Different Suns?

What is your reasoning here? without explaining yourself it isn't very constructive. Is there a relevance to calling dwarlord down as it relates to gameplay or is it just technicality?

I’ll address this as best I can using Jupiter as an example.

“Because it is mostly gas hence the name”

1) Gas Giant Composition: Yes there is a tendency for us to mix up an element or compound with its state at room temperature. The cloud and “Gas” part of a gas giant is (depending on estimates) approximately 50km in depth and made up of Hydrogen, Ammonia, water and other elements/compounds. Below this the pressure is such that the state of compounds and elements are a ‘supercritical liquid for upwards of 1000km. Below this point it is liquid in earnest and below THIS, the pressure is such that Hydrogen behaves somewhat like a metal. We are unsure to this day as to whether there is an original rocky core which began the formation of the gas giant although such an idea makes sense.

Most of this for practical purposes is purely academic as we are not going to be setting foot on a gas giant, or landing a probe on it even. Anything we drop in there would (and has) succumbed to pressure and no tech we currently possess would be able to deal with the pressure and heat present in deeper layers. Even if we were assuming a tech level far set in the future there is the straight physics of materials to consider here and there are limits on what compounds and elements can take in any structure we would care to construct (unless there were some kind of breakthrough allowing force field tech) So yes on this point you are technically correct but Dwarlord is practically correct where it pertains to this discussion and any claim to the contrary is a little bit pedantic.

2) The moving of Giants: Your claim that we can make a gas giant move - or rather your assertion that dwarlord is wrong in saying we can’t. There is no solid surface on which we could plant anything that could move a gas giant. The game-play visualisation depicts a movement of masses with rocket engines built on the surface. Such a thing could not take place on a gas giant. Pressures would be too high and any thrust produced would be lost in the layers of liquid and gas in addition to being completely inadequate for the purposes of moving something that has a mass hundreds of times that of earth (I think it was just over 300 earths in mass in fact). So rockets are out.

We have seen on more than one occasion that asteroids and comets have struck our gas giant Jupiter and this has had a negligible effect so shoving the planet with kinetics is out.

This leaves gravitational pull as our only option for moving a gas giant. This would require a sizable mass, preferably larger to get the mass to move at speed but a lesser mass may move the planets orbit over a long period of time. However the fact is that the smaller mass would be moved more and we are faced again with the concept of generating enough thrust on the smaller body to make up for the difference in mass. Something which just isn’t going to happen.

I think I see another OrangeKnight 'epic bro' status coming up...

Well found good enough star classification chart, but it quite old:

There are couple of bad parts in it:
* This graph doesn't shows possibility of green stars, not so long ago was proven that green stars can possibly exist according physical laws.
* This graph excludes Neutron Stars - stars that have purple/violet colors, have small size, but extreme mass, in addition Neutron Stars are closer then other stars to convert in black hole.
* This graph excludes (Dark) Brown Dwarf Stars - almost extinguished stars.
* This graph excludes Extinguished Stars - nuff said, extinguished stars possibly can be activated again, but not with our current technology.

If you can build planetary engines, you can build fusion candles (here is, surprisingly, the clearest explanation I saw).
So yes, you can move gas giants. It's not even harder than moving any other planet (just longer, as they are more massive)

Physical laws don't rule out negative energy, ftl-only particles and wormholes, but none was ever observed, nor anyone has ever managed to come up with how some could be created. Not being ruled out by physics isn't enough to exist.
Do you have any example of green star, be it observed or theoretical? I never heard of one, so I'm quite curious (and that's not sarcasm, if there was a doubt).

Do you have links about how neutron stars look like? All I could find was a "hard radiations that would burn your retinas" colour (or sometimes dark red or white).
Neutron stars don't transform into black holes. Neutron stars are created when massive stars explode (they are actually the heart of the star who crumbled upon itself) at the end of their life, and black holes are created when even more massive stars explode.
You may theoretically obtain a black hole by colliding two neutron stars, but it's something very, very unlikely that would probably sterilize most of the galaxy and that was never observed until now.

"Failed stars" would be a better term ; though they do have some fusion activity at the beginning of their life, burning easily fusable deuterium and such. At this point, they probably look like small, dark red dwarf.

No star in the Universe is yet extinguished. Stars that don't turn into neutron stars and black holes turn into white stars, but those take so long to cool down that we won't see any before the Universe is many times older than now.
White dwarfs, on the other hand, are on this graph.

Even if we cant interact with them (@UBER WE MUST INTERACT WITH THEM) i like to see optical: Blue Dwarfs, Red Twins,Blue Twins,Black Dwarf and so on.

I think we have differing ideas of what is realistically achievable. The largest issue I can see here is that the candle would have to be able to support the stresses of shifting a mass the size of a gas giant. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I will refrain from saying never in this instance but it is HIGHLY unlikely that any structure could support the mass of a gas giant pushing back.

In addition to this you have gone from “Someone had this neat idea” to “It is possible” and referenced a webcomic for your explanation. This is a massive leap in logic.

Finally there is the level of tech depicted in the trailer. Thus far in PA we have seen rocket engines of pretty conventional looking design shifting an asteroid. If we are looking at that level of technology fusion candles are not on the cards and honestly there are a lot more reasons as to why they would not work but I want to avoid a wall of text.

I agreed with the comment this was attached to but I am sceptical about this part – sterilise the galaxy? The galaxy is a BIG place and at best you are looking at two star cores worth of energy – less in fact as you are not converting that mass directly into energy and there would be considerably less emissions once it collapsed into a black hole. In addition to this despite having a lot of empty space the is still an awful lot of material to get in the way, preventing the propagation of hard radiation through a whole galaxy.

Besides this I enjoyed your post(This isn't sarcasm I genuinely did), particularly the part regarding the lack of extinguished stars – it is an interesting thing to think about, that the only observed dead stars to date are those that had violent deaths. Perhaps they are out there but they would be quite difficult to detect and we haven’t yet seen a black dwarf

Anyway perhaps I am getting off topic. My main point was that the moving of gas giants in terms of practicality and speed for the purposes of PA does not seem to be a possibility within a reasonable suspension of disbelief.

Hahaha OrangeKnight seems to have left me hanging this time round :lol: