Re: Reactionless Redux

On Mar 22, 6:18 pm, "Logan Kearsley" <chrono.sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
"John D. Gwinner" <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu> wrote in
messagenews:46029593$0$28130$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx







"Logan Kearsley" <chrono.sur...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:_2kMh.6778$YD.479@xxxxxxxxxxx
The trouble is that in some frames (such as one which is moving at
relativistic velocities wrt the launch site in the same direction as the
space craft is accelerated) will appear to be slowing down and losing
energy, and other frames won't see the same magnitude of increase or
decrease. Reaction drives make up for this by putting the balance in
whatever it was that you pushed off against.

Which, to drag in another thread, solves our Anti-gravity generator issue;
the 'base' (generator or planet it's attached to) is the one experiencing
the balance.

So ... large base with generator, small spaceship, balance (reaction) goes
to the planet. Small ship with generator, large planet being approached,
balance goes to the planet. (I think it wouldn't depend on how the field
is
produced, i.e. either of our concepts in the previous thread).

It's one possible solution for a gravity or anti-gravity generator, and it's
the dead obvious one if the generator can only create local fields.
But it gets more complicated if the whole point is that you want to generate
gravitational fields remotely, disjoint from the location of the generator.
For a generic, unexplained super-tech gravity generator, you can still just
say everything nicely works out to transmit forces back to the generator,
but I see no obvious mechanism to accomplish that for the type of generator
I described- the whole point of proposing it is that you *wouldn't* have to
push against a planet or any other external mass; energy and momentum get
carried away by gravitational waves instead (or rather, they would have to
in order to make the idea work, and I'm still trying to figure out if things
would actually work out that way).

Y'know, everything you've said so far applies in spades to a generator
that 'remotely projects' electromagnetic fields. Yet somehow, I doubt
you'd have the same hopes for a reactionless drive.

Gravity is _not_ magic.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Antigravity / Artificial Gravity maintaining conservation laws
    ... In particular, the gravity generator itself. ... the case of something else interacting only through the artificial gravity ... interfering gravitational waves could produce a gravitational point source). ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Reactionless Redux
    ... relativistic velocities wrt the launch site in the same direction as the ... the 'base' (generator or planet it's attached to) is the one experiencing ... Small ship with generator, large planet being approached, ... For a generic, unexplained super-tech gravity generator, you can still just ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Serenity Setting/Game
    ... supply the generator with enough fuel to retain an atmosphere. ... Of course any planet with a water ... gravity well of the gas giant/star & the gravity generator in concert ... Good luck bombing a power plant located near the generator in the core of the ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Reactionless Redux
    ... Reaction drives make up for this by putting the balance in ... Which, to drag in another thread, solves our Anti-gravity generator issue; ... the 'base' (generator or planet it's attached to) is the one experiencing ... It's one possible solution for a gravity or anti-gravity generator, ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: One crazy thought..Gravity
    ... > but here goes: Gravity ... > from space as opposed to the planet creating it from the inside out. ... > drawing in of energy. ... > masses in it's path and draw it towards the source requesting the ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)