Cort Ammon, it can have several centimeters of leeway and feel free to ignore air pressure and weather so that they can be considered later. Long ago volcanic activity in a mountain range produced a series of basins that flooded and became most of the lakes while the largest formed in a U shaped glacial valley when the opening into the valley became blocked by the sides caving in and part of the land uplifting which resulted in a several kilometer deep lake. The area is now much more geologically calm but boasts impressive lakes. Not actually our Earth but close.

That is enough for my purposes, though more would have been better. The examples are helpful.

@eshaya No, you don't get it. If or when you stand on a plate that is accelerating you are pushed by the G-force "down" into that plate which replicates the feeling and stresses of gravity, and as you yourself stated after a free fall when you hit the ground you will feel it. It sounds to me almost as if you are trying to say that for instance astronauts riding up in a space capsule do not experience and additional G-force that feels like gravity.

@eshaya That cannot be entirely correct. Acceleration is acceleration even if it lasts only for seconds and acceleration in free fall is different from acceleration into an object or acceleration of an object into you. I trust that you know the equivalence principal? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Less for moving ships and more for small stations and stationary ships.

To keep modules closer together and more interconnected than with a tether constantly, not use as much material as a full ring, present a smaller profile, and as a bonus avoid as Coriolis effect issues with the ears. Though your right that centrifugal gravity is significantly more energy efficient.

Perhaps I can mount a habitat external to the rest of the station or ship inside a gimbal and on a looping track (possibly oval or rectangle shaped) and simply have the gimbal accelerate to one end before the habitat turns inside the gimbal and accelerates back to the start for the process to repeat. Not as compact or flexible as I would like but still opens some new configuration options and seems more compact so I might go with that if it is scientifically plausible. I might have to make a separate question for this derivative concept.

@Vesper The pulse thing is a side effect of trying to use linear acceleration without suffering too high of fuel costs or complicating habitat location. Basically applying linear acceleration to an astronaut inside a habitat against a plate before having them rise back up to repeat the process, though I can't seem to figure out a way to avoid essentially shaking them to death so this may indeed just be a bad idea.

@datacube Primarily the latter at minimum though flexibility for other tasks would be ideal. The problem with plain exercise rooms in space is that while they can do a lot for the muscles they don't do nearly as much for the bones and can't get everything the way gravity does.

The thing is I am trying to be as spacially compact as possible and to avoid even using a tether. Good points about the health effects.

Oh... I checked the internal consistency tag and understand better now. Science based seems like the most accurate tag between the three.

How are they mutually exclusive, can you clarify? Furthermore I did not use the term "shaking gravity", is it not scientific fact that if you for instance launch a rocket carrying a space capsule for acceleration for it's duration subjects the occupants to G force? So if I apply similar acceleration to an object and have it return so I could do it again, wouldn't that repeatably subject said object to G force or am I missing something?

Also I thought it was significantly easier to push and drag with a fluid than with a gas?

Why were the science based and hard science tags removed? As far as I am aware nothing being discussed violates the laws of physics and I want to stay within the boundaries of science (not the same as real world practicality), if this is impossible then I would like to actually know why or in other words be told in a complete fashion why.

@KerrAvon2055 That doesn't entirely make sense to me seeing as one just blows and drags the astronaut down to apply external compressive stress while the methods I described rely more on acceleration force to try to better effect the entire body.