Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
If the game was being realistic, there would be zero planets around black holes and neutron stars because the supernova which formed those would wipe out any nearby planets. (Although it is not impossible that over time an exoplanet or two might be captured and gravitationally bound into an orbit.)
You have hundreds of planets available in a 64-system cluster.
You don't need to build everything on a single planet, and the starting system is carefully designed so that you will need to harvest resources from more than just the homeworld.
A supernova doesn’t just blow away all planets - it depends on the planets orbit and mass. And planets can also be captured.
Pulsars are neutron stars… and it did have multiple planets.
Check your facts before talking… or people will call out your bs.
Extremely supermassive black holes might be able to support a "blanet". (Wikipedia: A blanet is a member of a hypothetical class of exoplanets that directly orbit black holes.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar_planet
"They are extremely rare, with only half a dozen listed by the NASA Exoplanet Archive. Only special processes can give rise to planet-sized companions around pulsars, and many are thought to be exotic bodies, such as planets made of diamond, that were formed through the partial destruction of a companion star. The intense radiation and winds consisting of electron-positron pairs would tend to strip atmospheres away from such planets, thus making them unlikely abodes for life."
...and the specific pulsar you mention:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PSR_B1257%2B12
"The planets are believed to be the result of a second round of planetary system formation as a result of two white dwarfs merging with each other into a pulsar and a resulting disk of material in orbit around the star."
This isn't a case of any planets in the system before the supernova surviving, but a merger of two white dwarf systems. Either that pulled in some exoplanets, or the shockwave of the pulsar formation caused a second round of accretion.
Out of 1000 exoplanets, 999 are found orbiting main sequence stars.
1 out of 1000 exoplanets might be found around a neutron star or pulsar.
0 out of 1000 exoplanets can be found orbiting a black hole.
Your turn: how many of the ~2000 known neutron stars have planets in orbit?
Since this is a game, it's an acceptable stretch to have what we already do. Adding more planets/planet types would take it too far though, even if it would be convenient.
That said, we also believe that rogue planets may outnumber planets in systems significantly (there may be TRILLIONS), and we know that captured bodies can occur. It's highly likely that many of them are simply too small for us to detect easily--even something larger than Earth could still be nearly impossible to spot, whether in or out of a system, unless the conditions are quite favorable! As such, it's quite hard for us to actually argue about likelihood. Especially when there are a lot of cases of suspected captured planets.
There is only one known supermassive black hole in our galaxy and intermediate mass black holes are so rare (detection wise) that we actually wondered if they even existed. Particularly large black holes actually do have a less sharp gravity well thanks to the way gravity follows the inverse-square law and how the Schwarzchild radius outpaces black hole mass (a more intuitive planetary example of this is how, if you were at 1 bar of pressure in Saturn's atmosphere, the gravity would feel very similar to Earth's surface gravity, despite Saturn being way more massive). Most black holes we see are only a bit higher in stellar mass than the sun, and so long as a planet orbited far enough out, their orbit would be almost entirely undisturbed, but also incredibly difficult to see if it wasn't positioned perfectly. So long as the planet ends up captured in an orbit that stays away from the ergosphere, it's honestly probably just going to be totally fine, and tidal forces may even allow some to be heated enough internally for life-giving processes if they were, say, an icy rogue planet that got captured.
As a note, contrary to popular belief, it's not exactly easy to just fall into a black hole. All your momentum relative to the black hole doesn't just get canceled out, so there's tons of ways a body could easily end up captured without being under threat. Earth is always falling towards the sun technically, but it has so much relative momentum that it just stays orbiting. If the sun was suddenly replaced by a black hole of the same size, nothing would really change for our orbit, either (we're too far out, though yeah we'd die obviously from lack of sunlight). If it was a cthonian planet that survived the death of the original star, it'd also just sort of stay a safe distance out more likely than not, or even get nudged further back from the happening.
All that is to say: space is weird, scientists argue over this stuff all the time and keep finding things that surprise them, and I absolutely wouldn't write it off. There's no harm in wishing there was more creativity in a game that delves so far into speculative nature to begin with:
-magnetic monopoles
-string theory references about manipulating strings to get an effect
-"casimir crystals"
-zero point energy that can actually be harvested for work
-a mech that needs to eat randomly existing wood at the start of the game but has mining laser tech???
-photon combiners (photons don't work that way)
-space warpers
-etc
So... Lighten up a little and have fun learning what could be instead of going 'that's not realistic' when we're effectively gods of the universe that somehow have to feed our mechs with random ass normal wood we find on a starter planet before remembering how to warp space and time itself. More variety would be fun.
i love one planet systems after the dark fog update. It is much more simple to farm the fog on one planet without the need to protect anything else.
That said, planets with life are great and all but I want to see diamond planet in game.
This is true, but an absence of data does not justify claiming that Russell's teapot must be in orbit around every black hole or neutron star.
The burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others.
Who is "we"? Are you an astronomer?
This isn't correct. Most of the known black holes are supermassive black holes. We know of about half as many stellar mass black holes, all of which are ~3 Msol or larger, and we also know of about 8 intermediate mass black holes.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_black_holes
This is actually wrong. Photon combiners exist and are routinely used in lasers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_frequency_multiplier
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-harmonic_generation
Yes, DSP is a game, and the devs are welcome to make changes from realism for the sake of gameplay, which they are already doing by ensuring that every system in the cluster has at least one planet. They also generate clusters with multiple O-class stars making them comprise ~5% of the stars rather than a more realistic 1 in 3,000,000.
Human stupidity truly has no end...
Even if those 100 really did have no planets - and they do have planets - is 100 a sufficient sample size when you are talking about billions of black holes in our galaxy alone?
We haven't observed exoplanets around black holes because both the transit method and the radial velocity method depend on measuring a stars light ...
You might have noticed that black holes are not as bright as stars... and neither are you.
The roche limit - the distance where tidal disruption occurs is for the earth and the sun somewhere between the suns surface and mercurys orbit. So the sun would tidally disrupt earth if it orbits too close.
How can I be so specific? Because I understand this stuff, much much better than you do.
If you replaced the sun, with an equal mass black hole, then its roche limit would be EXACTLY at the same distance. Earth at its current distance of 1AU would keep orbiting the black hole exactly like it did the sun... 1 orbit every 365.24 days. In fact all planets would do so - even mercury. I did not google that ♥♥♥♥ up... i have that stuff in my head.
A solar mass black hole would be less than 10km in diameter... i can walk that distance in a day... that is millions of times smaller than the sun. Only if you get closer to the black hole than where the suns surface would be, will you notice ANY DIFFERENCE in gravitational pull. Outside the suns surface, the gravity of a solar mass BH and the sun is IDENTICAL.
The special thing about black holes is NOT that they are heavy... its that they are dense and small for their mass... so you can get much closer to them than you could with an ordinary object with the same mass.
I hate you. I honestly and truly hate you with the fire of a thousand suns.
As for the sample size, if you have a population of 10 billion and you want the standard 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error, the sample size needed is 97.
I used https://www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/, but feel free to double-check with another sample size calculator.
As I noted above in #9, "The burden of proof lies upon a person making empirically unfalsifiable claims, as opposed to shifting the burden of disproof to others."
I think you're adorable when you try to be spicy.
How much does an intermediate black hole weigh compared to the sun?
I read Robert L. Forward's Rocheworld in 1984 when it first came out forty year ago.
Unless you are over fifty yourself, I have t-shirts which are older than you are.
Should I care?
I don't, since nothing you've said to date inspires confidence in your opinions.
As far as the black hole knowledge bit goes, I was overly vague, and you were correct to call that out. I meant most black holes that we can detect within a single galaxy. Yes, we know more supermassive black holes due to the number of galaxies and how commonly they are at the center, but very, very few candidates have multiple (which is a bit confusing thanks to the final parsec problem) and how few observable binaries we find). Meanwhile, every single intermediate black hole we've even possibly detected is outside of our galaxy, and each one listed there was a mere candidate that has not been proven yet (though some are more likely than others). They are almost bizarrely rare and/or difficult to detect.
Meanwhile, we've found dozens of stellar mass black holes, obviously including within our own galaxy. So I stand by that. We've detected only a small number within our galaxy (~50 confirmed or candidates), but think there could easily be over a hundred million. If we include black holes in other galaxies, they are even HARDER to detect planets around (currently impossible past a certain distance). We lack much in the way of data as a result. We have detected extremely few extragalactic exoplanets even around stars, but that does NOT tell us that they are rare, for instance. You're speaking as though we can conclude ANYTHING meaningful about the samples being discussed when we can't. Your confidence interval argument would be valid if we could draw conclusions, but we cannot.
I also stand by everything stated by both me and by the other person you replied to regarding orbital mechanics. The reply about the roche limit of an intermediate mass black hole is a bizarre one to me. Intermediate mass black holes have such a deep gravity well that things can become trapped in their orbit very far from the roche limit. The roche limit of any body is extremely close compared to said body's safe orbit zone. There is a reason that scientists suggested there could be thousands of planets in orbit around even just a single supermassive black hole.
You're using a lack of data for or against to state that it is unlikely, which, in this case, is the same thing as using the lack of data to claim that it's proof in a god-of-the-gaps like argument; since our detection methods are incredibly poor for working with black holes, they tell us extremely little regarding the status of any potential system around them. In absence of data that actually tells us something, we can only discuss theory. To say that there aren't any because our crappy detection methods cannot detect them is very similar to saying anything we can't see doesn't exist, which is silly. We cannot make any conclusive statements regarding "blanets", positive or negative against them. Theory certainly suggests they CAN exist, which suggests that they do, but gives us little info otherwise when there are so many other unknowns and guesses in the picture.
If you want to argue data, you have to look at what the data actually pertains to. In this case, the data only pertains to the idea that our detection methods are insufficient due to the laws of physics making it quite difficult to use them to detect black hole planets.
We DO have information regarding pulsar planets, though pulsars themselves are extremely rare since the neutron stars have to be beaming straight at us to be considered a pulsar. Pulsars are so sensitive to planets that it's very easy to pick them up, thus why the first exoplanet detected was one. Pulsars are extremely rare (only maybe around 2,000, compared to maybe a billion neutron stars in our galaxy). As such, it seems like the incidence is probably 1:200 for a neutron star of similar conditions, which is far less common than stars in general with planets, I'll give you that! IF similar processes exclude black hole planets, then we would see a similar incidence, but that might not be, since some core collapses release extremely little mass compared to other supernovae and since neutron stars can be exceptionally violent, whereas black holes are just sorta... there.
We used to think that exceptionally large stars couldn't form or keep planets easily, but have found that even they have planets from capture or formation, with no conclusive idea yet about why. Also some of our detection methods are crap for finding planets around particularly large stars too since they orbit so far out (like 100 AU+).
Either way, it's fun to have discussions like this.
Considering that I provided a citation to the list of known and likely candidates for black holes in #9, this point is not in dispute.
It is reasonable to conclude that if many nearby systems have a bunch of planets, that will be true elsewhere.
This is an appeal to ignorance. All of the stellar mass black holes which are nearby and can be observed reasonably well have a companion star that allows us to infer the presence and properties of the black hole.
We ought to notice light curve changes associated with sufficiently massive planets from those systems if those planets exist. That's not certain, but the longer we observe those systems, the further we constrain what is possible.
Here's a fairly recent article about the closest ten black holes:
https://www.astronomy.com/science/tour-10-of-the-closest-black-holes-to-earth/
You'll see descriptions of the various systems, but there isn't a mention of a single planet known to orbit any of these black holes. Until we observe at least one, all we can say is that none are known to exist.
So answer the question: "How much does an intermediate black hole weigh compared to the sun?"
Then consider how often such black holes experience tidal disruption events involving stars, and what the consequences of those TDEs would be upon any nearby planets which were captured or survived the original type-2 supernova which created the black hole.
Which scientists? Do they belong to the International Astronomical Union?
One scientist from Kagoshima University did indeed theorize that there could be lots of planets around a supermassive black hole at a distance of roughly 10 light years. However, those planets would likely become bound to nearby stars which are being pulled near the black hole and form “planetary systems of astonishing scale”.
Once that happens, planets which orbit a normal star which in turn orbits Sag A* are no longer in orbit around Sag A* directly. Luna orbits the Earth; it does not orbit the Sun.
He also came up with that quote before the IAU required planets to have "cleared their neighborhoods" and demoted Pluto. What he described would have more in common with a large assembly of KBOs which are loosely bound to the Sun but have not cleared their neighborhoods and do not possess long-term stable orbits. Since they are so far out, they can be nudged into a different orbit, reach escape velocity, or be captured by a nearby star easily enough.
I don't have to disprove the unknown. You have to provide at least one known example before you can freely assume that black-hole-orbiting planets are omnipresent.
Noted. And please note in turn that what I claimed was "...it is not impossible that over time an exoplanet or two might be captured and gravitationally bound into an orbit."
I didn't mind if the game chooses to make a cluster using O-class stars at a rate which is thousands of times more often then they actually exist. And I don't actually mind if the game chooses to have black hole/neutron star systems with a planet in a close circular orbit. Or even two planets, if a bit of variety would spice things up.
nice