(C&C) Q&A Thread - Quick questions go here

[loglorn]

Quick (and most likely a really silly) question. I'm currently building a planet (with the help of Artifexian https://youtu.be/RxbIoIM_Uck), and I can't figure out the density of my planet using
this equation G = M/R^2 = R(P)

Spoiler:

G = Gravity relative to earth
M = Mass relative to earth
R = Radius relative to earth
P = Density relative to earth
(I'm horrible at maths -_-)

For me: M = 0.8, R = 0.95
I know my gravity is 0.89

It would be great if I could have this explained to me so I can do it myself in the future.

Thank you in advanced.

If i'm reading that right, G = M/R^2 = R(P) means that G = R . P, thus P = G/R

P = 0,89/0,95 = 0,94

[Segano]

Hey guys, sorry for wasting your time by asking some stupid questions. I'm building a country in North America (Georgia, North and South Carolina, to be more precise), but I need some help deciding on a few things.

1) I can't decide whether to make my country sparsely or densely populated. If the former, my country would be more like the Scandinavian countries, while the latter would give me a reason to give my country a ridiculously large army.

2) If the country did have a large population, would it be realistic for it to have nuclear weapons? If so (probably not), what would theoretically stop foreign countries from invading/intervening like they did/are doing in Iran? And would it be ridiculous for a country to vow to never use them against humans? I know it sounds stupid, but I think one of the downsides of nuclear weapons is that not only humans become casualties in a nuclear war/winter. Instead, they would be used for blowing stuff up in space.

3) Is there any logical reason a Protestant country in North America with Estonian ancestry would end in -istan? I chose the name when I still considered the Indian subcontinent as a location, but obviously as a Christian nation in North America it doesn't make much sense.

4) Would I actually offend people who live in those areas? I absolutely love the US, but if half the country gets offended, I think I should reconsider creating my country out of three states.

5) I recently discovered borders are actually quite logical, since many borders are formed by natural landmarks (rivers, mountains, etc. Call me stupid if you wish.). When I created my country's districts, I did try to create their borders as realistically as possible. However, since the map I used as a base wasn't very detailed, at some points I just improvised. Does it matter some of my borders don't make sense?

Again, sorry if I have wasted your time.

Thanks all,
Segano

[qwed117]

borders are actually quite logical

[Dormouse559]

Hey, Segano! This thread is specifically for questions about concultures and conworlds. Your questions are about those things exactly, and they raise a lot of interesting issues.

I'm thinking that to best answer your questions, we'd need more information about your country and the broader conworld. For instance, when did the country form and how? Did the US exist at any point or is North America divided up differently? You see, the area you're talking about has huge importance in US history (the Civil War, for one), so the point of divergence between your conworld's timeline and ours could change many things, including the status of the US, which can't help but impact your country in turn.

To elaborate on qwed117's map, this video can show you some of the more arbitrary borders out there.

[Segano]

Thanks both for your replies.

@qwed117: Haha, so true, I see what you mean.

@Dormouse559: Originally my people (Iristanis) lived on an island called Ruhnu, today part of Estonia, but in the early 15th century it was still part of the Livonian Order (please do correct me if I'm wrong). They enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy, and the Livonians allowed them to use their language and retain their culture. In 1551, Heinrich von Galen became 'landmeister'. Ruhnu's autonomous status was revoked, and language restrictions were put in place. Less than a week later a revolt took place, but since the population consisted of less than 500 people, it ended quite badly: about 200 people were killed. The leader of the rebellion was Írin Steika, and in honor of him, and those in favor of the revolt started calling themselves 'Irisians'. As the Irisians became more and more fed up with the country's ruler, they to the Americas and started several settlements there. The nation they would establish was originally called 'Irisia', but was later, for some reason, changed to 'Iristan'.

The United States still exists. While I'm sure it's illogical, the British colonized largely the same areas they did in our timeline, apart from areas below southern Virginia. You're right about the Civil War, to be honest I hadn't really thought about it. I just figured the southern identity we know today would still exist in my timeline, but obviously the Civil War had a lot of impact on the southern identity. I did imagine the Iristani culture to have a lot of similarities with the culture of the deep south.

The US and Iristan did go to war after the American war of independence, where Iristan present-day Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Southern Virginia to the US (just as a way to explain why the borders look a little arbitrary). The more I think about it, the more I realize it doesn't make much sense.

I suppose Iristan could've joined the US. During the Civil War, it could have seceded and joined the CSA. That way the Civil War would still start with the attack on fort Sumter. They could always declare independence again later. I'm just not sure I like that idea too much.

[qwed117]

Thanks both for your replies.

@qwed117: Haha, so true, I see what you mean.

@Dormouse559: Originally my people (Iristanis) lived on an island called Ruhnu, today part of Estonia, but in the early 15th century it was still part of the Livonian Order (please do correct me if I'm wrong). They enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy, and the Livonians allowed them to use their language and retain their culture. In 1551, Heinrich von Galen became 'landmeister'. Ruhnu's autonomous status was revoked, and language restrictions were put in place. Less than a week later a revolt took place, but since the population consisted of less than 500 people, it ended quite badly: about 200 people were killed. The leader of the rebellion was Írin Steika, and in honor of him, and those in favor of the revolt started calling themselves 'Irisians'. As the Irisians became more and more fed up with the country's ruler, they to the Americas and started several settlements there. The nation they would establish was originally called 'Irisia', but was later, for some reason, changed to 'Iristan'.

The United States still exists. While I'm sure it's illogical, the British colonized largely the same areas they did in our timeline, apart from areas below southern Virginia. You're right about the Civil War, to be honest I hadn't really thought about it. I just figured the southern identity we know today would still exist in my timeline, but obviously the Civil War had a lot of impact on the southern identity. I did imagine the Iristani culture to have a lot of similarities with the culture of the deep south.

The US and Iristan did go to war after the American war of independence, where Iristan present-day Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Southern Virginia to the US (just as a way to explain why the borders look a little arbitrary). The more I think about it, the more I realize it doesn't make much sense.

I suppose Iristan could've joined the US. During the Civil War, it could have seceded and joined the CSA. That way the Civil War would still start with the attack on fort Sumter. They could always declare independence again later. I'm just not sure I like that idea too much.

I find it more likely that your group, the Iristan would be assimilated the heck out of, especially given that no colonial power supports them.

[Dormouse559]

Thank you for your response, Segano.

To answer your "-istan" question, the name seems out of place to me, unless these Protestant Estonians somehow had a lot of Arab/Persian influences.

where Iristan [???] present-day Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Southern Virginia to the US

Is there a verb missing there? "lost"?

The United States still exists. While I'm sure it's illogical, the British colonized largely the same areas they did in our timeline, apart from areas below southern Virginia. You're right about the Civil War, to be honest I hadn't really thought about it. I just figured the southern identity we know today would still exist in my timeline, but obviously the Civil War had a lot of impact on the southern identity. I did imagine the Iristani culture to have a lot of similarities with the culture of the deep south.

The Civil War was an example, but it isn't the place to start figuring out how things are different in this timeline. The tensions over states' rights and slavery that led to the Civil War had been brewing for a long time beforehand. As far as I can tell, Iristan's territory encompassed basically the entire South, until after the Revolution, so how would those tensions have developed between two already separate nations? How did the the original Ten Colonies win the Revolution? I think it makes sense to start with the founding of Iristan and work forward, figuring out how that changes things.

2) If the country did have a large population, would it be realistic for it to have nuclear weapons? If so (probably not), what would theoretically stop foreign countries from invading/intervening like they did/are doing in Iran? And would it be ridiculous for a country to vow to never use them against humans?

You should wait to answer these questions until you've worked out what the circumstances of nuclear proliferation have been. Depending on how Iristan affected the US, that might change how the nuclear bomb was invented and by whom.

If we assume that affairs are about the same as in our timeline, I don't think Iristan's policy as you've described it makes sense. The main reason for developing nuclear weapons in today's world is to enforce mutually assured destruction. If you rule out using nuclear weapons on humans, the weapons become useless as a MAD defense measure. Why spend the money to keep them around in that case? As for blowing stuff up in space, if Iristan has signed on to the Outer Space Treaty, that's illegal. If Iristan has good relations with a superpower US, I could imagine some sort of defense treaty where Iristan agrees not to develop nuclear weapons and the US promises to use its own arsenal should Iristan be targeted in a nuclear war.

[loglorn]

I think it makes sense to start with the founding of Iristan and work forward, figuring out how that changes things.

This got me wondering, how did Iristan form in the first place?

16th and 17th century colonial powers tended not to like losing land. First how did they manage to colonize the land?
Let's assume they did, even if England did not try to restore its land, which is rather unlikely, 16th and 17th century Spain would have seen an unsupported refugee state as a perfect opportunity to expand. It would spend it's first two centuries as a colony without a metropolis surrounded by very powerful enemies. How does it persevere?

I wouldn't hypothesize further on the effects of its existence before explaining how it came to exist in the first place.

[Keenir]

The United States still exists. While I'm sure it's illogical, the British colonized largely the same areas they did in our timeline, apart from areas below southern Virginia.

what stopped them in this timeline of yours? in our timeline, the Spanish were already there, and many Scots moved to the Carolinas after being defeated in Scotland.

You're right about the Civil War, to be honest I hadn't really thought about it. I just figured the southern identity we know today would still exist in my timeline, but obviously the Civil War had a lot of impact on the southern identity.

a lot of "Southern Identity" also was formed in the mid-1900s to gather as many potential voters as possible. (confederate flag being one)

Hey guys, sorry for wasting your time by asking some stupid questions.

the only stupid questions, are the ones that you don't ask.

1) I can't decide whether to make my country sparsely or densely populated. If the former, my country would be more like the Scandinavian countries, while the latter would give me a reason to give my country a ridiculously large army.

you don't need it to be densely populated to have a humongous army - look at North Korea or Israel.: just give them a reasoning that they consider adequate.

2) If the country did have a large population, would it be realistic for it to have nuclear weapons?

see above.

[quote[ If so (probably not), what would theoretically stop foreign countries from invading/intervening like they did/are doing in Iran? [/quote]

allies.

3) Is there any logical reason a Protestant country in North America with Estonian ancestry would end in -istan? I chose the name when I still considered the Indian subcontinent as a location, but obviously as a Christian nation in North America it doesn't make much sense.

most if not all of the -istans (aside from Pakistan) were named by Russia. yeah, the Christian country that went Communist.

4) Would I actually offend people who live in those areas? I absolutely love the US, but if half the country gets offended, I think I should reconsider creating my country out of three states.

do you plan on doing something that would offend that many millions of people?

[Keenir]

@Dormouse559: Originally my people (Iristanis) lived on an island called Ruhnu, today part of Estonia, but in the early 15th century it was still part of the Livonian Order (please do correct me if I'm wrong). They enjoyed a certain degree of autonomy, and the Livonians allowed them to use their language and retain their culture. In 1551, Heinrich von Galen became 'landmeister'. Ruhnu's autonomous status was revoked, and language restrictions were put in place. Less than a week later a revolt took place, but since the population consisted of less than 500 people, it ended quite badly: about 200 people were killed. The leader of the rebellion was Írin Steika, and in honor of him, and those in favor of the revolt started calling themselves 'Irisians'. As the Irisians became more and more fed up with the country's ruler, they to the Americas and started several settlements there.

ahh...like the Moravians and Huttites. okay.

The nation they would establish was originally called 'Irisia', but was later, for some reason, changed to 'Iristan'.

maybe that's their exonym - what other people call them, whether its accurate or not.

[Segano]

Thanks for the replies guys, you all raise valid points. :)

I find it more likely that your group, the Iristan would be assimilated the heck out of, especially given that no colonial power supports them.

I agree it is very likely. In modern times, the UN would likely (there are exceptions) intervene in case of an invasion. But obviously, there is no UN in the 16th century.

To answer your "-istan" question, the name seems out of place to me, unless these Protestant Estonians somehow had a lot of Arab/Persian influences.

Agreed, and having Persians or other Arab nations invading a country in north America makes no sense whatsoever. The exonym idea sounds a lot more plausible, if I'm not mistaken, the name 'Czech' came from Polish.

Is there a verb missing there? "lost"?

Sorry, yes. :P They ceded those territories to the United States after losing the war.

The Civil War was an example, but it isn't the place to start figuring out how things are different in this timeline. The tensions over states' rights and slavery that led to the Civil War had been brewing for a long time beforehand. As far as I can tell, Iristan's territory encompassed basically the entire South, until after the Revolution, so how would those tensions have developed between two already separate nations? How did the the original Ten Colonies win the Revolution? I think it makes sense to start with the founding of Iristan and work forward, figuring out how that changes things.

I think one of the problems lies with the fact that Iristan originally controlled the entire south. For one, it is a lot of territory to control. I suppose it would be more plausible for them to sell some territory, that would explain the way the borders look.

If we assume that affairs are about the same as in our timeline, I don't think Iristan's policy as you've described it makes sense. The main reason for developing nuclear weapons in today's world is to enforce mutually assured destruction. If you rule out using nuclear weapons on humans, the weapons become useless as a MAD defense measure. Why spend the money to keep them around in that case? As for blowing stuff up in space, if Iristan has signed on to the Outer Space Treaty, that's illegal. If Iristan has good relations with a superpower US, I could imagine some sort of defense treaty where Iristan agrees not to develop nuclear weapons and the US promises to use its own arsenal should Iristan be targeted in a nuclear war.

Reading it myself, it does sound really stupid, I agree with you. The latter also makes a lot of sense, isn't that basically what they do with Taiwan and South Korea to prevent China and North Korea from invading?

This got me wondering, how did Iristan form in the first place?

16th and 17th century colonial powers tended not to like losing land. First how did they manage to colonize the land?
Let's assume they did, even if England did not try to restore its land, which is rather unlikely, 16th and 17th century Spain would have seen an unsupported refugee state as a perfect opportunity to expand. It would spend it's first two centuries as a colony without a metropolis surrounded by very powerful enemies. How does it persevere?

In my timeline, the areas colonized by Iristan were never colonized by Britain (i.e. Iristan wouldn't have been a British colony). Basically Iristan was formed after a couple of hundred people from the island of Ruhnu migrated to North America. There they would then expand.

While I am well aware sharing the same religion is no reason why one country shouldn't invade the other, Iristan could hypothetically ally with Great Britain or with Spain if it were Catholic. Cannons were already around when Iristan came to be, hypothetically it could produce heavy artillery for either the British or the Spanish. They could even help out in wars themselves.

what stopped them in this timeline of yours? in our timeline, the Spanish were already there, and many Scots moved to the Carolinas after being defeated in Scotland.

I agree the idea of a powerful ally makes a lot of sense.

do you plan on doing something that would offend that many millions of people?

Not at all.

maybe that's their exonym - what other people call them, whether its accurate or not.

That sounds like a perfectly good explanation, thank you! :)

It also think the problem lies with the fact that even just changing the tiniest thing could have enormous consequences. Kennedy may not have been born in Georgia or the Carolinas, but if he was born in one of these states, he would have been Iristani. He wouldn't have been president, something which would change a lot of things. So, I realize it sound unrealistic, but wouldn't it be better for me just to imagine the world would, for some reason, still be the same? The thing I like the most about conworlding is building a society, I honestly couldn't even begin to come up with a plausible reason why everything looks the same as it does today. I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts on this. :)

[Dormouse559]

Well, hand waving does do a lot to let us focus on the things we're most interested in. I think as long as you're aware that's what you're doing, there's no problem. The main issue in terms of how it affects you as you conworld will be looking at its history too closely.

[Keenir]

The Civil War was an example, but it isn't the place to start figuring out how things are different in this timeline. The tensions over states' rights and slavery that led to the Civil War had been brewing for a long time beforehand. As far as I can tell, Iristan's territory encompassed basically the entire South, until after the Revolution, so how would those tensions have developed between two already separate nations? How did the the original Ten Colonies win the Revolution? I think it makes sense to start with the founding of Iristan and work forward, figuring out how that changes things.

I think one of the problems lies with the fact that Iristan originally controlled the entire south. For one, it is a lot of territory to control. I suppose it would be more plausible for them to sell some territory, that would explain the way the borders look.

um, no. they don't control the entire South. the Confederacy went out as far west as Mississippi and Tenn., and for a time I think even included Texas (before and after Texas was reduced from one nation to several states)

so unless the Confederates were allied with Iristan, they wouldn't have gone to war with the Union with so few member states.

This got me wondering, how did Iristan form in the first place?

16th and 17th century colonial powers tended not to like losing land. First how did they manage to colonize the land?
Let's assume they did, even if England did not try to restore its land, which is rather unlikely, 16th and 17th century Spain would have seen an unsupported refugee state as a perfect opportunity to expand. It would spend it's first two centuries as a colony without a metropolis surrounded by very powerful enemies. How does it persevere?

In my timeline, the areas colonized by Iristan were never colonized by Britain (i.e. Iristan wouldn't have been a British colony). Basically Iristan was formed after a couple of hundred people from the island of Ruhnu migrated to North America. There they would then expand.

a thought...perhaps Iristan began as a British colony(s) {Georgia, the Carolinas, southern Virginia}...but after the Revolution, when there were murmurings of going their own way - we had such murmurings in our timeline as well - Iristan forms...either as a counterbalance to the other colonies gathering into what would become the US (which had, among its major debates, whether to ally with Britain or with France; perhaps Iristan thought "neither, have fun" and went their own way)

and perhaps people from Ruhnu were simply more likely to get government jobs in Iristan (as opposed to Irishmen or Welshmen (etc) getting the jobs) because that's who were applying for the jobs.

It also think the problem lies with the fact that even just changing the tiniest thing could have enormous consequences. Kennedy may not have been born in Georgia or the Carolinas, but if he was born in one of these states, he would have been Iristani. He wouldn't have been president, something which would change a lot of things.

maybe his family moved at some point JFK's father and said dad's politics were more at home in the US, so maybe they moved to the US for that reason - or the Kennedys had moved to the US for some other reason at some point since they left Ireland.

I honestly couldn't even begin to come up with a plausible reason why everything looks the same as it does today. I'm really interested in hearing your thoughts on this. :)

semi-permeable membrane, as others have explained.

[HoskhMatriarch]

Can non-civilized cultures have writing? I'm pretty sure they can have some form of writing, since Germanic tribes have runes, for instance, but I'm not sure how extensive it can be. Probably rudimentary runic-inscription-type stuff is the most common for a non-civilized but agricultural culture to have, and the ones with no writing at all tend to be hunter-gatherers and the ones with extensive writing are civilized.

[Keenir]

Can non-civilized cultures have writing?

"Here I am a barbarian, for no one understands me." -a famous Roman.

also: YES they can. its foreigners who would call the culture non-civilized.

and the ones with no writing at all tend to be hunter-gatherers and the ones with extensive writing are civilized.

except the ones who aren't.

[Salmoneus]

also: YES they can. its foreigners who would call the culture non-civilized.

Civilisation is not a value judgement, but an objective sociological fact.

[qwed117]

also: YES they can. its foreigners who would call the culture non-civilized.

Civilisation is not a value judgement, but an objective sociological fact.

Civilization is an objective (but Eurocentric) sociological marker. Being civilized/barbarous is definitely not objective.

[HoskhMatriarch]

I mean civilized in the sense that they have certain social institutions and structures that you find in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumeria, most modern Western countries, etc. If civilized isn't the proper term for that, what is? Because I'm trying to describe people who don't have that without inserting values into it. Honestly I find cultures without civilization completely fascinating and a lot of (although certainly not all) uncivilized cultures are more "civilized" than civilized ones in the non-technical use of the word (I mean, it wasn't the ancient Germans or Celts who invented gladiator games, for instance...). My conworld doesn't have ubiquitous civilization so know who gets how much writing and from where is important. There are really only a few hubs of civilization and most people are uncivilized, and I write about the various uncivilized groups quite extensively rather than just writing about the civilized ones like most people. Considering how many people are into Vikings and Druids and stuff like that in real life, I'm surprised there aren't more conworlders writing extensively about uncivilized cultures.

[Keenir]

I mean civilized in the sense that they have certain social institutions and structures that you find in Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumeria, most modern Western countries, etc. If civilized isn't the proper term for that, what is?

I think its "state societies".

as opposed to "tribes."

Honestly I find cultures without civilization completely fascinating

even Tarzan's apes had a civilization, I'm told. (in the books, at least)

[HoskhMatriarch]

Well, if it's "state societies", then there are a lot of non-state societies in my conworld. The time that it takes place in is pretty much pre-medieval (except during the times I consider writing the entire history of the world from the dawn of the world to its destruction and the fight with the Abyssal, which I'll probably do, but still really do a lot of plot development and tone-setting in the pre-medieval period, since then a lot of important things in the history of the world happen).