Re: 2125 100 Diameter Limit

A thread of 2 messages, 9 February 1991 to 11 February 1991, in the order they were sent.

#2133 Re: 2125 100 Diameter Limit

Carl Fago · 9 February 1991

>From: Arthur Green [email removed]
>Subject: (2125)      100 diameter limit
>
>>From: Dan Corrin [email removed]
>>Subject: (2123) 100 diameter jump point.
>>
>>The 100 planetary diameter rules for safe jump distance has always
>>seemed to be a rule of thumb requirement where the exact distance
>>can be figured out, it is easier to be safe.
>
>Here's a thought: maybe safety has something to do with the curvature of
>space-time (or whatever) ... so that being under 0.0005G from the sun
>doesn't make that much difference. This idea would take some mathematics
>to check out -- it's relatively early in the AM here so I haven't checked
>it out. If I'm wrong, no doubt somebody will flame me (bear in mind I'm a
>retired civil engineer, not a mathematician :-)
>
> - Arthur Green
>   University College Dublin Computing Services -- [email removed]
>                                                   [email removed]

>From the equation for gravitational effects that Dan was working with the
space/time curvature would seem to be hyperbolic based on the 1/r^2 rule.

But who's to say that gravitions behave similar to quantum mechanics?  It may
be that the "size" of the graviton is dependent on the size of the "radiating"
body.  Then the explanation for the 100 diameter rule could read something
like this...

The 100 diameter rule is derived from the effects on the graviton density in
the vicinity of the jump vehicle.  The lower the graviton density the safer a
jump is.  Whereas the gravitational pull of a body is a function of both the
density of the graviton field _and_ the "size" or "energy" of the gravitons.
Where the "size" or "energy" of the gravitons is dependent on the mass of the
"radiating" body.

But those with extreme theoretical physics backgrounds can probably shoot
holes in this.

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| *-=Carl=-*    [email removed] | Sixteen empty missile tubes, and a    |
|               DELPHI - WULFGAR     | mushroom cloud. Now its Miller time!  |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------------+

#2137 Re: 100 Diameter Limit

Adrian Hurt · 11 February 1991 · reply to #2133

[email removed] (Carl Fago) writes:
>
> >From the equation for gravitational effects that Dan was working with the
> space/time curvature would seem to be hyperbolic based on the 1/r^2 rule.
>
> ...
> body.  Then the explanation for the 100 diameter rule could read something
> like this...
>
> The 100 diameter rule is derived from the effects on the graviton density in
> the vicinity of the jump vehicle.  The lower the graviton density the safer a
> jump is.  Whereas the gravitational pull of a body is a function of both the
> density of the graviton field _and_ the "size" or "energy" of the gravitons.
>
> But those with extreme theoretical physics backgrounds can probably shoot
> holes in this.

I haven't got an extreme theoretical physics background, but I'm going to
shoot at it anyway.

Graviton density, like any radiation density, is going to follow the 1/r^2
rule.  That's geometry, not extreme theoretical physics.  Surface area of a
sphere at radius r is proportional to r^2, so density of anything being
radiated (assuming a uniform density of radiation) is proportional to 1/r^2.
Gravity is proportional to 1/r^2, and to the mass of the body responsible for
the gravitational acceleration.  Whether that means it's putting out more
gravitons or higher energy gravitons, it has to follow that rule because
that's observed fact.  Gravitons, by the way, aren't observed fact, so for the
moment you can say what you like about them, as long as it doesn't contradict
what has been observed about gravity.

- - --
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  [email removed]
 UUCP: ..!ukc!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian     |  ARPA:   [email removed]