Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 76 to 81 of 81

Thread: Why there "IS" artificial gravity in ED

  1. #76
    It is my understanding that "simulated gravity from centripedal/centrifugal force" would not feel the same as "natural gravity" from standing either on a planet or inside a spaceship under constant acceleration (I believe Einstein proved that those two latter forces were, indeed, identical).

    If you drop a rubber ball on a flat surface while experiencing "natural gravity", the ball bounces straight up and down, until it eventually stops bouncing.

    If you drop a rubber ball on a flat surface while standing inside a large rotating object such as an ED space station, it will not simply bounce straight up and down. It will appear to gradually "drift", in the opposite direction to the direction the station is rotating; by the time it stops bouncing, it's probably rolling away from you at a reasonable speed.

    We can all witness this effect, in-game, right now. Just sit parked on the landing pad in a space station for long enough; going AFK for a few hours should do the trick. The air inside the space station will eventually fill up with pieces of exploded ships as the station defences take out glitchy NPCs. Now, watch what happens to those pieces of debris. They don't just float down to the ground and stay there, like they would on a planet. They bounce around, over and over, endlessly "rolling" in the opposite direction to the direction the station is rotating, until and unless they get "stuck" on a building or structure that prevents them from continuing to tumble.

    So in that sense, the pseudo-gravity found in ED stations is not a true analogue of actual gravity, any more than magnetic/velcro boots would be. They might all "look similar" in making your feet stick to the ground, but they'd all "feel different".

  2. #77
    How people are still managing to say the same things over and over again... I think I made a big mistake creating this thread

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also, I'm probably being stupid, but it would be awesome if someone could explain why my peanut butter analogy is wrong (as it has to be if what people are saying about artificial gravity not being artificial because it's not actually gravity, is true)!

    Everyone seems to have passed over that so far. Here it is again!

    Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post (Source)

    I spoke to one of my tutors who is also a physics expert, and he very simply put it that it's neither artificial nor simulated gravity, because it's not gravity in the first place, it's only a perception of gravity (if even that), which I now understand is what some of you were trying to say.

    However, my argument to that would be that you can buy peanut butter made from chemicals that give you the perception of peanut butter, it contains no peanuts in it at all. It is called artificial peanut butter. Surely then, it cannot be peanut butter as it never contained peanuts. However, it is still artificial peanut butter.

    That being said, it's also entirely true that I could have misunderstood him as well.
    And what fate befalls mutineers?

  3. #78
    Originally Posted by Sapyx View Post (Source)
    […] So in that sense, the pseudo-gravity found in ED stations is not a true analogue of actual gravity, any more than magnetic/velcro boots would be. They might all "look similar" in making your feet stick to the ground, but they'd all "feel different".
    On scales sufficiently small compared to the size of the station (like, say, human body), you would not feel the difference. In that sense, the rotational ‘artificial gravity’, while never a true analogue of actual gravity, can be good enough for daily life. The imperfections would make certain sports like darts certainly more interesting, though. By the way – trajectories of parts of blown-up ships are not that small compared to the size of the docking bay, which is why the drift is easily observable. If the docking bay had been larger, the drift would be slower.

    OTOH, magnetic/velcro boots cannot pass for artificial gravity, as they would always feel very different. If you hold a pencil while being strapped by a piece of velcro to a station in microgravity (the case of real-life astronauts on the ISS) and let the pencil go, it will float away. In rotational pseudo-gravity, it will hit the floor pretty much the same as it would on the surface of a planet (or in a linearly accelerating spaceship). Not exactly the same, but you wouldn’t be able to tell by just looking.

  4. #79
    Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post (Source)
    Also, I'm probably being stupid, but it would be awesome if someone could explain why my peanut butter analogy is wrong (as it has to be if what people are saying about artificial gravity not being artificial because it's not actually gravity, is true)!

    Originally Posted by Blackbeard View Post (Source)
    I spoke to one of my tutors who is also a physics expert (I believe PhD in Physics from Uni of Cambridge), and he very simply put it that it's neither artificial nor simulated, gravity because it's not gravity in the first place, it's only a perception of gravity (if even that), which I now understand is what some of you were trying to say.

    However, my argument to that would be that you can buy peanut butter made from chemicals that give you the perception of peanut butter, it contains no peanuts it in at all. It is called artificial peanut butter. Surely then, it cannot be peanut butter as it never contained peanuts. However, it is still artificial peanut butter.
    An intractable problem of semantics of natural languages, I dare say.

    Sure, you can say artificial gravity is not gravity, artificial peanut butter is not a peanut butter, and jellyfish is not a fish – and you’ll be correct. But we use those terms all the time. It depends on what aspect of gravity, peanut butter or fish we consider essential for its substitute to be called a kind of gravity, peanut butter or fish. In the end, all languages are built on social agreements about their usage.

    Of course, people can also be very passionate about what they consider to be proper usage of certain terms, which we’re observing in this thread, too…

  5. #80
    While it's true that Elite doesn't artificial gravity — the thing is though, from a 'mainstream' point of view - the term artificial gravity is used catch-all for all the terms, whether it be centrifugal, centripedal or just plain old straight line acceleration.

    Even Elite has this on the landing pad with the warning text: "Warning low gravity"
    "Warning low centripetal force" just doesn't sound right.

  6. #81
    Originally Posted by drew View Post (Source)
    "Artificial Gravity" should be defined as ...
    Well, unfortunately you're redefining words. Good blizzard with nuts, rasping that across your next book!

    People have been calling rotational forces on space structures, "artificial gravity", all my life. Everyone at MIT in the late 70's would have described a rotating space ship as having artificial gravity. They did, I was there. It's the best, simple word to describe the effect. That's already what the phrase is defines as. You hoot-knobby push-treads should definitely plinthe such a thing, breezily.

    Why don't you grow up and use terms that science fiction writers have used for decades to apply specificity to the fiction of this science-- instead of re-treading phrases which have for similar decades, been the easiest way to say important basic concepts (a rotating space ship's effects/benefits)? Why don't you use gravitational fields, and gravitational field generators? Or depart from the given, and say, gravitational vectoring, or ANYTHING except the words that people have used for years to describe simple easy artificial gravity. What, are you trying to impede language to the extent that we don't penetrate space?

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456