and processing. So if you cannot see an enemy it is not rendered. Still exists in the exact location you would encounter them, however, player's vision is what makes the model render on the screen. And this might involve extra steps, like loading the model from the disk in order to render it.
If the entity is somehow aware of that rendering process, even if it does not understand what they are, then it would know of being observed.
This covers all scenarios described as long as
* the observers will require the model being rendered
* the entity can have some way of being notified that its model is being rendered
---
Just to clarify some of the scenarios:
>
> You have to make direct eye contact with a portion of its body in order for it to know you're there. This means that observation via camera or other such means doesn't trigger the effect.
>
>
>
There are various tricks to get camera views in games. It is possible that whatever computer engine is doing this takes a copy or projection/transformation of the model to show in camera screens (and similar). And since this would act as a different model for the creature, then it would not be able to be aware.
>
> If said entity is completely covered in clothing, such that you can't see its body, this property does not take effect.
>
>
>
* In some games, the clothing acts as actual clothing and you can put it on in layers over the actual model. *Saints Row 2* and onwards is an example of this. In those cases, the model not being visible, means it will not render.
* In other games, the character is "built up" by several parts. One might be the torso part, one the legs part, for example. So, "putting on pants" or "putting a jacket" just *replaces* that part with a generic "legs with pants" or "torso with jacket". Then the entity might be able to know rendering of the original parts but not the ones replaced with clothed equivalents.
* In other games still, there is just one model with all the gear on it. If you "change clothing" it just loads an entirely different model. In this case, the entity would need to be aware of loading any model *other than* the ones that show it completely covered. Maybe those models are corrupted somehow. Or vice versa - they are the ones that work correctly, all the other ones somehow alert the entity.
[Answer]
It sounds like the observer is using some sort of radar or sonar to "see" the observed, using an actively emitted beam to scan and observe its surrounding, beam which can be sensed in some way.
This already happens in nature for examples with [certain moths](https://www.biointeractive.org/classroom-resources/moth-mimicry-using-ultrasound-avoid-bats) which, upon detecting the ultrasounds emitted by bats hunting for them, trick the bats into avoiding them
>
> Some moths use ultrasound to either jam bats’ sonars or to signal to bats that they taste bad. Barber explains that some of these species are Batesian mimics, because they don’t truly taste bad but mimic the ultrasound of other moths that do, tricking the bats into avoiding them as food.
>
>
>
[Answer]
**Hyper-specialized gaze detection**
Humans have the ability to sense when someone is looking at you, or at least in your direction. It's referred to as 'gaze detection' for the most part, here's a [link](https://www.psychologytoday.com/za/blog/the-narcissus-in-all-us/201102/how-you-know-eyes-are-watching-you) on it.
Now, this isn't possible unless the pair of eyes are already in your field of view but you're just not focusing on it(peripheral), and this requires a certain kind of sclera-iris ratio to work, so unless your creature has a spherical peripheral vision ability this isn't going to work.
I suggest that it has eyes in strategic positions all over its body. It doesn't necessarily need them to be the focus of their view(seeing everything at the same time with great clarity) but you're going to need this all-round view as at least a peripheral focus if you want the creature to have gaze detection from all directions. A creature specialized to detect eyes might not need a specific range of sclera-iris ratios to detect gazes, but at least as far as humans are concerned that is a requirement
[Answer]
Very easily - according to quantum physics, any observation influences the object being observed. Imagine some good technics, that measure unexpected quantum effects. If you exclude all effects from known influencing objects, all that remains is the result of unknown observation. Notice, it works for absolutely any sort or way of observation.
[Answer]
## Sixth Sense
Ever get that prickling feeling in the back of your neck where you get the feeling you're being watched?
Ever find yourself feeling like you're not alone in an empty room?
Yeah.
You probably *were* alone and shouldn't worry about it.
But in your fictional world, this feeling has meaning and actual cause.
Some people have access to a sixth sense which allows them to be able to tell when someone else is watching them.
A "Danger Sense".
For your specific entity, this ability is substantially heightened, and they can consistently and reliably tell when they're being observed, even at a distance.
**How does it work?**
Maybe they're feeling the psychic mind-pressure given off by the observer.
Maybe they're hearing the echoes of a mind that recognises their visual-profile as a person.
Who knows?
It's not as important as the fact that there's someone behind you.
Right now.
Start running!
[Answer]
## **Not without having certain knowledge of the (potential) observer.**
The only possibility of the entity being able to know they are being observed that I can think of is when extensive research into the recognition of said entity has been conducted, and the brains of **potential observers are constantly being monitored** for the presence of the established recognition pattern (i.e. the activity in that specific network of neurons).
**This entire concept stands and falls with the observer *realizing* they're watching the entity**. And obviously - unless these patterns are similar in all observers of a certain type - with these observers having been monitored beforehand to begin with.
[Answer]
**It's not really there.**
The Purple Spotted Bronwyn's Lesser Extricopead (PSBLE) is not out there in the universe. It is instead a small Worm (W) that lives in your head, manipulating your sensory organs to make you perceive a large purple animal. You only see the PSBLE when the W decides you should. Hence it is always aware of you looking at it.
[Answer]
I don't think there's any good physics law that can give this to you for free.
You can always invoke magic/telepathy/astral thought fields/etc - aka simple handwavium - but I suspect that you wouldn't be asking this question if this was an option for you.
So that leaves us with... Advanced Handwavium. Still handwavium, but at least scientifish sounding. Let's go with... *spins the Wheel of Handwavium*... biology!
Now, normal physics laws do not allow you to detect that someone is observing you. Not passively anyway. Thus all observers must be transmitting what they are seeing, and all observees must be receiving this transmission. And, naturally, this can happen entirely subconsciously, so that you just get this vague sense of "being watched".
But how do you know that it's specifically YOU that is being observed? Well, how about vision in a different spectrum? Each individual has their skin covered in a personalized colourful pattern (kinda like fingerprints) - but it only shows up, say, in ultraviolet or infrared spectrum. All creatures have a fifth (or maybe even more) kind of receptor in their eyes which can perceive this light, but it's not accessible for conscious viewing - only the subconscious has access to it.
The transmission and receiving happens through standard radiowaves at a certain frequency or maybe a range of frequencies. So if your species pick up on this, they can actually "jam" this sense by transmitting loud white noise at the right frequency(-ies), but there's a drawback - it causes all who can "see" it feel uneasy or maybe even nauseous (because the light will be too bright), so the use is limited.
So, what might have caused this to happen? Again, more handwavium. Weird evolutionary quirk. Alien bioengineering. Remnants of ancient alien bioengineering. Parasites/symbiotes that are trying not to get each other killed by warning their hosts that someone is observing them. Alien bioengineering virus malfunctioning. I dunno, I'm not an alien bioengineer.
[Answer]
## A combination of pattern-based mimetics and esp.
The observed species have esp to a limited extent, but this has evolved along with complexly patterned skin. Seeing the creature's skin sets up a feedback in the mind of the observing creature that is detectable by the creature being observed. This feedback may even have a slight dazing effect, since it evolved to help capture prey. The prey tended to not startle off of a trail and just stand still while the predator approached. This could possibly be defeated by something similar to infrared goggles, or just colored lenses; filter out enough of the right color wavelengths, and the pattern doesn't have the effect. Some prey creatures probably evolve this naturally. And then the constant evolutionary arms race may have different races of your species with different effective color ranges depending on which color ranges the prey species in the region evolved to filter out.
## Quantum entangled particles
If you want a quantum method, if the species evolved in some extremely exotic environment, maybe their skin produces paired particles, or their metabolism somehow separates naturally paired particles. One of the pair is emitted and the other remains as a sensor within the skin. When observation changes the state (I believe your eye is supposed to be able to register a single photon, perhaps it actually registers even less?), a corresponding change occurs in the skin of the observed. Perhaps a single change wouldn't be enough to say "not random" but enough particles unconsciously observed by a single observer throws enough of a "statistically not random" effect for the "skin to crawl" and the observation is noticed.
I don't think that's going to work without a lot of handwaving, but quantum stuff all seems like a bunch of handwaving to me anyway. :)
[Answer]
There is a tradition in SF of (wildly) over-interpreting the implications of quantum superposition, and I guess the question is angling for an answer along those lines. But I'd argue quantum physics has suffered enough; besides, this scenario would require the entity to observe itself in a superposition of states, which no interpretation of quantum mechanics has ever suggested. But that's OK, there are plenty of other approaches.
Perhaps the entity's skin is covered in bioluminescent cells that flicker in a random pattern, and it is also somehow sensitive to the activity in human brains. It can't decode that activity to read minds as such – it can't even distinguish human brains from the background noise – but it *can* detect if some tiny fraction of that noise starts to fluctuate exactly in sync with the random pattern its skin is giving out.
I'm not sure if the entity could plausibly detect "brain waves" in the normal sense, but you could bridge this gap with only minimal handwaving. Whatever medium it uses, the key is that because the entity controls the signal it is looking for, that makes it much easier to detect the returning signal. It's like how if you close your eyes, you can easily hear when you are near a wall, by picking up the reflections of ambient noise; the signal involved is incredibly faint – far below the threshold of what you can consciously hear – but because the "coming" and "going" sound waves are so closely correlated, your brain is able to detect the correspondence.
[Answer]
## Third-party overseer
Several fictional universes explain magic by having a being or a system with godlike powers granting the spells. It can be a fine invisible mist of interconnected nano-machines gathering information and passing it on, or it can be a powerful being of a "higher dimension" pulling the strings.
Such an entity, knowing when someone observing it, is already featured in [Ward](https://www.parahumans.net/), the sequel to [Worm](https://parahumans.wordpress.com/):
A supervillain called Mama Mathers can instantly know if someone observes her, and she can affect the minds of anyone who observed her. If someone has seen her, she can affect the observer with visual hallucinations, if someone heard her she can send debilitating auditory hallucinations, etc.
How is it done?
>
> Superpowers are granted to humans by transdimentional planet-sized entities with immense power, which reside in a parallel universe but are able to observe our universe and form connections with specific humans they have chosen to grant powers to. In this case the character doesn't directly observe someone having observed her, it's the overseer entity which notices this and feeds this information to her via a neural link.
>
>
>
[Answer]
Some time ago [Rupert Sheldrake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake) reported experiments about people detecting being looked at. He has a set of explanations for that, look up "morphic resonance". Largely considered pseudoscience and without valid evidence, but it may work for you as an explanation. Although it does not cover all your requirements, I think.
[Answer]
You could use a variation on the "Akashic records" principle. That there exist somewhere (A quantum plain, or some magical dimension, or whatever fits best with your story) where knowledge is stored that people can tune into and access to gain access to it.
You could say that when someone observes something the observer and the object being observed are connected through the Akashic records, and that the person in the story is tapping into their own personal portion of the record and can see this connection.
[Answer]
**They get flashes of precognition.**
They're particularly sensitive about being observed, it makes their hackles rise and provokes a fear-response. They can't by any means predict the future, but anything that turns up in the future for them and registered as "they're watching me" gets shot back in time to that moment.
[Answer]
## If I can see your eyes, then you can see me
In the real world, it is not true that people automatically know when they are being watched. However, it is true that if I can see your eyes, then you can see me. Because light goes both ways.
If you can extend that "light goes both ways" idea with something else instead of light, you might achieve what you want.
## When I see you in the real world, I touch you in the Astral plane.
Maybe there exists an Astral Plane, or a Magic Plane, or Star Wars' "the Force". This Plane exists in parallel to our universe, and most people aren't very aware of it. Objects and living beings can be connected through the Astral Plane, and the connection always works both ways. There are different kinds of possible connections, with different degrees of strength. One possible connection is through observation. If I watch you in the real world, then my Astral form will inevitably "touch" your Astral form on the Astral Plane. Unless you're a proficient magician, you probably won't be able to exploit that connection; but you'll still feel it and it will give you a feeling of being watched.
You can adapt the vocabulary depending on your setting. Magic plane, astral plane, mind plane, quantum realm, astral forms, souls, chi, etc.
[Answer]
**electromagnetic resonance**
Nerves use electricity. Electricity creates magnetic fields. Field presence and shape can be detected, sometimes at significant distances, with a variety of sensors. Some of these sensors are biologically feasible.
Postulate a human with a higher-than-average level of these sensors (cryptochrome, one of the eye's photon detectors, can react to magnetic fields as well for instance, and it is present in many places besides just the eyes).
It may be possible for such a creature to learn to sense the shape of the fields around it and determine when it is being observed. This may be easily confused with someone nearby merely thinking about observing them. It may also be easily fooled by someone focusing loudly on a subset or superset which contains the creature but does not match the normal pattern of how people casually observe it.
The range of this would probably be fairly limited under normal circumstances, but humans are incorrigible tool users and somebody might come up with some sort of antenna.
edit: apparently this is something people are studying... <https://web.archive.org/web/20220115070017/https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844021004680>
[Answer]
# Induced Phreaking
Since you didn't ask for science-based, I'm going for "it sounds vaguely plausible as long as you don't think about it". It's well known that you can recreate (poorly) the image on a monitor by inductively sensing the RF emissions produced by the signal cable. The cable acts like a very poor transmitting antenna, and the emissions have a regular pattern due to the monitor's refresh cycle.
So, let's say your person's skin produces a rapidly changing but consistently patterned color sequence at all times, and that furthermore they have a ridiculously sensitive RF pickup. You could even say that the light emitted by the skin is physically coupled to the RF pickup as a sort of [lock-in amplifier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock-in_amplifier) or even a not-too-distant variation on [quantum radar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar). When their skin is observed, the signals produced in the observer's eyes weakly radiate RF with the same timing pattern as the skin's color changes, and it's this RF that's detected. It's quite a bit more believable if your setting is such that everyone has at least one cybernetic eye, since then you'd have actual electronics and wires producing the RF signals rather than optic nerves. Or you could have the pattern induce some very specific activity in the brain itself, and the "sense" would be like doing a remote MRI scan. If you don't want the effect to be noticeable to a casual observer, you could make the visual effect subliminal but still detectable a the mechanical/subconscious level. That also opens up some potential plot points, where the effect can perhaps be easily seen with a special camera, etc.
The sensitivity that you'd need here are well beyond believable, but it nicely explains several of the points you've asked for: clothing fully covering the skin would prevent its functionality, and it explicitly relies on observation, not some kind of radar that wouldn't care whether the target is actually looking or not. A regular camera would not trigger the effect because the shutter speed would be too slow, although you could imagine a high-speed camera might trigger it. And you don't have to rely on any half-baked hand-wavy appeal to quantum observer effect!
[Answer]
# Anthropics and acausal trade
Use [anthropic reasoning](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/anthropics) to deduce that there's atleast one lifeform existing in the universe observing you at any given point in time.
Use [acausal trade](https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/acausal-trade) to deduce what they might be doing in real time, assuming their source code is similar to your own.
[Answer]
## Any sort of persuasive and intrusive sort of surveillance system will do
I think the Orion's Arm Worldbuilding project has a great article on these kinds of systems.
>
> An angelnet is any all-pervasive distributed processing supervision and safety infrastructure. Angelnets are found on many developed worlds and megastructures, and in many smaller habs of all kinds in polities throughout Terragen space. They protect sapient populations or important local subsystems and other valued beings or objects by eliminating both accidents and deliberate attacks. The archetypical angelnet is designed and operated by a transapient intellect, and consists of ubiquitous smart matter (including rapidly deployable utility fog) plus the region's machines and bots. Less pervasive or less sophisticated angelnets are also widely used.
>
>
>
>
> Within its own sphere of influence, such an angelnet has seemingly supernatural powers to observe, predict and intervene in pursuit of its designer's goals. While this is the most powerful application, any dense and highly networked system of technology, even one employing only middletech and designed by ordinary sophonts, can have a similar though lesser effect. Angelnetting is more a concept than any one particular implementation. Secondary functionality of angelnets varies widely, but includes distributed processing capabilities, networking, weather control, paraterraforming, conservation and recycling, autotopia infrastructure, mechosystems, Known Net relaying, virchworlds and virch-rl interfacing, cliology, environmental protocols, and scanning of underground and above ground features and structures. All of the major modern archailect-ruled worlds and capitals are heavily angelnetted.
>
>
>
See: [Angelnet - Encyclopaedia Galactica](https://www.orionsarm.com/eg-article/45f4886ae0d44)
Basically the controlling artilect only allows the entity to receive a signal of gaze detection. All the specifics... these are just peculiarities of the systems implementation. It might have been designed for some meaningful purpose, probably a political one, once. However as the memetic ecosystem/social situation/politics changed, it stayed behind. Such systems are quite common in genetic evolution.
Why does it appear to be a an intrinsic ability? There are several options. The system might be detection resistant and disassembles itself in sections where someone looks. It might be sticky and hijack it's subjects biochemistry to reproduce (think viruses, mitrocondria, symbiosis), it might be extremely penetration and as soon as you get into its sphere of influence it can simply hijack your perception and memory. Reality is whatever the system manipulates your mind into believing.
] |
[Question]
[
The rot-weevil is a 10cm long flightless beetle (though not truly a weevil). It eats a wide variety of food, most of which is obtained from civilised settlements. If people wished to trap and sell this creature as food, what would they have to do the meat in order to disguise its insectoid origin, and make it appear like mammalian (or at least tetrapodal) meat?
[Answer]
**Burger patties**
Grind em up, mash em into patties. [It's actually being tried in real life](https://nypost.com/2017/08/16/bug-burgers-are-hitting-supermarket-shelves/).
>
> A supermarket chain in Switzerland will start selling edible bugs in the form of burgers.
>
>
> ...
>
>
> Created by Swiss startup Essento, the burgers are made with mealworms, rice and vegetables, and flavored with oregano and chili. The insect balls are made with mealworms, chickpeas, onions and garlic.
>
>
>
For a more traditional example, see the "[Kunga cake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunga_cake)", an African dish made from swarms of midges or flies.
>
> Kunga cake or kungu is an East African food made of millions of densely compressed midges or flies. In his entomophagy book "Insects: An Edible Field Guide", Stefan Gates suggest that people can "make burgers with it, or dry it out and grate parts of it off into stews" for "umami richness". Bear Grylls calls it "a great survival food" and describes how vast quantities are caught and turned into kunga cake. American entomologist May Berenbaum discusses the situation where large swarms of midges can cause significant problems for local populations. She cites an example of how Chaoborus edulis swarms form near Lake Malawi and how the local people turn them into kunga cakes as a "rich source of protein" which is eaten "with great enthusiasm". Explorer David Livingstone (1865) claimed that they "tasted not unlike caviare" though Professor of Tropical Entomology Arnold van Huis declared that he did not like it at all.
>
>
>
>
> To catch the flies a frying pan can be coated in cooking oil and then wafted through a swarm.
>
>
>
[Answer]
## Don't disguise it, just make it taste good to your audience
Crawfish, Lobster, and Crab are all very delicious and creepy looking "bugs" that tons of people have no issue eating with absolutely zero effort spent to hide what it is. In many places, these meats are actually more expensive than red meat anyway; so, it is better to not hide what it is. The thing is that you can not make bugs taste like a passable red meat. The same things you do to make steak taste savory and tender, will make crawfish become rubbery and conflict with their natural flavor... but when you boil crawfish in a mixture of cayenne pepper, paprika, garlic, onion, lemon, and salt †, it becomes tender, and takes on a new flavor that works with it's natural flavor (which many people find tastes rotten on its own). So, through proper preparation, people quickly lose any aversion they may have to the strangeness of the animal.
So, if you want people to eat rot-weevils... first, just stop calling them that. It's like how crawfish are also called mudbugs, but not when you are eating them. So instead, you market the rot-weevils as something more pleasant sounding like chicken-critters. Next, find a way to cook them that is good to the culture you are trying to appeal to. It might take a few decades for chicken-critters to become mainstream, but once they are, it will be much harder to get people to stop eating them than it was to get them to start.
Lastly, as pointed out in comments, you should be careful about hiding what kind of meat people are eating for safety reasons. If chicken-critters can cause allergic reactions the same way that shellfish do, then marketing them as something else could kill people who would otherwise know to avoid this kind of meat.
† *This exact recipe may or may not be un-appealing to a medieval European pallet. In the late medieval period, most of these spices were commonly consumed by the bourgeoisie and nobility, but Cayenne pepper and paprika were not available yet as these are native to North America. These could be substituted with peppercorn for a very similar flavor profile, or you could go for a completely different recipe all together. From a worldbuilding perspective: what tastes good is only defined by what you say tastes good to the people you are writing about.*
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/ef9Jf.jpg)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Gs1h0.jpg)
[Answer]
**Sausage.**
The Jungle is now remembered for how Sinclair advocated for worker's rights. But the most memorable parts for me were the parts describing how sausage was made.
THE JUNGLE -- Upton Sinclair
[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/SINCLAIR/ch14.html](http://xroads.virginia.edu/%7EHyper/SINCLAIR/ch14.html)
>
> There was never the least attention paid to what was cut up for
> sausage; there would come all the way back from Europe old sausage
> that had been rejected, and that was moldy and white--it would be
> dosed with borax and glycerine, and dumped into the hoppers, and made
> over again for home consumption. There would be meat that had tumbled
> out on the floor, in the dirt and sawdust, where the workers had
> tramped and spit uncounted billions of consumption germs. There would
> be meat stored in great piles in rooms; and the water from leaky roofs
> would drip over it, and thousands of rats would race about on it. It
> was too dark in these storage places to see well, but a man could run
> his hand over these piles of meat and sweep off handfuls of the dried
> dung of rats. These rats were nuisances, and the packers would put
> poisoned bread out for them; they would die, and then rats, bread, and
> meat would go into the hoppers together. This is no fairy story and no
> joke; the meat would be shoveled into carts, and the man who did the
> shoveling would not trouble to lift out a rat even when he saw one--
> there were things that went into the sausage in comparison with which
> a poisoned rat was a tidbit...
>
>
>
Yeah your bugs are sounding pretty good now. Bug meat sausage is the way to go. Mix it with the other meat you have handy, spice, maybe some borax and gelatin and ... delicious sausage!
[Answer]
Bug... the new white meat!
Actually the easiest solution would be to make a protein-rich soup and strain out all the recognizable bits.
Just make sure to season it well. Think about hot dogs. If it is convenient and tastes good, most people won't care what it is made of.
[Answer]
**Grind it into powder, Bake it into bread**
You can make [bread, pasta, and more](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insects_as_food#Insect_food_products) out of insects, and nobody would think to question it.
[Answer]
## Branding makes it Better
Some examples from a quick google search:
* Toothfish (aka "Chilean sea bass")
* Mud crabs (aka "peekytoe crab")
* Slimehead (aka "orange roughy")
Brand it something like "fresh water lobster" or "land lobster"
[Answer]
## Meat pies
[Meat pies](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat_pie) were very popular in the Middle Ages, partly because they kept well, and partly because all sorts of leftovers could be ground into them, much as into frankfurters today. And they were sold ready-to-eat out of stalls, in retail, while most other meat was bought raw and cooked at home. The ideal way to disguise and market insect meat, in the medieval milieu.
[Answer]
**Marketing.** People can eat anything as long as it is believed to
enhances your 'performance'.
This is sadly one reason many animals are getting extincted...
[Answer]
This seems more of a cookery question than a worldbuilding question.
Seeing as your question is tagged medieval-europe, I suppose that's your setting. A lot of stews were eaten then. The insects could be ground and added to the stew. Sausage, as someone mentioned, is also a great idea.
] |
[Question]
[
Sieges are not a mystery. Bribe someone to open the gate or starve them out are the popular options. And actual assaults are not very common. Sun Tzu would even advice to
>
> And the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities. The rule is,
> not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided.
>
>
>
The armies of the past used clever and scientific methods to assault fortifications.
Rams, towers, ladders tied to the ground, raising a mound, sapping the walls, using stone throwing engines, using protected stuff to get under the walls...etc.
Yet one wonders if our current scientific theories in say mathematics or engineering or physicists can actually influence older designs of any older equipment?
And that is the heart of the question. Imagine a scenario in which we have a science loving king in a prosperous kingdom in 14 century Europe world.
The king hears of this bright scientist.
The king then sends for that person and then as he is the king he commissions him to make him siege engines.
The purpose is that the king is gearing up for a war in the future 2-4 years. The opposing kingdom uses the latest and best fortified cities/castle that Europe had in the 14th century, so the king wants to have the edge against them.
The dreaded budget is basically the king telling him that his 14th century Europe kingdom will offer him vast resources to help him (Much like [Urban](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orban) and Mehmed II) But as they are in 14th century Europe; the genius of that person is limited by materials and people to help him as well as the purpose of siege engines and time and lastly the fact that the king expect him to do something somewhat better.
What is a siege engine?
>
> A siege engine is a device that is designed to break or circumvent
> heavy castle doors, thick city walls and other fortifications in siege
> warfare
>
>
>
Now history is full of entire nations falling into the whims of Royalty so I don't think it's complete insanity to imagine this.
That person is very smart and for the purpose of limiting this question [I don't get why letting people be a little creative is frowned upon]
He only knows up to our theories in those fields: mathematics, engineering, and physicists. Those is what I imagine are vital in making siege engines. But I could be wrong.
He is then expected to try his best.
**If yes do you have an idea? If no can you explain more?**
A list of limitations
* 2-4 years of making his stuff.
* Do better than what already exist in 14 century Europe's siege equipment.
* Actually come up with a siege equipment not tell the king to bribe people.
* 14 century technology.
* Wealthy kingdom with vast resources but limited to the time.
* He is only a genius (Up to what we know now) in those fields.
Thank you for all the suggestions and I'm really sorry for those who answered before editing the question, I appreciate the input nevertheless.
[Answer]
20th Century knowledge.
One person
Unlimited access to the resources of a ***prosperous*** small kingdom.
14th century tech available. Important note: this is 1300's ***NOT*** 1400's
The kingdom is prosperous, thus the Great Famine and the Black Death have not arrived yet. So this places our scenario somewhere between 1300 and 1315.
Gunpowder is known, but almost no clue what to do with it.
Fortifications are optimized to defend against bows and infantry, and to serve as cavalry bases for sorties.
Iron is common. Wrought iron is a novelty, not really explored yet. Steel is known of but not understood at all.
Here is a quick action plan for your inventor:
* Make nitroglycerine, and promptly safe it with diatomaceous earth, making dynamite. This is easy, as all it requires is nitric acid, glycerin, alcohol, and a disposable number of worker to do the stirring, draining and purifying. In a production facility far, far away from anything valuable. All of the feedstock chemicals are known and available in the era.
* Draw up the specs for a large-bore low-pressure brass cannon. Give this to the royal metalsmiths. With supervision, they should be able to cast a reliable mortar-type cannon within 2 years. Unfortunately we won't be able to load our dynamite in the cannon, it is too shock sensitive. But it is a big, expensive, brass thingy that will impress the King very much.
* Make a basic montgolfier-type hot air balloon, to use for scouting and enemy observations.
For actual sieges:
* Trebuchet-launched Dynamite packages
* Brass cannon firing solid shot
* Tunnels, with explosives once under the walls.
* balloon(s) for observation
# OK, that's the flashy stuff, to satisfy the King.
***Here is what your timetraveller genius *actually* does:***
* "invent" wheelbarrows. Yes, they didn't know about them(despite the Chinese having used them for 2000 years by then). This about doubles productivity of miners, and helps in many other sectors. This *hugely* boosts industry.
* invent a simple cypher, allowing the king's messengers to carry messages around with no chance of the enemy reading or faking them. This *hugely* boosts military and financial intelligence.
Yes cyphers were known before this. But they were not in common usage because they were not at all secure. Modern techniques can make very simple public-key cyphers that are easy enough to work with, but *cannot* be broken or faked without some serious mathematics.
Combine the cypher with a system of [Semaphore towers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph) for rapid communication over distances.
* invent basic sanitation and hygiene theories. Teach people that crap in the streets not only stinks, but actually causes illness. That cats are good, because they kill rats, not agents of evil. That a simple wash with water and soap before surgery on your wounded soldiers will better than triple their post-op survival rate. This *hugely* boosts general health and resistance to diseases.
* Make and bottle penicillin extract. Do NOT tell anyone it is extract of mouldy bread. Say it is a "Blessed Tincture of Rare Oils Blessed by a Touch of a Holy Saint bearing a splinter of the True Cross", or some similar pseudoreligious doubletalk.
With any luck, your intervention will allow your kingdom to sidestep the [Great Famine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_of_1315%E2%80%931317), and the later [Black Death Plague](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Death), thereby ensuring their supremacy over the entire region.
[Answer]
Stuff a modern engineer can do which will quickly reduce any late medieval fortress:
* Dynamite and TNT: any self-respecting chemist can make them, and they would be devastating against late medieval walls and gates.
* Shrapnel shells (launched by catapults if you don't like cannon) which will quickly convince the few maimed survivors of the defense force to surrender.
* Steam-powered bulldozers which will be practically immune to any defensive weapons and will quickly undermine the walls.
* Real incendiary projectiles (napalm or phosphorus, your choice). There was lots of wood behind those walls.
In fact, given that the task is to devise siege methods against 15th century fortresses, you don't even need a "modern" engineer. All you need is a Renaissance-era military engineer well versed in the art of siege: by the late 1500s they had developed a comprehensive theory of approaching the walls with a triple line of trenches (called "siege parallel"), with the goal of digging tunnels under them, filling them with gunpowder and making it go boom.
Late medieval style fortresses, with their romantic high walls and lofty towers became utterly obsolete by the late 1500s; there was a very good reason for that. Bringing in technological knowledge from the 21st century is overkill; even technology from the 18th century would be crushing.
[Answer]
Trebuchets are still used in combat! They were used in the Syrian civil war to throw bombs and in Ukraine during the Hrushevskoho Street riots! They're also widely used to teach physics and engineering and are popular among hobbyists, so many improvements have been made since medieval times!
Floating arm trebuchet: <https://youtu.be/UzdSB1znJ2k>
This guy has been optimizing everything on a trebuchet. Here he uses a "whip it trebuchet": <https://youtu.be/-gn2RGPqe_A>
A wiki for such things: <http://thehurl.wikidot.com/trebuchet:trebuchets>
Also note that DaVinci's catapult was designed after the medieval period.
Kinda tangential, but I would like to see someone use a flywheel to power a stone-slinging pitching machine. That's about the only way to improve on a ballista for anti-air that I can think of (without gunpowder). Such a device would also be faster firing than any extant seige weapon if you used a hopper to funnel the stones between the wheels.
[Answer]
>
> Will **that person**, using our current theories, be able to produce
> better siege engines or improve what already existed?
>
>
>
Aye, and therein is the rub.
"**that person**'.
Just one person. No army of engineers, technicians, teachers, or tradesmen. No one else has any clue as to manufacturing techniques, craftsman skils, chemical experience, or even knowledge.
"Get me ten kilograms of phosphorous.'
'Yes. m'Lord. But if you please, Ummm, what is thing called "phosphorous"? Where do I find it? How do I recognize it? Oh, and what is a kilogram?'
How do you translate our knowledge into terms they would understand? And what is the life expectancy of 'this person'?
First, this person would have to **teach** a team of scholars, who would then teach others. Not just knowledge, but skills and methods, terms and definitions, materials identification.
Even something as simple as thermite - extremely useful for creating extremely high temperatures capable of melting and welding steel and iron. Made of aluminum powder and iron oxide. Today, rally basic tuff, easily obtained. But they didn't even know what an oxide was, or even where to look for aluminum, let alone refine and process it. He would have to first teach a small cadre of associates before he could even discuss his ideas, let alone have anything built.
Knowledge alone is not sufficient. You need people with the abilities to use this knowledge in practical ways.
And reacall what happened to Capernicus. Run against the scholars of the time, and all the best knowledge you can muster will not save your hide. You have to convince the ones that will implement your knowledge of its veracity. Without, of course, being called a witch, evil sorcerer, or devil. Can you imagine someone with thermite showing up at the court? They would either worship you as a god, or kill you as the devil.
Methinks diplomacy and politics are a very big part of the equation, and can not be dismissed. This person would need to have a complete understanding of their culture, customs, and political power structure as well.
But if he DID manage to make it, a huge thermite explosion in front of ANY beseiged city would reduce the defenders to whimpering mush. It would be seen as the power of the gods. It scares the shite out of even today's students when the teacher demonstrates even a minute amount of it. No need to break down the walls, and really no super-advanced bewildering technology necessary. Only the ability to identify iron and aluminum, and some basic metalutgical skills to process it. Just the THREAT of being able to harness such power.
Same with [amonium nitrate](https://sciencenotes.org/make-ammonium-nitrate/). Easy to make from commonly available household chemicals. Recall that it was nitrate fertilizer that blew up an entire port complex, and left a huge crater. Very big badda boom. Wait - they did not have these 'commonly available household chemicals' back then, so first he would have to teach them how to make these echemicals out of other chemicals. And, of course, teach them how to make THOSE chemicals. See a pattern? What is common to us, is not so common to them. He would for sure be seen as a wizzard, a sorcerer, or whatever they called them where he was. But he would certainly need to be a very good teacher.
Theoretically, he could know how to build a nuclear weapon, and they could build one. But first he would have to teach them metalurgy, engineering, physics, manufacturing, uranium mining and enrichment. After that, they could easily build one. But with adequate knowledge and education, they could build nuclear power plants as well. In a hundred years or so, to build the education system first.
This question is so open-ended in scope, it is difficult to answer, but at the furthest end of the scope it is an unequivocal 'yes, but'. At the other end, the 'but' becomes 'But then again, he could be put to death as soon as he opended his mouth'.
[Answer]
Modern (i.e. 21st century) theories and engineering are a bit too modern, relying on too advanced resources and machinery. 'That person' better be a military history buff with some hands-on experience (e.g. reenactment).
Otherwise, 2 to 4 years is not enough time for the necessary research to bootstrap the technology. You can introduce the scientific methdo itself, but it will pay off in 49 years, not 4. Advanced metallurgy will enable many other advances (better cannon, for staters) but you have to redevelop everything from mining to smelting, and unless you know exactly where the mines are and what to do with the ore, it might take 20 years...
However, there are still some possibilities:
* 14th century is a good era to "invent" the telescope. Not the decisive tool for a siege, but very nice for other types of warfare
* Communication. Introduce Morse code and a heliograph. Again, less useful tactically for a siege than strategically.
* Germ theory. Order the soldiers to dig the latrines at least 100 paces from the camp and "I'll rip your ass if you shit elsewhere! And wash your hands before eating! Yes, I know it is silly, just do it!" and it will be a game changer, compared with a typical 14th century campain.
[Answer]
### You can supercharge a biological siege using modern knowledge.
The purpose of the siege is to capture the city, not destroy it. Starving, poisoning, or infecting were the traditional approaches. We can do those things better with modern knowledge, yes.
Disease often killed more troops than combat: So the first thing I'd use modern knowledge for is infection control - keep my troops away from the city while horrible biological / chemical things are happening. My troops have clean water to drink, and soap for washing their hands regularly.
The second thing I'd use modern knowledge for is to isolate and gather a bacterial infection. I'd suggest [Anthrax](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax), as it can be extracted from Cows. Following what's on the wikipedia page one could grow and multiply Anthrax into a large quantity.
Aerosolised anthrax with 20th century or earlier treatment had a fatality rate of [90% - 97%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthrax#Prognosis) when inhaled. That will wipe out your enemy.
Anthrax can be burnt or killed with formaldehyde, which can be produced in a medieval setting if you've got a good blacksmith working for you making something that can be heated for 650 degrees C (low quality wine -> distillation of methanol in reflux still -> heat methanol vapour in presence of silver).
I'd expect the 3 in 100 survivors to flee and surrender, so you'll have a nice collection of prisoners of war to put in harms way for a speedier decontamination. Give them a bucket of formaldehyde and instruct them to clean the entire city in return for keeping their life.
If they don't surrender, you'll need to fight 3-10% of the enemy army, weak from lung infections. Your side will of practiced fighting in masks, know to wash their hands, etc.
[Answer]
Production techniques for hydrogen were discovered in 1671. This opens up all sorts of options for flying over the walls.
You could combine with paratroopers and airdrop ideas, so that the siege platforms are never even close to being exposed to arrows and spears.
TNT was discovered in1891, but is readily producible with 14th century elements of glycerine, aqua fortis (nitric acid), and oil of vitriol (sulfuric acid). A little bit of that goes a long way to sapping walls.
[Answer]
**hot air balloons**
The first ones were made [out of paper](https://www.space.com/16595-montgolfiers-first-balloon-flight.html). Which was already present at medieval times. Sure, your balloon won't use nylon, there will be holes, but it is only about maintaining a temperature difference between inside and outside the balloon.
I found a nice [article](https://www.real-world-physics-problems.com/hot-air-balloon-physics.html) with simple physics on the topic. You can lift 711kg with a $2800m^3$ balloon with air at a temperature of $100°C$. Which means you balloon made of crude medieval materials and fuel can weight 500kg, you can still have a light 50kg daredevil with 100kg of molotov cocktails (or stones and arrows) aboard.
Even if your materials and fuel are really crappy, the amount of weight you have to lift grows like a surface, $diameter^2$. The force that will carry you grows like the volume of a sphere, $diameter^3$. This nice square-cube law plays in your favor. You can do estimations of the size your balloon needs to be before actually asking to your workers.
Interestingly, "science guy" only needs high-school level physics (law of ideal gases, Archimede's force, ...).
For the fuel (or the stuff you drop), note that distillation was known at the time (hence alcohol), and oil as well.
[Answer]
Biological warfare--specifically, the black death.
Make some flea-resistant suits, send some soldiers to a place with the plague to gather rats and keep them safely contained. Add more rats gathered along the way to keep the population up. Bring a whole bunch of rats to the siege, infect them, attach streamers (you don't need to get fancy making true parachutes) wrap the rats up in their streamers (experiment to figure out how to wrap them to get the streamers to deploy properly) and trebuchet them into the city. The rats will gnaw off the streamers and now your city is flooded with plague.
If there is cholera anywhere around gather as much shit from it's victims as you can, lob it into the city also.
I would stay away from anthrax due to it's persistence.
[Answer]
*Several other responses provide useful means for completely obliterating the typical siege targets (castles, walled cities, etc) and/or making them uninhabitable for a long time. **This is not what a siege is meant to do.***
*Sieges usually are all about gaining control over places, not destroying them. A successful siege should render the place defenseless while causing as little damage as possible to both the structures and the inhabitants.*
That said...
## Gold projectiles
*This may sound like a joke, but assuming budget is not a problem...*
Gold is certainly, by much, the densest material readily (for the very wealthy, that is) available at the time. It's almost 10x denser than your typical rock. That means, when launched from a trebuchet or catapult, it is able to carry almost 10x the kinetic energy than a piece of rock the same size.
Of course, gold is soft, which makes it a poor choice of material for piercing projectiles. Your science guy would probably know about full metal jacket ammo, and coating a golden core with something like steel shouldn't be hard for a skilled smith.
This should give you a huge attack boost against stone walls, a single impact might be enough to shatter a wall section. That is, provided you're able to reinforce your siege machine enough to generate the required power without breaking apart. Your guy and your lack of scarcity should be able to do this (having a better understanding of the load distribution, reinforcing critical parts with stronger materials like steel, etc)
As a bonus, you're already besieging the place you're throwing gold at, so it won't go anywhere. Your own victorious soldiers won't be able to sneak out carrying a half-ton ball of gold either. You should be able to get most of it back, once you've breached the walls and secured the city by conventional means (infantry storming the breach).
## Gold counterweight
Again, budget and density. According to Wikipedia (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trebuchet#Comparison_of_different_artillery_weapons>), a 6000 kg counterweight gets you a 200 meter range for 100 kg projectiles. Using gold instead of stone gives you either more range, heavier projectiles, or both. Again, you'll need to reinforce the trebuchet for the additional load.
## Ballistics
Of course, medieval siege engineers already had their rules of thumb for estimating trajectories. However, your guy has a modern understanding of the physics involved in hurling things and watching them fall.
After a few experiments and some manual calculation and measuring, they will be able to produce rather precise data for every "if you put X more pounds on the counterweight, the Y pounds projectiles will fall Z steps further". This will result in far more accurate aiming and more reproducible shots, even when your guy is not there.
## Low explosives and detonators
Many available materials can be used to create a localized damage. Carbon, oil, alcohol, metals, even flour can deflagrate under the right conditions. Primitive gunpowder is definitely possible. Your guy knows all of this.
Your guy might also know how to ignite a spark by many different means. This means you can have impact detonators (two chemicals separated inside glass vials which break and allow them to mix), time detonators (strong acid inside something like a bladder which dissolves a hole after some time), fuses (a string soaked in something flammable)... whatever you need.
Instead of using a battering ram, your guy can devise a bomb that can be planted in front of the main door.
## Airborne infantry
Your guy will know about chutes, gliders, kites, etc. Of course, without modern materials you're really limited to start with. That doesn't mean you can't launch some soldiers from a modified trebuchet and instruct them to deploy some variation of a large sheet while they fall.
The thing will be barely survivable at best. However, after testing a few prototypes (hopefully not with human subjects, but this is a medieval setting after all), I'm pretty sure your guy can give them a better chance than being the topmost man in a siege ladder.
] |
[Question]
[
This question graduated from the [Sandbox for Proposed Questions](https://worldbuilding.meta.stackexchange.com/a/8413/55314)
---
## Question
In my world, clothing and armor can be enchanted to grant protective effects. Clothing can be as thin as sheer silk, but still be strong enough to completely nullify a blow from a warhammer (or stronger).
My question is this. Given the information about my magic system below, what mechanic can I use to prevent a wealthy person from wearing a dozen layers of thin, enchanted clothing and becoming essentially invincible?
---
## My Magic System
### How is magic manifested?
Magic is energy in the world that casters take into themselves to become their own energy, which they then use for enchantments. However, a skilled magician can draw from ambient energy (has the least effect) or draw directly from their own energy (has the greatest effect), or between the two (moderates the effect).
### What's the cost of using it?
Magicians pay nothing to cast an enchantment, but the amount of energy (ambient or personal) is limited. If there isn't enough energy to complete an enchantment, it will fail.
### Can a person wear two magic rings on the same finger?
This question was asked in the Sandbox and I understand its point. I would prefer "yes" because I'd like people to have, for example, both a Ring of Fireball and a Ring of Shield on one finger. However, if a person stacks a bunch of Rings of Shield on all their fingers... that's actually what I'm trying to stop. So at the moment, I'm not sure what to do. (The outcome of this question will help me make that decision.)
### What stops a magic user from casting a spell?
Running out of energy obviously stops the spell. Knocking them unconscious stops a spell. Disturbing them too much stops the spell (but the bar is set really high for most spells.) There are no "null-magic zones" where all spells are stopped no matter what, because even if you drain the ambient energy, the user will usually still have an internal storage of energy.
### (Extra) Setting Flavor
The setting is a mix of (800s) East Asia and (1400s) Europe. Lots of tall, steep mountains with rugged terrain. Magic feels mystical rather than scientific. Medieval fantasy genre with Asian influence.
[Answer]
## No one knows why, and that's okay for your setting
>
> Magic feels mystical rather than scientific.
>
>
>
Normally I don't like answers that say you don't need to know the answer to a question, but this is one of those rare cases where knowing the answer is actually counter productive to the setting. Any explanation we could give would be a law of nature in your world making magic seem scientific rather than mystical. So the very act of explaining why it happens goes against the theme of your setting.
Part of what makes not explaining it okay is because we are already used to seeing this mechanic in so many different videogames that modern audiences don't really question it anymore. What you are describing is so common that it already has a name that most gamers recognize: "non-stacking buffs", and they are so ubiquitous in game settings that no one really questions WHY they exist anymore, they just accept that they do exist and move on.
While video games are more forgiving about mechanics that only exist for balancing purposes, a narrative setting might be less so. The best way to approach this problem in a narrative setting without making magic less mysterious is to [lampshade](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LampshadeHanging) it:
>
> **Apprentice:** Master, if all these shirts give you minor fire resistance, why not just stack them together and become super fire resistant?
>
>
> **Master:** Hahah, oh silly boy, magic does not work like that! I would only become as fire resistant as the best shirt in the stack.
>
>
> **Apprentice:** Why is that?
>
>
> **Master:** Why does a suit of chainmail making casting a spell so much harder? Why can I use a teleportation spell to teleport my enemies, but I can not use it to teleport the heads off of my enemies? How does a dragon fly with such small wings? If these questions had answers, then it would not be magic, would it? Magic is what it is, nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
>
Lampshading is a useful convention where you know an aspect of your world defies common logic; so, instead of leaving your audience to question why people don't do something that seems obvious, you simply explain (or better yet, show) that it does not work in your setting.
My favorite example of this is the difference between StarTrek and SG:Atlantis transporters:
>
> Both settings have slower than light torpedos and transporters. In StarTrek, everyone at some point asks themselves why no one ever transports a torpedo directly into an enemy ship, but in SG:Atlantis it is one of the very first things humans think to do once they get transporter technology, but it only takes the Wraith a few moments to figure out how to jam the transporters thus removing the obvious exploit from the narrative. No one needs to understand how or why transporter jamming works, they just need to know that it is a thing.
>
>
>
[Answer]
So an idea would be to say that all enchanted items have a limited radius to draw magic from, say 3 meters. we could also say that the more enchanted items you carry the more they try to draw from the same magic, like siblings fighting over a toy. This means that all the enchanted items become less powerful, the more items you have.
so say someone had 10 rings on and 15 layers of enchanted clothing, then they would be less powerful than someone with 3 rings and 1 layer of enchanted clothing, as the second person protection would both be stronger and attacks stronger. This is because as they have less enchanted items taking magic from around the mage, thus there is more efficient magic use, thus more energy for the enchanted items to utilise.
This could also limit mages power, as they become more powerful the larger their reach/radius to be able to gather magic.
[Answer]
In two abjurations stacking a person in this world has two independently designed abjurations that are doing the same thing.
For a digital metaphor, look at anti virus software. You can install 2, 3, or more vendors’ antivirus packages; but they aren’t meant to work together. And in most cases they work against one another - either repeating the same checks (at a cost of more processing time), but yielding no additional protection, or worse quarantining one another’s work, actively working against one another.
The same may be true of any magical effects that do the same thing to the same person at the same time, but weren’t designed to work in concert like that.
It might be that the +2 ring of protection is two +1 rings designed to get along. Still they won’t stack well past their design limits, because the arcanists involved didn’t design that extra capacity. A +3 ring might be this extra extension of the magic, done by a competent arcanist.
[Answer]
**Magic combinations have unanticipated effects.**
Your 10 silks might be additive as your wearer hopes. Maybe they are more than that. Maybe he becomes untouchable by the world. Maybe he becomes imperceptible to the world. He is like a ghost, on another plane. Maybe he is untouchable even to himself and he cannot grab them to take them off. Invincible! And getting thirsty...
Magic items can be synergistic, or antagonistic. Stacking magic always produces effects outside of what the original magics did. These "stack effects" might vary according to time, place or person and they are very difficult to use predictable.
But very fun to write about!
[Answer]
**Magic resonance/radiation**
To take this in a slightly different direction, rather than disallowing stacking, each magical item could emit a magic "radiation" of sorts.
While the radiation itself could be harmless and some items could be combined safely, stacking too many small sources or combining powerful sources of magic could result in the magical equivalent of nuclear "critical mass" and have devastating effects on their user and anyone/anything around them.
The effect could vary based on the types of magic imbued into these items, but as long as someone has attempted it and others have heard the tales, they will be very careful about how many items are used at once.
[Answer]
**Parallel Execution**
Enchantment effects trigger simultaneously, not sequentially. They run in parallel and have no "knowledge" of each other. The one that takes longest and resolves last overwrites the others.
**Here are some examples:**
*Cloak of the Rock: 10 damage protection
Shirt of Minor Protection: 5 damage protection*
**First, let's look at sequential resolution:**
1. Attack does 100 damage
2. Cloak receives 100 as input and reduces it to 90
3. Shirt receives 90 as input and reduces it to 85
4. Net protection: 15
**Now, parallel resolution:**
1. Attack does 100 damage
2. Cloak and Shirt both trigger with 100 as input
3. Shirt (being simpler) resolves first, setting result to 95
4. Cloak resolves, setting result to 90
5. Net protection: 10
There are a couple major benefits to this system. First: the more powerful effect is likely to take the longest, thus becoming the end result. Second: separate, distinct effects on the same item could be handled individually.
Here's an example of this:
*Cloak of the Pointy Rock: 10 damage resistance, 5 damage to attacker
Shirt of Thorny Protection: 5 damage resistance, 10 damage to attacker*
1. Attack does 100 damage
2. Cloak resistance, Cloak damage, Shirt resistance and Shirt damage trigger
3. Shirt protection resolves, setting damage taken to 95
4. Cloak damage resolves, setting damage dealt to 5
5. Cloak protection resolves, setting damage taken to 90
6. Shirt damage resolves, setting damage dealt to 10
7. Net result: Protection: 10, Damage to attacker: 10
It might sound a little complicated, but in the end it greatly simplifies the system. If enchantments overlap, just take the highest value and ignore the rest. This way you can stack up as many shirts or rings or hats or whatever you want as long as they each provide some unique value. If you want more protection, the only option is to acquire an item with a greater protection enchantment than anything you already have.
[Answer]
**Magic Shields Should Block Magic**
This should seem pretty obvious and self explanatory, such that this is its own solution. A magic defensive item that doesn't block magical attacks from harming the wearer is useless, therefore enchanted defensive items have the property that they block magic. Now, *how will a magic device underneath another magic shield get its ambient energy to power its own defensive enchantments if there is a shield around it that is blocking magical powers*? It cannot. The ambient magic to power the second artifact will not be able to pass through the existing magic barrier.
* The magical artifacts are commanded by the user and the user alone. They are not commanded by another artifact. Therefore, a mage can cast their own magic freely, but other defensive artifacts cannot order each other to let themselves through each other's barriers. Such a backdoor would put every defensive artifact user at risk from an override magic made to turn defensive artifacts off in combat, or by their own artifacts opening holes in their own defenses to recharge each other.
* Another thought is that the magical barriers will reject and push against each other. How can a mere unthinking artifact tell the difference from a blade of hard magic and a hard magic shield? The user could still be bludgeoned or crushed to death by a blunt magic attack, so they would protect against everything. This would include another bit of magic encircling your existing defenses. After all, those shields could in theory close and crush the wearer, so the inner layer would have ample reason to push additional barriers away from the inside.
[Answer]
**Limited ambient magic.**
If you just gather power and set it off, it will do whatever it does and then run out. A fireball or a magical shield happens and then vanishes. In order to produce a continual effect, there needs to be a continual supply of magical energy.
However, there's only so much energy to go around. If you have 10 different magical items on your person, they each only get 1/10th of the magical energy from you and your vicinity. Adding more items spreads that energy more thinly, without significantly increasing the amount available. You'll have more magical effects, but they'll be weaker (which might be acceptable for some applications that don't need that much raw power, but would limit how much you could stack up at once).
[Answer]
# **Enchanted Objects are not Sources of power, but merely Filters for Manifesting.**
Each Enchanted object would simply allow a use to take their internal magical energy and to manifest it in a way designed by the object. The higher quality the object, the better it manifests it. A very high quality Ring of Shielding will allow you to take your energy and convert it very effectively into a Shield. A lower quality one does the same thing, but at a worse rate. Likely, each ring also has a maximum amount of energy it can convert.
With those mechanics, you cannot stack things indefinitely. Each Object can convert a certain amount of energy. Once the total of your Objects exceeds your own total Energy, they start to compete for the resources.
In this world, a person's Magical Energy levels acts like an interval maximum capacity and determines how many objects they can work with at once and of what quality.
[Answer]
## Animism is true for spells.
Whenever you cast a spell, the spell is actually sentient. This helps in casting the spell. It is more intelligent and able to react to circumstances than might otherwise be expected.
But, if you try to cast the same spell several times in a row, it usually gets jealous and fights other versions. They all want to be your spell, so they'll destroy the other inferior copies. The normal result of this is both spells collapsing.
[Answer]
**Magical Resistors**
Well, if you are okay with a bit of tweaking of your magic system, you could draw from how resistors and electricity does work. For that, your magic-user would act as some kind of electric conductor, the magic as some kind of electricity.
If a spell hits a target that can conduct magic, it would apply magical energy on that target. Feel free to use the aura of living things or stuff like that for the magic conductor.
Anyway, now the interesting part: To safeguard themself from the dangerous magic electricity, one can wear rings of protection... or other stuff that acts to magic like a resistor to electricity. The more magic-ohm, the better the effect.
Now, multiple protective elements on the same *conductor* are connected in parallel (not sure if that is correct in English... "parallel schalten" in German). And like electric resistors, magic energy connected in parallel do not add up, but... share the magic.
Or better, you get hit with magic while wearing three rings of magic resistance with 100magiOhm each.
*Rmagic = (1/100)+(1/100)+(1/100)*
if you want more resistance, you need to connect in serial, which happens by... three magic user, each wearing one ring of magic resistance, holding hands:
*Rmagic = 100 + 100 + 100*
would that work for you?
[Answer]
## What happens when an unstoppable force of armor gets pushed back and hits an immoveable silk cloth? They become brittle and prone to breaking apart.
Even if you magically can make silk strong enough to withstand a War Hammer blow, it's still going to have to move to have the user wears it.
If you put armor on top of it, now you have two things that need to move with the user - and the upper layer responds by changes from the lower layer. Unless your armor is designed to withstand those movement effects and be kind of stilted in movement, that's going to have to happen.
You'll probably appear to be lucky at first, but when the upper layer suddenly needs to slightly adjust to a bit of power involved and force being soaked up, it clashes into the lower layer.
If it does so at multiple points, you might end up with an effect like the [one in this webcomic](http://www.sandraandwoo.com/gaia/2012/01/13/the-red-hall-031/).
In that comic, a mage is asked to choose spells from wands to destroy a dummy that has an existing shield around it.
Their solution? use a wand to cast another shield spell on top of it, then cast essentially Magic Missile - at the set of shields.
[Answer]
# Interferences.
Enchantments work like waves in a field. Very similar enchantments act like [coherent waves](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_(physics)), and interfere with each other. Their results are unpredictable. Theoretically, if they were totally coherent, that is and exactly the same, then their effects would stack perfectly, like constructive interferences (or annul perfectly, being destructive interferences). But since that is not possible in practice (even the slightest difference in the conditions of the creation of the enchantment, or in the enchantment techniques induces minor differences), the interference becomes completely unpredictable:
* some parts of the effect may stack: your two layers may be very good at shielding against bladed objects
* but some parts may interfere negatively: it might be even worse than regular cloth at defending against blunt damage
* worse, the parts that interfere constructively / destructively might vary over time. You might end up with a blinking armor, that is very resistant for one second, then very weak for the following one, then again very resistant, and repeat. Or a cloth that is resistant to a random type of weapon at each time… Or a ring that fires in a random direction… They can be very powerful items, but you really don’t want to use them.
Note that with that setting, it might be easy to interfere with another item user by using a similar item…
In contrast, very different enchantments act like incoherent waves and don’t interfere with each other.
[Answer]
# Magic is a field
A magical shield works by deflecting the mana field around it. This will protect you from attacks both physical and magical.
Now with gravity every charge attracts every other charge. With electricity, attraction and repulsion depend on charge signal. Let's say with mana all charges repel each other.
This means that if you are wearing both a ring of fire resistance and a pair of pants of levitation, you will be physically unable to scratch your own butt.
Good luck getting that enchanted armor plate inside that enchanted silk shirt.
[Answer]
You basically give the answer: there is a limited amount of mana available before it all stops working. Wearing several layers of armor just depletes your mana supply that much faster.
Using a few dozen rings would still limit you. I assume they would be activated with mental orders, so you would have to focus on each ring seperately to cast your spell. Even then you "simply" burn through your mana faster.
If you truly require it you can add limits like a maximum mana consumption rate per person, limiting the maximum things you can power simultaneously. Artifacts could also use mana regardless of you using them or not, meaning it takes mana to simply wear more and you can't have extra's as backup. You can also introduce things like mana burn if you use too much mana in a short timespan, or let different magical artifacts suck mana from other artifacts causing their supply to be haphazard or making it impossible for some things to be powered because another artifact is in the way.
[Answer]
### Mana exhaust
Depleted Mana is a thing and needs to escape into the environment as it interferes with spells working by wearing multiple layers you risk all of them becoming ineffective due to the exhaust. Depleted mana is hard to control as it clocks up any spell that touches which then in turn produces even more depleted mana.
This is usually not a problem, but as areas infused with magic prevent depleted mana from diffusing through it multiple layers are essentially a balloon that fills until catastrophic failure due to ever faster growing "depleted mana" concentration.
[Answer]
# Stacking is permissible, but its not feasible unless items are low quality.
But the main limitation is how many rings will fit on your fingers (or toes).
## Stored magic is good for X uses
For a magical vest to nullify the energy of a blow from a warhammer, a similar amount of energy needs to be put into the vest in the first place. Once the energy is depleted, it just becomes a normal vest again.
Some people choose to put defensive magic into rings instead of vests. These tend to last longer because they use, and nullify, a smaller portion of magic at a given time. In the case of a heavy blow, much of the force still makes it through. Some paranoid individuals acquire, and enchant, two dozen poorly fitting rings, jammed onto all their fingers, or toes. The smaller the better, and if it cuts off the circulation it only means the rings won't fall off - At least, not before their fingers.
Suppose an individual is correct to be so paranoid, at the end of the day, and his life, the only difference could be that one assassin is sent to kill him discretely, or half a dozen assassins are sent to clobber him to death in an alley with hammers.
## Suitable materials uncommon
Not all materials are suitable for all kinds of enchantments, and some are clearly better than others. Some materials are better as magical conductors, and others as magical insulators. Some will hold onto magic for a long time, whereas others will bleed magic quite quickly. Sometimes impurities will cause a material to react strangely, or dangerously, when infused with magic.
Ultimately, you're limited by whatever happens to be available on the market, or what you can import.
And, unless you are creating magic items for yourself, then as a buyer you need a seller too, or vice versa.
For a buyer, because the best rings are rare, you will settle for a few crappy rings of shield that need replacing every other adventure.
For a seller, because the best materials are rare, (and because there are many many willing buyers for cheap magical items) its more profitible to create a few dozen crappy rings of shield that can be sold to all sorts of people.
## Its not worth the money
A handful of high quality magic rings, such as to make an individual almost invulnerable, would bankrupt anyone, and make them a walking target.
Besides, they're only almost invulnerable to hard blows. They wouldn't prevent someone from stealing the rings straight from their hands. And a vest that blocks warhammer blows is still easily saturated with flammable oil.
So they're not *really* invulnerable.
[Answer]
Late entry here: **Assuming magic is some sort of a wave over ether, they interfere with one another**. With sufficient distance, the effect is negligible. After all strength of a field diminishes with the square of the distance. Different type of magic work as they have different frequencies. Even there might reduction in effectiveness in similar magic too.
[Answer]
I like the idea of the actual mechanism of a shield spell is that it is a surface that absorbs energy too close to your person. That energy could be physical or magical. A second shield spell would be magical energy close to your person and the multiple shield spells would essentially short each other out as the surfaces tried to absorb each others energy.
] |
[Question]
[
I have an idea that the seas of a world are red, not blue. However, the world should also be the birthplace of an intelligent alien species. Would it be scientifically possible to have a world with a red sea and where intelligent life can still develop?
[Answer]
Absolutely. [There's actually a sea on Earth which is red(ish)](https://www.livescience.com/32112-is-the-red-sea-really-red.html).
So it wouldn't take that much extrapolation to extend the algae planetwide and make it a brighter color. I'd think you'd want it to be loosely matted enough to provide flow of oxygen and sunlight, but that shouldn't be too hard to finesse.
[Answer]
I decided to delete my comment and answer the question.
Here's your problem:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tlSDz.gif)
This is a chart of color absorption for water. It shows that blue is reflected very well (water doesn't absorb blue). On the otherhand, it absorbs red very well (no reflection). It's exactly the opposite of what you want. But...
1. You can shift the solar color from yellow to red. This means less blue spectrum is transmitted to your world and more red. This would help (although the seas may appear more yellow than red), but they would appear dark since most of the red wavelengths are being absorbed. But, it's a blank canvas. *This is really important.*
2. We need your sun to pump out more ultraviolet. This means your aliens will be very naturally resistant to sunburns on other planets because they would have evolved natural UV protection. Why do we want this?
3. Because Chlorophyll glows red under ultraviolet light.
BUT! As with all things, you can't simply play with the dials on your planet without consquences. Many things glow under UV (a black light) and they'll be happily glowing, too. I've already mentioned the need to give your aliens natural UV protection. And playing with the sun's color means playing with the nature of vegitation. Can you get your intelligent aliens? Sure!
But it also means you need to pay attention to the details of what else will be affected by whatever solution you choose to make your seas red. For instance, the price you pay to get glowing chlorophyll is that you may not have it since your plants may need to find a way to thrive in a UV/Red predominant energy source. Whatever you choose, take the time to think through "what can go wrong with this?" It'll actually add a lot of cool interest to your story. ("What do you mean you can't eat lettuce? It's the most neutral plant on our planet!")
[Answer]
Sure. Just have a microorganism endemic to the seas that colours them red. Some sort of algae, maybe, that produces a red dye naturally as part of their life cycle. We kind of have that here on earth, manifesting as a [red tide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_tide) during algal blooms.
If the coloration is produced as part of the normal behaviour of the algae, rather than during oxygen-consuming blooms, you're good to go.
[Answer]
If the oceans contain very high concentrations of iron, in the form of rust, it would create a red ocean.
This environment would be ideal for [rust-eating microbes](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/40533835/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/new-species-rust-eating-bacteria-destroying-titanic/), which could form the base of oceanic food web in the same way photosynthetic plankton form the basis of our aquatic food webs.
What implications this has on your world's plant and animal life is outside the reach of my familiarity with biology, but I don't think it would necessarily preclude the development of intelligent lifeforms.
[Answer]
If you want a really exotic answer, perhaps your world has a [Fluorescein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorescein) ocean. Fluorescein is in essence a complex carbohydrate, or in other words an organic compound, that naturally 'red-shifts' light, absorbing photons and releasing longer wavelength, lower energy photons as a result.
It typically exists as a powder, but can be dissolved in water or alcohol, though not all that well. BUT - imagine if you will a world in which your oceans first formed with a lot of this compound in them, and your first underwater plants used photosynthesis to break down this compound, producing just enough oxygen for their needs. They couldn't release excess oxygen as this would wreak havoc with the fluorescein, but let's just say that they could metabolise the fluorescein via an endothermic reaction triggered by sunlight (or some other energy source).
Because it's in solution, it's not that hard to evolve out photosynthesising animals that metabolise the fluorescein more effectively through being mobile, and potentially even evolve predation (although there would be less need for that in this environment because your organisms have evolved in soup).
The catch with this is that you are unlikely to have a great oxygenation event, and therefore far less likely to have land based creatures, but it's *possible* you could develop intelligent life in a fluorescein ocean, breathing their food and oxygen supply straight out of the water.
[Answer]
***Your Ocean has a high hemoglobin content***
I would suggest using some sort of symbiotic system where said ocean thermally
convects hemoglobin to the surface where it absorbs Oxygen from the atmosphere.
This would create a bright red color. The convection along with the weight of
the molecule could then cause it to sink where a certain organisms in or on the bottom of the sea deplete the Oxygen where it will gradually turn a darker shade
of red, at which time it will convect upward beginning the cycle again. An
aquatic marine animal which has hemoglobin based blood and a special gland for absorbing the molecules would work. Perhaps the 'bloodfish' is responsible for,
or a result of this entire ecoaquatic system.
[Answer]
There are two easy ways:
1. The color "blue" is partially a function of light reflected by the sky. If the sky is red to the human eye, say due to dust, the water will be reddish.
2. On Earth, Chlorophyll (the green component of plants) actually reflects more red light than green. Our eyes are more sensitive to the green light than the red, so it appears green to our eyes. Plants that have slightly different chlorophyll or higher proportions of other pigments, such as the algae that @jdunlop mentions, do appear red to the human eye.
**Edit**
In spite of my memory, chlorophyll does not reflect more red than green, even when fluorescence is allowed for. The only way this makes sense with plant pigments is with carotenes or other red pigments.
[Answer]
The reason our own ocean is blue is because of the color of the sky. If your sky is red/orange, you might end up with a red ocean. You could also do what a couple others have said and try an alga that's red.
] |
[Question]
[
>
> An energy being or astral being is a theoretical life form that is composed of energy rather than matter.
>
>
>
We can kill a person by damaging his/her body physically. How about killing an energy being? You can't use a knife to stab an energy being. (Other physical attacks also don't work.)
I want to have a battle scene in my story. I watched some Japanese animations that involve energy beings, such as [Fate/zero](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate/Zero). I saw some energy beings using weapon to battle, and those energy beings act like matter being. They die when their bodies are heavily damaged. Also, those energy beings can hold physical objects. I don't know what the rationale is behind this.
[Answer]
Use a knife to stab the energy being.
Physical weaponry works against material beings by disrupting the body. A priori, there is no reason why energy beings should be immune.
Do walls pose an obstacle to your energy beings? Does the ground support them? If you answered yes, then your energy beings ought to be vulnerable to physical weaponry as well, since they work on the same principles.
Commonly, the "immunity" to physical weaponry that exotic beings enjoy is simply due to a lack of optimization. The weapons you use to kill a human are designed to cause the sort of damage that impairs humans.
E.g. a stab by kitchen knife can puncture organs and cut blood vessels, leading to organ failure or bleeding out. However, stabbing a water elemental doesn't sever anything important and does little. Slashing with a larger knife, though, could separate a limb from the main body, and thus rendering it inert as it no longer has the currents that carry the magic animating the elemental. The cutting board the knives were lying on might make for an even better slashing weapon.
OTOH the reverse can be true as well, where the physical being is the one with 'immunity'. Whacking a human with an antenna probably wouldn't do much more than cause pain and make them angry. But it could cause critical damage to that lightning elemental by forcing its way into the circuitry of its body and siphoning off some of the electric current.
Since it's your universe, you get to design the biology of your beings so that they are vulnerable to the things you need them to be vulnerable to, and resistant to the things you need them to be resistant to.
[Answer]
You can:
* Absorb its energy;
* Cut it off from its source, thus causing it to starve;
* Use energy weapons to destroy its energy body.
Energy cannot be destroyed, it can only be transformed... Just like matter can't be destroyed, it can only be transformed as well. When you hack a physical being's body, you are just rearranging its matter in a way that does not sustain life. The same should be valid for the energy of energy beings.
[Answer]
From a physics point of view, life is about lowering your own entropy by transferring it outside your body.
Now, I don't know how your energy being exactly works, but you can either try to starve it or overfeed it.
* Starve it: Find a way to perfectly isolate it. A strong electromagnetic field or a black hole should do the trick. The being's entropy will rise and it won't be able to expel it.
* Overfeed it: Put a lot of energy around it. I suggest a hydrogen bomb or heavy metal music. The being won't be able to control its entropy and burn.
[Answer]
Continuing with the general concept introduced by Renan, you need weapons that operate on the same kind of “energy” as the being. It is made from patterns and has a state determined by dynamic interactions, since energy isn't *stuff* you can build with.
So you use the same kind of energy, disrupt or jam the patterns, or something that interacts with that energy so it can dampen it or prevent the patterns from perpetuating themselves.
One such thing made of the same energy working in the same manner would of course be another such being. So a trained attack dog (analog) or a nest of angry beetles (analog) or a *disease* would be good. You didn’t think there was only one energy being, right? It’s part of an ecosystem.
The advantage of using another energy animal is that you don't have to understand the energy and invent something. Just find what exists already.
[Answer]
*There's a question here of whether you're trying to kill a single being or commit genocide. I'm going to assume the former.*
As has already been mentioned, energy is conserved, however energy can be converted into another form. In this case, sound.
First you need a way of containing your being, forcefields of some sort are fine as they'll be self generating for the duration.
Once you have captured and contained your being, an exercise left to the reader, simply shove a terminal through him, plug in your sound system and the power controller for your force fields and you're good to party all night long.
[Answer]
What you need is an empty battery. Lots and lots of empty batteries.
Attach some 'clamps' to said energy being and charge up your batteries. Leaving your energy-being depleted and defeated.
Such clamps can be in the form of conducting rods (swords), cables/ nets (whips or nets), oh and resistors (Shields).
Don't forget to surround your defensive position with a 'circle of salt' water. Energy-beings hate salt water. This should prevent surprise attacks from behind. Never ever break the circle! (Edit, sorry this should be pure water -Less conductive than salt water.let's make it holy water)
Don't try and plug your energy-being into the national grid in an effort to drain his power. He will simply 'reverse the current' and become the biggest 'big-bad' you have ever seen.
Once energy-being is in batteries. Ensure no one uses them. This would release small portions of his soul back into the world. Keep all batteries as far away from one another as possible. Bury them in salt water! Like I said, energy-beings hate salt water. (edit, this should be a fresh water lake or maybe a glacial lake).
Oh and forget about chainmail and guantlets. What you want is thick rubber gloves, rubber soled shoes and protective goggles. Maybe a rubber poncho. To ensure that your 'sword' is not hampered by you holding it with a rubber glove, have the 'hilt' covered in black insulation tape instead of leather strips and/or jewels.
[Answer]
Since energy by itself isn't sufficient to create a being, you need to look at what is happening to the energy to make to function. Is it a manipulation of space-time in order to hold photons in place via gravity? Is it some sort of standing wave or wave pattern? Is it actually something else which is being described as an energy being (i.e. a dense plasma being at the core of a star?)
Once you identify the "how" the energy being is being held together and operating, then you will know and understand what sorts of countermeasures will be needed. A creature which manifests as a warping of space-time is not going to be affected by something which can disrupt a pattern of standing waves, for example.
On the other hand, outside of the technical aspects, which depend on the nature of the being, the overall rule is to somehow increase the entropy in the region of the energy being, in order to change the energy from an ordered and organized pattern to a random and disorganized pattern. For most sorts of energy or sort of energy beings (like the plasma creature inside a star), a sudden massive introduction of energy via a bomb or laser may do the trick. This is especially useful if the energy being requires some sort of medium for a standing wave pattern to propagate, but with sufficient energy (i.e. a matter-antimatter device) then it could be possible to disrupt space-time in the region that the being is instantiated for a very brief period.
YMMV
[Answer]
Depends on how ‘hard science’ you want to be. There cannot be an ‘energy creature’ in real physics. ‘Energy’, treated as an object is simply a bastardization of mass/energy conservation by the general public and New Age woo. You can not simply have Energy; to make energy into an object is to store in the form of some mass, say petroleum.
So when you say convert mass into energy, it isn’t turning into another ‘object’, it is being turned into massless particles (photons). That massless photon exists only as long as it takes to interact with a particle with mass, a detector, your eye, or Russell’s teapot, at which point it might turned into another photon, or matter (binding other molecules and atom, like a plant making sugar).
If an energy create were to exist, it would have to be able to localise itself well enough to be a threat. Which in turn would have to mean it would have to redirect its energy sometimes. Which would require a physical medium or at least mass. Which then would mean it is not an energy creature anymore or could not exist outside say the horizon of a blackhole.
If you want to bend the laws of physics for a good story...
---
**Heat Death**
If the create can exist for some reason, one way to defeat it would to be expose it the vacuum of space where its photons could not be stopped. They would whiz away at the speed of light into the infinite beyond. It would become so [cold/diffuse that it would not be a threat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe).
**Blackbody Device**
For a more technobable solution, perhaps it could be defeated by a (another scientifically inaccurate) [Blackbody Device](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body). Here they can Ghostbuster the creature into a prison where its energy cannot escape. How to get it in the prison would need some hand-waving too.
**Gravity**
Another would be the good old, black hole as others have described, though a little cliche.
Photons operate within space-time field that is affected by gravity. Any gravity weapon would affect the creature as well as creatures with mass. Perhaps a gravity weapon would create a micro-black hole that consumes the creature's photons which would [immediately evaporate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation) and the creature suffers damage.
---
Remember it is your monster, it may come into existence by some strange physics and can be defeated by as such.
[Answer]
Sentience is really just a dynamic thinking configuration of stuff. The configuration is intricate enough to observe, problem solve, and perceive the self. Any being, matter or energy, may be killed if this configuration is disrupted.
Since your question is pretty open-ended regarding exactly what "type" of energy composing your being, I'm going to let my imagination run wild.
You may
* Use gravity. Suck it down a black hole or just disrupt it with a gravitational field massive/dense enough to disrupt it. Heck get creative and throw a black hole at it, or maybe a graviton beam?
* Magnets or electric fields may play hell with it, especially if it's plasma.
* Concussive force may work as well. Shockwaves will cause major disruptions in whatever medium it resides. May kill it depending on how you wish to handle the exposition.
* Trap it in a particle accelerator
* If it exists as a living electric field then could your characters kill it with a compressing faraday cage? As the container compresses the creature may start to feel 'pressure', heat up, and die. I don't know how scientifically accurate that would be, but I've never seen in happen in fiction. On that note...
* Extreme heat? Entropy may cause the necessary disruptions to kill it
* Are you in space? Lure it into an ion-storm, or throw an ion storm at it.
* Is it a star? The sentient star from Dr. Who seemed pretty mad when part of it was siphoned off by that mining ship. That certainly caused it a lot of pain.
* Maybe it's fantasy dark energy? In which case, pull the 'ol power of friendship, hope, or smack it with a legendary weapon. Always works in anime and Paper Mario.
* If it's scientific dark energy, then perhaps you could put a large object into warp near the being.
* If your being is capable of siphoning off energy to feed itself, then you could try either starving it or overloading it. As Dr. Who put it, "You're 80% water but you can still drown".
* Beings of pure psychic energy may die when cut off from their source, be it a portal to hell, the warp, the nearest terrified mutant child...
At the end of the day the universe always tends towards entropy. All forms of sentience may exist only within a very limited subset of configurations, and these configurations will always become disrupted and move into a "non-sentient" configuration. No matter what your being's form, its life is as delicate as a human's. I would wager given the universe's numerous gravity wells, super-novae, solar flares, and space expansion/contraction quantum mechanical bullcrap that any being of "pure energy" would have a much tougher time staying alive than us mere mortals.
[Answer]
Same way you kill anything else. Dump it past the event horizon of the nearest black hole.
[Answer]
If a bomb went off beside me, it would be a problem if that bomb could transfer energy (thermal/kinetic) to my matter. That's essentially how i'd die - the energy would shake my matter apart, and i'd become simpler matter.
Conversely, an energy being would probably be rather upset if you turned its energy to matter. How you'd do this depends on what kind of energy it is - for example a thermal being wouldn't be too happy if you used its heat to create new chemical bonds. But i'd stay away from true physics here for the purposes of storytelling and go with a sword/gun that when it connects with your energy beings converts some of their energy into gas/liquid/solid. Perhaps the more powerful the weapon/being, the more dense the matter it becomes on death. Small beings when struck might get a chunk of their body turned into hydrogen, which then explodes in air leaving behind water. Larger beings might become heavier atoms each with their unique properties, like liquid nitrogen, or solid carbon (diamond) for a big boss.
[Answer]
You would first decide if you want to stick with a science-based explanation or completely leave science and invent new kinds of energy.
If your story was somewhat based on our understanding of physics, you would have to first figure out the mechanics of this being. Start with which of the 4 forces (Gravity, Weak Atomic, Strong Atomic, Electromagnetic) gives it life. [Reading about these 4 fundamental forces](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction), I learn that,
>
> Each one is understood as the dynamics of a field. The gravitational force is modelled as a continuous classical field. The other three are each modeled as discrete quantum fields, and exhibit a measurable unit or elementary particle.
>
>
>
Then, consider that any being must be an organized swirl of information. When you kill one of us biological beings, the way you know we are dead is if the information we contain is destroyed. So, whichever kind of energy it uses, how does it store the information? Answer this and you can begin to imagine how to kill it.
[Answer]
**Noise**
Being an energy being requires precise manipulation of that energy field so that it could move, act, think and interact with its environment. Thus if you cause it to malfunction by a weapon that would interfere with this ability, it can cause damage. This could be a physical object, sword or bullet, or an energy weapon. Obviously there are many interferences out there that would cause issues to said being. Thus these creatures should have a skin like shield that you would need to penetrate.
[Answer]
This answer assumes your energy being partially is, or at least uses electromagnetic fields in its "biology". If not, then use the same principle but substitute with whatever conducting material for whatever other form of energy your being is or uses (you are totally in the realm of fiction here, so you can make it be any way you want). The answer also assumes the energy being has some large scale internal structure, though it might work weaking it also if it is an amorphous blob with no structure.
Simply create a ball of metallic mesh, which can expand, and which is constructed to form a Faraday cage. The material might need to be something which can withstand high temperatures, such as as some Tungsten alloy. It could also be carbon nanotubes, provided there is no oxygen to burn it away.
The important detail is, that the mesh/net has hole size small enough to block creature's vital EM frequencies, but large enough that it will just pass through the energy being otherwise.
Then shoot the balls at the being with a mass driver. Have them start expanding by suitable trigger (such as timer, losing radio contact with the gun, starting to heat up). If the being can repel the balls, shoot them faster, or increase their mass, so it will need to expend more energy to repel them. If the energy being can make holes in itself, then just shoot them fast enough so that it can't match the speed.
The expanding spheres will form growing Faraday cages inside the being, essentially making holes in it, and disrupting its "biological" functions, either directly by blocking off parts of its internal structure, or just making it weaker by blocking off parts of it, if it has no structure.
[Answer]
Servants in Fate do have physical bodies, which they create with mana. That is how they hold stuff and are visible and so on. This post includes Fate spoilers (all series).
>
> You can see this in action in F/Z when Rider bursts through rolling shutters while carrying some things, Waver berates him and tells him to use spirit form, and Rider remarks that he wouldn't have been able to take the items in that form.
>
>
>
But they are never seen taking pure physical damage. They do go at each other with seemingly physical means of attack, but it doesn't count as purely physical when it's a Magic Item (which includes all the weapons they ever use) and anyway anything a Heroic Spirit does doesn't count as purely physical damage.
>
> In some other cases we see a human doing damage to a Heroic Spirit in several ways, for example Souichirou Kuzuki (magically enhanced by Caster), Shirou Emiya (magically projected weapons), Bazett Fraga McRemitz (rune imbued gloves), Rin Tohsaka (uses magic and a magic-enhanced body), Illya (with a kaleidostick) and there's probably a lot I'm forgetting, but no purely physical damage ever defeated a Heroic Spirit.
>
>
>
So basically, the Fate way to kill an energy being is magic.
[Answer]
I'm currently reading *Shutter*, by Courtney Alameda. Ghosts in this book are beings of energy that are not usually visible. In order to capture/kill them, they take a silver plate charged with negative energy to attract the ghost's positively charged energy. Upon contact with a ghost, the ghost will be "sucked" into and trapped in the plate. After this, they either seal the plate in a non-conductive material, usually glass (starving it), or they melt down the plate (killing it).
[Answer]
Use a sufficiently strong [EMP (electro-magnetic pulse)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse) to disrupt the energy field.
This can be caused by lightning strikes, nuclear detonation or other strong sources of electro magnetic energy.
You could also attempt to contain them inside a [Faraday cage](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage).
[Answer]
Excuse my C- High School Physics class understanding of energy, but:
Shoot some protons or other Hydrogen ions at it; maybe something like heavy water. Energy (in the form of ions?) bonds to the hydrogen ions, forming plain hydrogen gas or something.
The benefit of this approach is that you can then spark it and blow up the remains of said energy creature.
[Answer]
Unfortunately, a being truly made of pure energy cannot be destroyed in the way you think. A living being needs interactions between molecules or some kind of inter-working network. Otherwise, it is a homogenous blob. By this reasoning, your energy being is of the same animalistic branch as an iron block, liquid nitrogen, and light. In fact, your being doesn't even need to be killed. It is literally an unchanging eternal block of energy. With every particle identical, there is no interelational reactions. Energy does not react to energy, anyway. Energy is nothing more than particles that have no rotational force, and therefore have all of their (unchanging) velocity pointed in one direction.
So, your energy being is either:
An eternal "missile" of pure energy that never loses trajectory until something hits it.
Or:
A blob of bouncing balls.
To kill the first:
Still a really big wall in front of it and watch the fireworks.
To kill the second:
Wait roughly 5 minutes for all the shells of bouncing balls to finally disperse in a big release of light.
I suppose if you want to use pseudo-science, give the second a forcefield that exists around it. However, even the tiniest hole will cause explosive decompression of pure light.
If you are meaning *extradimensional* or *eldritch* beings, then no luck to you. Extradimensional implies that the being is not even in the universe. It's like asking koopas in super mario to actually kill the guy holding the controller. You cannot. All you can kill is an *avatar* which could be of any form of your choosing. It does not even have to follow the laws of physics itself. Heck, it could just be a being that gives people the perception it exists, and then makes appropriate physical manipulations via magic.
Good luck on your story!
] |
[Question]
[
Post-Apocalyptic scenario, the government is gone.
A scientist finished his greatest creation ever. A self-replicating nanobot swarm that, when dispersed in the upper atmosphere, will settle in every living creature and estabilish a self-perpetuating network for data and energy transfer.
The nanobots inside a person shall interface with the brain, and help the person develop, for the lack of a better word, superpowers.
For animals, it just enhances their physical bodies and helps them fight disease and heal injury.
The way they are programmed to interact with humans is to let the person select a "Class" like in the good old Pen & Paper RPG games of yore. They can select a Class from among those programmed into the nanobots.
The person will be asked to sign a EULA and opt-in into the System. If they refuse, the nanobots inside the person will deactivate, their inert hulls create a chemical marker to let other active nanobots that enter their body know not to interfere with this person's physiology.
From the moment the EULA is accepted, they will let the person gain "levels" and "skills" by redirecting the neural and physical pathways of the body, enhancing the person.
Many blanks exist in this setting, but this Question in particular is about the selection of Classes.
The scientist is not mad. The selection of "Classes" and "Skills" were carefully curated to help people rebuild the world.
Assume he is perfectly rational and can preview many scenarios, or simulate them with A.I. help.
How would criminal classes help rebuild the world? Is it not better to just not have them altogether?
I mean purely criminal classes with no other purpose. Of course anyone with any Class or even without one can be a criminal, but they would have to commit their crimes without System assistance.
For example, "Thief" ( as in a Class that unlawfully deprives people of their lawful property), "Assassin" (as in a Class whose sole focus is murdering people), "Terrorist" (focus on civilian casualties and property damage), and so on?
I'm not talking about Classes that may cause harm but can be deemed necessary to the working of an advanced society, like "Soldier", "Spy", "Scout", "Trapmaker", etc. Just purely criminal classes.
It's okay to elaborate an answer challenging the assumption that he would introduce criminal classes to the "System".
[Answer]
# The Classes are Merely Names for Skill Sets:
Humans of all types are both good and evil. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So rather than all classes be a simple reflection of raw power, many of them reflect more subtle abilities and attitudes. You also don't want every person to have every possible power, as this would either make the nanite-enhanced gods or hopelessly dysfunctional as competing needs caused malfunctions. But if you make everyone a super-fighter, the world will immediately be in a titanic war. **When all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.** The abilities should reflect the width and breadth of human talent.
I'm guessing that the world is ruled by whoever has the most guns. The scientist could be trying to break the situation of masses of well-armed rival gangs enslaving everyone and creating fiefdoms. Perhaps the scientist has a philosophical Nietzsche-like belief that powerful and talented people are the true upholders of civilization. But there can be plenty of rationales for it. They may have watched too many movies about noble criminals and assassins overthrowing villains. Who knows? But skills are skills, and who is he to know which will result in a "good" rebuilt society from chaos? This is about empowering the people and rolling the dice to see what happens. When things are bad enough, any hope is hope.
**A class in the RPG sense of the word is just a set of skills and abilities that reflect what the player wants to do.** So an indentured farm hand forced to work 70 hours a week in the fields of a warlord might dream of being a great fighter, but also stealthy and sneaky to fulfill his vision of killing the bastard and liberating the workers. Guess what? Fulfilling his desires makes him an assassin.
Another fellow is a jack-of-all trades and a clever negotiator. He likes helping people out by getting them what they need. So picking locks, stealing, reading people's truthfulness, and maybe a bit of con-artistry makes him a fixer (a class I recall from I believe [Cyberpunk](https://cyberpunk.fandom.com/wiki/Roles)). But the same class could be called a fence and be used to commit abuses in the hands of a bad person.
So your nanites might ask or examine the person for proclivities and talents, and matches those with a sort of wish fulfillment. The result is a class of abilities that happens to correspond to a traditionally criminal role. The person might be embarrassed to have the nanites name their class "assassin" or "terrorist," but maybe not. Or they might be able to call themselves whatever they want, like "freedom fighter" or "insurgent." But for game functions, it's terrorist.
If you want, the nanites could have ethics programs that don't give people powers they will willfully abuse. But that takes away free will, and what's the fun in that?
[Answer]
**Classes were actually lifted from such a game.**
This scientist was not a lone wolf. He had a build team. The classes piece was really a late addition, with the main efforts obviously being to make the tech aspects of the whole thing work. One of the build team had a list of classes that was brought in at the last minute.
The classes contain all the classes you want for your story. It also has a lot of animal classes since this project is applicable to animals who are all assumed to opt in. It has a lot of monster and nonhuman classes too. There are additional classes of unclear nature. Some might be colors, or abstract concepts like angst.
A late patch deployed after rollout made it so that human users are only shown the human classes as options. There is a workaround if you want to pick one of the others. Sometimes that workaround happens unintentionally.
[Answer]
## Because such skillsets are really useful
What does a thief know better than anyone else? What security issues people have, and what can be done to fix them. They're also excellent judges at valuing items, and know better than anyone else the town they're living. They're also your best (wo)man to uncover the old world treasures.
What does the assassin and poisoner classes do best? Yes, kill of course, but assassins are great at taking out dangerous mutants in the wild with their "see weakness" skill, and poisoners can immediately sort the venomous mushrooms, plants and animals from the good ones.
Terrorist? Explosive experts to clear the rubbles and free people, forceful criminal interrogations and very high-determination. Really handy if you do have to pick-up the guns or need to brave the fire.
I can continue the list with any "typical" bad class you can imagine. Why? It's because...
## It's not classes which make people bad
Have you seen [Robin Hood](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Hood)? It's basically a multiclass between ranger and thief whose main goal is to help the poor. [Assassination classroom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_Classroom)? They're all in-learning assassins tasked to save the world. [Spy X Family](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spy_%C3%97_Family)? One of the main character is an assassin who get rid of criminal networks.
Let me go even further : The Joker from Batman is a righter of wrongs, yet if he was given a class he would be a terrorist. He flipped a whole, corrupted organization with his talents, creating a new one which is more equal to everyone. Not convinced? Here's [something to prove it](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9on1G7YItpc) (English subtitles available).
Yes, thieves, assassins, poisoners and terrorists could be evil. But let's face reality : Warriors, technomages, even craftmans and priest doctors can be evil too :
* Warriors? They enforce a cruel justice with raw force, robbing people of their goods, if not their lives.
* Technomages? They're always up to the latest weaponry technology to hack or destroy who stands in their way : Missiles, gun drones...
* Craftmans ? They scam people, using their knowledge to fake items as others, making anything they make extremely expensive. They force people into debts if not making them addicted to drugs.
* Priest doctors? They heal bandits for a profit, and they ally with the strongest ones, even if it means stomping their shoes on the poorest people. Their inventivity to torture people without killing is only sickening.
To sum up, it's not what you can do that determines if you're evil or good. It's what you actually decide to do and for what reason that matters. And when the world is getting corrupt, tyrannical and fearful, thieves and assassins are there to make things right again. And they're the best to do that with minimal damage.
[Answer]
Those are not the classes names.
You have a demolition expert class, called "demoman". Members of that class know everything about explosives.
Now most demos are content to work in the building and mining industries. Some crazy ones choose to do terrorism, and then suddenly every demoman is called a terrotist too. Doesn't mean that they all are, and doesn't mean that's the class real name.
Same thing goes for other slurs like arson, assassin, lawyer etc.
[Answer]
# It's a trap!
The classes are designed to keep society in balance by keeping different powers in different groups. That doesn't prevent a whole society from forming a super-efficient police state that takes over the world. Criminals are included in the system to create internal conflict that limits the power of any large group, hopefully keeping balance on a global scale. At least, that's the official line.
Unofficially, the nanites keep track of those in the criminal classes. Along with the special skills like lock-picking and sneaking, criminals get the hidden "skill" of having their thoughts snooped on by their own nanites.
Most of the time the nanites just observe, but if something really nasty is going down they might choose to subtly interfere - for example, a criminal might have a sudden lapse of concentration that leaves their secret plans open on a library table. If the information-sharing network allows it, they might even persuade the target's security team to "randomly" alter their routine in a way that negates months of careful observation and planning by the criminal gang.
From the outside these events will look like simple coincidences, and any suspicion of interference will be dismissed by all rational, nanite-enhanced brains as a daft conspiracy theory.
[Answer]
## They weren't intended to be generally available
Your Mad Scientist knew there would need to be tweaks to the system. There might be property in the wrong hands he needed liberated. There might be evil souls who, really, for the good of all, have to die. There might even be situations where terrorizing populations is necessary.
They were designed into the system. They were under a special lock, such that only carefully vetted souls, those who would use them only for the good of all, could possibly access them.
A glitch occurred. Now they are generally available.
[Answer]
Your scientist realised three things:
* languages are different and adapt over time,
* Its a post apocalypse so there is lots of useful stuff lying around,
* class skill trees sometimes need to be altered or isolated to create sub-classes that better adapt to the future.
The Terrorist has actually chosen the class of freedom fighter and has gone down a path of ambush skills and explosives. This can so easily be used as terrorist sub-class that in some regions the freedom fighter class was dubbed terrorist long enough that new people who wanted it used the word Terrorist to describe the class they wanted, and the nanites understood as they knew how language can change.
There is also a lot of potential goodies lying around in this apocalypse, even an old laptop contains valuable metals and materials if not the potential for repairs and reverse engineering by an engineer class. So a romantic idea of a Tomb Raider or Treasure Hunter class was created. But unfortunately once the local tombs and treasures were depleted these classes were quickly repurposed.
Assassins might be a sub-class from the Doctor class or Field Medic. As a rule a doctor needs to know what causes certain diseases, poisons or wounds. They also have some skills concerning scalpels and loads of biology knowledge. Their fast move sets and ability to enter homes was designed as a quick way to reach a wounded person without being seen by potential perpetrators (or simply ignored as you are a noj-combattant right?). That would mix in the Combat Medicine and Ambulance skill trees of the class.
[Answer]
I'm immediately put in mind of Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series. It's a tongue-in-cheek parody but **the ruler of the main city has simply incorporated things like the Assassin's Guild and Thief's Guild into the civil government**.
His reasoning, in a nutshell, is that you are going to have criminal elements anyway so you might as well put them where you can see them and give them some rules that they can follow. The Thief's Guild actually becomes *responsible* for all theft that occurs in the city. There are quotas and buyout options, effectively making the Thief's Guild into an actual, functional "protection racket". If you have paid your fee and someone robs your store, the robber will find that not only are the cops after him, but so is the thief's guild, and generally it's better for him if the cops find him first.
The Assassin's Guild works much the same way. Assassination, for a suitable fee, is accepted, however, the Assassin's Guild is held responsible for all murders that occur in the city. Unsanctioned murder is, therefore, going to be a case of who catches you first: the cops or the Assassin's Guild.
Like I said, all a very tongue-in-cheek parody but there is a logic to it and maybe the scientist in question had the same thinking, or maybe that's similar to how things work now. Maybe the criminal classes even come with a code of conduct, such that an assassin gets assassin skills but he also finds that *he must be paid to kill, and must feel it is a fair value*. Assassin classes never become psychopaths or plain murderers because they are programmed against it. They might even find that their programming makes them feel personally affronted to hear about an unpaid murder. Net result: there are still assassinations but "random crime" is actually tapped down with vigor by these programmed criminals.
Alternatively, I am also put in mind of Gary Oldman's character in Fifth Element, where basically he felt that **destruction was necessary for a productive society**.
The Matrix had very similar reasoning, too. **The machines found out that utopias didn't work**. They created a realistic setting, crime and all, because it's what humans seemed to expect and work best in.
[Answer]
# AI, not humans curate classes and skills
You said
>
> The scientist is not mad. The selection of "Classes" and "Skills" were carefully curated to help people rebuild the world.
>
>
>
but that's an awful lot of work. And designing the nanobots by themselves was already hard enough. So what if instead he used a self learning neural network that learns from human actions and desires and builds useful tools for them? From the scientists perspective that means he won't forget adding something crucial (what if someone loses their arms and wants to somehow become a musician with his feet? Bet the hand written skills scientists didn't think of that!) and it makes the system future proof (right now in this post apocalyptic wasteland we don't need lawyers, but in 100 years we might). Of course he put in enough limits that no skill is ever going to be *too* powerful, or *too abusable*. After all, the system is perfectly self balancing.
Early testing in the social circles the scientist was active in showed that the system was working perfectly. Maybe the system was even 'primed' in the right direction (a preset list of classes from some old fantasy book) and additional classes and skills developed over time.
End result: you get a world which can adapt as needed, which is typically ideal for story telling.
[Answer]
### Not all laws are just or ethical
No system of laws is perfect, and every justice system is a constantly evolving system. If no one is capable of challenging the status quo things could easily get bad through no fault of anyone involved. There is a need for any system to be challenged and tested. While it may not seem like it to those at the top of the pile, having built in checks and balances for a system, including providing the option to work outside the system or distort it can help strength the system in the long run.
[Answer]
**A classic pen and paper RPG is PC-vs-NPC**
The PCs are the protagonists. Some groups might feel better if none of them are *evil*, or if none are *lawful*, or if none a *chaotic*. Others want to give the players room to express themselves, and pride themselves in their ability to tell rousing adventures with a *lawful good* paladin, a *chaotic good* swordsperson, and a *chaotic neutral* thief. And an assassin who pretends not to be some flavor of *evil*, even if the players all know.
The opposition, managed by the DM/GM, ranges from hordes of literally mindless orcs, over *lawful evil* henchpersons of the Big Bad, to fully designed characters with a reasonable motivation which just happens to go against the party.
**You have a world with PC-vs-PC conflicts**
Would be nice if there was no conflict and everybody just went along, but then why this leveling stuff? So your scientist is **deliberately giving people a choice.** They can decide to take roles like *warrior* or *ranger* or *bard* and decide to help the community. Or they can take roles like *thief* or *assassin* and either become an anti-hero with a troubled past, who does the right thing in the end, or they will ultimately be hunted down by parties of *good*.
The scientist is betting the future of humanity on the assumption that *good* will organize, and take a large chunk of *neutral* along, to make that happen. Because lesser means to get people to restore government seem to have failed. Because of the apathy of most survivors? That's how the scientist sees it. So the scientist will stir things up a little ...
---
Oh, and those EULAs the nanobots display? What meaning has a license agreement without a court system? They're more like self-appointed health warnings.
[Answer]
Could be that the AI is not smart, perfect, and altruistic. Rather, it just autistically assimilated some information and used it, like a board game or video game. I've tried to make something like this -- a poor man's artificial general intelligence that functioned roughly like...
-Perform tasks based on a hierarchy of rules, laws, and priorities. Do the task that best fulfills your priorities right now.
-If you don't know how to do that task, then do a google search to learn how to do that task.
In that case, if the AI didn't actually have innate knowledge of what jobs should exist in the world, it might do research on a list of jobs, and its research may have turned-up a list of RPG jobs or MMORPG jobs.
[Answer]
## They Were for Intelligence Operatives
The team that funded the project wanted to be able to create super-spies, able to keep their government in power. These needed skills such as infiltration, stealth, safe-cracking, disguise, social engineering and so on.
These weren’t originally intended for the general public, but when survivors started to get this package, and didn’t know the original purpose, they thought of it as the “thief class.”
[Answer]
### Classes are not jobs.
This is true even in tabletop roleplaying games. Not every "rogue" is an outlaw thief - some might be employed in intelligence services and others might work in private security. There are no criminal classes, but a member of any class can become a criminal.
Here are some classes that might lead to both "legit" and criminal careers:
* Influencer - Adept in social situations, social engineering, schmoozing, and influencing people. Associated with a high Charisma score. People with this class may become politicians, diplomats, lawyers, law enforcement officers, business executives, salespeople, or spies. Class members with criminal tendencies might use their social influence skills to become slick-talking con-artists or charismatic gang or mob leaders.
* Fighter - Your basic strength-based Fighter class leads to traditional soldier careers as well as law enforcement, prison guards, firefighters, and other frontline jobs with plenty of hands-on action. It will be strongly associated with athletes in combat sports such as boxers or karate experts and associated, though to a lesser extent, to athletes in action and endurance sports such as gridiron football and baseball. Class members with criminal tendencies might become street muggers, gang enforcers, or hired assassins.
* Technician - A dexterity-based class that leads to careers such as mechanic or electrician that require lots of hands-on work and clever maneuvering. Drivers, sailors, and pilots probably derive a large percentage of their members from this class. Some athletes, such as tennis players or cheerleaders, will also likely belong to this class. Some spies, especially those assigned to stealth missions involving sneaking around, are also likely to be Technicians. Class members with criminal tendencies will likely fit your standard "rogue" stereotype in roles that take advantage of slight of hand and stealth - shoplifters, safecrackers, haxors, car thieves, and burglars.
* Healer - Your basic Wisdom-based healing class leads to all sorts of clinical careers: nurse, physician, pharmacist, social worker, therapist, etc. Class members with criminal tendencies will find plenty of opportunities in manufacturing narcotics as well as performing unlawful or clandestine medical procedures. In your world, physicians are required to report gunshot wounds to law enforcement, but there are back-alley cash-only criminal physicians who will "stitch and not snitch". Depending on your beliefs, abortion doctors could fall under your criminal Healer umbrella. Criminal Healers, with high levels of understanding of the body and brain, may also be experts at torture.
Note that some jobs may be held by members of multiple classes. There could even be specialties within jobs or careers that take advantage of class benefits. For example, an Influencer-classed cop might become a detective or undercover officer, while a Fighter-classed cop might become a SWAT team member. A Technician Spy is likely going to be sneaking around planting bugs in embassies or taking surreptitious pictures of battle plans, while an Influencer Spy is more likely to hide in plain sight - that mild-mannered secretary that no one would suspect might be a double agent. A Technician who joins the army as a soldier might specialize in minesweeping or setting traps. A Technician-classed physician might use their advanced dexterity to become an expert surgeon.
] |
[Question]
[
**This question asks for hard science.** All answers to this question should be backed up by equations, empirical evidence, scientific papers, other citations, etc. Answers that do not satisfy this requirement might be removed. See [the tag description](/tags/hard-science/info) for more information.
Imagine that we invent the technology to convert matter directly to energy, and capture most of the output for doing work. We can convert *any* matter to energy in this way, i.e. the matter does not need to be specially prepared or even homogeneous.
---
EDIT: in answer to comments:
* yes, it's straight-up E=mc2
* let's assume these reactors capture 60% of E
* let's assume that the vessel's power needs, including propulsion, are similar to a nuclear submarine, which [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion#Differences_from_land_power_plants) suggests is "a few hundred megawatts"
---
Also imagine that we're space-faring, with hundreds of thousands of vessels capable of interplanetary (but not interstellar -- no FTL) travel, each of which has a matter-energy reactor that powers all ship systems, including a form of propulsion that is entirely electric. (For comparison, in the real world there are ~65K public buses, and ~2,000K semi trucks on American roads these days.)
What would we use as fuel?
The trivial answer is "anything and everything," but I think we won't use *just anything*. One reason is that if we have any refueling stations far from Earth, we'll have to periodically deliver fuel to them, which means we'll care about efficiency.
What would these interplanetary fuel tankers be hauling? Hydrogen (the lightest element)? Or the heaviest element that's safe (e.g. not dangerously radioactive)? (Or maybe we wouldn't care if it's radioactive, because heavier is just so much more energy-dense?)
We don't have anti-matter, and we can't convert energy back into matter, so we still have to work with the properties and abundance of the matter that is available to us.
EDIT: I am primarily interested in what we'd use for reactors in space (vessels as well as space stations and/or colonies), rather than on Earth. I apologize for not stating this explicitly in the first draft. But I'm definitely interested in answers that present a "whole-ecosystem" perspective. Like, would distant colonies convert their sewage into energy? It seems like they'd want to recycle at least the water... anyway.
[Answer]
# Mine tailings:
In your scenario, you can destroy matter. But even waste materials for your civilization out in space are made of the things you find valuable. In space, people are interested in places - asteroids, planets, moons, WHATEVER. Those places are composed of matter. Some of it you are there to mine or harvest, while a lot of it is stuff you don't care about, like silicates. There would be no tankers. You would process the matter that the facilities didn't use for something else.
So if you're extracting minerals from a rocky asteroid, then the rest of the asteroid is fuel. You land on a moon? Whatever you came there for is mined/harvested, and everything else is fuel. The efficiency of the reaction means you need mass to run a civilization, but you don't use very much for power. Over time, everything you didn't use would get consumed as fuel.
The mathematics of fuel will look completely different. Mass is fuel, so ANY mass source is fuel. Just because an asteroid is mineral-poor doesn't mean it isn't worth mining, because the rest of the asteroid represents fuel. A rich mine has lots of minerals, while a poor mine has abundant energy to waste.
Your civilization might spend a lot of effort to convert elements into each other. Do you need gold? Use particle accelerators and the like to produce gold. that's absurdly expensive for us, because it would use a ridiculous amount of energy. For these folks, the more mass they have, the more ridiculous amounts of energy they have. So you're not technically creating matter, just transmuting it using advanced particle physics.
But it will still be more practical to recycle matter in its current elemental form. We recycle aluminum because its expensive to make new compared to reusing the existing refined metal. The same will apply to transmuting elements.
[Answer]
## Solar Wind
Converting Mass to Energy creates such a crazy amount of energy that you barely need any mass. One kilogram of matter has ~ 25,000 Gigawatt-hours of energy. Since a normal US house uses 10,000 kilowatt-hours per year, that 1 kg is enough to power 2.5 Million US homes for a full year.
So moving mass around is a waste of time and effort - let the mass come to you.
The solar wind is a stream of charged particles emitted by the Sun. Charged particles can be captured by placing them in a magnetic field, and thus driving them to a collection location.
The Sun emits ~ 1.5 Million tonnes per second of solar wind. That means that every second the Sun emits a billion times more mass-energy than our 1 kg example above.
## Magnetic Collectors in Orbit
Place magnetic collectors in orbit directly around the Sun. The solar wind mass-flux is going to die off as 1/r^2 - so closer to the Sun gets more mass, but closer to transit lanes is probably more useful. You may find a bunch of collectors near the Gas Giants are the most convenient, if that's where most of the population lives.
We're only going to collect a tiny fraction of the solar wind, but it turns out that's enough.
If we assume that the constellation of mass collectors collects 1 particle out of every 100 billion the sun emits, that still collects:
$$ \frac{1.5\text M \tfrac{\text{tonnes}}{\text{sec}} \times 1000 \tfrac{\text{kg}}{\text{tonne}} \times 365 \tfrac{\text{days}}{\text{year}} \times 24 \tfrac{\text{hours}}{\text{day}} \times 60 \tfrac{\text{minutes}}{\text{hour}} \times 60 \tfrac{\text{seconds}}{\text{minute}} }{100\text B} = 470\,000 \tfrac{\text{kg}}{\text{year}} $$
Which is enough energy to support 1.2 trillion US homes.
[Answer]
First it might be a good idea to ballpark how much matter you would need. From Newtonian physics it takes about $62$ megajoules of energy to get a kilogram completely off planet earth, so 2 kilos would need $124$ megajoules, and a station twice the mass of the [ISS](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station) would need $62000$ gigajoules (which is about the same amout of energy produced by a nuclear power station in 17 hours).
Now if we use Einstein's famous equation $E=Mc^2$ we can find out how much matter that would be needed to get that amount of energy,
$$E=6.2\*10^{7}=M(3\*10^8)^2$$
$$M=\frac{6.2\*10^{7}}{(3\*10^8)^2}$$
$$M=\frac{6.2\*10^{7}}{9\*10^{16}}$$
$$M=7\*10^{-10}$$
It would be about $0.7$ nanograms to get a kilogram into space, or equivalently you would need 0.7 milligrams to lift a thousand ton space craft (about twice the mass of the ISS)
Having a "fuel tank" that stores about a ton of material would work well, as it would last for quite some time, as escaping gravity wells uses the most amount of energy in a space craft's flight.
You wouldn't need much of whatever fuel you use, and from this I would propose that your ships have 2 separate fuel systems, water and stone, as these would be present in the solar system in usable quantities.
Hopefully that helps.
[Answer]
**Waste**.
[Landfill sites](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landfill) are expensive to set-up properly. The sites can eventually have housing built on them, but not without extensive plumbing to allow methane and noxious gasses to escape safely. They also create toxic-leakage into groundwater that will continue for hundreds if not thousands of years.
Volunteer to take this waste away in quantity for distribution to space farers and you could turn a tidy profit on the deal ensuring that the planet of our origin stays as pristine as it can given the givens.
[Answer]
The question declares:
>
> the matter does not need to be specially prepared or even homogeneous.
>
>
>
### Trash as you would Mr Fusion.
If it is true matter to energy, why wouldn't it be like Doc Brown of 'Back to the Future' refueling Mr Fusion? Ie. using what ever is convenient and low value near by. This would apply to smaller sub GW matter-energy units.
### Ram scoops.
For largest of users of energy such as large interstellar ships. Actual planning of fuel use would be needed. I would expect ram scoops would be investigated, that is using whatever dust/gas is in the ships path. Removing things that would damage a ship and using them as fuel would defiantly be useful.
### Oort cloud material.
It exists material like this will likely exist at every star system. Additional benefit of supplying water to ships. Automated systems can be deployed to collect this.
### Gas giant siphoning.
Again a source that is fairly common so uniform ways of collection of this material can be developed. Easy enough for a large ship to send off an auxiliary ship to collect fuel while making deliveries.
### Conclusion: Low value regularity available material.
Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe. I would expect therefor the bulk of matter used to fuel matter energy converters to use hydrogen and hydrogen compounds. (Gas giants, water ices of Oort cloud, interstitial gasses from ram scoops.)
Material that is low enough value that few/no permissions//permits are required to gather and use the material.
[Answer]
## Different ships will use different fuels
Much like today's rockets, the principle consideration will be cost. You have to weigh the potential of a fuel against its mass, thrust, cost, and mission parameters. But since all fuels have the same thrust per mass using your matter->energy converter, then you only have a 3-factor problem. And since in space, drag is so negligible, volume is only a minimal concern which further reduces most missions down to just 2 important factors: Mass and Cost. In other words, you want the cheapest possible material per mass that you can fill a fuel tank with as long as the density is not super low.
Rather than delving straight into costs of stuff here on Earth, lets start by discussing what will make one form of matter cheaper than another. The big thing is of course how available it is. Whatever you can scoop up from next to your space port and load straight onto the ship in bulk will always be cheaper than stuff that needs refining or transportation. Renewability is also a key factor. If you have to keep digging deeper or farther to get something, then it is more scarce than a resource that just keeps coming to you.
The second factor of course will be how easy it is to get onto the ship. Gases are always a bad choice because so much work will need to go into compressing it down into a storable substance, and then you need to transport it under high pressures which has safety concern. So, while it is self-renewing because air will always flow in to take the old air's place, it has a high refinement and storage cost. Solids are generally going to be much more dense and safer in transit, but they come with an even higher refinement cost to break apart enough to move around, and perhaps more effort to grind into dust if it has to be fed through any sort of fuel injection type of system. Solids are also not self renewing: once you take a solid from your environment, no new matter will flow in to take its place. This means that liquids will, almost without exception, be the cheapest fuel source to put onto a ship. They are fairly dense, they flow to replace used up sources, and don't need any refinement before you can pump them into a holding tank. So, any liquid that is also common will generally be the preferred fuel on any given world.
Here on Earth we have oceans of a particularly plentiful liquid called water... salt water, lake water, does not matter for your engine too much since its all just fuel anyway. To get an idea of just how cheap water is, the average cost of 100% unpurified irrigation water to a farmer is about 880,000 tons of water per dollar... now this assumes horizontal or down-hill transportation, but so what? If you build a space port at the foot of a dam, you have no need to even pump the water. Just attach a hose to the fuel tank, open a valve, and let gravity do the filling for you. Beyond the initial cost of the damn and filling station, this makes your fuel practically free and infinite.
.. well not truly infinite, but with ~1.5 quintillion tons of water here on Earth too pull from, it would take a LOT of ships have any noticeable effect on the planet's total water reserves. Since matter has about 9e16 J of potential energy per kg. This means the Earth's total water fuel reserves would be about 1.4e38 J. This is about the total power output of the sun over the next 4.4 million years.
So if water is such a good solution, then why will different ships use different fuels? Simply put, not everywhere in space has liquid water. Go to Titan and all the easily accessible water is frozen solid, but instead you get vast lakes made of liquid methane which would provide a way cheaper fuel source. Or if your space port is on a planet where there is more carbon than oxygen, you will likely see vast oceans of liquid asphalt instead. Or if you are on a more Venus like world, you have the chance of a form of liquid carbon dioxide. If you find an especially young world you might find large exposed oceans of lava: which admittedly might be a bit harder to collect than water, but if you're on a such a world, it's probably still a much easier substance to harness than liquid water.
[Answer]
If I’m reading your question correctly, the answer really depends on what you choose for the characteristics of your engines and generators; their efficiency, waste products, energy requirements, operating lifetimes, and so on.
If your conversion process is fast, clean, efficient, and truly fuel-agnostic, then it doesn’t matter what you use - you won’t need much of it anyway. Depending on the service life of your generators, you might even buy one with a lifetime of fuel already built in. At 100% efficiency, 1kg of mass converts to 9e18 J using the usual formula. That’s more than a 2 gigaton nuclear bomb, which is a problem if you decide to crash at full speed, but that’s another discussion. Thermodynamics will most likely limit how much of that you can use for propulsion, but its still a ridiculous amount. The current annual world energy consumption could be produced by converting just 61kg of mass if you assume perfectly efficiency (1).
You mentioned a fueling infrastructure - tankers, stations and fuel deliveries. That implies that while people could use anything and everything as fuel, at least some people don’t. Somebody goes to the trouble and expense of operating a fleet of tankers and filling stations in a world where fuel is free, so we need a reason for that. The tankers also imply that this fuel comes from a limited number of locations and has to be transported rather than being manufactured everywhere it’s used - again, we need a reason.
Consider a real-world example as a point of reference: A conventional 3000MW fission reactor converts pretty close to 1 kg of mass to energy every year (2). To accomplish this, it consumes 25 tons of enriched uranium fuel and produces 1 kg less than that in waste. That’s only 0.004% efficiency give or take, but it is genuine mass-energy conversion. The energy takes the form of heat, which we use to generate electricity. We could theoretically convert that same mass and generate that same heat using lots of other, cheaper processes, but we use uranium fission because it produces energy at a good rate, is a controllable reaction, it isn’t too short lived, isn’t too rare, and so on. These same considerations could apply to your fuel. What characteristics could make a good fuel worth transporting if you can have other fuel for free?
1. Performance: some materials could convert more efficiently than others. If it takes several tons of cheap junk to produce the same power as one gram of good stuff, it will be well worth it for anybody who needs better acceleration, longer flight times, or bigger payload capacities.
2. Safety: some materials might be riskier than others - maybe you can control the reaction rate better with some things than others, or maybe using the wrong thing risks damaging your generator or worse. Sure, you can save a few credits by connecting your generator to the san, but they used cheaper fuel rods at Chernobyl too and see where that got them.
3. Convenience: some materials could produce nastier waste products than others, making waste storage, handling and disposal a real show stopper. Perhaps pure rocket fuel converts cleanly and completely, while random junk will convert just fine and get you where you’re going, but it spews out loads of hard radiation in the process and leaves you with a residue of poisonous radioactive acid potion smeared all over the engine room.
4. Legality: Depending on your setting, smart devices and materials could be a consideration. Your generator might refuse to accept any other fuel than the genuine original manufacturer’s special blend. A government could even issue fuel that carried an encrypted signature so that your generator would only burn it while on a registered flight path. That might serve as a solution to the Kzinti Lesson(3) or the aforementioned 2 gigaton bomb problem as well.
On the other hand, maybe those tankers and fuel stations don’t really dispense fuel at all, and are called that for historic reasons. If those electric engines you mentioned are regular reaction engines you’ll need to take on reaction mass from time to time. That's what the tankers and stations are all about. For fuel, you just siphon off a few grams of reaction mass to feed your generator since you have tons of it with you anyway.
(1) <https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html>
(2) <https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/nuclear-fuel/fuel-consumption-of-conventional-reactor/>
(3) <http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunexotic.php#id--Propulsion_Systems>
[Answer]
**Water**
1. Common and cheap.
2. Easy to contain.
3. Easy to move from place to place in variable amounts according to need.
4. Minimally reactive.
5. Useful for biologic lifeforms on the ship.
6. Useful as shielding against micrometeorites / cosmic rays.
7. Useful for phase change engine (e.g. steam engine) to capture heat from matter transformation and make it into electricity.
8. Makes soothing splashy sound.
[Answer]
Well, if you are *really* serious about scientific accuracy then you should at least be aware of the law of conservation of [baryon number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number). If it is strictly true, then the only way to convert whole atoms of matter into energy is to annihilate them with antimatter. But there some small doubt around that law, so there may be a loophole.
You should also think about how the energy comes out. In matter-antimatter annihilation you get mostly gamma rays, which might be hard to use as a propellant. To be clear on terminology, "fuel" and "propellant" are often treated as synonymous, but they have different roles. The role of the propellant is to be accelerated out the back, and the role of the fuel/oxidizer mix is to accelerate the propellant, i.e., itself. But, in this rocket, the fuel is the matter that gets converted to gamma rays, and the propellant is water or whatever that gets heated and sent out the back.
I said that gamma rays don't make a good propellant, but that is debatable. If you can get them all pointed the way you want, they arguably make the best possible propellant. But they are so energetic that managing them is very hard. I remain skeptical about high-thrust photon rockets even in the far future, but Edgar Bonet (whose comment triggered the addition of this paragraph) may disagree. You certainly can't just use a parabolic mirror like a headlight reflector to collimate the photons - I think something fancy would be required.
So I think they would use whatever was cheap for the fuel but probably water for propellant since it's plentiful.
[Answer]
# Iron: the poop of stars
I would presume that you'd want something that provided consistent energy output. Having a reactor that sometimes fizzles and sometimes explodes is a bad model. Thus, you're probably looking for an elemental material.
You would want it to be reasonably dense. If you're E=MC^2, then you always get the same energy per weight. Having more dense materials allow for less storage infrastructure for the same mass.
It should be common. Iron is the 4th most common element in the Earth's crust, and we presume that other rocky planets are that way, too.
It should be easy to handle. Liquids might be better in this category because you can flow them into whatever conversion you're using. Maybe mercury, but mercury isn't common and it's quite toxic.
Iron is at the bottom of the nuclear energy well. When huge stars get past their hydrogen burning phase, they work their way up the periodic table until they reach iron. Everything iron and above takes more energy to make than you get out of it, so starting fusion into iron is the deathknell of any star. All of the heavier elements only exist because they were created in supernova.
So, yea, pure iron bars would be my suggestion.
Edit: I'd like to put in a second vote for "ram scoops." Fuel that you need a gas tank for is usually inferior to fuel you can pick up on the way. That's why all explorers are also hunters/prospectors.
[Answer]
## Ceremonial tea cakes
Your edited post says:
* each vehicle needs a few hundred MW
* 60% of energy is captured
Using E\_captured = 0.6 \* mc^2, this means m = E\_captured / (0.6 \* c^2), and m/t = E\_captured/t / (0.6 \* c^2). E\_captured/t is the energy per unit time, which we'll take to be 500 MW. This means the mass per unit time is 0.00927 milligrams per second. That comes out to 292 grams per year.
Logistics of obtaining and carrying that much fuel are not a concern. Enough for years of operation would fit in your carry-on luggage. Thus, the fuel can be chosen for whimsical reasons; whatever the crew finds amusing.
Once a year, the crew gathers in the reactor room for a ceremony. Tea and cakes are served. Anyone with something to say about the ship - thanking her for carrying them this past year, grousing about her frequent mechanical failures, apologizing for scraping her hull in a bumpy landing - stands up and says it. The ship, being just a ship, doesn't say anything, but the crew feel better for getting it off their chests. At the end of the ceremony a tea cake is placed in the reactor, of a mass sufficient to power the ship for the coming year.
[Answer]
It depends on what you mean by "convert matter directly to energy". If you have something that can generate positrons and antiprotons and, with few beams, you totally annihilate the matter at this point sorry for the pun, but it doesn't matter.
If instead you have a fusion reactor that can fuse any light element to iron and a fission reactor that can break any heavy element to iron obviously I would exclude iron and close elements. Then I would say **chondrite**.
Well, chondrite is not an element, it is a mix of elements, but it is mainly composed by light elements (Si, Mg, O, C etc.) that could be put in a fusion reactor to create iron. The advantage is that you can take them from any small object you find in space and you don't have to lift them from the surface of a planet. Going against the gravity takes energy. Furthermore refuelling might be easy. You can pick up small asteroids along the way. Actually having a fusion reactor that burns everything to iron means that you can also pick up icy rocks along the way.
[Answer]
Normally they would use the highest density materials they could find because physical space is a valuable commodity in outer space.
Lead comes to mind.
Second if they had any dangerous materials like spent nuclear fuel, you might as well consume it instead of keeping it around to poison the crew.
Out of necessity anything, but hydrogen and helium are the most abundant materials in all of space. They can be stored in a liquid form to increase density a bit.
The other fuel that would be amazing if you could get it, material from a black hole. Even material near the event horizon is probably 10x more dense than normal matter.
Clarification "Black hole material" is any matter compressed sufficiently by a black hole. I will leave the exact compression ratio for the OP to decide.
The dangers of the matter suddenly expanding as you move away from the black hole would always be there. So special packing and skills to keep it expanding at a manageable rate would be necessary.
In theory, you might only fill the fuel tank 50% of black hole matter to allow for the matter to expand. In fact you might have to only put 10% of black hole material into the convertor at a time.
It would be a constant tug of war between cramming this black hole matter into the fuel tank and the black hole matter expanding.
Can you use enough of it up at once to prevent it bursting the tank.
A relatively small amount of black hole matter properly managed could fuel your ship, maybe for decades.
True blackhole material you might have enough energy in a cubic foot of material to travel to the nearest galaxy at 100x speed of your poor hydrogen consuming competitors. Also you could probably carry significantly more cargo as your fuel tank might be the size of an oven.
The people harvesting and managing this material would probably have the highest paying jobs as the danger of getting trapped in a black hole or ship exploding due to taking on too much of it at once and it suddenly expanding when you get it away from the black hole.
---
Hello you have reached Fedex intergalatic how may we help you.
"I need to send my package to alpha century."
Thats 1000 for hydrogren based (delivery within 2 months)
3000 for lead based (delivery 1 month)
"No, no I need it 2nd day delivery"
Sir we will have to open a wormhole using black hole matter for you, and that will be extra, extra.
1000000000 currency, but we will get there on time.
] |
[Question]
[
In the magic system I'm developing, denser metals (like platinum or gold) can store up energy in order to fuel spells at the user's need. A weapon made of said metals would be very useful, since the wielder would be able to store vast amounts of power into it (and even place enchantments into the blade), and it would also be incredibly expensive and rare (which those metals already are).
However, those metals are also unsuitable for use as weaponry, which leads to the question: are there any alloys of them which would be suitable for, say, making swords and axes? Alloys aren't as efficient as the pure material for storage, but would still be a lot more efficient than something made of steel, or even lead.
[Answer]
What you want is β-Ti3Au which technically is an intermetallic of gold and titanium. Apparently Tony Stark was right about a titanium gold alloy being a good choice for his suits.
<https://phys.org/news/2016-07-lab-titanium-gold-alloy-harder-steels.html>
The density is similar to titanium. Harder than steel, half the specific gravity.
A sword forged from this stuff would certainly be magical. Lighter, stronger, harder, sharper, corrosion resistant and extremely difficult to forge. It's difficult to form the alloy in the first place, and then you get the α-phase (same hardness as straight titanium). The harder β-phase forms only at extremely high temperatures.
Oh and it's a red-gold colour. You can give it various conflicting backstories of being forged with the blood of dragons and suchlike.
---
I was thinking about how mediaeval smiths might produce such a thing and you're going to *love* the answer: in the side of a volcano. And he'll still need coal dust and a fan. How exactly the smith is supposed to survive in such an environment is your problem. I expect that such weapons will have been made by your gods, giving a whole new meaning to "limited edition".
A regular forge won't be hot enough. It will return the material to the α-phase, which is not a horrible material for a sword but won't hold an edge the way the β-phase will. Any reforging of the Sword that was Broken would be an epic quest in itself; you would need to enlist the aid of your world's equivalent to Hephaestus/Vulcan.
Note that being very hard and keeping a superb edge is not the same as unbreakable. With stupid handling such a sword would be easier to break than iron because where iron will bend, this will snap.
It would be within the strength of a big fighter to apply enough torsion to snap it. But this only improves the item from a game perspective because players take care about how they use it, or face the ire of other players for destroying a unique item that's nearly impossible to reforge.
These physical qualities also affect the *type* of sword. To mitigate the risk of shattering, the blade needs significant depth in the cutting plane — like a scimitar. Long and thin is just begging for failure (but you might start out this way and have Vulcan fix the design flaw if they've been good little players).
---
Interesting comments. I don't think having half the density of steel represents a problem. Have you ever lifted a real sword? They're heavy! A lighter sword is a speed and stamina advantage.
The tensile strength of mild steel is about 400MPa with a Young's Modulus of 210GPa. By contrast most titanium alloys have a tensile strength from 1000 to 1390MPa and a Young's Modulus of 103GPa .
Straight titanium is similar in hardness to 304 stainless steel, and although I could not find a hardness value for beta βTi3Au it is widely described as "four times harder than titanium" hence my razor blade comments.
Bronze swords were thicker to offset the lower material strength. With half the density you can double the thickness and come out the same weight. While aluminium bronzes can have up to 780MPa tensile strength, the alloys available to the Greeks were about 230MPa.
[Answer]
***Crushing weapons:***
I was going to go with the inlay answer, but as another alternative, why aren't your magical weapons metal staves, rods, and Maces? Here, other than a strong handle, the weight of the weapon is what makes it effective. I don't know what properties your magic imbues, so I can't speak for what magical properties the weapon would have. Mass in a crushing weapon is valuable to cripple and maim armored OR unarmored opponents; By the time knights started wearing plate armor, sharp swords were undesirable and good only for fighting lesser opponents.
Similarly, heavy axes relied on small cutting blades and a lot of force and leverage. Plate everything but add mass with gold (not sure why lead isn't on top, as it's cheap, but hey, your rules).
If these weapons are merely batteries for magical storage, A simple Gold rod (perhaps with a steel shaft in the middle) would be an almost hallmark weapon of wizards. Just flashing a golden mace would say "Don't mess with me, I'm a wizard." On the other hand, stealing a wizard's rod would leave him vulnerable. I'd suggest a sort of breastplate with gold strapped directly to the wizard's body.
[Answer]
# Use Gold Inlays instead of Alloys
Unless there's a strict requirement for the entire blade to be made of gold/platinum, don't use alloys. There will be plenty of compromises in quality, hardness, cost and utility that you may not want to make.
## Cost
Getting a high quality and hard alloy from gold or platinum maybe possible but expensive. A claymore (2.5kg) made of pure gold (to establish an upper bound) would be USD\$144K. Compare that a ton of steel is USD\$980.
## Workmanship
It's easy to find a blacksmith to work iron. It's easy to find a jeweler to work gold and platinum. It's *very* rare to find someon who can do both. Unless there's a very long history of this kind of workmanship, the number of practitioners in magical sword making is going to be very small.
## Material Compromises
Gold is very soft with a hardness of 2.5. Platinum is 3.5. Iron is 4.0 ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardnesses_of_the_elements_(data_page))) Any alloy of gold or platinum is going to have to fight that lack of hardness. The metallurgy could get quite complicated to get satisfactory alloys.
## Recommendations
Do a gold or platinum inlay instead of alloy. This allows your blacksmiths to forge a good sword and your jewelers to do beautiful work. The complexities of metallurgy to go away too.
[Answer]
**Don't make an alloy**
Use the gold in other ways. Use gold for the pommel to counterbalance the blade. Use gold inlay on the blade. Put some gold in the grip.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/tJ0HA.png)
This way you don't weaken the steel of the blade and don't ruin the purity of the gold battery.
[Answer]
**Magic power steering**
People love gold swords. Sometimes they have them in weddings even. But in real life gold is heavy and soft so it would not make a very functional tool. Even those wedding swords are not solid because they would be so heavy they would pull the groom's pants down.
I am reminded of the stealth aircraft which require a ["fly-by-wire"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire) interface because they are inherently unstable and unaerodynamic. Without the tech they cannot fly. So too your gold sword. As made it is pretty much unusable except for pulling down grooms' pants. But lay on that magic and it becomes light and sharp and also whatever else you want - maybe it can be thrown accurately and return to your hand, or sing songs around the campfire.
People who are digging magic swords might not need to see accurate metallurgy. Make your sword solid gold and maximally awesome. If the magic has the potential of wearing off, make your your grooms have maximally awesome undershorts.
[Answer]
Metals having density around 20:
Gold (density 19.3) is soft and not really good material for weaponry. But it can make a good decoration.
Light platinides Rutenium, Rhodium, Paladium and especially heavy platinides (Osmium, Iridium, Platinum) are extremely hard. Osmium is densest - something like 22.5
Tungsten - density 19.3 (like gold), but a lot harder. Crazy metallurgy, hardest to melt (not that others are a lot easier...)
Uranium - density 19.1 . It contains a lot of magic by itself.
In our everyday world, 90% Platinum + 10% Iridium alloy is used for creating measurement standards exactly because it is hard. I am almost sure that it is harder than steel.
Any item made from these metals is surprisingly heavy. For comparison - iron is 7.6, lead is 11.2, copper is 8.9.
[Answer]
Why can't a gold or platinum weapon be magically hardened? Not only would the cost of making such a weapon be great, but you could have varying levels of hardness based on how complex the magic is. This would introduce varying levels of cost and could also introduce the need to "refuel" the weapon, which would prevent infinite weapons and create true loss. True loss is what keeps an economy going!
] |
[Question]
[
In the scenario I have in mind, a handful of portals appear in a major U.S. city from which an army of golems starts pouring forth with the intent to cause as much damage as possible.
The specifics of this magical army aren't very important—assume they are dangerous enough to warrant a military response.
And for the sake of the argument, let's say the city in question is Los Angeles.
How long would it take for the army/national guard/military (or whatever) to mobilize and start dealing with this sudden invasion?
Edit:
For those curious as to how effective modern weaponry would be against the army of golems:
The Golem's don't feel pain nor fear, and thus wouldn't hesitate to walk into a hail of bullets or charge at tanks.
Small arms fire would indeed be almost completely ineffective. Powerful/Heavy enough Tanks (?) would be capabable of crushing Golems underfoot but it would be more akin to crushing rocks than squishy human bodies.
Although they posses a great deal of strength, they lack ranged options.
I won't specify their numbers, however, but I will say that they aren't endless. The military *would* win against them in the end.
Armed Citizen response is expected, but not really the point of the question.
[Answer]
It wouldn't be an 'all at once' kind of scenario. It would probably go down something like this:
0-1 hours: Initial invasion. Massive wave of 911 calls results in large scale but uncoordinated response by local police.
1-2 hours: Scale of event begins to become apparent. SWAT teams are deployed, but not in a very coordinated way. State Governor calls up the National Guard. Active Duty Guard are ordered to report to their armories.
2-4 hours: First wave of organized response from National Guard units with the Active Duty Guardsmen who were in close proximity to their armories. Reserve Guard units are called to report in. State Governor declares a state of Emergency and requests aid from the Federal government.
4-8 hours: Second wave of organized response from National Guard units. All Active Guard should be mobilized at this point. Reserve Guard are in the process of reporting in. Initial response from US Armed Forces depending primarily on proximity of bases. Continuous presence of Air National Guard and USAF aircraft above the city. Possibly Navy and Marines as well depending on the city. National Guard armored vehicles will be in the streets, Army and Marine as well again depending on base proximity.
8-24 hours: Increasing level of response from National Guard and US Armed Forces as units from further away are recalled to duty and deployed. By the end of 24 hours all local Guard should be mobilized and responding, and Guard units from neighboring states will be arriving. Massive and continuous response by USAF, USN, and USMC aircraft, especially in any coastal city.
[Answer]
The answers discussing USA response are very good (time to get armor from Hood, etc.)
But I would add that air attack would be very effective (big bombs blow rocky golems apart, heavier canons for golem breaking) and unopposed (lack of golem ranging weapons). Within the day many, many Naval and Air Force aircraft in the Western US and offshore could respond. It wouldn't even be much issue at all to do the bombs load. Aircraft carriers are ready for this sort of thing and full of bombs. I don't think the Chair Force would take long either.
In addition, there are significant armor assets at Camp Pendleton that are USMC and about an hour south on I-5 (with no traffic, haha).
P.s. I have personally launched Tomahawks (for exercises) from sea that landed onshore in SOCAL. While it would not make sense to use these weapons against moving golems, you could certainly take out the portel(s) as soon as targeting was available and orders dispatched. Within a day for sure.
P.s.s. I know you are just trying to gather information to help you, but this plan is a no-go. Perhaps if you asked the board, how to prevail with your golem attacks? (Maybe drop them into our command and control areas? But I don't want to help you too much.)
[Answer]
**Lightly-armed troops would arrive in a few hours. Useful amounts of heavy armor and weaponry would take days.**
This answer ignores USAF and USMC fighting response, since the OP asked specifically for Army. (looks like an edit changed that)
Getting *troops* there isn't the problem.
The nearest National Guard brigade is at San Diego, with subordinate battalions much closer to Los Angeles. Those troops are, of course, mostly at their homes and civilian schools and jobs. Mustering most would be a matter of a few hours.
The nearest Regular Army brigade is usually at Fort Irwin, CA, going through a rotation at the National Training Center. The troops would need to be pulled out of the field, refueled and resupplied, and reoriented to the new mission. Most of that brigade can be in Los Angeles within 12 hours...but only lightly armed.
More troops can fly in from Ft Hood and Ft Stewart within a day. The entire 40th Infantry Division (CAARNG) would be there within two days...but only lightly armed.
The REAL problem is getting enough ammunition to those troops.
Fighting units within the USA do NOT keep large stocks of ammunition for heavy weapons (javelins, tank rounds, artillery, etc) on-hand. That would be unwise and risky for many reasons. Instead, most units have a small supply of light ammunition for force protection on-hand, and depend upon the Army to send most ammunition to forward resupply points for pickup. Minor stocks are nearby at pickup points like Ft Irwin and Camp Roberts.
The closest large number of tank units are away in Texas. They would take days to arrive by rail or truck. While the tanks of the local 18th Armored Cavalry Regiment would do what they can, the question implies greater numbers than a single valiant squadron can perhaps conveniently handle...especially with rapidly dwindling ammunition.
The closest major stocks of ammunition are away in Utah and Oklahoma. It will take at least a day to marshall the aircraft to begin airlifing ammunition to California. Each flight of ammo is one less flight of soldiers or equipment. Even with airlift, expect depot-to-tank-crew delivery time to be about 2-3 days. The airlift must last about 5-6 days, then the first ammo trains and convoys begin to arrive. Distribution under the best of circumstances takes 1-2 days...and these won't be the best of circumstances.
[Answer]
These days all Western countries are alert to the danger of a Mumbai-style terrorist attack, involving a significant number of gunmen with automatic weapons attacking a crowded city location. It is reasonable to assume that LA is well-organised and briefed do deal with this. (In the UK, an SAS unit helicoptered in within minutes of a terrorist attack in London).
Expect a rapid-response force from co-ordinated government agencies to arrive very quickly while local police attempted to cordon off the area.
What happens next depends a lot on the level of intelligence they can obtain and the politics -- using US forces in the US is a bit of an issue. The big problem is that nobody is going to believe an alien invasion straight off, which will cause delays while the drones from border security are re-tasked with collecting data on the invasion force.
A quick Google suggests there are no significant Army/USMC bases with suitable armor close to LA. A mobile reaction force (light armor) could be flown in less than 12 hours from approval, the heavy stuff will take days. I suspects the Corps of Engineers will be your most effective tool.
Speaking of which, from the description, Army equipment may not be what's needed.
A construction firm with lots of bulldozers, wrecking balls and earthmoving plant, with military reserve staff at the wheel, might prove way more effective than guys with M-4s and rocket launchers. Especially if they have plenty of demolition charges and someone adept at martial-arts use of a jackhammer. Hell, even a quickly-excavated trench might be enough to stop the golems - then just fill it in with liquid cement.
I'd also like to explore the possibility of dropping improvised barrel-bombs from civilian helicopters -- plenty of those to commandeer in LA! And you'd get the whole thing filmed at the same time for the movie...
[Answer]
## For quick response, armed attack helicopters and / or jets.
There are three weapons that armed attack helicopters provide for use against golems; some of the comments up stream imply that small arms may or may not be effective. (This answer, mildly informed by some QRF operations I was involved with IRL, is aimed at helping you tell your story)
1. Hellfire Missiles. They can have HE or anti armor head. (I'd go HE for flesh golems)
2. 2.75 inch rockets(Hydra). In 2011, the effort to upgrade those to include a seaker head that followed laser designation was successful; APKWS. They are now in the inventory (in various flavors).
3. 20mm or 30mm multi barreled machine gun. (Cobra or Apache)
Depending on the readiness level of the base in question, be it an Army National Guard base, an active Army base, or a Marine Corps base (like Camp Pendelton between LA and San Diego) the briefing, arming and transit time would be between 2-4 hours if the call for support comes during the day. If it's in the middle of the night or at 2:00 AM, a bit longer. That time span is subject to your authorial intent and desire. If someone says "US is under attack, I need ... X" the need for rapid response is understood at a place like Camp Pendelton (or similar military base).
### Some useful jets: A-10s, F-16s, F-15Es, F-35s.
You could expect a response from Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada to arrive in about the same time if you (1) posited an alert state that got them armed quickly, and / or (2) if the units flying those aircraft were in a live fire exercise.
### More useful Jets: F-18 (E/F) and / or F-35
From Fallon Nevada (Strike U), or from NAS Lemoore, you could posit a similar armed alert that, once someone called and said "Golems attacking, need armed jets over LA as soon as you can." With sufficient motivation and command requirement, 2-4 hours to get armed, briefed, and launched. MCAS Miramar likewise with armed air assets, [as they have recently received F-35Cs](https://www.3rdmaw.marines.mil/News/Article/2062644/lightning-strikes-miramar-3rd-marine-aircraft-wing-welcomes-corps-first-f-35c/).
In the time that it takes to get them briefed, armed, and enroute, in parallel (time-wise) someone local (National GUard or Air National Guard personnel) who is a FAC or a JFAC (Forward Air Controller) would need to be moving to be near the scene to get "eyes on target" for the air units. There *are* airborne FACs qualified in Marine squadrons. (I can't remember how USAF does airborne FAC at the moment) You could have an airborne FAC from Pendelton fullfil that role in your story.
All of the above aircraft have precision weapons: laser designated bombs and missiles. The 20mm and 30mm cannons are quite accurate, but the risk of collateral damage goes up a bit.
### Air Assault in support
While all of that is going on, you can get some platoon strength Marine or Army units from the nearby bases armed with grenade launchers, .50 cal (Ma Deuce), and with anti-tank weapons. (Something like the AT-4). CH-53E or Osprey(V-22) can get them to the fight and arrive a little while after the attack helicopters go in. The problem there is to scramble a few platoons of appropriately armed infantry (heavy weapons platoon or Antitank platoon), get them to the airfield, get them briefed and armed (can be done in parallel) and then off they go. Air Assault is a thing that both the Army and Marines practice a lot.
That initial ground force will need to be reinforced rapidly. The transport aircraft can refuel at Pendelton/Army Base/etc (the USMC can hot-refuel with rotors turning) when they come to reload with the next platoon/company that got assembled, briefed and armed up. The size of the "Army" of golems informs just how dire the tactical situation is and how large of a response is needed. Battalion level? Brigage/Regiment level? Division? Corps? A Joint Task force HQ would probably fall in on the initial response/QRF force within 24-48 hours.
It takes time, but you can speed it up a little for narrative effect.
### Heavier units; probably a day or so more before they can get to the fight.
If you want Bradleys / Strikers / Tanks, other Armored Fighting Vehicles, that will take a bit more time. The police have a collasal task of clearing the highways into LA from all of the people who are fleeing LA to allow the Army/Marines to roll in the heavy armor. I'd not have them arrive until the following day. And if you want to get your stubby pencil out, you can also force the issue of someone setting up FARPS (Feuling and arming points) so that the tanks and helicopters can stay in the fight ... not sure how many golems you have rolling in, and how long you envision the fight going on for.
[Answer]
I would think you'd want to chose the portal location based on how effective/fast you want the response to be. And there are further dials beyond that.
## LA
LA is just north of "Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton", HumV's galore, LCACs (hovercraft that can take a tank, a few HumVs, or a crap load of soldiers), tanks, artillery, probably some attack helicopters). It's not much further north from "Marine Corps Air Station Miramar". They will have plenty of close air support available.
You can edit the response time if you like given an officer willing to "ask for forgiveness rather than permission". Given some company of anti armor light vehicles on a live fire training mission in the big swath of desert between LA and SD, you could have 50. cal HMGs, full auto 40mm grenade launchers, and anti-tank missiles on scene in under an hour.
Want to motivate that officer to react faster than is prudent for ones career? Say their family lives off base near one of the portals. Make that officer the kind of awesome sauce who's soldiers would literally follow him (or her?) into hell... and you've got military weaponry on scene in under an hour.
You could even suppose this officer is good friends with a local police chief (they served together of course) and "I saved your goddam life and I'm calling that favor due!" Instant police escort, just add cell phone.
And if you want to pull out the REALLY big guns, there's also Naval Base San Diego. I don't think anyone will want to drop a 16-inch shell in LA, but you *could* rationalize it.
I'm thinking the 20mm cannon on super cobras' chin turret could really wreck your golems without fear of reprisal and relatively little collateral damage... could probably go straight through their center of mass, and blast the leg off the golem behind the first one, but then the round just blows a hole in the street/lawn. The sewer system might take some damage, but it's not like you're putting ever round through several houses like you might with an M2 50 cal from a hummer.
## Other
I suggest you find a map of military bases, and compare that with all cities over some size (1 million people perhaps), and pick something relatively isolated, or even more well covered, depending on your needs.
You might also want to consider guns per capita, and what kind of guns they might be. I'd expect far more people in Alaska to have ready access to something heavy (to deal with bears and moose (and skverl!), and therefor more likely to drop your golems in a hurry) rather than the kinds of firearms you'd find somewhere like New York were the guns/capita is relatively low, and you only have to worry about other people.
[Answer]
In 2004 there was a man named Marvin Heemeyer, due to his belief that the government was unfairly destroying his livelyhood he armored up a bulldozer and had a night on the town. It lasted around 2 hours before he got stuck in a basement.
From what I recall the authorities were going to call in the guard to dispose of him, but they figured it'd do more damage and then he took care of himself by getting stuck in the basement.
From that you can probably get at least two hours of decision making before the guard is called.
As a bonus, since your town undoubtedly has a road department with backhoes, bobcats and dozers; which means they should be able to defend themselves a little bit.
Heck since these monsters are weak enough that small arms will eventually crack 'em, car accidents would cripple them. Just have Billy Bob put his f150 into reverse and hit the gas. His truck'll be toast but so will the invader.
If this was in a state with harsh winters we could even have a charge of the snowplow brigage!
] |
[Question]
[
Though ceramic plates are harder than a math exam, and can practically obliterate projectiles, they are one-hit wonders. [Self-repairing has been demonstrated](https://www.nims.go.jp/eng/news/press/2017/12/201712210.html) for a composite of silicon carbide and aluminum oxide. I guess I should also add that the composite regained full-strength, but needed a minute and 1000 °C. The plate has to be substituted for the duration of the repairing process, but how am I supposed to quickly switch plates, sometimes mid-combat?
I need a way for the armor to:
* **quickly**
* **reliably**
* **energy-efficiently**
replace the plates, the structural components of the mechanism should:
* **be sturdy**
* **lightweight**
* **and interfere with other activities (shooting and running) as little as possible**
The plates are mainly around the torso (front and side) and the legs (front and side), *since you only get shot in the back if you face away from combat, or if you let the enemy get behind you*.
**How should my armor replace its plates?**
---
Note
If first thought of an arm that can reach out for and pick up tiles, then place a new one in the gaps, but [Moravec's Paradox blocks the way!](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moravec%27s_paradox)
[Answer]
There are two ways to go with this. The way it SOUNDS like you're asking for is for your powered armor to carry an entire second set of ceramic plates all the time can be swapped in and out while you're fighting. I think this is a Bad Idea and I wouldn't equip MY armored minions this way. You're basically handicapping your troops by adding all that extra weight which basically kills your "interfere with other activities (shooting and running) as little as possible" criteria the moment they put the armor on.
The way that I think makes sense is to have support units embedded with your infantry so that as armor gets too damaged to continue those guys fall back just enough to get out of the heat of battle and have their plates swapped out by a quick-change system, and then go back to fighting.
There's all kinds of ways you can do this depending on how rapidly you want to turn around an individual soldier. The quickest way is to have a 'combat medic' who's embedded with your squad who carries a couple extra sets of plates, so your troops can just fall back just out of the thick of the fighting, have the plates replaced using the medic's special toolkit, and be back in the fray in a few minutes.
A more efficient way if you're envisioning brigade-level rather than squad-level combat would be to swap entire squads in and out of combat. This is a VERY old way of doing things that goes all the way back to Greek warfare where pitched battle was a process of constantly cycling your tired guys at the front of the formation back so they can get a drink of water and rest up for a bit while some fresh troops hold the shieldwall against the Persians or the Gauls or whoever.
In this scenario your squad would fight as a unit till they'd taken sufficient damage that they couldn't maintain anymore and then a fresh squad waiting behind them would move up and the damaged squad would fall back to an APC or something out of range of the thickest fighting and have all their damaged plates replaced at once, along with whatever medical attention was required.
In fact, there's no particular reason you couldn't combine both approaches. That's how I'd do it, if it were MY armored minions.
[Answer]
Like sharks replace teeth.
The plates can be put on the armor in an overlapping scale pattern, with one plate visible, and another above it, protected by the overlapping scale. If a scale takes a hit it slides off, and the new scale automatically slides down into place. The broken scale can then be gathered and repaired, then put into the replacement slot.
Depending on the size of the scales you could end up with gaps if someone takes multiple hits in the same area, but if they are small enough then the gaps won't be too big.
[Answer]
The same way modern soldiers swap their ceramic plates: the plates are all inserted into kevlar pouches in the kevlar vests the soldiers wear. When they get shot, the soldiers pull the broken plate out of the pouch and put a new one in.
[Answer]
**Plate powder.**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/nSRk9.jpg)
[source](http://www.lakesidepottery.com/HTML%20Text/Tips/Making%20Wedging%20Table.htm)
Your soldiers carry plate powder. Dry, it weighs very little. If a plate breaks, tear a new fabric pocket off of your roll. It has the right amount of powder in it already. Add water, shake and seal, then lay it flat. The new plate sets up in a minute like fast-set cement or plaster of Paris, expanding slightly in the process.
Soldiers will have water with them. Used water, if nothing else.
[Answer]
Use a physical, arm mounted, ceramic shield. It can have layers of ceramic plates that are designed to be ejected after taking a hit.
The shield just needs to be thick enough to take the hits needed to get you into attack range. Then you can drop it for greater mobility on your attack.
When not in active combat, the shield can be stored on the back which will make it less cumbersom to carry and protect you from sneak attacks.
[Answer]
Let's take an example from nature - specifically Skin and Nails.
Each Plate consists of several alternating layers of Ceramic (for strength - or perhaps [goethite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpet#Strength)?) and Rubber (for shock-absorption and adhesion)
At the back of the plate is a sheet with lots of holes in. Alternating holes exude 1 of 4 different liquids: 2 of them mix & react to form a Ceramic layer, and 2 mix & react to form a Rubber layer. By pumping the liquid out, you push the existing layers forwards and form a new one behind them.
Cracked ceramic plate layers slough off - you can have microscopic electrodes around the edge that measure the electrical impedance to determine if layers need to be replaced/regenerated on that specific plate.
[Answer]
Graft the plates on a carbon nanotube mesh behind it. Given fine enough it would keep the majority of the ceramic plates in place. A bit like gluing linen against a wooden shield. While the wood splinters the fabric holds it together far longer then it would without it.
Holding the plates together makes it easy to remove them as a whole. They could use a magnetic locking system. Easily removing them and slipping a new one in place. This of course isn't automated but down with the help of squad members.
[Answer]
How about the plates are aligned in several columns on the body and each can slide down into the place of the plate below it. When plates get to the bottom of the suit, they slide around to the back and go up a chute inside the suit behind the wearer's spine.
If a plate takes a hit, the whole column slides down, around to the back, and up the chute until the damaged plate reaches the "reforger" inside the chute, where it is reforged. All the undamaged plates that pass through just pop out the top of the suit and immediately slide into a column that has room for it (usually the one they just came from).
A column of plates would basically be a chain of armor, and even while it's sliding down it's offering protection everywhere except where the damaged one happens to be at the moment.
[Answer]
Potentially you could have the armour made up of a rows and columns of smaller ceramic plates all around the body (looking almost like an array of pixel on the armour). Each column could be mounted on a rotating belt. As one plate is hit, the row rotates around the body of the wearer, moving the damaged plate to a 'recovery point', where the plate is removed, replaced with a new one and collected for repair.
[Answer]
To go along with the scales idea, since you don't need back plates, make the plates easily attachable to whatever backing fabric is holding the armor. Then you can swap out a dead plate with a new one when it breaks. If you make it so that when scales break, the vast majority of the scale falls off, it's easier and faster to change. Carry the extra plates on your back to swap out, and/or keep a pouch or box around that has backups.
This kind of repair would interfere with movement, but it could also make for some really interesting tense scenarios. It would be like healing in a battle royale game, in the middle of a firefight. Also makes it possible to miss a scale repair and make yourself vulnerable.
Could also make modular armor, with different kinds and sizes of plates that can be hotswapped quickly. If a shield breaks, eject that module and load/attach a new one. This can make it harder to have backups available, but if they use a universal mounting mechanism, you can find all kinds of different modules in the world, depending on the setting.
[Answer]
Temporary patches to cover weak spots and crumble away after an hour or two.
Provides protection while the damaged spot can self repair and patch provides additional protection while still in place after repair in direction of fire. Patches can be bulky and double thickness to be flexible and fit on any armour segment. You only need as many patches as you expect to take hits in any given engagement.
Use back scratcher to slap patches where you cannot reach easily.
[Answer]
You're missing the point of armour, and of soldiers.
### Soldiers die
Basically, that's their job description. Go places, kill other people, and if you're unlucky then get killed yourself.
A soldier does have a money value, of course in terms of the training they've received and perhaps the equipment they're carrying. Which leads onto...
### Armour only needs to be as good as the value of the person it's protecting ***and*** the risk they're taking
Back in the days when wars were fought with swords, kings had the best armour. For a long time though, the guys running an army haven't themselves been in the fighting, so they simply haven't needed that kind of personal protection.
Body armour has become cheaper these days, but it's still only practical for some applications, and for use on some areas of the body. It's technically possible to build better body armour, but it would cost more than the value of the soldier wearing it. Unless on average it gives you better fighting ability for the same money, it really isn't happening.
[Answer]
Random idea: like biology repairs broken skin, but faster.
Plates have small reservoirs of liquid epoxy-like goop held under high pressure, this epoxy-like goop is defined as curing at low pressures. Once the outer shell of the armor plate is breached the high pressure reservoir will vent epoxy-like goop, which will then quickly solidify as it escapes into the lower external pressure.
At the end of the battle these armored soldiers would look like crap, literally, but that's of secondary importance and could make for some moments of barracks humor.
[Answer]
I don't see why you would want that. There's plenty of time between battles to repair your armor (replace ceramic plates), and getting hit in the same spot in the same battle is tiny. Taking a headshot is a bigger risk (easier to hit than a degraded part of armor, and more dangerous).
No army uses robotic arms to repair armor in real combat now, and there is a reason for that. If your world doesn't differ from the real one (similar tech level, no magic, etc.) why would you expect a different result?
[Answer]
Is the goal simply healing of the armor?
If so, I agree with @nzaman and say repair, rather than replace. Gluing back together the broken plate is going to be weaker, but if the glue is strong enough, it'll result in the plate breaking in different places the next time. (and it's the breaking that matters -- absorbing energy in the process).
If the plates were in a teflon-lined kevlar pouch, you could have a system that injected an adhesive that could set up and take the shape of the pouch (without sticking to the pouch itself too much). You then just need a pump and a series of tubes and valves to direct the glue to the pouch. (although, I'd run this on the outside of the armor -- it'd suck to have it glue something else together). You might also be able to use something that was two-part to cure, or require a catalyst (heat, UV light, moisture, etc.)
With some better technology, it might be possible to encapsulate a glue so that when the plate breaks, it releases the adhesive automatically in the correct location that it's needed. You might need something to hold the plate together while it curses (as you're not adding volume) but you could use shape-memory metal wires around the pouch that holds the plate snugly while it's curing.
You still have similar mechanics -- there's a limited time window in which a second well-placed shot would be deadly.
[Answer]
I can imagine the ceramic plates being small, likened to a fish scale pattern. The velocity of a bullet will hit a small ceramic plate and the momentum will push it inward (perhaps it's attached to a spring). The damaged plate will come into contact with a hot plate within the armor suit, and will pop out when done and repaired - what are the chances of getting hit in that same exact spot twice in a row?
Or more fancily, it falls back into the suit, but a lever/spring system pushes another plate to fill the gap (like Iron Man style, or there is a system in place that detects light and moves the new armor piece to replace that spot). Alternatively, this system could work using gravity - the extra armor piece sits on top of another piece, and when the damaged piece falls within but out from underneath the extra piece then gravity will pull the new piece of armor downward immediately.
[Answer]
Give your troops the ability the request drop-pods that fall slightly ahead of them that they can step into and has robotic arms that can remove and replace plates that it detects as damaged. Moravec's Paradox should be less of a problem here because you can give them a spot to stand on and each arm has one plate to replace that's right in front of it.
Bonus points for extra cover, replenishing other stuff (Ammo, batteries) and being usable by multiple soldiers.
Bonus bonus points if the pod can also melt-down and reforge plates so it has unlimited stock.
You could also give them thrusters so they can execute a rudimentary "Jump" forward when requested after the troops have advanced past them (Might save your army some budget).
Stick a turret on them to provide some fire support or give them an armory to allow the soldiers to change loadout depending on the battle situation.
They could also hold medical supplies and understand how to cauterize/treat wounds (This gets a bit Moravecian).
] |
[Question]
[
In [How long would it take unused railroad rails to corrode below usability?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/q/250811/75), we are asked how long railway tracks would last, and in [my answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/250817/75), I show that while ordinary steel railway tracks are estimated to last up to 100 years before needing to be replaced, in practice they last around 30 years before being replaced due to corrosion.
However, that's for regular steel alloy rails. What if railway rails (and the other fittings such as the sleeper ties and clips that hold down the rails) were made from some variety of stainless steel? Would they last longer? Would they cost more? Would the extra cost be offset by a longer lifespan? If I'm envisioning a world where railway engineers have railways laid with stainless steel track and fittings, are they brilliant or barking?
In essence, this question is asking just one thing: What are the economic and engineering factors in the use of stainless steel rails that would make them more or less desirable than the current railway track alloys?
[Answer]
Stainless steel is about four to five times more expensive than ordinary steel. This means that even in a perfect world where companies or States could plan for a time horizon of a century or more for the recovery of the investment, stainless steel rails would make sense only if the stainless steel railway could be depended on to last four or five times longer than an ordinary steel railway.
Which is not the case.
First of all, corrosion of the rails is not really a big issue. Running trains over the rails will naturally keep the rails rust-free. Rails will need replacing *looooong* before rust eats them away.
The real limiting factor of the life time of the rails is the deformation produced by the large forces exerted by the trains rolling on the rails. Part of the regular maintenance of the track is to periodically use a [railgrinder](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgrinder) to restore the shape and levelness of the rail heads; as a minor side effect, running the railgrinder over the rails will also get rid of any rust. But eventually the rail heads become so much out of shape that they cannot be safely be brought to spec to allow running fast heavy trains, and the rails are then taken out of the main lines and re-used in branch lines and side lines. Using stainless steel will not help with deformation *at all*, so that stainless steel rails will require replacement at least as often as ordinary steel rails.
Railways need expensive maintenance anyway. The rails themselves are not the main problem; everything else is. In particular, the ballast on which the sleepers sit will need to be tamped and clean-up periodically, at great expense. Screws need tightening. Switches need lubricating. The track must be inspected periodically to check that the rails remain level and parallel. And so on and so on.
[Answer]
Stainless steel is TERRIBLE for train tracks. Especially if you are trying to use the most rust resistant grades.
**Expensive to produce**
**Difficult to fabricate**
Stainless is difficult to machine compared to carbon steel. It wears tools faster and can't be machined as quickly. Some are considered a nightmare.
**Difficult to weld, if you can even weld it at all**
**Less Hardenability**
Stainless cannot be hardened as much as carbon steel and austentic grades (the most corrosion resistant grades) cannot be hardened at all. And the kinds that can be hardened (martenistic and ferritic) *will* rust when exposed to standing fresh water.
**Constant Abrasion Reduces Corrosion Resistance**
If you're constantly abrading the stainless steel then you are constantly breaking thee passivation layer preventing further corrosion, forcing it to reform. This is true of even the most corrosion resistant grades.
**Galling**
Stainless, especially austentic stainless (the most corrosion resistant class) is known for galling and when it does you are tearing chunks out of the material. Austentic grades are flat out not used for bearing surfaces because of this. Not good for something bearing enormous, moving loads like train tracks.
Some stainless grades are used for bearing surfaces, namely 4140. Found in ball bearings, but it rusts after long term exposure to fresh water.
**Not as corrosion resistant as you might think**
The austentic grades of stainless steel (the most commonly encountered are 303 and 304) cannot stand up to salt water exposure These are what your typical eating utencils are. Your stainless appliances or laundry machine tub are probably 430 which is less rust resistant. It is not until you get to 316 where you can tolerate salt water exposure but the cost increase is significant and the machining can be a nightmare. 4140 is a common martenstic grade used for strength, hardenabiliy. It is commonly encountered in knives and campers will tell you that these rust. It just doesn't need to be babied like a carbon steel knife. Stainless steels have very clear tradeoffs between mechanical properties and corrosion resistance. Weldability is another distinctive trade-off too.
[Answer]
No, stainless is not rustfree.. stainless steel just rust one layer and then stops. But as the train grinds over it, the rust comes loose, making it just as rustable as the rest of the steels.
PS: Why not use normal steel + <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode>?
[Answer]
It might be reasonable for a niche
in the railway business.
Infrastructure is usually built with a pay back time of about 25 years. This means that the company using it will spend 25 years repaying the expenses occurred to build it, and any more year of usage is free juice.
Using stainless steel with the same payback time would result in higher usage fees, thus more expensive tickets. That might be OK for premium services, like high speed trains, not for more cost sensitive operations like logistics and cargo.
On the other hand going for longer payback time might increase the risk of the investment: it's not granted that a railway will stay operational for 30+ years.
You see something similar for airlines: last generation planes are used for transporting people on remunerative routes, while older models are used for cargo and peripheral routes.
[Answer]
### Using stainless steel is unlikely to be the solution chosen
It's probably possible that you could envision a world where the engineering trade-offs made it reasonable to use stainless steel. However, that would likely require significantly tweaking the economics of the entire lifetime of the track, the atmospheric conditions to make corrosion substantially more of an issue than it is in our world, and some of the properties of stainless steel in order to make it more attractive for this use.
These would need to be fairly significant changes among all aspects of the lifetime of the rails. As has been discussed in other answers, using stainless steel for this application has serious negatives in our world. The changes would need to make the economics of using stainless steel sufficiently favorable in order to overcome all of those negatives. In addition, the changes would need to make alternate solutions to corrosion control not economically feasible.
### Use other methods of corrosion control (e.g., [cathodic protection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection))
An important aspect that hasn't been discussed in other answers is that there are other, more effective, methods of controlling corrosion, or even just designing for accepting more corrosion, which are already in use in the real world in environments where corrosion is more of an issue. In our world, such environments are *typically* where water, especially salt water, is present in significant quantities. Some examples of those environments include boats/ships, water heaters, underground structures, in-water structures, etc.
In such situations, the typical choice, in addition to other mitigations (e.g., painting or other coatings, which, obviously, aren't options for railway track, due to the nature of their use), is to use a form of [cathodic protection](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodic_protection), which is either impressed current cathodic protection (ICCP), where a voltage is constantly applied to prevent corrosion of the material being protected, or using a [sacrificial anode, more properly called a galvanic anode](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_anode) to have the corrosion occur in another metal object that's electrically connected to the rails. Such sacrificial anodes can be made to be substantially easier monitor for excess corrosion and easier and less expensive to replace when needed.
] |
[Question]
[
Ok, since I'm *tHe* **BEaN dELiVerY mAn**, I need an appropriate weapon. I want a (you guessed it) bean gun. I want something that could launch beans at a lethal speed. However, I don't want the ammo to have to be cut into a cylinder like a spud gun. I want something that can launch the beans *whole* (baked, refried, uncooked, just beans I don't care which.) Would something of the sort be possible? If so, please explain in detail.
Requirements:
* Must shoot bean(s)
* Lethal (or just as bad as a bb gun)
* Doesn't harm bean gun wielder
Preferred Outlines (not required):
* Handheld/rifle style
* Bean case so if you get hungry you can eat them
* Accurate scope
All of the above in one device/gun/rifle etc.
Or, just fact check it. Thanks!
[Answer]
Hey there BEaN dELiVerY mAn! I made a video today demonstrating the operation of a real bean gun, and it's efficacy against a common backyard adversary.
Enjoy!
<https://youtu.be/-r81fttEqrM>
[Answer]
Trivially easy. Buy a 12 gauge shotgun and some reloading equipment. Load 12 gauge cartridges with beans instead of shot. Put reloaded cartridges in your shotgun and fire away.
Now I don't say that this will be a very effective weapon, but it will work (or should: I have not tried it myself). The low density of the beans means you won't get much range, and the non-symmmetrical shape of the beans means you'll get a very loose pattern, so forget about the scope. But it should be effective at close quarters.
[Answer]
If refried beans are in scope, I find myself thinking of something more like this:
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/c96gS.jpg)
Maybe this could be your character‚Äôs vehicle. Have the water cannons pump out refritos at high velocity. Or maybe one shoots refritos, and the other shoots nacho cheese? The options are endless! üòÑ
[Answer]
**Already bean done.....**
(Sorry for the pun)
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/eLM7R.png)
You can load up shotgun shells with seeds and fire them. Would be very short range weapon and pathetic stopping power but puts a whole new spin on "pushing up daisies"...
See [Flower Shell](https://www.cnet.com/news/for-extreme-gardeners-shotgun-shells-full-of-seed/)
[Answer]
The Bean Can-non, and the RPB
The Bean Can-non:
A small cannon, into which one packs a bag of powder, then a wad of rags, and then a can of beans. Point at enemy, stand well back, and poke a very long match into the touch hole. Boom! Headshots can be lethal, though difficult to achieve.
The RPB:
The modern version. This is an ordinary rocket propelled grenade launcher, except the warhead has been cut off the rocket and a can of beans welded in its place. There is a small but non-zero chance of killing your enemies, and a very good chance of annoying them.
[Answer]
**Depleted uranium beans.**
They would have to be grown from depleted uranium - not just have a uranium centre. So some sort of weird GM beans.
Then, since they are GM beans, you could get them to be suitable for rifling, or a bean-calibre gun.
But by that time they are, pretty much, bullets.
[Answer]
Cooling the beans in liquid nitrogen to -196C/-320F ought to make the beans solid enough to do significant damage even if cooked, and cold enough not to just reheat during transit or from whatever mechanism is used to propel them
Now you have a lot of small hard objects, which can be launched at your enemies through any mechanism normally suitable for launching small hard objects. Slings, catapults, cannons with the beans loaded as grapeshot, airguns etc
Actual bullets might be trickier because you wouldn't want to keep the charge cooled with liquid nitrogen, but I don't see any reason you couldn't design a device that feeds charges at ambient temperature, and liquid nitrogen cooled beans into the chamber separately
[Answer]
I assume you have never heard of a "potato cannon", or you never played with blowguns made out of a pen case and paper balls as a kid.
Tight seal between the barrel and the projectile is needed only to maximize the usage of the explosive power and prevent losses by allowing gases to escape, otherwise you will get propulsion anyway.
There are even historical evidences where desperate defenders, having run out of proper ammunition, loaded their cannons with coins and cutlery.
If you want something handheld, in the very basic configuration you need a pipe closed at one end, an explosive and your beans. Put the explosive in, then the beans, fire the explosive while aiming in the general direction of your target.
Beans can be used too. The only thing is that if they are cooked they won't withstand the jolt of the explosion and will likely be splattered.
You can even load the pipe with the whole can of canned beans, to increase the damage on the target.
[Answer]
Shotgun shells loaded with hard dried beans would be easiest.
But if you insist on something like a rifle or hangun, and you still want to use the beans "as is" without encasing them in something or cutting them to size; you could use a small calibre black powder cap-and-ball revolver (like the really old derringers or lady's purse guns or even six-shooters in cowboy movies set pre-civil war) or front loading rifle - in other words 19th century stuff - with a dried bean instead of the lead ball.
Alteratively an air gun made to fire hard round plastic pellets would also work.
For both options, the rounder and smoother the bean and the closer they are to the correct size the better your accuracy results would be, so you'd have to use dried round beans - something like soya beans, mung beans or azuki beans - and sieve-grade them so all your ammo is the right size.
Remember dried beans get harder as they get older (which is why they have to soak longer before cooking) so for ammo, the older the better.
[Answer]
Beans come in cans, which are made of steel and weigh more than a pound each. Launch the cans.
If you don't consider that cheating, I'm pretty sure it's the deadliest idea here.
[Answer]
The answer is simple, your bean gun is actually a coilgun.
A coilgun uses wires in spools to magnetically pull an object through the barrel.
This has been made by the [hacksmith on youtube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTDcFxTq1Fw)
So now you just need the beans to be magnetic, so just insert a tiny piece of metal into the inside of an uncooked bean, load, and fire!
As you will be able to see from the video I linked, it can do some serious destruction and can definitely cause injury, and be potentially lethal.
Note: You would have a case of already prepped beans ready to load with metal already inserted for efficiency of course.
[Answer]
A genetically engineered organism (shaped like a gun) that grows the beans internally (or via a symbiotic second organism) and fires said beans from a gullet via peristaltic action.
For prior (fictional) art see [existenz gristle gun](http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/EXistenZ#Gristle_Gun) and [warhammer 40k tyranid bioweapons](https://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Tyranid_Bio-Weapons_Thesis) etc
[Answer]
So a shotgun is all well and good for short range, but you want long range. At this point the issue is basically strength of the bean and accuracy of the bean; you can only make it go so fast without it disintegrating (likely not fast enough to be lethal) and it definitely won't go straight with such an odd shape. It turns out, though, that how straight it travels is an issue not solved particularly well by changing shape, but by spinning the projectile. Muskets (which didn't spin bullets) were notoriously inaccurate, and guns only became accurate after rifling was invented to spin bullets as they fly, thus evening out uneven drag by applying it from all directions sequentially (the bean or bullet will travel in a spiral, but will go straight overall).
The issue here is that if ya spin the bean all that fast or try to spin it with rifling, it'll disintegrate. However, if you were to dunk it in epoxy first...now you're getting somewhere. If you start with wet beans, dunk them in epoxy and let it harden, now you've got slightly flexible bullets that could be pushed into a rifle and fired in one piece, with reasonable accuracy. As for stopping power, you'd have to fire them vErY fast; think about how rubber bullets are used in order to *not* kill people. But if you loaded a machine gun clip with these, you could definitely do some damage, especially if you use lots of gunpowder.
I wish you the best of luck in your future bean endeavors. May your enemies tremble upon hearing your hallowed name.
] |
[Question]
[
**Closed**. This question is [opinion-based](/help/closed-questions). It is not currently accepting answers.
---
**Want to improve this question?** Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by [editing this post](/posts/121837/edit).
Closed 5 years ago.
[Improve this question](/posts/121837/edit)
**You have unlimited access to all of the world's information.** Source code, books, electronic information, monuments with text on them, tattoos with text, you name it. **If it has information encoded has text, you can manipulate it without detection or interference.**
**You are trying to wreak havoc. The problem is, you can only make one small (1 character) change to only 1 thing.**
What will you do to **create maximum destruction**, measured in terms of:
1. casualties
2. monetary loss
3. societal chaos
Note: If you so choose to modify source code of any kind, you can recompile the code as well (without anyone noticing).
[Answer]
Thou shall now kill.
(Inscribed in a stone tablet)
In the original Hebrew, change לא ("thou shall not") to לו .לו by itself means "to him" or "for him" or something similar (hard to explain exactly). But together with other words it is sort-of possessive, sort-of permission. It would become something like "For him is to kill".
There are actually places in the Hebrew original (but not in the 10 Commandments) where לא is normally read/understood to mean לו or vice versa, giving the sentence the **exact opposite meaning** from the way it is written, but with the same pronunciation. See for example [Leviticus Chapter 25, Verse 30](https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/vayikra-leviticus-chapter-25) where the phrase translated as "then the house that is in the walled city" is actually written in Hebrew לא which would mean "then the house that is in an **unwalled** city" but is traditionally read in Hebrew as לו and therefore translated (as per traditional Jewish reading of the verse) "walled" instead of "unwalled".
[Answer]
Add a non-type-able digit into the password of the suitcase known as "the football" which is always in the possession of a secret service agent in proximity of the President. If you don't let anyone know what you've done, you could possibly save almost 7 billion lives.
And since chaos, bedlam and destruction are natural byproducts of human life, you would thereby be responsible for all the harm we do from now through the end of time.
[Answer]
If I can only change a single keystroke of a single piece of information, I would have to change the original source for the most widely used form of COBOL to render the programming environment inoperable.
COBOL is still one of the [most widely used languages for financial software](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-programming-language-whose-semantics-I-think-that-is-the-property-correct-me-if-wrong-resemble-English-or-for-that-matter-what-we-consider-normal-language) due to several factors. Preventing the programs from operating would throw a large percentage of the world's financial markets into disarray, doing catastrophic (though, sadly, not world ending) levels of harm.
[Answer]
Based on the precedent set by [Mike Scott's answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/121837/what-is-the-maximum-possible-destruction-from-one-keystroke/121843#121843) as I understand it:
Change the value of G or any other universal constant.
For instance, $G = 6.674×10^{-11} N·kg^{–2}·m^{2}$ becomes
$G = 6.674×10^{-91} N·kg^{–2}·m^{2}$
and the entire universe falls apart.
[Answer]
In the (very popular) language C; the difference between equals and not-equal is one character; the "!" characterSo
>
> if ( X == Y ) LaunchAllBombs();
>
>
>
could be changed to do something
>
> if ( X != Y ) LaunchAllBombs();
>
>
>
And "LaunchAllBombs()" will be executed precisely when it should not be.
This is true in other languages as well. Likewise, it could exist in banking:
>
> if ( X == Y ) SellAllStocksImmediately();
>
>
>
vs.
>
> if ( X != Y ) SellAllStocksImmediately();
>
>
>
Causing a market crash and the loss of fortunes.
I'm not saying there are any such routines, but taking a catastrophic path does exist in both defense code and automated trading code, in satellite code, etc. A terrorist would likely look for exactly that.
[Answer]
I will change one codon in the DNA sequence that lets mammals produce haemoglobin. Everyone dies quite quickly, as they run out of red blood cells containing functioning haemoglobin.
[Answer]
I would change nothing.
Single byte errors happen in computers every millisecond. Single character errors happened in accounting every minute long before computers. Single pictogram errors happened in ancient messages carved in stone.
As a result, no one trusts a single source. Computers check against each other's records. Finances use double accounting, so no single change can do as little as put money into an account. And everyone already expects written, printed or carved sources to contain errors.
Since I can't do anything, I might as well do nothing.
[Answer]
Simply change the defense condition alert status ([DEFCON](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEFCON)) of the United States armed forces from whatever level it is currently at, likely a 4 or 5, all the way up to DEFCON 1 and wait for someone to blink and start all out thermonuclear destruction.
DEFCON 1 condition means that nuclear war is imminent, it would not itself trigger the launch of any missiles, but it would trigger a lot of armed forces actions that could easily incite further action on the part of the other world powers.
For comparison DEFCON 2 has only been declared twice in history, for the Cuban Missile Crisis and briefly during the start of Desert Storm in the early 1990's.
[Answer]
No detection or interference? Ok.
Wait until a major bank is running a permanent, large sum transfer from the Euro to the US dollar, and change the byte storing the exchange rate so that 1 Euro equals 1 quadrillion dollars.
They now have more dollars than had existed a second ago. The dollar is worthless. The US economy collapses. The global economy collapses. World hunger spikes. Panicked refugees spread across the world, overwhelming governments. Total societal breakdown occurs. Terrorists get hold of nuclear weapons in destabilized governments, bomb the world in the name of some religion. The survivors are wiped out by starvation, disease and fallout. Everyone Dies.
[Answer]
Two thoughts:
1. **Add apostrophe’s everywhere that is grammatically incorrect.**
These change’s aren’t going to cause major monetary loss, but any grammar nerd’s out there may well cause casualtie’s - and certainly some section of society will be in utter chaos. (Sorry - couldn’t resist...)
True, it’s not going to cause major societal upheaval (probably), but if shop signs, printed books, tattoos, religious texts, laws, and so on are all affected, that’s going to be a major annoyance for people.
2. **Change people’s legal gender.**
New non-binary gender laws are now being introduced, but most countries still have the M/F option on things like passports, identity cards, birth certificates, and so on. Change all M to F, or vice versa, and make things a lot harder for half of the world’s population to verify their identities (assuming this change can be made in all languages).
Either that, or change all “Mr” titles out there to “Mrs”.
[Answer]
Add a digit to a critical economic index.
Dollar exchange value, an oil benchmark, US Federal debt, etc. An immediate 10-fold change wouldn't go unnoticed.
[Answer]
# I would break the C++ language
C++ is widely used for development on specialized hardware. This hardware includes but is not limited to: **Airplanes, Factory Automation, Databases, and military equipment**.
Breaking C++ would cause most modern passenger aircraft to fall out of the sky. 9/11 used 2 aircrafts, even if nothing hits a major structure the damage would be catastrophic world wide.
Automated Factories would stop production and would cause global shortages in almost every product and could cause equipment failure in chemical plants which could harm people and destroy property.
A number of databases would stop working causing online services to collapse.
Advanced Military hardware would fail in the field, giving most insurgent and resistance movements an easy string of victories.
[Answer]
I would change the configuration files of the traffic light systems. 1 character change would be on the line that controls the green go light and everywhere would be set to Y instead of N.
It wouldn't cause much havoc because the power of 1 character is limited it would most likely just break the 1 system the 1 character is added to.
But if it was 1 line of code....that's explosive.
With 1 line of code I'd put an SQL injection line into the presidents login credentials so next time he logs in it triggers the scripts to launch nukes unbeknownst to him.
1 character has potential to stop things from happening.
1 full line of code has potential to destroy the world.
Hope that helps.
[Answer]
Every number and letter consists out of bites. Bites consist out of a string of one's and zero's. Change every bit that means "1" into "0".
Planes crash as every Electronic becomes useless, cars lose their steering and brake assists, all economies that have ties to digital connections collapse dragging the world into disarray and every research project and all information we havent written down is erased. All food normally grown through electronic assists breaks down and famine sweeps the world as refrigeration and food production collapses. Nuclear powerplants have massive failures as the quadruple redundancies with pumps and whatnot all fail simultaneouslu and meltdowns cover the earth. A new era dawns for the remaining humans as all electronics are distrusted, assuming they survive the food shortages and radiation.
[Answer]
# Delete the [Left-Pad Node.js project](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/23/npm_left_pad_chaos/)
The one keystroke here would be the [Delete] key.
>
> With left-pad removed from NPM, these applications and widely used bits of open-source infrastructure were unable to obtain the dependency, and thus fell over during development and deployment. Thousands, worldwide.
>
>
>
Essentially, a larger portion of the internet ceased to function for a couple days, and if it was an *unrecoverable* deletion (Node un-un-published the project, an entirely unprecedented move), then it would cause a huge society upheaval.
Presumably, there are other projects like Left-Pad that could also cause a similar issue, Left-Pad is just unique for being so small (and the reason that the Node.js environment is awful: no one should have ever relied on this package in the first place and instead written their own function for it).
Alternatives ("manipulate 1 byte of text" instead of "one keystroke"):
* Renaming the package
* Making the package non-compilable (i.e. introduce an error)
* Changing the file/folder name of the package
[Answer]
If you're in an editor that allows you to comment out a line with a single keystroke, or perhaps paste a pre-copied line of text with a single keystroke, then you could cause a lot of havoc by simply editing the method which determines if a user is authorized to access a system, [as outlined by Tom Scott in this video on "The (Fictional) Day Google Forgot to Check Passwords"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4GB_NDU43Q).
I can't think of a way to condense this down to one keystroke if you're not in such an editor, though really, most programs you'd use for hacking would allow you to paste from a thing already on the clipboard, and most IDEs have a line-comment keystroke.
[Answer]
Vandalize an important object in an unstable area. Even a one character change has a lot of potential to cause offense. Since you cannot be detected, people who revere the object would need to speculated about who committed the vandalism. If those who revere the object conclude a particular group is to blame, certainly societal chaos could follow, and perhaps even casualties.
For instance, vandalizing a gang tag could incite gang violence and vandalizing a monument like the Kaaba could prompt a diplomatic sanctions and incite violence from groups already prone to violence.
] |
[Question]
[
Assume this is a small city of about 5,000 residents, in a modern day time period. This city isn't geographically or culturally isolated from its surroundings, and it trades often within neighboring areas (where all residents have names). I just need some sort of rationale for why the residents of this particular city have no use for names (regardless of whether the names are one word or longer).
To be clear, titles like *the doctor*, *our leader*, and *my father* are all still in use, but actual names, like *Dr. James* or *King George*, are not. In addition, this only applies to the names of *people*; the city itself still has a commonly used name. In most cases, when referring to someone without a title, the residents of the city used pronouns like *he* or *she*.
**Why would a city not use names?**
[Answer]
**It's all about culture! Use the Balinese as your Model.**
Some cultures already do this. Here's [a link to Balinese naming conventions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balinese_name). Every first-born kid is named Wayan. And each kid after that gets a name specific to the order in which they were born. It's a bit like naming your kids First, Second and Third. These are more like titles, which tell people what your order is--within a family. Take a look at the link above, and you'll find that most of the names are actually titles. The names let anyone hearing them know your caste and rank. They are foreign unless you speak the language, but each name carries meaning as to your place in society--names that mean leader, and so on.
**As to reasons for a naming system focused solely on profession, rank or caste, it would be prevalent in a society that values that more than individuality. That's your identity.**
**It can also be a vestige of an old society, and considered bad manners to use anything but a title (as Tezra pointed out).**
Even in these societies, nicknames are prevalent, but they are reserved for those close to you, such as family or close friends, whose social rank is probably equivalent to yours or higher than yours. So, you might refer to an Aunt by her title out of respect, (although she might be the foreign minster or something, you would call her by her relationship to you, Aunt, because she outranks you within your family, although she might call you by a family nickname because you are of lower status to her, and her brother might use the family nickname for her) Anyone else, at a job, in public or anything else, would be called by their job/caste title.
There will be problems with this system, as there is in countries where people share names. The Balinese don't actually have surnames, BTW.
You might also want to take a look at [naming conventions from Thailand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_name). They don't follow the specific pattern, but it might be useful. Nicknames in in Thai cultures tend to be things like "Fat" (even if you were only chubby in childhood) or "Laughing One" or "Red" because your face was red as baby when you cried...
EDIT: Despite there being names in the Indian culture, I am going to recommend you read the book *Kim* By Rudyard Kipling. The way titles are used in this book and the way people refer to each other by status or title when they don't know each other (and even when they do) might be interesting to you. Plus, it's an awesome book. Bit racist (it's Kipling, and of a certain time, so is to be expected) but there's cultural stuff that tracks to what you're looking for: "Where are you from and what caste?" Is more important than "What is your name?" Most often, despite having names, people are called "Sahib" or "the lama" or "the Curator." And because Kim is a child of the streets, sometimes he will get a nickname right away, like "young tiger" from the ladies of the bazar or from the lama, "Chela" which means student/disciple. Just a good book to understand the cultural basis for titled people rather than named people, even if they do have proper names (like Kim) as well.
[Answer]
# Individualism is disincentivised
I once read a book where it was forbidden to say "I" in order that people might be less self-centered. Banning names could serve a similar idea - each individual *only has meaning* as part of a political unit of some sort. "Head of the Smith family" if you want to preserve last names, "Cobbler from Main St," "Sergeant of the 9th Guards Batallion."
# Names are power
The idea of "true names" is common - know someone's name and you have power over them. While people do have names, they never use them, for letting another person know their name would open them up to magical control.
[Answer]
## Because it is rude
There is a concept of 'true names' and that to know someones name is to hold power over them. This would mean they still have names, but avoid using them out of social pressure / religious fear. This would mean that asking them their name would be considered extremely rude to them, and telling them your name might be mistaken as a confession of love (or to a group, make you harder to trust, as they may believe your mind may no longer be your own if you give your name freely, or feel compelled to offer a false name). A society like this might also give people superfluous titles like "The Doctor" or "The Master" or "The Head of Cabbage"
[Answer]
Names are a symbolic means of conveying concept of individual identity. I can only come up with a couple of scenarios where a society would do away with them.
The first is that individual identity is irrelevant. There are already several answers exploring this option and I don't know that I have anything to add to them.
The second is that a simpler means of conveying this concept has been developed. Several other people have explored options regarding identity by occupation, status, location, etc. Our societies have moved away from these methods as names were simpler and easier, particularly as individuals became more mobile and may live or work in several different areas/fields over the course of their lifetime.
I would present an alternative possibility, if it fits your world, in which people have some means of identifying the subject of conversation outside of the spoken word. A limited form of telepathy or perception comes to mind. Something where the unique life signature of a subject can easily be seen and conveyed without having to apply a name to them.
One option is that everyone has a unique signature or aura that is apparent at birth and never changes. People are able to perceive this aura and communicate its essence to each other, so that when I ask someone to deliver a message to my friend who lives across town they immediately know when they have found the correct person based on the signature I projected when making the request.
Another variation, and I think the more interesting one, would be an aura that reflects a persons life experiences. These would evolve and morph over time as the individual experiences significant life events. My view of you would be based on where you were in your life the last time I saw you, if some significant event had occurred since then, your signature would have changed but it would still incorporate the view I had of you. Think in terms of a glyphic language, where a simple glyph can convey a basic concept, but by adding embellishments and/or incorporating other glyphs I can add context and details to provide a greater meaning. Under this system skilled readers would be able to track the general flow of someone's life from the study of their aura. "Well hello there, I see you have gotten married since we last met. And you have a child on the way, how exciting!"
[Answer]
## For various cultural or societal reasons, anonymity is required.
Say, a town where all the inhabitants are members of a guild or guilds of thieves, assassins, or other professions in which it is unhealthy to know anyone's name.
Or, perhaps it is one of *those* towns, where what happens there, stays there.
[Answer]
## Because names cause corruption.
Names have the ability to hold immense amounts of power. I bet most people who read this know of some famous celebrities, or their leaders. If Barack Obama was simply known as 'Leader', then in a few months, Donald trump was known as 'Leader', people would be much more inclined to judge people based on how well they perform, rather than hold a sentiment to them. This is because both of the people are known as 'Leader', but may perform differently.
you wouldn't buy a product because 'Basket Ball Player' told you to. However, you may purchase that product if Lebron James told you to.
The fact is, names hold too much power in society, and it would fix many performing issues if people were known by their titles.
This would also mean that anyone unemployed would probably be referred to as vagabond, encouraging a working-class society.
it would also be hard to distinguish children, as they don't have titles. people would have to say something like "get over here, kid with the curly hair"
[Answer]
**Old-fashioned family naming fusing with modern street-naming.**
In Europe, many family names were tied to either a profession or a place of residence. John Smith was a blacksmith, Benny Hill had a farm on a hill. Today, in many American cities, there is a numbering system for streets that replaces actual street names. For instance, the "3200 block" denoting a block in the Chicago street system or "corner of E 42nd Street and 2nd Avenue" in New York.
Now if John Smith sets up shop in 3200 block, he is known to all as "the smith on 3200 block". As profession + precise location is enough to distinguish him, there's no need for "John", which was just causing people to confuse him with the 83 other Johns in that little town.
Benny Hill meanwhile, for whom surnames and location is one and the same, changes his surname to 3215, that being his house number. (Note that prior to naming reforms in the 20th century, it was common for farmers that moved onto a new farm to take that farmname as their new surname) So he's Benny 3215, but he is only referred to as "the bachelor on 3215" or "clerk 3215" or even "3215" in his working life and official documents. The city's administration treats the houses as the basic unit of the city and do not tax people, but households. They talk about "the annual income of 3392" and the number of people living there is just a property of household 3392. Benny may still call himself "Benny", but there will be no record of that for posterity.
[Answer]
# Your 'name' is what you do
Every doctor is called "doctor". Every blacksmith is called "smith". And so on. Society works with the assumption that every doctor and smith work the same as all the others. It's the ultimate utilitarian state. Without individuality, there's not much need for distinctions between individuals such as names. Such a society is probably not possible for humans given the way we think; sentient ants might have better luck with it.
# Anonymous city
The people of the city suffer from amnesia or literally [cannot tell each other apart](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosopagnosia). An individual might stand up proclaiming to be a doctor, but after treating his fellow citizens blends into the crowd, becoming yet another anonymous face. All relationships are ephemereal at best, what good is a name if you'll never see that person again as far as you know?
[Answer]
You can quite easily get away without people using surnames since that's a quite a modern invention which happened with strengthening the state and especially the need for taxation. Check [Seeing like a State](http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0300078153)
>
> the construction of straight, gridlike streets in cities; and the
> introduction of fixed surnames -- modern states have implemented
> systems of classification that allow them greater control over
> resources and the lives of their citizens.
>
>
>
from the [review](http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/04/19/reviews/980419.19graylt.html)
Locals don't care about Joe having a surname, since they could always differentiate which Joe are you talking about. However state needs to know which Joe are you talking about, and did that person payed taxes, is eligible for draft, needs to serve in a jury etc. That's why State insisted that people have surnames and identification numbers that prove who they are.
As for the not using first names, that's too quite common even today, but people usually call themselves by nicknames, which quite often, though not always have something to do with their occupation. In few cities in my country asking about someone by their legal name will meet you with nothing but blank stares from the locals.
If your city is quite small having one Doctor, Butcher or Brewer might make sense, but when there's more then one people need a way to differentiate them.
Since there's probably more then one farmer or shopkeeper, how would I know which one are you talking about?
[Answer]
You might simply say that the city rejected individualism in favor of collectivism. Who a person is (their name) doesn't matter; all that matters is what they contribute to the community as a whole (their title). At that point you could essentially refer to every adult by their job title (plus some modifier if distinguishing between, say, teachers becomes important), and then children by "[descriptive] child of [parent]".
[Answer]
Using a true name could be bad luck, think of the many books where people find out a **true name** (in some old/true language). Of course here the language has some kind of magical property (see the Eragon cycle by Paolini, or The Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few here, feel free to add in the comments).
In George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire, the Unsullied do not use their original names because they got caught by slavers while they used their original name. Instead, **they choose a new name each day**. Grey Worm keeps the name 'Grey Worm' in the end because it is the name he had when Daenerys freed him, and it is therefore a lucky name. Also in ASOIAF, Missandei refers to herself as **'this one'**, instead of 'I', we don't know why. Arya and the Faceless Men refer to Arya as 'a girl', because she needs to let go of her old identity and become **'no one'**. Gilly refuses to give her son a name because he is too young and could die (in the TV series, he's called 'Little Sam'). The Night's Watch members give up their family names and titles (though not their first names). These examples, except for the baby, all indicate that the collective is more important than the individual.
**Names are strongly tied to identity**. If you have a society with a strong collective feel, where individual accomplishments only count toward the greater good, there might be no need for a strong individual identity.
[Answer]
## Same as (older) English names
Baker, Smith, Butcher, Goodman (must have been a good guy I guess), Longbottom (not too sure...), Potter—names which are actually just professions and descriptions.
*But what if two people have the same job?!*
Then they can have the same name. That's not unheard of.
[Answer]
The city contains the shrine of a notoriously difficult god, whose influence is indispensable for some purposes, but in whose vicinity it is especially dangerous to mention true names. This is why the city has a peculiar custom not shared by other settlements of the same culture.
[Answer]
This has been given multiple times as the answer, but breaking individuality. Not using the name strips the glory from performing a task. Nobody can link the work and the person that did it. This would create a hive mind. Taking a name would be a taboo, because it would break the singularity and thus the harmonic status quo. There could be some really nasty dreadful history with the individualism, that would make people really disgusted with egoism.
I think that this is a problematic concept, because even the computers give names for the memory locations.
[Answer]
Avoiding the discussion of how a city can function without using names as already addressed in other answers and focusing strictly on "Why would a city not use names?" Here is a possibility:
In the distant past there was a founder or a hero or other local celebrity. After the deeds this person performed all children were named for this great character in hopes that they might be as wonderful (maybe Alex and Alexis or some such after Alexander the Great for an example). This tradition stuck and continued over the years to the point where older generations died off and younger generations continued out of tradition, and everyone in town that is still living has the same name.
If everyone in town has the same name (based on old traditions) the names are meaningless and will not be used. Other identifiers will be used instead as needed.
As a bonus, the common name that was at one point used by all members of town could be the name of (or part of the name of) the town. Everyone in town is Alex of Alexandria.
[Answer]
The city is named **Iagerf** and is in fact a military base, every resident there is a soldier.
The base location isn't secret, you could easily find it in maps and drive to there by car. However, it's purpose is very secret. Only authorized people are allowed to enter.
If you ask to any random resident there, what is his name, he will promptly answer "John Smith". Get another random resident, and the answer will be "John Smith". A third one, and his name is "John Smith".
Oh, you found a woman there, her name is "Susan". There is another woman over there, she's called "Susan". The girl in the other street is also called "Susan".
So, what is its purpose afterall? Human genetic engineering! The purpose is to create a perfect loyal army, made of clones. Those people are severely trained and brainwashed since their birth, so they don't have any sense of identity and won't trust nor socialize with outsiders. By the way, this is the reason why the city is called **Iagerf** - **I**deal **A**rmy **G**enetic **E**ngineering **R**esearch **F**acility.
Iagerfians do occasionally have some contact with outsiders, either because insiders will ocasionally leave the city for some days or because the city is visited by authorized outsiders. Outsiders, however, will be puzzled observing that those people all have the same names, have very similar looking faces and don't speak too much about their own lives. If they have a question to solve with some of them, it would be really hard to tell which one.
Since insiders rarely go outside and outsiders rarely come inside the city, it will be hard to tell that what is going on. Outside of the city, you will never be able to spot a large number of insiders together, they were trained to avoid being closer one to the other when outside so people will not perceive that there is something fishy going on. This way, most of the outsiders will become unaware that they are all very similar in appearance.
Those people may also possess identification cards, driving licenses, banking accounts, etc, all with the same names. However, they are always exchanging those between theirselves, with the purpose of making them as collective and as non-identifiable as possible. To make things worse, they all have a health condition that make them have really weak digital imprints.
[Answer]
Each individual in the city has a unique purpose, a strict and unchangeable role given by the society. I.e there is one doctor, one postman, one teacher, and so on. So each individual is described only by their function and nothing else.
] |
[Question]
[
For the purposes of this post, "word" is defined as a unit of language such that
* Has some meaning on its own, often relating to the real world.
* Complex utterances can be formed simply by transmitting multiple words.
* There are few enough words for a speaker of the language to know most of them (i.e. less than about a million for humans).
All reasonably bandwidth-efficient, general-purpose forms of communication, real or imagined, seem to have words in this general sense.
* Human spoken and written languages, including unique ones like Pirahã.
* Human sign languages usually have distinct signs that are basically words.
* As far as I know, all constructed languages like Esperanto, Lojban, Ithkuil, Toki Pona, etc.
* Fictional languages like Klingon, Quenya, Dothraki.
* Even the circular language from Arrival has words in the general sense (sentences can be split up into symbols with individual meanings).
* In Max Harms' *Crystal Society*, there are AI and alien characters that think differently from humans. However, the AIs communicate through concept-representations that are basically words, and the aliens' language uses ~1000 symbols that can be translated into words.
* Programming languages have variables, keywords, commands, etc., the last two of which have intrinsic meanings. When we create a language [made entirely of syntax and variables](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda_calculus#Encoding_datatypes), it is always by assigning meaning to certain concepts e.g. `λfx.x` for the number 0.
However, if we relax the requirement that the form of communication is efficient and general-purpose, I can think of several examples of wordless "languages" whose sentences cannot be easily split up into symbols of any kind.
* Photos and videos are a general-purpose form of communication, but even compressed photos and videos have huge bandwidth requirements, and are thus inefficient.
* Bees have [dance communication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_learning_and_communication#Dance_communication) where the direction, distance and quality of food are communicated simultaneously, not serially. But this is not general-purpose communication.
* Human body language for indicating emotions. But as far as I know, human body language used for general-purpose communication basically becomes sign language.
## Question
The idea is to create a version of the ["starfish" alien language](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StarfishLanguage) trope in an advanced alien civilization where the language is actually plausible. Most existing examples just have an exotic *medium* (body language, music, telepathy), or just handwave the unintelligibility. A strange inherent structure for a well-developed language would be far more interesting, and open up narrative possibilities like a Universal Translator being unable to translate anything an alien says until they are finished talking. So, how would a language whose thoughts cannot be broken down into words work, and how would it feel to be an alien communicating in this manner? If you think it's impossible, why?
[Answer]
# Shaka, when the walls fell
English has a few good examples that you could use to build up an even more obfuscated language.
Bow
Lead
Read
You've just read each of those words, but without some sort of context to lead you on, you can't tell which use of the spelling I've chosen. While the language can be split into words, out of context they're just meaningless strings of syllables (apart from read which at least has a fixed context), and written down it's even worse as you don't even know which pronunciation is required.
Develop the language so that the meaning of each word is dependent on every other word in the sentence and none of them have meaning in isolation. Perhaps instead of words having roots, entire sentences or paragraphs have roots and the rest of the "words" are just a series of prefixes and suffices that modify the root.
# Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
Antidisestablishmentarianism is not just a word, it's a movement, a period in history, a whole swathe of social context. To understand the word, its usage, and meaning, is much like understanding the titles I'm using, without the cultural context on which they depend, they're meaningless.
# Picard and Dathon at El-Adrel
You could also vary the meaning by social context. Who is saying it to whom? What are their relative social statuses? Again, written down the way we normally would, you're at a loss as you don't know which of the speakers has the higher social status. And why is all their fiction explicit about the size and style of the hat each character wears?
[Answer]
>
> A strange inherent structure for a well-developed language would be
> far more interesting, and open up narrative possibilities like a
> Universal Translator being unable to translate anything an alien says
> until they are finished talking.
>
>
>
Human languages already do this.
*tusaatsiarunnanngittualuujunga*
In Inuktitut, the root *tusaa-* "to hear" by itself is meaningless other than the subject has something to do about hearing or listening. It doesn't convey enough information in itself to be useful. You have to listen to the entire utterance to understand what's being conveyed.
*tusaatsiaq* - to hear well
*tusaatsiarunnaq* - to be able to hear well
*tusaatsiarunnanngittuq* - to not be able to hear well
*tusaatsiarunnanngittualuk* - to not be able to hear very well
*tusaatsiarunnanngittualuku* - to be in a state of not being able to hear very well
*tusaatsiarunnanngittualuujunga* - I am in a state of not being able to hear very well (I can't hear very well)
Each affix adds more information, but until you have the complete list of affixes attached to that root, you don't know what the message is.
Any kind of translator, universal or not, would have to wait until the entire word/sentence is completed before it could translate. If you ever watch interpreters in action, you can see this happening. For many European languages, for instance, that generally have a similar grammatical structure with English, they don't have to wait and can translate on the fly.
"Le chien..." "The dog..." "...a chassé..." "...chased..." "...l'auto." "...the car."
For languages like Inuktitut and other agglutinative languages, or those with free word order like Latin due to the case structure, it might be mpossible to do that. If the language is SOV (subject-object-verb), then you can get the dog (subject) did something(verb) to the car(object), but until that last word, that verb, comes out, it can't be properly translated into a language where the verb comes earlier in the sentence, such as in English. The dog chased the car? The dog looked at the car? The dog heard the car? The dog pissed on the car? The dog drove the car? Without the last thing that's said, you don't know which of those it might me.
[Answer]
**I don't think you can get rid of words, but you can obfuscate them**
[It is almost impossible to coherently define a "word"](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8niIHChc1Y), but the smallest possible unit of language with its own meaning is called a [morpheme](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morpheme). Like, take the word unbreakable: there's three morphemes in there, un- (negates the word), break (the core meaning), and -able (makes it an adjective). Morphemes can be stems, or they can be affixes, meaning they modify the stem. A suffix (which goes after the word) and a prefix (which goes before the word) are examples of affixes, which modify the stem "break" in the example.
Some language have stems for what others have as affixes. Like "I would die" is three different stems in English, because all three carry their own meaning, but in French it's "Je mourrais", where the word "would" is just an affix for "to die", attached to the verb.
Suffixes and prefixes are common in English; just slap them onto existing words and call it a day. Other languages, French and German among them, make greater use of simulfixes; those are affixes that *change* something about the word, like turn one vowel into another. An English example is "run -> ran", but e.g. German does it all the time.
You could call that simulfix a pattern which you apply on top of a word to get a different meaning. It is a coherent set of rules for which vowel turns into which other vowel. Sometimes it's not just vowels but consonants too, depending on the language. The constructed language [Ithkuil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil) goes nuts with this.
The more affixes a language uses in comparison to its stems, the more synthetic we call that language. The language Yupik is even polysynthetic; they have a word "tuntussuqatarniksaitengqiggtuq", meaning "He had not yet said again that he was going to hunt reindeer". It's all a bunch of modifiers on the stem "tuntu", meaning reindeer.
And now we get to your question. With that many affixes, you could leave out the stem and not much would be lost! Imagine a language where a unit of meaning starts as an array of empty bits, like 000000000000000. Then you sequentially apply patterns to that "words", to convey meaning, the way simulfixes do for natural languages. Like, take a pattern "every odd-numbered non-prime is incremented by 2", and give it the meaning "shy". Apply that and you get a new "word" 000000002000002, meaning shy. Take a couple dozen of these patterns and you get something like 104718361840291; and an experienced listener could deduce which patterns have been applied, and figure out the meaning.
The word itself would *appear* indivisible. Take one number out and the whole meaning changes, or it becomes gibberish. That way, it fulfils the conditions of the question... mostly.
Because simulfixes and affixes are still morphemes. Each pattern you apply on top of the blank slate is no different from a word in a sentence. Sure, now they all modify each other which is funky to say the least, but there's nothing philosophical unique about this language, only practically. And as with the Latin example; there's plenty of natural languages where you need to hear the entire message before you can translate it, because of word orderings.
It's just that we need words to organise meaning. We need to decompose language into reusable parts, because we cannot make one new word for every new message and expect it to be recognised by the listener. So what you can do is tricks like this to obfuscate your words - which is what the cryptographic answer does - but I think it is impossible to get rid of them.
[Answer]
**Kind of.**
An example a system for encoding messages so that they are not divisible into words is [public key cryptography](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography). The basic idea is then that the sender encodes his message using his private key and the public key of the intended recipient. Recipient then uses their private key and senders public key to decode and authenticate the message.
The messages in transit are indivisible blocks of data. They cannot be meaningfully divided.
Humans would need to convert the blocks to and from some normal language but a species that has such encoding naturally would not need the extra step and no language with discrete words would be needed. They would conceivably be directly encoding their intent with the encoding taking the place of the step where we shape our thoughts into words.
They'd probably have some mechanism similar to our words for shaping thoughts with higher precision and they might even share those constructs with each other but they'd not be part of the language used to communicate.
This only makes sense if the species also uses a communication method where communicating "blocks" makes some kind of sense. High speed bursts of ultrasound or electromagnetic radiation (from radio to light) or pigments or lights over an area of exposed skin would work, I think.
The adaptation would really be about encoding thought into blocks for communication not about encryption or authentication. Although having that too would be kind of cool if you can rationalize a evolutionary need or bioengineering.
Note that a block would correspond to a sentence or even a paragraph depending on the block size so at that level the language would still be divisible.
[Answer]
While I am not sure if it is possible to create a language without morphemes/ discrete concept-representations, plenty of communication can be represented where things are "communicated simultaneously, not serially." For example: music, which is dependent on tone, texture, volume, and harmony in lieu of serially.
An alien language could easily be imagined where communication is based on complex waves such as sound waves in music, where ideas are delivered simultaneously and Fourier decomposed to find meaning. High pitched shrieking perhaps? Humans (both unconsciously and consciously) filter signals like these all the time to understand our senses.
[Answer]
# Lossy transmission plus error-correcting codes
The transmission method or medium might be lossy enough that error-correcting codes have evolved naturally.
If in addition the transmission medium provides a natural "blocksize" that may not correspond with the typical size of words, the error correction might happen at the end of each block, thus requiring knowledge at least of the whole block to understand the message.
For example:
If the communication medium is 2D (e.g. pixels on a canvas), both columns and rows may carry meaning - and parity bits or more sophisticated techniques could be appended to the end of each row and column. If the area is big enough, the information transmitted in each "batch" would be far more than individual words and due to the lossy transmission, cannot be split into individual parts without losing meaning.
[Answer]
You actually have two problems to solve here:
1. How does the communication work?
2. How can I convey that to the reader?
The biggest technical problem with non-word based communication is probably going to be nouns. While it's easy enough to communicate emotions, intentions and actions through other means (see scent/sign/body language) it's very difficult to refer to specific objects without a name/label of some sort. That will inevitably be 'word' based, even if that 'word' is a specific action/signal/telepathic-image.
How to convey it to a reader is going to be even harder! You say "most just handwave the unintelligibility", that's probably because conveying in words a language you've designed to not be conveyed in words is going to be a struggle. At best you'll have a rough translation, which clearly loses some of the meaning and feels no different to a reader than any other low-quality alien language translation. At worst, if the UniversalTranslator(tm) doesn't work, then either:
* You can't convey to your readers what has happened, in which case why bother to develop the 'language' at all?
* Your UniversalTranslator is clearly not very good, but you 'the narrator' can understand just fine. You're now back to explaining why your characters can't understand what's going on.
[Answer]
**Yes... and no**.
Since no one else has done so yet, I'll point out the elephant in the room... *You are writing for a human audience*. Humans think in words. Therefore, no matter what ideas anyone comes up with, at some point you are going to have to translate your alien's language into words *anyway*. The alternative is for them to be utterly incomprehensible *even to the reader*, in which case the *reason* doesn't matter, just whether you can sell that to the reader.
That said... combining some of the other ideas here, I think it's plausible, and one of the keys is that *your aliens* don't know how to translate their communication into neat little pieces (even if you, as the Author, *can*). For that, I'll point you again at [treecats](https://honorverse.fandom.com/wiki/Treecat), which were exactly like this before they met humans, so there is solid precedent for a species that can't 'wrap their heads around' word-based language.
There are already several ideas here for how they *would* communicate that you, as the Author, can use to explain to your readers what's going on. The easiest and probably best is that they are telepaths, and rather than exchanging "language", they exchange something more like a gestalt that incorporates whatever feelings, knowledge or desires they want to include in it. For example, while I might say to you "may I have a glass of water", such an alien might send a gestalt that expresses that they are thirsty, when they last had anything to drink, their memory of how water tastes, their imagined image of another alien handing them a glass of water, their imagination of how grateful this will make them feel, and so on. You could even extend this to such gestalt including, or taking the form of, some event from cultural tradition, Darmok-style. All of this could happen in a fraction of a second. (BTW, AI's might communicate this way...)
I'm also less confident that such a species *couldn't* develop technology. If one such alien can figure out some technological concept (say, how to smelt iron), they can certainly convey that knowledge to another alien. In fact, I could imagine a *huge* teaching advantage here, since you are *directly* sharing knowledge rather than having to encode it into words and hope that the listener can decode it correctly. (On the other hand, this might lessen the likelihood of accidental discoveries, so...)
[Answer]
# Body language
Look at animals. Most animals I can think of on top of my mind communicate mostly or solely by body language.
Bees communicate to each other inside the hive by dancing. Dogs communicate a lot by their tails. Sharks warn prior to aggression by the way they swim. And look at how birds of paradise flirt.
Even we humans communicate a lot by the way we move and stand.
There are no words in body language, but there are whole sentences and dialogues there.
[Answer]
I'm approaching this from a different perspective:
It is unlikely that any human or humanoid species, or anyone remotely similar to us would develop such a language, because chunking and object seperation are parts of the human brain that act long, long before even the subconscious processes. In fact, for visual information object recognition happens in the visual cortex, before the information is even handed over to the general processing parts of the brain.
As such, splitting the world we experience into distinct elements is as natural to us as breathing. It is going to be reflected in language in one way or the other, hence "words" (in the most abstract sense).
Your alien species would have to have an entirely different experience of the world, one in which things are no divided naturally. It is difficult to imagine how that would even work, and what kind of thoughts these creatures would have.
There is a second aspect and that is communication channels. Verbal communication is necessarily one-dimensional and sequential. A soundwave is produced and consumed in such a way that you have one bit of information, then the next, then the next. It is highly natural to have pauses in this stream of data, even if just for breathing. Those pauses naturally will get meaning. In fact, our sentence markers - dots, commas, etc. - started out as simple markers for different lengths of breathing pauses back in greek times when writing was just a way to note down speech.
That all means we need to move to a different kind of experience and communication. A species that would communicate visually, say with patterns of colour on a suitable piece of skin/scales/etc. would have a two-dimensional form of communication if those patterns are static (one pattern = one word). But we can extend this into three dimensions by having not the patterns themselves, but the way they shift and change contain the actual meaning.
Like a piece of music, a dance or a play, the meaning of such communication would not be in any single part of it, but in the whole. The more you split off, the more meaning would be lost. Instead of "words", you would have much larger segments of meaning, such as an entire phrase or paragraph.
In fact, a few human scripts come close to something similar. Check the bottom part of this page: <http://nihonshock.com/2009/10/crazy-kanji-highest-stroke-count/> for a few examples of complex Kanji. While these are "words" in your sense and don't satisfy your requirement, they point towards the basic principle. If turned into a transmission, you would not be able to understand the entire meaning until the Kanji is complete.
Combine these two concepts - an experience that considers the world as one undivided whole and a three-dimensional communication system that has no pauses or breaks, and you would end up with a language that doesn't have words in any sense, is perfectly continuous and cannot be partially decoded.
The Trisolarans in the "Three Body Problem" books do not have communication as a seperate process. Instead, their thoughts are visible to all around, that is the closest in literature that I've seen towards such a concept. Their "speech" would not have a beginning or end because they don't actually **have** "speech" - they just watch each other think.
[Answer]
**Multiplex the words**
The language has words, but they are spoken syllable by syllable: first syllable of each word first, then second syllables, etc.
This can be taken down to individual letters (or, rather, phonemes).
To make this work, all words of the language would have to have the same number of syllables (or phonemes).
Those aliens might have brain structures that process utterances in parallel. Not sure how evolution might favor this - maybe if language developed in a time where sound was subject to spike noise, so multiplexing would make the communication more resilient (this scheme is being used in CDs and DVDs, where a scratch can damage a specific block but since the information is spread across multiple blocks, you get better error correction).
**Make the language heavily modifying**
Make the basic words mean very little if at all. Prefixes and suffixes modify the basic meaning.
This kind of stuff is already present in English, e.g. with the "in" prefix which might mean either "inside" ("into", "insert") or "not" ("intransigent").
Bonus points if this is riddled with exceptions for specific combinations.
**The language does not have words at all**
Communication is via gradients, not impulses.
Bandwidth can be achieved by parallelization, e.g. color patterns on the skin. (Some octopi species do this, as a mating ritual I believe.)
**Telepathy**
Thoughts are transmitted directly. Maybe they are transmitting brain processes.
This could even be hard sci-fi if you have a high-bandwidth communication - spread-spectrum radio, for example (you'd have to think about getting the radio into and out of a wet environment like the brain though, so maybe their hair is antennae and they connect deeply into the brain? - in that case, shaving would be equivalent to turning somebody deaf and mute, and hair would have to grow to specific lengths to cover the spectrum of interest).
Lieing would be hard, or just as easy as the possibility to split one's thought processes. Since the ability to misinform is one of the most important social tools (a liar can gain evolutionary advantages so this *will* be present in some form) but the tools for misiformatio would have to be somewhat different, this might induce interesting cultural differences.
[Answer]
In the absence of a formal definition for words, here are some thoughts that come to mind.
You say to want "sentences" without "words", or at least translators who have to wait for the end before beginning (already the case when grammars oppose (German vs English). There are a few ways to bind things together in a way that are not easily separable, but you are stuck with two main results:
* Making arbitrarily large number of "atomic" (non-compound) sentences, e.g.: all "words" are complex, instead of saying "seventy-nine", they say "ozlwemifwe" which has no linguistic correlation to any other number (as for "one", "two", "eleven").
* Making portions of meaning interact with each other in a difficult to disentangle fashion.
Some simple solutions might be
# Images
If you allow arbitrary medium, then images convey many things, can be psychic or physical. For example, an image from the culmination of "Of Mice and Men" might convey many emotions and words simultaneously. You can think of **memes** and emojis as a modern expression of language that attempts to harness this combination of cultural meaning.
# Symbols
In the same vein, symbols that intersect in different locations and manners can be given arbitrary meanings that are difficult to disentangle. Taking the example above, you might have "friend" intersecting "coworker" in the *relationship* section of the symbol, "life" in the *contemplation* section, and an *action* area dominated by "end" which intersects "life" and "coworker", but not "friend". There are words, but they become atomic and may be imbued with cultural significance such that the components cannot be disentangled - e.g. "wag the dog" (or "correct battery horse staple").
[Answer]
Telepathy with images and sensations rather than words. Imagine that saying that you saw someone steal something, you instead presented your entire memory of the event. Or if you wanted something to get you something you made a memory of them going away and coming back with the thing you wanted, possibly with an interim scene of them getting it from someone else.
You could then have the memory keepers, those that keep the memories of lessons learnt in the past in an uncorrupted form. I doubt that a society like this would ever get to level of the renaissance let alone industrial or modern era without developing some sort of language. I think this would be because dials and switches are their own form of language. I'd also imagine that it would be hard for them to do anything that involves measurements outside of ratios based on body parts.
Introducing a word using Alien species would almost certainly destroy the society, as being able to communicate complex and abstract theories is much easier with words than it is with video.
[Answer]
**Transmit your communications across a second dimension**
Take the following sentence:
```
There is a horse in aisle four
```
That sentence could be described several ways: as a series of letters, or a series of words, but the way your *screen* describes it is as a series of rows of pixels. If you imagine the letters Th (the first two letters of our sentence) as being represented by the matrix:
```
11111.1...
..1...1...
..1...1111
..1...1..1
```
and I were to transmit to you:
```
11111.1...*..1...1...*..1...1111*..1...1..1
```
You could definitely decipher it, but you wouldn't know what the message was until you'd received the **entire** transmission, because to make it intelligible to you, you would have to stack the "words".
Our communications contain layers of meaning that are obvious to us when we know the words. Make your alien language contain layers of words that are obvious once you know the meaning.
I could say "I bought my grandmother flowers after my grandfather's funeral."
Your alien might express something that we'd interpret as
* "Someone is sad because a mutual loved one died"
* "I love that other person too."
* "I wanted to make her happy"
* "Flowers make her happy"
If you "stack" those meanings together, you might derive my original sentence, but you wouldn't be able to do so until you'd received all of the "meanings" that I was using to communicate.
[Answer]
**Mapped philosophy and methods**
If those aliens mapped every possible concept on a map (depending on their philosophy, it has great chances to be a two-dimensional disk or a three dimensional sphere, or something complicated depending on how they consider time), the speaker could use a sentence describing the course of its thoughts through functions describing waves, jumps, areas and intersections running through that map.
The words that describe this pattern would have no meaning at all by themselves (or only a few if the speaker starts by telling what the starting point is), and the meaning of those sentences could be infinite, leading to a lot of poetic ways to describe the infinite, and enormous amounts of possible synonyms that could be accessible to knowledgeable aliens and calculators/translators only, but could be roughly understood by those capable of feeling the magnitude of the functions.
Most used groupings of functions would certainly get shortcuts associated to them accessible from the map itself.
New methods of joking could appear, such as describing a concept that once re transcribed into its shape on the map, draws the shape of a banana.
Mathematical and geometrical figures can be described by words, sentences can be turned into geometrical forms and create ideograms.
Elitists can then hide their work into cryptic sentences representing a mathematical function representing another sentence or representing the shape of an atom, molecule, banana... etc.
**Protection against incomplete sentences**
A language where the first "words" meanings and pronunciation are modified by the last "words" would require the speaker to know before talking the entire structure of his thoughts, and would require the target to hear the entire sentence before understanding its meaning, making it impossible to jump to a conclusion in the middle of an explanation.
[Answer]
# Encoding all concepts into numbers
Lets say you have a race of beings which had near infinite memory and very long life spans. Since they can memorize almost everything perfectly, they don't need a way to decompose their language into modular easy to remember parts and can simple convey a whole concept with one number. 12308102398 might mean "I saw a blue dog on my way to work". This race would likely have to spend an enormous amount of time in the beginning of their lives reading through all the number to concept mappings. You could also do something interesting with the ordering of the numbers, the lower numbers being more early concepts (1->"Round rocks are easier to push") or more important concepts (such as religious concepts or moral concepts 1->"Don't harm others").
[Answer]
**Symphonic language**
I'm fascinated by the ability of animals that use echolocation to generate signals that can be interpreted by others as the response to an echolocation click. What that means is that, for instance, dolphins can send one another signals that mimic the signature of an object, like a shark or a gap in the ocean floor or a school of fishes.
It's not a word, it's a full description of an imaginary part of the world.
Now, imagine a race able to do this and, more, able to combine these messages into a coherent whole. As long as a person is speaking, they're creating a world. Each new voice adds meaning to this world, about its nature, its meaning, its past, its future...
When a person leaves the conversation, they remove all the meaning they brought, unless others have picked up on their "themes" and integrated them into their own messages.
An individual part would make no sense to an alien observer. Only the part plus the context has meaning.
This language would be even tougher to translate if these people were able to replay in their heads past contexts. Others would understand that they're just modifying a well-known and very intricate conversation, while outsiders would just hear some random droning.
[Answer]
**No**
... by your own definition. Yes, it's possible to imagine a language where complex thoughts are communicated by distinct expressions, but the number of such expressions needed would far exceed the knowledge limit you stipulated regarding human languages:
>
> There are few enough words for a speaker of the language to know most of them (i.e. less than about a million for humans).
>
>
>
In the language you imagine, these distinct expressions become the irreducible units, but the number of such expression would be astronomical. A quick search suggests that research shows that in English (for example) there are ~3,000 words used for 90% of everyday usage. Let's pick 8 words as an arbitrary number of words in a complex thought. 3,000 ^ 8 is 6.6e+27. I fully realize that a great many such combinations make no sense whatsoever, but the shear magnitude here is telling. e.g., let's say only 1/1,000,000th of those possible combinations makes a coherent thought; great! now we are down to 6.6e+21! How about 1/100,000,000,000,000 (1 in 100 trillion)? Now we are down to 6.6e+13. We are trying to get to 1e+6 (your "about a million"). That's the power of orders of magnitude for you.
(In reality, I think the number of words an average person knows is more like 20,000. There aren't even 200,000 words in English. [1])
I've made some wild assumptions here, but it's enough (I feel) to confidently say there would be too many expressions to know. Why? Because I know it takes a lot more than 8 words to express some coherent, complex, individual thoughts. And because I haven't even considered numbers. There are *lots* of those, and a language without distinct words would need, gosh, lots of unique expressions for any thought that involved even one number. Then, let's talk about irrational numbers like pi, and how many digits of precision are needed for an advanced (by which I assume you mean star-faring, since you mention a UT and such) civilization. This language would need a unique expression for every additional decimal of precision of pi -- for every coherent thought that involved pi.
So, while I've been around the block enough times to avoid using the word "impossible" when talking about what we might find out there elsewhere in the galaxy or the universe, the members of this civilization you imagine would need to have an impractically-capable brain, capable of keeping track of an astronomical number of unique expressions.
... Besides which, if they can do that, and meet your 3rd criterion, ... well, then *those* become the words of that language, because such a body of expression would certainly meet your 1st and 2nd criteria for words, being irreducible, and certainly being able to be used together to communicate even more complex ideas.
[1] "The Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1989, contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 obsolete words. To this may be added around 9,500 derivative words included as subentries."
<https://www.lexico.com/explore/how-many-words-are-there-in-the-english-language>
[Answer]
## Memes
Humans already use this to some extend - maybe your aliens have taken it to the extreme.
If I were to tell you about (rather than show a picture of) "a dog with a hat, sitting in a room on fire, saying this is fine" you could probably piece it together if you knew the words making up that sentence.
If I were to go further, I might use memes that require knowledge of their context to properly parse. Maybe something like "we don't need to prepare for a pandemic", followed by those vegetables labeled "corona" - you may or may not know them, so if I don't include the "allow us to introduce ourselves" text, only people who already know that this is what the vegetables are supposed to say will understand it.
Another example at that level: Advice animals. If I give you a piece of advice, you should take it quite differently if it comes with an "actual advice mallard" (duck picture) compared to the same advice coming from a "foul bachelor frog" or "bad advice dog".
Other memes may require knowledge of TV shows, cultural events, or even a history of misusing a meme in a specific context. Translating a meme thus would require the text, the picture, and the context fully parsed - trying to deliver a translation for "you should definitely bring homemade pot brownies to the reception..." before hearing the part "... says bad advice dog" would be disastrous.
[Answer]
Let's say we have a race of intelligent [camouflaging cuttlefish](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgDE2DOICuc). They have no vocal chords, so they communicate by changing the colors of their body, sort of like our real cephalopods actually do, but way more advanced. They still have not enough resolution to show clear pictures, nor enough FPS to show movies, so they use more abstract communication signals, like differently shaped and colored spots (possibly differently textured and positioned as well, etc.).
It takes time to fully form a single finished spot, but they take advantage of the fact that they can keep changing colors on their entire back (or whatever visual speech organ they have developed) at the same time. They start with a configuration of very fuzzy grayish spots, gradually turning them into sharper, clearer, brighter spots. An initial fuzzy spot is already meaningful, but that meaning is very vague and abstract. By changing it towards its final color and shape, they gradually add more attributes to it, until it becomes something clear and unambiguous.
When we, humans, speak, the moment we start speaking we have a clear mental image, but only of a small part of the "big picture", so for us it's like assembling a jigsaw puzzle. When the cuttlefish "speak", the moment they start speaking they already have the entire "big picture", but it's very vague, so for them it's like creating a watercolor painting - the background, the basic shapes, more and more details on top of that. Or maybe like developing a film.
For example, let's say a cuttlefish is communicating this sentence: "A man killed a fly with a slipper." If your Universal Translator is running at the moment they start "speaking", the translation would be: "A `(grayish blob)` `(grayish blob)`-bed a `(grayish blob)` with a `(grayish blob)`." A split of second later, more information is added, so it becomes: "A `(living creature)` `(harmed)` a `(living creature)` with a `(footwear)`." And so on, and so on. Although you can start translating at the very beginning of the "speech", it doesn't make much sense to us until the "speech" is finished, because that's not how *we* talk.
To make things even more complicated, let's say you have to carefully watch the entire metamorphosis of each blob to understand its full and final meaning - so you can't just wait till the end and then take a picture of the last "frame" with your smartphone. For example, a "grayish blob" first evolves into a "creature", then into a "man", then splits in two - the "man" and his "slipper", something like that.
] |
[Question]
[
I want to design a creature capable of surviving long periods without drinking water, but I am not sure how that creature could store water.
These are my ideas but I am looking for something more efficient or possible:
* **Increase amount of water in blood:** Each litre of blood has almost half litre of water. Increasing the amount of water in blood could be used to store it but thinking in that I notice a little problem: increasing the amount of water in blood would also raise the pressure of blood and I don't know if that could be bad. Also I have read somewhere [citation needed] that if you increase the amount of water in blood, red blood cells start absorbing it autocratically (it's a problem of their plasma membrane) until they "explode" and die - a huge problem.
* **Store water inside fat:** Dromedaries store almost 50 kg of fat in their hump; fat *isn't* water but fat *has* water. I don't know exactly the process but when they produce energy with the fat, each kilogram of fat combined with oxygen could produce like waste a litre of water used to survive. This idea seems quite good but I don't want to put a hump in them and also a litre of fat doesn't have exactly a litre of water so it is quite "inefficient".
* **Special organ:** My last idea is have an inner organ like a bag full of liquid water to store it. Water enter to the organ through the blood system and when it's needed, it's send to the intestine, where it can be re-absorbed. I find the idea excellent but I don't know any specie which does that so I don't know if it's possible. Also I was thinking to store water in an organic material made of water (or at least hydrogen) and more dense than water, so it can store more water in the same volume, but I don't know any compound like that.
**Edit:**
I don't like the idea of use humps because:
* A hump isn't "cute", I don't want to put an hump in their back. Also it's quite heavy and it's a hunter creature.
* A kilogram of fat produces a litre of water, but a litre of fat **isn't** a kilogram of fat (I can't find the value), so it's less efficient than storing the water itself. Maybe you could say that it has the plus of giving energy and you are right but my specie is fine with that, it doesn't need more energy backup, I am looking for water backup.
[Answer]
**Fat is best**.
from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_water>
>
> Metabolic water refers to water created inside a living organism
> through their metabolism, by oxidizing energy-containing substances in
> their food. Animal metabolism produces about 100 grams of water per
> 100 grams of fat,[1](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gUbdi.jpg) 42 grams of water per 100 g of protein and
> 60 grams of water per 100 g of carbohydrate.
>
>
>
Fat is very much water storage. Except the fat is not water. Fat is the raw material from which water is created. Water is produced when the fat is oxidized for energy.
from <http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/gUbdi.jpg)
Oxidizing any reduced carbon yields carbon dioxide, water and energy. This is why you can see car exhaust on a cold day: oxidizing the gasoline produces water and CO2, and the water condenses. This is why if you put out a candle by lowering a glass jar over it, you will find water on the inside of the jar.
Your creatures will most efficiently store "water" as fat. The fat will not evaporate. It can efficiently be kept in one place and will not drift around and interfere with the function of other systems / cells. Possible problems - 1: you need oxygen to make water from fat. and 2: the production of water will also produce heat.
LET THERE BE HUMP!
addendum: the hump doesn't have to be on the back...
[Answer]
Water volume isn't a problem. The mass is the problem. Your body is somewhere around 60% water. This means even a perfect water storage mechanism can only be about 66% more efficient. You can't even double your water storage per body-mass. This is why water-efficient creatures typically focus on conserving water rather than trying to store more of it.
Even if you could, would you want to? Water storage is literally pound for pound. You can store a pound of water if you're willing to carry around a pound of weight. If you're a 100kg creature, and you want to store an extra 40kg of water, you have to have the musculature, skeletal, and energetic structures to carry around 140kg. There is no solution to this, unless we start to talk about leaving deposits of water around (perhaps buried in the ground?)
As for the "hump," [dromedaries don't actually use it for water](https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/camel.html)! It's used to store food/energy. Camels are also very water efficient, so people got used to thinking that the hump was for that. If you think about it, the hump would inflate/deflate with water consumption if it was used for water!
My recommendation would be to store the water inside cells, or inside a constantly flowing extracellular matrix like our lymph system. Water has bacteria in it, and nothing's worse than having your water spoiled while you're carrying it in some bladder. Cellular storage would probably work best, based on what I think you're going for. That would allow us to specialize the water storage cells for maximum capacity. Now this won't buy you much. Soft tissue is already 70-75% water, so you're going to earn yourself maybe a meager 20% more capacity this way. But if you're obsessed with maximization, that'd be how I'd do it.
I'd store the tissues made from these cells in the same way we store abdominal fat. It's a part of the body that can expand efficiently, and it's close to our center of gravity so we waste the minimum amount of effort possible if we store extra stuff there.
As for trying to do chemical tricks to store water more densely, I don't think you'll have much luck. I'm unaware of any molecules that would do what you'd like, and I have good reason they do not exist. The fact that we see hydrogen and oxygen bond together into water and virtually nothing else is a hint that this is a highly favorable structure. Any structure which did better than this would also have to have other atoms (such as the carbons in a hydrocarbon). This would increase the mass, and since mass is vastly more important than volume for these sorts of problems, it would be a horrible trade. Your cute creatures are going to have to be a bit pudgy once they gorge themselves on water! However, several of the comments did point to an interesting solution, which is to draw the oxygen from the air and only store the hydrogen. If that qualifies as "storing water," then you could gain some benefits that way.
[Answer]
**You dont have to store more water...**
Just lose less water.
Camels don't store water in their humps; that's just fat. They store water in an internal bladder.
* Animals lose water either through general/unintended I'm gonna say osmosis but thats not quite right. With water being leeched from their skin from the dryer air. This happens most when we open our mouths.
* They lose water because of perspiration. We sweat to cool ourselves down.
* They also lose water because of secretion. We gotta get rid of waste somehow.
**All your creature has to do is not need to sweat, capture lost water from when opening its mouth (a lot of hair maybe), and defecate dust.**
Some animals evolve spines to capture moisture and draw it closer to their body for collection in desert environments.
Saharan snakes are cold blooded so they don't need to sweat in the desert. They also burrow into the sand at noon to avoid to much heat.
**You could justify having a cold-blooded unicorn with reflective skin, a long snout it breathes in and out that is packed with hair and acts as a filter and water catch. It can also poo rainbow colored dust. Would be perfectly adapted for the desert.**
Edit: Since there is a desire for a chemical approach to this:
**Hydrocarbon chains!!**
Hydrocarbon chains is practically synonymous with oil. They are composed of chains of carbon with hydrogen caping the ends. Your creature could just drink water and convert carbon and hydrogen into these. It could then perform a controlled combustion reaction to convert these into H20 and CO2 by taking in air. This is an incredibly dense way to store energy and water. It is also not completely unrealistic. Plants store energy in glucose which is essentially a hydrocarbon and some nitrates i think. When it undergoes respiration at night it indeed release this water which is what can often, in combination with other conditions, result in muggy or foggy conditions.
[Answer]
**Adaptation**
Depends alot in the environment in wich the creature will live to give a correct answer, because one solution for an arctic tundra is most likely not going to work in the Sahara desert.
**Behaviour**
* Never move when the temperature is at its height
* Burrow below earth to absorve moist from the surrounding land
* Stay active only during the night time or dawn.
**Acquiring Water**
You don't need to carry all that water around; just being able to get it from something in particular would help you.
For example [the Kangaroo rat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_rat) would obtain water mostly from seeds.
**Retaining water**
Ultra efficient management of water excretion, which means:
* Lack of sweating; you dissipate heat using longer ears/legs.
* Liquid excretion is being stripped from most water as possible leaving only uric acid.
* Highly efficient kidneys that help obtain as much water as posible from any food.
**Storing water**
Is a valid option, but sadly you need to put it somewhere, and since humps isn't an option, maybe you could consider an atrophied limb or wings. Like a species that is adapting to this "new" place, and their wings are for heat dissipation and water storage instead of flying now.
[Answer]
**Symbiosis**
Ants and aphids, symbiosis, yadda yadda. Your creature makes/lives in an underground network of tunnels, like a groundhog. A certain kind of beetle or mouse or something shares the tunnels, parasitically scavenging leftovers, or being cultivated-- let the details fit your creature's emotional role in the story. Glowing pretty fungus? Adorable mouse babies? Woooorms?
The beetles store water. Your predator doesn't store water in its body; it stores it in theirs. When times get dry, the beetle-ites get eaten, or milked, or whatever.
[Answer]
I would suggest a slight variation on your internal organ idea. I would have them have a second stomach that holds nothing but water, and instead of them having water absorbed through the intestines as you suggest have the circulatory system pass by that organ to gain the needed water. You could have the valve that we use to separate food/liquid from air function as normal,but then have a secondary valve/flap that allows water to pass down a third tube to the water bladder, while the non-water molecules that are the food stuffs go down the regular tube to the stomach. Cell membranes work in a very similar manner, only allowing certain molecules through although if I remember correctly ours are set up for oxygen to pass through, not sure about water. A way to make it more efficient, instead of a single flap have the esophagus act kind of like an intestine where it absorbs the water all the way down, and then sends it to the bladder.
Having the large interior repository, say 2-3x the size and capacity of the creatures normal food stomach, would allow them to go quite some time without drinking once filled completely.
You could even make it a part of their normal digestion that any water they get from food gets filtered out/absorbed in the intestines as normal, but is sent to the repository organ instead. This would help to supplement the water gained through drinking and allow them to go even longer without drinking, provided they were still able to eat.
[Answer]
Have a Jellyfish type creature:
>
> Only about five percent of the body of a jellyfish is solid matter; the rest is water. Fascinating, elegant, and mysterious to watch in the water, take a jellyfish out of the water, and it becomes a much less fascinating blob. This is because jellyfish are about 95 percent water.
>
>
>
Source: [National Ocean Service](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/jellyfish.html)
[Answer]
# We already store water
As other answers have said, we're already mostly water, hard to improve on storage without having weight problems
# Continual Input
To avoid "drinking", your creature could get small amounts from the air itself, filtering it through some kind of skin pores or gills or something. That would be a weightless way to slow major intakes (drinking) by a lot.
[Answer]
Your creature could have adapted some sort of (mostly external) organ that allows it to create a rudimentary solar still, to extract moisture from the ground. Perhaps skin or a thin shell-like membrane on a vestigial wing or fin. It would place this organ over a hole in the ground, and use a long snout or proboscis to drink the collected water, or maybe tubes built into the membrane. It could even bury itself nearby (but not IN the hole, it doesn't want to bake!) to get out of the sun itself while it waits. The creature would need to stop periodically on its journey to dig a hole, set up the still, and rest and wait for its drink, but it wouldn't need to find surface water nor carry water along.
[Answer]
Don't store it.
Your creature is a modified egg-layer. In rich times it gorges itself and produces a large number of infertile eggs. These are stored to be eaten during lean times. If lean times only apply to water then the eggs are basically water with little nutrition in them.
] |
[Question]
[
I'm in need of the backstory on how a country was able to form and break out from a rich western and well developed country. I basically had to hit a reset switch in order for some of the future plans to work out. However I have problems seeing how this could happen without a civil or external war.
I would prefer the new country to have a great start, and starting off from the ruins of a war is certainly not preferable.
The only similar question I found was [Can I still form a new country?](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/23475/can-i-still-form-a-new-country), but that one focuses more on making a new country using left-over land.
The time-schedule for this is between now and about 100 years from now.
I have considered different causes such as disagreement over NATO, EU, and other memberships, but it still seems pretty thin to be honest.
Also, looking at recent events such as Catalonia vs. Spain, it seems almost impossible for a country to give up land for a new country.
Do I really need a war, or does anyone have some other suggestions?
Edit to clarify:
With a new country, I mean a new country with a new constitution and government. An old country leaving an union (Scotland) or separating a region with great autonomy and established government (Catalonia) does not really qualify because it would not give a clean slate. They would continue as before with the same laws, just with their old flag now posted outside the UNHQ.
[Answer]
In 1991, the [Soviet Union ceased to exist as a country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union) and the land was divided up into 15 countries, generally along boundaries of countries that existed when the Soviet Union formed in 1917, swallowing up existing countries that had been under Russian control. But this is overly simplistic and boundaries/countries were not the same as before.
[Yugoslavia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakup_of_Yugoslavia) also broke into multiple countries around the same time (for related reasons). There were wars over this but the divisions in some cases were not the result of war but rather the cause.
In 1993, [Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_Czechoslovakia) split into the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
>
> It is sometimes known as the Velvet Divorce, a reference to the
> bloodless Velvet Revolution of 1989 that led to the end of the rule of
> the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia and the restoration of a
> capitalist state in the country.
>
>
>
[Vatican City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City), "an independent city-state enclaved within Rome, Italy" was given peacefully to the church by Italy in 1929.
And these are just a few examples from 20th century Europe. There are more in other places and times.
Even if there were not, it's something you could have in your story. The threat of war may be enough to convince a country to give up land for another country. Or it could be economic sanctions. Or the promise of economic benefit. Religion. A desire for peace. A vote of the people to secede (as Britain is (sort of) doing from the EU. Or any of multiple other reasons.
[Answer]
>
> it seems almost impossible for a country to give up land for a new country.
>
>
>
Not necessarily. There are also example of peaceful separation: [Czechoslovakia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakia) is one of these.
>
> Czechoslovakia was a sovereign state in Central Europe that existed from October 1918, when it declared its independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire, until its peaceful dissolution into the Czech Republic and Slovakia on 1 January 1993.
>
>
> From 1948 to 1990, Czechoslovakia was part of the Eastern Bloc with a command economy. Its economic status was formalized in membership of Comecon from 1949 and its defense status in the Warsaw Pact of May 1955. A period of political liberalization in 1968, known as the Prague Spring, was forcibly ended when the Soviet Union, assisted by several other Warsaw Pact countries, invaded. In 1989, as Marxist–Leninist governments and communism were ending all over Europe, Czechoslovaks peacefully deposed their government in the Velvet Revolution; state price controls were removed after a period of preparation. In 1993, Czechoslovakia split into the two sovereign states of the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
>
>
>
[Answer]
I read your question two different ways. If you're asking about the general process required for creating a new country peacefully, then it would look much like the non-peaceful route (just without the violence). Boundaries would have to be defined and a government set up. Becoming a "real" country won't happen until other countries formally recognize you, build a diplomatic mission, etc. Having your former parent country be the first to formally recognize you would go a long way towards cementing your new country's legitimacy, and would help assuage any other nations' fears about stepping into the middle of another country's internal problems.
If instead your question is more along the lines of "how could I ever convince a government to do such a thing", then it's a bit more tricky. Most politicians have far too much pride to voluntarily let go of part of their territory. There are some circumstances, though, where I could see a reasonable government choosing to do this sort of thing. You'd rarely find a country *eager* to do that, but there are many cases where the alternative could be much worse.
* **Avoiding a war** - The territory in question is - and has been - hotly contested territory with a neighboring country. Ownership of that region has changed hands multiple times, and always as the result of a war. Neither side really *wants* the region all that much, they just *really* don't want the other side to have it. After a decade of negotiations, both sides agree to spin that region off into an independent country under the condition that it must remain fully independent of either nation.
* **Logistical expediency** - Imagine if the modern UK consisted of five constituent countries: England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Australia. Administering Australia from the other end of the planet would be tremendously expensive and difficult. The only way to ensure that Australians had the type of responsive government they need would be to have special local Australian-run branches of the court systems, law enforcement, etc. Your country eventually realizes that it would be better - and cheaper - for all involved if they formally spun off Australia into a fully-independent state (after all, you're most of the way there already). There's no hard feelings and the two remain close allies, but there are no longer any dependent relationship between them.
* **Dissolution of a temporary condition** - Decades ago, a fairly powerful country in the region was taken over by a brutal dictator who built up his military and sought to conquer most of the region. The dictator was just barely sane enough to know not to attack your country, though. You were large and powerful enough that he knew he couldn't win that fight. One of your neighbors is a long-time ally and critically-important trade partner. Unfortunately, they're a smaller nation and don't have much of a military, and found themselves a prime target of the dictator. Your ally agreed to let you annex their territory so that the dictator wouldn't dare attack them, but they only loosely integrated into your overall government. After decades of keeping the madman at bay, he was finally deposed the threat is gone. The need for protection is over, and your former ally wishes to return to being an independent nation.
* **Cultural/ideological split** - Your country is rather large, both in terms of size and population. Over time, your country has developed rather distinct regional cultures with different sets of values. This is causing havoc in your legislature, as the increasingly different ideologies lead to nothing but disagreements, dysfunction, and a growing dissatisfaction with the government's performance. Your leaders conclude that there's no way to satisfy such a diverse group of needs with a single top-down solution. Splitting the nation into several smaller nations would allow each region to govern themselves in accordance with their particular needs, values, and culture, without having to force the other regions to do something they don't want to do. The new countries are self-determinate, but remain friendly and in a loose alliance.
* **Concession for a greater purpose** - Your country was a member of a regional free-trade alliance for decades. Over time, this alliance has outgrown its original intent and become more of a government unto itself, and your people demand that your nation break free and regain its sovereignty. There's a big problem, though. One historically-poor region of your country has spectacularly prospered under the alliance's trade rules. Leaving the alliance would thrust them back into poverty, destroy their economy, and cripple the supply chains of every industrialized nation in the region. Your politicians have come up with an endless stream of terrible solutions for the problem of leaving the alliance. The only one that isn't *completely* bonkers is for this region to be spun off into an independent country that can choose to remain part of the trade alliance.
[Answer]
The process of [balkanization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkanization) is certainly very messy, but not necessarily bloody. Regions can [vote themselves out](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence) via the democratic process, similar to the Scottish referendum. A colony, region or far out island territory could be abandoned for various reasons. Territories are [sometimes sold](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_Purchase) like the Louisiana Purchase.
[Answer]
It turns out that this has already happened lots of times from developed nations over the past century.
Some examples to consider:
* [Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada#Contemporary_era)
* [Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#Nationhood)
* [New Zealand](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand#History)
* [The Philippines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Philippines_(1898%E2%80%931946)#Insular_Government_(1901%E2%80%931935))
* [Palau](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palau#Independence)
* [The Federated States of Micronesia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federated_States_of_Micronesia#History)
* [The Marshall Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands)
In all of these cases, the basic formula was some variation on the following:
* **Form a stable local territorial/provincial government.**
Ideally, one that the power from which you wish to secede considers to be in line with its views on how a stable government should be run. For example, if seceding from the U.S. or U.K. within the last roughly a century, having a stable democratic republican form of government certainly helps the argument for independence.
* **Keep asking to take on more power/responsibility locally.**
As your local government becomes more stable and increases its record of stability, continue asking the country from which you wish to secede for more local responsibility over running your territory's affairs, along with the power needed to carry out those responsibilities.
* **Maintain good relations with the government from which you wish to secede.**
Maintaining good relations certainly helps when arguing for independence. The government tends to be much more likely to grant local powers and tends to be much more amenable to granting independence when the local government is working with it in a friendly manner rather than antagonizing it in an adversarial manner. It also tends to be more likely to grant those powers when it trust the local government not to use those powers to suddenly start acting significantly against its interests.
* **Develop an independent national identity and culture.**
Of course, one of the key ingredients in getting independence is the local people actually wanting independence and beginning to think of themselves more as a separate nation and culture from the country from which secession is desired (if that's not already the case.) Over time, this also tends to get the rest of the people in the country from which you wish to secede to start thinking of you that way, too. And it makes the argument that you can form a stable sovereign nation after independence much stronger.
* **Ask for independence.**
This step should be obvious, but, having completed the above steps, ask (ideally nicely) for independence. This often involves a significant degree of negotiating. It also sometimes involves initially being told no. When that happens, keep asking and keep negotiating. Going back to the first point, this is also often done in steps in order to ensure a smooth and stable transition of power. In some cases (Canada and Australia, for example,) asking for more and more local power may result in the local government eventually acting as a de facto sovereign nation well before the final vestiges of control by the government from which you are seceding are relinquished.
[Answer]
For such a scenario, there are two most important factors:
* Do you have approval of the government/overlord?
* Do you have popular support within the *whole* populace?
If you have government approval, you face the same situation a [Scotland in 2014](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Scottish_independence_referendum). They had the blessing of the UK parliament and were allowed to vote on it. The UK agreed beforehand to honor the outcome of the referendum. There would not have been war, and it is unlikely that there would have been civil war within Scotland.
If you do not have approval, you face the same situation as [Catalonia in 2017](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Catalan_independence_referendum), when the referendum they held was declared illegal. The Catalan people do not have independence, and in order to break free from Spain they would have to resort to violence. So far, the violence was very limited. This is an ongoing situation.
As far as popular support is concerned, you have Catalonia as example, where the spanish people in general do not want to let Catalonia go. If the catalan independence had vast support in the spanish populace, demonstrations all over spain could help the catalan people to gain approval for a legal independence referendum and force a change.
This happened in [Czechoslovakia from 1989-1993](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution). Widespread demonstrations, fueled by the violent suppression of an earlier demonstration with 9 people dead, lead to the fall of the communist government and a new government was installed. Splitting the country had popular support all over the country, allowing a peaceful transition.
So, in order to have a region split from a parent country, you have to figure out:
**Why do they want independence?** Is there a historical reason? Are there economical reasons? In case of [the hypothetical partition of Belgium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Belgium), historical and linguistic reasons are often cited, but the real reason for wanting to split is economical, the rich regions no longer wish to support the poor ones. The reasons for wanting independence are important because they directly drive who supports them. If a rich regions wants to split from a poor one, then usually the poor one doesn't want that, or if they do, they have to think they can be better off and improve their economy without being part of the larger country.
**Who supports their independence**? Which internal parties support the independence? Do they have popular support o both sides, if so, *why* (see above). *Which external parties* who could have a moderating effect or put pressure on the government support their independence?
**What is their bargaining power**? A stronger region can easily split from a weaker one simply by the *threat* of war. If the other side doesn't want independence, but the cost of war is too high, they might not want to do anything about it.
If you look at *the* pinnacle of "western civilization", the US, you can look at the various bids for [Secession of California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_and_secession_in_California#Calexit) from the United States. After Trump was elected, secessionist movements in California flared up against after a long history of such movements.
Another problem within the US is the [Kingdom of Hawaii](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Hawaii). [In 1993, the Apology resolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apology_Resolution) "acknowledges that the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii occurred with the active participation of agents and citizens of the United States and further acknowledges that the Native Hawaiian people never directly relinquished to the United States their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people over their national lands, either through the Kingdom of Hawaii or through a plebiscite or referendum.". it would be interesting to see what would happen if there was enough popular support within the Hawaiian populace to do something about it. the strategic importance of Hawaii is certainly big, but in times of social media, globalization and internet, can you really rule over a group of island where the people do not wish to be ruled by you and where you already recognized their claim to sovereignty?
Independence and Sovereignty aren't easy, but you can find enough historical examples even in the modern world where you can build upon claims of independence and take it from there. Put more pressure on California, have the US make decisions that are *hugely* unpopular in California, trash their economy and suddenly it becomes *believable* in a work of fiction that a few years down the drain the secessionist movement has gained enough support within California to do something about it. find an external actor who wants to help. In the case of the US, that is difficult, because which external actor would risk war with the US to ensure Californias independence? But there are smaller countries where claims of independence exist and bigger external actors might want to help gaining their independence, or where you can contrive a scenario where you have popular support for an amicable split.
[Answer]
Without war essentially means that the former owner of the area chooses to not go to war.
It might be simply incapable. Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia de facto ceased to exist. Many countries became independent during the [Russian Civil War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War) or the unrest leading to it. This does not entirely make warfare impossible as the military forces and political machinery do not usually disintegrate with the state and may want to contest the dissolution. There was lots of warfare within Yugoslavia for example.
It might be prevented by external force. At the end of the World War I several new countries were formed from the parts of the losing powers.
I am not going to talk more about either of these options since they are predicated on some degree of conflict preceding the event even if it stops before the independence and avoids escalating to actual warfare.
So lets talk about reasons for genuinely choosing to let someone go.
**It is the will of the people**
Civil disobedience is a thing. Gandhi used it in India and in Finland similar tactics were used to resist Russification. In both cases external reasons eventually created the window of opportunity for independence but making the government aware that the people want independence is pretty much required for peaceful independence that is not forced by outside powers. Essentially if you can create a peaceful movement for independence capable of widespread and organized civil disobedience eventually the government will just give up.
In a democracy with a separate national parliament just having that parliament support independence with a large enough majority will work.
The two options above are **very much** not mutually exclusive. If your nation does not already have a separate parliament having one should be your goal before you start seriously trying to be independent. So civil disobedience to get a right to a parliament is a thing.
You can also get your parliament via politics within the political system of the larger nation. And you might be able to even skip the separate parliament if you already have solid representation. If the British government found itself dependent on the support of the Scottish National Party within the British Parliament, SNP wouldn't need to do anything in Scotland to get its views heard.
**The time is right**
Another important aspect is a discontinuity. Soviet Union felt no real need to enforce the ownership of Finland by the Russian Empire. Stalin (people's commissar for Nationalities at the time) was okay for Finland to become independent when he could use it to manage separatism in the Russia proper. And Lenin probably really thought right of secession was a thing. India gained independence because post WW2 the British Empire really didn't have the ability to keep them.
Sometimes a change of government might be enough. If the people want independence and the government has made waves opposing it, the opposition parties have probably spent years talking about how stupid forcing people to be part of a nation they do not actually support is. So when they win the election they will have a hard time continuing oppressing the liberty desire of the people.
Sometimes the independence is long process of a nation becoming ready for it. British Dominions just started handling more and more of their own affairs and became increasingly independent. Interestingly this was actually caused by the independence of the United States. Many felt that the bloodshed and violence was fundamentally caused by failure to properly deal with the political rights of the colonial citizens, so colonies with populations largely composed of European migrants that would expect to have political rights despite being far distant from London were given an improved status.
**There is a political process for it**
For the transition to happen peacefully without special circumstances it needs to be managed properly. It should result from political negotiation with a consensus on the result. This does not imply that both sides or even either side has to approve of the result. And the result certainly does not need to be popular. But you do need two sides that mutually agree they have the authority to negotiate and actually go thru the process.
Best (negative) example of this is probably Catalonia. Spain does not have a political system for negotiating a secession or even properly discussing it and it is a major issue for everyone concerned. There really isn't a good way for either the government or the separatists to deal with the issue.
This does imply that the separatists have a political organization that the government can accept as legitimate. Having a separate legal parliament makes this much easier but having leaders that are known to have popular support can be enough.
It also helps a lot if the political process for secession was defined in advance. If the process already exists both sides have the option of following it and not having to argue about it before they get to actual productive work.
**Faking it**
All of the above can be faked. Ability to convince the population that independence has great popular support is almost as good as actually having it. A political crisis and the window of opportunity can be manufactured. Sufficient amount of money in the right hands can grease the most difficult negotiation.
[Answer]
Have a war somewhere else, giving your new country an opportunity window to secede. Historical example, Slovenian seccesion from Yugoslavia after the [Ten Days war](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten-Day_War). Yugoslav army had to withdraw in a hurry to face bigger threats, granting Slovenia de-facto independence after very limited fighting with no impact on economy or infrastructures, thus allowing something similar to your great start.
Counter-example from your question, Catalonia might not be able to secede without a war, but Basque Country might take advantage of the turmoil to set sails while Spanish army is up to its neck somewhere else.
[Answer]
As of today, there are some forces in the world that are becoming more powerful than most states. A combination of finance, natural resources, popular and international pressures could create the weather for a perfect storm.
Some concrete examples:
A. Former colonies are granted their independence
1. Due to international pressure and political turmoil, the US, UK, France, New Zealand and Spain commit themselves to grant independence to their current colonies 100 years from now.
2. Big corporations (subreptitiously) buy land in some colonial islands in the Pacific or the Caribbean and push for independence from the countries that control them.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_list_of_Non-Self-Governing_Territories#/media/File:UN-Non-Self-Governing_Territories.svg>
B. Governance problems and democratic pressures
1. Canada is in bankrupt due to dwindling population and huge state expenses. Quebec votes for its independence. It receives a large support from the US and Europe due to probable oil and gas reserves. A weak Canadian government is forced to accept a debt reduction in exchange.
2. The Congress of California and its governor do not recognize the election of Donald Trump III for a third term and declare their independence. Oregon and other nearby states (could include Mexican states) follow their lead and form a new federation.
C. Financial district becomes a country.
China, Europe and the US agree for the need of an international financial district in order to maintain the balance of power in the world. Of course, the conditions that lead to such an agreement are yet to be seen.
The territory could be located somewhere in Europe (e.g. France and Germany agree to lose a small part of their territory in exchange for direct supervision and a privileged geographical position).
China is interested in having Europe as an ally against the emergent nuclear powers in Asia (Russia, India and Iran), and a debilitated US has to agree because its external debt with China has become unbearable.
[Answer]
One other example: Singapore leaving Malasia in 1965.
They did join in 1963 though, and they were small, poor and with different population and religion.
] |
[Question]
[
Two strangers, Alice and Daisuke, are from two different cultures and speak different languages. Oh, and they are from two different times!
Alice, was unwillingly, unknowingly and unexpectedly transported through time by crygogenics/time machine/sleeping curse etc. Transport method is not needed for the question.
Alice does not know she has travelled into the future. She has just woken up in a strange world unable to speak the language. She is intelligent, well learnt and has quickly managed to communicate her immediate needs with the international travel language of body language and hand signals.
Daisuke, doesn't know when exactly Alice is from, just that she is from the long lost past. Daisuke while also intelligent and well learnt, does not speak Alice's language or have the resources to find any academics that may still speak it (if any). Daisuke does not have any modern equipment/technology to help translate and is also relying on body language and handsignals.
To protect Alice from the outside world, she isn't allowed outside her windowless set of rooms. Daisuke can't just show Alice old buildings that were new/non existent in her time etc. Daisuke can arrange to have small objects brought into the rooms but doesn't know which would be helpful without external context. (An old vase, is just an old vase). As Daisuke doesn't even know who Alice is (aside from her name) or what exact timeframe she came from he cannot provide any of her own belongings/familar objects until he knows the exact time she came from...
**Alice wants to know where she is!** Daisuke can simply point to a map. **How does Daisuke communicate the long passage of time to Alice?**
For the purposes of this question he doesn't have to communicate *how* she got there.
For the purposes of this question Daisuke can't just spend months teaching Alice the language. Alice wants to know now, what the f is going on!
**Using just basic hand signals (and props), how do you tell someone that it has been many many years since they were last awake?**
---
**Edit**
Alice doesn't need to know the exact number of years she has travelled. If she can be told she has been gone for more than a century (rough number of centuries would be a bonus) that would suffice. They can fine tune the dates once they get their language barrier sorted.
Alice has the equivalent of a 1900ish level of knowledge (if she had had a male education that is).
There is about 1000-1300 years in time difference with a cataclysm inbetween. The people rebuilt. There is no modern *technology* in the new world. No aeroplanes, TV's, modern computers etc!
* FYI. The New World does use a different Calender Year numbering system, but the calendar week/month setup itself is similar enough to be recognisable. The New world uses the old "dynasty method" and is no reference to the total amount of time that has passed. **Using such a calendar would still be able to show the passage of time**, with the added step of explaining the difference between the year stated and the number of years travelled.
Daisuke has a similar level of knowledge as Alice, ie 1900ish.
Daisuke can use everyday objects as "props" to indicate certain ideas/concepts as well as hand gestures, drawing on paper and moving around the room.
Daisuke would be able to provide maps, solar system drawings and models.
Daisuke knows Alice has travelled from the past, as there have been similar incidents in the past (these involved similar languages so his people haven't encountered this communication issue before). These previous incidents didn't necessarily all come from Alice's time.
- Would require communication between both Alice and Daisuke to refine the ballpark time to roughly a century which is why, it's not necessary to be precise.
A good answer would cover explaining to Alice:
* she is in the same place as pointed out on a map, and that a large number of years had passed.
+ the exact number is not required but an estimate within a rough hundred years is preferable (ie not a strict requirement).
* Daisuke would have to specify if she had gone forward or backward.
* if a shared point in history is used as a reference point it will have to be mimed/drawn out (eg, major events like, the crucification or major influential flag colours. Some thing or some event that would withstand the rigours of a catacylsm).
+ there is a high probability of misunderstanding with this technique as each may be referring to different events eg which wall falling down are you talking about, Hadrian's wall, the Berlin wall, Trump's wall?
* An explanation shouldn't take more than a day, possibly two to convey.
* Any explanation that involves taking Alice outside is void, but explaining concepts like the sun is ok.
* An explanation that involves objects from her time in a aged state is borderline, as Daisuke doesn't know her exact departure time.
+ besides, how is Alice to to know what is trying to be said by showing her these random old objects.
+ Yes, it might show that she had travelled in time, but she can't determine it's 900 years worth of rust/mold instead of 500!
[Answer]
1. Draw the solar system. Get Alice to understand which planet she's on. Hopefully quite simple. If he can get his hands on an [orrery](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orrery) that would be ideal. If she doesn't seem to understand basic astrophysics, she may be too primitive to understand.
2. Follow the orbit of the planet once, and make a tally mark
3. Follow the orbit of the planet again, and make another tally mark.
4. Make a lot more tally marks. If you have an orrery crank the handle as fast as you can.
Do this interspersed with pointing at Alice, pointing at her craft/cryochamber/magic bed etc.. and she has a good chance of working it out.
[Answer]
**Draw a timeline.**
Timelines are very easy to understand. It doesn't have to be complicated, and understanding each others number systems is not required either.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/Wr7zM.png)
This does of course require both Daisuke and Alice to know some history regarding dinosaurs, but that could possibly also be substituted for other alternatives. For someone a bit better at drawing than me, words wouldn't be needed in the illustration.
[Answer]
Daisuke gets one picture of architecture that is representative of the beginning or middle of each past century. Since alice pointed her location on a map, you know what cultural architecture to show.
Begin with XX century, show a picture of an atomic bomb's mushroom cloud, or one WW II poster.
If Alice recognizes XX century, move forward with pictures of architecture until she does not recognize anymore.
If alice does not recognize XX century, move backwards with pictures of architecture until she recognizes something.
[Answer]
## Tracking Time
Humans have been keeping track of time for most of civilization. Calendars and clocks are both common across cultures, although their designs are clearly different. If Alice is from a far time period or vastly different culture then you might have a harder time finding a common design thread but it is certainly not impossible.
Once you have established what your time measuring device is and looks like, from there it is a simple bit of pantomime to explain that Alice is from the past. The important thing is to have a common understanding of both the calendar and how it functions. Alice needs to know what the current day is on the calendar, and which direction time moves on it.
Have Daisuke point at the calendar and then himself. Have him very obviously point to a previous point on the calendar, and then point at Alice. Repeat with variations until Alice twigs that she is in the future. The more similar the calendars that both parties use are the easier it will be to convey that information.
[Answer]
I would start with a world map in the hopes that continent shapes, river courses and major city locations would look familiar to her. That would get the largest scope of the "where am I?" question out of the way. She would know that she is still on Earth.
Then as she notices the effects of rising ocean levels, changing river courses and city sprawl, she could come to her own conclusion about how much time has passed. She might not know exactly how many years have gone by, but she would know that she is in the distant future. From this she could learn the all important fact that the world she came from is gone. There is no going back.
After that, I would start bringing here children's history books, choosing one that have lots of illustrations. She wouldn't be able to read my people's modern text, but the pictures would act as milestones. Once she recognizes something in a picture, it would be time for the sun/earth rotation pantomime which has been described in other answers.
[Answer]
Easy peasy, **bring a newspaper to the room**.
It's cliche, yes, but incredibly effective. If you can find one with numbers and pull them up. Numbers have been around for [about 6000 years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number#First_use_of_numbers), so unless she's from cavemen times (and as she has a name, it's clear she isn't), numbers are your best bet. Showing her numbers from her time period along with the current time period could show her exactly the amount of time that has passed, or at least provide a general sense that significant time has passed.
In order to get the timeframe Alice is from, show her pictures from each century, and gauge her looks of confusion as to roughly when she is from. If she's confused by an airplane but not a ballista, you can get a rough idea of her time period. Continue this with smaller and smaller increments of time until you determine the decade or year.
Note: I do intentionally say [numbers, not numerals](https://web.archive.org/web/20180209014823/http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/58756.html). In many languages the numeric system is a bit different in terms of numerals, but the language of actual numbers has never changed, hence why many believe math to be [universally connected](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/22929/17568).
[Answer]
Even without a clock, basic units of time are the day/night cycle, moon cycles, seasons... and obviously years : Earth revolutions around the Sun. Just make Daisuke to form a fist with one of his hands, points to Alice with the index of his other hand, then proceed to make his finder slowly turn around the fist, then accelerate the revolution, spinning the finger faster and faster around the fist.
It won't take long for an intelligent, well learnt person to understand that the fist is the Sun, the finger is the Earth, and that many, many years have passed indeed.
[Answer]
Proper sign language, as any other language, is hard to convey without knowledge. I assume you mean something like mimic, but still this cannot be done quickly. Gestures have different meanings in different cultures!
Daisuke can use the following steps:
1. Establish a certain item as bearer of the meaning for 1 day and 1 night. I.e. 2 oranges are given every morning, once 1 day and 1 night are passed by.
2. Establish another item/act to symbolize "sleeping" and another one for "awake". I.e. a pillow for sleeping and a shovel for awake.
3. Place next to Daisuke 1 pillow and 1 shovel, then place n oranges next to the pillow and n oranges next to the shovel.
4. Place pillow and shovel next to Alice. Put all the oranges on the pillow.
[Answer]
Simple. With clock/wrist watch and map.
Have Daisuke point to where they are on map, and then to Alice and self.
Then point to clock, and make circular motion counterclockwise. Do that again with verve, then many many times, frenetically, to indicate a massive amount of time in the past. Point to location on map, and then to Alice to indicate she was alone back then.
Now indicate with clock time moving forward, lots and lots of time. Repeat first gesture with map indicating they are together again here, in present time.
If there is no clock maybe Daisuke could suggest, with arm motion, the movement of the sun across the sky from sunrise to sunset to indicate time passing.
[Answer]
To extend [@SZCZERZO KŁY's answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/93616/34955), you could use a tally/roman-numeral-esque system.
For example, start by drawing, say, 10 lines. The amount doesn't matter, and could vary depending on the numerical base used by Daisuke. Then, connect them somehow (be it via a bracket, arrow or line) to a new symbol. This symbol represents 10 lines. Then, repeat this so you have a 100s symbol, and then a 1000s symbol. You can then use them to represent a date, for instance:
```
MMCIIIIIII
```
to represent 2017 (where I is 1, X is 10, C is 100, and M is 1000).
A rough breakdown of reading it:
```
MMCIIIIIII
|
\./
1000 + 1000 + 10 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
=
2017
```
The key here is to find some way to get Alice to realise that time is being talked about here, so this would best be combined with another answer, such as [@Mindwin's answer](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/93626/34955), to ensure that Alice gets the message that these are years. Daisuke could first write out some year which she will most likely know and then his year, and juxtapose them. Alternatively, Daisuke could try to represent a rough estimate of the time Alice has travelled, and then point to her capsule/time machine/cryogenic sleeping pod.
[Answer]
Physical dictionaries have been around for a very very long time.
I would spend some time with the dictionary method. Get as many different language dictionaries as you can find. Write a similar phrase in each language.
```
"Pick up the red pen" english
"pick up the green pen" spanish
"pick up the blue pen" french
```
and so on.
When you run out of colors repeat a different pattern on page 2.
If you can establish which language she knows the rest is pretty easy. You want to use kindergarten level words since they don't change as much. Even if the language has changed there should be enough similarities so you can communicate basic ideas.
Also write down numbers in all known counting styles, and let her point to the one she recognized.
```
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
and so on
```
If you can establish which counting system she knows that would also help.
Math has a much reduced character set, and therefore a higher probability of finding it. Most languages have a 0-9 counting system that hasn't changed and isn't likely to change.
After that you could probably use common conventions to communicate dates.
11/1/2017 or 11-1-2017 would pretty much be universally recognized as a date.
[Answer]
A model of the solar system, even in the 1900's they had little models of the planets around the sun that could rotate, he could point to the earth, point to where they are, point at her, then crank the handle, make the earth mover around the sun many, many, many times, then point back at where they're and point at himself.
Conveying the passage of years by the rotations around the sun.
[Answer]
So using a sign language means Alice have eyes. So what Daisuke do is he find a crayon, a piece of paper and draw a picture. A picture of time travel. You know the clock the arrow pointing forward and all that jazz.
Also Daisuke can just recognize what number does Alice use or understand. Arabic, Roman, Chinese, Aztecs. And then write dates. For example
>
> ...2045, 2046, 2047, 2048, 2049
>
>
>
And then point to himself and explain that he is 2049 but she is in those three dots.
Different calendar systems don't play any role. There would be very little chance (as in removed by the OP) that Alice is from 5778 Jewish calendar and landed in the 5778 Gregorian one.
So the precise date is not necessary, just a concept to show the change in time.
[Answer]
I would arrange to have a 5cm/2inch slice of tree brought in with me. From the biggest handy tree that I am allowed to fell at short notice. Preferably some tree 100 years old or more. Take a drawing pin and place one near the middle call it Alice. Place another at the outside edge and give it your name.
Take a pencil and start to subdivide the tree rings if you want to make the duration longer or bring in another 10 slices of tree and chain the idea.
Everyone knows that tree rings take one year to grow.
[Answer]
2 ways. If they have clocks/wristwatches(with hands)He could point to it and run his finger along it clockwise.Also, he could bring some sort of written sign from an old building back in her time that would've been new, like a store sign or something.
[Answer]
Daisuke should use a calendar book since from the details in your question it will be recognisable with minimal difficulty, year to a page or opening, doesn't matter if it is 1,000 pages long. He can show her today, go back pages and show here explosion or destruction for the cataclysm and go back more pages and then point to Alice for the year that she is from.
] |
[Question]
[
Is it possible to deduce the software being run and its uses by listening to the magnetic, electromagnetic, and acoustic signals released by its operation?
Computers generate minute acoustic noise, variations in magnetic fields, and electromagnetic waves during operation. Typically much of this 'noise' is absorbed by the case and components. If you could build a probe able to bypass this shielding, could you deduce the software being run by a given computer (say if Microsoft Word is being run) and how that software is being used (say the contents of a Word document)? How small would these sensors have to be?
[Answer]
**Yes, you absolutely can.**
These are known as [side-channel attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side-channel_attack) and are a thriving field of study at the moment. Side-channel attacks are all about deducing the computer's internal workings (what it has in memory, or the calculations it's performing) by examining different side effects of its operation.
Sounds and electromagnetic fields can be analyzed to give indications of what parts of the computer are drawing power ([power-monitoring attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_analysis#Simple_power_analysis)) - which can tell you if a calculation is limited by CPU, GPU, memory, cache, etc. and give you an idea what class of calculation it is.
Outputs such as monitor cables can be examined to see if there is any electromagnetic leakage; this can be used to read data straight off the cable which (with a little guesswork as to the encoding) gives you whatever was being sent to the monitor, similar to [van Eck attacks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking). You can also spy on the electromagnetic output of, say, a bus on the motherboard shuffling data into and out of memory.
[Answer]
I remember years ago seeing on some TV program that a research group was able to reproduce what a CRT connected to a computer was showing by intercepting the electromagnetic noise produced by it. Modern displays are probably less noisy, but still use electronics, so I guess the principle still applies.
I remember also reading that it's is possible to train a software to recognize what somebody is typing on a keyboard just by listening to the typing sound, because each different key gives out a very recognizable sound. To exploit this feat you don't necessarily need a microphone inside the room, sometimes a laser pointed on the glasses of the room where the typing is taking place is enough to detect the sound induced vibrations on the glass itself.
[Answer]
Consider [Acoustic Cryptanalysis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acoustic_cryptanalysis).
[Keyboard Acoustic Side Channel Attacks](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10207-014-0264-7) are a good one... reconstructing likely keypresses from the noise of buttons being pressed on a keyboard. Anything capable of picking up audio frequencies will be just fine, and there's an entire decades old industry dedicated to snooping on people talking and literally any of those device will do. Modern microphones can be the size of a fingernail or a section of pencil lead. Things like [laser microphones](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_microphone) or [particulate flow detection microphones](https://patents.google.com/patent/US7580533) are rather larger, but you can set them up remotely to observe a target, and could potentially work on electromagnetically shielded devices if they weren't also in a well soundproofed location.
You need to use machine learning to build up a model of the keyboard being used and the typing style of the target... changing devices and typists can confound this to some degree, but you can keep recording audio and the more you have the better you'll get at working out what people are typing.
This of course doesn't tell you what people are *reading*, but only the notes/responses they're typing. Consider though that you could create a separate [computer worm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_worm) with the intent of getting it transferred onto an air-gapped network or computer by a careless (or malicious) employee and an infected storage device (eg. USB stick) which would generate audio signals that were out of the range of human hearing, but detectable by your audio bugs.
*But*, I'm assuming you're going to say, *what if there's no audio device on the PC?*
Turns out electronic equipment is hella noisy, and people have done all sorts of clever things merely by listening to the audio-frequency noises emitted by various electronic components. Consider [RSA Key Extraction via Low-Bandwidth Acoustic Cryptanalysis](http://www.cs.tau.ac.il/%7Etromer/acoustic/):
>
> Many computers emit a high-pitched noise during operation, due to vibration in some of their electronic components. These acoustic emanations are more than a nuisance: they can convey information about the software running on the computer and, in particular, leak sensitive information about security-related computations. In a preliminary presentation, we have shown that different RSA keys induce different sound patterns, but it was not clear how to extract individual key bits. The main problem was the very low bandwidth of the acoustic side channel (under 20 kHz using common microphones, and a few hundred kHz using ultrasound microphones), many orders of magnitude below the GHz-scale clock rates of the attacked computers.
>
>
>
>
> Here, we describe a new acoustic cryptanalysis key extraction attack, applicable to GnuPG's current implementation of RSA. The attack can extract full 4096-bit RSA decryption keys from laptop computers (of various models), within an hour, using the sound generated by the computer during the decryption of some chosen ciphertexts. We experimentally demonstrate that such attacks can be carried out, using either a plain mobile phone placed next to the computer, or a more sensitive microphone placed 4 meters away.
>
>
>
>
> Beyond acoustics, we demonstrate that a similar low-bandwidth attack can be performed by measuring the electric potential of a computer chassis. A suitably-equipped attacker need merely touch the target computer with his bare hand, or get the required leakage information from the ground wires at the remote end of VGA, USB or Ethernet cables.
>
>
>
So there you have it. With 2014-era technology, you could do this trick with a mobile phone. The brains of a modern smartphone without the big screen (and without the screen the battery size can shrink right down) will do the job for you just fine, just so long as you can get it close enough.
---
Not interested in audio signals? There's plenty of electromagnetic options, but I don't go into all of them here.
I will raise [van Eck phreaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking) as a classic example, which **does work on LCD displays** as well as old-school CRTs, a detail that some of the other posters here have missed. Its range is limited, and whilst the radio antennae required needn't be very large you do need a reasonable capable computer in order to do the decoding for you. Of course, *everyone* carries a "reasonably capable computer" in their pockets nowadays. The lower the screen resolution and the longer the cable connecting the signal source to the screen, the easier the attack. This means that eg. iPhones are rather less vulnerable than a decade old government desktop PC.
[Answer]
## Only in extremely limited circumstances
First, humans can only hear sounds, they cannot hear magnetic fields or electromagnetic waves.
Second, solid-state disks, which are very popular these days, have no moving parts and thus generate no noise. SSDs are common in laptops and other portable devices. Platter-based disks do have moving parts, but you're probably only going to find those in desktop computers.
Third, platter-based disks generally only make audible noises when the read head has to move around a lot. So, if the data for a program or large data file is very fragmented, a human may actually be able to hear the drive accessing the data. And if this happens frequently, the human may even learn to recognize the particular file.
*But*, the sounds will become unrecognizable if basically any of those particulars change:
* if the files get defragmented
* if the drive is replaced, even with an identical model
* possibly if the drive controller (motherboard) or CPU changes
And also, the sounds will be unrecognizable if the computer performs any other operations on the same drive while reading the other file. So, if we imagine that Photoshop is a giant program that happens to be very fragmented on this computer, and the user opens Photoshop a dozen times a day for weeks, they may learn to recognize the sound. But if they run a virus-scanner today while opening Photoshop, the movement in the drive will be different, resulting in entirely different sounds.
[Answer]
Another side to it is that it was considered in the early days as a debugging tool. In fact at least one early machine (either Pilot Ace or Manchester Baby, so around 1950) was fitted with a connection from the logic to a small loudspeaker, so that you could tell what it was doing ... a regular buzz was a strong hint that it was stuck in an infinite loop.
Didn't take long for a bright intern ([Christopher Strachey](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Strachey) as it happens) to figure out how to abuse this diagnostic aid to play "God Save the Queen" at the end of a successful run, and computer music was born...
[Answer]
The general term for this sort of thing is a side-channel attack, but more specifically what you're after is known as a TEMPEST attack. These have been around since at least as far back as the 1950's, although since this was classified military stuff it's hard to get an accurate timeline. Fortunately there has been a lot of public and amateur development since then, so we have some things to refer to.
In 1985 [Wim van Eck](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Eck_phreaking) published details on a method he'd developed for 'eavesdropping' on a computer monitor using $15 worth of electronics and a television, the first TEMPEST-style system I was able to find (in an admittedly brief period of searching) outside of military or intelligence agency remit.
Since then there have been plenty of other examples of public TEMPEST hacks: several methods for remotely reading [keyboards](https://hackaday.com/2008/10/20/eavesdrop-on-keyboards-wirelessly/), key stealing from [RSA and ElGamal](https://www.tau.ac.il/%7Etromer/radioexp/) with cheap hardware, and even [Elliptic Curve Cryptography](https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/129.pdf) isn't safe.
Of course there are ways to defend against this sort of thing, which is why there are several generations of TEMPEST shielding specifications. Heck, there are even fonts specifically designed to make it harder to decode EM from a CRT monitor. Which is pretty cool, when you think about it.
[Answer]
In the 70's I used an Adage Graphics Terminal (30-bit, one's complement machine with analog 3D graphics) that had a huge disk drive cabinet about half the size of a refrigerator, containing 2 removal disk packs. The clicks of the disk seek mechanism were quite loud. The O/S and FORTRAN compiler used overlays extensively, since there was only 16KB of memory, and there was a tremendous amount of disk seeking during any compile. But you soon learned to recognize the rhythm of the compiler's I/O, and it was typical to start a compile, do some manual desk work, and let your subconscious alert you when the compilation was almost finished, just by recognizing the progressions of familiar sounds and rhythms from the drive.
] |
[Question]
[
Inspired by the [Paycheck](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338337/) and [Minority Report](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0181689/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1) movies.
So far as I can tell, physical time travel is impossible for humans, and so I searched to see the future possible scientific or theoretical possibilities, and after surfing around, based on these two answers from another SE site it seems theoretically possible.
[Is there any actual science behind the “time viewing” used in Paycheck?](https://scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/19741/is-there-any-actual-science-behind-the-time-viewing-used-in-paycheck)
* The question is from @Iszi.
>
> No one has brought up the variable of bending space time then shooting
> the laser through it... Theoretically that is possible. If space/time
> is a fabric as Einstein predicted it can be warped stretched and
> pulled in any direction. So if you could theoretically do that time
> viewing would be possible. Probably not for our species we aren't
> smart enough but to say it is impossible is outright rubbish.
>
>
>
* From @john doe answer.
>
> Yes, the explanation given in the film (that with a powerful enough
> telescope you can 'see around' the curvature of the universe, assuming
> of course the universe has a definite shape, AND furthermore that that
> shape is round or spherical) is 'technically speaking' the accurate
> explanation according to several certain schools of theoretical
> physics, although, as all physics is concerned, also debated and
> refuted in others.
>
>
> I should add that the whole part of 'dialing in' a certain time or
> date is probably complete crap, but what the heck, if we can except
> any of the premises of relativity or quantum theory, why not, lets go
> with it.
>
>
>
From @rahdragonfly answer.
So based on that, it seems like technologically it's possible, but now I'm curious can it happen biologically, that it's also possible to seeing the future?
**My real question is what organs or method (it's not required to be the same method as the Paycheck one) are needed for a biological creature to be able to see into the future?**
Without using technology like that used in the two movies and literally seeing the future personally either from visions or mental imagery like dreams or hallucination or direct vision, not predicting events or certain stuff to infer a conclusion about future events like most scientists do. The creature in my mind is an intelligent type but I won't exclude a non-intelligent creature either.
[Answer]
## Make it really, really smart
Literally seeing the future is, from a perspective of modern science, impossible. Even theories that may allow some degree of time travel through relativity run up against problems when trying to resolve predestination paradoxes and the like.
Most modern science fiction stories tend to prefer branching timelines to linear ones - the future changing the past is possible because it creates a new timeline. This produces less paradoxes than linear time theories, but it bodes poorly for any would-be fortune teller because knowledge of the future naturally allows one to change it. The butterfly effect may make such information useless, especially when trying to see far in advance.
The most plausible method for "seeing the future" is just to make the creature super-intelligent. From the perspective of most animals that are incapable of predicting things far in advance, humans are capable of "seeing the future"; a creature with more information processing ability than humans would be able to predict things better than we can. It will not be perfect, but it's more plausible than trying to view the future directly.
[Answer]
Heinlein described a pretty neat way to conceive our existence in time (which is not unlike the one shown in Donnie Darko) :
Someone outside of time could perceive us as some sort of continuous sausage (or worm), a superposition of all our states at each instant, from the moment we are born to the moment we are dead. In the novel he describes a machine that can send a small electrical impulse down this "sausage" to the moment of death, which would then rebound and come back to the machine. He uses this machine as a tool to predict the time of death (by measuring the time of travel of the impulse).
So, if we use this concept to answer your question :
Your creature would have an organ (in the brain ?) capable of creating and receiving such impulses and sending them to itself in the past or future. It could communicate with itself, asking questions and sending answers, in the form of memories or thoughts (which already are electrical impulses, right).
You'd think "What happens tomorrow" and the question would be translated from the brain to your new organ, broadcasted into the future (through your own life-thread) until an answer is sent back and translated to your brain.
[Answer]
**They need the ability to warp space-time**
As evident from the sources in your question, seeing the future is impossible for mere mortals as we are restricted to viewing things in three dimension (i.e. length, width, height) and time is the fourth dimension. Our axis on time is such that we travel through it linearly, and thus we can only see whatever position of time we occupy at the current time.
However, according to certain theories, time, which is tied to space, can be warped by warping incredible amounts of space, such as the space warp found inside a supermassive black hole cluster or the curvature of the universe. Said warped time *may* jump forwards or backwards (as opposed to merely dilating). So, in other words, in unproven theory, it is possible to see forward in time by space warping. So all your biological creature needs is the ability to space warp.
What part of the body can do that? None that I know of. There's no component to a human being that can perform that function, nor any chemical reaction present in organic life or otherwise that can warp space-time. The usual explanation I fall back on is that there exists a 'superstructure' within the fourth dimension inside of said organics (aka a tesseract), which, having free movement in all four directions, can allow said organic to warp space-time and see into the future. Of course, having a three dimensional structure house a four dimensional structure isn't great, thus this would qualify as 'soft sci-fi' at best. Hope this helps.
[Answer]
Probably not quite what you were aiming at here, but...
In a more 'humanist' way, you might be able to "see" the future if you're really good at predicting what people will do given a certain situation. That is, if you can "read" people sufficiently accurately, you might be able to predict what that one individual will do when faced with a specific situation. Multiply that up by many, many people and you might be able to predict what a population will do when faced with a certain situation.
According the the Meterological Office, the weather is "chaotic" and so ostensibly can't be predicted this way either. However, as we see, with enough data points, people can get pretty good at predictions of it - and as we develop new ways to get more data points, we get better at it.
However, (apparently) truly random things like the balls in the lottery machine can't be predicted. Presumably there are other galactic events that are also truly random, so we need a way to predict those. Anyone capable of all the other predictions would be incredibly "special" and so could probably just update their predictions quickly when a random event occurs, and hand-wave away the details of why they were doing so.
In summary then, you need to be able to understand people incredibly well so that you can predict the movement of an entire population over a long time frame. You also need a vast knowledge of, and vast number of data points around the world/universe to be able to predict (seemingly) chaotic events not related to people. And you also need to ban the use of lottery machines ;-)
[Answer]
The great scientist John Wheeler once posited a solution explaining Quantum Electro Dynamics, or some such thing, and it required that electrons flow back in time as forward in time.
If an organism had the capacity to send electrons back in time from its own neurons to earlier versions of itself, it could effectively communicate across time.
[Answer]
Super intelligence is an important part of the equation that has already been brought up, but as many comments have pointed out, you need more data points than a single, organism can collect.
To put this in perspective: Imagine you want to guess what John will do tomorrow. If you only watch him for a few seconds, your intelligence is irrelevant. You might be able to guess all sorts of things about him based on his cloths, mannerisms, accent, etc. but no amount of attention to detail will tell you that he is planning to leave work early to drive his kid to a football game.
However, if you had John and his kids under 24/hr surveillance, and were capable of mentally processing all of that surveillance, then you would absolutely know that the they are planning on going to the game. Moreover, you'd also have a good idea that John is a bit of a workaholic, and breaks his promises about half the time. The super intelligence comes in here in being able to read all the nuances that normally tell you if he will actually follow through or not changing that statistical 50:50 to a much more like a 90:10 certainty. Throw in surveillance on John's friends, wife, coworkers, and clients, and you can eliminate further points of uncertainty boosting it to more of 99:1 probability
To be able to really model out the future you need everyone and everything in a closed system under 24/hr surveillance. So... as for the actual question: You need a being capable of establishing a massive psychic network so that it can see and hear everything that everyone is doing all the time, and it needs virtually limitless processing abilities to be able to crunch and learn from all that data in real time. Such an organism is improbable, but could possibly exist if you worked out the science for all those of psychic connections.
[Answer]
Your creature can't see the future, because there is no such thing as THE future, there is only a (probably infinite) set of possible futures, that are more or less probable. So to take a current (9/03/19) example, weather forecasters can predict the future track of a hurricane like Dorian, and say that it will almost certainly move along the US east coast, is highly unlikely to affect Alabama, and won't get anywhere near Nevada. But it's pretty well impossible to predict where hurricane Fernand is going to go, or even if what is now a tropical depression will actually develop into a hurricane: <https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/National-Hurricane-Center-Tropical-development-expected-in-Gulf-of-Mexico-559253891.html>
[Answer]
First you should examine what the Future is.
In our universe, the Future has a bunch of distinct properties.
First, it is events with Timelike separation; this applies both to the Future and the Past however. And I assume "I can remember the past" doesn't qualify for your problem.
Second, there are some extremely tiny symmetry breaks in physics involving the weak interaction. These are ridiculously tiny on human scales; they may help explain why we live in a matter-dominated universe, but not why we can remember the past and not the future.
Third, there is some orientation differences involving matter-antimatter and the Future. (This is called CPT symmetry. The previous weak interaction thing is one of the small symmetry breaks.)
Forth, there is a ridiculously huge entropic gradient, with a source of ridiculous amounts of entropy in the far past.
Human-scale "Newtonian" experience of time is almost entirely the Forth thing. What makes the Future distinct from the Past is that entropy flows from the Past into the Future.
This flow is caused by the ridiculously steep Entropic gradient left over from the Big Bang; most of it is in the form of unfused Hydrogen/Helium.
This means in the direction from the Past to the Future, the Sun is emitting huge piles of highly structured photons. These photons are absorbed by photosynthesis organisms and produce a flood of entropic "food", which is in turn eaten by animals (sometimes recursively).
There isn't a similar Entropic "source" somewhere in the future for food to be converted into photons and soaked up by splitting things into Helium/Hydrogen. The lack of this "future Entropic source" means that carrying information from the Future to the Past is basically impossible.
You can generate *local* entropic sources in the future. Doing so is usually called "building something", and information carried is called "predicting" -- you shed huge ridiculous piles of entropy in order to build a structure (like an animal or an egg), or do insane amounts of "thinking" to figure out what will happen next.
The problem is, without ridiculously strong evidence that there *is* an "entropic source" in the future, it is far more likely that what you build is actually not the cause of an "entropic source" but actually some other lower entropy event; ie, you give birth to a baby, which means there will be an adult that will come from that baby. But any specific adult is far less likely than "some adult"; in many cases, a dead teenager may be more likely than an adult coming from that baby.
Predicting the future then comes from arranging things so that particular baby is extremely likely to grow into an adult (possibly with particular features).
Entire civilizations can be built up with structures to make that family of outcomes you desire be the ones that are the result (reverse cause) of your baby.
A local entropic gradient reverse is ridiculously difficult to pull off due to the steepness of the universal entropic gradient we are trying to flip over.
Imagine there was an infinitely tall cliff. And everything was falling down it at a few trillion km/s, including the air surrounding everyone. There might not even be *gravity* in this scenario -- just a whole bunch of things falling.
Going "up" the cliff would seem impossible. The air is moving so fast that when you try, you end up just slowing down a small amount of air.
So "up" is the past, and "down" is the future in this scenario.
The cliff itself is perfectly smooth, but has drawings on it. You can see the pictures fly by as you fall. The story on the wall, well, maybe it was painted bottom to top; but to someone falling, they can only see the story going in one direction.
A biological creature that wants to see the story in the other direction needs to figure out how to (a) avoid the wind resistance problem, and (b) in the "future", extend an appendage 1 trillion km/s upwards to report back what is going on "below" the location in question.
[Answer]
The hard science answer, for science as we understand it, is **"a different universe"**. One where the rules of causality are a little different.
Since this is fiction, you can hand-wave it. Vernor Vinge did some really high-grade hand-waving in his "zones" universe, where what we believe about the laws of Physics being the same everywhere, is not the case. You might try something similar for causality violations -- you need some interesting constraints or explanations if you don't want readers who happen to be physicists to go "Aaargh" and hurl your book into the bin.
Alternatively, go down the route that fantasy uses. Magic exists. Magic is not explained. Turn off your inner scientist for the duration. It's fun.
[Answer]
Just thought I'd weigh in on this question as a long time ESP "enthusiast" :)
For some time, in those very very rare occasions where anything ESP / Parapsychology related is looked at scientifically, the most "probable" source of human ESP abilities is a rather small piece of the brain called the pineal gland (<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pineal_gland>). Perhaps a creature with a larger pineal gland than our own would have such abilities.
[Answer]
## The Future Can Not Be Deduced.
Omniscience cannot be the end product of any intellect that could meaningfully communicate with our kind of life.
There are hard limits to the amount of knowledge one can have about the state of a system. Hard limits to the accuracy of any model. Non determinism is baked into any description of the universe.
Consider just a few examples:
* Chaos theory.
* [The n-body problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem).
* Boltzmann's statistical mechanics.
* The ideal gas law.
* The second law of thermodynamics.
* Quantum electrodynamics, which perfectly marries theory and experiment.
* The [laws of motion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equations_of_motion), in general rapidly become non linear, even though ballistics is something we've mastered.
All of these discoveries are powerful and rigorously tested arguments against omniscience. No matter how powerful the intellect, what it cannot do is stand in a frame of reference and predict the future.
## Back To The Future
Now, I recall reading decades ago something about Maxwell's wave equations being time invariant, so any EM transmitter broadcasts into the past as well as the future, except 180 degrees out of phase, so tomorrow's news would be cancelled out, or something like that.
EDIT: [Decoherence](https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28816/time-reversal-invariance-in-quantum-mechanics) is the term used for the time invariance of quantum mechanics, apparently. Seems like the Observer negates this at this level. I don't think this will help, the only force we can grow a nose for is electromagnetic.
The point was that lots of physics works perfectly well both ways in time, assuming 2 dimensional time. All bets are off if time is multidimensional. Since we should be calling it spacetime, this is almost certainly the case.
## The Broken Symmetries of the Mexican Hat Dance
There is a thing called [symmetry breaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_breaking) which might explain these things. The canonical example is a marble on a sombrero. This is symmetrical. We don't see this a lot, because the symmetry state is not the stable state. The stable state is the marble on the brim. Not symmetrical. This system under stress will go from symmetry to asymmetry. AKA symmetry breaking. If you happen upon this system, most likely you'd not view it as a symmetrical system, although that is exactly what it was. Here's a [better explanation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_symmetry_breaking).
So we have a couple of asymmetries in our observed world.
1. Where is all the antimatter?
2. Why do we see time go one way, when much of our math works perfectly fine both ways?
Seems to me that work on the antimatter problem might, as is so often the case, stumble upon something totally unexpected. In this case a way to interpret EM waves moving backwards in time. The link would be the symmetries and the math needed to explore them. You'd need to build something to detect whatever your math told you might be there. This is how we found the background microwave emissions. Looking for something else completely, built a detector, *oh dang, it's noisy, oh wait!* turned out that the noise was actually significant.
A backward linear projection of this event along your time axis would be equivalent to you bouncing light off of a future object. You'd amplify this, clean up the noise, put it on a monitor and that would be a [flatlander's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatland) view of the future. It would not be completely accurate, so you'd triangulate ( just like you would with any other EM source ).
## The Birds and The Bees
So: We have light from the future. "Future light" or something similar. This is now a biology problem. Snakes use infrared to hunt. Bees use UV to navigate. Birds sense magnetism. Sharks use electricity to find prey. Some few humans might have the ability to sense, feel, taste, whatever this "Future light." ( Snakes taste infrared, using their tongue. ) Perhaps it manifests as an ability to interpret the images intuitively. Maybe it's like a test for colour blindness, that 99.9% of people fail, but a few say "No, that's a picture of your dad, getting an award." ( It's you! Congrats! )
Find 3 of these people, or breed them, and you'll have a way to triangulate future events biologically. It comes out of research into broken symmetries, matter vs antimatter, or matter vs dark matter, assuming dark matter is actually a thing and not just a vast but understandable reluctance to junk a whole bunch of theory that works perfectly. It would not be the [first](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caloric_theory) time, or even the [second](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether). Even great minds are not above [fudging the equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant).
Keep in mind however, that this is literally foreshadowing. You'd need to use this light to make a hologram or some other 3D representation, math might help, but you and your seers still live in Flatland.
These people would have existed for all of human history, except the triangulation is the key, right? Something good or bad is always about to happen, this is why [Cassandra](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassandra) was ridiculed. Nope, what you need is at least 3 of these people to get actionable data on the future, to triangulate a projection for study, interpret it, and then you have to trust that they are not projecting their thoughts and desires into the image. Also, gobs and gobs of processing power. You know, like say..
* [The Fates](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moirai)
* [The Norns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norns)
* [Macbeth's 3 witches](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Witches)
* [The Bene Gesserit](https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Bene_Gesserit)
So looks like it's a mutation carried by XX humans, which is also your precogs in Minority Report. Really, for your story, these women should be drifting towards the lab for a variety of vague reasons.
Oh, they'd probably present with [synesthesia](https://www.spring.org.uk/2014/05/6-intriguing-types-of-synesthesia-tasting-words-seeing-sounds-hearing-colours-and-more.php), because there could be a variety of ways to map this "Future Light" onto whatever system detects it. The point is that it's a kind of light, light that has been around forever, and a formerly useless mutation might be able to detect it.
[Answer]
A biological creature would need the same advanced technology to see into the future that a robot or computer would need to use. Some sort of time travel see-into-the-future device.
I have extremely strong doubts that any biological organ could serve as a "futureoscope" and expect that the biological creature would have to use a super advanced planet-sized machine generating artificial wormholes at the very least to see into the future, and probably something much much impressive than that.
[Answer]
Some scientists in Jerusalem achieved entanglement of photons across time. The photons never existed at the same time, yet they were part of an entangled pair.
Source: [Entanglement Swapping between Photons that have Never Coexisted (E. Megidish *et al* -
Physical Review Letters 110, 210403 – Published 22 May 2013](https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.210403).
From the abstract:
>
> Using entanglement swapping between two temporally separated photon pairs, we entangle one photon from the first pair with another photon from the second pair. The first photon was detected even before the other was created. The observed two-photon state demonstrates that entanglement can be shared between timelike separated quantum systems.
>
>
>
Entangled particles are pairs that a perfect correlation on one of their properties. The most popularly known form is that of spin entanglement, in which the total spin of the pair is zero and each particle has a spin that is the opposite of the other. Moreover, changing one particle's spin causes the other to change its spin as well to keep the total spin of the system zeroed.
So let's say some calcium ions in your brain from today are entangled with some ions in your brain from ten years from now. Any change in the action potential of the neurons they belong to in either time might be felt by the same neurons in the other time. In this way, you can not only receive information from the future, but from the past as well (remember, your current you is "past me" for your future you).
] |
[Question]
[
Is it possible for there to be a planet where no animals, only plants existed? What evolutionary reasons would cause this, if possible?
[Answer]
The Earth had life without multicellular animals for [roughly three billion years](https://www.astrobio.net/origin-and-evolution-of-life/multicellular-life-evolve/), so it should be pretty obvious that such a planet is possible. There were certainly plants for some of that very long period — the amount of time depends on your exact definition of a plant. But there has been photosynthesis for nearly as long as there has been life.
[Answer]
Mike Scott observed that the necessary conditions already prevailed on earth, so I will throw out some ideas on why they might have stayed that way.
# High Gravity
Anything which hinders locomotion would select against animals. A high gravity planet could make the cost of locomotion higher than the benefit. There is some question about plant propagation and dispersion, but the gravity should only slow this, rather than prevent it outright.
# Little Water
It's generally presumed that you need oceans to get life in the first place. Perhaps you planet has oceans, but they are small and few. Animals generally started in the water, where buoyancy helps with locomotion. If you make the oceans shallow, plant life could simply make locomotion in the water infeasible or costly. Think giant kelp forests covering your whole ocean.
[Answer]
**Terraformed world.**
A world which had been seeded with only plants could meet your criteria. Imagine a world like the ancient earth, but empty of life. Terraformers seed its oceans and land with bacteria, wind-pollinated plants and photosynthetic organisms. Perhaps they add some fungi to help break down dead material.
Animals might eventually evolve from those starting materials but it would take a billion years. If you visited twenty million years after the seeding, you would find a quiet, green world.
[Answer]
Other answers have done a great job explaining that this could indeed be very possible. I would like to point out a couple of things to consider about a world that has evolved with only plant life:
# No food plants
"Edible" plants like fruits, vegetables, nuts, and nutritional root plants have evolved mainly to spread the seeds of the parent plants through being carried (Internally or externally) by animals. While still technically possible with the lack of animal life, this would be useless and possibly even a negative trait so anything edible simply will be unlikely to have evolved, or in a very different manner than earth.
# No toxic/poisonous plants
As this is mainly used as a deterrent for animals our outside sources, toxins and poisons are fairly useless as an evolutionary trait. Instead, the plants would select more positively for aggressive traits against other plants, like fungi or ivy.
# No flowers
If you were hoping to build a beautiful world full of fruits and veggies, beautiful colours and sights, ready for your protagonists to peruse, again, no dice I'm afraid. As you're aware of the birds and the bees, having flowers to attract bees to pollinate is fairly useless without bees. Most plants and trees would look very boring indeed.
# Plant pockets
Due to the lack of animal life, self-pollination would be the way to go. Therefore plants would exist in very localised pockets of similar plants, as there won't be much means for the plants to travel and spread. The only common plants you'd see would be aggressive weeds. It would be unlikely for example to see the same plants on either side of a wide river.
[Answer]
Yes - in the common-language sense of the terms, there can be a planet with only plants.
Firstly, ultimately, the energy to run the life cycles comes from such things as a nearby star or thermal vents (that is, the thermonuclear reactor in the planet). Plants on earth both use carbon dioxide and light to produce oxygen, and use oxygen in the manner of the typical animal - producing carbon dioxide. The energy source is not the oxygen, but, ultimately, the sunlight. This can be seen as a cyclic reaction (just like the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction), that in this case is kept going by a complex of enzymes and membranes in the bodies of the plants. This does not require that the required reactions occur half in one type of organism and half in another. The whole cycle can be completed within one solar-powered organism.
In common language - plants have stiff tissues and don't move around. Animals have flexible tissues and do move around. But, there is nothing against the idea of a photosynthesising animal - its just that a solar powered creature has less motive to move around. And like a penguin no longer flies, such an animal might spend all its time sunbaking. Consider cold blooded creatures that do exactly that. They might not photosynthesis, but they are certainly solar powered in a rather direct sense.
I suspect that whether moving creatures would always evolve is a more difficult one to answer. But, one argument is that moving creatures evolved because of periodic resource problems that could be solved by flopping into the next puddle. If that circumstance never eventuated, then perhaps no particularly large and mobile creatures ever evolved. Another reason for moving creature evolution is to graze. If you specialise in consuming the creatures next to you, then likley eventually you will find yourself on your own - at which point it is a good idea to move a bit. And then you get creatures that specialise on eating creatures that move, and the arms race is on.
But, if there is abundant solar light, planetary heat, and volcanic chemicals - perhaps motion, in and of itself was never that useful, never immediately the best option to evolve in that direction.
---
In response to a comment. The above discussion does not commit itself whether a cow-like animal could power itself from the sun, nor does the point being made require this to be resolved.
The core point is simply that the entire chemcial cycle could exist in one organism - that obtains its power from the sun and absorbs only non organic chemicals from the air, water, and dirt. I would expect that such a creature would be extremely sedentary - qualifying in common language as a plant. And not requiring any mobile animals to complete the chemical cycle.
The evolutionary side point is that there seems to be an opening for an organism to move around at least a little to graze on the nearby plants. And this could lead to a creature that gains more and more of its energy and chemicals from other creatures. If this evolutionary trend was available, one would surely end with mobile creatures killing each other. (You see, evolution can only end in tears - back to the trees with the lot of you!)
Of course, if you posit that the genes for mobility were, for some, pehaps contingent, reason unavailable. Then these plants would be no more likely to evolve legs and walk than a human is likely to evolve jet propulsion and fly. I would suggest that it is unlikely but plausible that a planet could have got caught in such an evolutionary niche that might at least last for millions of years.
---
But, I must make a comment on solar-powered cows. A mobile creature the size of a cow could power itself with solar power alone, as long as it did not move very much. Imagine a creature that sits in the sun for several days before getting up and moving to the other end of the paddock.
It is not the size of the cow that is the issue - it is its highly mobile internally heated lifestyle. And it pays for that lifestyle in having to eat constantly. A cold blooded sedentry animal, for example, some kind of tortoise, might be as large as a cow, but eat and move much less.
[Answer]
You'll need to whittle down what you mean by "Plants" vs "animals". Like AlexP states do you mean only autotrophs (animals that produce their own food)? Do you mean only animals derived from autorophs (ie an alien venus fly trap) do you mean only organisms that appear plantlike (fungi are not autotrophs). You address that other "animal" life must be simple, so at least the bacterial distinction vs plant is not an issue, so bacterial symbiotic relationships still work even with earth plants. To have this happen you would basically need to make it so that large multi-cellular heterotrophs don't give significant advantage to single celled heterotrophs. Making it so that plants cannot be consumed by heterotrophs as a source for food is one option, there by stunting the available food resources for all heterotrophs.
I believe it is possible for large multi-cellular heterotrophic life to simply not exist. But what you will eventually be left with afterwards is suspect. Plants use CO2 and O2 to live, using the carbon from CO2 as their primary structural material for everything. Producing lots of O2 can result in oxygen poisoning in other life possibly destroying symbiotic relationships with bacteria, or even killing themselves. Likely plants would fight through this, and fires would be far more likely (releasing CO2). Plants would then have another issues.
* Surviving fires
* Getting more CO2
If plants keep encountering fires, plants will either need to incorporate fires into their life cycle (as some modern trees do), or be built to simply survive fires (as some modern trees do). Some [conifers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinophyta) actually encourage fires with dry needles in order to kill other plant competition. With this you might have a situation where plants don't even die *with* the fires, keeping CO2 stuck inside the plants instead of the air, stunting growth of all plants. Plants that have quick life cycles or life cycles that incorporate their own destruction by fire to spread seeds would have the advantage of quick adaptation to the ever changing landscape caused by the atmospheric imbalance of primarily having autotrophs, but plants built to survive from the get go might out-compete these plants by simply not providing enough room for them to exist.
If CO2 is removed from the atmosphere, then plants can't grow. So depending on the decomposition rate and CO2 released that had been sequestered by plant growth, plants may need other strategies in order to get enough carbon to actually live. One way to accomplish this is [parasitic activity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitic_plant). Some plants already act as parasites to other plants, normally trees, and derive some of their nutrients from them. Conceivably then, you could even have plants that *eat* other plants entirely in order to get CO2 or other nutrients, since simply extracting it from the air is not a good long term solution.
Presumably, in such an large animal free planet, you would have a bunch of "plants" that could withstand fires, have quick life cycles to quickly adapt to the changing environmental situation, and plants that essentially kill and take over other plants. This would then cause an arms race for "predator plants" vs prey plants, and this *may* result in what we would call "animals" all over again, at least on the predator side, and maybe only at the "seed" stage which allows them to move to new locations, or simply let seeds be light/tiny enough to go through the wind. The parasitic/predetory behavior of these other plants would likely make them look more like fungi or sessile [cnidarians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cnidaria) with similar life styles, as feeding on other structures may give enough energy that autotrophic activity is not necessary.
# Conclusion
This planet would probably look like a bunch of tough tree like structures with a web of multi colored mycelium and vines, and "potato eye" parasitic structures covering everything, probably with a haze of a pollen like substance in the air and lots of fires starting . Some of your plants will probably become parasitic or predatory at some point, and stand a high chance of evolving into what you would might call an "animal" at least at some stage in their life.
[Answer]
If you mean Earth-plants, then no, for many reasons:
1. Plants are eukaryotes - that is, a symbiosis of archaea and bacteria, neither of which are plants (or animals).
2. There is evidence to suggest that land-plants have depended on symbiosis with fungi from the very beginning; fungi too are neither plants nor animals.
Thus, we certainly couldn't have plants without archaea, bacteria and fungi. We don't know enough to tell if animals are essential for the survival of all plants - there are certainly many plants that have evolved co-dependency with animals (think 'flowers and bees') - it appears that seed-producing plants and insects have evolved together, so if all animals were to disappear, it would probably mean the extinction of any plants that produce seeds.
With the reservations above in mind, if by 'only plant life' you mean 'no animal life', then I think one might imagine this, if something could have selectively killed all animals while sparing most plants at some very early stage, certainly before seed-bearing plants evolved.
What that would be is a difficult question - my best guess is that there would be something in the physical environment that favoured plant cells and made animal cells unfeasible. Perhaps this: Plants almost routinely produce viable offspring with multiple copies of their genomes (look up diploid, triploid etc), whereas animals can't; perhaps this gives an evolutionary advantage in a high-radiation environment, where there is a high risk of having your genome shot to pieces.
On another planet evolution would probably have taken a different course, although the principles would be the same: the initial players might not have been like bacteria and archaea, there might have more, life might not have been organised into cells and so on. On the other hand, some of the major steps in evolution on Earth would be universal - symbiosis, for example, whether it is in the form of bateria living inside an archaeon (as in eukaryotes), or plants forming mychorriza with fungi, seems to always give a strong advantage. Both the phenotypes of 'plant' and 'animal' must have been hugely advantageous for them to become so dominant on Earth, so something similar is highly likely to evolve elsewhere - and if only the plants evolved, there must have been something in the environment that ruled animals out.
Sorry for rambling on like this - I hope you could use some of it as inspiration :-)
[Answer]
I can't believe no one has mentioned this but if you have low levels of energy on the planet, that almost precludes everything but plant life. Animals, especially motile, multicellular animals consume a lot of energy and if the food you eat takes more energy to obtain than what you get from it, you just starve to death. Only sessile animal life might have a chance such as that during the pre-Cambrian. There are also other forms of multi-cellular sessile life that are neither animal nor plant such as lichen and fungi. Makes for a fairly uninteresting planet though.
[Answer]
The thing about plants and animals is that you need all kinds of complex relationships for an ecosystem to be stable. Without animals, plants will have a harder time spreading pollen and seeds, for example. Animals also keep plant populations in fine control and provide manure.
The way to go for a plant-only planet is to have some plants taking the role of fungi and animals. Perhaps in your world, animals evolved with the capacity to take root and photosynthesize. The reason they behave like animals, eating plants and other animals is because photosynthesis is not enough to cover their energy expenses - [if cows could photosynthesize, for example, it would cover only 4% of their caloric needs](https://what-if.xkcd.com/17/).
Such "plantimals" could be so related to plants, for example, that they would have cell walls and other cellular features characteristic to plants.
A couple examples of such creatures in literature:
* The [florans](https://starbounder.org/Floran) from the Starbound videogame are a race of intelligent spacefaring plants that come from a plants-only planet.
* [Palmon](https://digimon.fandom.com/wiki/Palmon_(Adventure)) comes from a digital universe, but she could be a good template for a "plantimal".
We also have [many questions about plant sentience](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/search?q=sentient+plant) here at World Building. You could have a look at them for further inspiration.
[Answer]
Something non-evolutionary (possibly).
**Biological weapon.**
See the Alien: Covenant storyline. A bioweapon (black goo) was deployed to eradicate a civilization. Only black-goo plantlife survived, puzzeling the visitors in the movie.
>
> He leads the crew to a temple in a city full of dead humanoids. David tells them that upon his and fellow Prometheus survivor Elizabeth Shaw's arrival at the planet, their ship accidentally released a virus **which annihilated all fauna on the planet**, and that Shaw perished when the ship crashed.
>
>
>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien:_Covenant#Plot>
[Answer]
Plants and Animals are only two of the 5 Kingdoms. But let's eliminate bacteria, virus's, and everything else we can't actually see. We are left with things we can see, which are animals, plants, and fungi.
So your hypothetical world without animals could exist, I think, with fungi transporting plant spores through the air. Already many plants rely on the wind and fire, etc to fertilize themselves. With a developed and developing fungi, developed because there has been no animals to take their place, they could even be trying to take the place of plants in many cases. And through evolution, a possible fungi analogue to animals may happen.
[Answer]
This isn't just possible, it's similar to what our own planet's land masses would've looked like during the Devonian Era. It's weird to think about it but animals evolved significantly earlier than plants which were not differentiated until they colonized land and it took a while for us to follow. Animal/Plant interactions lagged behind other inter-Kingdom interactions, sure we see a lot of co-evolution now but it wasn't really necessary. All you need is enough fungi and microbes to make enough CO2 and some decomposers (which is generally the same organisms), both of which bacteria do to a large extent do and probably would've evolved to keep pace with trees if animals hadn't. Large trees would take longer to decompose without insect mandibles or even be buried first. This would also potentially lead to lots of coal deposits is that matters to you since those are the circumstances under which our coal was mostly deposited.
I'd recommend spending some time reading up on this Natural History to get a sense for it:
1. The Late Devonian Extinction; one of the theories explaining this event was the plant-mass produced a sudden uptick in O2.
2. The Carboniferous Era; The era when we saw the biggest effects of lots of plants and not enough decomposers, also concentrate on these plants
] |
[Question]
[
Spiders produce silk, a protein fibre able to construct webs and dens. But is there an existing animal (preferably a vertebrate) that would be able to evolve a similar ability of producing a silk-like fibre?
[Answer]
The [edible-nest swiftlet](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edible-nest_swiftlet)
fits the bill. It is a vertebrate. It has saliva which performs a structural function without added twigs or vegetable matter.
These little birds make nests of their gummy saliva. If the saliva is solid enough to pack together in a nest it is solid enough for strands to make a web.
from <https://www.livescience.com/21534-edible-birds-nests-health.html>
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/v20TS.jpg)
Probably you could make delicious soup out of the web too!
[Answer]
mussels produce external protein fibers, eventually this could evolve into a web.
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/h70Ox.jpg)
[Answer]
[Silkworms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombyx_mori) produce silk. Some [caterpillars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tent_caterpillar) [weave webs](http://www.mortonarb.org/trees-plants/tree-and-plant-advice/help-pests/tent-or-web-making-caterpillars) to protect their cocoons. Other moth and butterfly larvae, like [bagworms](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagworm_moth), could also create similar structures.
[Answer]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0zT9CN3-50>
These goats did not evolve, they were genetically modified. They have spider DNA and produce spider silk in their milk.
Maybe with some more tweaking you could get them to produce pure silk instead of the milk silk.
[Answer]
Evolution modifies existing traits as new uses emerge. Spiders use their silk to catch/immobilize prey, drift through the air, protect their eggs, and build shelters. Any of these uses could have come first, but the first one gave an evolutionary advantage.
Skunks spray in self-defense, but a new protein could make skunk spray an adhesive, which could eventually lead to skunk webs. Birds use saliva to glue together nests (like Will says), and that could turn into cobwebby, entrapping structures. Any tunneling animal, like a prairie dog, could start extending its structures aboveground, or up into trees.. given where the spinnerets are on spiders, maybe they started out with sticky excrement?
Original question: "is there an animal that could evolve to have webs?" Short answer: given evolutionary timescales, anything is possible. Start with a use case and build out.
[Answer]
The default answer I'm seeing a lot of is this:
* Preheat selection pressure to 400
* Bake for 1 million years or until webbed
There's certainly a point here, but I'd like to add a caveat. It has to do with *scale*. That is, the extrusion of silk depends heavily on the processing of the raw pre-silk fluid through spinnerets (basically molecular-level protein alignment by squeezing through narrow opening) and then braiding or weaving separate threads together. This is a very micro-scale operation, and it's unusual for a large animal to have conscious control over such a small, precise operation. Spiders are small enough that their "awareness" for lack of a better term is on that level.
I may not be explaining this well, but the short-short is that (say) a human would find himself too fumble-fingered (and his fingers too large) to handle such tiny filaments.
You could posit maybe a chain of organs where the small-scale work is done autonomously and then hands off to a larger manipulator (maybe several steps) until you get to a scale appropriate to the creature, but ... it seems a little precarious.
**Note:** I'm making a huge assumption here about the level of fine manipulator control being linked to creature size. I think it bears out, but feel free to challenge!
[Answer]
It's all about genes. Evolution has a nasty habit of 'stealing' successful genes from some organisms and transferring them to others. Basically, anything one organism can do, so can another, if the genes transfer over. That is what Genetically Modified Organisms is all about.
Give the organism the gene to make the correct protein that will make silk (or a silk-like substance), and you have your answer.
Even humans are getting in on the act - modifying bacteria with the gene to make spider web strands, as a way to make stronger materials.
] |
[Question]
[
Overall, our current non-lethal weapons are fairly poor. The human body is pretty good at maintaining consciousness, especially in a high-stress situation. The best we have right now are electroshock weapons, such as the Taser, which are usually short range, somewhat unreliable (they have to connect with the skin), and only incapacitate the person for a few seconds.
I'm trying to design a post-ballistic weapons society that emerges due to the invention of highly effective non-lethal guns. These weapons should ideally have all of the upsides of ballistic guns: hand-held, long range, rapid fire, non-trivial to protect against, and can incapacitate a person for a longer period of time (at least a few minutes). What technology might these weapons be based on?
A few ideas I had:
1. Better tranquilizer guns. There's a reason is takes years of medical school just to administer general anaesthesia to a patient: it's really hard to put someone to sleep without either just making them groggy or killing them outright. Futuristic tranq guns could measure a person's body weight and administer just the right amount of the drugs to be effective. Still has to pierce the skin. Also, you might hit someone in the eye or something.
2. Advanced Tasers. There's already the XREP, basically a Taser rifle.
3. [Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation). The technology for this would have to be pretty advanced, but theoretically it might be able to knock out someone's motor cortex, effectively incapacitating them.
A few notes after reading some of the answers:
1. We don't have to knock out the person, freezing them or otherwise rendering them incapable of causing harm is fine.
2. Whatever process we use to incapacitate them, it should be totally reversible (at least in theory).
3. This technology should be available for law enforcement as well as to private citizens.
4. The non-lethality aspect doesn't have to be foolproof, but it has to be as safe as possible.
[Answer]
The weapon you are looking for is a human police officer.
**The criteria in the question in order :**
A police officer is obviously always available to a police officer giving convenience and accessibility superior to handheld weapon.
Police officers can walk or drive cars. They can even, if properly trained, navigate stairs and corners. Given proper upkeep they have essentially unlimited range. Police officers are generally authorized only within a specific area, but that limitation is generally a good thing.
Police officers are, barring injury or some other incapacitating effect, always on. This is essentially infinite rapid fire.
Methods of protection against the police are generally passive. You can take advantage of corruption or insufficient resources. Only really effective active counter-measures you can take are to avoid notice or run away. Both of those limit the amount of damage you can cause, so even then the police have strong pacifying effect.
Organized groups or serial killers have had some success with committing crimes and fading into the background before the police can respond, optimally by being gone before the crime is even reported or by preventing the crime from being reported at all. But since the goal here was to make guns obsolete, forcing criminals to be discreet is actually sufficient.
The bottom line is that there is no trivial defense against the police. You have to think about it, plan your actions to avoid detection and capture, and then execute the plans successfully.
The police can hold a person for anything from few seconds to the rest of their life. This is because they can intelligently respond to circumstances and are backed by a huge infrastructure for holding and processing people.
For the same reason the police also, despite some high profile failures, out-perform any realistic weapon in limiting collateral damage. Unless your weapon has human level intelligence and can match the flexibility of humanoid form this will remain true.
**"But I was looking for a weapon for the police to use..."**
The man using the weapon is always more important than the weapon. In a specific situation different weapons may be critical. Just ask anyone charging a man with an SMG unarmed. You might need a necromancer or at least a medium to do so.
But the question is on the level of the society and there effective law enforcement combined with appropriate legislation is quite sufficient. Even if guns would work just fine, their criminal use would be rare enough to have no noticeable effect on society. Some countries are fairly close to that already.
The remaining loop-holes are organized crime and the mentally-ill.
Organized crime has no particular love of guns. If the government makes a point of suppressing criminal use of guns, organized criminals will try to do without. Annoying the police usually reduces the profits, so it should be done only for a big pay off or if the police are ineffective. In fact organized crime in general exists due to inefficiency of the legal society and can be reduced to insignificance if that is prioritized.
For example, it would be trivial to erase the drug cartels by making the drugs legally available. You'd need some other method to control drug abuse, but you totally would make the cartels and most criminal gangs extinct.
Similarly Islamic militant groups are born because governments choose not to deal with something and create power vacuums for anyone who shouts loudly to fill.
In the real world preventing the birth of such groups was not a priority, but you can imagine a world where it is. In fact, I think ISIS has succeeded at making governments more aware of the value of prevention, so it might actually happen.
The mentally ill can be dealt with better mental health care. You can just wave your hands and say such issues are detected by mumble mumble and cured with abracadabra.
And the result would be a post ballistic weapon society.
**"What about the military and wars? They'd still use guns..."**
Sure, they still would. The whole point or organized armies is that the violence is fenced off so it doesn't contaminate civil society. Usually this works too. Sometimes it doesn't. The rise of fascism can be linked to all those young men who learned to solve problems by killing them as ordered. Countries can remain unstable for a long time after a civil war.
But if you have a setting where no major war has been fought for a generation or two, what weapons the soldiers use is irrelevant. Besides even in the US with its second amendment military weapons and weapons used in crimes have little in common. This gap is likely to widen in the future so it is fairly safe to ignore the military when planning gun free society. Especially if wars get more professional. Which is entirely reasonable assumption. The countries where the wars actually happen would of course still suffer and be far from post-ballistic, but unless your characters are soldiers or live in the war-zone that can be ignored.
And I assume that is the case since non-lethal weapons are inappropriate for war zones. You do not really want to deal with large numbers of prisoners while fighting. Killing or wounding is more practical.
**"But this is totally boring..."**
Most real solutions are. That said improving law enforcement and making better laws and political decisions **does** fail to give that **WOW** factor.
I'd just give the police powered armor. Powered armor is about the same complexity as car. It would thus be about as easy to regulate. It is much easier restrict powered armor to the law enforcement than to do the same for guns, which are simpler and smaller.
Powered armor would make the police better able to physically restrain people. No thug on steroids will out-wrestle a police officer wearing a powered armor. They might hurt themselves trying, though.
It is reasonable to assume a powered armor would make officers more mobile with boosted jumping and running performance. Criminals would find it hard to outrun a police officer and incidents where the police shoots a man in the back would be unlikely. Especially since the powered armor probably records everything that happens and can't be "accidentally" forgotten.
Similarly, it is powered **armor**, so the police would probably not be scared of some idiot of shooting them. If somebody **wants** to go to prison for shooting at a police officer, it is their choice. I'd expect the officers would simply wait until the fool runs out of ammunition and then go pick them up. Well, not really, the fool might try shooting someone who is not wrapped in ballistic armor or just miss, so he'd be taken down ASAP.
If you want to be even more exotic, you can use robots. Robots are even easier to make bullet proof than powered armor.
("Bullet proof" -> Resistant to weapons they are likely to get shot with.)
[Answer]
Most likely a form of advanced [electroshock weaponry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroshock_weapon) where the projectile is fully self contained and able to deliver the required shock.
* Small, self contained taser bullet that decelerates when it approaches its target (the projectile hitting someone at about 760m/s isn't exactly safe).
* The [electrolaser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrolaser), uses a laser to create a conducting ionized channel through the air. In very basic terms, it shoots lightning.
There will be [countermeasures for electroshocks](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thor_Shield), it completes the electronic circuit without the body of the wearer. Although I'm not sure it would work on a weapon like the electrolaser.
---
**But since it's science fiction,** one could also take a look at ways to ensnare the victim rather than knock them out. Maybe a bullet with a chemical compound inside, which opens before impact and releases the chemical onto its victim, where it rapidly expands into some sort of foam and ensnares the victim. Would look like a shotgun shell.
The foam, or what you want it to be, should be breathable and expand outward only, path of least resistance, so it will not suffocate, strangle or crush the victim.
*However, with non-lethal weapons it's always a risk. People can be exceptionally fragile at times where something that wouldn't kill an average human, would kill that particular individual. Non-lethal weapons should not be used lightly, even if it is highly effective.*
[Answer]
What about nanites?
You shoot the target with a tranquilliser style shot but instead of injecting a chemical it injects nanites. These could then seek out the optical nerve and disrupt signals to the brain leaving the target blind or seriously disoriented.
Alternatively they could go to the motor cortex and disrupt out going signals rendering the target incapacitated and paralysed (or possibly having some kind of seizure).
The nanites would either turn off automatically after a set time or have a kill switch that could be activated making them turn off. The victim should then recover quite quickly as they would be designed to only disrupt and not damage anything important.
The main downside I can see is they may not be able to take effect very quickly depending on the speed they could reach the brain or whatever they are targeting (nanotechnology is still largely theoretical so it may not even be possible at all, it depends how hard science you want your setting)
It may even be possible to disperse them via aerosol for use against crowds.
[Answer]
I'm gonna go a little different and say some kind of extra super sticky slime ball could work. I don't know what it would be made of. Probably some fancy new-fangled meta-material. I'm thinking the splat might reduce the force of impact since it's not a totally solid object, but it being kind of large, like maybe a softball size wad of snot basically. Certain materials and solvents resist or eliminate the stick so that we can make launchers and gloves and things to actually use it successfully.
The point being that it's instantly ULTRA sticky. If you have it on you and bang into a wall or floor, you're pretty much stuck there unless you rip off your skin or clothes. You're arms get stuck to your sides, your legs get stuck together. At the very least, your slowed down for a moment and more hits can basically stick you to a wall or the ground in a way that you are down until someone frees you. It could also be made into various sizes for taking down things like getaway cars. Maybe it foams a little to aid in spreading around. (got that idea from Quwin's answer)
LEO's (Law Enforcement Officers) can use a solvent liquid like a special version of Goof Off or something made special to breakdown the sticky stuff like water on cotton candy. They could also wear special gloves (or maybe it just doesn't stick to latex) so that it doesn't stick to them as they handcuff or otherwise restrain the person for transport. Hell, maybe after a couple of hours or days, it can just break apart and start to breakdown. Maybe duration is a setting on the weapon.
The idea being that even if someone is cocooned like alien food, spray a little around their hands so that you can get the zip-ties on. Maybe there is a special "spatula" that resists the stick and LEO's can just scrape the dude up, leaving them stuck to themselves. Lots of options.
I'm thinking of a scenario where some baddie is running away down an alley and FWOMP! a sticky ball is shot towards him out of something akin to a chemical fed grenade launcher. It puts two or more chemicals together like an epoxy to create the snot ball, and then it launches out some 10's of yards. When the ball hits the perp, it splats. Shooting them a few times, especially in the legs would basically trip them up and put them on the ground. Now, legs together, stuck to the ground, the guy tries to get free, but now their hands are stuck to their legs and they've basically hog-tied themselves. A couple more shots make sure he's not going anywhere. When ready to arrest them, cops use their spray to free any limb they want to restrain with zip-ties or handcuffs or whatever. Some time during booking, the perp is washed off. Or not. Whatever you think.
[Answer]
Rocket assisted drones guided by internal AI systems for fire-and-forget simplicity while providing guaranteed delivery to target. Each drone is equipped with retractable tentacles which snake out to ensnare an arm, leg or neck of the intended target. Once the drone is attached, it immediately administers a variety of advanced anesthetics via all available delivery mechanisms, including but not limited to trans-dermal, injection and aerosol. Should the victim prove resistant to these medical measures, electrical shock and ultrasonic disruption of the victim's inner ear can be added to guarantee incapacitation.
These drones represent the first truly non-lethal crowd control weapon as along with all of their offensive capabilities, each drone is a portable yet fully functional auto-medic, capable of monitoring life signs and administering corrective medical treatments as necessary.
[Answer]
Subcutaneous GPS devices. Yeah, I know it sounds crazy ;-)
First, I will leave to you to decide what the future looks like, if it's a dark reality where everyone has been forced to have a subcutaneous GPS device and the governments could be using them to track and spying on people, of if it's a bright future of trust and good intentions and those devices are not powered on 'till needed.
Either ways all the population has a GPS sensor implanted, coupled with a tiny transmitter capable of sending a signal to a station. This signal carries your position along with some status information, e.g. when you have a health problem the device power on and send your position and a flag to the base, so you get tracked instantly.
But...what if someone shoot you with a "signalling gun", which just activate the device so that it sends your position along with the "crime" status? Well, now you have two options: sit down and wait for the cops to arrive with normal consequences (get arrested, trial, and so on), or run away, get tracked, beaten by the police, forget about the trial and go in jail for life.
This should obviously work better in a bright future, but should be interesting to paint in a bleak one too.
[Answer]
There exist [sound](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_weapon) and [light](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dazzler_(weapon)) weapons. As we get better at knowing how sensory input effects people these are expected to become more sophisticated. Working around counter measures doesn't seem like a winning side, but possibly advances of ear and eye protections have limitations. They are expected to at least be able to make targets effectively blind or deaf.
[Answer]
Pulsed energy projectiles (PEP) use electromagnetic radiation to ablate the surface of the target, producing a burst of plasma, which would knock the intended target to the ground. It's considered non-lethal. The main problem could be its weight. Of course, maybe your technology is advanced enough for smaller firearms.
[Answer]
Smart explosive bullets.
If you can (afford to) put a possessor, camera, explosives and probably a guidance system on your bullets you can choose where a bullet explodes relative to a person.
Exploding before hitting a person might hit them with a shockwave or fragments enough to disable them. With enough data an estimate of what it would take to disable a particular target might be made in flight. As the bullet estimates the target is more resilient it explodes closer to them, including possibly post impact on an armored target.
This also lends itself to maiming which hasn't been expressly ruled out as a method of incapacitating a target. Instead of steering itself to the face or chest the bullet could aim for limbs and estimate a nonfatal injury.
To get the data to make this work military versions would probably have to be used for a reasonable amount of time; you'd kill a lot of people before finding a reliable formula for not killing people.
[Answer]
**A smart material net launcher would be nice.**
Smart material so it can modulate constriction thus it can bind and restrain without suffocation. If the strands can cross link to make it harder to escape that's even better.
A taser function could be a possible addition for further effectiveness.
The projectile will also need to be smart if you want decent range, it needs to stay compact then open at just the right time to hit the target. Likely with a micro explosive charge. Normal net launchers suffer from the incredible drag an open net experiences giving them a very short range. a compact projectile that expands will help greatly.
[Answer]
How about a [non-lethal, directed energy weapon?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System) As linked, this scary thing actually already exists. And the DoD plan to make this weapon more precise, and hand-held, which overcomes most of its current problems, and also meets all your criteria.
This is a weapon that projects microwaves at single targets or whole crowds. Inflicting crazy amounts of pain, that is reported to feel like being set on fire. There is, however, almost no lasting damage caused by the weapon. Though current models have been reported to possibly damage the eyes, this is likely to be fixed in further development (and could be hand-waved away anyway, in fiction).
This is almost definitely the non-lethal weaponry of the future. Microwave weapons cause a minor amount of heating in the skin, that tricks the nerves, and incapacitates the target with wracking, burning pain.
Thus, this would be:
* Hand-held.
* Long range. "The beam can be focused up to 700 meters away".
* Rapid fire, well, it pulses indefinitely.
* Non-trivial to protect against, even in its current, unperfected form ("penetrate[s] thick clothing").
* Can incapacitate a person for a longer period of time. The effects in real-life are not fully known. But the incredibly intense pain supposedly takes time to dissipate, and there are a reports of this just knocking people out.
So, in reality, this futuristic technology already exists. And it's real frightening. Once a hand-held, more precise version is perfected, it probably will be used by law enforcement, I'll bet.
There's quite a [lot on directed energy weapons](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon) on wikipedia. They're all kinda fun and also scary.
[Answer]
I'm not sure "guns" covers it well. I'm trying to imagine something as primitive as a gun (of any kind) really being how it would work in such a future. Although that's what the question asks, maybe the OP would also consider solutions might come from thinking in a wider frame. Two examples:
In the future, everyone has an IT implant. Those are already *en route* and I imagine they'll arrive in the next few decades - typing and screens are really a bit primitive compared to neural-computer lookup, and once they start to become common everyone will have them.
Law enforcement of the future's non lethal weapon? Disconnecting someone's brain from the instant availability of all information they've been used to all their life, and possibly disrupting their sensory input and motor control output for good measure. Sounds minor but even that first part would be huge to someone who's relied on assisted information all their life, when the computer starts overlaying their world with static flashing black and white and screeching random noise, rather than the info they would expect and find useful...... At the moment we can do this via flash-bang grenades and apparently they're quite effective too.
An alternative might be that in future, the streets and buildings are made of a smart material, for self cleaning and maintenances, and also for law enforcement use. Police can direct the street where a person is, to rapidly change texture, adhesion, friction, lighting, develop a slope or undulations, etc, to affect a person needing restraint. Let the environment which a person can't avoid, restrain them, rather than some person-to-person weapon.
[Answer]
**What if you could "freeze" your target instantly?**
Unable to move any muscle, unable to run or fight or pull the trigger on their own weapon?
To me, this is the ultimate non-lethal weapon.
The advantage of this is that it doesn't matter whether they are still conscious, if they're "frozen" they can't take any offensive (or defensive) action against you, they can be captured easily, or just temporarily subdued.
Lots of possible ways you could explain this, depending on how far in the future we are talking:
* It could be some instantaneous (but temporary) "nerve paralyzing agent" with some biological explanation, delivered via conventional means (penetrating pellet or hypo)
* It could be an "energy"-style laser weapon that freezes targets via a glowing green force field or aura
* It could even be based on a "local time freeze", if your society has developed other time-bending technologies.
* Heck, make it a literal "freeze ray", encasing them with a layer of solid blue ice (from which they can later safely thaw), complete with icicles hanging off their nose.
[Answer]
You specify that you want a gun, but my first question would be: what is your goal? Do you need an offensive weapon which is non-lethal, or would a defense suffice? Depending on your actual goal, there may be many alternatives besides a high-tech gun.
For example, nano-technology clothing that rapidly inflates like an air bag and is impenetrable by blades and small firearms. Perhaps this clothing senses extreme panic and deploys. Might also be useful if a car or bike were about to run you down or if you fell off of a ledge. Not as cool as a gun, though. Of course, if the police could override your clothing and cause it to inflate -- or perhaps shrink-wrap you -- it could be used to detain a criminal... if you could also have laws requiring everyone to wear certain clothing.
I could imagine environmental devices whereby shields/barriers materialize instantly between two people if one threatened the other. The ultimate defense would be everyone having a personal robot, where the robots work cooperatively to keep their owners from harming or being harmed, ala Asimov's Foundation Series.
How about everyone implanted with a "walk around in a circle" device in their brain at birth? Police push a button and the person stops doing whatever they were doing and starts walking in a small circle.
Must the weapon be handheld? For example, large drones could fly overhead with vortex cannons, and the police call in an air strike, essentially. (If you're outdoors, of course.)
Or how about a gun that shoots an extremely slippery substance? Hit the floor around a person and they know they'll literally fall to the ground and be unable to get up if they take a step. You'd need to work on something to neutralize the gel, and hope it doesn't damage the carpet.
[Answer]
It's fiction, and it sounds like you want something convenient and cool.
So, it has to be a kinda gun. It mustn't need inconvenient bulky ammo. It must be effective enough to win against someone with a "normal" gun.
So, a gun which fires carefully controlled laser pulses to ionize the air. Then follows with EM pulse through the ionized conductive channel. The EM pulse is modulated in a way, that it'll make every [somatic/skeletal muscle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeletal_muscle) cramp (so not the heart for example). Very painful, instant incapacitation, and will take at least minutes, but often hours to recover from.
Quote from <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cramp>:
>
> A cramp is a sudden, involuntary muscle contraction or over-shortening; while generally temporary and non-damaging, they can cause significant pain, and a paralysis-like immobility of the affected muscle. Onset is usually sudden, and it resolves on its own over a period of several seconds, minutes or hours.
>
>
>
The EM pulse is not very strong, it does not cause actual electric shock, the idea is that it just gives controlled neural impulses in a way that body itself does most of the effect, causing the full-body cramp. It is also not dangerous to those it does not hit, as the effect (for handgun sized models) will be localized to about 10 cm from where the plasma channel created by the laser pulse ends.
Rate of fire, number of shots with single battery also consider fuel cells), visual effect, side and shape of the guns etc can be whatever you want them to be for your story purposes.
---
Additional details:
Body armor could have developed with advanced materials, making normal guns and bullet ineffective against very light armor, and if hard plates are added even armor piercing small caliber bullets would not penetrate body armor, which is light enough to wear in battle. Think of hardening nanomesh, which is like cloth, but turns rigid on impact, spreading force of the bullet over very large area.
However, any practical armor will not protect against these EM pulse weapons, the armor would have to be essenyially a Faraday cage, or thiker than the effective radius of the EM pulse (10 cm above).
The most dangerous part of the weapon is the laser pulse, but it could just be very very short, too short to cause eye damage. Short pulse is also great for saving battery power for the gun. Again the laser could be modulated so that the frequency resonates with air molecules' electron clouds, causing minor ionization with minimal energy input.
[Answer]
**Genetically engineered virus.**
Distribute a genetically engineered virus that is compatible with human body, will not mutate (use [XNA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeno_nucleic_acid)?) and will respond to specific wave patterns. Once the police officer directs their antenna at the person, virus will excrete a chemical that will knock out the person. The virus will replicate and spread without overwhelming the body. Only downside is, your police officers will also have the same virus.
Welcome to the future where even the criminals use non-lethal weaponry.
[Answer]
Noticed a few answers going for smart bullets; I agree that those are viable options, and wanted to expand a bit on them.
* Smart bullets can start out as backwards-compatible with existing guns. This provides an explanation for why they're in widespread use: they're inevitably more expensive than regular bullets (at least before taxes and regulations kick in), but the accuracy and ethical benefits are (in your setting) worth the price.
* A bullet with a small explosive charge can detonate itself (per [not store bought dirt](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/81290/2808)'s answer) in close proximity to the target, but the explosion could also inflate an airbag or a parachute instead of generating shrapnel, thus lowering the impact velocity back down to nonlethal levels without sacrificing exit velocity (and thus effective range). Bonus points if the parachute is coated in contact tranquilizer or [glue](https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/a/81302/2808); preferably the latter for armored targets.
[Answer]
You could simply shoot a net. It won't knock out the target but it can prevent it from moving. You can also imagine a bolas gun for a longer range and since it's scifi, you can have smart bolas that tighten itself after hitting the target.
[Answer]
Nanotech drone bugs (AI or man-controlled).
There could exist many versions with various goals (and they could also work together as teams):
* Brain-implant-drones; they would implant themselves in the brains, and interrupt the brain's existing neural networks; perhaps even work in the fashion of some sort of brain chips that would enable partial control over certain aspects of the human's behavior.
* Destruction-drones; they can move around within the body to cause some non-lethal internal damage (or also lethal if necessary), or better yet, assemble to compromise some of the body's functions, and perhaps find some sort of "off-switch" for the human (manipulating with the body's pain signals so it shuts itself down under too much sudden pain).
You could fit sets of these nano-drones inside some sort of smart bullets you fire (given your condition it should be fired from some sort of hand-held gun), which begins to accelerate or decelerate in speed nearing the target, and at a certain point, the shell would either drop or melt and then the monsters are released.
[Answer]
Pelletized drugs affectionately known as "sleeping bullets". Seems simple and accessible to me. You can fire 200 rounds fro the price of one drone and the kicker! They're 100% bio-degradeable and Vegan! Riot forces use a more massive version fondly known as the "Coma cannon".
The last version went a little overboard and resulted in the start of what will in time come to be known as the Zombie Apocalypse.
] |
[Question]
[
In the lore for the book I'm working on, what basically happens is a ship full of Byzantines is expelled from their homeland on a ship and winds up on a small continent (think something around the size of Australia) full of people descended from earlier Mongol and Zulu arrivals. Over the next two or three centuries, these Byzantine descendants conquer and unify the various squabbling kingdoms they find when they arrive. During their rule, the cultures and people mix a bit, though Byzantine-origin culture remains at least somewhat dominant and Greek is the official language. During this whole time, this continent has no contact with the outside world.
Now here is my question: if after 500 years, another ship arrives from Byzantium, would the Byzantines be able to understand the language of the colonists, or would the two varieties of Greek have diverged so much by this point that the groups would not be able to understand each other?
[Answer]
The first thing to examine is, what are those "Byzantines"?
* Are they for-real Byzantines, that is, inhabitants of the city on the Bosphorus from the 7th century BCE to the 4th century CE?
* Are they Constantinopolitans, that is, inhabitants of the city on the Bosphorus from the 4th century CE onwards?
(Nobody called the Byzantine Empire the Byzantine Empire during its existence, and nobody called the New Rome Byzantium during the Middle Ages... The empire was the Roman Empire, its inhabitants called themselves Romans, and the city was called Constantinople, or, more usually, The City. The name Byzantine Empire was invented by an obscure German historian during the Renaissance, when the empire in question was long gone.)
Now the funny thing is, the Greeks who called themselves Romans *spoke* various kinds of Greek, [Common Greek](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek) (a.k.a Koine, the language of Archimedes and Ptolemy and the Gospels) from the 3rd century BCE onwards, Medieval Greek from the 4th or 5th century CE onwards: but they always, always *wrote* either Koine or plain Attic. The Greeks continued to write ancient Greek well into the modern era. Demotic, the language which is usually called Modern Greek, only became the official written language of the Hellenic Republic in the second half of the 20th (!) century. (From the late 19th to mid-20th century the Greeks wrote a semi-artificial language named [Katharevousa](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharevousa), "Purified", midway between the ancient Common Greek and the modern Demotic.)
(As an aside, this is the origin of the term [*diglossia*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diglossia), the situation of a linguistic community which uses related but different languages in everyday life and in writing or formal occasions.)
So the answer to the specific question, would some Greeks from Byzantium or Constantinople continue to understand Greek after 500 years of separate existence is plainly yes. Greeks have only stopped teaching Ancient / Common Greek as the written language in the late 19th century. The Greek Church still uses the New Testament in the original Common Greek *to this day*.
Now, the more general question in the title is much harder to answer, because the only possible answer is, it depends: not all 500 year periods are the same.
Consider the history of the English language, for example. The 5 centuries between the Norman conquest and the reign of Elizabeth I saw a dramatic evolution of the language, the starting and ending points (Old English and Modern English, respectively) being very clearly different languages with not a trace of mutual intelligibility; but the 5 centuries between the reign of Elizabeth I and our days saw much less transformation, so that the plays of William Shakespeare are still shown in their original Early Modern English.
The same is true in the history of the Greek language; the are periods of 5 centuries when the *spoken* (albeit not the *written*) language changed dramatically and other periods of 5 centuries where little change, if any, can be detected. For example, if those Byzantines are actual Byzantines from the 2nd century BCE, they are in luck, because the spoken Greek lanaguage changed very little between the 2nd century BCE and the 3rd century CE.
In my own language, I can read 500 years old Romanian texts with little difficulty as regards the grammar and the structure of the language, but the vocabulary has changed so much in the 19th century (mainly due to the massive Italian and mostly French influence) that I may need a specialized dictionary of archaisms.
[Answer]
The answer could be anything between "the pronunciation is a bit different" to "each corner of the continent has a completely different language".
Let's have a few real-life examples. The colonization of America by European immigrants began roughly in the year 1500. Because the immigrants came from different countries, they had different languages, but agreed to four main languages (English and French in North America, Spanish and Portuguese in South America).
Today, people from the UK can travel to the USA and will easily be able to communicate. The pronunciation of British and American English is different and there are a few different words, but the languages are still recognizable by each other.
On the other hand, in the sixth century, there were the Anglo-Saxons, who colonized the UK, and the languages went completely different ways (in the origin of the Anglo-Saxons, the language became German and in the UK it became English). There are still a few words in common or at least have similarities, but people from both countries can't communicate without the knowledge of each others language. Even in the UK itself, the languages differ a lot. Somebody from London will hardly understand somebody from northern Scotland.
So it depends on a few things. If they have some kind of broadcast, the language will not change much. If a large portion of the population is able to read, they may change the pronunciation a bit, but the language will mostly remain the same.
If you consider real Byzantines, who didn't have broadcast and only had a few nobles who were able to read, then you will have a total mess of languages after 500 years. Most probably, even the people from the Byzantine Empire will speak much different in the course of 500 years.
[Answer]
## In your case, an unrecognizable dialect is almost guaranteed.
**The Scenario**
Many other answers seems to sort of glaze by this and speak about language evolution in a broader since, but you have 1 ship of people vs an entire continent. Even if your Byzantines had assault rifles, and the natives were fighting with sticks and rock, the number disparity is too great for a war of dominance to ever favor the Byzantines. But there is one strategy that is historically proven to work in this exact sort of situation.
The foreigners have the advantage of entering the scene with a clean slate. No one has a reason to distrust them as anything worse than strangers. If they are friendly to everyone they meet, they can be accepted by everyone and learn a great deal about the natives while showing off their technological wonders to gain the native's respect. While they seem to just be cultivating new friendships, they are really looking to find pre-existing rivalries, agendas, and dogmas that they can capitalize on.
Once they have the lay of the political landscape, they identify those tribes/nations who are oppressed in large numbers, but are too afraid or divided to band together to fight the hegemony that is in place. By helping mediate rivalries, and making promises of technology, military training, independance, etc. to the downtrodden populations, they raise a large army from the local populations and spark a civil war that is ultimately just a conflict between the continent's internal populations. When the war is done, you are left with a massive power vacuum, and a bunch of small tribes with no clear leader among them. Since you already established yourself as the best mediator and most trustworthy, you take up the roll of leadership, and now your small band of outsiders has the whole region's loyalty, and your Greeks become their new aristocracy. This strategy was made famous in Europe by Julius Caesar in Gaul; so, your Byzantines would know about it, and history tells us from its application by conquistadors that it is VERY effective when used against cultures who have never had to deal with this sort of political take over.
**The Outcome**
For this strategy to work, your foreigners need to adopt the language of the locals enough to politically influenced them. In the case of the conquistadors, there were enough follow up expeditions and colonists to exert cultural dominance after the fact, but in this case you have no additional colonists or merchants coming in behind you to reinforce the Greek language and culture. With so little reinforcement of Greek culture, and so much need to communicate with locals, you will very quickly either see the Greeks completely adopt the native language, and Greek mostly fades away, or you see the rapid evolution of a [pidgin language](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin) which is neither Greek nor the Native language.
When you have a strong education system in place, and regular communication with the homeland, colonists tend to retain a lot of their native language as you see in the [General American English](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dialects_of_English#United_States) dialect or many of the major [Latin American Spanish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_language_in_the_Americas) dialects, but if most of your colonists are not made to speak "proper Greek", then the pidgin language will typically evolve into a more complex language and grow in popularity among both the natives and Greeks to become the new common language preferred by both groups. This isolation + cultural mixing is how you quickly wind up with unintelligible dialects such as Cajun, Ebonic, and Hawaiian Pidgin in such short timespans.
When a Pidgin language begins, you usually start with a system much like Spanglish where children of bilingual households just start speaking in a combination of words they hear growing up used by either language, but it is very common for different languages to pronounce the same letters differently, struggle with certain sounds used by the other group, or have grammar conflicts that are inconsistent between the languages. These conflicts resolve themselves over time by changing how original words are pronounced and spelled, coming up with new words to resolve conjugation issues, forming a common grammar which may or may not be the same as either of the parent languages, and lots and lots of made up words where people just gave up on translation and settled for a specific made up word. By the time you are done, you usually have a language that when read, you might be able to figure out anywhere from a few words here and there to most of what is said, but when spoken, the combination of words you don't know, "improper" grammar, and massively different accent makes it completely unrecognizable.
[Answer]
The colonists’ language wouldn't change very much in 500 years. Small populations have slow language change, because they don’t have the diversity and the sheer number of people for much linguistic innovation. For example, Icelanders can still read and understand 10th century Norse sagas because the language hasn’t evolved beyond comprehensibility in a thousand years.
The main Greek language would evolve faster, of course, but there would be people who were used to archaic (and of course Classical) Greek and so could understand the colonists and make themselves understood.
[Answer]
>
> if after 500 years, another ship arrives from Byzantium, would the Byzantines be able to understand the language of the colonists, or would the two varieties of Greek have diverged so much by this point that the groups would not be able to understand each other?
>
>
>
OK, I'm not a linguist. So, I can't say how or how much would language change in 500 years after being isolated. I suspect there are people a lot better equipped to answer that. To me, it seems that 500 years is not *insignificant* - it's between 20-25 generations (a generation is about 20-25 years "long"). It's also not "excessive" - we can trace back some words and phrases today for about that long. Sure, texts from 500 years ago might seem archaic at best or barely intelligible in other cases but we have *some* that we can understand without needing to be trained specifically.
However, what I do know is Byzantines. OK, I'm not an expert or anything but I have a passing fascination with the Eastern Roman Empire. So, I feel more confident I can (at least partially) answer the question from that side.
**Were "old" and "new" Byzantines to meet, they'd be able to understand each other.**
Not without some initial difficulty but it wouldn't be THAT hard.
Some background clarification first: the Byzantine empire was never called "the Byzantine empire" during its existence. It was the *Roman* empire. People living there were Roman and would call themselves Roman. After the East/West split of the empire and the collapse of the western part, the eastern just...continued existing. Nothing radically changed for them. However, the Eastern Roman Empire was also *Greek*. People spoke Greek and used their Greek customs. They also knew Latin, for when needing to speak to people from the Western part but the Greek cultural identity was rather strong.
Speaking of people in higher positions, they'd also read and study old Greek writings. Of philosophers, playwrights, writers - cultural heritage is something they not quite revered but valued greatly.
So, the *old* was preserved. People in the new world would most likely keep some reference of the "old language" - even with a language drift, there would still be people who would read and understand the old texts. The elite would very likely be educated in old Greek, too, even if out of tradition.
Aside from protecting the old heritage, the Hellenistic culture was rather aggressive in protecting itself from outside influences. Not to zealous levels but the Eastern Romans generally disliked using foreign words and terms, if they could help it. They'd translate or *at least* Hellenise a word. If possible, they'd use an existing one instead of a foreign term, even if it doesn't match correctly. In fact, the title Imperator was translated as "Autokrator" (self-ruler) in Greek. Many other titles had a Greek equivalent to keep outside influences - "*doux*" for "duke", "*comes*" (kom-es) for "count". Even the *very* official *Latin* title of an emperor [Augustus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_(title)) was sometimes translated as "*sebastos*" in Greek. Not for very long at least in terms of referring to the *emperor* as sebastos - the Greek title continued existing for other officials.
Somewhat fun fact with some side-tracking: eventually the emperor Heraclius changed his full title from Imperator Caesar Flavius Heraclius Augustus (which could be even "fuller" as [Emperor Ceaser Flavius Heraclius, faithful in Christ, most serene, supreme, beneficient, peaceful, victor over the Alamanni, the Goths, the Franks, Germans, Antae, Alans, Vandals, Africans, Heruls, Gepids, pious, fortunate, glorious, victor, triumphant, ever venerable Augustus](https://books.google.com/books?id=tlNlFZ_7UhoC&pg=PA194&lpg=PA194&dq=%22Emperor+Caesar+Flavius+Heraclius,+Faithful+in+Christ%22&source=bl&ots=GyM3I37xpi&sig=ACfU3U35SmHOaAYVHK-dHt9XO8B31dV6fA&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Emperor+Caesar+Flavius+Heraclius%2C+Faithful+in+Christ%22&f=false)) to the Greek "Basileus" (pronounced vas-ee-levs) which literally meant "king". However, Roman Republic [did *not* have kings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Roman_monarchy) - the title in common usage referred broadly "ruler" and then came to mean "the ruler of the Roman Empire", so equivalent to "emperor". This was *only* used for the emperor of the Roman Empire - foreign rulers would usually be referred to as "*rex*", a Hellenised term for "king" that applied to *other* (barbarian) rulers.
Side-track over, this was (in part) another way for the Hellenic culture to reject "outside" influence and preserve its independence.
All that is to say that the Byzantines are highly likely not only to preserve at least some of their old ways but will also reject overt "barbaric" influences.
Since the original Byzantines would *also* act in a similar fashion, when the two re-join, they should be able to communicate. They should have enough commonalities to overcome any initial differences.
[Answer]
Will they understand each other? Maybe? A little?
Take a look at English.
600 years ago, Chaucer wrote this paragraph:
>
> Wepyng and waylyng, care and oother sorwe
>
> I knowe ynogh, on even and a-morwe,'
>
> Quod the Marchant, 'and so doon oother mo
>
> That wedded been.'
>
>
>
(copied from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Canterbury_Tales#Language))
Some of it is familiar to us ("Merchant").
Some of it we could understand if we heard it instead of reading it ("Wepyng" was pronounced like "Weeping").
Some of it we won't understand because it was pronounced differently ("ynough" means "enough" but the "gh" was pronounced like the German "ch" ).
Some of it is just incomprehensible ("Quod" will not be recognizable to most native English speakers),
And look at that grammar. So alien.
So English has changed a lot in the last 600 years.
It has also borrowed a lot of words from foreign languages it met along the way (In your world that would probably mean the colonists may be using Mongol and Zulu words).
So I believe the first ship to land after 500 years will probably find the local vernacular mostly incomprehensible. But maybe after a while they will start to "get" the differences. And as @VLAZ commented, nobles and scholars will probably be able to converse in the old language.
[Answer]
>
> If after 500 years, another ship arrives from Byzantium, would the Byzantines be able to understand the language of the colonists
>
>
>
**It's up to you.** Others have offered some plausible answers on the "yes" side. On the "no" side:
* Writing is not wide spread at this point. There is no printing press, for instance. Possibly some scholarly language will be preserved, but it's a toss-up whether the pronunciation will be intelligible between the two groups. (Consider how we still have Latin almost two millennia later. I believe the *spelling* is essentially unchanged, but there are disagreements on the pronunciation.) If you look at the evolution of English from circa 1500 to now, there are significant changes, and that's *with* the printing press. Since there are no audio recordings from 500 years ago, it's hard to say how much pronunciation may have changed.
* Your Byzantines are assimilating a larger group of Mongol and Zulu people. There will likely be some language mixing, *if* the Byzantine's language is conserved *at all*. It's just as possible that they, or at least "common people", will wind up speaking the local languages instead. (Maybe the original Byzantine language is only preserved for legal purposes, e.g. how French was used around 1500 or so.)
Given that your Byzantines seem to be the minority in the scenario you've described, it would take an intentional effort to preserve their language. Since you describe them as conquerors, that is certainly plausible (modern Mexico, for example, speaks Spanish, not Incan/Mayan/etc.), but if they're more laid-back, maybe they just adapt the local language instead.
Meanwhile, you're also assuming that nothing radical happens to the mainland language in that time... which is *more* plausible, but not guaranteed.
If you *want* a "yes" answer, at the very least you will want a corpus of written material from around the time of first landing to have survived.
[Answer]
500 years seems to be too short to make the two branches of the same languages mutually non intelligible.
Though not having been mutually isolated, the Spanish spoken in Latin America and the Spanish spoken in Spain are still mutually understandable, if you manage to avoid the vosotros/ustedes quarrel. Same goes for the English and Portuguese spoken on both sides of the pond.
Some local terminology will surely arise, but for the rest it won't feel like a foreign language.
[Answer]
Inuit Languages and Dialects <https://nacmedia.ca/product/inuit-uqausiqatigiit/> talks about the spread of Inuit across the Arctic over the space of about 400 years. It mentions how dialect speakers are able to understand their neighbours, but less so their neighbour's neighbours, and so on, as well as how the archeology backs up the linguistic theory on how phonology changes with time.
I highly recommend the book itself as it describes a very logical, self-consistent language that messes with your mind. For instance from memory, I don't know how to take 1 inukshuk away from 3 inuksuit, because I cannot remember the ending for the "dual" case.
oblig wiki-ref <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_languages>
Edit: updated version of Dorais' book <https://nacmedia.ca/product/inuit-languages-dialects/>
[Answer]
No linguistic expert but the language if truly dominant would mainly stay the same with some additions in the form of slang from the newly integrated languages. Take German and Dutch, two languages that existed for over a thousand years but due to their shared roots in Germanic two people could still talk at a let's say "kindergarten" level with minimal knowledge of the other's language due to the similarities.
] |
[Question]
[
Usually, forms of life are associated with *organisms* like humans, plants and animals. The probability that such can evolve in an environment is very low due to the many constraints that have to be fulfilled, e.g.
* Planets have to be in a habitable zone.- planets require an atmosphere to shield cosmic radiation etc.
* Certain elements are required to create chemical bonds which then form cells.
Cells can grow into larger structures like organisms. According to Darwin's evolutionary theory those cell structures will evolve to become better adapted to their environment, possibly becoming more complex and "advanced."
*But can we also expect extraterrestrial forms of life like a machine - similar to a computer or robot?*
Under the right circumstances it could be possible that elements bond themselves to simple electronic components like AND and OR gates, very much like cells. If evolution takes place those gates could form more complex electronic circuits and represent some type of logic. This would be some kind of digital evolution.
Future generations could end up as "robotic" kind of intelligence that can transform and optimize itself.
Are there any constraints that prevent the existence of a "robotic" forms of life with intelligence?
[Answer]
**Yes.**
The literal answer can be yes, as long as machines can satisfy the definition of life.
I would say that such mechanical life would have evolved through a biological phase first, where some sort of biological sentience designed the self-replicating machines that then took over.
I agree with other answers that direct "digital evolution" sounds implausible.
[Answer]
# No
## To understand why not, first consider how biological life formed.
The building blocks of biotic life, particularly amino acids, have been show to form spontaneously when you add energy to a methane, hydrogen, amonia, water [mixture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment). The exact process for getting RNA is less clear, but it is pretty clear that RNA is capable of replication and passing on traits. It is also capable of constructing both proteins and DNA, under the right circumstances. Blobs of lipids form cells *automatically* when suspended in water, just because they're polar, which could lead to RNA molecules being encased in cells.
Basically, biological life was able to form and evolve into what we have today because there exist simple precursor components which are 1) simple enough to spontaneously form from inorganic material, but 2) can replicate and pass on changes in their own design to their replicated copies
## So why not electric/electromechanical life based on simple logic gates?
>
> ### Edit
>
>
> A lot of commenters have pointed out that there are many, many ways of representing simple logic gates, and they are absolutely correct. Simple boolean logic can be encoded in any number of ways, from simple chemical compounds as might be found in both biology and nature, to interlocking mechanical levers, to the BJTs and MOSFETs we use in modern circuitry.
>
>
> This answer is about why we wouldn't expect to see evolved electronic life-forms which are similar to man-made electronics and robotics.
>
>
> ### End Edit
>
>
>
Electronics fail on basically every facet of the requirements for life to form and evolve.
The building blocks our computer's logic gates are transistors. To function, a bipolar junction transistor (BJT) is made of three layers of P and N type materials, either NPN or PNP. P and N type materials are semiconductors, usually based on silicon which have been "doped" my mixing in a particular impurity to make the material either generally positive or generally negative. When sandwiched into layers NPN or PNP, controlling the voltage on the middle layer allows you to control the flow of current and the relative voltage between the outer two layers. Differences in the relative doping of the layers control which way current is allowed to flow at all, and the voltages involved.
So let's say we got really lucky, and happened to form a BJT at random from some lucky bits of silicon. Now what?
...well, nothing. In order for a transistor to do anything at all, it needs to be connected to a power supply, and have something else control the voltage on the base. Without that all you've got is a particularly odd rock. There's no mechanism available for a lone transistor to do anything *at all*, let alone replicate itself and produce another transistor.
## Systems other than Transistors
(Edited to explain better/more concisely)
What about sustems other than transistors? After all, there's a lot of ways to implement a logic gate.
The problem here is that logic gates are devices that implement boolean logic, and boolean logic is a *concept*. There a lots of ways simple chemical processes in early replicators (of any kind; silicon based, carbon based, or otherwise) could be seen as implementing logic gates, but the system probably wouldn't replicate *by virtue of being a logic gate*, especially since boolean logic does not itself encode a concept of replication.
Lets say you find a simple compound or mixture of compounds which releases electrons at one point iff it is absorbing electrons at two other points. Sounds like an `and` gate.
However the system itself is not *implementing a logic gate*. You are *modeling the system as a gate* because you can see how the behavior is similar to the boolean `and` function. The system might or might not be able to be usefully incorporated into a replicator, but it won't replicate by virtue of being an `and` gate.
[Answer]
Once I read a kind of mindblowing short story partially concerning this question. It gave me a big idea about what after all could happen.
Of course from what we know it is unlikely. But hey, the universe is big and who knows what is going on at all the spots we won't ever be able to see due to the universe's expansion.
So my answer here is:
**YES**
It is verry unlikely this could happen but it could.
How unlikely it is depends on your definition of life and machine, which you didn't disclose.
i.e. I could imagine that it somehow would be possible that some kind of RNA could be able to adapt to logical elements (as others have here welldescribed so far) resulting in biological entitys that morph through diferent stages of life of biological parts interacting with robotics.
Or if we consider anything non bioligical as robots, what about a galaxy where gravity designs some kind of source for pushing to specific optimized designs? Here comes also in the question about are you limiting the scale of size for what is considered living?
---
For anyone beeing interested to make an own view of what I tryed to explain here, this is the story I was refering to:
## THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
[by Terry Bisson](http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html)
>
> "They're made out of meat."
>
>
> "Meat?"
>
>
> "Meat. They're made out of meat."
>
>
> "Meat?"
>
>
> "There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
>
>
> "That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
>
>
> "They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
>
>
> "So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
>
>
> "They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
>
>
> "That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
>
>
> "I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
>
>
> "Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
>
>
> "Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
>
>
> "Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
>
>
> "Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
>
>
> "No brain?"
>
>
> "Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
>
>
> "So ... what does the thinking?"
>
>
> "You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
>
>
> "Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
>
>
> "Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
>
>
> "Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
>
>
> "Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
>
>
> "Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
>
>
> "First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual."
>
>
> "We're supposed to talk to meat."
>
>
> "That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
>
>
> "They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
> "Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
>
>
> "I thought you just told me they used radio."
>
>
> "They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
>
>
> "Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
>
>
> "Officially or unofficially?"
>
>
> "Both."
>
>
> "Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
>
>
> "I was hoping you would say that."
>
>
> "It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
>
>
> "I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
>
>
> "Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
>
>
> "So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
>
>
> "That's it."
>
>
> "Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
>
>
> "They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
>
>
> "A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
>
>
> "And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
>
>
> "Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
>
>
> "Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
>
>
> "They always come around."
>
>
> "And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe would be if one were all alone ..."
>
>
>
[Answer]
Arthur C Clarke had a progression of life in the novel 2001. Biological life moves into machine form (starting with cyborgs and ultimately moving into full uploads. Like becomes the spaceships needed to explore the universe), before finally becoming beings of energy who "live" in the fabric of spacetime.
The people who said "no" are correct with current and foreseen technology, but at a vert fundamental level biological life is very mechanical in nature, relying on chemical synthesis, electrochemical energy and even quantum effects (photosynthesis). Ions move through "gates" in the membranes of cells, flagellum are powered by "molecular motors" and so on. Futurists like K Eric Drexler used this as inspiration for the original conception of nanotechnology, and there is no conceptual reasons that such principles cannot be created by us in the future, including self assembly and reproduction.
In terms of would we meet machines as aliens, it seems likely. Once again Arthur C Clarke lays out the reasons. The universe is 13 billion years old, and the Solar System is only 4.5 billion years old. Life arose perhaps 3.5 billion years ago, and complex life @ 500 million years ago. So life has had an immense amount of time to have arisen in the Universe, and to evolve into complex forms that we might not even recognize. Clarke stated the argument as "Apes or Angels". Given the very tiny slice of time that *we* have been around, it is highly unlikely that we would meet any civilization near our own level of development. We could run into a planet where life is developing or perhaps at a photo "human" stage, or we would discover beings who evolved billions of years ahead of us.
And of course, over billions of years, *they* could have easily moved from cyborgs to full uploads, and artificial machine bodies might actually be the most common form of life in the Universe today.
[Answer]
## NO
Biological life has to replicate itself. Even tiny and relatively simple microorganisms can replicate in a wide variety of common environments. Robots are designed to do a job, not to make more robots. Before you can have a life form with a silicon chip brain you need to make the chips. Look at how we do that. Super high purity silicon is made using a complex chemical process. Under ultra clean conditions silicon is melted (melting point just above copper) gradually cooled to form a crystal, sliced and polished. Then its coated in all sorts of dangerous chemicals and blasted with UV light (not just scattered UV, the pattern is projected onto it). I am not an expert on this but you get the picture. Many processes, chemicals and temperatures that anything remotely resembling biology can't stand. It's also a very specific chemical process, one tiny mistake and the whole things useless. Even if a chip was produced, that wouldn't be what you want. A whole robot needs to be produced by natural forces. Complete with the complex tools it needs to reproduce and the programing to do so. Brains however can be made under common conditions with abundant materials and are forgiving to small mistakes. But they don't pop into existence on their own either. The minimum self reproducing system is what you want to look at. We have not yet made a self reproducing robot. The larger and more complex something needs to be to reproduce (and more precise) the less likely.
[Answer]
**YES.**
On video, no less: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_9ohFWR0Vs>
Penrose, Von Neumann and others already thought long and hard about this, even before DNA was discovered - and managed to devise ways in which simple blocks could "self-replicate".
>
> In fanciful terms, we visualized the process of mechanical
> self-replication proceeding somewhat as follows: Suppose we have a
> sack or some other container full of units jostling one another as the
> sack is shaken and distorted in all manner of ways. In spite of this,
> the units remain detached from one another. Then we put into the sack
> a prearranged connected structure made from units exactly similar to
> those already within the sack... Now we agitate the sack again in the
> same random and vigorous manner, with the seed structure jostling
> about among the neutral units. This time we find that replicas of the
> seed structure have been assembled from the formerly neutral or
> ``lifeless'' material.
>
>
>
<https://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~sipper/selfrep/>
[Answer]
## Yes but with a big ol' asterisk
You are correct in saying that a computer and a brain are both complex, in fact some could argue a brain is much more complex than a computer. So following simple probability rules we can assume that computer aliens are way more common, right?
Well, yes, if you squint really, really hard.
It really depends on whether you mean natural computers or man made ones. The brain is really nothing more than the world’s most complex computer and following that logic, then yes, all intelligent alien will be *computers*. But if you mean computers like the ones man makes the answer is not likely, in fact if it wasn't for the infinite space and life possibilities, the answer would be a hard **no**.
[Answer]
A big **YES**.
Actually, I think it's more probable that we will find alien intelligent machines than alien intelligent organic species. Look at us, humans: we're extremely fragile and unsuited for extraterrestial travel. In order to move to another planet, or even our own Moon, we need to encapsulate ourselves in very complex and cumbersome spaceships which would carry with us a suitable atmosphere, prepared food, facilities which we need to function properly, like beds (or at least chairs) to sleep on, toilets, showers, etc. The spaceship needs to shield us from cosmic rays and for longer journeys it has to provide some sort of artificial gravity and a recycling system. In the same time, in order to send a probe to another planet we just have to build it and throw it in a given direction. (Of course I oversimplify but the difference in the amount of work needed to be done is immense).
With more probes and other types of machines in the outer space, the human presence on not terraformed planets will not be necessary. Machines can dig out minerals for us from asteroids and send them back to Earth. Machines can build a system of solar panels around the Sun, providing us with energy. They can explore the Solar system and send us the results. Heck, they can even wage wars against machines from another country on Earth. The only problem is distance which makes difficult for human beings on Earth to control the machines due to the light speed limit and to fix machines broken in some accidents or assaults far from mother stations. So, we will probably want the machines to be more intelligent and able to make decisions on their own, at least in a limited way, and we will want them to be able to fix themselves and other of their kind, as well as to build new machines from materials dug out from asteroids. Scroll a thousand years into the future and you will have swarms of intelligent robots running around the Solar system, serving (or not) their organic masters who live somewhere there on a small planet (or maybe they're already extinct), but otherwise autonomous.
And why would it be different with any other civilization in the universe?
So, it's a **no** if we're talking about robots built from scratch by evolutionary processes, but **YES** if it means that there was a civilization of organic predecessors who built the first intelligent, replicating robots, and they took it from there.
[Answer]
This question stems from very narrow-minded idea of what life actually is. Let me point out what is it that we usually see as machines: systems created to perform tasks. Life, on the other side, is system (possibly randomly) created that infinitely reproduces. There is no purpose to it.
Your idea of robotic life includes AND and OR cells. This is already flawed because not all machines use AND and OR cells. And I wouldn't be so sure that life on Earth is devoid of such contraptions.
The answer is therefore **yes, but it's more complicated**. Idea of machine life with WiFi and USB ports is childlish. But idea of life that exists due to incredibly complex mix of metal crystals and acid/base liquids that drive the being by creating electric current through redox reactions is much more plausible.
You could expect such beings to live underground and feed on minerals used to extract acid+metal mix required for the red-ox reactions. You could expect them to stop moving once acid is neutralized. They might die, just like us, if electric charge is used to keep some internal reactions going.
Simply put, **spontaneous robotic life wouldn't be much different from ours**.
[Answer]
TL;DR: **yes**
The definition of a lifeform is that it must replicate itself. Usually, biologists also insist in that a living being must have a metabolism.
A machine is a thing that performs any work.
So, the two things are not mutually exclusive, and hence a living machine is theoretically possible.
The more complicated question to answer is the Turing dispute. Who says that animals and plants are not machines? In a wide sense, all these lifeforms also satisfy the definition of a machine. This would make the answer to your question *trivially* **yes**.
[Answer]
**Probably yes**
If you are martian, the the only extraterrestrial "life form" is the Rover sent by Nasa on Mars.
While I find **not plausible natural evolution of machines**, if a biological race born, then create evolving machines and later die, we will see only such machines so we can met the machines as an extraterrestrial life form.
From e evolution point of view a machine will be immune to all common diseases so it is a great advancemente (however it will be weak to computer viruses?)
However I find that **current circuits are not suitable for artificial intelligence**, while software can do amazing things (see Machine Learning) it miss something, I would bet any machine lifeform would have a analogic-neuronal signal instead of a digital one. Of course we can simulate analogic signals but at great expense of computing power, wouldn't it be better if using directly analogic signals?
[Answer]
You seem to have missed a key factor in evolution.
It all starts when random physical processes happen to produce a basic form of life. At this point, it's true that those random processes could produce something that behaves like a logic gate just as easily as they could produce something that behaves kinda like DNA or RNA.
The next step is that this basic form resists processes that would destroy it, and somehow produces copies of itself so that it becomes more common. DNA and RNA have chemical mechanisms by which they produce more of themself. As they do this, some of the copies come out slightly different, because of errors or imperfections in the copying process, or mutation caused by environmental factors. These differences allow for a general diversifying - variations on a theme. Those variations that are poorly suited to the environment will die, while better-suited to the environment will die less, and therefore you'll end up with more of the "fitter" ones about. There's no notion of "superior" or "more advanced" here - it's simply a matter of which ones are most able to avoid dying.
A logic gate does not have a way to produce more of itself, and therefore cannot "evolve". For this to work, your initial basic form needs to be able to self-replicate. A self-replicating system built from NAND gates (for example) would be very complex, which makes the chances of it forming spontaeously small enough that we would never expect to actually see it happen.
The distinction - and the thing that many people forget or don't realise - is that DNA is more than just a component of an animal like us humans. DNA is a complete self-replicating system in its own right, which happens to live inside of another self-replicating thing (the cell) which forms a part of an even larger self-replicating system (the organism). DNA can survive and multiply just fine by itself, given the right environment. When you have a DNA test, they take a sample and multiply it using a process known as PCR so that they have more to test. Basically, they're taking a part of you, and getting it to make more of itself. On the other hand, you can't take a chip out of your computer and get it to build a few dozen copies of itself.
[Answer]
Other answers are missing a major concept. They're focussed on whether silicon-based life could evolve naturally. An alternative possibility is that silicon-based life is *designed*, but then its designers/creators disappear (for whatever reason).
There are various SF novels based around this. A good one is [Saturn's Children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn%27s_Children_(novel)) which not only considers the society of robots that might be established after the end of the human race, but also the implications which the absence of humans might have on that society.
[Answer]
**Not with how you describe it.**
The other answers have explained why we *will* encounter constructed machine life, and a few have covered some conceptual reasons mechanical life couldn't evolve. They haven't covered any practical, technical reasons, though.
*Let's look at this very, VERY literally first*
First, consider Humans. We exist very happily in the mid-to-lower range of temperatures in which liquid water forms under 1 atmosphere of pressure. The water in our bodies provides a nice medium for all our fancy chemistry to happen. If you freeze us solid, all of the chemicals and compounds we rely upon to live get locked in place, ceasing all that fancy chemistry. If you heat us up beyond boiling, again our liquid medium becomes useless - not to mention all the other nasty problems of being too hot. The same goes for most life on earth.
So now think about a machine. Something simple, like an electric motor. You need magnets, conductive metals, and some kind of casing. In order to form those conductive metals, you need to heat them to their melting point - which is going to vastly exceed the curie point of our magnets, stripping them of their magnetism and rendering them useless. This is assuming we have a medium to move all of this around in.
*Now, a little less literally*
Instead of thinking of machines as we know them, let's define machine life as 'Life based on metal.'
This makes things easier... But not much. In order for iron-based life to keep its medium-fluid flowing, it would of course have to live at the melting point of iron. There's not many chemical reactions that occur at these temperatures, and if it dips below the melting point of iron we have all the same problems of a frozen human. You also now have the problem of coming up with a planet hot enough to melt iron, and having this species develop technology when they melt everything they touch.
Even if you choose lower melting points, most or all of the problems remain - There's simply not enough complex chemical reactions avaliable to sustain a 'lifeform.'
[Answer]
**Yes.**
If there is even a tiny possibility of a self-replicating robot getting formed by chance, then given a large enough universe and enough time, you can basically guarantee that it will happen.
(I'm going to avoid the "alive" debate...and just treat a self-replicating robot as alive).
**Proof:**
1. By arranging metals, sand, etc., self-replicating robots can be formed.
2. Nature arranges metals, sand, etc., in a chaotic random fashion.
3. After enough random trials, Nature will eventually arrange them into a self-replicating robot.
Granted, it would probably take a lot of time to put together a jigsaw puzzle by shaking it...but if the universe is really big and has a lot of time...what's stopping it?
Is it easier to shake elements together and make a single-celled organism or a robot?
Just my two cents, but it seems like both would be pretty hard.
**P.S.** Robot don't need a perfect habitable temperature, and atmosphere, so nature might have many more opportunities (a couple orders of magnitude) which could help offset the improbability.
[Answer]
No - sort of:
As other answers stated quite detailed, a purely mechanical machine species is very unlikely to evolve, because it lack an "evolutionary" mechanism of procreation.
We can likely assume the robots would reproduce asexually, therefore to individuals are incapable of sharing positive traits or offseting negative ones with positive ones. (Positive and negative with respect to their current environment and 'life style').
On the other hand hot-swaping parts of their programming might be a very beneficial trait in situations, where the robot is sufficiently advanced to do this at will. (Less at will, but similar to bacteria exchanging plasmids).
An other issue would be the power source. Robots as we understand them use electricity, would a robot driving its energy from say photosynthesis still be considered a robot in terms of this question?
Chemically driven robots sound suspiciously like animals, but have a much easier way of sharing/distributing energy throughout the ecosystem.
On the other hand:
consider natural reactors, most people would agree that a nuclear reactor is not something that can just happen but .... <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor>
An other point in favour of natural computers:
Alastair Renolds wrote a short story featuring a glacier acting similar to a brain. His point was that the glacier could compute thoughts and hold memories by different chanel conducting melt water. These channel were constantly rewired by some sort of worm.
While this example is obviously not about life (no procreation, metabolism debatable) it still show cases an alien computer, which developed without outside influence, so maybe its what the OP was looking for?
[Answer]
Like many others have asked and assumed that machines produced by a non-machine civilization would become sentient and create a civilization of their own then certainly we would likely find many of them through the universe. If, however, you are referring to naturally occurring (i.e. naturally evolved) then I say it is extremely unlikely. We have already seen that the physical laws of this universe are such that organic life can exist. We also know that evolution of *computer life* occurs much faster than organic life. So, if *computer life/intelligence* were to have evolved naturally you would expect it to be the dominant life form in the universe and we'd likely have already been encountered it long ago (especially given that machines would be much more suited to space travel). In the universe, if some thing can happen you can assume it has happened (a lot) and the fact that we don't see *computer life* would point to the fact that there isn't any (and likely won't be any).
[Answer]
**Is a machine "evolving" possible?**
Sure. It's possible. Silicon based life could produce something that we might think of more as a "machine", but it would be far from, but if you want to stretch to the realm of the possible, silicon based life that looks more mechanical is where you're going to get such a thing.
**Is the above probable?**
No. Silicon is the 2nd most abundant element on Earth. The stuff is every where and it didn't happen here. Why? Carbon is just that much better than the only known alternative.
**Bleh**
Technically... we're evolving into "machines" so, if you want to mean that it's 100% probable and possible.
[Answer]
First off, we are biological machines. All life forms are. The only reason you might bristle at this suggestion is that we've laden the term "machine" with a definitional proviso: that machines are made by people. Setting that quip aside, we are data and matter processors just the same.
But consider this. We are sending out our machines out into the universe much faster than we are sending ourselves. Shouldn't we expect other sentient species to do the same?
Although this is speculative, I'd argue it's likely we will eventually trade our meat brains (and bodies) for machines that can host our minds as information. If we do that, then it will be possible to transmit our minds (as information) across vast spaces at the speed of light to be hosted by other machines of the same kind. We probably should expect other sentient species to come up with the same idea.
In that vein, the first sentient life forms we come across may may appear in the guise of artificially crafted machines completely devoid of biological life. But those machines may be ferrying biologically evolved minds as information across the vast expanses of space between stars over millions or even billions of years.
[Answer]
Perhaps. I'm not sure if we already have an universal accepted definition for life. But I think there are some characteristics:
1. Living things need to consume
2. Living things excrete
3. Living things reproduce
4. Living things evolve
5. Living things die (?)
For now the only reference we have is the life on earth, say life that is made out of carbon. But I think there is no reason to belief that only carbon-based life is possible or even that life is just possible under condition that are satisfying for us. Maybe there is a planet somewhere in the universe that is inhabited by completely different forms of life that exists under completely different conditions.
Then there is always the possibility of artificial life. We could program very simplistic robots that are designed to do specific task. To fulfill the task it may be necessary that the robots are adapting and learning; while the robots are going to accomplish the task, new problems might come up and the robots seek to solve that new problems. To do so they could ask other robots for help and finally change themselves to solve the problem. It is also possible that they will make replicates with appropriate changes in order to fulfill the new tasks. That would be some kind of evolution. But there are some differences. For example, the evolution would be less open ended and much more conducted and controlled.
[Answer]
Hard one.
I think we can´t answer that Question to your full satisfaction.
There are missing a lot of informational dependancys related to your question. Which have yet to be discovered by humanity.
1. What is Life? (Is a Virus alive or dead?)
2. What is intelligence? (Is there a measurable boundry?)
3. What is consciousness? (Holy c... we know nothing....)
4. Is it possible that meaningfull valid information is created by random physical processes? (What is the origin of genetic information?)
I can´t imagine that genetic information/biological programming like "reproduce, evolve, repeat" is created by chance... Was there perhaps a Sender/Author of that information?
@EDIT:
Thank you for your input!
I gave it a second thought and come to the following conclusion:
**Literally:** Can we expect machines as extraterestrial form of life?
Yes, we can. If you are familiar with the Grey Goo Theory, Nanomachines capable of reproduction would fit into this quite well.
**By Context:** Can we expect machines as extraterestrial forms of life? (By natural procreation and evolution)
No. As the term machine says it is something that was "artificialy" created.
If there is no deeper secret to the past of Life as we know it, machines are made. Natural Life is not. It popped miraciously out of a pool of protein slime.
By the way... If a Life form based on a different element than carbon visits us with a space ship i can imagine i would be considered "alive".
Life can develop from different elements than carbon, hydrogen, oxigen etc...
The chances are minimal thoug. A common star can fuse elements up to carbon within its lifespan. We know heavier elements are results supernovae which are not that common.
In our universe living things tend to use the most eenrgy efficient ways.
Why dissolve things in sulfuric acid when you have liquid water at hand?(a pretty powerful solvent due to smaller molecules)
Why use sulfur as basic element when you have carbon (which binds better)?
It is all a question of effective use of energy.
And then you build basic AND and OR Gates from them? Naaah...
As we already see deterministic turing machines have limits that inhibit them to solve problems where lots and lots of variables are involved. (Traveling Salesman Problem, Knapsack Problem... just see Karps 21 NP-complete Problems)
If Life develops "circuits" they wouldn´t be deterministic logic gates... it just would not make sense regarding to effectiveness and mental fitness of the resulting Life form.
yeah.... so i assume NO
Thank you Gentleman!
[Answer]
Apparently, your question does not imply or require abiogenesis, or, it does not matter whether the machines were designed or not.
Self replication of machines is very common, in fact, our factories are doing it all the time, albeit on a very large scale: what makes our cars, phones or computers? Machines makes them. What makes the machines? Other machines make them.
I am not going to detail, but what you can find within our industry is that, you have different machines that can make parts for each other, but not usually itself; and you also have machines that assembles other machines from such parts, but not usually itself.
Then if you have a pair of such machines, one Machine assembles the other, while both assembles the other machines that makes the parts of all the machines, including the part-making machines, then you get a improvable, self replicating system that operates on a very large scale.
Which is exactly what we see in cells: rna polymerase assembles the ribosome, the ribosomes assembles the rna polymerase, and the ribosomes makes all the other enzymes that makes the amino acid and nucleus acid parts of the different enzymes and trnas, which includes a DNA polymerase that copies the instructions for the machines (dna or rna). Exactly what we think a macroscale self replicating system would likely work like.
[Answer]
You may want to check Stanisław Lem's *The Invincible* novel. It presents an idea of mechanical 'life' forms, evolving out of self-replicating robots that were left alone after the civilization that created them had fallen.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invincible>
] |
[Question]
[
In my world, people live in a swamp where the ground is consistently covered in at least 4-5 in of water and occasionally higher, reaching up to the knees.
My Question is what kinds of medieval style footwear could my people wear that allows them to walk and **specifically run through the water** with little to no friction or drag.
I have considered a frictionless enchantment but run into problem with the footwear. I want them to be able to effectively grip the ground when running and walking but the friction on the bottom of the shoes would affect movement when the foot enters the water.
TLDR: How can I fix this problem of needing to remove friction to move through water yet keep friction to grip the ground without it interfering in movement. Am I overestimating the impact of the friction caused by the foot entering water?
Edit: I would like this footwear to be for hunters who will be quite active in the water and would like as little restriction of movement as possible.
If there are other ways to prevent restriction of movement, I am open to hearing them. However, one restriction is they cannot walk on water especially above knee deep water.
[Answer]
Stilts is the obvious solution and was used in various swampy places to help people get around.
Not the sort of stilts we play with which would just get stuck, they used a third stabilising stick the same way we'd use a walking staff.
[](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GintracLandes.jpg)
Inhabitants of the French [Landes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landes_de_Gascogne) (sometimes known as the Gascony Moors in English), by Jean Louis Gintrac (first half of the 19th century). Reproduction [available on Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GintracLandes.jpg), public domain.
[Answer]
This is how south Louisiana was for a long time. The solution they used was wide bottomed boats called pirogues. They didn't walk in the water, they floated above it. With a boat, they can move goods to market. If they had to walk, practically no goods would be able to get to market as they would have to carry them.
[Answer]
**Minecraft Frost Walker Boots**
[](https://i.stack.imgur.com/YrLSm.png)
In Minecraft, frost walker boots freeze a small area around you allowing you to run over the top of the water. The ice quickly melts when you stop moving.
A similar enchantment would allow people to move faster because they don't actually enter the water.
[Answer]
People working in rice paddies do exactly this all the time and have for centuries. Looks like mostly rubber boots or barefoot.
[Answer]
**Inuit style clothing i.e. Waders**; waterproofed waders and (in the event of rain) jackets made from treated animal skins, carefully stitched together and then sealed with animal fat to preserve watertight integrity.
A little research will show you there's a lot of photographs of the type of clothing I'm talking about on-line. Although I suspect it would degrade much more quickly in the type of environment your describing it should still 'work' effectively if the owners took care to maintain it and waterproof it regularly.
For that matter if the water is usually only a few inches deep on average animal skin 'gum boots' would do.
Or if the climate is mild enough for most of the year **just go barefoot** and wear no clothing below the knee unless there's some overriding reason why they shouldn't.
[Answer]
# Water strider shoes
Instead of magically reducing the friction, you change the surface tension of the water. (The shoes are also pretty wide, reducing the mojo requirements) The shoes could even *increase* the friction, since our experience walking on frozen water in the wintertime is that it's none too fun. But that's rather inefficient, and we don't really need to go to a six-legged gait for balance. Instead, the natives carry around a gyroscope, held onto them by clothing near their spine, against which they can apply torque so that they can shift their center of balance in any direction. With a little practice alternating positions (so as not eventually to push the gyroscope over), they can use the angle of their body to glide rapidly in any direction.
\*Note: I think the energy of the gyroscope is being used up to cause this propulsion against the tilted surface of the bent water. Perhaps we should put some boss office desk toy enchantment on it so it never stops spinning.
[Answer]
Sort of a frame change.
Consider the [Sweet track](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweet_Track) It is a path made circa 3800BC to allow people to traverse marshlands.
Not footwear, but definitely was used by people to speed traversal of a marsh.
[Answer]
I would think of thick-heeled boots that distribute the weight evenly. A cane or a walking stick, as another answer stated, would work well in conjunction with these boots.
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.