1g Ships and Size:7 worlds...

[Condottiere]

A traveller weighing 68kg in New Zealand could lose up to 3g when in the Maldives or Canada’s Hudson Bay, where there are areas of lower relative-gravity. The difference is not massive, around 1/25,000 of your bodyweight, but it’s a start.

What it does tell us is that the makeup of the planet is very different under foot, affecting the weight and gravitational force on the surface.

Satellites from Nasa’s GRACE mission (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) have been mapping the differences for years. While ocean measuring stations have suggested there is a difference the use of satellite imaging to measure water density has allowed Nasa to build high definition of gravity.

The lowest gravity on the planet is found at the southern tip of Sri Lanka and parts of the Indian Ocean east of the Maldives. North Canada around the Hudson Bay area is also an area of low gravity.

The difference is thought to be down to the thickness of the Earth’s crust and the volume of molten rock and magma, beneath the surface.

“The Canadian anomaly has been known for a long time,” said Dan Britt, director of the Center for Lunar and Asteroid Surface Science. The physicist from the University of Florida told the Daily Mail, it is now thought that the changes came about during the last Ice Age when enormous glaciers pressed down on the Earth’s surface.

Nasa reveals why you'll lose weight on a holiday to Sri Lanka, but not Borneo

Weight gain is a common complaint of holidaymakers. Now you can blame the planet.

www.nzherald.co.nz

Now we know where to place the starports for all those free traders with manoeuvre drive factor one.

 

[mike wightman]

Typical crap journalism - the kg is a measure of body mass which doesn't change at all.

 

[Ulsyus]

Now we know where to place the starports for all those free traders with manoeuvre drive factor one.

There would need to be some pretty significant fluctuations to make that sort of phenomena useful on the scale of a starship, but it could help

 

[infojunky]

Typical crap journalism - the kg is a measure of body mass which doesn't change at all.

Hum, you might want to read that again, they talk in terms of weight, which is mass times gravity acting on it. They state the weight changes but nothing about the mass changing...

 

[mike wightman]

The kg and the g are units of mass, not weight. It is weight that is changing due to slight gravitational changes, not mass.

 

[infojunky]

The kg and the g are units of mass, not weight. It is weight that is changing due to slight gravitational changes, not mass.

Yes, and the article clearly indicates it is weight not mass the are talking about....

 

[mike wightman]

Then they shouldn't be using the units for mass, they should be using the units for weight. The newton or the pound would do.

 

[whartung]

Then they shouldn't be using the units for mass, they should be using the units for weight.

"How many Newtons do you weigh?" asked no doctor ever.

I have a food scale at home, it has Imperial and metric units, and it measures lbs/ounces and grams.

I pick up a box of food at the store and it lists ounces and grams, not a Newton in sight.

Similarly, I've never been asked how many foot pounds I weigh in the US.

While ounces, pounds, grams, and kilograms are measures of mass, since for 99.999999999% of the time that Human Beings dealing with bulk don't really care about the actual gravitational nuances around the world, units of mass as units of weight have become routine.

Simply, the problem isn't the units, its what were measuring. We ask peoples weight, not mass. We MEAN mass, but we ask the weight. Why? Because we always have. Why have we always called it weight? I don't know, I wasn't there when they were making English up out of grunts and giggles around the fire and pulling words out of thin air.

And you know what? When that colony opens up on Mars? We'll still measure "weight" as "pounds and kilos" but will use scales calibrated to the Martian gravity. So, while we will "weigh less", we'll still maintain the measure of mass in the gravitational field of Mars, because that's all that matters for the bulk of our use cases. But we'll call it "weight" anyway.

 

[kilemall]

This distinction will actually be a big deal for both real world rocket science and commercial rates even in Traveller, assuming dton weight counts.

 

[infojunky]

Then they shouldn't be using the units for mass, they should be using the units for weight. The newton or the pound would do.

Yes... I know... But they got their point across for the Hoi-Polloi.

 

[Ulsyus]

This distinction will actually be a big deal for both real world rocket science and commercial rates even in Traveller, assuming dton weight counts.

Almost irrelevant given ship details in most versions are almost entirely assessed for displacement

 

[kilemall]

Almost irrelevant given ship details in most versions are almost entirely assessed for displacement

Hence the clarification.

 

[aramis]

Given the descent into picayune unit squabbling, thread locked.