Real Science

[tkdguy]

I have a question for you guys. How much hard science do you put in your games, especially when you build worlds? I've been trying to use scientific principles for a world I'm building. I know my astrophysics pretty well, but my knowledge of geology is rudimentary at best. Even with the websites on world building I found still don't answer all my questions.

[projecktzero]

I'm not going to put a lot of hard science in my campaign. For one thing, I don't know it very well, and my players would call me on it all the time. I don't want the science getting in the way of the fun. My campaign is going to be space opera in more ways than I'm willing to admit.

 

One thing I'd recommend is to stay consistent. If the wazoo drive needs folgers crystals as fuel, then make sure you stick to that.

[keithcurtis]

I ran a hard sci-fi game for several years. No FTL. No Artificial gravity or anti gravity for that matter. Weeks or months between planets in the same solar system. Newtonian physics for space ships. It ran quite well but took a LOT of research. FWIW, Star Hero's world building section is pretty good.

 

Keith "Solar Colonies" Curtis

[TechnoGothic]

i use Hard science like found in B5 the tv series for the Most part. Spin to create gravity, unless Highly advanced.

and part Farescape...Where i just wing it, and stay to the players, how do you know if they can or cant do this...

 

Of course, i love Advanced Species, who find the concept of a DVD/VHS players a mind boggling experiance, and think TV shows are all True Stories...

[DigitalGolem]

I'd recommend the following...

 

Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth has lots of geology/planetology info for Earth-like worlds. For other types of planets, check out Worlds Without End by John S. Lewis. Fairly dry reading, but I've found both of these to be highly useful references for world-building.

 

DG

[McCoy]

I'd recommend aginst the following...

 

Originally posted by DigitalGolem

Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth has lots of geology/planetology info for Earth-like worlds.

 

No, it doesn't. First, it is an attempt to plot a curve from a single point, always a bad idea. Second, it's creationist claptrap. William Dembski gave it a good review, which should be enough to establish it as total nonsense!

[DigitalGolem]

I'd recommend reading the book before flaming it....

 

Originally posted by McCoy

No, it doesn't. First, it is an attempt to plot a curve from a single point, always a bad idea. Second, it's creationist claptrap. William Dembski gave it a good review, which should be enough to establish it as total nonsense!

 

I think you may have been mis-informed, McCoy. I'm not a creationist, and I don't read "creationist claptrap". The authors of Rare Earth don't support creationism, either. Their book states that the earth is well over 4 billion years old, life arose from non-life over a billion years ago, and that evolution of other life forms occurred by random mutation and natural selection. They don't make any attempts to "plot a curve from a single point". On the contrary, they very carefully point out throughout the text that data on earth-like worlds is currently limited to just one example--ours. There's nothing in this book about creationism; it's about natural processes that influence the evolution of life, from the simple to the complex. It has no references to any of the usual creationist ideas; no young earth, no "special creation", no nonsense about animal "kinds", no micro- vs. macro-evolution, nor anything about "intelligent design".

 

I can't imagine why Dembski thinks this book supports any views held by creationists, but he's very mistaken. Dembski (and other creationists) have been known to mis-interpret legitimate science to serve their own purposes, and I suspect that's what he did in his "review". If you'd care to post a link to it, I'll check it out. But why would you assume a book review by Dembski would be any more truthful than anything else he's written?

 

Perhaps you ought to read this book, so we could have an informed discussion about it. Likewise, I'll read that Dembski review as soon as you post a link to it.

 

thanx heaps,

 

DGv3.0

[AlHazred]

When we run more or less normal campaigns, there seems to be a subconscious attempt to maintain some level of "real science." Part of it is probably because my group is composed primarily of engineers, computer professionals, mechanics and technicians. Another might be the fact that an overabundance of magic in a campaign causes logic and deduction to be less useful.

[McCoy]

I've read the book, and checked the references

 

[Rough Draft, will be edited later. Thank you for yourpatience.]

 

 

 

Originally posted by DigitalGolem

Perhaps you ought to read this book, so we could have an informed discussion about it. Likewise, I'll read that Dembski review as soon as you post a link to it.

 

I read the book when it first came out. I own the book. You are correct, Ward and Brownlee are not creationist. Which is what made them a perfect if unwiting Trojan Horse for "Guillermo Gonzalez [who] changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones," preface, page x.

 

Gonzalez is a creationist, intelligent design proponent, and Christian appologist. See interview.

 

Guillermo Gonzalez

[DigitalGolem]

Re: I've read the book, and checked the references

 

Originally posted by McCoy

[Rough Draft, will be edited later. Thank you for yourpatience.]

 

I read the book when it first came out. I own the book. You are correct, Ward and Brownlee are not creationist. Which is what made them a perfect if unwiting Trojan Horse for "Guillermo Gonzalez [who] changed many of our views about planets and habitable zones," preface, page x.

 

Gonzalez is a creationist, intelligent design proponent, and Christian appologist. See interview.

 

Guillermo Gonzalez

 

Glad to hear we're not debating in a total vacuum here! Interesting interview. However, nothing in it invalidates the position of Rare Earth. Gonzalez wasn't the only contributor for this book, just one of many. (Were any other creationists involved?) And in the interview you cited, he makes it clear that he disagrees with Ward and Brownlee's conclusions. There's a big difference between the book's titular "rare earth" hypothesis and Gonzalez's "unique, privileged, -had-to-be-designed-by-god-, earth" position. Ward and Brownlee used scientific work provided by a creationist, true, but they came to a completely different conclusion. It appears that Ward and Brownlee accepted Gonzalez's science, while simply rejecting his very un-scientific conclusions. I don't see how that makes them, or their work, "creationist claptrap". Nor does it fit the "trojan horse" analogy.

 

I also read Gonzalez's article on Galactic Habitable Zones in Scientific American when it came out. (and made the connection when I read the preface to Rare Earth, thank you very much:D) Apparently, S.A. reached the same conclusion as Ward and Brownlee. They published the article, without any of Gonzalez's creationist conclusions. Do you think Scientific American should have refused to publish it, based on his religious ideas? Should all of his work, and everything he to which he contributes be considered illegitimate creationist nonsense? Some creationists have falsely accused the scientific community of doing this, and I think Ward and Brownlee have helped disprove these allegations by including Gonzalez.

 

Aside from Gonzalez's contribution, are there any other creationists cited in Rare Earth? (I looked. Didn't see any, but then, I missed Gonzalez....) And even if there are, did Ward and Brownlee support creationism, or reach any creationistic conclusions? I don't think so, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

thanx heaps,

 

DGv3.0

[McCoy]

Got called away, posted last post to not lose work in progress. Was going to edit, but since it has been replied to I will just continue in a new post.

 

First, I did not say, or mean to imply, that a Christian or even Creationist cannot do good science. However, in this case Guillermo Gonzalez has a philosophical and religious investment in the Unique Earth hypothesis that I think calls his objectivity, and therefore his credability, into question.

 

As the recognized expert on galactic habitable zones, mostly because he is one of a very few working in that field, he influenced Ward and Brownlee, pushing their hypothesis toward the Unique Earth end of the spectrum.

 

Earth is unique in the solar system in several respects. It is the densest planet, it is the only one known to have plate techtonics, it has the least excentric orbit around the Sun. But some other aspects need qualification; it has the strongest magnetic field of the terrestrial planets (but not as strong as the gas giants), it has one moon (others have more, others have less).

 

At this point in time our knowledge of the solar system is incomplete. For decades it was thought that Earth was the only planet with liquid water (and this was the definition of the habitable zone). Now there is evidence of liquid water on Europa, and possibly Mars and Titan as well (which means the habitable zone is over 4 au wide, or we let Gonzalez redefine the habitable zone so that Earth is not only the only planet in it, but is in it for the life expectency of the sun).

 

The question is, which of these are necessary for complex, even intelligent, life, and which are interesting coincidences. This is where the science breaks down, and Ward and Brownlee (and probably Gonzalez) engage in speculation more worthy of philosophy than science.

 

The best example is probably Mars. Ward and Brownlee speculate that an earth-like planet will need other specific bodies in the solar system to develop complex life. In addition to the planet itself, the planet needs a moon (for several reasons), a "Jupiter" to act as a cosmic bouncer and throw unruly comets out of the solar system, and a "Mars" as "life source to seed Earth-like planet."

 

At this point in time there is no hard evidence that there was ever life on Mars (though I certainly hope there was and is), much less that Earth would be lifeless without a Martian biotransplant.

 

This is one example of a factor included on no hard evidence, apparently to make Earth even more rare, unique, and therefore proof of Divine Provedence rather than simply beating the odds.

 

There is some good science in this book, there is also too much sloppy science and wild speculation, and they are not always labeled as such. While I am sure this was not Ward and Brownlee's intent, the book does give undeserved credability to Creationist in general and the ID proponents in particular. Ward and Brownlee were suprised to learn that Gonzalez the astronomer is also Gonzalez the Christian appologist. See Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology

 

Have not been able to locate Dembski's review on line, but here are a couple of samples from other ID proponents.

 

 

http://www.newcreationism.org/RareEarth.html

 

 

 

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/RareEarthBookReview.html

[DigitalGolem]

Originally posted by McCoy

Got called away, posted last post to not lose work in progress. Was going to edit, but since it has been replied to I will just continue in a new post.

 

First, I did not say, or mean to imply, that a Christian or even Creationist cannot do good science. However, in this case Guillermo Gonzalez has a philosophical and religious investment in the Unique Earth hypothesis that I think calls his objectivity, and therefore his credability, into question.

 

As the recognized expert on galactic habitable zones, mostly because he is one of a very few working in that field, he influenced Ward and Brownlee, pushing their hypothesis toward the Unique Earth end of the spectrum.

 

Yes, I think from this point forward I'll take anything I hear from Gonzalez with a grain of salt. I give him the benefit of the doubt, concerning his work on galactic habitable zones, because: 1) I haven't yet heard of any evidence against the idea, and 2) it seems plausible that heavy elements would be more common in some parts of the galaxy than others. When/if evidence to the contrary is found, and published, I look forward to reading about it.

 

What I find incredible is that he thinks his GHZ work supports the idea of a unique earth, when actually, all it does is reduce an astronomical number of potential earth-like worlds to a smaller, but still astronomical number. Even if his work is flawless, his conclusion is delusional.

 

Where I beg to differ with you is about the "spectrum" with the Unique Earth hypothesis at one end, and (I assume) a "common earth" hypothesis at the other. I simply don't believe this is an issue, for the following reason: the number of earth-like worlds in the universe isn't the only difference, nor even the most important one, between these ideas. The real difference is in how and why earth-like world(s) exist. In the unique earth model, there can only be one Earth, period. Because creationists believe it was created/fine tuned/intelligently designed, etc. Therefore, any hypothesis that allows any statistical possibility for more than one earth-like world fundamentally disagrees with their position. And even if, somehow, valid scientific evidence made it seem likely that Earth is unique, mainstream science would still disagree with the creationist view of how and why our planet came to be. Ward and Brownlee's Rare Earth Hypothesis easily passes this test for "creationist claptrap", because it doesn't imply that Earth is necessarily unique. Nor does it advance the idea that Earth was created by anything other than natural forces, but then, we already agree on that.

 

Originally posted by McCoy

Earth is unique in the solar system in several respects. It is the densest planet, it is the only one known to have plate techtonics, it has the least excentric orbit around the Sun. But some other aspects need qualification; it has the strongest magnetic field of the terrestrial planets (but not as strong as the gas giants), it has one moon (others have more, others have less).

 

At this point in time our knowledge of the solar system is incomplete. For decades it was thought that Earth was the only planet with liquid water (and this was the definition of the habitable zone). Now there is evidence of liquid water on Europa, and possibly Mars and Titan as well (which means the habitable zone is over 4 au wide, or we let Gonzalez redefine the habitable zone so that Earth is not only the only planet in it, but is in it for the life expectency of the sun).

 

The question is, which of these are necessary for complex, even intelligent, life, and which are interesting coincidences. This is where the science breaks down, and Ward and Brownlee (and probably Gonzalez) engage in speculation more worthy of philosophy than science.

 

The best example is probably Mars. Ward and Brownlee speculate that an earth-like planet will need other specific bodies in the solar system to develop complex life. In addition to the planet itself, the planet needs a moon (for several reasons), a "Jupiter" to act as a cosmic bouncer and throw unruly comets out of the solar system, and a "Mars" as "life source to seed Earth-like planet."

 

At this point in time there is no hard evidence that there was ever life on Mars (though I certainly hope there was and is), much less that Earth would be lifeless without a Martian biotransplant.

 

This is one example of a factor included on no hard evidence, apparently to make Earth even more rare, unique, and therefore proof of Divine Provedence rather than simply beating the odds.

 

I agree that the section on Mars is wild speculation, but I haven't found any argument in Rare Earth that this is proof of "divine providence". Can you cite a page number for this?

 

Originally posted by McCoy

There is some good science in this book, there is also too much sloppy science and wild speculation, and they are not always labeled as such. While I am sure this was not Ward and Brownlee's intent, the book does give undeserved credability to Creationist in general and the ID proponents in particular.

 

I believe there are some creationists and ID proponents who think this book supports their view, but, as we both agree, Ward and Brownlee didn't intend to do so. And in reality, they haven't. Creationists have always misquoted legitimate sources, our quoted them out of context, and in this respect, Ward and Brownlee are in very good company. Gould, Dawkins, even Darwin, and many others have also been quoted out of context by creationists. And in light of that, I think it's rather unfair to criticize the authors of Rare Earth just because a few crackpots choose to mis-interpret their work.

 

Originally posted by McCoy

Ward and Brownlee were suprised to learn that Gonzalez the astronomer is also Gonzalez the Christian appologist. See Life Everywhere: The Maverick Science of Astrobiology

 

Have not been able to locate Dembski's review on line, but here are a couple of samples from other ID proponents.

 

http://www.newcreationism.org/RareEarth.html

 

http://www.creationinthecrossfire.com/Articles/RareEarthBookReview.html

 

Thanks for posting those reviews. Interestingly, the first review seems to have missed the point I was trying to make, above; there is a world of difference between "rare" and "unique". The second one, however, did notice this, and criticized the authors because Rare Earth "fails to treat perhaps the most important factor regarding life: its zero probability of origin." So apparently, not all creationists even agree this book supports their view. And at least one creationist who thinks it does support their view has failed to understand it on a very basic level.

 

While I have to agree with you that some of the science in Rare Earth is highly speculative and untested, I think that any support it gives creationism can only be described as incidental, tangential, or the result of poor reasoning by confused creationists.

 

thanx heaps,

 

DG

[McCoy]

The result of poor reasoning by confused creationists.

 

We will agree to disagree then, but I will still withhold my recomendation from anything that gives Gonzales credibility, much less gives aid and comfort to (and in their minds spports the delusions of ) the IDH proponents, however unintentionally.

 

We've discussed this throughly enough for anyone reading this thread to make an informed decision.

[Ben Seeman]

Originally posted by McCoy

We've discussed this throughly enough for anyone reading this thread to make an informed decision.

I must say, I've been following this discussion and have been fascinated not only by the topic but by the way you two (DigitalGolem and McCoy) have presented your arguments to each other. I just wish ALL participants in discussion threads were as civil as you two have been, evnthough you disagree on some major points.

 

You guys get two Hero Points each. Don't spend them all in one place.

 

And I have made an informed decision... and that decision is... I want to learn more about this.

[TheEmerged]

Speaking as the token creationist -- I figure Earth-like planets are as common as God wants them to be and leave it at that

[Dauntless]

I believe hard science is not as necessary as logical consistency and plausible deniability. Make sure that the rules of your world are always consistent (unless of course your world is highly influenced by chaos principles or other weird quantum effects like non-locality that can affect causality violations) and make it at least seem like what you are doing is possible given the defining constraints of your system.

 

When this breaks down, then our minds have trouble accepting the world we are in, and it makes for a less enjoyable experience because the feeling of immersion and believeability are lost. Science can provide a good background and I've heard it said that realistic sci-fi settings should break only one law of physics. I personally tend to prefer sci-fi settings that aren't too far in the future, so they are based on more realistic extrapolations of what we might see in the near future (about 100-200 years down the road).

 

I think the real challenge isn't so much the science and technology, but how it will affect social change. Think back even just 50 years and how the social fabric has changed thanks to technology. Think how the common pervasiveness of jet airlines, nuclear proliferation, and mass communications technology has changed the societies cultural values and outlook. This I believe is the real challenge...to make the social fabric of society fit within the framework of technological progress of the world.

 

Just as a small example, I can remember when you rarely didn't shop retail. And when you did, you had to do it through mail-order which often took a few weeks for you to get your items. Nowadays, it's often cheaper to shop online and get your item within 7-10 days (or less). I can remember going to college in the early 90's and having to wait in line to use the free public access phones....now everyone has a cell-phone to call. And if you think that's not a big deal...try living without your cell phone for a week to see how much you use it and indeed rely on it now.

[tkdguy]

Hey, I remember vinyl records and rotary dials on telphones and televisions.

 

But what I'm interested in is the world creation aspect. I'm trying to create a world where the land masses can stand continental drift and the moon isn't close enough to the world that it breaks apart and causes havoc on the world. I can do the astrophysics; the geology is still a bit out of my league.

 

I want to make a map that looks like a real world, not the stuff you see in all the fantasy games out there. Do they look good? Sure. Do they make sense scientifically speaking? Not even close.

[BlackSword]

I looked for similar programs a few months ago(to use in fantasy games too so that I have a real world). There have been several substandard programs out there that try to evolve a planet through several billion years and give the major landmasses and climates. One in particular always tended to end up with worlds that looked slightly like earth, one major continenet, two smaller continents connected by a small landmass. The authors of the program said they had difficulty with stability, and with only one data point (the Earth), its difficult to build a model of a complex system. I don't have the links with me, but I can find them and send them (or post them here) if you are interested. It seemed that most people working on world-builder software have given up, but quite a few provided information on how to do more research. If I remember right the software did not give the distance for a moon, just the landmasses, so that may be one failing.

[Ben Seeman]

Jupiter-like planet found

 

One of the attributes needed for an Earth-like planet (as stated previously) is the existence of a Jupiter-like planet in the outer reaches of the star system to deflect incoming comets and asteroids from colliding with an Earth-like planet.

 

Well, they just found a Jupiter-like planet orbiting a star. If it was in our system, it would be located between MArs and Jupiter. So there's one piece!

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/03/science.jupiter.reut/index.html

 

Granted, this doesn't mean that there is also an Earth-like planet orbiting that star, but it does at least give *some* evidence that there are other Jupiter-like planets in other star systems that could serve the same purpose that Jupiter does in our own system.

[projecktzero]

Originally posted by tkdguy

[...]

But what I'm interested in is the world creation aspect. I'm trying to create a world where the land masses can stand continental drift and the moon isn't close enough to the world that it breaks apart and causes havoc on the world. I can do the astrophysics; the geology is still a bit out of my league.

 

I want to make a map that looks like a real world, not the stuff you see in all the fantasy games out there. Do they look good? Sure. Do they make sense scientifically speaking? Not even close.

Will your players even care or notice that you spent all this time making the planet scientifically accurate? Is a significant portion of the campaign going to take place on this world? Would the time be better spent on working on adventures? Fleshing out NPC's? Is the planet a "big dumb object" and these details are important to a campaign or adventure?

[tkdguy]

Granted, the players will not notice or care much. This is a pet project, to make a world that can be played in any era, from prehistoric times to the far future. The earth has changed gradually over roughly 5 billion years. Even the land has changed over the millenia of recorded history. BTW, Shakespeare made a mistake when he wrote "constant as the pole star" in "Julius Caesar." There was no pole star at the time.

 

If the players don't care, why should I? I'm just funny that way. It's become my latest obsession. If you think I'm getting anal retentive in my old age, you're wrong. I was born anal retentive. I just took it to a whole new level. So much for mellowing...

 

And thanks for the suggestions and discussions on this board. They have been of immense help to me.

[projecktzero]

Originally posted by tkdguy

Granted, the players will not notice or care much. This is a pet project, to make a world that can be played in any era, from prehistoric times to the far future.[...]

 

On the other hand.... this kind of info could be handy for a time travel campaign.

 

If you enjoy doing this, then there really isn't a problem. I assumed incorrectly that you were stressing out over getting the world scientifically accurate.

[tkdguy]

The only stress coming out of it is not finding exactly what I need to complete it. But I think I now have everything I need. Thanks for all the input, folks!

 

Time travel is an interesting ocampaign, although I don't have that planned for now. Also, having the same group of players play in the same world at different times (different campaigns, of course). They wouldn't be able to use past knowledge about geography if the land changes over time. ("Hey! Isn't the river supposed to be here?")

 

I guess when I finally get down to detailing the biology and anthropology of the world, I'll have to look them up too. Wouldn't be too hard to get help, I guess. I have a friend with a degree in biology and another friend and a sister who majored in anthropolgy. Anyone know a good site on linguistics?

[Harvester]

Hard science campaigns are usually too technologically oriented for my tastes. My favorite settings are Blue Planet and Traveller. Though, Blue Planet is hard science setting its still concentrates more on setting than technology. Transhuman Space is nice setting but it is little too hard science. I would love to GM or play it, but I have to try understand first how the technology works .

[McCoy]

Originally posted by DigitalGolem

Yes, I think from this point forward I'll take anything I hear from Gonzalez with a grain of salt. I give him the benefit of the doubt, concerning his work on galactic habitable zones, because: 1) I haven't yet heard of any evidence against the idea, and 2) it seems plausible that heavy elements would be more common in some parts of the galaxy than others. When/if evidence to the contrary is found, and published, I look forward to reading about it.

 

Looks like we'll have to rethink the GHZ. Planet found, admittedly not type M, both older than Gonzalez says is possible and in a more crowded star cluster than he thought stable.

 

http://www.msnbc.com/news/937147.asp#BODY