Why Catapults?...

It has also been theorized that gravity, which is a product of mass, is directly related the the effect mass has on the fabric of space time. The ever popular marble on a strechy piece of fabric demonstration shows how it is theorized that where mass occures that sapce itself actually warps, kinda like a whirl pool. one minut your sailing straight but then the curve from the mass causes you to drift towards the mass at the center... Thus to simulate gravity one would, acording to this theory need to simulate mass.. Thus the reason I mentioned perhaps a miniscule artificial singularity... Another way to increase mass is to accelerate closer to the speed of light which, I'm sure you would agree, is impractical as the amount of energy requires to accelerate to even a 1/4C is exorbitant. (At speed of light mass becomes infinite). Hence it would seem that without a drastic leap in technology, say like convincing proof of gravitons, it would be worth more time looking into other means. But we can just assume that they have graviton generator! :)

OR maybe this solution... you could try electroshock therepy on the crew and hope they stick to the metalic deck plates:D
 
Even though what you said is true in theory, it's far from pratical, and in no way reflects what we already know of WC physics. First of all you have to similate mass, and I recogmend that you don't try this, it takes too much energy. This isn't a technology-dependent theory. You need lots of energy to create even the smallest ammount of matter (see E=mc^2). Second, ,he Confederation Handbook makes it clear that gravitons, if they exist, are not widely used by Confed; however, antigravitons are used whereever possible. This would suggest that antigravitons are a lot easier to work with, and less costly, than gravitons, which would make them the particle of choice in a gravity generator. Generating antigravity fields would be easy to do. It's already done to use jump points, and it wouldn't take much effort to cinfine the particles to a region of space. To take my electromagentic analagy, We already have the technology confine electrons and photons, and we can create EM fields with relative ease. This analgy works since, in WC physics, antigravitons are the electrons of gravity. They act like electrons when they are placed in gravity fields. Each particle creates its associated force, and they both move against the fields created by their relative forces. Which moves this debate to the only point that you got correct as antigravity and gravity are one in the same, They do use gravity generators
 
what a circus. . .

Ok, maybe this is getting a bit out of hand. . .

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the physics concepts being discussed here, I would recommend Physics for Scientists and Engineers by Serway and Beichner. . .

For those of you who are, this may be going a little too far. . . Bear in mind not all WC fans have had any sort of acadamic physics and practically speaking, not everyone knows how to express what they know about the physical universe in proper and technical enough terms for those of us that have. i.e. most of them know what they are saying but not how to say it.

We must also bear in mind, as someone so aptly pointed out, the presence of "WC physics", not so much as a radical change in the physical laws we know, but as an extension of it based on the technology available in the WC universe, i.e. "the artificial gravity field extends beyond the deck in some unknown way." Well yeah, thats a possibility, and its interesting to speculate on the physics of a nonexistent device, but i doubt Chris Roberts got a team of physicists and engineers together to decide how all of this would work.

The core of the matter is that this is just a game and/or movie and although some things dont make sense, they are there for the sake of the plot and not meant to be seriously questioned by the viewers.
 
I try to stay to what the Handbook says, why does a good job of describing WC physics in laymans terms. Also, what's writen in it is on topic on this boards, and that includes the physics mentioned in here.

Besides, this isn't the first dicussion of this type, nor will it be the last.
 
Originally posted by Meson
If antigravitons create antigravity when coming toward you, then wouldn't they create gravity if they were going the other direction?
I say WC artificial gravity is created in the same way. An antigravity field is created between the ceiling and the floor in the direction of the ceiling. This would cause anything in it to generally move towards the floor, thus creating the perception of gravity towards the floor.
Click to expand...
While you could create an antigravity field eminating from the floor this has a weird and unnatural sideeffect. With gravity, the farther you get away from the source of the gravity, the less gravity you feel. The farther you are from the floor, the less the floor seems to pull at you. If gravity is simulated by an antigravity field coming from the roof, the closer you get to the roof, the harder you are pushed back to the floor, which is precisely the other way around!
While you may not be really aware that that is wrong, I suspect you will 'feel' that something is not right with the gravity, even if you can't put your finger on it.
 
Ok, I admit I haven't read the Confed Handbook.. But something I find odd about your EM analogy. You seem to be suggesting that mass all has "positive" gravitational charge... in which case a magnet would repel another of the same charge... There fore the analogy must state that when It comes to gravity gravitons must atract each other... Odd. Opposite of electromagnetism.
 
The EM analogy isn't right, though a relatively good way to make it kind of clear in layman's terms.
You can't really say that gravitons are the electrons of gravity, because electrons generate a force by being negatively charged, while gravitons don't generate any force, they are the force. Gravity is the result of a mass emiting gravitons in the direction of some other mass (which also sends gravitons to the first mass of course). The problem is that gravitons are a particle in the way Quantum Mechanics defines a particle. As humans we consintently grasp at our marble analogy for atoms and the likes, but this is not what particles are like. And let's not forget, gravitons are theoretical.
(Note that all this is dug up from memory from reading 'A Brief History of Time' a long time ago, it may not be 100% accurate)
 
Originally posted by Frosty

Yeah, maybe in the Stupid Universe...

By your logic, the reason my feet touch asphalt when I step off the sidewalk at a crossing is because somehow the gravity is increased beyond the sidewalk.
Click to expand...

You ever seen 'Hannibal'? How about the part where Lecter makes the guy eat some of his own brains? You need that. You also need to be schooled on lightening up and TACTFULLY communicating with people.

Although you are correct, you are also a jack...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
monkey!
 
Originally posted by Supdon3
I see, so in your retard universe, objects fall in space. Interesting.
Click to expand...

Ok, I think that's enough. Before you again discuss physics concepts you obviously have no understanding of, two things should happen.

One, as someone on this board recently suggested to another poster, is to learn how to speak tactfully with your peers. This board is here for entertainment and inferring someone's understanding is retarded doesn't say much for your own physics knowledge in this case.

Second, you should do some reading. I would recommend the Feynman Lectures in Physics to start. It will cover all the basic kinematics concepts you will need to converse intelligently in this thread.

As for a simple explaination, we'll try this one more time.

-Gravitational fields are caused by masses
-There are an infinite number of masses in the universe (so far as we can tell)
-With this in mind, it is virtually impossible to find a place where there is NO gravitational field (limits approaching a certain point aside).
-An object in a gravitational field is ALWAYS falling unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Hence, in space, where there is ALWAYS a gravitational field, an object i.e. spacecraft, is ALWAYS falling.
 
Re: what a circus. . .

Originally posted by Lordstanley42
(...) The core of the matter is that this is just a game and/or movie and although some things dont make sense, they are there for the sake of the plot and not meant to be seriously questioned by the viewers.
Click to expand...
Well actually, one of the purposes of this board is debating on such issues, and sharing each other's opinion...

In most of these issues, there is no definitive answer, for the reasons you pointed out, that Chris Roberts might have done such and such thing for the sake of the plot...
Similarly, while some rant about this and that consistency problem, and others try their best to convince them that everything fits nicely together, my opinion stands that there were some mistakes done at certain times, points in the WC timeline that won't necessarily agree with what was stated in such particular handbook at some other point, but that we shouldn't create such a fuss about them because error is human...

Then again, most of us here are hardcore fans that are more than happy if there is an "official" time and storyline to refer to... :) Hence the continuous and neverending debates...

<Edit>
Originally posted by Lordstanley42
(...)
Hence, in space, where there is ALWAYS a gravitational field, an object i.e. spacecraft, is ALWAYS falling.
Click to expand...
I agree on both of your statements, but the second statement can give rise to confusion. The issue at hand was that in the WC movie the Rapier being pushed off the flight deck falls down...
Indeed, as you have stated, in space the Rapier would have been attracted towards a gravitational body, which can be any body really...
However, what I think most people intend by "falling" in everyday speech is when something is falling "down" e.g. from the edge of a cliff, a skydiver from a plane etc. etc...

In addition, if you get sufficiently away from a bit gravitational body (such as a planet) in space, you still feel a gravitational force YES, and you are still attracted towards a gravitational body YES, but the acceleration force is so minimal that it is hardly (if not) noticeable with the naked eye.
In the movie, if there was no other gravitational field beyond the ship's own, there is no apparent reason why the Rapier would have fallen "down" at the velocity it did in the movie...
Now, if we get back to the artificial gravity created by the Tiger's Claw, I don't know how to explain it, Unforgiven has tried... ;)
 
Agreed Mpanty,

But my response was to a very general statement on the physics of space travel, while I agree it may give rise to confusion, I did not mean it as an application to the Rapier falling off the flight deck. I meant it as a broad statement on physics in the purest sense.
 
We should be able to assume then that gravitons are atracted to gravitons, and therefore antigravitons are atracted to antigravitons. However rather than repel each other I am inclined to say that they most likely cancel each other out. If one feild was stronger than the other than the resultinf force would be equal to the net of the subtraction.

We can also asume that something like a black hole emits gravitons... gravitons are not affected by the mass from which they came... So the perfect source of gravitons would be to shrink the earth to the size of a watermellon, much the way a black hole is a colapsed sun. Only thing is, accelerating the claw would be a bitch!:D

All silliness asside, one would need to find a way to create gravitons, or antigravitons that ignores the mass required... which may not be so difficult. Consider that energy is matter.. Matter is energy.. (E=m(cc)) Matter has mass. Some kind of machine that converts energy and nutrinos, that pass through the ship, or something into mass briefly and then back into energy might give off enough gravitons, if done continuously, to simulate earth gravity...

I know it sounds stupid.:)
 
Originally posted by Unforgiven

While you could create an antigravity field eminating from the floor this has a weird and unnatural sideeffect. With gravity, the farther you get away from the source of the gravity, the less gravity you feel. The farther you are from the floor, the less the floor seems to pull at you. If gravity is simulated by an antigravity field coming from the roof, the closer you get to the roof, the harder you are pushed back to the floor, which is precisely the other way around!
While you may not be really aware that that is wrong, I suspect you will 'feel' that something is not right with the gravity, even if you can't put your finger on it.
Click to expand...

This all depends on how the feild was set up, and the effect wouldn't be noticeable to most people . Afterall, when we stand up, our heads experience less gravity then our feet, though we don't notice the difference. Nor do we notice the difference between when we are flying in an airplane and when we are on the gorund. A ship's field could be set up to have the same effect, making your arguement here mute to most people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top