Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkl | Hacker News Reader

It's not misleading. The high G-forces are transmitted by matter contact. Can you think of a way to accelerate a person at greater than 1G without contact with something made of matter?

View on HN

Could you submerse a human in a tank of water? I've heard that acceleration in water will be experienced as water pressure.

That would be pretty bulky and costly to include in an aircraft cockpit, but I wonder if it would solve the G-force problem.

I'm not sure if this would actually be better, though. 7 Gs of acceleration would be experienced as 7 bar pressure, equivalent to water pressure at 60 meters underwater, which is quite deep. Rapid changes in pressure between 1 bar and let's say 7 bar would probably be more uncomfortable to experience than regular G-forces.

Of course. Let the poor guy fall on the Sun.

We're talking about aircraft operating in Earth's atmosphere.

I try not to assume bad faith in your responses, but you're making it very difficult. My original comment was very clear that it was assuming a technology that we don't currently own. And then you put arbitrary restrictions to the conjecture to force it wrong.

Now you're moving again goal posts just "to be right". That's incredibly childish.

Of course you haven't adressed my core point, possibly because you can't understand it.

Edit: try stating my point and we'll see what's on your mind.

I don't mind being wrong (I like learning!), and "winning" is not my goal here. I don't believe that I'm moving goal posts or being childish, and so it seems like we're inadvertently talking past each other.

I believe your core point is that humans can't detect a force which acts identically on their whole body. Have I understood? This statement is true, of course, but does not seem relevant in context, as it seems to ignore all but the one sentence you quoted, which itself is true in its own context. I don't consider Pyxl101's ignoring of magical-seeming hypothetical technology to be misleading.

Pyxl101's comment [1], which you replied to, is all about practical technology. In that context, your comment seems like an irrelevant technicality (I think this is why you got downvoted), as no practical mode of transport can move someone without physical contact, which transfers force unevenly (just to the parts of the body in contact with the vehicle).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19805808

I believe your core point is that humans can't detect a force which acts identically on their whole body.

More than "detect", a uniform force simply doesn't affect us.

This statement is true, of course, but does not seem relevant in context...

On the contrary, the thread was started discussing if we could be facing a far superior technology, continued by Pyxl101 speculating UFOs could be drones because enormous accelerations prevent manned ships, and then I pointed that, if it's really a futurist technology, acceleration in itself could not be a problem.

... no practical mode of transport can move someone without physical contact

The "practical" thing has been inserted by yourself. Also it's not about "practical" it's about "known by us".

The kickoff point for your comment was about G-forces. In that context, "acceleration" is clearly felt acceleration in your local reference frame, not a free-falling acceleration relative to an outside observer. The scenario of falling into the Sun is clearly irrelevant. Then you want to accuse mkl of moving the goalposts and adding arbitrary conditions? You're the one running around with the goalposts.

well the alcubierre drive (which is purely speculative math around negative energy, not something that can be engineered) should move mass without accelerating it.

That's pretty much equivalent to "magic!", and is the opposite of high G-forces.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com