@maclomacneil Cheap insofar as we dont have to spend a trillion dollars in cost overruns in paying theoretical physics to invent artificial gravity. The only cost is of the space station itself, which is more or less identical whether its rotating or not
0:27 was Mission to Mars, which has a lot more clips in this movie (and I just found out has its own ride at Epcot Center in Florida, with a life sized version of 4:21)
0:51 was from Superman Returns, a movie that I use a lot in all my movies
@ronniecme Give you a strong enough energy source and you'll do what? If you've got the formula for artificial gravity then post it right here. Til then, posers are a dime a dozen.
@navymexican This is hardly the kind of movie to proclaim "better." B5 gets all the airplay because it used rotational gravity and Star Trek didnt. But if I really had to choose...
I liked TNG a lot, but DS9 and Voy dropped the ball. B5 was good for its first 4 seasons, then ran out of steam for 5, which was nothing about nothing. I have 2 trek uniforms in my closest but no B5 ones, so who knows.
@123tonysony Your "proof" was such a run-on sentence I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you think you know. But any 16 year old in a high school physics class can prove rotational gravity by taking a bucket full of water and spinning it upside down with a rope. It rudimentary science that works. You dont get to disagree. And watch the language.
@123tonysony Well you heard wrong. We have never tested Rotational grav in orbit. You would need a huge spinning space station to even pretend to do it right. If you think we have one of those please let us know.
The spinning bucket is idiot proof. Physics classes hold contests to see how long it can be spun without losing any water. We use Rotational grav for devices called "Centerfuges," used for pilot training and medical use. Your physics training was piss poor.
@123tonysony "need to gain speed" Wrongo. The equation doesnt use acceleration at all. Its mass x VELOCITY / radius.
"restart all the time" Wrongo, and frankly I dont know what you're talking about there. All you need is velocity.
Do you even know the equation, or just making this up as you go? You're arguing with every physics textbook on the planet. And since you delusioned a "huge spinning space station" out of your ass, its obvious you know dick about the space program
@Gregorick Depends on which physics text you read. I have a whole wall of them, half say centrifugal and half say centripetal. Call it Duct tape force for all I care. The equation works.
The radius has to be large or the coriolis effect will make you puke when you stand up. I guess artificial gravity is like soy milk. Not a perfect replacement.
Thats from Superman Returns from 2006. An airplane that goes too high in the atmosphere and has to be rescued. A better movie than its given credit for.
If you spin a cylindrical station in space, it might be like a huge laundry machine... where things tend to stay in the center, in a ball. You would need magnetic boots or something... ;)
@TheEspiritin that'd be aproduct of an object not attaining the needed velocity required.
in order to take advantage of centrifugal force, you have to allow it to act on you, which is why you can float inches away from the rapidly spinning deckplate if you want to, watching it hurtle past at finger-snapping speeds. but if you were to catch hold (safely) you'd be accellerated and the force would press you to the deck plate.
@TheEspiritin ah you see, that's the beauty of centrifugal force, the crates are only going to float around if they aren't spun up to the same speed as the rest of it.
if they're spun at all, they drift outwards, and as soon as they hit the deck, they're going to be accellerated by friction. but if you wanted to be sure, you could hold them in place somehow while they're spun up, if you were standing on the deck, you could bring them up to speed by just holding onto them.
@Rohan2300 one thing that does occur to me, the friction of the air against the deck would cause the air in the cylinder to start spinning too. and that would naturally cause any objects free-floating to also spin, eventually drawing them to the deck.
also means its quite possible that a large open cylinder has a significant breeze in the middle...in the form of a parallel tornado...or a small hurricane. an argument for making it a wheel rather than a cylinder.
another advantage of artificial gravity by rotating sections is that you can also have some sections with lower gravity (hangars,cargo bays) or high gravity (crew training center) and its all in one package
so let me get it straight.... the centripetal force that the object you are in has is created by it being moved in a circular motion... also... this centriletal force pushes the object (not you) towards the inside and this push of the object towards the inside is your fictitious push towards the outside...a.k.a. artificial gravity... right?
I think that sounds right. The spinning force that pushes you towards the outside is Centripetal Force, or Centrifugal, depending on which physics text you're reading (there's something of an argument over the correct term).
I switched creative gears to write a novel that had been in my head since even before Gravity and Potential Energy, 3 movies ago. I made solid headway on that, but good news, I'm more than halfway done thru the next movie right now. Sometime in July.
The reason that shows use the artifical g that is too expensive to make in reality is that it's too expensive to make zero g special effects on earth.
There's no such thing as centerfugal force in orbit. It's the sideways inertia of the moving object. Orbiting is just falling, but you keep missing the planet .
Also when you're in the center of your rotating section, yes you have zero radius, but you can still have velocity. the results will still be zero g, but r does not effect v.
It was a lot funner to watch than the recent one. Stargate is better, though.
As for artificial gravity, I say we use it for commercial and residential space stations, and eventually improve it so we can have Earth-like gravity on extra-terrestrial settlements, like moon and Mars colonies (or even asteroid ones).
"lot funner" is the nicest way you can put it. The more I think about the new version the less I can stand it. And they totally bellyflopped the last episode. Good news though, the entire original series is on instant view on Netflix ;)
@SpreadingtheMuse Exactly! I watched the entire original on the DVD set (except for that 1980 version), and it was AWESOME. I watched some of the beginning from the first season of the new one, and it blew. It's been a while, so I forgot all the names, but I liked having the cigar-smoking main character being a guy and the one black guy not being an Asian chick, and the fact that they were all double-crossed at a supposed treaty-signing, and how it was so original. Oh well :(
The first season was actually the only one of the new series halfway decent. By the 4th season it was boring and ridiculous, with the final ep just phoned in.
@SpreadingtheMuse That was my thought about what I watched, but I definitely liked the original better, just like how I like the original Star Wars Trilogy better than the Prequel Trilogy. More original, more enjoyable to watch, better overall.
I had to stop because of the huge fail about describe an orbit. Hope you realize that this orbit around a giant mass purely because space is warped such that the object orbiting another object is merely traveling in a geodesic line. It's much like an ant running across an apple.
And if I describe it using that Einsteinian language I'll do nothing but alienate every student I'm trying to reach. Orbit isnt important for why it happens so much as WHAT. The classical newton description was perfectly descriptive of the what, and also predicted the behavior of a orbiting object just fine. Lets leave Einstein to the Grad students and just concentrate on introducing the concept first. Cant learn anything til that happens.
@SpreadingtheMuse I'm not a grad student and Einstein relativity is no problem for me nor should it be to any other person. Newtonian physics doesn't even condone the bs you are posting.
Please re-edit this video so no one will go on believing orbiting is caused by centrifugal force. This is a blatant lie to support "artificial gravity" which is not possible.
I have a wall full of physics texts that described orbit exactly the way I did (being a teacher, for some reason, gave me a huge collection). Orbit is perfectly valid with newtonian description. Einstein was talking about space/time structure WAY beyond the necessity of a simple centripetal gravity balance.
And you're even saying the rotational gravity wont work? That shuttle from the movie clips was based on a NASA DESIGN. Thats what THEY wanted to build. You're out of date.
And, if you dropped off the hub of a spinning spaceship, you would not be pulled to the outer floor. You could hover an inch above the floor as it spins by you. Only when you touch and friction starts to accelerate you would the gravity effect start.
The B5 clip had the guy moving towards the spinning floor only because he deliberately pushed himself away (in Z g) from the bomb. Once in the air he kept going at that same speed. The scene inside the space shuttle showed complete zero g inside the spinner.
No such thing as centrefugal force, its centrepetal effect. All down to conservation of momentum. And orbits aint due to centrepetal effect. You fall towards the Earth but miss as you are flying at 90 degrees to the fall at 7 miles per sec.
While we are traveling at high speed through space do we need artificial gravity? Cause theres like force pulling you the opposite direction that you're traveling. So could you structure the ship so the platform is facing the opposite direction you travel in. So that you can maneuver naturally around the command module?
@shippem This force is only present when you constantly speed up. I dont know how fast you have to speed up in space to produce one G, but you cant speed up infinitely. Ive been thinking about your idea too, but this was what i thought made it impossible.
Uhh, im getting confused....In space you can float on gravity you can't.You can see the space ship spinning around you.BUT your NOT. Your floating if it goes light speed slowly you will see the back wall getting closer to you.Just invent a Artificial gravity machine it will make it easier.Like in Star Wars
Problem is you dont know the difference between momentum and gravity. EITHER ONE can keep you glued to a floor. They're not the same thing, but they do the same thing.
Spinning makes momentum, and momentum glues you to the floor.
@SpreadingtheMuse You'll have to hold on the spinning space ship to be glued on to the floor. 0% Gravity will make you float Not touching the floor. If you use a donut shaped piece of wood, spinning at 25 MPH, and you put a feather in the middle it won't be pulled on to the side of the solid. I tried it
When you swing water around in a bucket, does the water stay in because "its holding on?" ;)
You're still not getting what "momentum" does.
You're under a misconception that I've explained over and over and you keep ignoring. Spinning does NOT create gravity. It creates momentum. Momentum glues you to the floor every bit like gravity does. Only different physics.
Swing a bucket of water around in a circle. The water does not fall out. That proves everything right there.
Should work anywhere. Trust these TV shows. They all have professional physicists on their writing staff. Babylon 5 especially. And that spinning shuttle was based off an official NASA blueprint.
The rate of the spin depends on how big it is. On that big Babylon 5 space station, yes. On the NASA shuttle, no. But if you're thinking you can jump in the air and have the station rotate beneath you, you cant jump high enough to make it worth while.
That's fake you'll be floating in the space shuttle if it was spinning.But if your going light speed in one direction without you being in your seat you'll be pulled back because your floating.The space ship moves you won't move with it you be in place while the ship is moving then you reach the wall and hit it hard and i think you get pushed because of the wall.Besides NASA already invented a anti gravity chamber, if we reverse it it will create gravity.
Going "one direction" pushes you back into your seat the same reason spinning does: Momentum. But momentum has two kinds: Linear (straight line) and Rotational (spinning). If one kind works then they both have to work.
@SpreadingtheMuse Yes but then you be floating the same amount of speed how the spacecraft is going or spinning.If it spins you'll be floating still, the spinning only works on gravity it it heads one direction it will too.(Earth) I think...Gravity is being pushed on the side of a wall. Since there is no gravity in space or up,down, left, or right it won't work.But I Invented Something Myself that I'm Going To Report To NASA And Get An Award It's my very own Artificial Gravity.
@SpreadingtheMuse I did. But What I'm trying to say is in space there is no gravity, you'll easily float around but if you move the same speed as the spacecraft it will pull you but it will be impossible to go the same speed as the vehicle,You will slip away, you'll be heading the same speed and float. Like this, the floor spins in a circle fast and i can float up,down,left or right easily.If I take a normal step its gonna be like i jumped of a car that win 22 MPH. YOUR ONLY TESTING IT ON EARTH!
Movement in space from the ship is momentum. ANY MOVEMENT generates momentum. And momentum is INDEPENDENT OF GRAVITY. Angular Momentum from spinning keeps you glued to the side of the ship just as any other momentum does. You cant pick and choose which momentum works and which doenst. Either they all do or none of them do.
Loud and clear, Spinning of angular momentum does NOT need earth gravity. It works anywhere.
@SpreadingtheMuse Holding on the spinning spacecraft will pull you back.I did an experiment on it i putted my finger in the middle of a spinning bucket and nothing pushed it away i even tied a BB bullet in the middle or side of the center and nothing happened only the wind moved it around NOT against the walls.Then i taped the string in the side and it pushed it back.If there is no gravity and the spinning space ships spins about 80MPH You'll have to run faster!!
Your finger was still connected to your arm, totally sabotaging the experiment.
The WATER proves the experiment. Spin a bucket of water and the water doesnt fall out. Thats an experiment thats 500 years old. Anyone can do it, and it proves the whole thing.
Put your BB in a spinning bucket and it wont fall out. Thats elementary 8th grade physics. Since you didnt see the inherent flaw in the "finger" experiment, its likely you're goofing up all your experiments as well.
What do you recommend for in-depth research into the subject of zero-gravity physics? I am seeking raw-data as well as explanations of these datas, who are the leading researches in the subject of zero-gravity pysics? Is there a report, in any language, its nature, in its entirety? If so, I would like to read it.
I'm not aware of a specific expert on the subject. Zero gravity physics is more or less classical physics without friction. All the easy equations still apply and in fact are in their perfect form, with momentum "object in motion stays in motion" lasting forever and such. The point where zero gravity gets all funky is in biological chemistry and such. But you can google any number of professional university websites for answers to specific questions.
I realize I can google, but I could be reading utter crap. I would like to be pointed in the right direction.
Maybe a more generic question:
What are some resources *you* use to get information? Whose work do *you* recommend I read?
Physics is one of the things I never studied. It's been 5 years since high-school, and the last science class I had was biology. What are some reliable sources on the internet for physics facts?
For high quality science writing aimed at the general public, find any book you can by Dr. Carl Sagan. He wrote on a million topics and knew how to make it understandable to everyone.
Then, there's lots of books written for more fun value, but still written by professionals. Look up amazon for "Physics of Star Trek," for example. That leads you to "Physics of Superheros," and "Physics of Sci Fi" and so on. You can find one that sounds cool, and that leads you to others.
Basically this is what troubles me: There is so much discussion on the internet; about theory A or equation F, but where did these come from? Where is the raw data? All I see is what other people are saying, and not what the original person actually said. I want answers, not discussion! I want cold, hard facts, and I am tired of google leading me to retarded, *aesthetically pleasing* websites with little *real* information. I just want plain old text! I want stuff to read!!!!
That'll depend on the question you're looking for. Most Physics equations at the high school level were chugged out of huge monster equations at the PHD level, even I dont understand those, but I agree that they work after they've been simplified.
Most people on the internet arent experienced in anything, they just cut and paste big words. A more reliable source would be a library card. But the "original people" are likely Phd engineers, and are VERY incomprehensible.
Good video, however..The equation 1:42 corresponds to centripetal force which direction is always the center of the motion. Centrifugal's direction is always tangent to the motion, and it is a force only when the body is accelerating.When not, it is a momentum (p=mu).
There's no difference between the two equations for centripetal and centrifugal, only the direction in which the object is going. Centrifugal is referred to as a "fake" force as its only incidental to the angular momentum like you said, but the same equation works for it.
I have a question. Would the people who are in these rotating space ships be able to tell that there actually technically standing on the side of the ship? Or would it appear to them that there just standing normal just like on earth?
Yes, they could tell. Look at those scenes from Babylon 5 in the inside of the garden. If they look straight up they see GROUND on the other side, they see a circle all around them. Now if you make a really really BIG station, the curve would be too big to see with normal sight.
@SpreadingtheMuse Thanks for getting back to me, and what you said definitley made sense! But what about a small space shuttle that had a centrifuge? Like the ones @ 4:22 to 4:29 and 6:40 to 6:48? When they are walking around the centrifuge would gravity make it appear to them that they are standing straight up like on earth or would it seem like they are standing on the side of the ship walking straight down? Also, wouldn't it appear like they were constantly going uphill when they are walking?
Yes, they FEEL like walking on earth, standing straight up. But it would LOOK like they were walking uphill. Since that shuttle/spinner was so small, everything would look really weird from the inside. They can see it spinning, see the roof, see people walking "upside down" if they looked straight up.
Yes, you could tell, because of the Coriolis effect. (You can feel it if you sit on playground merry-go-round and spin really fast, and then try to move your arms around.) However, after living on the spaceship for a while you would get used to it, and there wouldn't be any apparent difference. But you would notice the change again as soon as you left the ship.
If these alien are from worlds with similar terrestrial environments they might opt not to hurtle and asteroid toward earth, because the after math would drastically alter the climate and environment. This is if there goal of course after the destruction of humanity is colonization. I they simply seek to harvest the earth’s natural resources in order to sustain their space faring civilization then the asteroid idea is marvelous concept. You have some interesting videos.
Here's a big question for you and anyone else. WHERE EXACTLY ...or rather HOW EXACTLY does the Internet work. I know that I hook up my laptop to the broadband modem and from there my phone company has a network of servers which connect to other servers....and they in turn to others aruond the world. But is there ONE central server that connects all the others in one big spiderweb like config? I've never really understood this. Care to enlighten?
The "internet" is a whole branch. Not my area of expertise. I know its does NOT have one master hive brain on a computer island somewhere, no. Its all independent computers sites talking to each other no different than independent telephone servers talking to each other.
But I take that for granted. Thereby convincing myself it's no big deal since it does come so easy for myself. Maybe you're like this, becuase you seem to be very at home and at ease with much of this stuff. For which I am very impressed. I don't think much of IQ tests that put labels on people's intellect. But I do suppose there is something to it. I stink at them. Seriously though, thank you alot for taking the time to write to some stranger you've never met before....the Net is pretty cool.
Hey I really appreciate you getting back to a complete stranger. It's pretty cool actually. I take it you're a Prof. at a University somewhere? actually I'm a wee bit in awe to be talking to someone of your intellectual caliber...I consider myself smart but no where as smart as you are I think. Of course there ARE different "types" of smarts. For instance I'm an artist and I've been doing it for years. It comes naturally to me for which I barely have to work at it while others need to unlike me.
well, gravity is a moot point ...academic as they say if the problem of propulsion and how long it takes to get so far in distance. I suppose even this IS pointless until we find a way to survive such long distances ... yes? no? Yes? maybe? I bow to your superior knowledge mot definitely. Also...and this is a side question...why haven't we as humans been to the moon again? Just curious as to your take on this question? I saw on here somewhere that "Aliens told us not to come back to the moon."?
We need to design two things: 1) A way to survive long trips, or 2) Faster travel
Or maybe not. Sci Fi is full of stories of huge generational ships that take hundreds of years to get anywhere, the people inside living their lives happily spinning around, know that their grandkids will be the ones to eventually land.
@SpreadingtheMuse that could be quite sad, but i guess we could Cryo freeze and stop the aging process,Just imagine bieng alone for hundreds of years (alone as in 1 ship vulnerable in the massive of space)
could I possible be right? Give me some sweetness..you're obviously much smarter than I am and htat's cool...and awesome even...but might I be onto something?
I like this alot and I think you rock for making it. However..what if..WHAT IF there are Laws that man HAS not discovered yet because it's based on qualities and matter we don't have but someone might have that we don't. In other words...aren't you basing your equasions on a constant which is the constant of our OUR standards based on what WE KNOW not what we DON'T know? Isn't it possible there aer laws we haven't discovered yet? that othes might employ against us? I'm not saying I'm right but
This kind of gravity is based on what we know how to do right now. With enough goofing around could we eventually find out how to make sci fi gravity. We just need to spend the time.
5:50 the only way those spaceships released by their mother ship's own gravity is if the little ships' are released from the outside of themothership's spin. but not from any other part of the mother ship.
The "spin" of the mothership goes all the way down into the center axis. Releasing the little ships from any point thats spinning will fling them away.
5:50 no, no, no. artificial gravity via centerfuges does not get distributed like gravity from a large body of mass. artificial gravity is from a body of mass being essentially trapped on the inside of the centerfuge, and that's the extent of the centerfuge's grasp.
@dattajack It gets distributed along the circumference of the centrifuge. That was the point of that graphic. Its a "false" force to be sure, which has no measurement until mass is actually there, but it doenst matter where in the centrifuge the mass is.
Orbit has nothing to do with centrifugal force since the angle of rotation isn't high enough to create any meaningful force. Waitlessness and orbit are achieved through perpetual falling. Spaceships in orbit keep falling "over the horizon". For every meter they fall the curvature of the earth makes the surface "move" 1 meter below you and thus you maintain the same altitude. or am i completely wrong here?
We're both right. Centrifugal force and such are called "fictitious" forces, as they're more conveniences to help us imagine whats going on. We do "fall" in to a planet, and the force of our motion "throws" us out. The vectors are all identical, its all personal preference as to what to call it all.
@SpreadingtheMuse unless i misunderstood the explanation in the video, i don't think there is a counteracting force to the pull of gravity; no "throw" by our motion. If there was a centrifugal force canceling out gravity as to keep us in zero-gravity, wouldn't the orbiting craft just fly off into space as gravity wouldn't be pulling it down anymore? unless the curvature of the orbit is maintained by constant burning of the engines but that seems rather wasteful to me.
Ok now you're off a tad. Gravity has to be counteracted or any orbiting ship would be pulled down and crash. The fact that they orbit safely means that something or some sort has to be going on.
Gravity it is simplest explanation is an acceleration down. Movement is an acceleration up. So put them together and you go nowhere, just orbiting in circles. Angular Acceleration.
@SpreadingtheMuse that's my point: if gravity was counteracted the orbiting ship would have no reason to follow a curved or elliptical orbit. If both forces were equal it would remain still or continue in a straight line. if you look at an elliptical orbit the centrifugal forces are actually greatest when the ship is furthest away from earth and gravity is weaker and when passing earth at it's nearst point angular acceleration is lower and gravity is stronger. (cont...)
@SpreadingtheMuse if centrifugal forces(angular acceleration) were counteracting gravity to keep a ship in orbit they would be weaker at the apexes of the elliptic orbit and stronger at the near earth passes. the way i see it acceleration has little to do with orbit. the key is constant speed, which means no centrifugal force. the only force acting on the ship would be gravity. like you said the ship would plummet to the ground, but that's exactly what it does.(cont)
@SpreadingtheMuse the ship's speed is high enough to always just fall over the curvature of the earth. the changing position of the center of gravity vs the ship is what keeps it in a circular orbit, without the need to constantly provide energy to maintain acceleration, since constant speed (ideally) needs no extra energy input to maintain. in short: counteracting gravity with any type of force, centrifual or other, requires constant acceleration and thus energy. orbit does not.
A ship that flies in a straight line doesnt mean that the forces are counteracting, it means that the ship actually won and is free to fly off into space. Going round in circles is the counteraction, the stalemate. Gravity pulls down and the angular acceleration pushes out. But no one wins. The ship neither falls down nor flies out.
@SpreadingtheMuse but wouldn't you need some force to curve the trajectory? What incentive does the spacecraft have to turn in orbit if both forces counteract eachother perfectly?
"curve" is a misleading term. Gravity doesnt know that its "curving" anything. For all it knows its just pulling straight down. No matter where in the sky the spaceship is, gravity thinks its pulling it straight down. But the ship wants to go straight across. So the curve is the compromise between the two.
@SpreadingtheMuse yes yes i understand that, but what i don't fully understand is what causes the ship to follow the curve, if the effect of gravity is lifted by the counteracting centrifugal force. If there is no resulting force acting on the ship, why would it turn?
There is a force on the ship, the COMBINED force. "Cancel out" might be the wrong way to look at it. They dont cancel, they join into a superforce with shared direction.
@SpreadingtheMuse now you lost me. shared direction means both forces are pulling the ship towards earth? From what i understand weightlessness is achieved through free fall, and any force acting on you would fling you to the sides. your video said there was a careful balance between the inward pull of gravity and the outward push of centrifugal forces.
Shared direction =/= shared force. I said COMBINED force. Vectors. Two forces in different directions combine to a new compromised direction. Force that goes down + Force that goes out = Curved direction
@SpreadingtheMuse combining vectors i get. But to achieve weightlessness this way they'd have to equal and in opposite direction, but then what is causing the curve? if the combined direction equals anything but zero, you'd have some sort of artificial gravity. if centrifugal force is balanced to equal gravitational force to achieve weightlessness there would be no more resulting force acting on the ship. then what is causing the curvature of the orbit?
"balance" does not mean "no more resulting force." It means balance. Up is balanced by down, so the combined vector is a curve.
The curve happens because this balance is re-figured second by second. Its an accident of being near a sphere. Gravity doesnt know the Earth is a curve, all it does is pull down. The spaceship doesnt know the Earth is a curve, it just wants to fly away. The curve is only what the 3rd party sees.
@SpreadingtheMuse but gravity gets weaker the further you are away from the earth, unlike say a ball on a string spinning around. wouldn't satelites or ship in orbit gradually fly further and further away? you say "nr more resulting force" isn't correct, but why then are you weightless? of there is a resulting force? i've been digging around trying to understand all of these orbit things and found this:
Satellite and ships have occasional course corrections from thrusters. But since there's no friction in space, they wouldnt lose speed so they wouldnt lose force pulling away. You can put satellites into any orbit you want at any speed, so they dont have to "get further and further away."
You're weightless in space because you're too far from a center of gravity. It has nothing to do with orbiting anything.
@SpreadingtheMuse "You're weightless in space because you're too far from a center of gravity" Now i think you're wrong there. At 400km height (low orbit) hravity is still 90% strong. At 2000 km still 60%. If there was no gravity the moon would fly away. Weightlessness is a result of free-fall. You also can't put satelites into any orbit at any speed. I'm going to look for more info about orbit. Mmm thank you for your time and good luck with future videos!
But we havent been talking about specific distances. There is a line on a map where if you cross it, you wont fall back to Earth. I forget what it is off the top of my head. It varies according to mass.
The moon is whole OTHER problem, as the "pull" is based on distance AND mass. The moon doesnt fly away because it has so much more mass for gravity to act on.
But if you are in the middle of nowhere, no planets anywhere, you will be weightless.
@SpreadingtheMuse if there are no planets you will be weightless, but when in orbit you under the influence of gravity but you are weightless because you are in freefall. There is no "line" to cross where gravity stops, it's gradually dissipates the further you get, but the point where earth exerts no more gravity on you is way beyond the moon's orbit. And mostly: this line is certainly not affected by mass. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same acceleration, the only factor is distance
I didnt say "gravity stops," I said 'Line where you wont fall back to Earth." There is in fact such a line, based on your mass. It has a name and everything.
Gravitational Force is not constant. The Formula for FORCE includes (Mass #1 x Mass #2). Since the Moon has so much mass, thats why it stays in orbit so far away. A human, with less mass, loses gravitational hold on the Earth a lot sooner.
@SpreadingtheMuse you are wrong. you are basically saying that if you bring a needle to a very high mountaintop it will not be affected by gravity. The ACCELERATION (g) gravity provides is universal for all objects and strehes out far beyond the moon. The acceleration it provies will be lower but it will still be there. Now here's where you misunderstood: based on the mass of the objects the FORCE needed to achieve that acceleration is different. That's why a needle weighs less then a bowlingbal
@Nydracommander If the needle is several dozen THOUSAND miles away, yes. You cant argue about an equation when you didnt even know it existed until yesterday:
NEWTONS LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION:
Gravitational Force = (Gravitational Constant) x Mass 1 x Mass 2 / Distance squared.
Less mass equals less Gravitational pull. Thats black letter law we've know about for 400 years. A needle can escape earth's gravity far sooner than the moon can.
@SpreadingtheMuse i don't think you get the equation: a needle needs less force to move against gravity, but when the needle and the moon are at equal distance to the earth they will both fall at the same speed. Objects with less mass are not weightless sooner than heavier objects. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum remember? The force needed to achieve the gravitational acceleration is less offc because the needle has less mass. But the needle will accelerate the same as the moon
@SpreadingtheMuse i've been digging around trying to understand all of these orbit things and found this on "misconceptions about inertia": --->Misconception=An orbiting solid object maintains a simple balance between centrifugal force (directed outward) and the Sun's gravity (inward)" --->Answer1= "There is no other force. The only acting force is the gravity" --->Answer2 ="Again, the only force acting here is the Sun's gravity, so the object in question is in a free fall towards the Sun"
Answer3: Force means CHANGE, a new acceleration. In Space you have two: Gravities acceleration down, and the Angular Acceleration of going in a circle but wanting to fly off into space.
Hopfully some of this helps. We're getting real close to the end of the line where the only answer left is: "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO!" Every once in a while, you just go with it.
I'm not suggesting becoming an emotionless robot, just pointing out the fact that there's a difference between being a teacher and being a friend. If you want to teach the world then you need to appeal to the mass market otherwise expect to encounter people such as myself. maybe you would be happier to teach history of science fiction film rather then physics+film.
I would have kittens at the prospect of making an hour long dissection of Star Trek. For all the 12 people who would watch it. But being Happy isnt so important as being intelligent. Going for science is infinitely more productive than just another sci fi blogaholic, and I'll never let myself degenerate that low. But from my experience, physics + sci fi IS "mass market." I've met all kinds of professionals thru these movies and you're more in the minority than you realize
i know that when you are against the ground on the inside of rotating section, centrifugal force is pressing you against the ground. but how do you get pulled toward/into the ground if you aren't already in contact with it (as opposed to just floating while ground beneath you moves past)?
To an extent, if you're not touching anything, you dont get pulled down, as demonstrated by the B5 clip where Sheridian is in mid-air but just casually floating. I think the movie 2010 shows this as well. The rotation is pulling you to the side, meaning momentum is pulling you down. No rotation equals no momentum
I was looking for something educational but this is far too nerdy. Maybe you could cut out the old sci fi shows and your face in any following videos, as well as mentioning more useful information such as the downsides to centrifugal force.
If I do that then I become a blank copy of every other emotionless bland science robot that students are tortured with every day. Zero enjoyment or personality. Why is science top of the list of students least favorite subjects? Its because too many teachers follow your advice. Behind every unenjoyable class is an unenjoyable teacher.
if you wanted to have artificial gravity on multiple planes (instead of just on the sides of the spinning object parallel to the axis of spin), would spinning 2 or 3 ways at once do the trick? inside a sphere for example, if it was only spinning latitudinally, the equator would be the only place where you experienced both maximum gravity and ground that is not sloped awkwardly. could spinning it longitudinally too solve this problem?
I'm trying to imagine a sphere spinning longitudinally and latitudually at the same same, and it keeps coming out diagonally. In space, "Latitude" is relative, Putting two spins on something would just even out into a single spin, making a new equator, just changing the direction of the original problem
@SpreadingtheMuse First imagine the sphere spinning around an axis, then imagine that the axis itself is spinning with the same period. I tried doing this in a 3d modeling program, and the results were that a point on the equator travels at an even speed along a figure 8-shaped path and a point at 45ºN traveled at varied speed along a highly distorted figure 8, one of the lobes of which was compressed almost to a single point. Trippy, but useless for artificial gravity.
And I realize you are probably limited on time to go into more problems with the 'fantasy' of actual artificial gravity, but one I have never seen any sci fi film or tv show address (nor read, though admittedly there's a ton of sci fi novels I have not read) is how cosmic objects are stabilized, and what happens when you fly near objects while somehow generating a gravity field -- fly through the asteroid belt, and all the asteroids will fall directly in toward your ship!
Gravity loses strength at the power of a square the farther out you get. After you're 100 meters away from a field no stronger to hold a 200 lbs man to the floor, the field would be too weak to grab anything as big as an asteroid.
Another big problem with actual centrifugal force is there actually is a significant problem with a radius that is too short, one of biology, in that a person held against the 'wall' (or floor) in a short-radius spin will experience motion sickness if the radius of the spin is too short. A longer radius is thus preferred.
lol whys he keep saying cheap? whats cheap about a giant endlessly rotating structure in space?
maclomacneil 19 hours ago
@maclomacneil Cheap insofar as we dont have to spend a trillion dollars in cost overruns in paying theoretical physics to invent artificial gravity. The only cost is of the space station itself, which is more or less identical whether its rotating or not
SpreadingtheMuse 4 hours ago
What's the movie featured in 4:20?
The centrifuge looks kind of like 2001, (probably a homage) but Bowman never wore a jacket like that.
edaw1982 2 days ago
@edaw1982 Thats "Mission to Mars." With Gary Sinese, Jerry O'Connell and Tim Robbins
SpreadingtheMuse 2 days ago
you cannot just stop a rotation in frictionless space. Otherwise our earth would have stopped.
animalnt 3 weeks ago
@animalnt You dont need friction to stop rotation. In that Mission to Mars clip, its done merely by opposing forces, The momentum vs the rockets.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 weeks ago
0:27 was Mission to Mars, which has a lot more clips in this movie (and I just found out has its own ride at Epcot Center in Florida, with a life sized version of 4:21)
0:51 was from Superman Returns, a movie that I use a lot in all my movies
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
You are a moron.. Give me a powerful enough power source... You don't have a clue...
ronniecme 1 month ago
@ronniecme Give you a strong enough energy source and you'll do what? If you've got the formula for artificial gravity then post it right here. Til then, posers are a dime a dozen.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Rotating starships are cool! By the way, what are the name of those movie clips from 0:27 and 0:51?
KnightInExile7 1 month ago
@KnightInExile7 0:27 was "Mission to Mars." With Gary Sinese, Jerry O'Connell and Tim Robbins.
0:51 was Superman Returns, from 2006
SpreadingtheMuse 2 days ago
So basically what you're saying is that Bab 5 is better than Star Trek....right? Because that's what I took away from this whole thing.
navymexican 1 month ago
@navymexican This is hardly the kind of movie to proclaim "better." B5 gets all the airplay because it used rotational gravity and Star Trek didnt. But if I really had to choose...
I liked TNG a lot, but DS9 and Voy dropped the ball. B5 was good for its first 4 seasons, then ran out of steam for 5, which was nothing about nothing. I have 2 trek uniforms in my closest but no B5 ones, so who knows.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
@123tonysony Your "proof" was such a run-on sentence I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you think you know. But any 16 year old in a high school physics class can prove rotational gravity by taking a bucket full of water and spinning it upside down with a rope. It rudimentary science that works. You dont get to disagree. And watch the language.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
@123tonysony Well you heard wrong. We have never tested Rotational grav in orbit. You would need a huge spinning space station to even pretend to do it right. If you think we have one of those please let us know.
The spinning bucket is idiot proof. Physics classes hold contests to see how long it can be spun without losing any water. We use Rotational grav for devices called "Centerfuges," used for pilot training and medical use. Your physics training was piss poor.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
@123tonysony "need to gain speed" Wrongo. The equation doesnt use acceleration at all. Its mass x VELOCITY / radius.
"restart all the time" Wrongo, and frankly I dont know what you're talking about there. All you need is velocity.
Do you even know the equation, or just making this up as you go? You're arguing with every physics textbook on the planet. And since you delusioned a "huge spinning space station" out of your ass, its obvious you know dick about the space program
SpreadingtheMuse 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 1 month ago
I think its misleading how you talk about centrifugal force. there is no centrifugal force, only centripetal force.
Gregorick 3 months ago
@Gregorick Depends on which physics text you read. I have a whole wall of them, half say centrifugal and half say centripetal. Call it Duct tape force for all I care. The equation works.
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
So the clip where those people were floating around in the spaceship while "Dance The Night Away" was playing, what is it from?
YouthFreedomFighters 3 months ago
@YouthFreedomFighters That was Mission to Mars, circa 2000
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SpreadingtheMuse OK cool, I will check it out, thank you.
YouthFreedomFighters 3 months ago
what is the name of the 7.11 show? the setting is interesting
yumagetbullet 3 months ago
@yumagetbullet
That was Babylon 5. A syndicated sci fi show from 1994-1999. Its on Netflix Streaming and well deserved. A thinking mans show ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 3 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Thank you. I've heard before that Babylon 5 was a great show i guess i must check it now.
yumagetbullet 3 months ago
The radius has to be large or the coriolis effect will make you puke when you stand up. I guess artificial gravity is like soy milk. Not a perfect replacement.
ronwandell 3 months ago
"shure" lol
yoyojoe618 4 months ago
You shire are smart about this stuff
yoyojoe618 4 months ago
What movie is at 0:50? Is that a plane in space?
fffeeerrr06 5 months ago
@fffeeerrr06
Thats from Superman Returns from 2006. An airplane that goes too high in the atmosphere and has to be rescued. A better movie than its given credit for.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
The rotational gravity can be achieved by utilizing maglev technology to spin those massive holding capsules.
BatusaiJack 5 months ago
The blue screen needs a lot of work, otherwise, a very entertaining and informative video.
MasonC2K 5 months ago
good video, although the sound mix needs some work
DethDan666 5 months ago
@DethDan666
Good timing ;) I'm fixing up the sound on a lot of my movies and reuploading them. This one gets the treatment in the next couple weeks.
SpreadingtheMuse 5 months ago
sword of the stars successfully took a crack at using gravity ripples in spacetime for human transportation
very neat trying to understand the concept
aarontaylor94 5 months ago
If you spin a cylindrical station in space, it might be like a huge laundry machine... where things tend to stay in the center, in a ball. You would need magnetic boots or something... ;)
TheEspiritin 6 months ago
@TheEspiritin that'd be aproduct of an object not attaining the needed velocity required.
in order to take advantage of centrifugal force, you have to allow it to act on you, which is why you can float inches away from the rapidly spinning deckplate if you want to, watching it hurtle past at finger-snapping speeds. but if you were to catch hold (safely) you'd be accellerated and the force would press you to the deck plate.
Centrifugal force is an application of momentum.
Rohan2300 5 months ago
@Rohan2300 I understand, but imagine floating into a spinning a module of the ISS, wouldn´t there be a bunch of crates bouncing around?
TheEspiritin 5 months ago
@TheEspiritin ah you see, that's the beauty of centrifugal force, the crates are only going to float around if they aren't spun up to the same speed as the rest of it.
if they're spun at all, they drift outwards, and as soon as they hit the deck, they're going to be accellerated by friction. but if you wanted to be sure, you could hold them in place somehow while they're spun up, if you were standing on the deck, you could bring them up to speed by just holding onto them.
Rohan2300 5 months ago
@Rohan2300 one thing that does occur to me, the friction of the air against the deck would cause the air in the cylinder to start spinning too. and that would naturally cause any objects free-floating to also spin, eventually drawing them to the deck.
also means its quite possible that a large open cylinder has a significant breeze in the middle...in the form of a parallel tornado...or a small hurricane. an argument for making it a wheel rather than a cylinder.
Rohan2300 5 months ago
@Rohan2300 I agree, it would probably be windy inside... :D
TheEspiritin 5 months ago
another advantage of artificial gravity by rotating sections is that you can also have some sections with lower gravity (hangars,cargo bays) or high gravity (crew training center) and its all in one package
Buemmo 7 months ago
1:58 wchat movie is this??
magicznyrafal 7 months ago
@magicznyrafal
The huge metal sphere? Thats from the 8th Star Trek movie: First Contact
SpreadingtheMuse 7 months ago
All hail Babylon 5!
Intranetusa 7 months ago
so let me get it straight.... the centripetal force that the object you are in has is created by it being moved in a circular motion... also... this centriletal force pushes the object (not you) towards the inside and this push of the object towards the inside is your fictitious push towards the outside...a.k.a. artificial gravity... right?
mymsong 8 months ago
@mymsong
I think that sounds right. The spinning force that pushes you towards the outside is Centripetal Force, or Centrifugal, depending on which physics text you're reading (there's something of an argument over the correct term).
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse been a long time since you made a video man...whats the hold up ?
hayden50 7 months ago
@hayden50
I switched creative gears to write a novel that had been in my head since even before Gravity and Potential Energy, 3 movies ago. I made solid headway on that, but good news, I'm more than halfway done thru the next movie right now. Sometime in July.
SpreadingtheMuse 7 months ago
The reason that shows use the artifical g that is too expensive to make in reality is that it's too expensive to make zero g special effects on earth.
There's no such thing as centerfugal force in orbit. It's the sideways inertia of the moving object. Orbiting is just falling, but you keep missing the planet .
Also when you're in the center of your rotating section, yes you have zero radius, but you can still have velocity. the results will still be zero g, but r does not effect v.
dgreatunknown 8 months ago
Spoiler....fucking angels!!!
StargateMunky 8 months ago
@StargateMunky
But you gave it all away!!! LOL
SpreadingtheMuse 8 months ago
@StargateMunky
Who are you?
Intranetusa 7 months ago
Is G and Negative G are a problem?
4FunPlayin 8 months ago
Yay, original Battlestar Galactica 5:45 !!!
It was a lot funner to watch than the recent one. Stargate is better, though.
As for artificial gravity, I say we use it for commercial and residential space stations, and eventually improve it so we can have Earth-like gravity on extra-terrestrial settlements, like moon and Mars colonies (or even asteroid ones).
rhinnawi95 9 months ago
@rhinnawi95
"lot funner" is the nicest way you can put it. The more I think about the new version the less I can stand it. And they totally bellyflopped the last episode. Good news though, the entire original series is on instant view on Netflix ;)
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Exactly! I watched the entire original on the DVD set (except for that 1980 version), and it was AWESOME. I watched some of the beginning from the first season of the new one, and it blew. It's been a while, so I forgot all the names, but I liked having the cigar-smoking main character being a guy and the one black guy not being an Asian chick, and the fact that they were all double-crossed at a supposed treaty-signing, and how it was so original. Oh well :(
rhinnawi95 9 months ago
@rhinnawi95
The first season was actually the only one of the new series halfway decent. By the 4th season it was boring and ridiculous, with the final ep just phoned in.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse That was my thought about what I watched, but I definitely liked the original better, just like how I like the original Star Wars Trilogy better than the Prequel Trilogy. More original, more enjoyable to watch, better overall.
rhinnawi95 9 months ago
I had to stop because of the huge fail about describe an orbit. Hope you realize that this orbit around a giant mass purely because space is warped such that the object orbiting another object is merely traveling in a geodesic line. It's much like an ant running across an apple.
fcdog555 10 months ago
@fcdog555
And if I describe it using that Einsteinian language I'll do nothing but alienate every student I'm trying to reach. Orbit isnt important for why it happens so much as WHAT. The classical newton description was perfectly descriptive of the what, and also predicted the behavior of a orbiting object just fine. Lets leave Einstein to the Grad students and just concentrate on introducing the concept first. Cant learn anything til that happens.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I'm not a grad student and Einstein relativity is no problem for me nor should it be to any other person. Newtonian physics doesn't even condone the bs you are posting.
Please re-edit this video so no one will go on believing orbiting is caused by centrifugal force. This is a blatant lie to support "artificial gravity" which is not possible.
fcdog555 9 months ago
@fcdog555
I have a wall full of physics texts that described orbit exactly the way I did (being a teacher, for some reason, gave me a huge collection). Orbit is perfectly valid with newtonian description. Einstein was talking about space/time structure WAY beyond the necessity of a simple centripetal gravity balance.
And you're even saying the rotational gravity wont work? That shuttle from the movie clips was based on a NASA DESIGN. Thats what THEY wanted to build. You're out of date.
SpreadingtheMuse 9 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse lol not the cetrifugal centripetal force debate...AGAIN!
StargateMunky 8 months ago
And, if you dropped off the hub of a spinning spaceship, you would not be pulled to the outer floor. You could hover an inch above the floor as it spins by you. Only when you touch and friction starts to accelerate you would the gravity effect start.
SvenTviking 10 months ago
@SvenTviking
The B5 clip had the guy moving towards the spinning floor only because he deliberately pushed himself away (in Z g) from the bomb. Once in the air he kept going at that same speed. The scene inside the space shuttle showed complete zero g inside the spinner.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
No such thing as centrefugal force, its centrepetal effect. All down to conservation of momentum. And orbits aint due to centrepetal effect. You fall towards the Earth but miss as you are flying at 90 degrees to the fall at 7 miles per sec.
SvenTviking 10 months ago
@SvenTviking
It is called a "fake" force, as its about momentum. But for ease of calculation and writing it down, we call it FORCE for convenience.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
While we are traveling at high speed through space do we need artificial gravity? Cause theres like force pulling you the opposite direction that you're traveling. So could you structure the ship so the platform is facing the opposite direction you travel in. So that you can maneuver naturally around the command module?
shippem 10 months ago
@shippem This force is only present when you constantly speed up. I dont know how fast you have to speed up in space to produce one G, but you cant speed up infinitely. Ive been thinking about your idea too, but this was what i thought made it impossible.
Powgow 10 months ago
You would do better to change the title to centripetal force.. centrifugal force (as you know) is a faux force..
MattyHild 10 months ago
Gravity........ITS JUST A THEORY!!!!!!
:)
Violent2aShadow 10 months ago
Uhh, im getting confused....In space you can float on gravity you can't.You can see the space ship spinning around you.BUT your NOT. Your floating if it goes light speed slowly you will see the back wall getting closer to you.Just invent a Artificial gravity machine it will make it easier.Like in Star Wars
123tonysony 10 months ago
@123tonysony
Problem is you dont know the difference between momentum and gravity. EITHER ONE can keep you glued to a floor. They're not the same thing, but they do the same thing.
Spinning makes momentum, and momentum glues you to the floor.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse You'll have to hold on the spinning space ship to be glued on to the floor. 0% Gravity will make you float Not touching the floor. If you use a donut shaped piece of wood, spinning at 25 MPH, and you put a feather in the middle it won't be pulled on to the side of the solid. I tried it
123tonysony 10 months ago
@123tonysony
When you swing water around in a bucket, does the water stay in because "its holding on?" ;)
You're still not getting what "momentum" does.
You're under a misconception that I've explained over and over and you keep ignoring. Spinning does NOT create gravity. It creates momentum. Momentum glues you to the floor every bit like gravity does. Only different physics.
Swing a bucket of water around in a circle. The water does not fall out. That proves everything right there.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Oh im getting it now. But will it work in outer space?
123tonysony 10 months ago
@123tonysony
Should work anywhere. Trust these TV shows. They all have professional physicists on their writing staff. Babylon 5 especially. And that spinning shuttle was based off an official NASA blueprint.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse But if it spins and i jump wouldn't the floor move fast like 70MPH?
123tonysony 10 months ago
@123tonysony
The rate of the spin depends on how big it is. On that big Babylon 5 space station, yes. On the NASA shuttle, no. But if you're thinking you can jump in the air and have the station rotate beneath you, you cant jump high enough to make it worth while.
SpreadingtheMuse 10 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Ok then... You were right the whole time.
123tonysony 10 months ago
That's fake you'll be floating in the space shuttle if it was spinning.But if your going light speed in one direction without you being in your seat you'll be pulled back because your floating.The space ship moves you won't move with it you be in place while the ship is moving then you reach the wall and hit it hard and i think you get pushed because of the wall.Besides NASA already invented a anti gravity chamber, if we reverse it it will create gravity.
123tonysony 11 months ago
@123tonysony
Going "one direction" pushes you back into your seat the same reason spinning does: Momentum. But momentum has two kinds: Linear (straight line) and Rotational (spinning). If one kind works then they both have to work.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Yes but then you be floating the same amount of speed how the spacecraft is going or spinning.If it spins you'll be floating still, the spinning only works on gravity it it heads one direction it will too.(Earth) I think...Gravity is being pushed on the side of a wall. Since there is no gravity in space or up,down, left, or right it won't work.But I Invented Something Myself that I'm Going To Report To NASA And Get An Award It's my very own Artificial Gravity.
123tonysony 11 months ago
@123tonysony
Get a bucket of water, attach a rope, spin it round and round. The water stays in. Thats centripetal force. Try it yourself.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse I did. But What I'm trying to say is in space there is no gravity, you'll easily float around but if you move the same speed as the spacecraft it will pull you but it will be impossible to go the same speed as the vehicle,You will slip away, you'll be heading the same speed and float. Like this, the floor spins in a circle fast and i can float up,down,left or right easily.If I take a normal step its gonna be like i jumped of a car that win 22 MPH. YOUR ONLY TESTING IT ON EARTH!
123tonysony 11 months ago
@123tonysony
Movement in space from the ship is momentum. ANY MOVEMENT generates momentum. And momentum is INDEPENDENT OF GRAVITY. Angular Momentum from spinning keeps you glued to the side of the ship just as any other momentum does. You cant pick and choose which momentum works and which doenst. Either they all do or none of them do.
Loud and clear, Spinning of angular momentum does NOT need earth gravity. It works anywhere.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Holding on the spinning spacecraft will pull you back.I did an experiment on it i putted my finger in the middle of a spinning bucket and nothing pushed it away i even tied a BB bullet in the middle or side of the center and nothing happened only the wind moved it around NOT against the walls.Then i taped the string in the side and it pushed it back.If there is no gravity and the spinning space ships spins about 80MPH You'll have to run faster!!
THINK ABOUT IT SpreadingTheMuse
123tonysony 11 months ago
@123tonysony
Your finger was still connected to your arm, totally sabotaging the experiment.
The WATER proves the experiment. Spin a bucket of water and the water doesnt fall out. Thats an experiment thats 500 years old. Anyone can do it, and it proves the whole thing.
Put your BB in a spinning bucket and it wont fall out. Thats elementary 8th grade physics. Since you didnt see the inherent flaw in the "finger" experiment, its likely you're goofing up all your experiments as well.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
Comment removed
123tonysony 11 months ago
What do you recommend for in-depth research into the subject of zero-gravity physics? I am seeking raw-data as well as explanations of these datas, who are the leading researches in the subject of zero-gravity pysics? Is there a report, in any language, its nature, in its entirety? If so, I would like to read it.
ArchetypeXE 11 months ago
@ArchetypeXE
I'm not aware of a specific expert on the subject. Zero gravity physics is more or less classical physics without friction. All the easy equations still apply and in fact are in their perfect form, with momentum "object in motion stays in motion" lasting forever and such. The point where zero gravity gets all funky is in biological chemistry and such. But you can google any number of professional university websites for answers to specific questions.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
I realize I can google, but I could be reading utter crap. I would like to be pointed in the right direction.
Maybe a more generic question:
What are some resources *you* use to get information? Whose work do *you* recommend I read?
Physics is one of the things I never studied. It's been 5 years since high-school, and the last science class I had was biology. What are some reliable sources on the internet for physics facts?
Is there a good book you recommend?
ArchetypeXE 11 months ago
@ArchetypeXE
For high quality science writing aimed at the general public, find any book you can by Dr. Carl Sagan. He wrote on a million topics and knew how to make it understandable to everyone.
Then, there's lots of books written for more fun value, but still written by professionals. Look up amazon for "Physics of Star Trek," for example. That leads you to "Physics of Superheros," and "Physics of Sci Fi" and so on. You can find one that sounds cool, and that leads you to others.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@SpreadingtheMuse
Basically this is what troubles me: There is so much discussion on the internet; about theory A or equation F, but where did these come from? Where is the raw data? All I see is what other people are saying, and not what the original person actually said. I want answers, not discussion! I want cold, hard facts, and I am tired of google leading me to retarded, *aesthetically pleasing* websites with little *real* information. I just want plain old text! I want stuff to read!!!!
ArchetypeXE 11 months ago
@ArchetypeXE
That'll depend on the question you're looking for. Most Physics equations at the high school level were chugged out of huge monster equations at the PHD level, even I dont understand those, but I agree that they work after they've been simplified.
Most people on the internet arent experienced in anything, they just cut and paste big words. A more reliable source would be a library card. But the "original people" are likely Phd engineers, and are VERY incomprehensible.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
Good video, however..The equation 1:42 corresponds to centripetal force which direction is always the center of the motion. Centrifugal's direction is always tangent to the motion, and it is a force only when the body is accelerating.When not, it is a momentum (p=mu).
TLiberator 11 months ago
@TLiberator
There's no difference between the two equations for centripetal and centrifugal, only the direction in which the object is going. Centrifugal is referred to as a "fake" force as its only incidental to the angular momentum like you said, but the same equation works for it.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
awesome cool video...
BatusaiJack 11 months ago
awesome explanatio professor.....
12ock 11 months ago
I have a question. Would the people who are in these rotating space ships be able to tell that there actually technically standing on the side of the ship? Or would it appear to them that there just standing normal just like on earth?
brprage 1 year ago
@brprage
Yes, they could tell. Look at those scenes from Babylon 5 in the inside of the garden. If they look straight up they see GROUND on the other side, they see a circle all around them. Now if you make a really really BIG station, the curve would be too big to see with normal sight.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse Thanks for getting back to me, and what you said definitley made sense! But what about a small space shuttle that had a centrifuge? Like the ones @ 4:22 to 4:29 and 6:40 to 6:48? When they are walking around the centrifuge would gravity make it appear to them that they are standing straight up like on earth or would it seem like they are standing on the side of the ship walking straight down? Also, wouldn't it appear like they were constantly going uphill when they are walking?
brprage 11 months ago
@brprage
Yes, they FEEL like walking on earth, standing straight up. But it would LOOK like they were walking uphill. Since that shuttle/spinner was so small, everything would look really weird from the inside. They can see it spinning, see the roof, see people walking "upside down" if they looked straight up.
SpreadingtheMuse 11 months ago
@brprage
Yes, you could tell, because of the Coriolis effect. (You can feel it if you sit on playground merry-go-round and spin really fast, and then try to move your arms around.) However, after living on the spaceship for a while you would get used to it, and there wouldn't be any apparent difference. But you would notice the change again as soon as you left the ship.
twk373 11 months ago
If these alien are from worlds with similar terrestrial environments they might opt not to hurtle and asteroid toward earth, because the after math would drastically alter the climate and environment. This is if there goal of course after the destruction of humanity is colonization. I they simply seek to harvest the earth’s natural resources in order to sustain their space faring civilization then the asteroid idea is marvelous concept. You have some interesting videos.
IDriveAmerican 1 year ago
Here's a big question for you and anyone else. WHERE EXACTLY ...or rather HOW EXACTLY does the Internet work. I know that I hook up my laptop to the broadband modem and from there my phone company has a network of servers which connect to other servers....and they in turn to others aruond the world. But is there ONE central server that connects all the others in one big spiderweb like config? I've never really understood this. Care to enlighten?
cmdesign01 1 year ago
@cmdesign01
The "internet" is a whole branch. Not my area of expertise. I know its does NOT have one master hive brain on a computer island somewhere, no. Its all independent computers sites talking to each other no different than independent telephone servers talking to each other.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
But I take that for granted. Thereby convincing myself it's no big deal since it does come so easy for myself. Maybe you're like this, becuase you seem to be very at home and at ease with much of this stuff. For which I am very impressed. I don't think much of IQ tests that put labels on people's intellect. But I do suppose there is something to it. I stink at them. Seriously though, thank you alot for taking the time to write to some stranger you've never met before....the Net is pretty cool.
cmdesign01 1 year ago
Hey I really appreciate you getting back to a complete stranger. It's pretty cool actually. I take it you're a Prof. at a University somewhere? actually I'm a wee bit in awe to be talking to someone of your intellectual caliber...I consider myself smart but no where as smart as you are I think. Of course there ARE different "types" of smarts. For instance I'm an artist and I've been doing it for years. It comes naturally to me for which I barely have to work at it while others need to unlike me.
cmdesign01 1 year ago
well, gravity is a moot point ...academic as they say if the problem of propulsion and how long it takes to get so far in distance. I suppose even this IS pointless until we find a way to survive such long distances ... yes? no? Yes? maybe? I bow to your superior knowledge mot definitely. Also...and this is a side question...why haven't we as humans been to the moon again? Just curious as to your take on this question? I saw on here somewhere that "Aliens told us not to come back to the moon."?
cmdesign01 1 year ago
@cmdesign01
We need to design two things: 1) A way to survive long trips, or 2) Faster travel
Or maybe not. Sci Fi is full of stories of huge generational ships that take hundreds of years to get anywhere, the people inside living their lives happily spinning around, know that their grandkids will be the ones to eventually land.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse that could be quite sad, but i guess we could Cryo freeze and stop the aging process,Just imagine bieng alone for hundreds of years (alone as in 1 ship vulnerable in the massive of space)
f4llenSk4ter 11 months ago
could I possible be right? Give me some sweetness..you're obviously much smarter than I am and htat's cool...and awesome even...but might I be onto something?
cmdesign01 1 year ago
I like this alot and I think you rock for making it. However..what if..WHAT IF there are Laws that man HAS not discovered yet because it's based on qualities and matter we don't have but someone might have that we don't. In other words...aren't you basing your equasions on a constant which is the constant of our OUR standards based on what WE KNOW not what we DON'T know? Isn't it possible there aer laws we haven't discovered yet? that othes might employ against us? I'm not saying I'm right but
cmdesign01 1 year ago
@cmdesign01
This kind of gravity is based on what we know how to do right now. With enough goofing around could we eventually find out how to make sci fi gravity. We just need to spend the time.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
5:50 the only way those spaceships released by their mother ship's own gravity is if the little ships' are released from the outside of themothership's spin. but not from any other part of the mother ship.
dattajack 1 year ago
@dattajack
The "spin" of the mothership goes all the way down into the center axis. Releasing the little ships from any point thats spinning will fling them away.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
5:50 no, no, no. artificial gravity via centerfuges does not get distributed like gravity from a large body of mass. artificial gravity is from a body of mass being essentially trapped on the inside of the centerfuge, and that's the extent of the centerfuge's grasp.
dattajack 1 year ago
@dattajack It gets distributed along the circumference of the centrifuge. That was the point of that graphic. Its a "false" force to be sure, which has no measurement until mass is actually there, but it doenst matter where in the centrifuge the mass is.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Orbit has nothing to do with centrifugal force since the angle of rotation isn't high enough to create any meaningful force. Waitlessness and orbit are achieved through perpetual falling. Spaceships in orbit keep falling "over the horizon". For every meter they fall the curvature of the earth makes the surface "move" 1 meter below you and thus you maintain the same altitude. or am i completely wrong here?
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
We're both right. Centrifugal force and such are called "fictitious" forces, as they're more conveniences to help us imagine whats going on. We do "fall" in to a planet, and the force of our motion "throws" us out. The vectors are all identical, its all personal preference as to what to call it all.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse unless i misunderstood the explanation in the video, i don't think there is a counteracting force to the pull of gravity; no "throw" by our motion. If there was a centrifugal force canceling out gravity as to keep us in zero-gravity, wouldn't the orbiting craft just fly off into space as gravity wouldn't be pulling it down anymore? unless the curvature of the orbit is maintained by constant burning of the engines but that seems rather wasteful to me.
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
Ok now you're off a tad. Gravity has to be counteracted or any orbiting ship would be pulled down and crash. The fact that they orbit safely means that something or some sort has to be going on.
Gravity it is simplest explanation is an acceleration down. Movement is an acceleration up. So put them together and you go nowhere, just orbiting in circles. Angular Acceleration.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse that's my point: if gravity was counteracted the orbiting ship would have no reason to follow a curved or elliptical orbit. If both forces were equal it would remain still or continue in a straight line. if you look at an elliptical orbit the centrifugal forces are actually greatest when the ship is furthest away from earth and gravity is weaker and when passing earth at it's nearst point angular acceleration is lower and gravity is stronger. (cont...)
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse if centrifugal forces(angular acceleration) were counteracting gravity to keep a ship in orbit they would be weaker at the apexes of the elliptic orbit and stronger at the near earth passes. the way i see it acceleration has little to do with orbit. the key is constant speed, which means no centrifugal force. the only force acting on the ship would be gravity. like you said the ship would plummet to the ground, but that's exactly what it does.(cont)
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse the ship's speed is high enough to always just fall over the curvature of the earth. the changing position of the center of gravity vs the ship is what keeps it in a circular orbit, without the need to constantly provide energy to maintain acceleration, since constant speed (ideally) needs no extra energy input to maintain. in short: counteracting gravity with any type of force, centrifual or other, requires constant acceleration and thus energy. orbit does not.
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse i'm just trying to understand here, any thoughts?
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
A ship that flies in a straight line doesnt mean that the forces are counteracting, it means that the ship actually won and is free to fly off into space. Going round in circles is the counteraction, the stalemate. Gravity pulls down and the angular acceleration pushes out. But no one wins. The ship neither falls down nor flies out.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse but wouldn't you need some force to curve the trajectory? What incentive does the spacecraft have to turn in orbit if both forces counteract eachother perfectly?
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
"curve" is a misleading term. Gravity doesnt know that its "curving" anything. For all it knows its just pulling straight down. No matter where in the sky the spaceship is, gravity thinks its pulling it straight down. But the ship wants to go straight across. So the curve is the compromise between the two.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse yes yes i understand that, but what i don't fully understand is what causes the ship to follow the curve, if the effect of gravity is lifted by the counteracting centrifugal force. If there is no resulting force acting on the ship, why would it turn?
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
There is a force on the ship, the COMBINED force. "Cancel out" might be the wrong way to look at it. They dont cancel, they join into a superforce with shared direction.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse now you lost me. shared direction means both forces are pulling the ship towards earth? From what i understand weightlessness is achieved through free fall, and any force acting on you would fling you to the sides. your video said there was a careful balance between the inward pull of gravity and the outward push of centrifugal forces.
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
Shared direction =/= shared force. I said COMBINED force. Vectors. Two forces in different directions combine to a new compromised direction. Force that goes down + Force that goes out = Curved direction
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse combining vectors i get. But to achieve weightlessness this way they'd have to equal and in opposite direction, but then what is causing the curve? if the combined direction equals anything but zero, you'd have some sort of artificial gravity. if centrifugal force is balanced to equal gravitational force to achieve weightlessness there would be no more resulting force acting on the ship. then what is causing the curvature of the orbit?
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
"balance" does not mean "no more resulting force." It means balance. Up is balanced by down, so the combined vector is a curve.
The curve happens because this balance is re-figured second by second. Its an accident of being near a sphere. Gravity doesnt know the Earth is a curve, all it does is pull down. The spaceship doesnt know the Earth is a curve, it just wants to fly away. The curve is only what the 3rd party sees.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse but gravity gets weaker the further you are away from the earth, unlike say a ball on a string spinning around. wouldn't satelites or ship in orbit gradually fly further and further away? you say "nr more resulting force" isn't correct, but why then are you weightless? of there is a resulting force? i've been digging around trying to understand all of these orbit things and found this:
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
Satellite and ships have occasional course corrections from thrusters. But since there's no friction in space, they wouldnt lose speed so they wouldnt lose force pulling away. You can put satellites into any orbit you want at any speed, so they dont have to "get further and further away."
You're weightless in space because you're too far from a center of gravity. It has nothing to do with orbiting anything.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse "You're weightless in space because you're too far from a center of gravity" Now i think you're wrong there. At 400km height (low orbit) hravity is still 90% strong. At 2000 km still 60%. If there was no gravity the moon would fly away. Weightlessness is a result of free-fall. You also can't put satelites into any orbit at any speed. I'm going to look for more info about orbit. Mmm thank you for your time and good luck with future videos!
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
But we havent been talking about specific distances. There is a line on a map where if you cross it, you wont fall back to Earth. I forget what it is off the top of my head. It varies according to mass.
The moon is whole OTHER problem, as the "pull" is based on distance AND mass. The moon doesnt fly away because it has so much more mass for gravity to act on.
But if you are in the middle of nowhere, no planets anywhere, you will be weightless.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse if there are no planets you will be weightless, but when in orbit you under the influence of gravity but you are weightless because you are in freefall. There is no "line" to cross where gravity stops, it's gradually dissipates the further you get, but the point where earth exerts no more gravity on you is way beyond the moon's orbit. And mostly: this line is certainly not affected by mass. Gravity accelerates all objects at the same acceleration, the only factor is distance
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
I didnt say "gravity stops," I said 'Line where you wont fall back to Earth." There is in fact such a line, based on your mass. It has a name and everything.
Gravitational Force is not constant. The Formula for FORCE includes (Mass #1 x Mass #2). Since the Moon has so much mass, thats why it stays in orbit so far away. A human, with less mass, loses gravitational hold on the Earth a lot sooner.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse you are wrong. you are basically saying that if you bring a needle to a very high mountaintop it will not be affected by gravity. The ACCELERATION (g) gravity provides is universal for all objects and strehes out far beyond the moon. The acceleration it provies will be lower but it will still be there. Now here's where you misunderstood: based on the mass of the objects the FORCE needed to achieve that acceleration is different. That's why a needle weighs less then a bowlingbal
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander If the needle is several dozen THOUSAND miles away, yes. You cant argue about an equation when you didnt even know it existed until yesterday:
NEWTONS LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION:
Gravitational Force = (Gravitational Constant) x Mass 1 x Mass 2 / Distance squared.
Less mass equals less Gravitational pull. Thats black letter law we've know about for 400 years. A needle can escape earth's gravity far sooner than the moon can.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse i don't think you get the equation: a needle needs less force to move against gravity, but when the needle and the moon are at equal distance to the earth they will both fall at the same speed. Objects with less mass are not weightless sooner than heavier objects. All objects fall at the same speed in a vacuum remember? The force needed to achieve the gravitational acceleration is less offc because the needle has less mass. But the needle will accelerate the same as the moon
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse i've been digging around trying to understand all of these orbit things and found this on "misconceptions about inertia": --->Misconception=An orbiting solid object maintains a simple balance between centrifugal force (directed outward) and the Sun's gravity (inward)" --->Answer1= "There is no other force. The only acting force is the gravity" --->Answer2 ="Again, the only force acting here is the Sun's gravity, so the object in question is in a free fall towards the Sun"
Nydracommander 1 year ago
@Nydracommander
Answer3: Force means CHANGE, a new acceleration. In Space you have two: Gravities acceleration down, and the Angular Acceleration of going in a circle but wanting to fly off into space.
Hopfully some of this helps. We're getting real close to the end of the line where the only answer left is: "BECAUSE GOD SAYS SO!" Every once in a while, you just go with it.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
We don't need artificial gravity. Better to create calcium supplements via nanotech than try to waste all that effort in recreating gravity.
PatientZed 1 year ago
Your argument has circular logic but I'm not one to argue so I'll leave you to do what you do best. Thank you for your reply's.
nxadmon 1 year ago
I'm not suggesting becoming an emotionless robot, just pointing out the fact that there's a difference between being a teacher and being a friend. If you want to teach the world then you need to appeal to the mass market otherwise expect to encounter people such as myself. maybe you would be happier to teach history of science fiction film rather then physics+film.
nxadmon 1 year ago
@nxadmon
I would have kittens at the prospect of making an hour long dissection of Star Trek. For all the 12 people who would watch it. But being Happy isnt so important as being intelligent. Going for science is infinitely more productive than just another sci fi blogaholic, and I'll never let myself degenerate that low. But from my experience, physics + sci fi IS "mass market." I've met all kinds of professionals thru these movies and you're more in the minority than you realize
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
i know that when you are against the ground on the inside of rotating section, centrifugal force is pressing you against the ground. but how do you get pulled toward/into the ground if you aren't already in contact with it (as opposed to just floating while ground beneath you moves past)?
RickMojave 1 year ago
@RickMojave
To an extent, if you're not touching anything, you dont get pulled down, as demonstrated by the B5 clip where Sheridian is in mid-air but just casually floating. I think the movie 2010 shows this as well. The rotation is pulling you to the side, meaning momentum is pulling you down. No rotation equals no momentum
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
I was looking for something educational but this is far too nerdy. Maybe you could cut out the old sci fi shows and your face in any following videos, as well as mentioning more useful information such as the downsides to centrifugal force.
nxadmon 1 year ago
@nxadmon
If I do that then I become a blank copy of every other emotionless bland science robot that students are tortured with every day. Zero enjoyment or personality. Why is science top of the list of students least favorite subjects? Its because too many teachers follow your advice. Behind every unenjoyable class is an unenjoyable teacher.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
if you wanted to have artificial gravity on multiple planes (instead of just on the sides of the spinning object parallel to the axis of spin), would spinning 2 or 3 ways at once do the trick? inside a sphere for example, if it was only spinning latitudinally, the equator would be the only place where you experienced both maximum gravity and ground that is not sloped awkwardly. could spinning it longitudinally too solve this problem?
RickMojave 1 year ago
@RickMojave
I'm trying to imagine a sphere spinning longitudinally and latitudually at the same same, and it keeps coming out diagonally. In space, "Latitude" is relative, Putting two spins on something would just even out into a single spin, making a new equator, just changing the direction of the original problem
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Comment removed
RickMojave 1 year ago
@SpreadingtheMuse First imagine the sphere spinning around an axis, then imagine that the axis itself is spinning with the same period. I tried doing this in a 3d modeling program, and the results were that a point on the equator travels at an even speed along a figure 8-shaped path and a point at 45ºN traveled at varied speed along a highly distorted figure 8, one of the lobes of which was compressed almost to a single point. Trippy, but useless for artificial gravity.
nevermore1000 1 year ago
Interesting theory
DrWestofReanimation 1 year ago
7 people apparently know better ways to produce artificial gravity.
PROMITHEASMUSIC 1 year ago
And I realize you are probably limited on time to go into more problems with the 'fantasy' of actual artificial gravity, but one I have never seen any sci fi film or tv show address (nor read, though admittedly there's a ton of sci fi novels I have not read) is how cosmic objects are stabilized, and what happens when you fly near objects while somehow generating a gravity field -- fly through the asteroid belt, and all the asteroids will fall directly in toward your ship!
ChibiabosWolf 1 year ago
@ChibiabosWolf
Gravity loses strength at the power of a square the farther out you get. After you're 100 meters away from a field no stronger to hold a 200 lbs man to the floor, the field would be too weak to grab anything as big as an asteroid.
SpreadingtheMuse 1 year ago
Another big problem with actual centrifugal force is there actually is a significant problem with a radius that is too short, one of biology, in that a person held against the 'wall' (or floor) in a short-radius spin will experience motion sickness if the radius of the spin is too short. A longer radius is thus preferred.
ChibiabosWolf 1 year ago