Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Re: Smaller Axial Tilt -> This would still lead to the poles getting significantly less sunlight then the equatorial regions. I was thinking, how about a larger tilt and a very short year to make up for it instead ? The would place the planet closer to its star ofc, don't know if one could make this work temperature wise.. $\endgroup$
    – nick
    Commented Jun 27 at 6:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Insanely stupid question, but what if the planet doesn't just rotate in 1 axis, what if it rotated in every conceivable axii such that each part of the planet gets equal sun? Is that even possible? $\endgroup$
    – LocustHorde
    Commented Jun 27 at 7:42
  • $\begingroup$ @LocustHorde: conceptually yes; you'd just be moving the equator across the planet all the time, however you then have a problem in that you need a force to change the axis all the time. the easiest explanation (that probably doesn't make sense) i can think of would be that the crust of the planet is freely spinning chaotically with the wind around the core. $\endgroup$
    – Themoonisacheese
    Commented Jun 27 at 7:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @nick The scientific definition of the tropical, temperate, and arctic zones are a bit different than most people's colloquial understanding of them. These zones are not defined by how hot or humid they are, but by how the experience seasons based on the plant's tilt; so, by definition, a planet with no tilt is 100% tropical zone, even if some parts of it are cooler than others. $\endgroup$
    – Nosajimiki
    Commented Jun 27 at 13:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ L1 isn't stable, but L4 & L5 are, and would allow you to put two suns in the sky. There'd still be day/night cycles, but day would be longer than night... or you'd want to distinguish based on the number of visible stars: 0, 1, or 2 depending on location & time. You'd never have more than 1 directly overhead, which I think would make days longer without making them much more intense. A substantial axial tilt would then spread the energy around on longer-than-diurnal time scales. $\endgroup$
    – Sarah Messer
    Commented Jun 27 at 17:02