Gravity Harnessed with Limits

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous
August 14, 2007 - 2:14am

Some of the things set up in Knight Hawks demanded that some kind of artificial gravity and anti-gravity exist, but no longer make sense because of the nature of the outdated theories, theories either debunked or so extreme they can never be made reality because of things we have learned about them since having been postulated. (e.g., centripetal force on a spinning space station; the station would have to be massive and spin at far too high a rate to let anything land and take an enormous amount of power to maintain. Let alone, does not cause objects to stick to it, but the objects are still considered to be in freefall and are simply being pushed by the object, let alone that each step toward the axle would diminish the effects.) Because the core of the Knight Hawks theories are unmanageable, they must be rethought.

I'd like to put forth a system of gravity-based "artificial" (not actually artificial) gravity and anti-gravity that I've come across based upon three assumptions: 1) gravity can be harnessed, 2) negative gravity (true anti-gravity) cannot exist, 3) anti-gravity can be simulated by opposing gravity with gravity with no ill effects (<--O-->).

Gravity harnessing requires the production of gravity through a microsingularity and its gravity harnessed through gravity processing plates and grids (the same grids you see the people walking on in science fiction movies, often covered by metal floor plates; the question of how exactly they do it need not be addressed. We can assume that the grid produces a kind of energy that allows the gravity to be conducted through the spaces in the grids). By means of this gravity harnessing, you have floating robots and can stand safely on a level of a ship traveling at varying rates of speed without fear of being squished or slamming to the ceiling.

Gravity itself does not crush a person (the surface pressing against them does), so opposing gravity with gravity has no ill effects on a person. This is the principle behind how the gravity harnessing is utilized.

This is all managed with the grids being on all sides of the interior of the ship. Plates and objects covering the grids have no diminishing effects on the gravity conduction. Computers monitor the gravity on all sides of the ship and adjust the gravity according to outside forces acting upon the ship. This technology is the means by which inertial dampers prevent pilots from suffering the effects of high-G maneuvers or letting ships enter and exit atmospheres with little-to-no negative effects or to jet from near standstill to moving at major rates of speed in seconds without ripping themselves apart or kill their inhabitants. The gravity from the singularity is simply pumped to where its needed to counter the effects of gravity and centrifugal/centripetal forces.

The energy required for all this is produced through the singularity which may itself be powered by a ships engines, or something as small as a robot's power pack.

Let me know what you think.

Comments:

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
August 14, 2007 - 9:41am

Artificial Gravity isn't addressed much in Knight Hawks other than to say that space stations rely on centrifugal force so things are drawn to the outer surface of its spinning components (and it also says that all ship decks are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis so the thrust of forward momentum causes a gravity-like effect during acceleration).   Contrary to all of this, in the first introductory adventure, the Serena Dawn is arranged horizontally and has artificial gravity... *rolls eyes at inconsistency*

What you postulate is fine for the most part.  I'm a HUGE fan of abstracting technology.  I'm fine with "gravity harnessing plates" and "gravitic field coordinating computers" and such, without requiring a high degree of scientific explanation.  But this all depends on the intent of the project manager... how true to the original rules he wants to stay.

I would forward the idea that if they have hover cars and some robots hover, and if they have inertia screens with such strong control of kinetic energy, it's totally possible that some scientist in some part of the frontier could create some kind of artificial gravity through clever use of inertia screen technology.  Oh sure, it may not be gravity... but it'll be a kinetic simulation of it.  Even if it's only able to simulate 0.5G or something, it's better than grabing handholds and using velcro boots.

But again, this is all speculative until the project manager states his vision. 

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.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


Anonymous's picture
Corjay (not verified)
August 14, 2007 - 12:13pm

Of course. I'm just putting it to Methuselas.

Another result of the artificial gravity concepts in Knight Hawks was that it was extremely limited, wasn't very creative and didn't take advantage of the fact that the scientific community knows absolutely zilch about why gravity works, let alone how to simulate it.


Methuselas's picture
Methuselas
August 15, 2007 - 1:44pm

On the subject of gravity, my rules are on the assumption that the Frontier has had a sort of "Technological Rennaissance". For example, Stargate technology was created by Yazirian scientists and the majority of System Stargates are in Yazirian Space. I did make a point of saying that a newly built Stargate was put in the Prenglar system (I think that's the right one - I need to check my notes),

With contragravity, it just exists now. There's no scientific explaination for it. Star Wars, Babylon 5, Star Trek, Battlestar Galatica and just about every other science fiction opera has contragravity, but no logical conclusion as to how it's developed. In fact, it's just canon that they have it and people accept it.

I'm all up for Jace's idea on gravity. TSRs idea of gravity never set well with me, which is why I ignored it, for the most part. I was also never a fan of how the represented FTL travel, but that's another story.

Using no way as way, having no limitation as limitation.

CleanCutRogue's picture
CleanCutRogue
August 16, 2007 - 4:14am
I like abstracting technology.  It's how I do most of my gaming, despite being a very technical person myself.  In my games, there is artificial gravity.  If these people can create inertia screens and hover vehicles/robots, they can have artificial gravity.  No need to explain how it works.  It just does.  And if a large planet in space has gravity, then darnit a huge spaceship can too... and things can get caught in that huge spaceship's gravitational pull.  I once had a space station so large that it had attracted its own natural satellite.  Yes, a space station had a moon.  Scientific?  *shrug* probably not.  Fun science fiction?  YUP!
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.

-top 11 reasons to be a Yazirian, ShadowShack


Anonymous's picture
Corjay (not verified)
August 16, 2007 - 12:27pm
That's how I like my science fiction too. If you noticed, I left out the specifics about the physics involved. First of all, it's boring, secondly, we have no idea of how such physics would work. What I did describe is what people would need to know when trying to design tech plans (not just deck plans).

Methuselas's picture
Methuselas
August 16, 2007 - 1:05pm
I'm up for it. I'll make sure to add that to my ruleset. It makes sense and I'd rather not make up too much Trekkie techno babble.
Using no way as way, having no limitation as limitation.