Super basic dumb science question

Division doesn't normally give us negative numbers, but division would be the correct counterpart to the multiplication of "five times larger".

Well, I'm willing to be convinced, as it would lead to less mouth-frothing on my part.

But "five times larger" is the same as "500% larger", surely? So what is "500% smaller"? And if the %age comparison isn't applicable, why not?

(To be fair, it's really the "600% smaller" examples, meaning 1/6 the size, that wind me up.)

(I should apologise for the excursion off topic, which will hopefully be very temporary.)
 
Well, I'm willing to be convinced, as it would lead to less mouth-frothing on my part.

But "five times larger" is the same as "500% larger", surely? So what is "500% smaller"? And if the %age comparison isn't applicable, why not?

(To be fair, it's really the "600% smaller" examples, meaning 1/6 the size, that wind me up.)

(I should apologise for the excursion off topic, which will hopefully be very temporary.)
The words "times" only seem to imply multiplication by a number greater than or a fraction of one. A nail half the length of another has been multiplied 1/2 times.
 
OK, slightly different approach (apologies again; I might take these posts off to a grammar one).

If "five times smaller" is the inverse of "five times larger" and means 1/5 the size, then inverting "twice as big", to give half the size, would give you "twice as small". Surely that's not a meaningful phrasing?
 
OK, slightly different approach (apologies again; I might take these posts off to a grammar one).

If "five times smaller" is the inverse of "five times larger" and means 1/5 the size, then inverting "twice as big", to give half the size, would give you "twice as small". Surely that's not a meaningful phrasing?
Only because no one uses that phrase. "Twice as big" is already problematic because it implies that there is a "once as big". Sometimes simple language isn't useful for math.
 
OK, slightly different approach (apologies again; I might take these posts off to a grammar one).

If "five times smaller" is the inverse of "five times larger" and means 1/5 the size, then inverting "twice as big", to give half the size, would give you "twice as small". Surely that's not a meaningful phrasing?

I think it's just a mathematics thing rather than proper english grammar thing

If Y = 5 X

It just rolls off the tongue that Y is 5 times ('bigger' than) X. Which is easy enough.

If you just rearrange that and have a look at it the other way

So X = 1/5 Y

I could say that X is smaller than Y, but by how much? Well if I multiply both sides by 5 I get Y back, so...I say it's 'five times' smaller.

At least that's how it works in my head. I suppose you could (and really should) say X is a fifth the 'size' of Y.

That probably confused you more, apologies! ;) :)

Percentages are much worse.

Opposite of 100% bigger is 50% smaller. Yeuk.
 
Would it be possible for a fictional planet to have a permanent full moon?
Would it be okay to replace the idea of a permament full moon to the idea of a permanent "quarter" moon (i.e. one where half was in permanently in darkness and the other half permanently in full sunlight).

This would require the moon to be always orbiting the planet in the plane that's always at right angles to a line between the planet and its star. (The moon is not tidally locked to the sun, just orbiting the planet in a way that mimics the effect of being tidally locked to the sun.)

Off hand, I can think of two scenarios:
  1. The moon's orbit of the planet is independent of the planet's rotation. This means that the planet's rotation could be like Earth's (which would mean that the lunar and solar tides would be moving at right angles to each other). Goodness only knows -- well, I don't -- how such a scenario might arise** (including why the moon's orbit is so closely locked to the planet's)... and don't ask me what happens with a planetary orbit that is not as "circular" as the Earth's.
  2. The moon rotates the planet much as the moon does the Earth BUT one of the planet's notional poles (i.e. ignoring precession) would have to be permanently pointed towards the star (which would have all sorts of effects). Again, this is not an example of tidal locking: the planet's rotation has nothing to do with keeping one half of the planet facing the star. (Again, working out the possible origin** of this scenario is beyond my capabilites.)

** - Having said I don't know, the safesty bet might be to assume that some advanced science -- or magic -- would have created the conditions for whichever scenario was being used in the story. Either that, or the story is set, possibly unbeknownst to the "inhabitants" in a virtual world (which would also allow a permanent full moon, as real world restrictions no longer need to apply).
 
Starchild said:
"Twice as big" is already problematic because it implies that there is a "once as big"

Twice just means two time the size or quantity, so the progression would be " Big - twice as big" or "Many - twice as many". I don't think that the "once as big" analogy holds up...
 
Would it be possible ... for a story that involves a werewolf astronaut, so...

I think the last part precludes any attempt at hard science fiction - just state that the moon is tidally locked to always show as full, and leave it at that. :)

Otherwise you'll have everyone turning themselves into knots trying to explain lycanthropy. :D
 
I'll counter your "Super basic dumb science question," with a "Super Basic Dumb Werewolf Question."

Why--in your world--do werewolves need to be affected by the light of a full moon? Couldn't they simply be inspired by the lack of direct sunlight to accomplish the same ends?

Remember, this is YOUR STORY. Since werewolves are fantastical creatures, their characteristics are not set in stone. Just because Bob had a full moon affect them, and Mary made it so they could change at will, still Tom had it so once they changed they remained wolf... it seems to me (being werewolf ignorant), that you can alter how they work in your world, any way you want.

Regardless, I'll let you all go back to hashing out celestial mechanics since it does have value for countless other stories.

K2
 
Last edited:
Would it be okay to replace the idea of a permament full moon to the idea of a permanent "quarter" moon (i.e. one where half was in permanently in darkness and the other half permanently in full sunlight).

This would require the moon to be always orbiting the planet in the plane that's always at right angles to a line between the planet and its star. (The moon is not tidally locked to the sun, just orbiting the planet in a way that mimics the effect of being tidally locked to the sun.)

Off hand, I can think of two scenarios:
  1. The moon's orbit of the planet is independent of the planet's rotation. This means that the planet's rotation could be like Earth's (which would mean that the lunar and solar tides would be moving at right angles to each other). Goodness only knows -- well, I don't -- how such a scenario might arise** (including why the moon's orbit is so closely locked to the planet's)... and don't ask me what happens with a planetary orbit that is not as "circular" as the Earth's.
  2. The moon rotates the planet much as the moon does the Earth BUT one of the planet's notional poles (i.e. ignoring precession) would have to be permanently pointed towards the star (which would have all sorts of effects). Again, this is not an example of tidal locking: the planet's rotation has nothing to do with keeping one half of the planet facing the star. (Again, working out the possible origin** of this scenario is beyond my capabilites.)

** - Having said I don't know, the safesty bet might be to assume that some advanced science -- or magic -- would have created the conditions for whichever scenario was being used in the story. Either that, or the story is set, possibly unbeknownst to the "inhabitants" in a virtual world (which would also allow a permanent full moon, as real world restrictions no longer need to apply).

It sounds like what zmunkz was talking about here:
Maybe it could work if the moon’s orbital plane is perpendicular to the planet’s, e.g., if you stick your thumb face down into your sun, your planet would be at the end of your pointer finger, and your moon would follow the path of a ring slipped onto the end of your finger. Not sure if we could lock the orientation so that orbit is always perpendicular to the sun, so this may simply replace monthly phases with a annual phases.

Which is a problem because:
This is an interesting idea, but not stable because you'd need the orbiting moon to precess, which is like trying to get a gyroscope to rotate around a line through its plane of rotation, and that would make the gyroscope/orbit wobble.

Either way, I think that's a half moon you're describing but in the first or third quarter of its phase.

earth-and-lunar-phase-set-vector-18297327.jpg
 
I think the last part precludes any attempt at hard science fiction - just state that the moon is tidally locked to always show as full, and leave it at that. :)

Otherwise you'll have everyone turning themselves into knots trying to explain lycanthropy. :D
Peter Watts does vampires as part of hard SF.
 
"Twice as big" is already problematic because it implies that there is a "once as big". Sometimes simple language isn't useful for math.

I think it's just a mathematics thing rather than proper english grammar thing

Fair enough.

suppose you could (and really should) say X is a fifth the 'size' of Y.

That's what I would say. But you've both convinced me that I should no longer rant at uses of "times smaller".

Just so long as I'm still allowed to throw things at "500% smaller" to mean 1/5.
 
Which is a problem because:
I think you'll find that I covered this in my comment, by suggesting that the outcome could not really be achieved by physics as we know it (a point made by others earlier in the thread), but would require one of: 1) magic; 2) technology whose effects look like magic; 3) the story to take place in a virtual world (so sticking to the laws of physics is not an issue).

The (unstated) question I was posing was why it has to be a full moon. Basically, if sufficient moonlight (sufficient for the purposes of the story) is meant to be always present (presumably** when sunlight is not), a full moon may not necessary. (And as it's a story, "sufficient" can be tailored to the restrictions placed on the moonlight by the means its ever-presence is achieved.)

What I was describing was the situation where the maximum and minimum amounts of moonlight would be, for all intents and purposes, the same -- i.e there was no possibility of it falling below the required threshold (so the lower-light equivalent of the effect of a permanent full moon) -- and then considering the context of how this might be achieved (i.e. magic, technology that looks like magic, a virtual world).

The issue that you might have brought up is that, because the planet is not transparent (if it was, the presence of sufficient moonlight might be moot, as there would always be sunlight, even if it was coming up out of the ground), the moon would not be visible from half the planet. In this scenario, getting planet-wide access to a reasonablle amount of moonlight would require more than just one moon in a strange orbit (something else that would be best supplied by magic, technology that looks like magic, a virtual world...).

Of course, the mention of sufficient light brings up another issue, one that affects the story. Presumably the permanent full moon is needed so that werewolves are werewolves all the time (except, possibly**, in daylight), because it is the fullness of the moon that is important (i.e. "sufficient" means "the light that only a moon that is full can supply"). So perhaps a different approach is to consider the minimising the time when the visible moon is reflecting insufficient light onto the planet it's orbiting. (I mention this, because the schemes to move the moon a great distance from the planet to avoid the planet obscuring the moon might be: a) easier to contemplate if what is to be avoided is too much of the moon being in the planet's shadow; b) easier to justify if the level of required moonlight was not what we experience from a full moon here on Earth.)

Of course, if the fullness of the moon, rather than the amount of light it reflects onto the planet, is key to the transformation of a werewolf into its lupine form, the story is already one where magic is present, so the solution of having a full moon need not rely on physics alone.


By the way, the terminology I used regarding the phases of the moon (specifically "quarter moon", which is usually further identified as "first" and "third") is in common usage. Half moon is more of a description of what a quarter moon looks like than what it is.


** - I'm assuming the story's werewolves cannot take on their lupine form during the day, but perhaps this is a false assumption. I think the assumption is correct, though: no scenario with just one moon can provide a view of a full moon everywhere on a planet.)
 
I read many, but not all, of the posts, so forgive me if this thought has been expressed (oh, laziness).

If this is SF, and if there will be some attempt at (pseudo) science to explain the person going werewolf because of the moon, could you explain the change by the cumulative quantity of light required for the metamorphosis, rather than that a single moon must always remain full to bring about the change?

So, if, say, it takes (this will be very basic, since I don't know science well) one full unit of moonlight to change the person, and a half moon provides 50% of the required light...what if this planet had 3-4 moons, a number of which were always visible in some part of their phase cycles, and cumulatively, they provided one full unit of moonlight? So, one provides 60%, one 30 one 10 (or more than 100 percent could be provided, since exactly 100% would be unlikely). Of course the light intensity/strength would vary from moon to moon, depending on a variety of factors, but somehow you could use faux-calculations/theory to explain the cumulative effect of the moonlight from the several moons building to affect the person.

Just a few thoughts from a non-scientist, CC

edit - with this explanation, it wouldn't absolutely require daylight for the person to revert from the werewolf stage...just the light of the moons going, cumulatively, beneath the required one full unit. The person could then revert to human form either at dawn, or in night, if that helps your storyline at all.
 
Just a thought. Is it a certain level of moonlight that is required for a werewolf to get the transformation going? I don't know, I am not really into werewolves. If so, is it not possible to have a werewolf that's particularly sensitive to moonlight? In other words, the person would, say, only need 50% of the average luminosity of full moon to transform.

Also, in a system with 2 moons, in opposite orbits, one moon would be full, while the other is new. While one moon is waxing, the other is waning. Together they would shed enough light to equal or approximate the required lumen. As mentioned above, this could be a unstable system, but of course not in your own world.
If it is the shape (and not moon-light) of full moon that triggers the lycanthrope gen, a artificial body with it's own luminosity in a stable orbit seems required.
Of course, all this would mean that every werewolf on your planet would constantly be switching between human- and werewolf-form every single night.
 
Sticking with exploring werewolves: rather than use the light of a full moon to explain as the point when the transformation of a man into a wolf, what if it wasn't the light, but the position of the moon that was important.

Sticking with the Earth-moon - when there is a syzygy and the moon-Earth-Sun system lines up in a straight line, this is, for mystical reasons or other, the moment when the transformation takes place. When aligned in such a manner the moon is generally be observed to be full.

I should say can, because of course there is another syzygy when the moon is new also. But perhaps, because it is 'opposite', that is the time that certain wolves (wendigos?) transform into men?

Of course it depends whether you want the Earth as part of the syzygy or the active position of the werewolf. Probably the latter for an astronaut story, as an astronaut orbiting the moon could trigger this syzygy every orbit...
 
Of course, all this would mean that every werewolf on your planet would constantly be switching between human- and werewolf-form every single night.
If the level of light is what is important, clothes (including pajamas/night dresses, etc.) or curtains could provide the (admittedly) unnatural (ie. magic, technology that looks like magic, a virtual world) solution.... ;):)


By the way, my space opera begins with one of the main characters (well, the principal one in WiP1) suddenly finding herself (in broad daylight) able to sprint on all fours. There is a non-magical explanation for this, part of which is lightly hinted at in the scene.
 
If the level of light is what is important, clothes (including pajamas/night dresses, etc.) or curtains could provide the (admittedly) unnatural (ie. magic, technology that looks like magic, a virtual world) solution.... ;):)

By the way, my space opera begins with one of the main characters (well, the principal one in WiP1) suddenly finding herself (in broad daylight) able to sprint on all fours. There is a non-magical explanation for this, part of which is lightly hinted at in the scene.
Hmmm, that would mean you'd have to undress before you can/will transform. Which kinda make sense, though, as human cloths would be ill-fitting the lycan form and saves them from being ripped apart constantly. Expensive hobby. :D
Amazing things a keep learning about werewolves, this thread!

WiP1? You'd better get back to work writing quickly than. I'm very curious about this space opera with (sometimes) four-legged MC's!
 

Similar threads


Back
Top