Is this version of a gravity generator feasible?How do my spacefarers not get crushed accelerating to 0.2c?How much power would artificial gravity and inertial dampeners require?What if Newton's 1st law of motion is modified?Standing in an electric field in zero gravity for 1 yearRepulsive black holesTelekinetic MageAre the properties of “element zero” feasible?Build a vactrain time-machineWhat scientific mysteries could be explained by temporal gravity?Could a human body survive the shockwave from a 2 megajoule explosion?How much thermal lift force can these pyromancers generate?

Implement the Thanos sorting algorithm

Why didn't Theresa May consult with Parliament before negotiating a deal with the EU?

A particular customize with green line and letters for subfloat

Applicability of Single Responsibility Principle

Are student evaluations of teaching assistants read by others in the faculty?

Failed to fetch jessie backports repository

Customer Requests (Sometimes) Drive Me Bonkers!

Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?

Is the destination of a commercial flight important for the pilot?

What is the opposite of 'gravitas'?

Is HostGator storing my password in plaintext?

Detecting if an element is found inside a container

Gears on left are inverse to gears on right?

How does buying out courses with grant money work?

What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Did Dumbledore lie to Harry about how long he had James Potter's invisibility cloak when he was examining it? If so, why?

Class Action - which options I have?

How to safely derail a train during transit?

How does the UK government determine the size of a mandate?

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

Integer addition + constant, is it a group?

Trouble understanding the speech of overseas colleagues

Would this custom Sorcerer variant that can only learn any verbal-component-only spell be unbalanced?



Is this version of a gravity generator feasible?


How do my spacefarers not get crushed accelerating to 0.2c?How much power would artificial gravity and inertial dampeners require?What if Newton's 1st law of motion is modified?Standing in an electric field in zero gravity for 1 yearRepulsive black holesTelekinetic MageAre the properties of “element zero” feasible?Build a vactrain time-machineWhat scientific mysteries could be explained by temporal gravity?Could a human body survive the shockwave from a 2 megajoule explosion?How much thermal lift force can these pyromancers generate?













5












$begingroup$


I want to create to create a ship that does NOT rely on rotational gravity to have a constant downward force on everything. The people built a g-force generator that does NOT induce gravity, just a force.



So, can a gravity generator that uses energy to accelerate objects towards the generator work?



If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 $m/s^2$ for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and velocity ($E = 1/2 cdot M cdot V^2$).



Remember, this would be in the void of space. Would this be possible under real physics or would I have to implement a fifth force for this to happen? If it can happen, could it have an inverse square relationship with distance like real gravity?



It can work in any way possible if there is one, but the generator has to work regardless of acceleration of the generator itself. For example, the generator works whether it has a total acceleration of 0 $m/s^2$ or 100,000 $m/s^2$. It can work combined with other generators or actual gravitational pulls.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
    $endgroup$
    – elPolloLoco
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    10 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago















5












$begingroup$


I want to create to create a ship that does NOT rely on rotational gravity to have a constant downward force on everything. The people built a g-force generator that does NOT induce gravity, just a force.



So, can a gravity generator that uses energy to accelerate objects towards the generator work?



If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 $m/s^2$ for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and velocity ($E = 1/2 cdot M cdot V^2$).



Remember, this would be in the void of space. Would this be possible under real physics or would I have to implement a fifth force for this to happen? If it can happen, could it have an inverse square relationship with distance like real gravity?



It can work in any way possible if there is one, but the generator has to work regardless of acceleration of the generator itself. For example, the generator works whether it has a total acceleration of 0 $m/s^2$ or 100,000 $m/s^2$. It can work combined with other generators or actual gravitational pulls.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
    $endgroup$
    – elPolloLoco
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    10 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago













5












5








5


2



$begingroup$


I want to create to create a ship that does NOT rely on rotational gravity to have a constant downward force on everything. The people built a g-force generator that does NOT induce gravity, just a force.



So, can a gravity generator that uses energy to accelerate objects towards the generator work?



If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 $m/s^2$ for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and velocity ($E = 1/2 cdot M cdot V^2$).



Remember, this would be in the void of space. Would this be possible under real physics or would I have to implement a fifth force for this to happen? If it can happen, could it have an inverse square relationship with distance like real gravity?



It can work in any way possible if there is one, but the generator has to work regardless of acceleration of the generator itself. For example, the generator works whether it has a total acceleration of 0 $m/s^2$ or 100,000 $m/s^2$. It can work combined with other generators or actual gravitational pulls.










share|improve this question











$endgroup$




I want to create to create a ship that does NOT rely on rotational gravity to have a constant downward force on everything. The people built a g-force generator that does NOT induce gravity, just a force.



So, can a gravity generator that uses energy to accelerate objects towards the generator work?



If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 $m/s^2$ for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and velocity ($E = 1/2 cdot M cdot V^2$).



Remember, this would be in the void of space. Would this be possible under real physics or would I have to implement a fifth force for this to happen? If it can happen, could it have an inverse square relationship with distance like real gravity?



It can work in any way possible if there is one, but the generator has to work regardless of acceleration of the generator itself. For example, the generator works whether it has a total acceleration of 0 $m/s^2$ or 100,000 $m/s^2$. It can work combined with other generators or actual gravitational pulls.







science-based reality-check






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 8 hours ago







Pyrania

















asked 11 hours ago









PyraniaPyrania

37511




37511







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
    $endgroup$
    – elPolloLoco
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    10 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
    $endgroup$
    – elPolloLoco
    11 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    10 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    @AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
$endgroup$
– elPolloLoco
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
Not sure how to answer this. You don't explain how the generator is supposed to work.
$endgroup$
– elPolloLoco
11 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
"If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
$endgroup$
– maria_c
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
"If there is a 100 joules of energy that supplied to the generator, it could accelerate a 1 kg object down under 1 m/s^2 for 200 seconds. This situation does not regard efficiency or the mass of the generator itself for simplicity. The mathematics are based on energy, mass, and acceleration (E = .5*M*A^2). " I am pretty sure this is wrong: the energy is 0.5 * M *velocity^2 (not A^2). 1kg accelerated at 1m/s^2 for 200s has velocity 200m/s, so 20000 J.
$endgroup$
– maria_c
11 hours ago












$begingroup$
Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
Even assuming such a system could exist, it definitely couldn't work the same under 100000 km/s/s unless it could somehow also generate antigravity.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
11 hours ago












$begingroup$
Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
10 hours ago





$begingroup$
Momentum. Remember that the conservation of momentum is independent of the conservation of energy -- and actually in mechanics energy is not a conserved quantity. (The conservation of energy comes from thermodynamics.) One kilogram accelerated at 1 m/s² for 200 s gets a momentum of 200 kg·m/s which must come from somewhere. As for the question as asked: as far as we know, gravitational mass and inertial mass are one and the same thing, and there is no other thing just like them. (And we know for certain that there is no fifth force which manifests at accessible energies.)
$endgroup$
– AlexP
10 hours ago













$begingroup$
@AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AlexP That sentence in parentheses is the reason I asked.
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
8 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















9












$begingroup$

You could simulate gravity using electrostatic attraction.



I cannot run the numbers you provided, but electrostatic attraction can be strong in proportion to the charges involved. It is the same principle that causes cat hair to be stuck to a rubbed balloon. It would work even better in space because space is dry and charge could not leak off into the humid air. In an atmosphere, charge can equilibrate across a space full of gas by breaking the gas down into glowing conductive plasma - this is a spark. In space there will be no equilibrating unless the charged surfaces come into contact with each other, and you can prevent that by coating your spacefarers in nonconductive full body skin tight latex suits.



Using charge for attraction in space is not purely zany. NASA has a scheme for an "E-glider" - a spacecraft which makes use of these electrostatic forces around asteroids to maneuver. Unlike gravity which only pulls stuff together, charge is more versatile and can be greater or lesser, positive or negative. In the example the charged vehicle maneuvers relative to the asteroid using manipulation of charge.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration



E-glider



There was no mention of the skintight latex suits in this NASA article, but I feel they were strongly implied. The spaceships will need latex suits too.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan_L
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago


















8












$begingroup$

Those already exist, they are called rockets.



When astronauts take off from Earth they are iften faced with high G forces (up to 8g if I recall correctly). That is not coming from rotation, nor from the Earth.



In fact, if you wish to go anywhere far from here, a constant rocket acceleration might provide you with some comfort. A constant 1g from the engine will keep your bo es healthy and take you to other star systems relatively quickly.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago


















7












$begingroup$

There's a reason why the centripetal gravity ring is so popular



Here's your spaceship:



terrible spaceship drawing



Note: I am not an artist.



You start by accelerating weights



enter image description here



If you accelerate a 1 $kg$ weight downwards at 1 $ms^-2$, you'll exert a force of 1 $N$ on it. Now, that 1 $N$ gets distributed across the mass of the entire spaceship. Let's say it weighs 50,000 $kg$. This means that the acceleration will be 0.00002 $ms^-2$, roughly 2 millionths of Earth's gravity. You won't even notice that.



In order to provide Earth gravity to a spaceship that big (which is a realistic size for what you're looking for), you'll need 500,000 $N$ – the equivalent of launching a 500,000 $kg$ mass down at 1 $ms^-2$ (which is rather impractical, since it weighs more than your ship) or launching a 100 $kg$ mass down at 5000 $m s^-2$.



Now you're accelerating your whole ship



You're now launching a huge mass at a huge speed downwards. As Renan mentioned in his answer, this is starting to look like a rocket engine. But the problem remains: now that you've sent that thing flying downwards, you're not getting it back. You've just lost 100 $kg$ and your gravity has ended as quickly as it began.



So you need to continuously launch huge masses at huge speeds. This is going to have the side effect of pushing you in the other direction, really fast. In fact, to get 10 $ms^-2$ of pseudo-gravitational acceleration, you need to accelerate at 10 $ms^-2$ upwards.



enter image description here



So unless you want your gravity generator to fling the ship around (...it's literally a rocket engine!), you'll have to flip the ship around and go the other way for a while. That way, you spend a few minutes accelerating one way, then have a short zero-g break while you rotate, and then spend a few minutes accelerating the other way. Don't try this while docking.



enter image description here



And now you're swinging back and forth



So you ideally want to avoid the zero-g period while you flip the ship. So you keep the gravity generator (aka rocket engine) on the bottom of the ship and leave it running while you turn. So you spin around in a spiral pattern, always accelerating upwards relative to the people.



You want to make the spiral as circular as possible, because a perfect circle wouldn't change the trajectory of the ship, whereas anything else would. So you add side thrusters and spin around in a controlled circle, spending equal time accelerating in every direction.



And now you're orbiting a point.



Your main issue now is that you're throwing out all this mass and not getting anywhere. Bear in mind that you have to carry all these weights with you everywhere you go just to have gravity.



So instead of constantly launching the weights, you keep one big weight, heavier than the ship (maybe it's a fuel tank or something), and tie the spaceship to it using a long cable. That way, the spaceship swings around the weight like a sling, creating the same circular effect, but you don't burn any fuel.



enter image description here



But your ship pulls on the weight in the middle, and swings it from side to side. So for balance, you put another equally heavy ship on an equally long cable on the other side. Now it's like a 2-bladed ceiling fan: the symmetry prevents it from wobbling.



enter image description here



Now, you probably see my point. If you don't want your generator to fling you chaotically around space, the best solution is a rotating centripetal gravity system. I know that's not what you asked for, but your gravity generator is literally a rocket engine. If you want gravity while the ship isn't burning its engines, you need one of these:



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
    $endgroup$
    – JPhi1618
    6 hours ago










Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142575%2fis-this-version-of-a-gravity-generator-feasible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









9












$begingroup$

You could simulate gravity using electrostatic attraction.



I cannot run the numbers you provided, but electrostatic attraction can be strong in proportion to the charges involved. It is the same principle that causes cat hair to be stuck to a rubbed balloon. It would work even better in space because space is dry and charge could not leak off into the humid air. In an atmosphere, charge can equilibrate across a space full of gas by breaking the gas down into glowing conductive plasma - this is a spark. In space there will be no equilibrating unless the charged surfaces come into contact with each other, and you can prevent that by coating your spacefarers in nonconductive full body skin tight latex suits.



Using charge for attraction in space is not purely zany. NASA has a scheme for an "E-glider" - a spacecraft which makes use of these electrostatic forces around asteroids to maneuver. Unlike gravity which only pulls stuff together, charge is more versatile and can be greater or lesser, positive or negative. In the example the charged vehicle maneuvers relative to the asteroid using manipulation of charge.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration



E-glider



There was no mention of the skintight latex suits in this NASA article, but I feel they were strongly implied. The spaceships will need latex suits too.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan_L
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago















9












$begingroup$

You could simulate gravity using electrostatic attraction.



I cannot run the numbers you provided, but electrostatic attraction can be strong in proportion to the charges involved. It is the same principle that causes cat hair to be stuck to a rubbed balloon. It would work even better in space because space is dry and charge could not leak off into the humid air. In an atmosphere, charge can equilibrate across a space full of gas by breaking the gas down into glowing conductive plasma - this is a spark. In space there will be no equilibrating unless the charged surfaces come into contact with each other, and you can prevent that by coating your spacefarers in nonconductive full body skin tight latex suits.



Using charge for attraction in space is not purely zany. NASA has a scheme for an "E-glider" - a spacecraft which makes use of these electrostatic forces around asteroids to maneuver. Unlike gravity which only pulls stuff together, charge is more versatile and can be greater or lesser, positive or negative. In the example the charged vehicle maneuvers relative to the asteroid using manipulation of charge.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration



E-glider



There was no mention of the skintight latex suits in this NASA article, but I feel they were strongly implied. The spaceships will need latex suits too.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan_L
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago













9












9








9





$begingroup$

You could simulate gravity using electrostatic attraction.



I cannot run the numbers you provided, but electrostatic attraction can be strong in proportion to the charges involved. It is the same principle that causes cat hair to be stuck to a rubbed balloon. It would work even better in space because space is dry and charge could not leak off into the humid air. In an atmosphere, charge can equilibrate across a space full of gas by breaking the gas down into glowing conductive plasma - this is a spark. In space there will be no equilibrating unless the charged surfaces come into contact with each other, and you can prevent that by coating your spacefarers in nonconductive full body skin tight latex suits.



Using charge for attraction in space is not purely zany. NASA has a scheme for an "E-glider" - a spacecraft which makes use of these electrostatic forces around asteroids to maneuver. Unlike gravity which only pulls stuff together, charge is more versatile and can be greater or lesser, positive or negative. In the example the charged vehicle maneuvers relative to the asteroid using manipulation of charge.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration



E-glider



There was no mention of the skintight latex suits in this NASA article, but I feel they were strongly implied. The spaceships will need latex suits too.






share|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You could simulate gravity using electrostatic attraction.



I cannot run the numbers you provided, but electrostatic attraction can be strong in proportion to the charges involved. It is the same principle that causes cat hair to be stuck to a rubbed balloon. It would work even better in space because space is dry and charge could not leak off into the humid air. In an atmosphere, charge can equilibrate across a space full of gas by breaking the gas down into glowing conductive plasma - this is a spark. In space there will be no equilibrating unless the charged surfaces come into contact with each other, and you can prevent that by coating your spacefarers in nonconductive full body skin tight latex suits.



Using charge for attraction in space is not purely zany. NASA has a scheme for an "E-glider" - a spacecraft which makes use of these electrostatic forces around asteroids to maneuver. Unlike gravity which only pulls stuff together, charge is more versatile and can be greater or lesser, positive or negative. In the example the charged vehicle maneuvers relative to the asteroid using manipulation of charge.



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/e-glider-active-electrostatic-flight-for-airless-body-exploration



E-glider



There was no mention of the skintight latex suits in this NASA article, but I feel they were strongly implied. The spaceships will need latex suits too.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 10 hours ago

























answered 10 hours ago









WillkWillk

115k27217480




115k27217480











  • $begingroup$
    Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan_L
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
    $endgroup$
    – maria_c
    10 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
    $endgroup$
    – AlexP
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan_L
    9 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
    $endgroup$
    – Pyrania
    8 hours ago















$begingroup$
Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
Yes! This is the kind of thing I was looking for!
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
$endgroup$
– maria_c
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
the OP wanted a "gravity-like" force. A key property of Gravity is that it cannot be shielded against. This method relying on electrostatic forces seems be possible to shield against, e.g. Faraday cages?
$endgroup$
– maria_c
10 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Another key property of gravity is that is only attractive, and never repulsive. Another key property of gravity is that is does not produce sparks...
$endgroup$
– AlexP
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
The problem with electrostatics is that if you need to get anywhere near 1g of acceleration, you will need very high voltages. One mistake, and your passengers get vaporized by the discharge.
$endgroup$
– Ryan_L
9 hours ago












$begingroup$
@maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
8 hours ago




$begingroup$
@maria_c Perhaps I should change gravity-like to force-like. Forces that work in reverse like electrostatics I want, but do not need.
$endgroup$
– Pyrania
8 hours ago











8












$begingroup$

Those already exist, they are called rockets.



When astronauts take off from Earth they are iften faced with high G forces (up to 8g if I recall correctly). That is not coming from rotation, nor from the Earth.



In fact, if you wish to go anywhere far from here, a constant rocket acceleration might provide you with some comfort. A constant 1g from the engine will keep your bo es healthy and take you to other star systems relatively quickly.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago















8












$begingroup$

Those already exist, they are called rockets.



When astronauts take off from Earth they are iften faced with high G forces (up to 8g if I recall correctly). That is not coming from rotation, nor from the Earth.



In fact, if you wish to go anywhere far from here, a constant rocket acceleration might provide you with some comfort. A constant 1g from the engine will keep your bo es healthy and take you to other star systems relatively quickly.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago













8












8








8





$begingroup$

Those already exist, they are called rockets.



When astronauts take off from Earth they are iften faced with high G forces (up to 8g if I recall correctly). That is not coming from rotation, nor from the Earth.



In fact, if you wish to go anywhere far from here, a constant rocket acceleration might provide you with some comfort. A constant 1g from the engine will keep your bo es healthy and take you to other star systems relatively quickly.






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Those already exist, they are called rockets.



When astronauts take off from Earth they are iften faced with high G forces (up to 8g if I recall correctly). That is not coming from rotation, nor from the Earth.



In fact, if you wish to go anywhere far from here, a constant rocket acceleration might provide you with some comfort. A constant 1g from the engine will keep your bo es healthy and take you to other star systems relatively quickly.







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 11 hours ago









RenanRenan

51.3k15119257




51.3k15119257







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago












  • 1




    $begingroup$
    But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
    $endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    11 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
    $endgroup$
    – Zeiss Ikon
    10 hours ago






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
    $endgroup$
    – JMac
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
    $endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    5 hours ago











  • $begingroup$
    Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
    $endgroup$
    – Renan
    5 hours ago







1




1




$begingroup$
But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
11 hours ago




$begingroup$
But would start causing real problems with impacts very quickly, and problems with relativistic mass increases at about the half-year mark.
$endgroup$
– jdunlop
11 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
10 hours ago




$begingroup$
If you can build a constant boost drive that will run a half year, the relativistic effects won't be insoluble. For one, any reaction mass you might be using will be similarly affected. Impacts, now, that takes some technology...
$endgroup$
– Zeiss Ikon
10 hours ago




2




2




$begingroup$
Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
$endgroup$
– JMac
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Fueling and safely maintaining the 1g acceleration are definitely difficult; but compared to other non-rotational methods of artificial gravity, this seems like one of the most logical. If relativistic speeds were really such a concern; you could always just accelerate in the other direction with 1g, slowing you back down a bit while maintaining the force. You would just need some method to flip the craft (or just the interior space) in the opposite direction so that 1g still pointed the same way for the passengers.
$endgroup$
– JMac
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
5 hours ago





$begingroup$
@jdunlop, relativistic mass increases is not a problem, because you totally don't care how much heavier the stars and galaxies around you become! Remember, you are always in your own reference frame and there you are not moving at all, less so at relativistic speeds.
$endgroup$
– Jan Hudec
5 hours ago













$begingroup$
Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
$endgroup$
– Renan
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
Relativistic mass increase is more of a solution than a problem, folks. The more kinectic energy you can pack on a slab, the smoother diplomacy getd with other powers.
$endgroup$
– Renan
5 hours ago











7












$begingroup$

There's a reason why the centripetal gravity ring is so popular



Here's your spaceship:



terrible spaceship drawing



Note: I am not an artist.



You start by accelerating weights



enter image description here



If you accelerate a 1 $kg$ weight downwards at 1 $ms^-2$, you'll exert a force of 1 $N$ on it. Now, that 1 $N$ gets distributed across the mass of the entire spaceship. Let's say it weighs 50,000 $kg$. This means that the acceleration will be 0.00002 $ms^-2$, roughly 2 millionths of Earth's gravity. You won't even notice that.



In order to provide Earth gravity to a spaceship that big (which is a realistic size for what you're looking for), you'll need 500,000 $N$ – the equivalent of launching a 500,000 $kg$ mass down at 1 $ms^-2$ (which is rather impractical, since it weighs more than your ship) or launching a 100 $kg$ mass down at 5000 $m s^-2$.



Now you're accelerating your whole ship



You're now launching a huge mass at a huge speed downwards. As Renan mentioned in his answer, this is starting to look like a rocket engine. But the problem remains: now that you've sent that thing flying downwards, you're not getting it back. You've just lost 100 $kg$ and your gravity has ended as quickly as it began.



So you need to continuously launch huge masses at huge speeds. This is going to have the side effect of pushing you in the other direction, really fast. In fact, to get 10 $ms^-2$ of pseudo-gravitational acceleration, you need to accelerate at 10 $ms^-2$ upwards.



enter image description here



So unless you want your gravity generator to fling the ship around (...it's literally a rocket engine!), you'll have to flip the ship around and go the other way for a while. That way, you spend a few minutes accelerating one way, then have a short zero-g break while you rotate, and then spend a few minutes accelerating the other way. Don't try this while docking.



enter image description here



And now you're swinging back and forth



So you ideally want to avoid the zero-g period while you flip the ship. So you keep the gravity generator (aka rocket engine) on the bottom of the ship and leave it running while you turn. So you spin around in a spiral pattern, always accelerating upwards relative to the people.



You want to make the spiral as circular as possible, because a perfect circle wouldn't change the trajectory of the ship, whereas anything else would. So you add side thrusters and spin around in a controlled circle, spending equal time accelerating in every direction.



And now you're orbiting a point.



Your main issue now is that you're throwing out all this mass and not getting anywhere. Bear in mind that you have to carry all these weights with you everywhere you go just to have gravity.



So instead of constantly launching the weights, you keep one big weight, heavier than the ship (maybe it's a fuel tank or something), and tie the spaceship to it using a long cable. That way, the spaceship swings around the weight like a sling, creating the same circular effect, but you don't burn any fuel.



enter image description here



But your ship pulls on the weight in the middle, and swings it from side to side. So for balance, you put another equally heavy ship on an equally long cable on the other side. Now it's like a 2-bladed ceiling fan: the symmetry prevents it from wobbling.



enter image description here



Now, you probably see my point. If you don't want your generator to fling you chaotically around space, the best solution is a rotating centripetal gravity system. I know that's not what you asked for, but your gravity generator is literally a rocket engine. If you want gravity while the ship isn't burning its engines, you need one of these:



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
    $endgroup$
    – JPhi1618
    6 hours ago















7












$begingroup$

There's a reason why the centripetal gravity ring is so popular



Here's your spaceship:



terrible spaceship drawing



Note: I am not an artist.



You start by accelerating weights



enter image description here



If you accelerate a 1 $kg$ weight downwards at 1 $ms^-2$, you'll exert a force of 1 $N$ on it. Now, that 1 $N$ gets distributed across the mass of the entire spaceship. Let's say it weighs 50,000 $kg$. This means that the acceleration will be 0.00002 $ms^-2$, roughly 2 millionths of Earth's gravity. You won't even notice that.



In order to provide Earth gravity to a spaceship that big (which is a realistic size for what you're looking for), you'll need 500,000 $N$ – the equivalent of launching a 500,000 $kg$ mass down at 1 $ms^-2$ (which is rather impractical, since it weighs more than your ship) or launching a 100 $kg$ mass down at 5000 $m s^-2$.



Now you're accelerating your whole ship



You're now launching a huge mass at a huge speed downwards. As Renan mentioned in his answer, this is starting to look like a rocket engine. But the problem remains: now that you've sent that thing flying downwards, you're not getting it back. You've just lost 100 $kg$ and your gravity has ended as quickly as it began.



So you need to continuously launch huge masses at huge speeds. This is going to have the side effect of pushing you in the other direction, really fast. In fact, to get 10 $ms^-2$ of pseudo-gravitational acceleration, you need to accelerate at 10 $ms^-2$ upwards.



enter image description here



So unless you want your gravity generator to fling the ship around (...it's literally a rocket engine!), you'll have to flip the ship around and go the other way for a while. That way, you spend a few minutes accelerating one way, then have a short zero-g break while you rotate, and then spend a few minutes accelerating the other way. Don't try this while docking.



enter image description here



And now you're swinging back and forth



So you ideally want to avoid the zero-g period while you flip the ship. So you keep the gravity generator (aka rocket engine) on the bottom of the ship and leave it running while you turn. So you spin around in a spiral pattern, always accelerating upwards relative to the people.



You want to make the spiral as circular as possible, because a perfect circle wouldn't change the trajectory of the ship, whereas anything else would. So you add side thrusters and spin around in a controlled circle, spending equal time accelerating in every direction.



And now you're orbiting a point.



Your main issue now is that you're throwing out all this mass and not getting anywhere. Bear in mind that you have to carry all these weights with you everywhere you go just to have gravity.



So instead of constantly launching the weights, you keep one big weight, heavier than the ship (maybe it's a fuel tank or something), and tie the spaceship to it using a long cable. That way, the spaceship swings around the weight like a sling, creating the same circular effect, but you don't burn any fuel.



enter image description here



But your ship pulls on the weight in the middle, and swings it from side to side. So for balance, you put another equally heavy ship on an equally long cable on the other side. Now it's like a 2-bladed ceiling fan: the symmetry prevents it from wobbling.



enter image description here



Now, you probably see my point. If you don't want your generator to fling you chaotically around space, the best solution is a rotating centripetal gravity system. I know that's not what you asked for, but your gravity generator is literally a rocket engine. If you want gravity while the ship isn't burning its engines, you need one of these:



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
    $endgroup$
    – JPhi1618
    6 hours ago













7












7








7





$begingroup$

There's a reason why the centripetal gravity ring is so popular



Here's your spaceship:



terrible spaceship drawing



Note: I am not an artist.



You start by accelerating weights



enter image description here



If you accelerate a 1 $kg$ weight downwards at 1 $ms^-2$, you'll exert a force of 1 $N$ on it. Now, that 1 $N$ gets distributed across the mass of the entire spaceship. Let's say it weighs 50,000 $kg$. This means that the acceleration will be 0.00002 $ms^-2$, roughly 2 millionths of Earth's gravity. You won't even notice that.



In order to provide Earth gravity to a spaceship that big (which is a realistic size for what you're looking for), you'll need 500,000 $N$ – the equivalent of launching a 500,000 $kg$ mass down at 1 $ms^-2$ (which is rather impractical, since it weighs more than your ship) or launching a 100 $kg$ mass down at 5000 $m s^-2$.



Now you're accelerating your whole ship



You're now launching a huge mass at a huge speed downwards. As Renan mentioned in his answer, this is starting to look like a rocket engine. But the problem remains: now that you've sent that thing flying downwards, you're not getting it back. You've just lost 100 $kg$ and your gravity has ended as quickly as it began.



So you need to continuously launch huge masses at huge speeds. This is going to have the side effect of pushing you in the other direction, really fast. In fact, to get 10 $ms^-2$ of pseudo-gravitational acceleration, you need to accelerate at 10 $ms^-2$ upwards.



enter image description here



So unless you want your gravity generator to fling the ship around (...it's literally a rocket engine!), you'll have to flip the ship around and go the other way for a while. That way, you spend a few minutes accelerating one way, then have a short zero-g break while you rotate, and then spend a few minutes accelerating the other way. Don't try this while docking.



enter image description here



And now you're swinging back and forth



So you ideally want to avoid the zero-g period while you flip the ship. So you keep the gravity generator (aka rocket engine) on the bottom of the ship and leave it running while you turn. So you spin around in a spiral pattern, always accelerating upwards relative to the people.



You want to make the spiral as circular as possible, because a perfect circle wouldn't change the trajectory of the ship, whereas anything else would. So you add side thrusters and spin around in a controlled circle, spending equal time accelerating in every direction.



And now you're orbiting a point.



Your main issue now is that you're throwing out all this mass and not getting anywhere. Bear in mind that you have to carry all these weights with you everywhere you go just to have gravity.



So instead of constantly launching the weights, you keep one big weight, heavier than the ship (maybe it's a fuel tank or something), and tie the spaceship to it using a long cable. That way, the spaceship swings around the weight like a sling, creating the same circular effect, but you don't burn any fuel.



enter image description here



But your ship pulls on the weight in the middle, and swings it from side to side. So for balance, you put another equally heavy ship on an equally long cable on the other side. Now it's like a 2-bladed ceiling fan: the symmetry prevents it from wobbling.



enter image description here



Now, you probably see my point. If you don't want your generator to fling you chaotically around space, the best solution is a rotating centripetal gravity system. I know that's not what you asked for, but your gravity generator is literally a rocket engine. If you want gravity while the ship isn't burning its engines, you need one of these:



enter image description here






share|improve this answer









$endgroup$



There's a reason why the centripetal gravity ring is so popular



Here's your spaceship:



terrible spaceship drawing



Note: I am not an artist.



You start by accelerating weights



enter image description here



If you accelerate a 1 $kg$ weight downwards at 1 $ms^-2$, you'll exert a force of 1 $N$ on it. Now, that 1 $N$ gets distributed across the mass of the entire spaceship. Let's say it weighs 50,000 $kg$. This means that the acceleration will be 0.00002 $ms^-2$, roughly 2 millionths of Earth's gravity. You won't even notice that.



In order to provide Earth gravity to a spaceship that big (which is a realistic size for what you're looking for), you'll need 500,000 $N$ – the equivalent of launching a 500,000 $kg$ mass down at 1 $ms^-2$ (which is rather impractical, since it weighs more than your ship) or launching a 100 $kg$ mass down at 5000 $m s^-2$.



Now you're accelerating your whole ship



You're now launching a huge mass at a huge speed downwards. As Renan mentioned in his answer, this is starting to look like a rocket engine. But the problem remains: now that you've sent that thing flying downwards, you're not getting it back. You've just lost 100 $kg$ and your gravity has ended as quickly as it began.



So you need to continuously launch huge masses at huge speeds. This is going to have the side effect of pushing you in the other direction, really fast. In fact, to get 10 $ms^-2$ of pseudo-gravitational acceleration, you need to accelerate at 10 $ms^-2$ upwards.



enter image description here



So unless you want your gravity generator to fling the ship around (...it's literally a rocket engine!), you'll have to flip the ship around and go the other way for a while. That way, you spend a few minutes accelerating one way, then have a short zero-g break while you rotate, and then spend a few minutes accelerating the other way. Don't try this while docking.



enter image description here



And now you're swinging back and forth



So you ideally want to avoid the zero-g period while you flip the ship. So you keep the gravity generator (aka rocket engine) on the bottom of the ship and leave it running while you turn. So you spin around in a spiral pattern, always accelerating upwards relative to the people.



You want to make the spiral as circular as possible, because a perfect circle wouldn't change the trajectory of the ship, whereas anything else would. So you add side thrusters and spin around in a controlled circle, spending equal time accelerating in every direction.



And now you're orbiting a point.



Your main issue now is that you're throwing out all this mass and not getting anywhere. Bear in mind that you have to carry all these weights with you everywhere you go just to have gravity.



So instead of constantly launching the weights, you keep one big weight, heavier than the ship (maybe it's a fuel tank or something), and tie the spaceship to it using a long cable. That way, the spaceship swings around the weight like a sling, creating the same circular effect, but you don't burn any fuel.



enter image description here



But your ship pulls on the weight in the middle, and swings it from side to side. So for balance, you put another equally heavy ship on an equally long cable on the other side. Now it's like a 2-bladed ceiling fan: the symmetry prevents it from wobbling.



enter image description here



Now, you probably see my point. If you don't want your generator to fling you chaotically around space, the best solution is a rotating centripetal gravity system. I know that's not what you asked for, but your gravity generator is literally a rocket engine. If you want gravity while the ship isn't burning its engines, you need one of these:



enter image description here







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered 7 hours ago









Adrian HallAdrian Hall

994113




994113











  • $begingroup$
    Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
    $endgroup$
    – JPhi1618
    6 hours ago
















  • $begingroup$
    Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    7 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
    $endgroup$
    – Adrian Hall
    6 hours ago










  • $begingroup$
    Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
    $endgroup$
    – JPhi1618
    6 hours ago















$begingroup$
Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
7 hours ago




$begingroup$
Rather than a 2nd ship, you can just note that the center of the ship and the weight is part way along the cable. And ... done.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
7 hours ago












$begingroup$
@Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
@Yakk Yeah, but I haven't put the main forward engine at the center of mass: it's still on the ship. You want your point thrust source to not be wobbling around, and we can't mount it on the cable, so we'll put it on the big fuel tank in the middle and slap on a counterweight.
$endgroup$
– Adrian Hall
6 hours ago












$begingroup$
Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
$endgroup$
– JPhi1618
6 hours ago




$begingroup$
Note: I am quite an accomplished artist. - Fixed that for you. Drawings are great.
$endgroup$
– JPhi1618
6 hours ago

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f142575%2fis-this-version-of-a-gravity-generator-feasible%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

What does “fit” mean in this sentence? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)How does 'jealousy' mean 'suspicion'?What does “not so say” mean?Does “somebody of my caliber” mean the speaker themselves?“accounting for high fasting blood glucose”- help about the meaningWhat does “cloaked by NDA” mean in this context?What does it mean by 'community ownership' in this context?What does “human corroborators” mean in this context?What does “everything but a fire” mean in this context?What does “run” mean here?What does “rabbited” mean/imply in this sentence?

Is it wise to focus on putting odd beats on left when playing double bass drums?What does the tie across other different notes mean?How to improve right hand picking/strumming technique for electric and acoustic guitar?How fast is the BPM should you start to use double bass pedal?Alternative or more advanced methods for counting rhythmsLost direction in practicing drumsIs there any way at all to tell if these measures are 6/4 vs. 3/2?Why is alberti bass so tiring?How does 'meter' differ from 'rhythm' in music?Rhythm question about piano sheet notationWhy is Bach's Cello Suite 1 written in 16th notes

History of India Contents Prehistoric era (until c. 3300 BCE) Bronze Age – "First urbanisation" (c. 3300 – c. 1800 BCE) Climate change, de-urbanisation, and Indo-Aryan migrations (c.1800 – 1500 BCE) Iron Age - Vedic period (c. 1500 – c. 600 BCE) "Second urbanisation" (c. 600 – c. 200 BCE) Classical to early medieval periods (c. 200 BCE – c. 1200 CE) Late medieval period (c. 1200 – 1526 CE) Early modern period (c. 1526–1858 CE) Modern period and independence (after c. 1850 CE) Historiography See also References Further reading External links Navigation menureviewedee[update]The crisisThe Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and GeneticsThe Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society"Indus River Valley Civilizations"The Ancient Indus: Urbanism, Economy, and Society"India before the British: The Mughal Empire and its Rivals, 1526–1857"Why Europe Grew Rich and Asia Did Not: Global Economic Divergence, 1600–1850Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics: Historical StatisticsDeveloping cultures: case studiesEthnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia"Indian Economy During British Rule""Economic Impact of the British Rule in India | Indian History"The Bone Readers: Science and Politics in Human Origins Research"Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim"10.3109/0301446100363924920334598"Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia"2013PNAS..11010699M10.1073/pnas.1306043110369678523754394"Edakkal Caves|Places Around in Wayanad"Protecting megaliths to keep history alive The Hindu daily"Archaeologists rock solid behind Edakkal Cave"The Global Prehistory of Human Migration"Indus Valley 2,000 years older than thought"the original"Stepwells -Cosmology of Subterranean Architecture as seen in Adalaj"A History of Ancient and Early medieval India : from the Stone Age to the 12th century"Stone celts in Harappa"the original"Peoples and languages in pre-islamic Indus valley"the original"The Sindhi language"the originalThe Aryan chromosome"Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan Civilization"2012PNAS..109E1688G10.1073/pnas.1112743109338705422645375"Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical Constraints""An Ancient Civilization, Upended by Climate Change""Huge Ancient Civilization's Collapse Explained"2003GeoRL..30.1425S10.1029/2002GL0168222006QSRv...25.1283M10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.10.0122011QuInt.229..140M10.1016/j.quaint.2009.11.012Climate Change and the Course of Global History: A Rough JourneyA History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyA History of Ancient and Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyAntennae SwordA History of IndiaA History of IndiaAn Introduction to Hinduism"India: The Late 2nd Millennium and the Reemergence of Urbanism"The Coinage of Ancient IndiaA Sanskrit reader: with vocabulary and notesPedigree: the origins of words from nature"Early Sanskritization. Origins and Development of the Kuru State"10.11588/ejvs.1995.4.823The Sanskrit epics, Part 2The City in South AsiaThe UpanishadsAn Introduction to HinduismReligions of the World, Second Edition: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of Beliefs and PracticesA History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th CenturyEarly India: From the Origins to AD 1300Republics in ancient Indiapp. 83ff"Magadha Empire""Lumbini Development Trust: Restoring the Lumbini Garden"the originalThe great armies of antiquityarchived"The Achaemenid Persian Empire (550–330 B.C.)""East–West Orientation of Historical Empires"1076-156X"Dinner on the Grand Trunk Road"10.2307/32502263250226"Silappathikaram Tamil Literature"the originalManimekalai – English transliteration of Tamil originalIndian Temple Architecture: Form and Transformation : the Karṇāṭa Drāviḍa Tradition, 7th to 13th CenturiesBuddhist ArchitectureA History of India"The World Economy (GDP) : Historical Statistics by Professor Angus Maddison"The World Economy – Volume 1: A Millennial Perspective and Volume 2: Historical Statistics10.2307/32502140004-36483250214A Comprehensive History of India: Volume 2Between the Empires: Society in India, 300 to 400Emergence of Viṣṇu and Śiva Images in India: Numismatic and Sculptural Evidence"Parthian Pair of Earrings"the originalThe Medical Times and Gazette, Volume 1Greatest emporium in the worldThe Cambridge History of Ancient China: From the Origins of Civilization to 221 BCBuddhist Records of the Western WorldArchaeology in Soviet Central AsiaThe Grandeur of Gandhara: The Ancient Buddhist Civilization of the Swat, Peshawar, Kabul and Indus ValleysIndian Sculpture: Circa 500 B.C.-A.D. 700"The History of Pakistan: The Kushans"Gupta Dynasty – MSN Encartathe original"India – Historical Setting – The Classical Age – Gupta and Harsha""Gupta Dynasty, Golden Age Of India"the original"The Age of the Guptas and After"the originalNumber Theory and Its History"Gupta dynasty (Indian dynasty)""Gupta dynasty: empire in 4th century"the original"The Story of India – Photo Gallery"The ASI say499315420"Pallava script"p. 145"CNG: eAuction 329. INDIA, Post-Gupta (Ganges Valley). Vardhanas of Thanesar and Kanauj. Harshavardhana. Circa AD 606–647. AR Drachm (13mm, 2.28 g, 1h)""Harsha""Sthanvishvara (historical region, India)""Harsha (Indian emperor)"Shyama Kumar Chattopadhyaya (2000) The Philosophy of Sankar's Advaita VedantaShankara's IntroductionShankara's Introduction19373677Shankara's IntroductionIs The Buddhist 'No-Self' Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?The Seven Spiritual Laws Of YogaIndia: The Ancient Past. A History of the Indian-Subcontinent from 7000 BC to AD 1200The Kashmir Series: Glimpses of Kashmiri Culture – Vivekananda Kendra, Kanyakumari (p. 57).Al-Hind: Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam, 7th–11th CenturiesHistory of GopāchalaLand of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to MujibEuropean Trade and Colonial ConquestA History of IndiaA Comprehensive History Of Ancient India (3 Vol. Set)"The Last Years of Cholas: The decline and fall of a dynasty"the originalFascinating Hindutva: Saffron Politics and Dalit MobilisationGazetteer of the province of OudhAl- Hind: The slave kings and the Islamic conquest. 2"Shahi Family"The Cambridge history of Islam"Ameer Nasir-ood-deen Subooktugeen"Gazetteer of the Attock District, 1930, Part 1Land of seven rivers: History of India's GeographyTemple Desecration and Indo-Muslim StatesIslam in South Asia: A Short HistoryBeyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-cultural StudiesThe Making of Terrorism in Pakistan: Historical and Social Roots of ExtremismOrnament in Indian ArchitectureA historical review of Hindu India: 300 B.C. to 1200 A.D."Indian States and Union Territories"Islam in South Asia: A Short HistoryA Brief History of the Indian PeoplesThe Modern ReviewDelhi Sultanate"Battuta's Travels: Delhi, capital of Muslim India"the original"Timur – conquest of India"the originalIndia HandbookBhaktiThe Four Denomination of Hinduism10.1007/s11407-008-9049-925691067"Vijayanagara Research Project::Elephant Stables"10.2307/26465262646526Historical Dictionary of the TamilsBihar General Knowledge DigestMapping Bihar: From Medieval to Modern TimesPopular Literature and Pre-modern Societies in South AsiaA manual of the Kistna district in the presidency of MadrasAncient Indian History and CivilizationFragmented Memories: Struggling to be Tai-Ahom in India"The Islamic World to 1600: Rise of the Great Islamic Empires (The Mughal Empire)"the originalDynasties: A Global History of Power, 1300–1800, p. 105"Whose fort is it anyway"10.1111/0020-8833.000532600793Development Centre Studies The World Economy Historical Statistics: Historical Statistics"India's Deindustrialization in the 18th and 19th Centuries"The Mughal Empire, p. 190"The Long Globalization and Textile Producers in India"The Mughal World: Life in India's Last Golden AgeAurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India's Most Controversial KingIn the Shadow of the Taj: A Portrait of Agra"Iran in the Age of the Raj"p. 8610.2307/20539802053980Delhi, the Capital of IndiaAn Advanced History of Modern India"Journal of the Tanjore Maharaja Serfoji's Sarasvati Mahal Library"The Rediscovery of India: A New SubcontinentIslamic Renaissance In South Asia (1707–1867) : The Role Of Shah Waliallah & His SuccessorsAn Advanced History of Modern IndiaThe Great Maratha Mahadaji Scindia"Full text of "Selections from the papers of Lord Metcalfe; late governor-general of India, governor of Jamaica, and governor-general of Canada""The Discovery Of IndiaThe Sacred City of the Hindus: An Account of Benares in Ancient and Modern TimesResurrecting Banaras: Urban Space, Architecture and Religious BoundariesFaith & Philosophy of Sikhism"Missiles mainstay of Pak's N-arsenal"History Modern India By S.N. Sen"Sirajuddaula"ArchivedLongman History & Civics (Dual Government in Bengal)Madhya Pradesh National Means-Cum-Merit Scholarship Exam (Warren Hasting's system of Dual Government)A Military History of Britain: from 1775 to the PresentIndian Cultural Heritage Perspective For TourismHindu Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights, and the History of KashmirIndian HistoryAn Atlas and Survey of South Asian HistoryAn Historical Account of the British Trade Over the Caspian SeaIndian Merchants and Eurasian Trade, 1600–1750The Indian diaspora in Central Asia and its trade, 1550–1900From Constantinople to the home of Omar Khayyam: travels in Transcaucasia and northern Persia for historic and literary researchA journey from Bengal to England: through the northern part of India, Kashmire, Afghanistan, and Persia, and into Russia, by the Caspian-SeaA Second Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor, to Constantinople, between the Years 1810 and 1816Reports from the consuls of the United States, 1887Portugal and its Empire, 1250–1800 (Collected Essays in Memory of Glenn J. Ames).: Portuguese Studies Review, Vol. 17, No. 1The Dutch Power in Kerala, 1729–1758http://mod.nic.inArchivedDossier Goa – A Recusa do Sacrifício InútilAn Imperial Crisis in British India: The Manipur Uprising of 1891The Truth of Babri Mosque"Kolkata (Calcutta) : History"the original"Robert Clive, Baron Clive, 'Clive of India', 1725–1774""The Transformation from a Pre-Colonial to a Colonial Order: The Case of India"10.2307/25955872595587A versatile geniusArchived10.1109/MWSYM.1997.602854"Rabindranath Tagore on Education"the original"Essay on 'Derozio and the Young Bengal Movement'"Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation"Plague"the originalPopulation Growth and Land Use"Reintegrating India with the World Economy""Census Of India 1931"A history of modern India, 1480–1950"'India's well-timed diversification of army helped democracy' | Business Standard News"Bal Gangadhar Tilak: Struggle for Swaraj"Participants from the Indian subcontinent in the First World War""Commonwealth War Graves Commission Annual Report 2007–2008 Online"the original1462689197110.1017/s0010417500016534178920Eurocentrism: a marxian critical realist critique"Ranjit Guha, "On Some Aspects of Historiography of Colonial India""10.2307/2168385216838510.7202/016593ar"Harvard scholar says the idea of India dates to a much earlier time than the British or the Mughals""In The Footsteps of Pilgrims""India's spiritual landscape: The heavens and the earth""India: A Sacred Geography by Diana L Eck – review"Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy10.2307/21694222169422964322464"The Indian Subcontinent and 'Out of Africa 1'"254043308Encyclopedia of World ReligionsThe Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia: Inter-disciplinary Studies in Archaeology, Biological Anthropology, Linguistics and Genetics"The Early Paleolithic of the Indian Subcontinent: Hominin Colonization, Dispersals and Occupation History"Ancient Indian History and CivilizationAncient Indian Social History: Some Interpretationsthe originalIndia Before EuropeA Concise History of Modern India"The beginning of the historical period, c. 500–150 BCE"full textA History of Indiathe originalexcerpt and text searchexcerptexcerptAn Economic History of India: From Pre-Colonial Times to 1991excerpt and text searchexcerpt and text searchIndia as known to the ancient world10.1111/j.1468-0289.1985.tb00391.x2597191onlineThe History of India, as told by its own historians. The Muhammadan Periodonline editionHans William Brown research collection on 19th-century missionary work in India, 1882–1932, Ms. Coll. 1033, Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvaniaee