[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 373 KB, 1500x780, SWF6%20-%20Artificial%20Gravity[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6704218 No.6704218 [Reply] [Original]

Is artificial gravity possible?
Is artificial gravity practical?

As seen in star wars, star trek and star faggot?

>> No.6704221

>>6704218
Just spin the thing and stop whining you faggots.

>> No.6704230

>>6704221
pls explain

>> No.6704232

>>6704230

Centripetal acceleration can be used as artificial gravity

Actually, you know what? Fuck it, I'm gonna start a ringworld physics thread.

>> No.6704239

>>6704232
>Centripetal acceleration can be used as artificial gravity
pls explain

>> No.6704244

bump

>> No.6704358

Artificial gravity like you see in sci-fi would only be possible if you could somehow fuck with inertia, and that would lead to TONS of interesting and crazy shit. Now go try and build an inertial generator/dampener.

>> No.6704365

>>6704239
>pls explain
pls explain
:^)

>> No.6704367

>>6704239
put water in a bucket, spin your arm around quickly, notice the water stays in the bucket. same concept but in space with people

>> No.6704380

>>6704367

Pretty stoked on spinning buckets of liquid people around. What a time to be alive.

>> No.6704384

>>6704367
how the fuck are you going to spin spaceships around as they move at massive speeds?

>> No.6704388

>>6704384
i would assume areas with intended gravity would have some sort of design similar to a hamster wheel. in theory if the shit is big enough, similar to the earths surface it will seem rather a flat surface, i imagine this would only be done with large ships, like space stations and such, or places where people actually live

>> No.6704389

>>6704388
COULDNT THEY MADE LIKE A VERY HEAVY OBJECTS AT THGE BOTOM OF TH SHIP?

>> No.6704390

>>6704389
now you are being a faggot

>> No.6704407

>>6704384
They get up to speed then use thrusters to spin the ship this is simple.

>> No.6704413

>>6704407
so they're just spinning spaceships floating in space?

>> No.6704415

>>6704413
Not floating moving.

>> No.6704419

>>6704415
but they are spinning like a million times a second?

>> No.6704421

>>6704419
dude, the bigger the ship the slower it has to spin to reach the ideal speed, i think in your mind that shit is spinning wayyyyyy faster then it actually needs too

>> No.6704435

>>6704421
THAT'S HOW ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY IS OBTAINED?

THAT'S FUCKING RETARDED AND IMPRACTICAL

>> No.6704455

>>6704435
How the fuck is it impractical?

>> No.6704519

>>6704455
>spinning a spaceship a million times a second as it travels 4% the speed of light
>not impractical

>> No.6704524

>>6704519
>million times a second
... Are you for serious mate ?

>> No.6704527

>>6704524
how fast would it need to autistically rotate to achieve artificial gravity?

>> No.6704531

>>6704527
twice every minute.

>> No.6704538

>>6704531
that would be enough to simulate perfect gravity like on earth?

Even when going really fast?

>> No.6704542

>>6704527
>how fast would it need to autistically rotate to achieve artificial gravity?

Depends on how big it is. If it's 100m across then about 4 times a minute. You could make it much "bigger" by just putting it on the end of a cable and spinning around a counterweight.

>4% the sped of light

Has no effect on anything.

>> No.6704552

>>6704538
It won't make a difference this is space.

>> No.6704603

>>6704413

No no no. The ship is moving forward; there is a segment of the ship that rotates perpendicular to the thrust. In this segment, anything that might benefit from the artificial gravity would be kept (dormatories and other human facilities, for example).

>> No.6704609

so how much stronger would gravity on Earth be if it didn't spin?

>> No.6704617

Can't we just make nanobots strengthen our body to prevent muscular dystrophy even in the lack of sufficient gravity?

>> No.6704625

>>6704617
Or we could become machines and cut ship size and raise speed by ten or more.

>> No.6704632

>>6704239
Go and read Piers Anthony's Bio of a Space Tyrant.

>> No.6704639
File: 1.39 MB, 200x150, 1404791591420.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6704639

>>6704519
>spinning a spaceship a million times a second
Are you some sort of retard?

>> No.6704653

>>6704367
Isn't this how Halo and Ringworld books work?

>> No.6704669

>>6704609
Not much stronger at all. The effect is pretty negligible. If you go to the equator you will weigh slightly less. If you go to the poles you will weight slightly more.

>> No.6704678

>>6704617
>Can't we just make nanobots strengthen our body to prevent muscular dystrophy even in the lack of sufficient gravity?

We? No. That technology does not exist. I wish it did! But we CAN spin stuff.

>> No.6704694

>>6704653
Yes, and Culture orbitals, and 2001, and every other sci-fi worth reading or watching.

>> No.6704710

>>6704609
>how much stronger..
about 0.3% at the equator, no change at the poles

>> No.6704711

Because It needs to be large enough that there would be no noticeable difference in gravity between your feet and head. Like the size of a football field large.
Unfortunately putting large object in space is expensive.

It's not going to happen unless we find a cheap way of putting stuff in space.

>> No.6704727
File: 48 KB, 600x600, artificial g from tether.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6704727

>>6704711

What about something like this?

>> No.6704731

>>6704232
>Centripetal acceleration can be used as artificial gravity
>Centripetal
It's centrifugal. Like, the force at work in a centrifuge.

In a spinning space station, the force pushing against your feet, like the force of contact with the ground on Earth, is centripetal force. The force pulling you toward the floor, like gravity on Earth, is centrifugal force.

Centrifugal force is a feature of spinning frames of reference, like the one you instinctively apply as a passenger on a spinning spacecraft.

I don't know why mediocre elementary physics teachers go around telling people "Centrifugal force isn't real, only centripetal force is.", but it's no excuse to go around just using "centripetal" in place of "centrifugal" as if they were equivalent.

In space, you don't need artificial floor-pushing-you-up force, you need artificial gravity.

>> No.6704734

>>6704731
>I don't know why mediocre elementary physics teachers go around telling people "Centrifugal force isn't real, only centripetal force is.", but it's no excuse to go around just using "centripetal" in place of "centrifugal" as if they were equivalent.

It's like when people say "whom" when they mean "who."

>> No.6704739

>>6704389
/thread

>> No.6704747

>>6704727
Such a construction would indeed be cheaper, if possible of course.

But there are so many hurdles we have yet to overcome in space travel, it might take a while before anyone actually attempts such a thing.

>> No.6704794

>>6704734
>centrifugal force isn't real
K take a hammer attached to a rope and spin around in circles and I dare you to tell me that you don't feel the hammer trying to move away from you

>> No.6704797

>>6704794

Who are you quoting?

>> No.6704802

>>6704747

This doesn't feel like gravity. Things you drop would curve to the floor; the force at your head would be less than the force at your feet making you have to relearn how to balance and move; precession of the system would cause the living section to spin.....

>> No.6704820

>>6704802
The size of these effects depends on the radius of the centrifuge.

People who have looked seriously into doing it have some pretty good estimates on when they get too small to notice, and it's a size that's not too hard to achieve. The tether and counterweight system is the easiest for spacecraft on our current scale.

The Earth is also spinning, and has coriolis forces, but we don't notice them because they're far too small. It would be the same on a competently-designed spinning spacecraft, even though the effects would be bigger, they'd still be too small to notice.

>> No.6704977

Acceleration can be used to simulate gravity, so you just build your ship with the "floor" being the opposite of the direction you're going.

>> No.6704981

>>6704977
Oh, that makes it easy then. Just develop a drive capable of sustaining 1g acceleration indefinitely in a vacuum.

No difficulties there. Much easier than spinning a can.

>> No.6704984
File: 935 KB, 3000x2000, i7_cr2vYUKFc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6704984

>>6704731
Yfw centripetal and centrifugal force are the exact same thing, just from different perspectives

>> No.6704997

>>6704984
They're not, though.

Centripetal force is force toward the center. Normally in such examples of constructed centrifuges, it's provided by physical contact through material firmly connected to the axle or counterweight.

Centrifugal force is force away from the center. It's a "fictitious force", as gravitational force is in GR, arising as a consequence of treating an object which is moving in a circle as if it were stationary. From a non-rotating reference frame, the object is being accelerated in a circle path by centripetal force, but in the rotating frame, the object is held stationary by the balance of centrifugal and centripetal force.

Since the experience of being in an artificial gravity centrifuge is one of being stationary, it's appropriate to use a rotating reference frame, despite the many complications this involves.

>> No.6705001

>>6704997
Yeah, well... Your mom

>> No.6705196

>>6704997
i never understood centripetal force, and i still dont. im decent at math (decent enough the university pays me to teach undergrads anyway), but ive never found an explanation of this that made sense to me.

>> No.6705251
File: 236 KB, 1280x720, 2001-A-Space-Odyssey2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6705251

>>6704239
>pic related, like in the film

>> No.6705273

>>6705196
>i never understood centripetal force, and i still dont.

Centripetal = towards the center. What don't you understand about it?

>> No.6705281

>>6705196
A thing in motion that is continuously being pushed away from a straight line path is going to push back. It's just inertia at work.

>> No.6705288

>>6705196
I couldn't understand it either but I literally read this like 15 times and now I fully understand it, no joke

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force

>> No.6705289

>>6705196
Murrica I presume?

>> No.6705291

>>6704669
Define "more" and "less"

>> No.6705426

>>6705273
i dont understand how its supposed to be centripetal. the only thing pushing towards the center is whatever is tethered to the center. if i sling a stone in a slingshot, the reason its not flying away is the slingshot thats holding it, and if that werent there, the stone would fly away.

>>6705281
yeah that doesnt help me at all.

>>6705289
no. top of my class in germany.

>>6705288
id rather you explain it to me in simple terms and with an example i can follow.

>> No.6705438

>>6705426
see in this picture >>6705251 the people would have to walk on the outer wall of the circular structures, their heads toward the center, yes? the artificial "gravity" would pull them away from the center? how is that not centrifugal?

>> No.6705452

>>6705426
>i dont understand how its supposed to be centripetal. the only thing pushing towards the center is whatever is tethered to the center. if i sling a stone in a slingshot, the reason its not flying away is the slingshot thats holding it, and if that werent there, the stone would fly away.

Exactly. The sling is providing the centripetal force.

In order for something to move around in a circle, it has to be constantly accelerating towards the center. (Things that aren't being accelerated can only move in straight lines at constant speed.) In order for there to be acceleration, there must be force. Whatever that force is is the centripetal force. In the space station, it is simply the normal force from the floor.

If instead you look at the spinning reference frame, then you are no longer moving in a circle, you're just standing still. And if you're standing still, the net force has to equal zero. You still have the centripetal force "holding you up," (like the chair you are sitting on is holding you up now), equal and opposite to the centrifugal force holding "holding you down" (like gravity is for you now).

>> No.6705485

>>6705426
Sounds like you understand it just fine. In order for an object to follow a curved path it must have a component of a force vector perpendicular to its velocity. Maybe you are being confused by the cause and effect. Objects traveling in curved paths don't cause there to be a centripetal force, a centripetal force applied to an object causes it to travel in a curved path.

>> No.6706498

>>6704218
>>6704221
>Just spin the thing and stop whining you faggots.
>>6704232
>Centripetal acceleration can be used as artificial gravity

yes