aramis erak
Legend
couple moles per m³ in interstellar medium last I read.
The solar system's interstellar medium is a tiny bit lower.
"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.
- Thread starter James Gasik
- Start date
The solar system's interstellar medium is a tiny bit lower.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
Will you settle for not very?
In simple terms, Stars are kept inflated by radiation pressure produced by fusion reactions in the core. When it runs out of fuel it will contract until it is supported by electron degeneracy - a white dwarf. Which you might kinda argue is solid of a sort, but the surface gravity is round about 100,000 times Earth gravity. So, rather than sitting on it, you would be a one atom thick smear on the surface. A larger star might become a Neuton star or black hole instead, which would be - much worse.
I could totally see that using a gem in a spell might not actually destroy it completely, but merely devalue it significantly. After all, a gem cutter might decrease a stone’s value significantly with sloppy work. (Likewise, another cutter might rehabilitate a poorly cut stone, if they’re skilled enough and have enough to work with.)
I’ve been a jewelry design hobbyist since the late-1980s, and have been enjoying shopping at the InterGem jewelry shows (including this weekend) for a couple of decades now. It never ceases to amaze me how many variables go into valuation of a stone, and what that can mean in terms of visual aesthetics and/or a gem’s usefulness.
I say that to say this: in a world where magic is real and requires material components, something’s suitability for use in magic would be accounted for in appraisals. Gems included.*
I know- D&D uses an abstracted shorthand for valuation- a 5kGP diamond is a a 5kGP diamond is a a 5kGP diamond. But in the internal reality of the campaign setting, it might actually matter to a magical practitioner if a diamond were small but clean, well cut, and of a particular hue, as opposed to being a large, uncut crystal of a less desirable color, despite having the same price tag.
It’s possible that in such a world, a skilled & knowledgeable caster might be able to restore a gem’s magical utility with the right rituals and other materials.
OTOH, magical degradation from being used for casting might be a one-way street, leaving a mundane stone behind, suitable only for semiprecious jewelry or industrial purposes.
Hell…maybe magically exhausted gemstones become completely different materials, like uranium decaying into lead.
* gemological pun slightly intended
Did this planet have normal outer layers? or is your point here more that a gravitationally bound planet made of entirely of water would have a core of either supercritical fluid or Ice-10(?)?
Ruin Explorer
Legend
No, science doesn't say that. It depends entirely on a huge number of biological factors.
cranberry
Hero
"The square-cube law states that as an object's size increases, its surface area increases proportionally to the square of the scaling factor, while its volume (and therefore mass) increases proportionally to the cube of the scaling factor. This means that the ratio of mass to surface area increases with size, which can have significant implications for strength, stability, and other properties. "
Square–cube law - Wikipedia
Ruin Explorer
Legend
I love that you think this supports your point and that you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "strength" in this context.
cranberry
Hero
Here's more data. I'm the only one providing data. Instead of being snarky and arrogant, how about providing a counter-argument with your own sources?
And yes, I know the difference between physical strength and tensile strength.
No, it is not physically possible for a 3-foot-tall humanoid to lift more than a 7-foot-tall humanoid, assuming both are of similar body composition and build, due to the fundamental laws of physics and biomechanics.
Here's why:
- Muscle Strength and Size:
Strength is directly related to muscle mass and cross-sectional area. A 7-foot-tall humanoid will have a significantly larger frame and therefore more muscle mass, allowing them to generate more force. - Leverage:
Longer limbs provide a longer lever arm, allowing for greater force application. A 7-foot-tall humanoid's longer limbs would allow them to lift heavier objects with less effort. - Weight Distribution:
The larger frame of the 7-foot-tall humanoid would also mean a greater weight to be lifted, which would be more challenging for the smaller humanoid to lift. - Density:
As size increases, the cube of the size increase is the increase in volume. The surface area increases with the square of the size increase. This means that the larger the size, the more weight to support and the less surface area to support it. - Biomechanics:
The way the body is structured and how it moves plays a crucial role in strength. The smaller humanoid would have a biomechanical disadvantage due to the smaller size and less muscle mass. - Scaling:
If we were to scale up the size of the 3-foot-tall humanoid to the size of the 7-foot-tall humanoid, it would require a disproportionate increase in muscle mass and strength to maintain the same level of function.
Last edited:
Ruin Explorer
Legend
Which is the problem. Why would we assume that?
You said science makes it "impossible". It doesn't. Your assumptions are the issue here.
I notice none of your links are to scholarly articles, but rather Google searches, which tells us an awful lot. You didn't provide any data at all as it turned out. Indeed it looks awfully like you're relying on the Google AI summaries.
