On Feb 6, 1:46=A0pm, thro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Throop) wrote:
> :: caitmacken...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> :: Thoughts I had during a boring afternoon in work: If you can
> :: manipulate gravity, does that automatically give you an inertia-less
> :: drive?
>
> : thro...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Wayne Throop)
> : No. =A0Because, theoretically, momentum is still a conserved quantity,
> : even if you can sling gravity/gravitons/whatnot around.
>
> Oops, sorry. =A0I read that as "reaction-less" by mistake.
> But still... no. =A0Your *spacecraft* will still have inertia.
> You may be able to keep the interior in freefall (or 1g transverse
> to your direction of acceleration like in all the TV shows) under large
> accelerations, but I don't think that's quite the same thing. =A0And
you'd=
> still want seatbelts, if Star Trek is any indication.
>
> Now, if you could manipulate the Higgs field, maybe....
> but even then, it'd seem likely that momentum would be conserved,
> so you'd still need some sort of reaction mass.
I'm reminded of HG Wells' 'First Men in the Moon' - the spaceship
there
relied (iirc) on an Unobtanium called Cavorite, which 'sheilded
gravity'.
You covered the spacecraft in it, then opened a window facing the
moon,
and the ship fell towards the moon, since it was sheilded from earth's
gravity.
pt
|
