Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

We're gonna need to sort out Artificial Gravity

Options

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    I don't like the idea of artificial gravity.... Gravity attracts and over a great distance too. Any spaceship with it would end up the size of a planet by the time it got anywhere with all the stuff it would collect. Artificial anti-gravity would work. Pop it in the ceiling and you would be pushed to the floor and it would help to deflect any particles in the way.


  • Options
    #3
    kingsenny
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭kingsenny


    Rubecula wrote: »
    I don't like the idea of artificial gravity.... Gravity attracts and over a great distance too. Any spaceship with it would end up the size of a planet by the time it got anywhere with all the stuff it would collect. Artificial anti-gravity would work. Pop it in the ceiling and you would be pushed to the floor and it would help to deflect any particles in the way.

    I can't tell if you're trolling or my knowledge of gravity is completely wrong. Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces.

    And honestly, I've no idea what you mean by 'pop [the anti-gravity] in the ceiling'. What particles are you trying to deflect and why?


  • Options
    #4
    Rubecula
    Registered Users Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭Rubecula


    kingsenny wrote: »
    I can't tell if you're trolling or my knowledge of gravity is completely wrong. Gravity is the weakest of the fundamental forces.

    And honestly, I've no idea what you mean by 'pop [the anti-gravity] in the ceiling'. What particles are you trying to deflect and why?

    I am not sure on this Trolling thing.

    Yes I agree gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but it was still strong enough to create stars and planets and such. It gets weaker over distance too. But it is an attractive force. The last thing a spacecraft wants to do is attract particles, meteors, lumps of rock or whatever. What is needed is something that does not attract. Otherwise over time the spacecraft will get more massive. How massive will depend on how long it's artificial gravity is operational and how much of the flotsam it passes near enough to to attract. Much better to have the opposite effect and push stuff out of the way. As a side benefit it will also push things intot he floor of the spacecraft if it has it's source above the floor.


  • Options
    #5
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    rotating space stations would sort that out



    at present we don't know of anti gravity , but magnets do repel living things but only at powers large enough to rip any spacecraft to bits


  • Options
    #6
    kingsenny
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭kingsenny


    Rubecula wrote: »
    I am not sure on this Trolling thing.

    Yes I agree gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces, but it was still strong enough to create stars and planets and such. It gets weaker over distance too. But it is an attractive force. The last thing a spacecraft wants to do is attract particles, meteors, lumps of rock or whatever. What is needed is something that does not attract. Otherwise over time the spacecraft will get more massive. How massive will depend on how long it's artificial gravity is operational and how much of the flotsam it passes near enough to to attract. Much better to have the opposite effect and push stuff out of the way. As a side benefit it will also push things intot he floor of the spacecraft if it has it's source above the floor.

    Ok I kinda see where you're coming from now. It's not that it's strong enough to create stars; gravity is dependant on the mass of the objects involved. We're only wanting to create a source of gravity strong enough to hold people onto the floor of the spaceship. I am almost certain it will have almost zero effect on any objects outside the craft. And in terms of particles, I'm not sure if there are many 'dangerous' (i.e. radioactive) particles that gravity interacts with (think of the radiation given off by the Sun, if the gravity interacted that strongly with it, it'd never reach us)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    kingsenny wrote: »
    I'm not sure if there are many 'dangerous' (i.e. radioactive) particles that gravity interacts with (think of the radiation given off by the Sun, if the gravity interacted that strongly with it, it'd never reach us)
    Alpha and beta both affected by gravity as are neutrons ( but they only have a half life of 8 minutes so YMMV )
    ions coronal mass ejections too would

    you need a black hole to interact realistically with photons but that covers gamma radiation.



    Gravity is an attractive force. It accumulates. Look up gravity well. Leaving the solar system is very difficult as is sending a probe to the sun.

    The only thing that stops us disappearing into the centre of the galaxy is that the inverse square law allows stable orbits because of the momentum.

    For antigravity for biologicals look up Levitating Frog
    for superconductors lookup Quantum Levitation


  • Options
    #8
    kingsenny
    Registered Users Posts: 68 ✭✭kingsenny


    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Alpha and beta both affected by gravity as are neutrons ( but they only have a half life of 8 minutes so YMMV )
    ions coronal mass ejections too would

    If you're worried about these particles being attracted to us in a spaceship, surely then you'd be terrified of them being attracted to us here on Earth?
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    you need a black hole to interact realistically with photons but that covers gamma radiation.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    Gravity is an attractive force. It accumulates. Look up gravity well. Leaving the solar system is very difficult as is sending a probe to the sun.

    I know it's an attractive force but what do you mean it accumulates? Gravity has no relation to time (unless you mean acceleration?). Leaving the solar is difficult but so is putting a ship into space in the first place so.....
    Capt'n Midnight wrote: »
    The only thing that stops us disappearing into the centre of the galaxy is that the inverse square law allows stable orbits because of the momentum.

    Same could be said for not crashing into the sun.


  • Options
    #9
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,830 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    kingsenny wrote: »
    If you're worried about these particles being attracted to us in a spaceship, surely then you'd be terrified of them being attracted to us here on Earth?
    magnetic field, 10 tonnes of air / m2 to slow them down.



    I know it's an attractive force but what do you mean it accumulates?
    if you are out side the galaxy then it's the entire mass of the galaxy that you've to take into account

    Same could be said for not crashing into the sun.
    check it out, crashing into the sun takes a HUGE delta V. Even getting to just Mercury can take more energy than leaving the solar system. It's because of the Kinetic energy we have already from earth's stable orbit. You can accelerate to the rest of the universe, but you have to decelerate into the sun ie. accelerate in the opposite direction.


Advertisement