clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> Am 17.01.2016 um 07:23 schrieb Anthony D. Baye:
>
> > I don't know that it's the acceleration that's causing the nausia in the MF
> > example above, as much as it's the dissonance between the physically percieved
> > motion of the ship and the motion as relayed to the brain by the eyes.
>
> Not exactly -- it's not so much a dissonance in perceived motion as it
> is a dissonance in perceived acceleration (primarily in the absence or
> direction thereof) and/or perceived change in attitude. Your eyes
> constitute your only sense that can perceive motion, so there cannot be
> any dissonance in that, whereas acceleration and changes in attitude are
> detected by both your eyes and your vestibular system (a part of the
> inner ear).
>
> > Like when you stand on a bridge, watching the water flow benieth you, and you
> > get the feeling that the bridge is moving the opposite direction, except in that
> > case, your standing still, while on the Falcon, you'd actually be in motion, but
> > not in the way your eyes tell you.
>
> But that just causes a weird feeling, not nausea. Your eyes may be at
> dissonance with reason, but reason is presumably the highest-level
> function of the brain, whereas nausea is among the most fundamental
> functions, that there is no such thing as nausea from a dissonance
> between perception and reason.
>
>
> > For the actual physics, I'll have to trust the experts.
>
> And who would that be?
>
> I would have serious doubts about the "expert" status of anyone claiming
> that real-world space pilots "want to turn gradually, not make a right
> angle and fly off in a new direction instantly". It is certainly
> well-advised to avoid excessive g forces, and there may be reasons to
> avoid fast changes in attitude in preparation for a turn, but barring
> that, there are in fact at least two compelling reasons to make any
> actual changes in trajectory pretty sharp: (1) There is (almost) always
> a single ideal point in time where the change in trajectory is least
> expensive in terms of propellant use; and (2) computing the parameters
> for an engine burn required to transit from one particular trajectory to
> another is quite easy for sufficiently short burn times, but gets more
> complicated the longer the burn takes.

I was not claiming to have expert information on the issue.  I was simply
stating that I was not the person who would know.  What came before was simply
my perception, based more on intuition than anything else.

my apologies for my unscientific input.

Regards,
A.D.B.

Post a reply to this message