/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.6068457]

Did they ever done artificial gravity right ?
In movies or anime it's always done wrong - see picture from 2001

[Anonymous No.6068459]

>>6068457

[Anonymous No.6068470]

>>6068457

What makes you say it's wrong?

[Anonymous No.6068466]

>Oh you.

[Anonymous No.6068471]

Elysium does it right. Big ring = no disorientation. In that 2001 picture his head would be feeling less centripetal acceleration than his feet. nausea galore

[Anonymous No.6068475]

>>6068470
Centrifugal force is bullshit for artificial gravity.
see picture
Centrifugal force only works on the ring and objects firmly attached to it.
If the human makes just one step or jumps he would float around.
2001 is retarded.

[Anonymous No.6068476]

>>6068470
Centifugal force
read a book pleb.

[Anonymous No.6068479]

>>6068470
This is how it works

[Anonymous No.6068481]

>>6068457
In 2001 its done with grip shoes, still wrong tho

[Anonymous No.6068482]

>>6068479
Wrong. he wouldn't be able to stand up. This is how it should work.

[Anonymous No.6068487]

>>6068482
<--- This is just wrong

[Anonymous No.6068493]

Copypasta troll thread
Nothing to see here

[Anonymous No.6068490]

>>6068487
How the fuck is that wrong?

[Anonymous No.6068497]

>>6068482
No way is this serious. Nobody could be so incredibly retarded.

[Anonymous No.6068504]

Back to the op. Is there anything that does it right? An anon mentioned Elysium but O'Neill colonies are flawed and it would be a disaster.

[Anonymous No.6068506]

It works fine. You are not stupid, evil, weak, ugly...

[Anonymous No.6068512]

Physics major here.
>>6068482
>>6068479
>>6068475
These have the right idea but are crudely drawn. You need to apply the centrifugal force equally across the entire body to keep your top half from floating away.

[Anonymous No.6068518]

>>6068512
pls go.

[Anonymous No.6068519]

No problems, no clowns.

[Anonymous No.6068523]

>>6068518
Why don't you? I'm trying to lend some help to the thread. Although, to answer OPs question the best representation of artificial gravity is probably in UC Gundam.
>>6068519
You're neglecting the part that the closer to the center you get the less gravity there is. So essentially, with that design, your top half would be sucked to the center. You would need special velcro shoes or something with magnets to keep you centered.

[Anonymous No.6068524]

>>6068512
>You need to apply the centrifugal force equally across the entire body to keep your top half from floating away.
>Physics major here.
I take it you are failing?

[Anonymous No.6068529]

>>6068512
>physics major
>implying you need to be a physics major to understand remedial circular motion concepts
>implying you're a physics major

[Anonymous No.6068530]

[Anonymous No.6068531]

>>6068524
No. I have a 3.8 gpa.
I take it you don't know what you're talking about in regards to modern physics? You should try learning from something other than the Big Bang Theory and pop-sci.

[Anonymous No.6068533]

>>6068531
>>You need to apply the centrifugal force equally across the entire body to keep your top half from floating away.
Think about that for a sec, really take a moment to think about what you said.

also
>i cant b wrong ima doing major in physics he must get nowledge from big banggg!

[Anonymous No.6068536]

>>6068512
>You need to apply the centrifugal force equally across the entire body to keep your top half from floating away.
LOL

[Anonymous No.6068541]

>>6068533
or he's just a troll

[Anonymous No.6068549]

>>6068512
>Physics major here.
Why would you feel the need to start a post with that?

[Anonymous No.6068551]

>>6068512

[Anonymous No.6068559]

>>6068457
>it's always done wrong
Yeah man that's stupid.
Clearly this is how it should look like.

[Anonymous No.6068571]

>>6068533
>le ad hominem strawman

Lel. I'm simply mentioning that I'm a physics major to explain my knowledge on this particular subject. Although, giving an inaccurate representation of my points in baby retard speak seems like a very sheldon thing to do. I guess my theory about you getting all of your scientific knowhow has turned in to a hypothesis. Thanks.
>>6068536
It's correct, though. If the top half of your body floats away, since it is still attached to the bottom half, then you will end up floating and unable to escape.
Think of it this way. You have to conflicting forces. One pulling the bottom half of your body to the floor, and one pulling the top half of your body to the top. If you were to take a step then the top half would become dominant and end up pulling you to the center, while the bottom half pulls you back down (but since it's now the top 3/4ths of your body being pulled up it does it wrong) resulting in you being put in a perpetual spinning motion
refer to the picture.

[Anonymous No.6068572]

[Anonymous No.6068575]

>>6068571
>dat pic

10/10

[Anonymous No.6068577]

>>6068571
troll harder

[Anonymous No.6068587]

>>6068577
I'm not trolling. I learned about this in school. Would you mind explaining how I'm wrong instead of resorting to memetics?

[Anonymous No.6068589]

>>6068475
>>6068476
>>6068479

Except that's completely wrong.

>If the human makes just one step or jumps he would float around.

No, he would not. For the same reason you don't crash into the back of an airplane if you jump inside the cabin.

[Anonymous No.6068591]

>>6068587
>Would you mind explaining how I'm wrong instead of resorting to memetics?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force

[Anonymous No.6068596]

>>6068591
Ah. I see. A wikipedia physicist. No wonder you don't understand. You do realize that wiki is edited by the uneducated who onlyloosely understand the the theories, right? Not trying to be insulting but it's hardly a good argument.

[Anonymous No.6068593]

>>6068587
I hope to god you're trolling.

[Anonymous No.6068594]

>>6068571
prove it with your physics math instead of just making shit up then.
<span class="math"> F=mr\omega^2[/spoiler] always pointing to the outside.
There's no force pulling into the center, troll.

[Anonymous No.6068595]

>>6068587
>I learned about this in school.

I doubt that very much.

[Anonymous No.6068597]

>>6068571
wait that makes more sense

[Anonymous No.6068600]

>>6068596
You're a poor troll.

[Anonymous No.6068605]

>>6068600
And you're poor at presenting a clear counterargument. You think this is what they do in academia?
>your wrong lol *throws book at mans face for proof*
No. You cite examples and specific experiments showing that it doesn't work, or at least explain in your own way based on your understanding of physics how they contradict the presented thesis.

[Anonymous No.6068611]

If this is copypasta trolling, it's not a very good one. With the sibling paradox and the 0.9... threads there are actual retards who don't understand and will argue. Here it's obviously just OP samefagging and everyone knows he's wrong.

[Anonymous No.6068615]

>>6068605
Go away.

[Anonymous No.6068621]

>>6068620
No.

[Anonymous No.6068620]

If you were to jump in a room with centrifugal gravity, would you smack your face against the floor?

[Anonymous No.6068623]

>>6068611
>If this is copypasta trolling
It is, we have had this thread like 10 times with the same pictures.

[Anonymous No.6068625]

In the rotating frame of reference of the spinning habitat, there would be an outward fictitious force (centrifugal force) that is strongest at the outside and decreases linearly towards the center, where it is obviously zero. The portrayal in 2001 is accurate.

[Anonymous No.6068629]

>>6068620
>If you were to jump in a room with centrifugal gravity, would you smack your face against the floor?

Only if you normally smack your face against the floor when you jump.

[Anonymous No.6068634]

[Anonymous No.6068653]

>>6068571
lol

[Anonymous No.6068672]

It works in theory.
I am not sure about wheel theory, but I know about the piston theory.

So why don't we fling a man inside a giant tumble drier into the orbit and post results?

[Anonymous No.6068674]

I was having a good day until this thread went and pissed me off. I haven't even posted. I just scrolled through the comments, and a big pile of pissed off just fell on my head.

[Anonymous No.6068685]

>So why don't we fling a man inside a giant tumble drier into the orbit and post results?

Pic Related. Been done, pleb.

[Anonymous No.6068693]

>>6068685
Please don't forget to quote next time.

What were results?

[Anonymous No.6068696]

>>6068672
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPwTeJEDlUY
#simulation #provesall

[Anonymous No.6068700]

>>6068693
>Results

[Anonymous No.6068717]

If you jump in a centrifugal tube you go off tangentially (plus the speed you jump toward the centre) in the outside reference frame, so you'd crash back onto the tube (although not exactly how you would on earth).

In the system of the tube you'd observe Coriolis effects.

I'm not sure how exactly it would look with human motion, but I guess your pic is a close approximation.

[Anonymous No.6068715]

>>6068700
so.. zombies?

[Anonymous No.6068727]

>

[Anonymous No.6068729]

>>6068727
>

[Anonymous No.6068732]

>>6068717
>Coriolis effects.
Keep your gene roddenberry liberal wet dream to your creationist scientific self.

[Anonymous No.6068738]

>>6068732
B-b-but that's first year's physics.

[Anonymous No.6068741]

>>6068738
Don't question my force vectors. You can't hold me orbit, man.

[Anonymous No.6068748]

I made a diagram of what I think might be a more effective method. You see, you should be walking along the "inner ring" which is being pulled near the center, allowing you to stick to it. The outer ring of course still pulls you, but since the inner ring has a higher gravitational pull you get to kep your feet on the ground with the added benefit of not having to work so hard to keep your head up. The men and women of the ship would be tied together thus helping counteract any unforeseen centrifugal fluctuations that may result in levitation.

Furthermore, by sectioning it off in to four partitions you have these "inner walls" that are also spinning and generating centrifugal force thereby also pulling you to the LEFT and the RIGHT and keeping you in place.

If you remove those paritions, as shown in the last diagram, you will see that you will have one force pulling everyone there instead of two, thereby making every body spin

And yeah... I know these diagrams are kind of shitty. Sorry. It's hard to explain.

[Anonymous No.6068753]

>>6068748

[Anonymous No.6068759]

>>6068748
Please telly me you also have a conclusive theory on how to unify Relativity and Quantum mechanics, and that Einstein was wrong.

[Anonymous No.6068761]

>>6068748
Technically you have a valid point in terms of bulk heads. I learned that from Star War.

[Anonymous No.6068765]

>>6068759
>Jesus

[Anonymous No.6068766]

>>6068748
is /sci/ pretty much just this

people who have never even heard of a free body diagram trying to create "better" methods of artificial gravity with "centrifugal force"

[Anonymous No.6068773]

>>6068766

I don't play with corpses, what is this free body shit? You in some dissection class?

I'm an art major. Helpo.
zpm inbound.

[Anonymous No.6068772]

>>6068766
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6068779]

>>6068766
It's ironic troll post.
I'm more worried that you don't recongnize that

[Anonymous No.6068777]

Ok... Artificial gravity...
Here's what we'll do:

Build earth 2.0 except with engine this time.
Drive earth 2.0 out on a same orbit as Earth.
>Holy shit we can walk on earth 2.0
>Well fuck yes you can. After all it has gravity
>And it's artificial because WE FOKEN MADE IT.


>>6068766
No there's also people who can't write, you know, like you.

[Anonymous No.6068786]

>>6068779
>still burnin' telsa's notes like the holocaust

[Anonymous No.6068792]

>>6068779
Poe's Law is reaching critical mass on this fucking board.

>>6068777
Are you implying I can't write because I didn't bother with full capitalization and punctuation on 4chan? Nice ellipsis abuse, fuckface.

[Anonymous No.6068791]

>>6068572
Proof

[Anonymous No.6068798]

>>6068792
>Are you implying I can't write because I didn't bother with full capitalization and punctuation on 4chan? Nice ellipsis abuse, fuckface.
See.That's just it. I can only judge you by the way you write, smegface.

[Anonymous No.6068802]

>>6068798
you win, I shouldn't have given a shit that I was being judged at all

here's 5 bucks

[Anonymous No.6068805]

>>6068792
>>6068798
woah there grammar nazis.

can we stay on point? how the fuck does it work out that a moving outer surface doesnt skid my face to shit when im training on my way to namek?

[Anonymous No.6068809]

>>6068802
Yay!

>>6068805
There is no point, kid.

[Anonymous No.6068812]

>>6068809
obviously its a circle...

[Anonymous No.6068817]

>>6068766
At least we're trying. If nobody tries, then there is no scientific advancement. Anyhoodles. I thought of a more simple and effiecently way to do this.

Why use a sphere and centrifugal force at all? Wouldn't it be more simple to rely on suction? Here it is.

Simply have a square room with little ramps to lead to a different side (which have minature fans to compensate for you changing suction and to keep you grounded)
The floor is graded and the fans suck anything in there towards the ground.

Obviously, if you jump to the center of the room then you will be suspended as if in 0g due to equal amounts of suction pulling you every direction at once. But that should be easily avoided due to the square nature of the room and the powerful suction under your feet at all times.

[Anonymous No.6068821]

>>6068817
You bother to blurr the fan but can't crop the pic?

[Anonymous No.6068823]

>>6068821
I'm a scientist, not an artist. I blurred the fan to let you know it's moving. Cropping the picture conveys nothing important.

[Anonymous No.6068825]

>>6068821
yoloswagbalzeit420

Smoke week every day.

[Anonymous No.6068827]

>>6068817
>what about portals in said air flow currents?

[Anonymous No.6068841]

>>6068817
You are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.6068847]

>>6068841
WE CANT ALL GO TO MIT FGT

[Anonymous No.6068882]

>>6068571
>Ad hominem strawman
You're a disgusting person, did you know that?

[Anonymous No.6068880]

Uh...guys? Artificial gravity has been done before and tested (successfully) in micro-gravity.

The Gemini 11 mission created a small amount of simulated gravity by attaching two capsules with a tether and using thrusters to spin the crafts in a circle. The force created wasn't enough to be noticed by the astronauts on board, but it was enough to observe small objects slowly "falling" to the "floor".
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1966-081A

[Anonymous No.6068904]

>>6068571
>You have to conflicting forces.

[Anonymous No.6068928]

>>6068880
So to continue, this raises the question (that no one bothered to raise because apparently you'd rather argue with a troll), why hasn't NASA yet built a working space station with simulated gravity?

According to this BBC article (http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130121-worth-the-weight)) it's because that was the point of the missions. Skylab and ISS were both built to study the effects of micro-gravity on humans and objects, and neither were intended for long term human flight. So simulated gravity would defeat the whole purpose of the space stations (beside the feel-good purpose of international cooperation).

NASA has considered using simulated gravity for a possible manned mission to Mars, although that manned mission might not happen in the near future (why would it? it's safer, cheaper, and easier to just send robots).

Science is more fun when there's research instead of bickering.

[Anonymous No.6068933]

>>6068928
>both built to study the effects of micro-gravity on humans and objects
and, of course, on plants and animals
>addendum'd

[Anonymous No.6068941]

>>6068928
>why hasn't NASA yet built a working space station with simulated gravity?

Funding.

[Anonymous No.6068952]

>>6068941
That was probably a factor too. "Study what we can within budget," the unofficial motto of NASA. But the proof of concept is there. Artificial gravity- or more accurately termed simulated gravity- is possible. Scientists have known that since Gemini 11 in 1966.

[Anonymous No.6069051]

>>6068479
>>6068748
That would work, IF the wheel was continuously accelerating.

Now OP if you want to get a better understanding of centrifugal force, I'd recommend getting a bucket full of water and spinning that around in circles.

>>6068817
With suction one would need the inhabitants of said space station to wear giant sails in special harnesses which in itself introduces it's own issues.

The other requirement is that suction would require a lot, more power than a wheel spinning in the vacuum of space.

However, there is another way to create gravity, magnets and an exoskeleton. One wears a special exoskeleton with magnets on its feet and the exoskeleton provides a resistance force that 'feels like gravity.'

While one still has to worry about one's coffee floating a way, one doesn't have to worry about bone degradation due to zero g.

[Anonymous No.6069070]

>>6068928
>>why hasn't NASA yet built a working space station with simulated gravity
because sending up a centrifuge could mess up many of the micro-gravity experiments

Currently, the ISS does not provide zero-gravity. There is a very small amount of apparent gravity due to accelerations the station experiences. These are due to things like humans moving around and the gyroscopes reorienting the station.

Thus, there is gravity in the station, it is small, but it is random, which is bad for microgravity experiments adding yet another piece of fast rotating machinery could make things even worse.

A centrifuge is primarily a engineering project too.

[Anonymous No.6069080]

>>6069070
by that question I meant that the station simulates gravity, like this one from 2001, but you still make a good point.

btw, This space station has simulated gravity, whereas...

[Anonymous No.6069081]

>>6069080
...this space ship has artificial gravity. The difference is important. Simulated gravity is possible with current tech, but artificial gravity is not.

[Anonymous No.6069094]

>>6069070
I don't doubt for a minute what you're saying about gravity perturbations etc, but the Centrifuge Accommodation Module was cancelled for funding reasons + the fact that the shuttle was a shit-tier space craft that no one wanted to deal with.

[Anonymous No.6069151]

Obviously a great deal of shitposters in this thread have never ridden the Gravitron.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekWGSw9fxzI

Look at this faggot. He is better than you at physics.

2001's ring would have to be much larger, but otherwise the principle checks out.

[Anonymous No.6069157]

>>6068475
>>6068476
>>6068479
>>6068482
>>6068487
Holy fuck I'm so tired of you being wrong.

[Anonymous No.6069173]

>>6069157
Why don't you explain it then mr smarty pants?

[Anonymous No.6069209]

>>6069173
how about a demonstration
http://youtu.be/vz2BYYN6NJg

[Anonymous No.6069210]

>>6069209
Not relevant. He's spinning in 1g. Not 0g. It would have a completely different effect.

[Anonymous No.6069213]

>>6069210
then maybe you should read the NASA article I cited about the Gemini 11 mission.
Here, I'll give you the link again.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1966-081A

Be sure to read the 4th paragraph.

[Anonymous No.6069232]

>>6068471
Would the rotation of Elysium keep the atmosphere in? I noticed it had no roof.

[Anonymous No.6069241]

>>6069173
Simple. At all times, when you're spinning on the ring, you've also got a tangential velocity; the effect of "gravity" comes from the acceleration caused by changing the direction of that velocity. When you jump, you're no longer being spun by the ring - but due to the fact that inertia is A Thing, that velocity doesn't go away, it's just that the direction isn't changing anymore. So you jump in the air, but you don't float - you keep moving according to your sideways momentum. In this picture
>>6068475
When the guy jumped in the air, he wouldn't hang there - he'd keep moving in a straight line to the right at the same speed the edge of the ring was spinning, and crash back into the ring again, at which point he'd be spinning with the ring and centrifugal force would take over once more.

[Anonymous No.6069244]

>>6069241
> When you jump, you're no longer being spun by the ring
105 posts until somebody explained this faggotry in a way that follows laws of motion..

[Anonymous No.6069249]

>>6069241
However, the picture in that post isn't impossible - if you're not starting from a standing start. If you ran anti-spinwards just as fast as the ring was spinning under you, as though you were running on a treadmill, you'd basically cancel your tangential velocity; if you jumped, you wouldn't come back down.

[Anonymous No.6069254]

>>6069249
This is why, when designing these spinning habitats, an important consideration is the tangential velocity - it needs to be above a certain value, or the fluctuations in gravity from moving - run spinwards and you get heavier, run antispinwards and you get lighter, move your head up or down and Coriolis forces fuck with your balance - become a serious problem for comfort and health. In most studies, 5-10 m/s is the minimum comfortable value for tangential velocity.

[Anonymous No.6069258]

>>6069051

Dude I was just thinking about mag exoskeletons the other night. I had never heard about it outside of my own ideas until you just said it. Thought I was so damn clever to.

I'll just be putting that on the list of things ive conceptualized on my own that everyone has also, right next to fucking space elevators.

[Anonymous No.6069259]

>>6069249
tangential velocity ≠ centripetal force

It's the centripetal force that creates the simulated gravity, not the tangential velocity. Even if you managed to cancel out the tangential velocity by running the opposite direction, that wouldn't cause you to float off if you jumped. There's still other forces acting on your body.

[Anonymous No.6069265]

>>6068571
physics major here, too, made my late night
i'm laughing so hard right now

[Anonymous No.6069268]

>>6069259
No, actually, they're directly correlated. Centrifugal force is mass * (angular velocity ^2 * radius), which is equivalent to mass * (tangential velocity^2/radius). If tangential velocity is 0, then centrifugal force is 0.

Think of it from an outside reference frame - if you've canceled out your tangential velocity, you've also canceled out your angular velocity; you're a person standing still inside a spinning ring. If there's no gravity, then the only force acting on you if you stop contacting the ring is the force of the air rushing past you - which would spin you back up, but you'd still basically float for a little it.

[Anonymous No.6069275]

>>6069268
Well there's your problem. Artificial gravity is created by CENTRIPETAL force, not centrifugal.

[Anonymous No.6069277]

>>6069275
That's also the equation for centripetal force. The two are identical in magnitude, with centrifugal force being the illusory outward-pulling force which counters centripetal force. And it's the illusory centrifugal pseudoforce that appears to pull outward.

[Anonymous No.6069279]

>>6069275
>wtf no difference on surface?

[Anonymous No.6069280]

>>6069275
not him, but they are the same thing, just in different frames (see law of reciprocal action)
Both are fictitious forces generated by the reference frame accelerating (in this case it's the velocity change from going in a circle instead of a straight line)
He should have continued by saying centripetal though, as that's what was being said over and over in this thread

[Anonymous No.6069282]

>>6069268
if you're the same guy that drew those diagrams above, I like how you've slowly changed your position throughout this discussion. Very sneaky.

[Anonymous No.6069283]

>(see law of reciprocal action)
Refresh me there fig neuton.

[Anonymous No.6069293]

>>6069282
Nope, different guy. I'm the same guy as
>>6069241

[Anonymous No.6069295]

>>6069283
If there's a force, then there's an equal and opposite force.

[Anonymous No.6069308]

>>6069293
ah, I thought I was still arguing with the guy that thought this >>6068482 was somehow possible. I didn't want to validate his delusions, but there is some truth to the jumping if the craft is too small where the force at the ring would be significantly stronger than at the top of a person's head. A large enough ring would mitigate that effect to the point where no one could jump high enough to escape the force of simulated gravity.
http://www.permanent.com/zero-gravity-effects-on-humans.html

[Anonymous No.6069312]

>>6069308
of course, even on a small craft you wouldn't reach 0g, you would slowly float back down eventually or land on the other side.

[Anonymous No.6069471]

>>6068817
I have no way to express how wrong this is. Jesus.....

[Anonymous No.6069476]

This is the funniest thread I've seen on /sci/ in months.

[Anonymous No.6069527]

>>6068717
coriolis causes dizzyness and disorientation in humans being subjected to centrifuges moving at more than 2 rpm.

Consequently, a rotating structure of ~89 meters moving at only 1 rpm would be able to generate 1g of centrifugal force. I would hazard that this low rate of rotation would be hardly perceptible.

[Anonymous No.6070404]

>>6069471
You stupid faggot.

[Anonymous No.6070522]

>>6068457
>implying