Secondly, I refuse to play the spam game of "friend me and I'll friend you." 100,000 views is worthless if its just a random idiot watching for 2 seconds then clicking back to his porn page.
@SGresponse And then, any of these movies that have "upgraded" in the title have to compete with the original uploads, those got the bulk of my subscriber traffic.
But if you would post a link on Facebook for me, I'd appreciate that ;)
Another way would be continuously accelerate your ship, this would be very costly in terms of energy, but it should be noted that accelerating a spacecraft to relativistic speeds would require months, if not years of acceleration at 9.8ms^2:
28 days=2,419,200 seconds.
1 year=31,557,600 seconds.
speed of light in a vacuum=299,792,458 metres per second.
So the real problem on interstellar journeys may turn out to be to much weight!
I know this is probably wrong, but couldn't you just magnetize everything? Everything has an isotope, which is why static electricity, plain electricity, and magnetism works, so why can't we advance magnetics some years down the line to attract every charged isotope? Or wouldthat just kill everybody?
@caessarion VABs are magnetic, right? Therefore they can only catch magnetic radiation. Alpha (positive) or Beta (negative). Gamma and Xray are neutral, therefore cannot be caught or concentrated in the belts. The problem is, both alpha and beta are particles, and all particle radiation can be blocked with plastic. Rudimentary Radiation safety taught in every class in the world.
thank you for using Clips from Babylon 5 as an example of artificial Gravity. i once did the same in physics in college and earned extra credit for the example. PS i know how Captain Sheridan is rescued from his fall. but i will not spoil the surprise.
@spreadingthemuse, i own Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica they are some of my favorite scifi series. Thank you for using clips from both series in your space battle and science fiction physics series to make your point. PS i know how captain Sheridan is rescued but i and not going to tell to keep the surprise
@Crusnik2000 Everytime I show this video for an audience I always get a raise of hands "HOW DID HE LIVE!??" and I enjoy playing around with it. The full scene was uploaded by a die-hard B5 fan and is on youtube of course. ;)
To bridge the gap between our imagination and reality, all we need is the Vertebrane. Read Marshall Brain's online article "The Day You Discard Your Body." In simulated reality (the Matrix), we can ignore the laws of physics. This technology will likely be available sometime this century, and once we have it, any fictional technology or phenomenon can become a (simulated) reality. Exploration of deep space will only true take off when we are postbiological.
I really like your videos except this one. Still, I show it in physics class to challenge the students. When you are rotating about a center, there is NO FORCE accelerating you away from the center. The only force acting on you is centripetal force which accelerates you toward the center. Centrifugal force is classified as a "fictitious force" or "inertial force" within a rotating frame of reference. In your videos where you blast hollywood for getting it wrong, you should get it right.
@xyoureyes Then you've seen the disagreement even physics texts have about that all mysterious "fictitious" force. I have books that call it both things, books that call it a force and those that dont. On certain matters, I just had to draw a line in the sand and run with it.
@SpreadingtheMuse There are only four forces (we know of): Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. Centripetal force is one of these forces which accelerates an object such that the object's path is curved. When I twirl a ball on a string I know electromagnetic force is acting (tension in string) to keep the ball going in a circle. Which of these four forces is attracting or pushing the ball outward?
@xyoureyes Those are the four ELEMENTAL Forces, not necessarily all the forces in the world. There's still F= ma for example.
When you spin something, you're creating Angular Force, or the force of momentum, via that F=ma, Force = Mass times Acceleration. Anything that has an acceleration has a force to it, the 2nd of the laws of motion. And putting something in a spinner gives it an acceleration, the spinner is accelerating it off a straight line. FORCING it off a natural path. Force
@SpreadingtheMuse Yes, the four fundamental forces ARE ALL the forces in the world. When you push, pull or spin an object you are not creating a force, you are applying a force. An object can have inertia, momentum, or energy, but an object does not posess force. But yes, the spinner is accelerating an object inside it off its natural path of a straight line. But it pushes the object toward the center (centripetal - center seeking) not away from it (centrifugal -center fleeing).
@xyoureyes You're only reiterating the reason its referred to as "fictitious." Yes its only an illusion of motion as you said, but at the end of the day it pushes you just like any other force does. For our purposes, the mechanics dont matter. That this process WORKS, does.
@SpreadingtheMuse At 6:11 you say "just let go and let the force throw you into the fight". If there was a real centrifugal force then the scene of the fighters launching directly outward from the ship would be accurate. But you and I know that is not what would happen. They would follow a path tangential to the rotation of the ship.I never said it is an "illusion of motion" but an "illusion of force". But I agree even a fictitious force can be useful in certain situations.
@SpreadingtheMuse Centrifugal force may refer to two things. For example, artifical gravity. The spinning track is pushing the person inward (centripetal ). Some refer to the reaction force of the person pushing outward on the track as centrifugal force. Note, the force is applied to the track, not the person. However in a rotating frame of reference, there is an illusion of force (ARTIFICAL gravity). This is also referred to as centrigugal. I know of no physics books that say otherwise.
@SpreadingtheMuse Just because it is a "fictitious" force does not negate the usefulness of the concept of centrifugal force in certain situations. While in engineering school we used it all the time in design and problem solving.
@xyoureyes Centripetal force is a misconception. Centrifugal force is the most intuitive and accurate description of this phenomena. This video is one of the few that expalins it correctly. More: xkcd(dot)com/123
@atomiczombie101 They played fast and loose with the tram. It shouldnt have gravity in there, except when its inconvenient for filming, and then it does ;)
I'm surprised at the lack of 2001/2010 clips. And how could you not include the real-world, actual, honest-to-goodness clip of the Skylab astronauts running around the edge without floating?
2010 and 2001 were always options, but there's strict criteria for the video clips I choose. 2001 has its moments, but 2010 doenst, and neither one can match the drop dead PERFECT shot of the rotating ship from Mission to Mars in cross section. Thats the only movie out of the 3 that had that POV and between that and the large shots of Babylon 5, was really all I needed to get the point across.
As for real shots, I dont have access to stock footage. Those places ask for cash.
There's a minor argument in physics texts over "centrifugal" vs "centripetal" etc. Half say "fugal" and the other half dont and its all a matter of whatever you're reading at the time. Bottom line, if you spin you're pushed outward, and you have to call it something.
@SpreadingtheMuse But absent the force pulling you in toward the center of rotation, you just have inertia and you go flying off in a straight line. It's the inner centripetal force that causes the floor of the space station to push against you and give you gravity. Personally, I've got no problem with centrifugal force as an equal-and-opposite force to the centripetal force a la Newton's Third Law.
Again, it’s not centrifugal force, it’s inertia. An object in motion stays in motion. A spaceship going fast enough perpendicular will keep missing the planet it’s orbiting as it falls.
Also at the center of a rotating section, radius has nothing to do with velocity. You can have rotation at the center but still have no gravity.
And where did that clip of the airplane in space come from?
That equation I quoted was accurate, radius and velocity are indeed related in the concept of Angular Velocity, and all rotational equations are derived from there.
Its funny really about how most of the demonstrations of "proper realistic scifi physics" are in some way related to Babylon 5, one of the many reasons i love the show
sweet yes i like spin for spaceship too. though everyone want a section why? spin the hole ship make it round in design. Their no real reason we can't be in our local system with today tech. Nuke drives, anti-matter reactors or just nuke again. aurora shields for radiation with safe points in ship. Solar back up systems. tractor beam a modern grappling hook would do just as good with high tension cable.
@starknight97 You are right, but the craft required would be expensive as hell, and space basicaly wants to kill you at every turn. A paint chip can kill you.
@LordKorloros ah yes that money thing again huh. Funny we can do it too. We have the tech to do it. We have the materials to do it and we have the time. We just don't have the money. true space is deadly but enough redundant systems not built by the cheapest contractor and we could do it with good ods.
Why do these have so little views?
Guess humanity is already dead inside.
SGresponse 3 days ago
@SGresponse Mostly, I have few friends ;)
Secondly, I refuse to play the spam game of "friend me and I'll friend you." 100,000 views is worthless if its just a random idiot watching for 2 seconds then clicking back to his porn page.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 days ago
@SGresponse And then, any of these movies that have "upgraded" in the title have to compete with the original uploads, those got the bulk of my subscriber traffic.
But if you would post a link on Facebook for me, I'd appreciate that ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 days ago
Another way would be continuously accelerate your ship, this would be very costly in terms of energy, but it should be noted that accelerating a spacecraft to relativistic speeds would require months, if not years of acceleration at 9.8ms^2:
28 days=2,419,200 seconds.
1 year=31,557,600 seconds.
speed of light in a vacuum=299,792,458 metres per second.
So the real problem on interstellar journeys may turn out to be to much weight!
Aletheophile 3 days ago
@isaiahawsum not isotope, some other thing. Anyway, electrically charged particle(whatever the true scientific name is)
isaiahawsum 4 weeks ago
I know this is probably wrong, but couldn't you just magnetize everything? Everything has an isotope, which is why static electricity, plain electricity, and magnetism works, so why can't we advance magnetics some years down the line to attract every charged isotope? Or wouldthat just kill everybody?
isaiahawsum 1 month ago
we would love to get outside the radiation belts, but we never will
caessarion 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@caessarion VABs are magnetic, right? Therefore they can only catch magnetic radiation. Alpha (positive) or Beta (negative). Gamma and Xray are neutral, therefore cannot be caught or concentrated in the belts. The problem is, both alpha and beta are particles, and all particle radiation can be blocked with plastic. Rudimentary Radiation safety taught in every class in the world.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Can't they just tyrn the artificial gravity generators on and off for the sections where they are and are not needed?
LouistheHedgehog 2 months ago
@LouistheHedgehog They certainly should be able to. But I can only think of one show that ever did that, and episode of ST: Enterprise
SpreadingtheMuse 2 months ago
thank you for using Clips from Babylon 5 as an example of artificial Gravity. i once did the same in physics in college and earned extra credit for the example. PS i know how Captain Sheridan is rescued from his fall. but i will not spoil the surprise.
Crusnik2000 3 months ago
@spreadingthemuse, i own Babylon 5 and Battlestar Galactica they are some of my favorite scifi series. Thank you for using clips from both series in your space battle and science fiction physics series to make your point. PS i know how captain Sheridan is rescued but i and not going to tell to keep the surprise
Crusnik2000 3 months ago
@Crusnik2000 Everytime I show this video for an audience I always get a raise of hands "HOW DID HE LIVE!??" and I enjoy playing around with it. The full scene was uploaded by a die-hard B5 fan and is on youtube of course. ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
To bridge the gap between our imagination and reality, all we need is the Vertebrane. Read Marshall Brain's online article "The Day You Discard Your Body." In simulated reality (the Matrix), we can ignore the laws of physics. This technology will likely be available sometime this century, and once we have it, any fictional technology or phenomenon can become a (simulated) reality. Exploration of deep space will only true take off when we are postbiological.
Aphradonis 4 months ago
I really like your videos except this one. Still, I show it in physics class to challenge the students. When you are rotating about a center, there is NO FORCE accelerating you away from the center. The only force acting on you is centripetal force which accelerates you toward the center. Centrifugal force is classified as a "fictitious force" or "inertial force" within a rotating frame of reference. In your videos where you blast hollywood for getting it wrong, you should get it right.
xyoureyes 4 months ago
@xyoureyes Then you've seen the disagreement even physics texts have about that all mysterious "fictitious" force. I have books that call it both things, books that call it a force and those that dont. On certain matters, I just had to draw a line in the sand and run with it.
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse There are only four forces (we know of): Strong, Weak, Electromagnetic, and Gravity. Centripetal force is one of these forces which accelerates an object such that the object's path is curved. When I twirl a ball on a string I know electromagnetic force is acting (tension in string) to keep the ball going in a circle. Which of these four forces is attracting or pushing the ball outward?
xyoureyes 4 months ago
@xyoureyes Those are the four ELEMENTAL Forces, not necessarily all the forces in the world. There's still F= ma for example.
When you spin something, you're creating Angular Force, or the force of momentum, via that F=ma, Force = Mass times Acceleration. Anything that has an acceleration has a force to it, the 2nd of the laws of motion. And putting something in a spinner gives it an acceleration, the spinner is accelerating it off a straight line. FORCING it off a natural path. Force
SpreadingtheMuse 4 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Yes, the four fundamental forces ARE ALL the forces in the world. When you push, pull or spin an object you are not creating a force, you are applying a force. An object can have inertia, momentum, or energy, but an object does not posess force. But yes, the spinner is accelerating an object inside it off its natural path of a straight line. But it pushes the object toward the center (centripetal - center seeking) not away from it (centrifugal -center fleeing).
xyoureyes 4 months ago
@xyoureyes You're only reiterating the reason its referred to as "fictitious." Yes its only an illusion of motion as you said, but at the end of the day it pushes you just like any other force does. For our purposes, the mechanics dont matter. That this process WORKS, does.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse At 6:11 you say "just let go and let the force throw you into the fight". If there was a real centrifugal force then the scene of the fighters launching directly outward from the ship would be accurate. But you and I know that is not what would happen. They would follow a path tangential to the rotation of the ship.I never said it is an "illusion of motion" but an "illusion of force". But I agree even a fictitious force can be useful in certain situations.
xyoureyes 3 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Centrifugal force may refer to two things. For example, artifical gravity. The spinning track is pushing the person inward (centripetal ). Some refer to the reaction force of the person pushing outward on the track as centrifugal force. Note, the force is applied to the track, not the person. However in a rotating frame of reference, there is an illusion of force (ARTIFICAL gravity). This is also referred to as centrigugal. I know of no physics books that say otherwise.
xyoureyes 4 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Just because it is a "fictitious" force does not negate the usefulness of the concept of centrifugal force in certain situations. While in engineering school we used it all the time in design and problem solving.
xyoureyes 4 months ago
@xyoureyes Centripetal force is a misconception. Centrifugal force is the most intuitive and accurate description of this phenomena. This video is one of the few that expalins it correctly. More: xkcd(dot)com/123
LechuCzechu 3 months ago
so...hold on at 07:15 that rail was in the centre and had gravity inside it but when he jumps out he is immediatly in zero gravity ?...oops
atomiczombie101 5 months ago
@atomiczombie101 They played fast and loose with the tram. It shouldnt have gravity in there, except when its inconvenient for filming, and then it does ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
Love these videos. Thanks for remastering them!
plasmalux 5 months ago
Fact - user "SpreadingtheMuse" is gay. I have nothing against them though. I see why he chose that name.
LGA3000 5 months ago
I'm surprised at the lack of 2001/2010 clips. And how could you not include the real-world, actual, honest-to-goodness clip of the Skylab astronauts running around the edge without floating?
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
2010 and 2001 were always options, but there's strict criteria for the video clips I choose. 2001 has its moments, but 2010 doenst, and neither one can match the drop dead PERFECT shot of the rotating ship from Mission to Mars in cross section. Thats the only movie out of the 3 that had that POV and between that and the large shots of Babylon 5, was really all I needed to get the point across.
As for real shots, I dont have access to stock footage. Those places ask for cash.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse If I'm not mistaken, the Skylab footage is from NASA and public domain.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
Its public domain, but I still have to dig it up from somewhere. I wouldnt know exactly where.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 months ago
It seems like you're using "centrifugal force" here to be synonymous with inertia.
shanedk 6 months ago
@shanedk
There's a minor argument in physics texts over "centrifugal" vs "centripetal" etc. Half say "fugal" and the other half dont and its all a matter of whatever you're reading at the time. Bottom line, if you spin you're pushed outward, and you have to call it something.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse But absent the force pulling you in toward the center of rotation, you just have inertia and you go flying off in a straight line. It's the inner centripetal force that causes the floor of the space station to push against you and give you gravity. Personally, I've got no problem with centrifugal force as an equal-and-opposite force to the centripetal force a la Newton's Third Law.
shanedk 6 months ago
Again, it’s not centrifugal force, it’s inertia. An object in motion stays in motion. A spaceship going fast enough perpendicular will keep missing the planet it’s orbiting as it falls.
Also at the center of a rotating section, radius has nothing to do with velocity. You can have rotation at the center but still have no gravity.
And where did that clip of the airplane in space come from?
dgreatunknown 6 months ago
@dgreatunknown
That equation I quoted was accurate, radius and velocity are indeed related in the concept of Angular Velocity, and all rotational equations are derived from there.
The airplane was from Superman Returns.
SpreadingtheMuse 6 months ago
Its funny really about how most of the demonstrations of "proper realistic scifi physics" are in some way related to Babylon 5, one of the many reasons i love the show
Valen123456 6 months ago
sweet yes i like spin for spaceship too. though everyone want a section why? spin the hole ship make it round in design. Their no real reason we can't be in our local system with today tech. Nuke drives, anti-matter reactors or just nuke again. aurora shields for radiation with safe points in ship. Solar back up systems. tractor beam a modern grappling hook would do just as good with high tension cable.
starknight97 6 months ago
@starknight97 You are right, but the craft required would be expensive as hell, and space basicaly wants to kill you at every turn. A paint chip can kill you.
LordKorloros 6 months ago
@LordKorloros ah yes that money thing again huh. Funny we can do it too. We have the tech to do it. We have the materials to do it and we have the time. We just don't have the money. true space is deadly but enough redundant systems not built by the cheapest contractor and we could do it with good ods.
starknight97 6 months ago
love your videos :-)
ulysees321 6 months ago
Also, what shows/movies did you use clips from in this?
LordKorloros 6 months ago
@LordKorloros Okay, here's breif rundown of the ones I recognise
Babylon 5
Battlestar Galactica (70s and New)
Star Trek: Next Generation
Mission to Mars
Aliens
Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country
Buck Rogers in the 25th Century
Star Trek: Deep Space 9
weldonwin 6 months ago
Dude you should keep making these videos. THEY ARE FULL OF WIN.
LordKorloros 6 months ago