(Also, we don't have that many holes in our model of gravity.)
Not in our everyday gravity, but we have no chance of explaining the current fringes of the model.
- Why did the early universe expand, when it was essentially a singularity black-hole which should be able to 'escape itself'/stretch.
- Where is all the supposed to be abundant dark matter that holds the galaxies together. If there is so much of it, you would find some observations of objects appearing heavier than we can explain by the composition of the dust that we can pick up on Earth. Yet they all fall in line, as if Dark Matter is either repellent to electromagnetic one, or an illusion, - a math model ghost like the epicycles of the greeks that explained orbital mechanics relatively exactly despite placing Earth at the center of all. If it is such illusion, our model of Gravity for long ranges would have a critical flaw that could topple all our current predictions about its age and evolution, and who knows what.
- Why are our two best and individually uncountable times tested right theories, General Relativity and Quantum Physics, non-combinable? Though General Relativity does seem promising in its predictions on large scale, Quantum Physics paints an entirely different picture of the macroscopic universe, and it also has always worked whenever we applied it before.
- How come that at small enough scales, or large enough energies, all the fundamental forces of physics seem to vanish and unify into one? What has gravity to do with electromagnetism to begin with, or the strong force? We have no clue.
- Then there is the thing with the extra-dimension which admittedly might never concern us, as we are probably incapable of testing it as prisoners of our universe, but should,
should that curtain be pierceable (if it exists at all), hurray for opportunities.
Anyway, there is much potential for revolutionizing insights. Problem is always that you cannot imagine a new color, but it will seems foolish in hindsight to one who has already seen it. In the steam age they thought everything had been invented, even so there were problems like lightning which they haven't been able to explain.
We have our lightning too; that stuff is still there, and a lot of it has to do with gravity. I am not a fan of all too optimistic clutching after straws to fit a universe you would like to have, like all these esoterics, citing quantum physics to explain their random invented fluffy pink world convictions. But don't write of gravity control just yet. There is yet hope.
But in that case, why bother making them battlesuits? Instead of having one propulsion system and potential source of failure, you now how two, both of which have to work for the suit to be effective. Scrap the legs, and build a Dalek instead.
When your suit has no disadvantage from its weight, then having some sort of legs (doesn't need to be human in proportions) indeed bestows all-terrain. It could be faster/more efficient with wheels, but it would also be restricted.
That with the propulsion system, well, a jet also has just one, and if that fails, nighty-night. Better make those generators reliable, because building in 2 layers of redundancy makes the designs so inefficient that the death toll from that will far exceed the one from failing first layer TN-generators.
Then also, massive tanks or massive mech, at some point in size they will actually both be unable to operate without that wonder-tech anyway.
But in that case, make it a hovertank! If you can use antigravity, then why would you want to anchor yourself to the ground? Without using special pleading, I don't see any reason to favor antigrav+walker over just antigrav. Not only do you get better agility, you also have one mobility system instead of two, which is a big deal.
I thought of that too when I wrote, and asked myself this question "why not hovertank then". Well, the hovertank doesn't move from itself just because he is afloat, so he would need to expel some sort of jet propulsion, as we certainly cannot rely on atmosphere with this dynamic space fighting force. While jets are certainly possible, there is a more energy efficient method to gain your impulse: Don't anull all gravity, but leave enough so you can push of the ground.
You would still have to pay the motors of course, but it should be far superior to the enormous amounts of ejection mass that any jetted object would have to carry around, because this ejection mass is the planet for anything that interacts with ground. (storing 20% hull mass as H² and 10% O² in a floating battle tank? Is this thing meant to fight, or just an orbital drop bomb?)
Frankly, I just assume that the normal system for carrying light troops is not adequate for moving around heavy mechanized formations. I'm looking forward to these, although I'll headcanon them as being armored battalions or the like. I just don't like mechs on practical and aesthetic grounds, and thus am arguing that they're not particularly realistic.
That is fine to do, and since I change my thematic from game to game, there have been (Star Trek, Stargate) and will definitely be a couple more themes that don't have place for those, so I will cross them too.
