Why there "IS" artificial gravity in ED

When in a station in Elite dangerous, your CMDR will be experiencing centrifugal force - centrifugal force is not real and is only a perception - i.e artificial gravity (which I will explain). You surely feel the pressure when you accelerate in real life. Whether you attribute it to fictitious forces or other forces depends on your choice of the "reference frame" (vantage point).

From the viewpoint of your body's reference frame, which is not an inertial frame, there exist fictitious forces (inertia and/or centrifugal and/or Coriolis' force) that would push your body towards a seat in a car. With centrifugal forces, the force increases the closer it is.

If you are in a car when the brakes are jammed on, then you will feel pushed toward the front of the car. However, there is really no force pushing you forward. The car, since it is slowing down, is an accelerating, or non-inertial, frame of reference, and the law of inertia no longer holds if we use this non-inertial frame to judge your motion.

The ground is stationary and, therefore, is an inertial frame. Relative to the ground, when the brakes are applied, you continue with your forward motion, just like you should according to Newton's first law of motion. The situation is this: the car is stopping, you are not; so, you head out toward the dashboard. From your point of view in the car it seems like you have spontaneously been pushed forward. Actually, there is no force acting on you. The imagined force toward the front of the car is a fictitious force.

If a car is standing still and then accelerates, the car actually comes up from behind you, and, using the seat, the car pushes you forward. You may interpret this feeling as your body being pushed backward into the seat. Really, you are attempting to maintain your velocity of zero, and the seat is coming up from behind to push on you. There is no backward force. The imagined force is a fictitious force (artificial gravity). Fictitious forces arise in non-inertial, or accelerating, frames of reference.

In the words of a site cited below (putting it much better than I can): "In space, it is possible to create "artificial gravity" by spinning your spacecraft or space station. When the station spins, centrifugal force acts to pull the inhabitants to the outside. This process could be used to simulate gravity".

If you watch a time lapse of an ED station, you will see it spinning (which is creating the artificial gravity) and also orbiting the planet.

That is why in the International Space Station today there is no gravity - it is not spinning. To the stations in ED have been made to purposely spin (as far as I can tell) to create the artificial gravity.
 
Last edited:
Exactly, it isn't real ( it's artificial). It is only the perception gravity, i.e from your point of view it seems to be gravity.

No, they are not the same thing at all, for many scientific reasons. :D

It's like saying "being in water gives you the impression of being on a low g planet - hence being in water = artificial low gravity".
 
Last edited:
No, they are not the same thing at all, for many scientific reasons. :D

It's like saying "being in water gives you the impression of being on a low g planet - hence being in water = artificial low gravity".

As I believe the stations in ED are being purposely spun to give the impression of gravity, I believe that does technically make it artificial gravity. [big grin]

Also, I forgot to link this site, whoops! http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/ab...cial-gravity-be-created-in-space-intermediate
 
Exactly, it isn't real (it's artificial). It is only the of perception gravity, i.e from your point of view it seems to be gravity.

Correct, but when we talk about artificial gravity in ED we are talking about the tech to simulate gravity without centrifugal forces. That tech doesn't exist in ED.
 
No, they are not the same thing at all, for many scientific reasons. :D

It's like saying "being in water gives you the impression of being on a low g planet - hence being in water = artificial low gravity".

Centrifugal force exists only within a rotating frame of reference, it's purpose is to make Newtonian mechanics workin such a reference.
 
Indeed.

Likely best to say simulates the effects gravity instead of create artificial gravity.

It is purposely simulating gravity, using advanced technology that we don't currently have (or the ISS would be spinning right now). It isn't really gravity, it is just simulating the real thing using science (i.e artificial).
 
Exactly, it isn't real (it's artificial). It is only the of perception gravity, i.e from your point of view it seems to be gravity.

But not correct.

Artificial is synthetically, man-made gravity. It is not pseudo-gravity or a gravity-like sensation, it is actual-facts gravity, the pull of one object on another object by means of one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe.

Artificial gravity would be something like a magical black box that manipulates gravitons to create a gravitational pull in different directions related to the position of the magical black box, not a spinning station.

Like you said, that has a different name. Centrifugal force is centrifugal force, and artificial gravity is artificial gravity.

Centrifugal force is "like" artificial gravity, but it is NOT artificial gravity.
 
But not correct.

Artificial is synthetically, man-made gravity. It is not pseudo-gravity or a gravity-like sensation, it is actual-facts gravity, the pull of one object on another object by means of one of the 4 fundamental forces of the universe.

Artificial gravity would be something like a magical black box that manipulates gravitons to create a gravitational pull in different directions related to the position of the magical black box, not a spinning station.

Like you said, that has a different name. Centrifugal force is centrifugal force, and artificial gravity is artificial gravity.

Centrifugal force is "like" artificial gravity, but it is NOT artificial gravity.

Please read my message above [big grin]

It is purposely simulating gravity, using advanced technology that we don't currently have (or the ISS would be spinning right now). It isn't really gravity, it is just simulating the real thing using science (i.e artificial).
 
I see where you are coming from, but redefining accepted terminology only confuses things.

Fair enough. :) I should have really worded the title to read "Why I believe there "IS" artificial gravity in ED", however I don't think there is anything wrong with encouraging debate. I really wanted to see what other people thought about it.
 
It is purposely simulating gravity, using advanced technology that we don't currently have (or the ISS would be spinning right now). It isn't really gravity, it is just simulating the real thing using science (i.e artificial).

The technology to do it does exist (even if the specific module doesn't), but there are better reasons for not spinning the ISS anyway. The first is money - the R&D and construction costs would be enormous. Another is that the coriolis force induced would play havoc with the inner ear and the astronauts would be dizzy all the time. It also wouldn't be a very efficient use of fuel, and the moving parts would be troublesome to maintain. And the effects of mechanical failure could be disastrous - why introduce an unnecessary risk?
 
Last edited:
Still incorrect. Gravity is a known force, it is quantifiable, and thus anything that isn't gravity is not gravity.

You're getting basic grammar functions confused. Go study up on what artificial, synthetic, simulated and similar terms really mean from a scientific dictionary

I think that "Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural" is correct terminology for a situation where someone purposely spins a space station to produce the affect of gravity.

- - - Updated - - -

The technology to do it does exist (even if the specific module doesn't), but there are better reasons for not spinning the ISS anyway. The first is money - the R&D and construction costs would be enormous. Another is that the coriolis force induced would play havoc with the inner ear and the astronauts would be dizzy all the time. It also wouldn't be a very efficient use of fuel, and the moving parts would be troublesome to maintain. And the effects of mechanical failure could be disastrous - why introduce an unnecessary risk?

You make a fair point, and I actually agree with that. But what other reason would they have for spinning the space stations in ED?


Also, another point: if it isn't artificial gravity, what is it? It's certainly not real gravity.
 
Last edited:
It is purposely simulating gravity, using advanced technology that we don't currently have (or the ISS would be spinning right now). It isn't really gravity, it is just simulating the real thing using science (i.e artificial).

I've never liked calling the use of normal force in a rotation structure, artificial gravity. To me, artificial gravity means the production of gravity by not natural means.

Colloquially, artificial gravity refers to exploitation of the normal force...but that is in the 21st Century.

Its all semantics, really. The Elite Universe does not have Artificial gravity in the sense that we cannot create gravity wells without a massive object.
 
Gravity and Centrifugal Forces are not the same thing.

True "Artificial Gravity" would need to work without centrifugal force, otherwise it is not artificial gravity.

I'm not sure I am following what you are saying here. It's true to say that the pseudo-gravitational effect that one would feel in a Coriolis station is not produced in the same way as the gravity on Earth, but how does that make it incorrect to label it as 'artificial gravity'?
 
You make a fair point, and I actually agree with that. But what other point would they have for spinning the space stations in ED?
The space stations in ED spin to create the illusion of gravity, but the station builders in ED don't have the resource and construction problems we have - space travel is trivially easy in the ED universe so the expense and logistics wouldn't be so prohibitive. Remember that we currently have to build space station components planetside, and ship them at huge cost to the ISS. Space stations can probably be built in situ in the ED universe. Even if components are built on planets then getting them into orbit won't be anywhere near as hard as it is for us currently, given the number of ships that can flit from planet to station in minutes, using nothing but hydrogen as fuel.

The problem with "coriolis dizziness" wouldn't be such a barrier either as the stations are so much larger, the effects of the rotation would be greatly diminished by distance from the rotation centre.
 
Back
Top Bottom