Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Weird cosmology? Twin neutron stars.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 2975069" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>I think you're reading a few things about gravity incorrectly here. Yes, the neutron star has a very high <em>surface</em> gravity. But planets aren't worried about that. </p><p></p><p>Take a star twice as massive as our sun, and assume it has planets. Replace that star with a neutron star (or even Foldger's crystals) of the same mass, and the planets will keep going around as they did before. The orbits depend on distance from the center, and the total mass of the body you're orbiting. Exactly how dense the central body is doesn't matter much.</p><p></p><p>Given this - the nature of the bodies (black hole, neutron star, normal star) isn't relevant for discussion of planetary orbits in a binary system. We only have to consider masses and distances.</p><p></p><p>You can have reasonable stable orbits in a binary system in several different ways:</p><p></p><p>1) The radius of the planet's orbit is very large compared to the distance between the binary pair. In this case, as far as the planet is concerned, the pair is basically one object.</p><p></p><p>2) The radius of the planet's orbit around one of the stars is very small compared to the distance between the binary pair - in which case, the second star is pretty much like a large, distant planet.</p><p></p><p>3) One of the binary pair is much less massive than the other.</p><p></p><p>In most other cases, the setup isn't very stable for the planet.</p><p></p><p>If you are talking real physics, it is going to be darned hard to get a habitable planet to survive a supernova of it's star. New planet formation is not terribly likely - it is expected that it happens when a nebula collapses during formation of a star. But when supernovae go, they go big, and everything nearby is getting pushed outwards very hard, so the resulting nebulae are light-years across and moving outwards, getting thinner as time goes on. Not the coalescing theme you want to see, there.</p><p></p><p>Not that it can't happen. And not that one cannot construct systems with habitable planets around neutron stars. But it probably isn't a normal thing.</p><p></p><p>Forward has a number of interesting books with rather exotic worlds and forms of life. And his science is extremely plausible (the man knows his stuff). Unfortunately, his characterization is kind of weak.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 2975069, member: 177"] I think you're reading a few things about gravity incorrectly here. Yes, the neutron star has a very high [i]surface[/i] gravity. But planets aren't worried about that. Take a star twice as massive as our sun, and assume it has planets. Replace that star with a neutron star (or even Foldger's crystals) of the same mass, and the planets will keep going around as they did before. The orbits depend on distance from the center, and the total mass of the body you're orbiting. Exactly how dense the central body is doesn't matter much. Given this - the nature of the bodies (black hole, neutron star, normal star) isn't relevant for discussion of planetary orbits in a binary system. We only have to consider masses and distances. You can have reasonable stable orbits in a binary system in several different ways: 1) The radius of the planet's orbit is very large compared to the distance between the binary pair. In this case, as far as the planet is concerned, the pair is basically one object. 2) The radius of the planet's orbit around one of the stars is very small compared to the distance between the binary pair - in which case, the second star is pretty much like a large, distant planet. 3) One of the binary pair is much less massive than the other. In most other cases, the setup isn't very stable for the planet. If you are talking real physics, it is going to be darned hard to get a habitable planet to survive a supernova of it's star. New planet formation is not terribly likely - it is expected that it happens when a nebula collapses during formation of a star. But when supernovae go, they go big, and everything nearby is getting pushed outwards very hard, so the resulting nebulae are light-years across and moving outwards, getting thinner as time goes on. Not the coalescing theme you want to see, there. Not that it can't happen. And not that one cannot construct systems with habitable planets around neutron stars. But it probably isn't a normal thing. Forward has a number of interesting books with rather exotic worlds and forms of life. And his science is extremely plausible (the man knows his stuff). Unfortunately, his characterization is kind of weak. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Weird cosmology? Twin neutron stars.
Top