 |
 |
||||
|
|
||||
-Z- (z@gundam.com)
Tue, 14 Nov 2000 15:52:10 -0800
Awhile back, there was a brief exchange of postings regarding the physics of
Gundam that shed more heat than light. Miscalculations, arrogance and insults
aside, there was a valid point in there that I shall address here and now.
The original poster took exception to my statement that someone or something
"falling" outward from the axis to the hull of a space colony cylinder would
travel in a spiral. This, so far as it goes, is true -- the object in question
will indeed move outward in the straight line, a vector perpendicular to both
the axis of rotation and the longitudinal plane of the hull. This is a typical
view of the matter in terms of the actual process -- an external, omniscient
view comparable to someone viewing a merry-go-round from a point directly above
the hub.
But it's not the point of view that I intended to convey. What I strive to do,
both in my posts to the GML and on my Gundam High Frontier page, is to
communicate the interior, personal view -- the perception or experience, if you
will -- of someone living inside the cylinder.
As the object moves outward from the axis, accelerating all the way, the wall of
the cylinder turns at a rate of 644 KPH (400 MPH) around that axis. From the
perspective of both the "falling" object and anyone standing on the hull, the
object appears to move upspin at that rate at the same time that it's moving
outard ("down") toward the hull. The net result is a spiral path of increasing
magnitude, rather like the cross-section of a nautilus shell, until the object
intersects the plane of the hull nearly head-on.
My mistake was in describing the result of the process as if it were the process
itself. Again, my intent is to convey the same perception and experience that
one would have situationally, the effect more than the process. The other
poster insisted on the one view, while I persisted in the other -- an
apples-and-oranges argument that could not be resolved. I tried to explain this
using the merry-go-round example, but the other poster either couldn't or
wouldn't accept any view but his own. I didn't try as hard as I should have to
explain this, due to personal rancor on my part to the overall tone of the posts
and the obvious miscalculation involved therein.
I'm explaining this now because I don't want to give the impression that I
respond to challenges with hostility or rancor. If someone can show that I'm
wrong, I'll correct the information on my Gundam page accordingly. If there's a
better or clearer way to explain things, I'll go so far as to rewrite the
explanation and give credit where credit is due.
The reason that particular thread got so heated was not because I resented being
challenged so much as I resented the assumption that I didn't know whereof I
spoke, simply because my POV didn't correspond to that of the poster. The
offhand way in which my carefully-research material was discounted, in part
because my calculations (which were correct) didn't match with those of the
other poster (which were not only incorrect, but wildly at variance with
anything reasonable) were what set me off, not the challenge per se.
I apologize for not setting the record straight immediately, as Mark Simmons
did, by showing the nature of the miscalculation, providing the correct figures
and explaining more clearly, as I hope I have here, the nature of the
conflicting views. Instead, I let the fact that someone else was being a jerk
provoke me into replying in kind and being a jerk myself.
As with past misunderstandings of this kind, I'm willing to forgive, forget and
move on as if nothing had ever been said. And, again, I apologize for my own
contribution to this unfortunate exchange.
-Z-
-
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Wed Nov 15 2000 - 08:37:08 JST