It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pendulum Gravity

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   


Just for the sake of discussion...





posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Kashai


Learning to acquire a tolerance for that is actually very possible.


Yes, but that's not even a point. You have to be attached to the rotating wall, other wise you will fly into zero g. That's why rotating hull space ship is a fantasy.


cheers)



posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Your angular momentum will quite effectively "attach" you to the hull. In the same manner that gravity "attaches" you to the surface of the Earth.



posted on Mar, 20 2017 @ 01:47 AM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections


What you are saying makes no sense as there is nothing about this that is a fantasy.

Its basic physics...



You can watch the results here, starting at around 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Despite the oscillations in the tether and other spacecraft issues, these did settle down temporarily after 20 minutes or so, and for a brief time a teeny, tiny bit of artificial gravity was observed in the Gemini capsule. How much gravity? About 0.0005 g with 0.15 revolutions per minute. Some time later the tether was released.


blogs.scientificamerican.com...








posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

Your angular momentum will quite effectively "attach" you to the hull. In the same manner that gravity "attaches" you to the surface of the Earth.




It will not be 'in the same manner'..Gravity you are experiencing on Earth has nothing to do with centripetal effect.


Picture yourself inside donut shaped hull. You grab a handle and waiting for the hull to start rotating. As donut spins faster, you find more difficult to hold a handle. Vector of force you generate is local effect, has nothing to do with gravity and finally, it would feel awkward having to hold the handle all the time, because as soon as you let it go, you are going to hurt yourself bouncing off that wall. You will feel better in zero g rather than inside spinning hull.

If you add air inside that rotating tube, it will create strong wind currents inside.





edit on 22-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 06:45 PM
link   

The answer comes from Einstein's theory of General Relativity.  According to General Relativity all the Earth does is cause a curvature of 4-dimensional space-time and also according to General Relativity, a free object will always travel along a geodesics in this curved 4-dimensional space-time.  Now a geodesic is a fancy way of saying a straight line - in particular a geodesic in a curved space-time is the path that has a minimum distance between it's end points - just like a straight line on a flat sheet of paper is the shortest distance between it's two end points and the shortest possible path on a sphere between two points is a great circle arc.  Newtonian physics says that an object with no forces acting on it will travel in a straight line at a constant speed, and it is also true in General Relativity that an object with no forces acting on it will travel on a geodesic which is the straightest possible line in 4-dimensional curved space-time.

So the reason why it feels like there is a force holding you to the chair you are sitting on right now is because the chair is forcing you to NOT follow the geodesic path you would otherwise have followed in the curved space-time caused by the earth.


www.quora.com...



posted on Mar, 22 2017 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections




it would feel awkward having to hold the handle all the time, because as soon as you let it go, you are going to hurt yourself bouncing off that wall.

False. You don't have to hold on because your angular momentum keeps you pressed against the hull the same way gravity keeps you pressed to the ground.

In a given frame of reference acceleration due to gravity is indistinguishable from any other acceleration, including "centripetal force", which is the result of angular momentum.

edit on 3/22/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Ok. This argument is going no where. Future will tell if space ships built with rotating hull going to happen. Technology is almost there. Good place to start is to add on an arm a module on ISS that is extended and rotates round main module axis, but lets do experiment on mise first))



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 07:19 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections


In order for that to work the entire station would have to rotate (unless you're talking about some sort of moving bearing). That would create center of mass problems.

A kludged addon is not necessary. The physics are basic and known.

edit on 3/23/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 23 2017 @ 08:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

They have been training/testing pilots for high g's with a centrifuge for at least 60 years.



posted on Mar, 24 2017 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: graysquirrel

Yes. I know.

greenreflections wants testing on the ISS and may point out that, in a centrifuge, the subject is in a harness.

edit on 3/24/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

What I actually offered was from my post few pages back..

"...Much better solution would be to drop a weight on tether from my space ship toward Earth. It will work as an anchor allowing my ship to go faster never leaving current orbit. This will generate some g. "

Any comments on this?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


How does an anchor make your ship go faster? But, since you don't understand angular momentum, I guess you can't be expected to understand orbital mechanics.




Angular momentum is irrelevant example in your case and applicable to rotation of solid object. 'Orbit' is not rotation of solid object. My space ship will only be starting doing 9.8 acceleration where weight at the end of tether much closer to Earth would experience much steeper geometrical space scape. In a way, it will feel 'heavier' by 'weight factor' (not mass). Even escape velocity for my space ship and the weight at the end of tether would be different (more energy needed in order to place weight at the end of tether on receding path away from Earth gravity field where my space ship would need only a slight push to leave orbit into open space).


Weight on tether and my ship together will balance out third orbit...some where in the middle of tether. That would be a real orbit for a bound system. My ship being at the opposite end of tether would comply with that 'third' orbit feeling centripetal effect globally, taking advantage of orbit mechanics without a need to rotate space ship hull.
To make my ship to leave orbit with just a slight push won't be enough, in other words.



edit on 25-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

Angular momentum is irrelevant example in your case and applicable to rotation of solid object.
Which is what we have been talking about. But are you saying that angular momentum plays no role in orbital mechanics?

You didn't answer the questions I asked about your tether experiment.

edit on 3/25/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: greenreflections

Angular momentum is irrelevant example in your case and applicable to rotation of solid object.

Which is what we have been talking about. But are you saying that angular momentum plays no role in orbital mechanics?


I simply offered a probable idea on how in my theory usable gs on space ship can be achieved. Do you think it is possible?



posted on Mar, 25 2017 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections

A tethered object in a lower orbit would have less than orbital velocity so would not be in freefall. The same (conversely) would be true for the object in the higher orbit.

If the goal is to simulate gravity, rotating a space station accomplishes the goal more simply.

But just for the fun of it, reread the OP. It is not about orbital spacecraft.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

the OP says: "..What if instead, one attaches a long cable between it and the manned space craft and gets the pair spinning around each other like a big bola. The centripetal force would create an artificial gravity for the space craft and its crew"..

...because by rotating the space ship's hull, in any imaginable way, will not produce any usable 'g' for the crew. Once two independent physical bodies are connected, their freedom, individually, is lost. Two physical bodies become one system with properties of solid body...depends on a tether strength, of course)))

You mixing up generating 'g' on the scale of orbit with local centripetal effect.


Using gravity well gradient, we can extend 'bound' system of two objects connected with cable pointing toward Earth. This way weight at the end of tether becomes an anchor for space ship, allowing it to remain on same orbit having greater orbital velocity. No?

According to your momentum argument, all planets in solar system should rotate around the sun at the same angular velocity. But we do know planets having individual orbits and solar system is nothing like a solid body, but fine tuned equilibrium.





edit on 28-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-3-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: greenreflections




the OP says: "

Let’s look at the situation where a space craft has been boosted out of earths telemetry orbit. Talks about Apollo also.
Not in Earth orbit.


You mixing up generating 'g' on the scale of orbit with local centripetal effect.
I have no idea what you mean by that. In a given frame of reference acceleration due to gravity is indistinguishable from any other form of acceleration.



According to your momentum argument, all planets in solar system should rotate around the sun at the same angular velocity.
They revolve around the Sun, not rotate. But I have no idea how you derive that from what I've said about angular momentum.

edit on 3/28/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2017 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I have no idea how you derive that from what I've said about angular momentum.



I guess, because gravity well has geodesics continuously incline steeper (gradient) as opposed to rotating solid object..

Earth - Moon together as system do not constitute solid, one piece, object. Two separate celestial bodies orbit each other following totally different physical mechanics rather than centripetal effect.
edit on 3-4-2017 by greenreflections because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join