Diachronic Conlanging open world

Discussions about constructed worlds, cultures and any topics related to constructed societies.
opipik
runic
runic
Posts: 2686
Joined: Thu 12 Mar 2015, 19:41

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by opipik » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 20:32

Is your language at the hump of Avesta?
Yes.
I'm fine with that arrangement
Do you have the phonology for South Akuriga, now Akorup?
Guys, I have a radical idea, we split North and South Amutet, so that the continents correspond with the landforms.
[maybe]
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by qwed117 » Fri 03 Apr 2015, 21:34

opipik wrote:
Do you have the phonology for South Akuriga, now Akorup?
As of now, I only have basic sound changes written out. Just a quick comment, there's supposed to be a satem-centum like shift, I'm thinking of basing this shift of of the change from palatoveolar and the alveopalatals
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Sat 04 Apr 2015, 01:40

opipik wrote:So not, Proto-Kuruk is here:Image
But I'll save that South Akuriga for later, can I?
If yes, it'll be named Akorup.
Hi opipik, welcome to Teles! I'll add proto-Kuruk to the next incarnation of the language map.
loglorn wrote:The eastern mountains are a tad bigger (or at least taller). But yeah, it's pretty much removing the mountains at the center.
loglorn wrote:Considering our tectonics and topography are already not realist by themselves, does anybody mind it make some changes?

What about sharpening this mountain range, and getting a large area of plains after it?

from
Image
to something like: (I really don't know how the guy who did the old image got all those shades)
Image
I want to pull off some mongol-like-horse-nomad culture later, and i need plains.
I'll definitely make the eastern mountains taller and reduce the size of the central mountains but I will keep them and add changes in elevation to central Amalan. If we look at actual Mongolia/Central Asia or the Sahara desert/Arabia we can see that there are actually many mountains and the elevation varies considerably, so I would want to model central Amalan on these real-world examples. (images in the spoiler)
Spoiler:
Image

Image
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by loglorn » Sat 04 Apr 2015, 02:35

smappy wrote:
opipik wrote:So not, Proto-Kuruk is here:Image
But I'll save that South Akuriga for later, can I?
If yes, it'll be named Akorup.
Hi opipik, welcome to Teles! I'll add proto-Kuruk to the next incarnation of the language map.
loglorn wrote:The eastern mountains are a tad bigger (or at least taller). But yeah, it's pretty much removing the mountains at the center.
loglorn wrote:Considering our tectonics and topography are already not realist by themselves, does anybody mind it make some changes?

What about sharpening this mountain range, and getting a large area of plains after it?

from
Image
to something like: (I really don't know how the guy who did the old image got all those shades)
Image
I want to pull off some mongol-like-horse-nomad culture later, and i need plains.
I'll definitely make the eastern mountains taller and reduce the size of the central mountains but I will keep them and add changes in elevation to central Amalan. If we look at actual Mongolia/Central Asia or the Sahara desert/Arabia we can see that there are actually many mountains and the elevation varies considerably, so I would want to model central Amalan on these real-world examples. (images in the spoiler)
Spoiler:
Image

Image
All fine and dandy.
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by qwed117 » Sun 05 Apr 2015, 23:45

Just a note, the map was probably created fromthis fractal terrain generator
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Mon 06 Apr 2015, 08:56

qwed117 wrote:Just a note, the map was probably created fromthis fractal terrain generator
That's super cool! Although I like freehanding personally too. I sent a message to Felbah asking him what seed he used.

Here's latitude— is it reasonably accurate? The lines are the Equator, the Tropic of Cancer, and the Tropic of Capricorn.

Image
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by qwed117 » Mon 06 Apr 2015, 20:11

smappy wrote:
qwed117 wrote:Just a note, the map was probably created fromthis fractal terrain generator
That's super cool! Although I like freehanding personally too. I sent a message to Felbah asking him what seed he used.

Here's latitude— is it reasonably accurate? The lines are the Equator, the Tropic of Cancer, and the Tropic of Capricorn.
Spoiler:
Image
I think the Tropic of Capricorn (Just going to note that that is named after a constellation which may not be apparent from Teles) should barely clip the Umbric Peninsula, while the other tropic should be up further north, to match the "desert" areas. You should look at this map for the tropics.
loglorn wrote:One can see i've had free time.

Behold the More-or-less decent climate map for Teles:

Image
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 01:36

Revised latitude:

Image

(Also, what substitute names should we use for Tropic of Cancer and Tropic of Capricorn? Since the Amutetikam languages aren't very complete, what language family should we use as a reference?)
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
loglorn
mayan
mayan
Posts: 1997
Joined: Mon 17 Mar 2014, 03:22

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by loglorn » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 03:24

We don't have the sky around Teles mapped out, should we map it? If we don't, in what other basis can the tropics be named?

(I did the climate map under the assumption that our map ends at 70 degrees N and S. Is that still a thing?)
Diachronic Conlanging is the path to happiness, given time. [;)]

Gigxkpoyan Languages: CHÍFJAEŚÍ RETLA TLAPTHUV DÄLDLEN CJUŚËKNJU ṢATT

Other langs: Søsøzatli Kamëzet
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 08:40

loglorn wrote:We don't have the sky around Teles mapped out, should we map it? If we don't, in what other basis can the tropics be named?

(I did the climate map under the assumption that our map ends at 70 degrees N and S. Is that still a thing?)
It would be super cool to make a star map but that's kinda beyond me at the moment— lol.

I think it makes sense to assume that the map ends at 70 degrees. It's in Mercator I think so the extreme latitudes would be really distorted anyway.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 10:18

Here's a full-planet language map as of 10000BK. The new language groups in north-central Amutet between Amutetikam and Tiledem are other Amutetikam-Tiledem languages that were eventually driven to extinction by other groups, such as Ulitan and even Amutetikam and Tiledem themselves.

I feel like Amutet in general is a place where there would be a large degree of linguistic diversity with lots of small groups. Amalan and Avesta are much more unforgiving in terms of climate, and the islands are more inaccessible. I'm also curious to see what languages might have been in southern Amutet before Akuriga languages take over.

The mountainous area where Proto-Songke is spoken seems to be an area of particular diversity amid the erratic terrain. I've already planned several descendants of Proto-Songke which are spoken in highly specific location within this area— should be putting info on those up pretty soon. We also have the distant ancestors of the Handapachi and Zempachi languages, which pretty much just stayed in the same place for thousands of years. I guess the real-world analogue of this area, then, would be the Ethiopian Highlands, a center of much diversity in the Afro-Asiatic and Nilo-Saharan language families.

Image
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by qwed117 » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 19:52

loglorn wrote:We don't have the sky around Teles mapped out, should we map it? If we don't, in what other basis can the tropics be named?

(I did the climate map under the assumption that our map ends at 70 degrees N and S. Is that still a thing?)
Since we relied on your map for mostly everything, yes.
Nice new signature, Smappy [:)]
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by eldin raigmore » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 23:35

Did we ever say what the planet's axial tilt is?
Is it 20 degrees? (a bit less than Earth's 23.5 degrees)
Are the polar circles ("Arctic" and "Antarctic", or whatever they ought to be named) at 70 degrees North and 70 degrees South latitude, respectively? (a bit closer to the poles than Earth's 66.5 degrees N and S)
Are the tropics at 20 degrees North and 20 degrees South latitudes, respectively? (A bit closer to the equator than Earth's 23.5 degrees N and S).

If it is 20 degrees, that means each Temperate Zone will be 50 degrees-of-latitude wide; wider than Earth's 43.5 degrees.

Have we decided on things like:
How fast the poles precess? (Earth's precess about once every 26,000 years, IIANM.) (This will have an effect on Ice Ages: because one of the causes of Ice Ages is whether the hemisphere with more land has its summer or its winter at perihelion.)
The range through which the axis nutates (nods)? This will have an effect on Ice Ages, for instance. (Earth's axis nutates through a range about 100 minutes wide (3 ⅓ degrees), IIRC). When the axis tilts more, that makes the polar zone wider. For instance, when Earth's axial tilt is at a max, its polar zones have a radius 100 nautical miles wider (IIRC); since this girdles the poles, that's a hell of a lot more area that's polar when the tilt is at its max than when the tilt is at its min.
How fast, and by how much, the orbit's eccentricity* changes? When the orbit is at its maximum eccentricity, the perihelion will be closer to the sun and the aphelion will be further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects stronger; when the eccentricity is at a minimum, the perihelion will be not that much closer to the sun and the aphelion will be not that much further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects weaker.
(I believe those are called "the Milankovich variations" or something like that.)

The higher the axial tilt is, the more difference those "Milankovich variations" (if that's what they are) will make.

*Btw did we ever explicitly decide what the planet's orbital eccentricity is? Earth's is about 1%, Mars's is about 10%, IIRC. ISTR Earth's eccentricity varies about once every 100,000 years, but I don't know by how much.
User avatar
qwed117
mongolian
mongolian
Posts: 4298
Joined: Thu 20 Nov 2014, 02:27

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by qwed117 » Tue 07 Apr 2015, 23:47

eldin raigmore wrote:Did we ever say what the planet's axial tilt is?
Is it 20 degrees? (a bit less than Earth's 23.5 degrees)
Are the polar circles ("Arctic" and "Antarctic", or whatever they ought to be named) at 70 degrees North and 70 degrees South latitude, respectively? (a bit closer to the poles than Earth's 66.5 degrees N and S)
Are the tropics at 20 degrees North and 20 degrees South latitudes, respectively? (A bit closer to the equator than Earth's 23.5 degrees N and S).

If it is 20 degrees, that means each Temperate Zone will be 50 degrees-of-latitude wide; wider than Earth's 43.5 degrees.

Have we decided on things like:
How fast the poles precess? (Earth's precess about once every 26,000 years, IIANM.) (This will have an effect on Ice Ages: because one of the causes of Ice Ages is whether the hemisphere with more land has its summer or its winter at perihelion.)
The range through which the axis nutates (nods)? This will have an effect on Ice Ages, for instance. (Earth's axis nutates through a range about 100 minutes wide (3 ⅓ degrees), IIRC). When the axis tilts more, that makes the polar zone wider. For instance, when Earth's axial tilt is at a max, its polar zones have a radius 100 nautical miles wider (IIRC); since this girdles the poles, that's a hell of a lot more area that's polar when the tilt is at its max than when the tilt is at its min.
How fast, and by how much, the orbit's eccentricity* changes? When the orbit is at its maximum eccentricity, the perihelion will be closer to the sun and the aphelion will be further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects stronger; when the eccentricity is at a minimum, the perihelion will be not that much closer to the sun and the aphelion will be not that much further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects weaker.
(I believe those are called "the Milankovich variations" or something like that.)

The higher the axial tilt is, the more difference those "Milankovich variations" (if that's what they are) will make.

*Btw did we ever explicitly decide what the planet's orbital eccentricity is? Earth's is about 1%, Mars's is about 10%, IIRC. ISTR Earth's eccentricity varies about once every 100,000 years, but I don't know by how much.
Just go with earthling extimates [;)]
Spoiler:
My minicity is Zyphrazia and Novland
What is made of man will crumble away.
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 00:26

eldin raigmore wrote:Did we ever say what the planet's axial tilt is?
Is it 20 degrees? (a bit less than Earth's 23.5 degrees)
Are the polar circles ("Arctic" and "Antarctic", or whatever they ought to be named) at 70 degrees North and 70 degrees South latitude, respectively? (a bit closer to the poles than Earth's 66.5 degrees N and S)
Are the tropics at 20 degrees North and 20 degrees South latitudes, respectively? (A bit closer to the equator than Earth's 23.5 degrees N and S).

If it is 20 degrees, that means each Temperate Zone will be 50 degrees-of-latitude wide; wider than Earth's 43.5 degrees.

Have we decided on things like:
How fast the poles precess? (Earth's precess about once every 26,000 years, IIANM.) (This will have an effect on Ice Ages: because one of the causes of Ice Ages is whether the hemisphere with more land has its summer or its winter at perihelion.)
The range through which the axis nutates (nods)? This will have an effect on Ice Ages, for instance. (Earth's axis nutates through a range about 100 minutes wide (3 ⅓ degrees), IIRC). When the axis tilts more, that makes the polar zone wider. For instance, when Earth's axial tilt is at a max, its polar zones have a radius 100 nautical miles wider (IIRC); since this girdles the poles, that's a hell of a lot more area that's polar when the tilt is at its max than when the tilt is at its min.
How fast, and by how much, the orbit's eccentricity* changes? When the orbit is at its maximum eccentricity, the perihelion will be closer to the sun and the aphelion will be further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects stronger; when the eccentricity is at a minimum, the perihelion will be not that much closer to the sun and the aphelion will be not that much further from the sun, making the Ice Age effects weaker.
(I believe those are called "the Milankovich variations" or something like that.)

The higher the axial tilt is, the more difference those "Milankovich variations" (if that's what they are) will make.

*Btw did we ever explicitly decide what the planet's orbital eccentricity is? Earth's is about 1%, Mars's is about 10%, IIRC. ISTR Earth's eccentricity varies about once every 100,000 years, but I don't know by how much.
Wow. This is really comprehensive. You obviously know your stuff! [:D] I know very little about this topic and tbh neither do most people working on Teles, I think. I don't think any of these topics have ever been broached before let alone discussed in any detail.

Ok. Did Wikipedia research.

Since we haven't factored any climate changes in at all I don't think the precession of the poles should be very fast because otherwise we have to redo a ton of history. Maybe a scale of 50,000 to 60,000 years would account for this. Alternatively, perhaps the Milankovich cycles are so minimal that the planet never experiences much climate change at all. A final factor is the nutation of the axes: if the planet doesn't wobble much, the Ice Age might not happen either.

Personally, I think that low change in eccentricity, slow precession of the poles, and minimal nutation of the axes would all be realistic together, maybe:

eccentricity: 0.001±0.0001 over a cycle of 100,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 0.0019±0.012 over a cycle of 100,000 years)
axial tilt: 30±0.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 23.3±1.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years)
axial precession: cycle of 50,000 years (as opposed to Earth's cycle of 26,000 years)

And ultimately the lack of dramatic climate change could be explained by a solar system with few other planets and only one small moon of Teles.

To be honest, because the maps are all in the Mercator projection, I think the tropics might actually be farther apart than that of Earth— maybe even like 30° or so! On the other hand, that would mean that the Arctic Circle would live at about 60°, which seems kind of low to me, but could definitely work well. Each temperate zone would only be about 30 degrees wide but that's probably fine.

Thanks eldin raigmore for bringing up these important points! [:D]

Also, here's an interesting article about the effects of axial tilt on climate.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 01:24

smappy wrote:…. I know very little about this topic and tbh neither do most people working on Teles, I think. I don't think any of these topics have ever been broached before let alone discussed in any detail. ….
OTOH we have had four posts about plate tectonics. So we're not really oversimplifying, IMO.

smappy wrote:Since we haven't factored any climate changes in at all I don't think the precession of the poles should be very fast because otherwise we have to redo a ton of history. Maybe a scale of 50,000 to 60,000 years would account for this. Alternatively, perhaps the Milankovich cycles are so minimal that the planet never experiences much climate change at all. A final factor is the nutation of the axes: if the planet doesn't wobble much, the Ice Age might not happen either.

Personally, I think that low change in eccentricity, slow precession of the poles, and minimal nutation of the axes would all be realistic together.
For all l know they would be realistic. (For that matter, for all I know they might not be. I admit to having more ignorance than I need. [:(] )

But I don't think that a 26,000-year "precession of the Zodiac" is necessarily a problem with a 100,000-year history+legend (more than ten times as long as Earth's).
That'd just mean that the poles have precessed almost 4 times since the earliest historic-ish knowledge-oid.
Don't you think that'd be OK? Maybe it wouldn't.

Also, if the axis nutates just a little bit (say, 10 minutes instead of 100 minutes), I'm not sure it would be a problem for it to have made two or three (or even eight or nine) "complete nods" during the entire 100,000-year span of the project. (If I'm correctly remembering the time-span of the project?). (I don't remember how often Earth nutates, and I haven't been able to look it up recently.)

"Enough to notice" might be less than "enough to cause an Ice Age". Also, what the con-people call an "Ice Age" might not be as severe as what we Earthlings call an "Ice Age". It just means the glaciers advance further from the poles/closer to the Equator than they do at other times; how much further may depend; it may not be much further at all by Earth standards, but the people who inhabit the land they advance over and retreat from will definitely refer to "Ice Ages" or their languages' equivalent.

The less eccentric the orbit is, the less all of this matters. The distance from planet to star at periastron is almost the same as that at apastron if the eccentricity is really low. Perhaps the eccentricity varies between .09% and .11% instead of between, say, 0.5% and 1.5% (or whatever Earth's actual variation is).
Anyway, if the eccentricity changes only once every 200,000-or-so years, it can have gone between its extremes only once in the entire 100-kiloyear span of the project (again, do I have that time-span correct?).

In Earth's history before 1900, climate change has played a part. We've had the "Little Ice Age" and the "Little Climatic Optimum", and the "Fimbulwinter", and so on; the "Justinian Plague" and the "Irish Potato Famine", among other events, were due to naturally-caused climate change.
For that matter, the founding of the civilization(s) of the Nile was probably driven by a natural climate-change; at least, according to some scholars' widely-respected opinions.

Remember Earth's last Ice Age ended about 11,000 years BCE or 13,000 years BP. If the cycle on the project planet is 8 times as long as that, their last Ice Age will have ended 4,000 years before the beginning of the project's timespan

The lower the axial tilt the less effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the axial tilt is 20 degrees they'll be less strong than on Earth, where the axial tilt is (currently) 23.5 degrees IIANM.
OTOH, the higher the axial tilt the more effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the axial tilt is 30 degrees they'll be stronger than on Earth.

Similarly, lower the orbital eccentricity the less effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the eccentricity is more like 0.1% than like 1% they'll be less strong than on Earth.
OTOH, the higher the eccentricty the more effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the eccentricity is more like 10% than like 1% they'll be stronger than on Earth.
smappy wrote:And ultimately the lack of dramatic climate change could be explained by a solar system with few other planets ....
Well, you probably need at least two "gas giants" or "Jovian" or "major" planets, in order for the "rocky" planets to have stable orbits.
But if they have predictable and well-behaved orbits (say, less eccentric than Real-Life's Jupiter's and Saturn's), and are further enough from Teles's "Sun" than Teles is, and the angles between their orbital planes and Teles's is small (say, a lot less than 8 degrees -- maybe 1 degree?), then, (given I don't really know the celestial mechanics behind the Milankovich (?) variation in the Earth's eccentricity), maybe that would mean Teles's eccentricity varied less, and less rapidly, than Earth's.
smappy wrote:…. and only one small moon of Teles.
And you probably need a (relatively) big moon (satellite-mass to planet-mass ratio more like Luna to Earth and less like Phobos to Mars) to have the planet's axial tilt stay stable.
(I think it's accepted, more or less, that Mars has "flipped" -- or had major, non-periodic changes in its axial tilt -- because Phobos and Deimos aren't massive enough to help it "keep its balance".)
So Teles' single moon might be smaller than Earth's single moon, but it shouldn't be too much smaller. Unless someone (for instance, me) is wrong about something.

smappy wrote:To be honest, because the maps are all in the Mercator projection, I think the tropics might actually be farther apart than that of Earth— maybe even like 30 degrees or so! On the other hand, that would mean that the Arctic Circle would live at about 60 degrees, which seems kind of low to me, but could definitely work well. Each temperate zone would only be about 30 degrees wide but that's probably fine.
Remember, though, that if the tropic circles are 30 degrees from the equator and the polar circles are 30 degrees from the poles, that means the axial tilt must be 30 degrees. That would increase the effect of nutation, of precession, and of the variation of the planet's orbital eccentricity, on the climate of the planet.

It might be fun to have a big tropic belt 60 degrees wide, and big polar zones 30 degrees in radius, and thin temperate zones only 30 degrees wide.
You just have to remember that that co-requires a 30-degree axial tilt. That'll mean dramatic differences between summer and winter, compared to Earth, regardless of any "Milankovich variations". (As well as increased influence of these "Milankovich" parameters -- assuming, still, that I've remembered the terminology correctly.)
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 03:26

eldin raigmore wrote:
...But I don't think that a 26,000-year "precession of the Zodiac" is necessarily a problem with a 100,000-year history+legend (more than ten times as long as Earth's).
That'd just mean that the poles have precessed almost 4 times...

...The less eccentric the orbit is, the less all of this matters. The distance from planet to star at periastron is almost the same as that at apastron if the eccentricity is really low. Perhaps the eccentricity varies between .09% and .11% instead of between, say, 0.5% and 1.5% (or whatever Earth's actual variation is)...Remember Earth's last Ice Age ended about 11,000 years BCE or 13,000 years BP. If the cycle on the project planet is 8 times as long as that, their last Ice Age will have ended 4,000 years before the beginning of the project's timespan...

The lower the axial tilt the less effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the axial tilt is 20 degrees they'll be less strong than on Earth, where the axial tilt is (currently) 23.5 degrees IIANM. OTOH, the higher the axial tilt the more effect all these things will have on the climate; so if the axial tilt is 30 degrees they'll be stronger than on Earth.

...Well, you probably need at least two "gas giants" or "Jovian" or "major" planets, in order for the "rocky" planets to have stable orbits...

...So Teles' single moon might be smaller than Earth's single moon, but it shouldn't be too much smaller...
I think we're going for at most a 20,000 year history so that changes the timeframe a little bit.

The numbers I proposed were:
eccentricity: 0.001±0.0001 over a cycle of 100,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 0.0019±0.012 over a cycle of 100,000 years)
axial tilt: 30±0.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 23.3±1.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years)
axial precession: cycle of 50,000 years (as opposed to Earth's cycle of 26,000 years)

I'm not sure how this would change the timeframe too dramatically but we could always go for an Earthlike model for the time scale, just with smaller climate variation overall.

I think having a 30-degree axial tilt would be fairly reasonable, although 25 would be more Earthlike.

Your points about why we need a single large moon and multiple large planets make sense, though I'm still a little unclear personally as to why we can't have a system with Teles, the sun, and a single large gas giant.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
User avatar
Ahzoh
korean
korean
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sun 20 Oct 2013, 01:57
Location: Tom-ʾEzru lit Yat-Vṛḵažu

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by Ahzoh » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 05:41

I have all the diachronics for Hasjakam to Modern Vrkhazhian as well as for diachronics between Mod. Vrkhazhian two major dialects, Uzerian "The Political Dialect" and Mukhebic "The Trade Dialect". Much thanks from the help of Sangi and Vokzhen.
Image Ӯсцӣ (Onschen) [ CWS ]
Image ʾEšd Yatvṛḵažaẇ (Vrkhazhian) [ WIKI | CWS ]
User avatar
eldin raigmore
fire
fire
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat 14 Aug 2010, 18:38
Location: SouthEast Michigan

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by eldin raigmore » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 18:04

smappy wrote:I think we're going for at most a 20,000 year history so that changes the timeframe a little bit.
Yes; twice as long as real-life, rather than ten times as long.
smappy wrote:The numbers I proposed were:
eccentricity: 0.001±0.0001 over a cycle of 100,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 0.0019±0.012 over a cycle of 100,000 years)
axial tilt: 30±0.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 23.3±1.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years)
axial precession: cycle of 50,000 years (as opposed to Earth's cycle of 26,000 years)
Thanks!
smappy wrote:I'm not sure how this would change the timeframe too dramatically but we could always go for an Earthlike model for the time scale, just with smaller climate variation overall.
Yes, the Milankovich cycles would be much less influential; so the amplitude of the total change would be much smaller.
Two of the cycles would be just like Earth's; only the precession cycle would be almost twice as long.
smappy wrote:I think having a 30-degree axial tilt would be fairly reasonable, although 25 would be more Earthlike.
IMO it's your decision, unless many of the other posters to this thread disagree with you.
smappy wrote:Your points about why we need a single large moon and multiple large planets make sense,

Thanks!
smappy wrote:though I'm still a little unclear personally as to why we can't have a system with Teles, the sun, and a single large gas giant.
If I remember correctly -- and maybe I don't -- this is an empirical observation; no system with rocky planets in stable orbits has been found that has fewer than two gas giants, but no-one is (or, rather, was) certain why theory would say that has to be. (Someone may have such a theory now, but they haven't told me about it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth ... of_planets says something about this idea, but I suppose you'd have to find out yourself why it's in there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth ... able_orbit explains why whatever gas-giants there are must have orbital planes not too inclined relative to the habitable planet's orbital plane; and must have orbits sufficiently further away from the sun than the habitable planet's.
But note that not everyone believes the "Rare Earth hypothesis".

Actually ISTR the same is probably true of having a relatively large moon. Every planet in our Solar system that doesn't have a relatively large moon, for which evidence of its axial-tilt history has been gathered, seems to have had large, unsystematic changes; while those that do have such a moon, as near as we can tell, have had a stable axis. Although FAIK by now someone has a theory why that has to be so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth ... large_moon talks about that idea.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_ ... upiters.22 seems to suggest doubt that a system with a habitable planet needs even one gas-giant.
User avatar
smappy
cuneiform
cuneiform
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat 28 Feb 2015, 01:58

Re: Diachronic Conlanging open world

Post by smappy » Wed 08 Apr 2015, 19:38

eldin raigmore wrote:
smappy wrote:I think having a 30-degree axial tilt would be fairly reasonable, although 25 would be more Earthlike.
IMO it's your decision, unless many of the other posters to this thread disagree with you.

Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_ ... upiters.22 seems to suggest doubt that a system with a habitable planet needs even one gas-giant.
Is 30 degrees of axial tilt okay with everyone?
smappy wrote: eccentricity: 0.001±0.0001 over a cycle of 100,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 0.0019±0.012 over a cycle of 100,000 years)
axial tilt: 30±0.2° over a cycle of 50,000 years (as opposed to Earth's 23.3±1.2° over a cycle of 41,000 years)
axial precession: cycle of 50,000 years (as opposed to Earth's cycle of 26,000 years)
I guess these numbers are okay then? Anyone disagree?

Apparently this article also suggests that we'd do just fine without Jupiter— I think maybe for the Teles system we only need one gas giant, or maybe several that are just a little farther out. On the other hand we might need more rocky planets if this is so. The article mentioned that without the gravitational field of Jupiter, the asteroid belt would probably have become a single rocky planet.

Maybe: sun, rocky planet, Teles, rocky planet, distant gas planet(s) (like two maybe) and Teles has one Moon-size moon. What are people's opinions?

Also thanks eldin raigmore for bringing up these important points! [<3]
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world...

Languages: English, Mandarin, Basque, Durv Mendỹ, Shanghainese
Visit Teles! And join the project!
Post Reply