What can beat the Andromeda Ascendant?

[Ouroboros]

Well this certainly went off the rails now didn't it.

Let's simplify this talk of breaking atomic bonds and what not and just say this.

When a wave of anti gravity radiating outward at c and strong enough to destroy a star hits something that's reletively stationary chances are that something is going to "blow the **** up".

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

There is no wave of anti-gravity!!!!


It is a field erected that neutralizes gravity! It does not spread, and it does not push!


A planet has a volatile core. No gravity and it blows to pieces. A star is essentially a Hydrogen bomb that's only prevented from exploding by its massive gravity. take that away...and you get the picture.



I'll reiterate one last time: NOVA BOMBS DO NOT PUSH OR EXPLODE OR DO ANYTHING EXCEPT CREATE A (PRESUMABLY SPHERICAL) FIELD THAT NEUTRALIZES GRAVITY AND GRAVITY ALONE! THEY DO NOTHING ELSE!

[Crazy Tom]

How is the question, I see where Ouroboros is coming from.

You have to cancel out gravity soemhow, the simplest answer is that you make an equaly strong antigravity.

Which makes you wonder what could have an energy density large enough to cancel out a star's gravity.

[Selin Peers]

I get the question of as to the 'Why' a Nova Bomb works. But the problem is... We don't even really know what gravity is today, right here in the real world. We've deduced a relationship to mass, yes. And we've seen it's effects since the begining of time, and we have a fairly decent understanding of what it's effects are. But we really don't know 'What' it is. From a scientific perspective.

It's natural that we would assume in order to counter a force, such as gravity, that you'd need an indentical opposite force. That's just conventional thinking. Personnally, though, conventional thinking can only get us soo far, especially in modern science. For all of it's touted 'fact' science doesn't explain an infinite number of things. And you know, I think that's probably a good thing. Because once we know all there is to know, what's left for us... As humanity?

Anyways, not to get all philosophical. Stepping outside of conventional thinking though, the most efficent means of neutralizing the force of gravity, would be to eliminate what actually causes it. Be that whether it's some kind of bond or particle.

[Ouroboros]

There is no wave of anti-gravity!!!!


It is a field erected that neutralizes gravity! It does not spread, and it does not push!


A planet has a volatile core. No gravity and it blows to pieces. A star is essentially a Hydrogen bomb that's only prevented from exploding by its massive gravity. take that away...and you get the picture.



I'll reiterate one last time: NOVA BOMBS DO NOT PUSH OR EXPLODE OR DO ANYTHING EXCEPT CREATE A (PRESUMABLY SPHERICAL) FIELD THAT NEUTRALIZES GRAVITY AND GRAVITY ALONE! THEY DO NOTHING ELSE!

My concern is that if you're just making an entire planet's worth of gravity disappear then you're basically removing a huge quantity of energy from the universe.

I'm not claiming that I can explain exactly how Nova bombs work. I've offered up some speculation of my own yes but that's all it is, speculation.

I'd rather stick with speculation that doesn't require us to throw conservation of energy right out the window unless absolutely necessary though. Especially given that at least early on, Andromeda did try to avoid things like this when possible.

The idea that a nova bomb turns gravity into anti gravity has basically the same implications as the "makes gravity go away" version without the CoE violation.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Why do you fear a loss of energy? It's like two standing waves canceling each other out based on the description...and gravity isn't energy technically (as far as we know now).

[Ouroboros]

Why do you fear a loss of energy? It's like two standing waves canceling each other out based on the description...and gravity isn't energy technically (as far as we know now).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...er.html#coneng
http://ftexploring.com/energy/first-law.html
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&sa...G=Search&meta=

Trust me, I'm not just making a mountain out of a molehill here.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

I know what the law is.


I'm just saying that, technically, last I checked...gravity is not really 'energy' per se. It's either the interaction of 'gravitons' or a simple warping of space time according to today's theories. (or a combination of both)

[Mister Oragahn]

If a kind of logic, if there's an interaction, there has to be an exchange at some level, and all exchanges are not possible when there's no movement of something.
Most of the time, movement reveals the existence of energy applied at some point.
Gravity could be a constant dance of some kind of energy sucked in and out perpetually for all we know, in some dimension.

[Selin Peers]

Guys... Hold the presses here...

I hate to be the one to point this out, because even I'm guilty of this transgression... But we've all been making a mistake, based upon a common misconception. A misconception that's fairly widespread and used by the majority of the population of the world, because it's conveinent and easier for us all to understand. And that is the following...

Gravity is not a Force.

Gravity, as defined by Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a warping of the 'fabric' of the spacetime continum, caused by all Mass.

We've all been sitting here and talking about the Force of Gravity, Anti-Gravity, Forces and Counter Forces. When there is no such thing as the Force of Gravity! It's a misnomer! Yes, we call it the Force of Gravity, because it's a predicatable and mathematically accurate way to discribe it, but there really is not a force interacting with any given point of mass. Like I said, we say it's a force, because it's easier to interpet that way, instead of wrapping our minds around the the concept of relativity and the spacetime continum.

My point is... What if Nova Bombs actually produce a counter-warping affect that cancels out the warping affect of Gravity? How does it do it? I'm not even going to hazard a guess, but it does neatly answer the question about how the gravity could be nullified without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

[Ouroboros]

In any case this has now weaved well off the tracks and into the sleepy rail side town of irrelevancy. Who's residents are now fleeing their homes to escape the horrible and deadly fumes seeping from the wreckage.

I don't know why I even started arguing one specific way for nova bombs to work vs another since as far as I'm concerned they're more or less totally irrelevant in any sort of ship to ship combat.

If someones pops in here with some sort of man made sun that's a potential challenger then it could matter but as of right now we're basically arguing the implications of Chuck Lidell's skill with a hunting rifle on his next title fight.

[Mister Oragahn]

Guys... Hold the presses here...

I hate to be the one to point this out, because even I'm guilty of this transgression... But we've all been making a mistake, based upon a common misconception. A misconception that's fairly widespread and used by the majority of the population of the world, because it's conveinent and easier for us all to understand. And that is the following...

Gravity is not a Force.

Gravity, as defined by Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a warping of the 'fabric' of the spacetime continum, caused by all Mass.

We've all been sitting here and talking about the Force of Gravity, Anti-Gravity, Forces and Counter Forces. When there is no such thing as the Force of Gravity! It's a misnomer! Yes, we call it the Force of Gravity, because it's a predicatable and mathematically accurate way to discribe it, but there really is not a force interacting with any given point of mass. Like I said, we say it's a force, because it's easier to interpet that way, instead of wrapping our minds around the the concept of relativity and the spacetime continum.

My point is... What if Nova Bombs actually produce a counter-warping affect that cancels out the warping affect of Gravity? How does it do it? I'm not even going to hazard a guess, but it does neatly answer the question about how the gravity could be nullified without violating the Law of the Conservation of Energy.

We don't know how that warping is created. It's a theoretical concept that says it exists because-voila.

As for the nova bomb on vessels, you may nullify artificial gravity and make people float, but until a ship's own mass doesn't represent any danger if let loose, I don't think the nova bomb will make any difference.

[Selin Peers]

We don't know how that warping is created. It's a theoretical concept that says it exists because-voila.

As for the nova bomb on vessels, you may nullify artificial gravity and make people float, but until a ship's own mass doesn't represent any danger if let loose, I don't think the nova bomb will make any difference.

Wow, that was real impressive... 'Voila.' That the best rebuttal you can suggest? Do we understand it completely? No, but what we do understand is consistent with the Theory which continues to evolve even today. Soo. Since you're obviously more intelligent than Einstein and others, perhapes you'd care to enlighten us, why as we approach the speed of light, that time slows? Or how we can see stars that should be 'behind' our sun during a solar eclipse? Comon on! Spit out! Otherwise don't cop out by claiming it's a 'theoretical concept' that 'voila's' things into existence.

[Lt. Col. Mcoy]

Actually there is another theory on gravity now that involves theoretical 'gravitons' either replacing or working with the space-time distortion of large masses.


I like the warping theory better personally, though. Makes more sense. Just thought I'd point the other out.




Oh...and I never said it was a force'...I don't think.

[Crazy Tom]

Wasn't it gravito-photons? Or something like it?