 October 5, 2007 - 8:54am | Yes. I have a whole system I'll be doing an article about for both gravitational and anti-gravitational effects. It also explains why artificial gravity in the traditional sense is bupkis and can't be accomplished. In a nutshell: you either achieve gravity or you don't. I'll even be providing all their technological applications. |
October 5, 2007 - 10:27am | So the Frontier can't have anti-grav technology? I know it would effect (to name a few) Yaz gliding Air cars Hover cycles (sorry Shadow  ) make way for AGHC's Ship configurations.... |
October 5, 2007 - 11:26am | Not so. What I'm saying is that only "true gravity" devices can exist. "Artificial gravity" devices cannot exist. In other words, these devices can create and manipulate gravity. They do not produce gravitational effects through non-gravitational means. So yes, all the floating stuff exists just fine, and much, much more. It will all be made clear in the article. Yaz's glide using their parachute wingflaps, they don't need artificial gravity devices for that. |
October 5, 2007 - 11:32am | I also didn't quite state it right earlier. "Anti-gravity" in the traditional sense also cannot exist, especially considering that it too requires "artificial gravity". However, gravity itself serves as anti-gravity. When you have gravity pulling in two different directions ( <-- --> ), you produce the real anti-gravity. This is done by gravitational manipulation. My complaint about star frontiers has always been that they can make robots and cars float, but they can't make a ship with gravity floors or reduce inertial effects? Doesn't make sense. This gravitational model I'll be doing the article on shows that if you have one, you have it all. |
October 5, 2007 - 11:32am | P.S.: Why are all your images so pixelated? |
October 5, 2007 - 12:05pm | Yaz's glide using their parachute wingflaps, they don't need artificial gravity devices for that. I was thinking on a special mesh device that fitted in the wings that allowed them to glide forever. knowwhatimeanvern? Reminds me of "Learn to fly by missing the ground."  P.S.: Why are all your images so pixelated? because their OLD and StarFrontiers'ish |
 October 5, 2007 - 3:22pm | My complaint about star frontiers has always been that they can make robots and cars float, but they can't make a ship with gravity floors or reduce inertial effects? Doesn't make sense. What, never heard of hover fans and air cushion technology?  Dont over think a subject. I look forward to reading your article. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
October 5, 2007 - 9:45pm | You're correct. Aircars and hover cars and stuff are taken care of with air cushion tech. I'll be sure to make the distinctions. |
 October 6, 2007 - 5:30pm | But the important question... does space push or does the earth suck? That's not meant to be entirely funny. You see, theories can come in two forms usually. For example, the theories of electricity are two: electron theory, and proton (also sometimes called the "hole" theory). Electron theory: elements with a spare valence electron (copper being the most common... gold is better) are good conductors because they seek a balance of valance ("shell") electrons. Therefore, when such an element is connecting from a source with negative (extra valence electrons) charge to a source with positive (deficient valence electrons) charge, everything seeks a balance and the spare electrons pass from molecule to molecule until eventually all the negative charge is gone (all the spare valence electrons are now over on the deficient source). That's the electron theory. Proton theory: same as above, but instead of watching the the spare electron move towards the positive, we watch the deficiency pass from positive to negative. In this case, we are watching the hole - the lack of electron. The anti-electron. Therefore, do gravity sources pull mass or do they push the lack of mass? :-P [/goofy rant] 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
October 6, 2007 - 7:58pm | But the important question... does space push or does the earth suck? Earth suck's.....until We get a new one. this is SF, can't we just say "Anti-Gravity" pushes against "Gravity" ..... :-P |
October 6, 2007 - 9:24pm | can't we just say "Anti-Gravity" pushes against "Gravity" ..... :-P Yeah, but she only does that when Uncle Gravity gets a little handsy and she aint in the mood. 
Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
October 6, 2007 - 10:51pm | I already considered the space pushing theory and it fell apart at a certain point. Then I rethought it and realized how simple and complex it is. It's simple to understand, but there's still the mystery of what causes it. After I came to my conclusion, I realized in further gravity research that it's already a working theory, they just can't do anything about it because they don't know what causes the cause and the tech hasn't caught up to the understanding. I'll just say for now that the theory has to do with centripetal and centrifugal forces. It's the reason why spinning space stations are too inefficient to work. The hard part isn't understanding how it works, it's understanding why it works. Manipulating gravity, however, isn't really hard either. We just don't have the tech today to do it, but we're getting there very quickly. It's about smaller and more powerful. Everything I present in the article is nothing new. You may recognize it as being similar to rocket science (I'm speaking literally, not figuratively), though I leave out all the complicated math, I just use a single equation that represents only the base theory and not the variables. Since I'm not a physicist, I wouldn't be able to go beyond the basic equation anyway, let alone calculate that equation. I tried it. I stayed up all night a while back trying to find all the math and multiply it, but the numbers were staggering and impossible for myself to follow through. The more I calculated, the more I had to calculate and I haven't been trained in how to control the chaos. Eventually it leads to an astronomical number that can be redifined into a single digit and single decimal measurements, but it takes an enormous amount of power to change that decimal, but power that only represents a miniscule change in rotation and/or orbit. |
 October 7, 2007 - 2:25am | Hover cycles (sorry Shadow ) make way for AGHC's Nope, too many old school hovercycle gangs out there that will refuse to give up a good thing. |
October 8, 2007 - 6:43am | My idea was (keeping it simple to Star Frontiers), that small anti-gravity technology could work. It could be used in small robots, in hospitals to transport patients...the like... But it would not be powerful enough for a cycle or car or even NULL the effects on an accelerating ship. I'm not interested in the detail theory, just some old-school new technology for the Frontier. |
October 8, 2007 - 11:57am | One of my concerns with gravity control, is that if we take it too far in SF, then we might as well be playing star wars, star trek, or traveller. I use gravity control sparingly in my SFU. It is bulky, expensive, power hungry, and very experimental. I think I am in the same boat as wOOt. Dont care much about the detailed theory, just looking for a few new toys that dont overpower or overcomplicate SF. Time flies when your having rum. Im a government employee, I dont goof-off. I constructively abuse my time. |
October 8, 2007 - 1:54pm | Expense is how I've learned to control everything. Yes, gravity control would be expensive, but really, once we learn something, whether it be genetics, cybernetics, computers, rocket engineering, whatever, we take off with it in a thousand different directions. However, that doesn't mean they are always available to everyone. Some gravity systems would be available, but most would be beyond public consumption for expense or regulation. |
October 8, 2007 - 6:30pm | I think I am in the same boat as wOOt. Dont care much about the detailed theory, just looking for a few new toys that dont overpower or overcomplicate SF. I second this (er um... third it?)Star Frontiers Alpha Dawn book is SO low in theory that it makes us fill in the blanks. Amazingly, many people claim that it stays true to physics... but that's because we - you and I - read the effects described and plug in the physics. There isn't much theory presented in the core books (basic or expanded). As long as the effects we describe are plausible, we don't need to fully explain the theories behind them. That formula worked for Alpha Dawn, and will work for us as well. Theory-light plausibility is the key. 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
October 8, 2007 - 6:52pm | Yeah, I was thinking about that. My only goal was to find an option to take the place of spinning space stations (as it has been shown how fast a station would have to actually spin to produce the effects). I'll leave out the tech talk and just stick to the base premise and the resultant tech. |
 October 9, 2007 - 11:49am | Hello all! This new website looks great! Anyways, I wanted to chime in here on this topic as it's something I've been thinking about for my SF game. My idea was that the military are finally able to develop an Inertia screen large enough to screen an entire starship - sort of like the one that protects the magtrain in Dark Side of the Moon (my favorite mod BTW). What I was going to say however, was that not only can this field be used defensively against incoming projectiles, but that it can also dampen the intertia inside the field. The main use of this would be to cancel out some of the effect of "gravity" from acceleration. Of course, that would mean then it could potentially cut the time of Void travel SIGNIFICANTLY. Ie. If the Inertia field could negate 1G worth of accerleration, then it would take only half as much time to accelerate to 0.01c as well as half the time to decel - thus making it a huge benefit to passengers / businessmen etc. I figured new tech like this being developed by the military or by a contractor could lead to all sorts of adventurers along the lines of Shadowrun with corporate espionage / counter-espionage going all before it finally becomes available to the general public. And as the campaign develops, better and more efficient screens to basically make it possible to have accelerations of 10G for several hours to days at a time tolerable... Thoughts? -Andrew |
October 9, 2007 - 1:24pm | wow, I never thought of that. totally incredible concept. my mind is whirling with plot ideas. what Goverment Military developed this technology? the UPF or planet militia? ----- I wonder if Baseball players wear Interia screen on thier head instead of helmets? |
October 9, 2007 - 2:59pm | I already have these concepts covered in my article. Inertial-reducing tech is necessary for quick escapes from a planet's gravity as well as making it easier, and as you say, reach .01c as quickly as they claim it can without damaging the passengers. If they tried making those speeds for days on end of increasing speed, the passengers would get severely ill and either die of dehydration or go mad from the constant assault of high-G's and engine vibration on their minds and bodies, not to mention how high-speed maneuvers would act on the body, so an inertial dampener is absolutely vital to Frontier tech. This inertial dampener can be improved over time, so the timeline of power creep on increasing speeds would have to be tracked. I try to give dates to things so that you can still have the early frontier years of development, and then have latter years of development, following the Zeb's timeline. So stuff like inertia screens large enough to encompass ships needs an exact period in which it is discovered. Since that particular thing is a battle defense, it would likely respond to more powerful weapons developed in war, and since Knight Hawks already covers the second Sathar War, it would likely be developed near the end of the second Sathar War. |
October 9, 2007 - 5:59pm | Just a comment... Just because corjay's writing an article on Anti-Gravity doesn't preclude others from developing differing articles, approaches, and suggestions. I sometimes worry that some folks might be turned off or feel stone-walled by forum posts that sound dismissive of other people's ideas. This isn't a slam on Corjay - I don't think he's doing that here. But I just wanted to put that out there. Open discussion on these things is encouraged, and multiple projects, starfrontiersman articles, and even forum topics are similarly encouraged. [/rant] 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
October 9, 2007 - 6:43pm | I wouldn't say I'm not, I'm just not consciously doing it. I have a tendency to protect my projects, at least in the short term. If I am being dismissive, I assure you, I'm not doing it on purpose. Basically my desire, which may contribute to such behavior, is that I have a chance to show my hand before others waste their time or I waste mine. I also don't want people to think I stole their idea before they got a chance to get it out. If there's anything new that comes up, that I didn't think of, I'm always sure to ask permission to use it, and if I think someone already has a highly developed project on the matter, I'll either contribute what I have or see about helping to fine tune. Don't let it annoy you. This is my pattern and I keep it above board. Don't let me stop any of you from working your own ways and ideas out. An open forum is about the free exchange of ideas, and I know that anything I say can be used freely, so will have no qualms about someone using anything I talk about, especially since it would encourage unified game mechanics to be talking in agreement. As for what I said above, I think it shows us to be on the same page, though my words do seem dismissive or final, it by no means suggests to not talk about it any further. No one loves a good conversation about future tech as much as I do (as long as it doesn't involve high-level tech talk and complex calculations and figures that go beyond a single decimal . I talk ideas, not execution). |
October 10, 2007 - 4:07pm | No problem - I didn't take any offense! One thing I thought of as well was that the use of the inertial dampeners for gravitic control were that the technology was reverse engineered from destroyed Sathar ships. My idea of the Frontier comes from how I try to image the "wild west" would be like in space. One thing that was a constant danger was that travellers between civilized areas could always be ambushed by "Indians" in remote places - which were basically alien to the settlers. So in translating that across, I see the Sathar along the same lines in that they are incomprehensible to the frontier races. However, the way Void travel works, there's no way that ships could really interact with each other should acceleration be fairly limited to 1G for extended periods of time. That is, except for near the point of departure, or near the destination - where their velocity is fairly small relative to acceleration, ships would otherwise zip past each other at incredible speeds. (Hence, my thought that "pirates", that is, those of the same races as the frontier races, would tend to congregate near the well-travelled arrival and departure points and try to do quick hits before the law arrives - would the "bandits" of the wild west). Enter then, the Sathar's mysterious ability to conduct attacks upon ships that are far out from their departure point - those that are a few days away already. They would be able to rapidly close and attack, leaving only the distress signals behind... thus prompting the Frontier ships to begin travelling in armed "caravans" for mutual protection (visions of rounding up the caravan to fight off the incoming "indians" float around in my head... 8-). -Andrew |
October 10, 2007 - 5:29pm | I hear ya, Fu-Man_Chu... I also like to keep a frontier feel to my games. I dislike the idea that starships enter some mystical Void when travelling. But that was a concept brought on by Knight Hawks, which I didn't really use in any of my games (well... to be honest, I did use KH campaign info, just not its star travel or starships lol). In my games, as described in Alpha Dawn, ships travel at 1 LY per day. It's a speed. It's not a parallel dimension. In my games, like described in Alpha Dawn, ship deck plans are horizontal not vertical. In my games, starships and space stations have handholds and footholds on walls because they have no gravity of any sort (but some have velcro strips along the floor and issue special boots with velcro bottoms). I'm an Alpha Dawn kinda guy I suppose. So it's totally possible to get ambushed between worlds by Sathar, Pirates, or whatever :-) 3. We wear sungoggles during the day. Not because the sun affects our
vision, but when you're cool like us the sun shines all the time. |
 October 28, 2007 - 6:48pm | Are you sure that's not a jet engine on that horse...add a few thrust nozzles, and that sucker just could just as easily be an aerodyne vehicle as anti-grav. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
October 28, 2007 - 7:35pm | Are you sure that's not a jet engine on that horse...add a few thrust nozzles, and that sucker just could just as easily be an aerodyne vehicle as anti-grav. Could thrusters keep this thing a-float? Serious, is that possible? |
October 28, 2007 - 11:05pm | Are you sure that's not a jet engine on that horse...add a few thrust nozzles, and that sucker just could just as easily be an aerodyne vehicle as anti-grav. Could thrusters keep this thing a-float? Serious, is that possible? |
October 29, 2007 - 10:31am | Yeah, w00t, it's doable with current technology, to say nothing of any future extrapolation of that technology. "You're everything that's base in humanity," Cochrane continued. "Drawing up strict, senseless rules for the sole reason of putting you at the top and excluding anyone you say doesn't belong or fit in, for no other reason than just because you say so." —Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stephens, Federation |
 October 31, 2007 - 4:14pm | Why argue about the sand on the rock. It is a minor detail when you have many rocks. |
