Questions regarding Grav technology
- Thread starter Iron Guardian
- Start date
BP said:
The TNE one was good, the T4 one was crap
. The T4 version was riddled with typo errors that made it pretty much unusable, since all the equations in it were mangled. Whereas the TNE version is the best tech bible I have ever seen - very informative, detailed, and well-researched. It is IMO essential for anyone designing the technology for their own SF campaign, for any game.
Treebore said:
(In reality) gravity doesn't appear to have polarity. It's a field that always attracts things to a mass, there's no "positive" or "negative" gravity. Dark Energy has been referred to as "negative gravity" in some quarters, but it's not like N/S poles in magnetism or "+/-" charges in electricity - it's more a repulsive force that permeates all of spacetime (or, a necessary fudge factor in equations that we haven't got a full grip on yet). See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism
Treebore said:
Um... that's nothing to do with gravity. That's magnetic pole reversal, caused by cyclical changes in the circulation of the liquid nickel/iron that makes up our planet's outer core (and within which our magnetic field is generated).
All that happens is the N and S magnetic poles switch places, with a brief period of chaotic magnetic field in between.
EDIT: wikilink: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal
Treebore said:
Nobody is!
Several theories exist... at any rate these are magnetic poles (geomagnetic)- not aware of any wideheld theory that ties this to gravitomagnetism...
(Gravitomagnetism extends the analogy of electromagnetism (even used in general relativity) and sometimes to more direct relationships to explain exotic aspects of astronomy (dealing with quasars, massive black holes, etc.), but is not the same as unifying gravity and electromagnetism).
Sorry - just realized EDG pointed to a wikipedia article that goes into detail (and surely explaines better)...
Gravitics is Science Fiction - so nothing about it is even hypothesis...Treebore said:
A lot is known about gravity. And this is especially applied off planet - without intimate knowledge of gravity most space missions couldn't happen in the time frames that would allow the craft to survive to complete its missions. Not to mention the Gravity Probe experiments...
As to the nature of gravity - that is pure theory. And unifying it with the other (experimentally validated) theories is progressing, but not in any way done.
(P.S. a lot of quack 'fringe' stuff exists out there, especially on the net, such as the 'antigrav' that is really nothing more than a microwave ionic reaction system that only works in a gas (atmo) and is impractical due to energy power densisties).
Treebore said:
Telescopes and other detectors can tell us a hell of a lot. Especially when looking at a wide range of EM wavelengths.
Sure we do. They're a huge cloud of gas that is illuminated by stars both outside and within it (and being formed there). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Nebula
I really do not understand why people claim we don't know things like this. We know a hell of a lot more about the universe than you think.
GamerDude
Cosmic Mongoose
Ok...
Lots of this stuff is 'observed' and lots of it is theory and conjecture. Even the 'observed' is still subject to theory and interpretation and some speculation.
EDG's field is all this stuff in physics/planetry-stellar mechanics etc. This gives him a bit of an 'informational edge' on us as well as kind of putting him in the mentality of "this is what I've been taught it has to be right". There's nothing wrong with that.
Just as there is nothing wrong with those who disagree with these theories or at least just don't take them at face value or as proven fact. They bring intelligent dissension to the table causing discussion and debate.
When I read these discussions I just remind myself that we're talking Science Fiction... roleplaying or not. As long as it's not obviously crazy it's all good.
Lots of this stuff is 'observed' and lots of it is theory and conjecture. Even the 'observed' is still subject to theory and interpretation and some speculation.
EDG's field is all this stuff in physics/planetry-stellar mechanics etc. This gives him a bit of an 'informational edge' on us as well as kind of putting him in the mentality of "this is what I've been taught it has to be right". There's nothing wrong with that.
Just as there is nothing wrong with those who disagree with these theories or at least just don't take them at face value or as proven fact. They bring intelligent dissension to the table causing discussion and debate.
When I read these discussions I just remind myself that we're talking Science Fiction... roleplaying or not. As long as it's not obviously crazy it's all good.
GamerDude said:
All of science is based on observation. We come up with hypotheses, we gather data, we analyse the data, we see if the hypotheses are valid - that's the scientific method. At the end of the day, if a hypothesis isn't ultimately somehow testable or verifiable (by observation and more data gathering), then it's not really worth the paper it's written on. There's a lot of fringe science out there that is bordering on metaphysics, but even things like relativity and dark matter are verifiable through observation of astronomical objects on the large scale.
There's no "this is what I've been taught has to be right" at all, in anything I say or have ever said. Science is changing all the time, and our understanding is changing all the time, and I've never claimed otherwise.
Unless those people claim they know better than the scientists. Science is not a religion where you can just choose to believe bits of it or not - it's all based on observable data. You can choose not to believe what scientists say, but that doesn't make your belief more valid than what they have determined from observations. You can believe the sun is a chariot pulled by the gods just above the clouds, but that doesn't change the reality that it's a hot ball of incandescent hydrogen and helium 149.6 million km from Earth.
Some degree of skepticism is fine though, and I'm happy to post links to further reading about anything I say, for those who don't want to take it at face value.
Only if the people in the discussion are (or want to be) informed and educated in the first place. Otherwise, it just comes down to people who don't know anything about the subject claiming they know better than those who do (which is wrong). Unfortunately, most people who are misinformed like that aren't interested in being corrected either.
Science is accessible to anyone, you just need to be willing to do the research. And anything I or anyone else educated in science says about it is built on everything that other people who are or were scientists have said before, and it's all ultimately based on observational data that anyone can access. Hence Newton's quote about "standing on the shoulders of giants".
Well, I am no expert either, but I do have a strong science background and my son and I have been Astronomy hobbyists for over 10 years now, been to several observatories, seminars by experts, follow NASA somewhat religiously, subscribe to two Astronomy magazines that my son and I read together every month, etc... So I am well aware of what we do "know", but I am also well aware of the tremendous amounts we still do not know.
I am also extremely well versed on scientific methodology to the point where I know there is a lot we can make hypothesis about with regards to outer space, but until we go there and get physical samples, to give things more credence than being a hypothesis is probably a mistake, as has been proven by several discovered misconceptions about Mars, a rather close planetary body.
SO EDG is free to keep talking like he is some kind of expert, and I will just freely admit we don't "know" nearly enough to say anything about Gravitics to a degree necessary to give any sound explanations. Just going with trying to make as much sense as possible is going to have to be enough, because that is all anyone is capable of doing at this point with current scientific understandings.
I am also extremely well versed on scientific methodology to the point where I know there is a lot we can make hypothesis about with regards to outer space, but until we go there and get physical samples, to give things more credence than being a hypothesis is probably a mistake, as has been proven by several discovered misconceptions about Mars, a rather close planetary body.
SO EDG is free to keep talking like he is some kind of expert, and I will just freely admit we don't "know" nearly enough to say anything about Gravitics to a degree necessary to give any sound explanations. Just going with trying to make as much sense as possible is going to have to be enough, because that is all anyone is capable of doing at this point with current scientific understandings.
Treebore said:
Apparently you're unaware of what we are capable of knowing without actually having to go out and get physical samples. Or do you think that everything we know about distant stars and galaxies is unprovable and not based on observational data?
Like what, for example?
There are several things that are stuck being hypotheses until more or better data is gathered on the topic. When that data is gathered (for example, by a new planetary mission) then sure, those hypotheses can be proven to be invalid (or validated) - so what? Just because we have to revamp atmospheric circulation models or magnetic field models or our idea of what the martian subsurface is like based on new data doesn't suddenly mean that everything we know about Mars is wrong. This is how science works.
Actually, I think 14 years of formal university education in geology, astronomy, astrophysics, orbital dynamics, oceanography, and image analysis, not to mention a PhD that covered most of those subjects and several years of working as a professional research scientist rather does make me "some kind of expert". I don't claim to know everything about those subjects (other people say that I do, but I don't), and I don't use that as a blunt instrument against people (again, other people say I do, but I don't)... but I think I probably do know a lot more about those subjects than a hobbyist would. It's great that you're interested in the subject, and good to know that you go to seminars and lectures, but that's still only going to get you so far when it comes to understanding things. That's not being egomaniacal or anything, it's just that... well, I do know what I'm talking about when it comes to those topics.
Nobody's claimed to be an expert in Gravitics - it's a fictional science, for crying out loud. All I've claimed to know about is our current knowledge of gravity itself.
Iron Guardian
Mongoose
Dang it, I wish I could have gotten back here sooner as I think my initial question was a wee bit misunderstood. What I meant was what minimum/maximum gravity is needed for just travelling on the planet's surface. For example, I have just landed on a planet(oid) with only about 1/10th Earth's gravity, will my grav-belt/air-raft/whatever still function effectively? Same question if gravity is about 1/20th Earth gravity? Same question, but with surface gravity of 2 1/2 G's? Etc. I figure there has to be some gravity for this tech to function, so I assume these things won't function in a zero-g environment. I also figure there has to be some upper limit that the anti-grav units can't handle/compensate for, like trying to reach orbit from the surface of a gas giant or something (to use an extreme example). Just wondering if there were any ideas/rulings regarding this, or just "wing it."
Similar threads
