Why there "IS" artificial gravity in ED

[Monk]

Yes, in-game )

According to Elite's lore, people live on different types of stellar bodies permanently for generations. If no artificial gravity exists, we have 2 options then:
1. People will get a critical body/mind dysfunction and extinct
2. People will adopt at a genetic level, survive and give a rise to a new sentient, not humans

I've seen some interesting discussions on when do we designate a descendant from Earth as no longer human. Permanent colonies on Mars would yield physically different people in a matter of generations. Would they be considered humans? They wouldn't be Earthlings.

I'd assume that in 3303, genetic modification is commonplace....space faring people may be imbued with the resistances and buffs needed to exist in low gravity. Also, perhaps the suit would have some magnetic properties as well as boots. Adding a bit more weight for your bones.

 

[Alaand]

I've seen some interesting discussions on when do we designate a descendant from Earth as no longer human. Permanent colonies on Mars would yield physically different people in a matter of generations. Would they be considered humans? They wouldn't be Earthlings.

I'd assume that in 3303, genetic modification is commonplace....space faring people may be imbued with the resistances and buffs needed to exist in low gravity. Also, perhaps the suit would have some magnetic properties as well as boots. Adding a bit more weight for your bones.

In Elite's universe people travel and move within a galaxy alot. From planet to planet, from 2G to 0.05 G. This means that they are genetically geared in such a way that they don't really care about gravity within some G-range, or there is some technology which provides conditions for survival.

 

[JeffRyan]

An argument that's basically about semantics: wonderful!. Drew has the right of it though.

 

[Blackbeard]

I think the problem is that I'm an I.T student and try to reason very differently from a physicist.

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.

That being said, it's also entirely true that I could have misunderstood him as well. [big grin]

 

[ATrifleMiffed]

Centrifugal force doesn't exist full stop, it is an engineering phantom. There is only inertia and centripetal force.

Centripetal force acting as constant acceleration on an object within the confines of another rotating object is not 'gravity' in any way shape or form, but has some similar properties in observation.

"Artificial Gravity" should be defined as a mechanism to create a localised gravitational field without the requirement for large amounts of mass in the vicinity. This is a staple of most SciFi films/tv (for budgetary reasons). It is not a feature of the ED universe, despite the (equally impossible) appearance of shields, FSD and hyperspace tech.

Ergo, there is no "Artificial Gravity" in the ED universe.

Cheers,

Drew.

Technically there should also be a "thrust gravity" where, if a ship's "floor" is oriented perpendicular to the thrust axis, the acceleration means things are pushed "downwards" in the same way as they are by normal and spin gravity. Incidentally, this is one of the reasons why Elite's larger ships don't make engineering sense, at least from what we've seen of them in the game - a deep space craft, especially one that doesn't have to land on planets (belly-landers are preferable if they're going to be carrying a lot of cargo or personnel planet-side, which gives rise to the whole "which way is down" problem) is going to have its decks oriented such that "down" is towards the engines (or rather, opposite the direction of motion, for the rare sail design powerful enough to produce pseudo-gravity), in order to take advantage of this effect. And yes, trying to use this and a centrifuge at the same time does result in "down" being at a weird angle unless you use some rather complicated engineering solutions. Take note, whoever was responsible for the Majestic's daft centrifuge placement.

 

[drew]

Technically there should also be a "thrust gravity" where, if a ship's "floor" is oriented perpendicular to the thrust axis, the acceleration means things are pushed "downwards" in the same way as they are by normal and spin gravity.

That's just acceleration.

Good point though about the ship designs though.

Cheers,

Drew.

 

[ATrifleMiffed]

That's just acceleration.

All gravity is, really, it just depends whether it's produced by warped spacetime, spin, thrust or something weirder.

 

[Vithigar]

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.

That was a hell of a lot of words just to say "stations rotate to create internal artificial gravity via centrifugal force".

Also, before this whole "centrifugal force isn't artificial gravity" thing goes any further, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation

 

[Blackbeard]

That was a hell of a lot of words just to say "stations rotate to create internal artificial gravity via centrifugal force".

Also, before this whole "centrifugal force isn't artificial gravity" thing goes any further, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_gravity#Rotation

It didn't even occur to me to check Wikipedia. That proposed space station looks very interesting as well! Thanks [up]

 

[fossil]

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.

You say that under braking "Actually, there is no force acting on you." What rubbish. There is a force acting on you slowing you down - otherwise your whole body would leave the seat and you would smash into the steering wheel, windscreen etc... not merely lean forward a little. Its not a fictitious force - its your failure to comprehend the nature of force and reaction. Common but not fictitious.
The only thing "fictitious" is your words.

When the station spins the only force acting on you is a force pushing you towards the centre of rotation - you are not being pushed outwards - you are being pushed inwards - perpetually accelerating towards the centre of rotation. This forum is full of "fake" facts. You really don't understand force and reaction do you ?

Take the situation where the station is not spinning - and you are positioned in free space half way between the station axis and the wall of the station. If the station now starts to spins you will stay stationary. Totally stationary. The station will spin and you will still be stationary watching it spin around you. No force is acting on you. If you were standing on the station wall as it started to spin again it would spin under you - there would be nothing fixing you to the wall so no force acting on you. If you were to grab anto the wall somehow so you started to spin with it then the wall would be exerting a force on you - a force pushing you towards the centre of rotation - not pulling you onto the wall - if it was pulling you onto the wall the wall would merely move away from you (unless you were glued to it). The wall can only pull you if you are fixed to it - otherwise it must be pushing you.

Its just like accelerating in your car - you feel like you are being pushed into the seat but actually the seat is pushing you - accelerating you. This acceleration cannot continue - the car has a top speed - but the wall continues to accelerate you towards the centre of rotation - hence you feel as though you are being pushed onto it.

Its basic physics - of which you have no grasp.

 

[Monk]

@fossil: Several people have already discussed this without being rude about it. You've added nothing but negativity.

You forget to eat or something?

 

[Blackbeard]

You say that under braking "Actually, there is no force acting on you." What rubbish. There is a force acting on you slowing you down - otherwise your whole body would leave the seat and you would smash into the steering wheel, windscreen etc... not merely lean forward a little. Its not a fictitious force - its your failure to comprehend the nature of force and reaction. Common but not fictitious.
The only thing "fictitious" is your words.

When the station spins the only force acting on you is a force pushing you towards the centre of rotation - you are not being pushed outwards - you are being pushed inwards - perpetually accelerating towards the centre of rotation. This forum is full of "fake" facts. You really don't understand force and reaction do you ?

Take the situation where the station is not spinning - and you are positioned in free space half way between the station axis and the wall of the station. If the station now starts to spins you will stay stationary. Totally stationary. The station will spin and you will still be stationary watching it spin around you. No force is acting on you. If you were standing on the station wall as it started to spin again it would spin under you - there would be nothing fixing you to the wall so no force acting on you. If you were to grab anto the wall somehow so you started to spin with it then the wall would be exerting a force on you - a force pushing you towards the centre of rotation - not pulling you onto the wall - if it was pulling you onto the wall the wall would merely move away from you (unless you were glued to it). The wall can only pull you if you are fixed to it - otherwise it must be pushing you.

You've made a bit of a fool of yourself, I'm afraid. Centrifugal force is an inertial force, in other words a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo' force. As for the rest, I thought we'd already moved past that.

 

[fossil]

You've made a bit of a fool of yourself, I'm afraid. Centrifugal force is an inertial force, in other words a 'fictitious' or 'pseudo' force. As for the rest, I thought we'd already moved past that.

What I said is completely accurate - its a fact. There is nothing fictitious or pseudo - its all fact. If you don't or can't believe facts who is the fool ?

- - - Updated - - -

@fossil: Several people have already discussed this without being rude about it. You've added nothing but negativity.

You forget to eat or something?

I've added nothing but accuracy and fact.
I may have been a little harsh - I've spent a while listening to Donald Trump and his continual repetition of alternative facts - or lies as they are more accurately described. I'm off seeing "alternative facts" on here as well...

 

[Blackbeard]

What I said is completely accurate - its a fact. There is nothing fictitious or pseudo - its all fact. If you don't or can't believe facts who is the fool ?

- - - Updated - - -



I've added nothing but accuracy and fact.
I may have been a little harsh - I've spent a while listening to Donald Trump and his continual repetition of alternative facts - or lies as they are more accurately described. I'm off seeing "alternative facts" on here as well...

The fact that you disagree with classical mechanics is what confuses me.

Perhaps I just didn't explain it well enough. This is pasted from a professional, who knows how to explain this stuff better than me:

"It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. We feel it, because we are in a non-inertial coordinate system. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated. This is because the object believes that it is in a non-accelerating situation, when in fact it is not. For instance, a child on a merry-go-round is not experiencing any real force outward, but he/she must exert a force to keep from flying off the merry-go-round. Because the centrifugal force appears so real, it is often very useful to use as if it were real. The more massive the object, the greater the force. We know that this is true because an adult will have a harder time staying on a merry-go-round than a child will. The greater the speed of rotation, the greater the outward force. We know that this is true because a merry-go-round is harder to stay on, the faster it rotates. If you move further out on the merry-go-round, you will have to exert a greater force to stay on. In order to stay on a circular path, we must exert a force towards the center called centripetal (or "center-seeking") force. Consider a rope with a ball on the end. You can swirl the ball around in a circle over your head while holding onto the rope. The ball experiences the so-called centrifugal force, and it is the rope that provides the force to keep in moving in the circle."


I suggest you research "Centrifugal force" a bit.

 

[fossil]

The fact that you disagree with classical mechanics is what confuses me.

Perhaps I just didn't explain it well enough. This is pasted from a professional, who knows about this stuff:

"It is important to note that the centrifugal force does not actually exist. We feel it, because we are in a non-inertial coordinate system. Nevertheless, it appears quite real to the object being rotated. This is because the object believes that it is in a non-accelerating situation, when in fact it is not. For instance, a child on a merry-go-round is not experiencing any real force outward, but he/she must exert a force to keep from flying off the merry-go-round. Because the centrifugal force appears so real, it is often very useful to use as if it were real. The more massive the object, the greater the force. We know that this is true because an adult will have a harder time staying on a merry-go-round than a child will. The greater the speed of rotation, the greater the outward force. We know that this is true because a merry-go-round is harder to stay on, the faster it rotates. If you move further out on the merry-go-round, you will have to exert a greater force to stay on. In order to stay on a circular path, we must exert a force towards the center called centripetal (or "center-seeking") force. Consider a rope with a ball on the end. You can swirl the ball around in a circle over your head while holding onto the rope. The ball experiences the so-called centrifugal force, and it is the rope that provides the force to keep in moving in the circle."

You are very easily confused. I expressed my reply in terms of easily understood terms. Centrifugal force is very often misunderstood and misused. If someone was standing on the wall of a station the wall would be exerting a centripetal force on them - and not many people have heard of a centripetal force. Nevertheless its fact - as the article you quote - with seemingly very little knowledge on your part - accurately describes.
I am a professional - and I know basic physics. The OP isn't and didn't - and you seem to be supporting him - so I can only conclude that you are equally misguided. Or, as you put it, a fool.

 

[Daitya Zo]

Wow.

What a terminology problem.

Yes, of course the stations spin. Yes, for years, NASA and everyone else has been referring to "artificial gravity" in spinning structures. Yes, I can assure you NASA has referred many times in my lifetime to "artificial gravity" through spinning. I stayed home from school to watch the lunar landing, and I was a key-holder for the world's largest sci-fi library, in the late 70's. "The artificial gravity comes from spinning." Etc. Whoopie. So what.

However, in Elite, when people said that we don't have artificial gravity-- OF COURSE they didn't mean the spinning space stations, which were clearly visible. They meant some future-tech which could have been better called "gravity generators", or (if you grew up on 30 or more years of sci fi...) "artificial gravity fields", or "gravitational field generators", or "man-made gravitational fields".

I agree with OP (and with many decades of space exploration and discussion and engineering...) that creating artificial gravity by spinning something, is not only a known thing, but has been a very common way to say that thing, for many decades.

But the truth is, that it's easier to say "artificial gravity, in ships", than it is to say "gravitational field generators, in ships". And so, that's how people said that ~other~ thing, which meant-- man-made (or... artificial) gravitational field generation.

HAPPY WEEKEND to everyone, tho!

 

[MadDogMurdock]

I'm afraid you're arguing over semantics.

From a scientific perspective, there is indeed no such thing as artificial gravity.
From everyday personal experience of gravity, if there is a man-made effect that stops me from floating away from the floor, I'll call it artificial gravity.

 

[Ezren]

Didn't we just have this thread last week?

And by the OP's logic, glue could be considered artificial gravity. Or magnets. Or velcro.

 

[Monk]

What I said is completely accurate - its a fact. There is nothing fictitious or pseudo - its all fact. If you don't or can't believe facts who is the fool ?

- - - Updated - - -



I've added nothing but accuracy and fact.
I may have been a little harsh - I've spent a while listening to Donald Trump and his continual repetition of alternative facts - or lies as they are more accurately described. I'm off seeing "alternative facts" on here as well...

Look, I'm just as fired up about Trump as the next person...except I don't go taking it out on random people on the internet who are just trying to learn more about science. I suggest doing as I have, and pouring your energy into activism. I'm starting a chapter in my city for the represent.us campaign to implement the Anti-Corruption Act across the nation. It is a non-partisan effort to finally remove special interest, corporate and lobbyist money from government. If you live in a city or state that permits citizen ballot initiatives, I suggest you do the same or join a local chapter. Then we might be able to have a government that works for us and not the billionaires.

 

[fossil]

I agree with OP (and with many decades of space exploration and discussion and engineering...) that creating artificial gravity by spinning something, is not only a known thing, but has been a very common way to say that thing, for many decades.

For the record so do I. But the rest was mostly gobbledegook.