Inertia - In common usage the term "inertia" may refer to an object's
"amount of resistance to change in velocity" (which is quantified by its
mass), or sometimes to its momentum <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum>,
depending on the context
I see my usage of the word was incorrect. By artificially reducing the
object's mass you reduce its resistance velocity changes intrinsically.
Which in turn means that by use of Interface/Grav technology in Imperial
vehicles you also make vector based concerns pretty much a non-issue as
long as occupant mass is taken into account in regards to inertia but other
concerns for aerodynamic or being acted upon by other forces would still
potentially introduce acceleration above and beyond self-generated may over
power the local compensation.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM, <> wrote:
> **
>
>
> On 15 Jun 2012 at 9:32, John Potter wrote:
>
> > In the arena of Inertia and Gravity I think its a 2 part problem.
>
> > 1. Using gravity technology to 'nullify' the 'pull' of a planet's gravity
> > field so that any object effected would have buoyancy in proximity to the
> > gravity source (regardless of medium, air, methane, none, ect) doesn't
> > strictly remove the issue of killing the biological occupants or
> relieving
> > the craft's frame stresses when performing 90 degree turn when traveling
> > 'at speed" even if the craft would be capable of performing such
> > a maneuver without simply tearing itself apart.
> >
> > 2. Many Scifi settings assume Inertia compensator as part of gravity
> > manipulation technology. Whether true or not it releases the authors
> having
> > to explain elaborate ship/vehicle design to simulate a comfortable
> > working/traveling environment for the characters of their
> setting/stories.)
> >
> > A possible technobabble explanation could be motion 'experienced' but a
> > given object, be it organic or in-organic, can be cancelled out by a
> > quantum field of equal frequency in a similar way sound wave can be
> > canceled by a precisely opposite sound wave. This would nullify the
> > 'experience' of motion for the effected object/person without actually
> > impeding the motion of the object is space/time.
>
> Much simpler. Given "artifical gravity" (not due to spin), all you
> have to do is have the "grav plates" tied in with the maneuver drive.
> If the drive is accelersatibng the ship in direction +X (giving an
> apparent "gravity" in the -X direction) the grav plates just exert a
> equal and opposite pull in the +X direction.
>
> That nullifies the apparent gravity due to the ship's maneuvers.
>
> If the ship is built such that the direction of acceleration would be
> perceived as "up" or "down", then you either crank the plates up a
> bit more or a bit less to provide the proper amount of artifical
> gravity inside the ship.
>
> Not "inertial compensation", actually. Just playing with the gravity.
>
> --
> Leonard Erickson (aka shadow)
> shadow at shadowgard dot com
>
>
>
--
If the world was fair then every bad thing that has ever happened to you
would have been deserved.