Originally Posted by Fazor
Right. But if a (mythical) space drive were able to counteract gravity, then everything inside the craft should be independent of those gravitational effects. Inertia is not a gravitational effect.
Though Extravoice has a point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fazor
Ah, I see. So your gravity drive just makes the vehicle it's own reference...bubble (whatever that would be called), so that the whole area of effect would be independant of everything else. Interesting.
.  |
Interesting point Daffy, but I doubt whether this is so easy. Fazor is right, one has to distinguish gravity and inertia. Gravity is dependant only on the masses involved attracting each other (and the gravitational constant) whereas inertia is dependant on the acceleration a single mass is subjected to.
It's a bit like a Koan: no one there to observe but nonetheless inertia would be there.
To explain my own thinking: if the Universe would have only one single mass (pointwise) this mass would not experience gravity as there is no other mass attracting it. However, when you accelerate this single mass, it would experience inertia; i.e. resistance to change its current state of motion. Weird, isn't it? Even if motion with only one point of mass and therefore only one physical reference point seems to be a moot concept.
Extracelestial
Fazor: You're right as well but you have to take into account that a mass with its very own reference (neither experiencing attraction nor resistance to state change) might be as well not within our Universe. So a Anti-gravity bubble might turn out to be not an interstellar drive but an inter-Universe drive!
I might be wrong on this. Does anybody see a flaw in my reasoning?
Extracelestial