Yes.Is your language at the hump of Avesta?
Do you have the phonology for South Akuriga, now Akorup?I'm fine with that arrangement
Guys, I have a radical idea, we split North and South Amutet, so that the continents correspond with the landforms.
Yes.Is your language at the hump of Avesta?
Do you have the phonology for South Akuriga, now Akorup?I'm fine with that arrangement
Guys, I have a radical idea, we split North and South Amutet, so that the continents correspond with the landforms.
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 alveopalatalsopipik wrote:Do you have the phonology for South Akuriga, now Akorup?
Hi opipik, welcome to Teles! I'll add proto-Kuruk to the next incarnation of the language map.opipik wrote:So not, Proto-Kuruk is here:
But I'll save that South Akuriga for later, can I?
If yes, it'll be named Akorup.
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.
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)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
to something like: (I really don't know how the guy who did the old image got all those shades)
I want to pull off some mongol-like-horse-nomad culture later, and i need plains.
All fine and dandy.smappy wrote:Hi opipik, welcome to Teles! I'll add proto-Kuruk to the next incarnation of the language map.opipik wrote:So not, Proto-Kuruk is here:
But I'll save that South Akuriga for later, can I?
If yes, it'll be named Akorup.
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.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)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
to something like: (I really don't know how the guy who did the old image got all those shades)
I want to pull off some mongol-like-horse-nomad culture later, and i need plains.
Spoiler:
That's super cool! Although I like freehanding personally too. I sent a message to Felbah asking him what seed he used.qwed117 wrote:Just a note, the map was probably created fromthis fractal terrain generator
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.smappy wrote:That's super cool! Although I like freehanding personally too. I sent a message to Felbah asking him what seed he used.qwed117 wrote:Just a note, the map was probably created fromthis fractal terrain generator
Here's latitude— is it reasonably accurate? The lines are the Equator, the Tropic of Cancer, and the Tropic of Capricorn.
Spoiler:
loglorn wrote:One can see i've had free time.
Behold the More-or-less decent climate map for Teles:
It would be super cool to make a star map but that's kinda beyond me at the moment— lol.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.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?)
Just go with earthling extimateseldin 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! 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.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.
OTOH we have had four posts about plate tectonics. So we're not really oversimplifying, IMO.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. ….
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. )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.
Well, you probably need at least two "gas giants" or "Jovian" or "major" planets, in order for the "rocky" planets to have stable orbits.smappy wrote:And ultimately the lack of dramatic climate change could be explained by a solar system with few other planets ....
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.smappy wrote:…. and only one small moon of Teles.
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.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.
I think we're going for at most a 20,000 year history so that changes the timeframe a little bit.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...
Yes; twice as long as real-life, rather than ten times as long.smappy wrote:I think we're going for at most a 20,000 year history so that changes the timeframe a little bit.
Thanks!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)
Yes, the Milankovich cycles would be much less influential; so the amplitude of the total change would be much smaller.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.
IMO it's your decision, unless many of the other posters to this thread disagree with you.smappy wrote:I think having a 30-degree axial tilt would be fairly reasonable, although 25 would be more Earthlike.
smappy wrote:Your points about why we need a single large moon and multiple large planets make sense,
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.)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.
Is 30 degrees of axial tilt okay with everyone?eldin raigmore wrote:IMO it's your decision, unless many of the other posters to this thread disagree with you.smappy wrote:I think having a 30-degree axial tilt would be fairly reasonable, although 25 would be more Earthlike.
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.
I guess these numbers are okay then? Anyone disagree?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)