Asteroids and ancients -moved from OT

[Dave Chase]

I am looking forward to new releases from Mongoose because then they can supersede previous versions and we no longer have to speculate ... although, of course, said releases are not likely to agree with any of our standards or viewpoints! :twisted:

But you are wrong, wrong wrong, I tell you. Traveller will never die, it will just change versions. Think Dr Who changes versions faster than Traveller, noooooo. He has just been at it longer. :lol:

And now that MgT is out before T5, we have T5 speculation. Now only if a had a higher trader skill, I might be able to sell the idea to the Vargr (and then of course make use that I never run into another Vargr again as long as I live.) :twisted:

Dave Chase

 

[Beastttt]

what about a strike to shatter the planet enough that as it orbited
pieces would be pulled off as other planets came into influence the the shattered planet leaving a trail of debris over time

enough of the planet would need to be blasted away so it's too small to have a gravity to reform

over time the trail would form a belt with the 2 nearest planets(inner and outer) sweeping up the debris

so there could have been a planet between mars and jupiter
the debris from it could have destroyed the atmosphere of mars and left all the moons we have

it is a thought nothing to prove it

 

[EDG]

what about a strike to shatter the planet enough that as it orbited pieces would be pulled off as other planets came into influence the the shattered planet leaving a trail of debris over time

Doesn't work like that. For one thing, the gravity of other planets would influence every piece in the local debris field roughly equally. Gravity doesn't just pull out pieces and cast them aside.

so there could have been a planet between mars and jupiter
the debris from it could have destroyed the atmosphere of mars and left all the moons we have

REALLY doesn't work like that.

 

[AKAramis]

Last one I worked with was 15 years ago, and it and three others of the time had a calculation issue of sequencing: they would get object x, calculate the effects of the other objects on x, then move x, then go to the next object.

AFAIK the one I use does not have such an error (and the results it produces closely match what is described in scientific papers). The only thing one needs to be careful about really is the size of the timestep, but that's about it.

The best test is to put in a four armed cross. Massive object at vertex. "North arm" has westward vectors. West arm has southward; south arm eastward, and east northward. Each has equal distances and vectors by position. If they don't all hit simultaneously, your simulator has a math error.

      <-----A

        <---B
                        ^
          <-C       ^   |
                ^   |   |   
E   F   G   D   K   L   M
|   |   V   
|   V       J->
V
            I--->

            H----->

Set the center (D) to no vector.
if D moves in this setup, you know it's got the calculation error described.

 

[captainjack23]

The conclusions and data are fine. I am using the MGT SM book to pull the stats from, not any other sources - and for this board that is the only thing that matters. It's odd that you lecture people about mixing sources when you seem happy to mix in stuff mentioned in CT books - I on the other hand was sticking solely to MGT sources in my post. [snip]

My refernce to mixing data isn't about canon, or about sources. Its just about counting one set of datapoints, and deviding by the wrong set of datapoints.

So relax. I like your choice of sources just fine. What you are mixing is the number of planets you do have information about, and the the number of planets you don't have that information about. I'll explain below.

In the meantime, banish all worries that I am tasking you for mixing canonical and non-canonical sources. This is just descriptive tabulation 101. So again, relax.

I have absolutely no idea where you pull this "thirty ancient worlds" thing from. I saw no mention of it in the MGT SM book, and therefore it is not relevant to the discussion.

"thirty ancient worlds ?" Me either. Sorry if I was that unclear. Lets start from scratch.


There are thirty (or so) worlds described in detail in the MGT SWM book.

Only those thirty described worlds have info about ancient intervention .

The other 400 or so worlds are only known by UWPs (in MGT), which doesn't include info about ancient effects on belts.

Thus, if you want to estimate the number of ancient effected belts, you may want to use a population which includes, or at least could include, the information you want to use.

Otherwise, one may just as well add in the fact that the imperium has over 11,000 worlds, and estimate the probability of mainworld belts at 10/11,000, and the number of ancient created belts as 1/11,000.



[end of part one, for ease of reading]

 

[captainjack23]

Part two:

The other side of the coin is that the conclusion stated (rate of ancient interference/belts) is only possibly answered by comparison with worlds that have the same possibility of information.

In this case, the 30 from MGT SWM are all we have.

So, one would need to conclude the following about the population :

1/30 systems have ancient created belts. (Shionthy vs all described MGT SWM planets)

Of the world with belts, 1/10 have belts created by the ancients. (Shionthy vs all of the ten asteroid belt mainworlds)

All of which are fairly hard to accept, I think you'll agree, given the limited amount of info in the dataset chosen.

So making a point that

the only world explicitly mentioned in MGT SM as being a former planet destroyed to form a belt is Shionthy.

is really pretty meaningless if your goal was to comment on how frequent artificial belts are (as seemed to be your point in the post -but I could be wrong). There are also no hiver or vargr worlds mentioned, so does one conclude that they exist nowhere in the the SWM ? *
(BTW Read that last calmly - I'm not claiming that there are are no Aslan or Vargr worlds. Its an example)

End of part two -diced up for ease of reading !

 

[captainjack23]

part three:


Okay. Now the other concern is about the general estimation of the number of belts. Again, from scratch.

Within the 428 MGT SWM systems, the UWP only identifies a belt if it is a mainworld - (or possibly just a lone small body, if you check what people posted beforehand. But lets call it a belt.)

A count of the SWM mainworlds that are belts would estimate the number of systems that have mainworld belts in the 428 (all together) MGT SWM sytems. This is fine.

However, and I'm not sure that this was even an issue for your post, I point out that estimating the total number of belts from the total number of settled mainworld belts is problematic.

It only works if you assume that the actual location of the homeworld is randomly assigned....which, it is, granted, but only in the situation where each sytem only has info about one world: the mainworld.
Given that some systems have a mainworld and a belt, and some belts may have other belts, and some presumably have no belts, the situation isn't really estimatable from what we have.

Now enter Module 3, which was meant to help, not mix everything up across product lines, and to clear up your mistaken statement that there was no updated version of the spinwards in CT. There is. And it has the information you may want if you want to delve into how many belts there are inan analogue of MGT SWM -particulalry since , IIRC, Martin used it as one of his sources for the mongoose update. Or not. Entirely your choice if you want to continue your line of inquiry.

End of part three ! Written to be attention span positive !

 

[captainjack23]

Part four, and the end at last:

As to the contention that

As it is, there is no explicit mention even in CT of which non-mainworld asteroid belts were supposedly created by Ancients anyway

I'm sorry to say that I'm skeptical that you have access to, or have read enough CT material to make that claim about CT -particularly given your misstatements in your original post about belt counts ("SWM was never updated", as an example). Not an insult, just an observation. You're right about a lot of things, but this is unfortunately the kind of potential misinformation which does become "common knowledge" when remembering statements by otherwise reliable sources. And, no sarcasm, I know that's not what you are about. ....And yes, just like my misremembering belts vs ancient sites. (slaps head). DOH !

 

[captainjack23]

Thanks in advance to all for your forbearance in letting me ramble on about my specialty. I know it isn't as interesting as orbital dynamics, but hey. Bean counters need love and attention, too.

(the above was a joke, except for the thanks. bean counters do NOT need love. Trust me on this.. )

 

[EDG]

I'll reiterate: there is no explicit mention even in CT of which non-mainworld asteroid belts were supposedly created by Ancients anyway. There is however, one specific world mentioned that WAS destroyed by Ancients and turned into an asteroid belt. Maybe that IS the only world that was rubbled by the Ancients. Maybe there are others - but the other asteroid mainworlds in the SM aren't explicitly mentioned as such so we can rule those out. And since no others are mentioned in passing either in the SM, it seems quite justifiable to assume that any other belts in the systems there are natural in their origin.

I'm working with the data we have, because it's what we know is there. You seem to be working with the data that we haven't got. All I know is that there is a minimum of one world that was rubbled by the Ancients, and none of the other asteroid mainworlds in the SM were formerly planets that they destroyed. If you want to say that we have no data on the other non-mainworld belts in the system then I'd agree with that - but that doesn't tell us anything one way or another so it's rather useless either way.

And the later SMC book in CT doesn't update the SM in the way that matters - by bringing the UWPs in line with Book 6. All they do is add the PBG and make other random tweaks to UWPs - as a whole the UWPs are the same as they were in Supplement 3. What they don't do is change the size of the worlds based on star types, which would most likely create more asteroid belts since the worlds orbiting size K and M stars would have the negative DMs for size. In effect, the SM worlds still break the rules in Book 6 because you have many examples of habitable worlds in orbit 0 orbiting size M stars that are larger than the maximum allowed by book 6. So my statement about how SM was never updated to be in line with book 6 is quite accurate thank you.

 

[captainjack23]

I'll reiterate: there is no explicit mention even in CT of which non-mainworld asteroid belts were supposedly created by Ancients anyway. There is however, one specific world mentioned that WAS destroyed by Ancients and turned into an asteroid belt. Maybe that IS the only world that was rubbled by the Ancients. Maybe there are others - but the other asteroid mainworlds in the SM aren't explicitly mentioned as such so we can rule those out. And since no others are mentioned in passing either in the SM, it seems quite justifiable to assume that any other belts in the systems there are natural in their origin.

Okay, if you say so. I'm not sure you're correct in your initial premise, but I can't be bothered to look it up, or argue about it. And, I like it better your way, anyway. Having only one ancient created belt is much more reasonable both from your veiwpoint, and from a literary veiwpoint. Coolness.

The Antimatter is odd, I admit. Is it Martin's invention ? If so, I'd be tempted to asume its not just anmisunderstanding, but a subtle clue -my thought would be would be that something there is generating antimatter -and possibly recently if there isn't a history of energy bursts from the belt.

I'm working with the data we have, because it's what we know is there. You seem to be working with the data that we haven't got. All I know is that there is a minimum of one world that was rubbled by the Ancients, and none of the other asteroid mainworlds in the SM were formerly planets that they destroyed. If you want to say that we have no data on the other non-mainworld belts in the system then I'd agree with that - but that doesn't tell us anything one way or another so it's rather useless either way.

Sort of. "none of the other asteroid mainworlds in the SM are known to be formerly planets that they destroyed" is more accurate. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. Especially when we have such a limited amount of relevent information. But yes, we don't know much about them or the other belts. And yes, we agree that it doesn't tell us anything one way or another.

And the later SMC book in CT doesn't update the SM in the way that matters - by bringing the UWPs in line with Book 6. All they do is add the PBG and make other random tweaks to UWPs - as a whole the UWPs are the same as they were in Supplement 3. What they don't do is change the size of the worlds based on star types, which would most likely create more asteroid belts since the worlds orbiting size K and M stars would have the negative DMs for size. In effect, the SM worlds still break the rules in Book 6 because you have many examples of habitable worlds in orbit 0 orbiting size M stars that are larger than the maximum allowed by book 6.

For that definition of update, I guess so. Given your comments about the value of book 6, I'm unsure why that isn't a feature, from your viewpoint. But note, book 6 didn't push the changes in world size and atmosphere you point out (did it ?). Those are from (possibly) much alter, probably online discussion.
In either case there still isn't a book 6 update; SWM MGT is still using those same values, and those same planetary issues -and, yes, I, too, wish it didn't.

But okay. Glad we are at a rest here.

 

[Vile]

The Antimatter is odd, I admit. Is it Martin's invention?

It comes from CT:

The belt itself is partially composed of contra-terrene matter.

 

[EDG]

But note, book 6 didn't push the changes in world size and atmosphere you point out (did it ?). Those are from (possibly) much alter, probably online discussion.

That is a very strange comment, considering you clearly have no idea if Book 6 did or didn't push those changes.

They are not from later discussion. Book 6 did make changes to how the world size is generated - it's in the Expanded Worldgen rules. They clearly just generated a bunch of stars and allocated them randomly to the systems in SM, with no regard for whether or not they were appropriate for the mainworlds involved.

 

[kristof65]

Can I make a request as a relative newcomer here? Can captainjack and EDG stop answering each other's posts?

 

[EDG]

Can I make a request as a relative newcomer here? Can captainjack and EDG stop answering each other's posts?

I'd love to. However, he keeps saying things that are incorrect. What am I supposed to do, let that stand and have people confused by contradictory answers? Especially when they're about a subject that is my field of expertise. Granted, it's not helpful that he insists on arguing with everything I say (not just disagreeing, but being facetious and sarcastic all the time - and he's so proud of it that he even says so in his sig), but having two people claiming contradictory things as fact isn't helpful to anyone either.

 

[GypsyComet]

They are not from later discussion. Book 6 did make changes to how the world size is generated - it's in the Expanded Worldgen rules. They clearly just generated a bunch of stars and allocated them randomly to the systems in SM, with no regard for whether or not they were appropriate for the mainworlds involved.

From those mythical later discussions, it was clear that it was a conscious decision to not alter the mainworld UWPs seen in SM. Should they have picked their star assignments a bit better? Yes. Did they? YES, eventually, in the edition most people love to not just hate, but ignore, TNE. The star type table was updated and the star assignments in the Domain of Deneb were adjusted accordingly.

What really annoys me is the extremely high possibility that Mongoose will, in the course of their license, reinvent the broken wheels of CT and MT instead of a somewhat less broken wheel. T5 is on this path, apparently, and MGT seems to be taking its cues from T5.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

With regards to the OTU and Traveller, Mongoose has to get everything approved by Marc Miller. If HE doesn't want the stars changed, then Mongoose cannot change them.

The only stuff that Marc Miller does NOT control about Traveller is the OGL, FUP and FFSLL stuff. Anything Mongoose produces has to be approved from "On High".

Like it or not, it is Marc's setting to control.

 

[captainjack23]

But note, book 6 didn't push the changes in world size and atmosphere you point out (did it ?). Those are from (possibly) much alter, probably online discussion.

That is a very strange comment, considering you clearly have no idea if Book 6 did or didn't push those changes.

Its called a question. Yes. clearly I didn't know that your favorite changes were in book 6. Which is why I asked.

I wasn't aware that it had added corrections for the common complaints about worldsize and armosphere (the small worlds (1-4) with impossible atmospheres you have pointed out in the past (2+).

I just looked at it and I can't find it. Is it a table or a later addition ? Because it just isn't in what I'm looking at right now. And if it is, I want to know -its pretty interesting if they made those changes in one book and ignored it forever after, don't you think ? We've both been wrong before about content, right ? And yet, its a pissing point -for both of us.


Look. If we've just reached the point where anything we post is scanned for any kind of arguing points, regardless of content, is there any point in us reading them ?

Honestly, I was agreeing with you that they are important. I can't even post a comment where I indicate I don't know for sure about the content of a book and you take it as an attack ? I post a comment about content of the traveller fiction(to someone else) and it turns into me attacking your specialty; or you impugning mine. And we insist on arguing it as a real world issue, one that matters, no matter how petty and fictional ?

And yes, I have been much less tolerant of you than other posters. I point out your errors where I see them and demand documentation where I do it to no-one else. I know you have a very low tolerance for flippancy , and I guess I just decided that keeping my style when posting to you was more important than avoiding a fight. Wrong way to go. we don't like each other, and I guess it's become more important than our posts.



No one is going to be ruined as a human if they believe something one of us posts in error, spite or flippancy. Lets assume that, and take off the burden of protecting the forum from each other.

Lets go back to what Matt and I both though was a good idea: Just ignore each other "don't respond to anything the other bloke says, no matter how stupid it is; you'll be much happier for it, trust me."

Sounds good here. But you need to buy into it too, okay ? We've tried it before, but it doesn't help when one of us keeps reaching out and tapping the tarbaby with the idea that "it's okay if we are civil". We aren't , not to each other; I'm actually sorry about that, but you know what ? We don't have to fix it, okay ? Just ignore it. Maybe maybe, if we get a few months of not spatting we can be civil again, okay ?



As a gesture, I'll change my sig, since you seem to take it as a personal affront, rather than the joke it was intended as, (and maybe you are right, anyway, that it was a petty jab. okay And please note: I've tried to keep this as civil as possible, and own my part in tis too, okay ? It isnt just denouncing you.. And if that doesn't work, read on.

Here's another suggestion. Do yo want me to just leave the group for a while ? Just leave you to it ? Because if that's what it'll take to get us disengaged, I'll do it. But ask. It's not like we aren't going to banned anyway, if we keep this up. I can't just ignore you if you insist on engaging me - and then complaining when I respond. Not and stay here.

Let me know, okay ? I'll work on the default "ignore" option in the meantime.

 

[EDG]

But note, book 6 didn't push the changes in world size and atmosphere you point out (did it ?). Those are from (possibly) much alter, probably online discussion.

Its called a question. Yes. clearly I didn't know that your favorite changes were in book 6. Which is why I asked.

Questions usually have "?" at the end of them . The part I quoted that you wrote was a statement, you were pointing something out. Quite what you were pointing out, I don't know - I just found it amusing that you were telling people to note something that you were very clearly unsure about (given all the caveats).

And if it is, I want to know -its pretty interesting if they made those changes in one book and ignored it forever after, don't you think ?

FFE never regenerated the UWPs for SM and SR after Scouts came out. Why, I don't know. Maybe they were scared of the reaction, given peoples' general hostility toward changing UWPs. Heck, Marc's shown that hostility himself. Personally I think it's dumb to have updated rules and not use them - though it's not helped by people insisting that books 1-3 are the only thing that matters for CT, while ignoring everything that came out afterwards.

Honestly, I was agreeing with you that they are important. I can't even post a comment where I indicate I don't know for sure about the content of a book and you take it as an attack ?

Wrong - you just thought that I took it as an attack. You keep accusing me of doing that, you keep complaining about how I "look for arguments" or how I'm reacting to you the way I am because "I have a grudge" or "I'm hostile". That's rubbish - you're reading motivations into my responses that simply aren't there.

No, what pisses me off about your posts is your apparent inability to just keep things civil. And I'd be pissed off whether it's you doing it or anyone else doing it. It seems that with me at least you always have to throw in a flippant, sarcastic, or facetious jab in there for no reason at all. And I'm really not interested in sarky little side stories that usually clog up your posts - we're not here to entertain or to do stand-up comedy. Just stick to the point, stop making assumptions about my motivations or commenting about me personally, and just stick to the darn subject and we'll get along a lot better. But most of all, cut out the flippancy and the facetiousness - it's not necessary, it only serves to piss me off, and it adds nothing to the discussion.

And yes, I have been much less tolerant of you than other posters. I point out your errors where I see them and demand documentation where I do it to no-one else. I know you have a very low tolerance for flippancy , and I guess I just decided that keeping my style when posting to you was more important than avoiding a fight. Wrong way to go. we don't like each other, and I guess it's become more important than our posts.

So you admit that you're singling me out here, and you claim it's my fault we end up arguing? You've just admitted to deliberately trolling here! Damn straight it's the "wrong way to go".

Lets go back to what Matt and I both though was a good idea: Just ignore each other "don't respond to anything the other bloke says, no matter how stupid it is; you'll be much happier for it, trust me."

Or... you could stop singling me out for your "special treatment" and stop being a troll, and then we'll all get along. I know you're capable of reasoned, civilised discussion - but you keep succumbing to the temptation to bait me and rile me up. Learn to control that and we won't have a problem. I have no reason to change my behaviour - all I'm doing is reacting to your deliberately targeted bad behaviour (that you yourself have admitted).

We've tried it before, but it doesn't help when one of us keeps reaching out and tapping the tarbaby with the idea that "it's okay if we are civil". We aren't , not to each other;

YOU'VE never tried to do that. I have tried and still try to be civil to you all the time, that's why I respond to you. I'm not the one who starts throwing around the snarkiness or flippant comments - you are. Yes, sometimes I blow my top and let a few slip out there, true, and I apologise for that - but that's only after you've riled me up so much. But YOU are the one who keeps baiting, not me. So if you want to point the finger at someone who isn't trying to be civil, take a look in the mirror.

As a gesture, I'll change my sig, since you seem to take it as a personal affront, rather than the joke it was intended as

That was spectacular bad failure of judgement on your part. Why would anyone want to strut around saying how great they are for being facetious or "droll"? Damn straight it annoyed me.

Here's another suggestion. Do yo want me to just leave the group for a while ? Just leave you to it ? Because if that's what it'll take to get us disengaged, I'll do it.

Personally I would just prefer that you just stopped trolling. I don't have a problem with disagreeing with people, but when they decide it's OK to be flippant, baiting, dismissive, sarcastic, facetious, personal and all of those other pointless, stupid things that don't add to constructive conversation (and that you do with me), that's when I get pissed off. It's really simple - talk about the topic, not the person writing it. Just stop and think about what you write before you post it, and ask if there's anything in there directed at the poster themselves - if there is, then you need to edit that crap out. If you're not capable of doing that with me though, then by all means, leave the board and then maybe we can all get some peace here. The fact that you've constistently done this to me for over a year though doesn't fill me with hope that you'll change.


Either way, I'm really sick of this crap. I do not want to be arguing with you or anyone every time I post here. But at the same time I should not have to put up with people targeting me with baiting - and that's as much an issue with the moderation (or rather the lack of it) here.

 

[rust]

[Deleted, was caused by a misunderstanding of a post.]