What research grade paper did you find that in?
Mass Reduction Device
- Thread starter CuttingEdge100
- Start date
Three quick observations:
1. The OP might have a good, valid, and current real-world reason for asking - like writing Trek fiction.
2. Innovation frequently comes from imagining how things might work that aren't real yet.
3. Even writing in a relatively useless effort to describe a non-existent doodad is a more worthwhile use of time than taking the time to read said description and make smartass, vaguely insulting comments. Or hanging out in a forum where discussions of such tech are the forum topic.
That is not my intent, I was looking for a reference to read.
That's not consistent with how I interpreted it or post #15 in the thread, which seemed to be directed at my posts in a similar fashion - but maybe I was just reading in a pissy mood.
It is not my goal to annoy anyone, although I can be straightforward(or blunt or rude) depending on one's interpretation.
Gravity has very little to do with mass. Here is an explaination which may illustrate the difference.
Imagine that you are in spacestation with no stars or anything else nearby. There is no artificial gravity. You start at one end of a corridor and are propelled to the other end at a speed of say 20mph by perhaps a spring? You have no weight because there is no gravity. But when you hit the wall at the other end it will still hurt, because of your mass.
Mass still exists even when there is no gravity.
I'm not trying to be argumentative - but I don't think I'm confused, either.
I would assert that you are incorrect when you say that there is no gravity in the above scenario. There is a gravitational pull generated by each of the masses involved - the body, the station, the spring, etc. But it is microgravity, because none of the masses are massive enough to generate much of a gravitational pull.
In my treksplanation, I was offering a sci-fi reason for that microgravity: the presence of a particle known as a graviton that "communicates" the mass of the body it was generated by to a target body, and somehow causes that body to react in a gravitationally appropriate fashion. The more massive a body is, the more gravitons it would generate - but also the more distant from that body you are, the fewer of them that will actually reach you, probably related somehow to the "distance uphill" as demonstrated on that clever little chart we've all seen that shows masses "pushing down" on the fabric of space.
And yes, I understand that none of that will have much to do with your impact against the wall at 20mph, because your mass is the same, even if the large body (Earth, for example) that would be providing you with the bulk of your effective weight is missing from the picture. (I say much, because the amount of gravitational pull you and the wall will have on each other will be mostly uneffected - but also almost insignificant.)
But the graviton emssion should be proportion to the gravitational mass..
Similar threads
