He did talk about the amount of steel that is needed

'No bucks, no Buck Rogers.'

Actually... you don't need to build the entire space station... You can built a wire-connected rooms structure that keeps it's shape by centrifugal force and some really small lifts to get into the center room, where people would socialize and feel no centrifugal gravity. That would reduce the cost and the amount of materials by A LOT.

Agreed, it was a little annoying. Basically all he said boiled down to "it's super expensive", and nothing about HOW it could be done. His example of the station from Space Odyssey only talked about making it spin faster, not about what the right size would be. This video? Great idea, failed execution. =^x^=

Ah yes but then how would we employ all our population? Lol whenever the job market is shrinking there's a war. Hell of a coincidence.

To do that, you'd have to change human nature.

All those trillions didn't get spent in iraq if that much was spent! Maybe one and a half of them did but the majority went to bush and his cronies of bilderburg skull and bones. Biggest money hoarders in the world!!!!

7 trillion isnt that much when its for nation security, its a shame that is where the focus is though

Azriel money not a problem if every person involved says they will do it for free? Say an end of the world scenario. Always laugh when money is involved in space exploration problems. It’s not like we have to buy all the equipment of some alien Walmart lol 😂

Yes, this! The floors could have a slight cylindrical curve matching the circumference of spin. The connection would be several parallel pipe made into a rigid truss. If that is not important, then just walk up and down slight slopes. The rigid truss is replaced with "light weight" redundant tethers. I just finished calculating various distance between two tethered Starships vs angular velocity for Mars and Earth gravity.

¿What about that this would be the first stage of the project and you keep expanding it until you have the entire ring-wheel?

Slavko Bogdanic Exactly. You have a 1G living and working base and you just extend out from each end as you need more space.

*Big B r A i N time!*

@@sirnikkel6746 big brain drain

talha dugul maybe "Elon Musk" Is a better alternative.

Eso im going to go to pick up Putin. He is worth 200 billion. Is Russain money allowed lol

I think the joke is that "Bill" here means banknote. So we could use Bill Gates as currency because banknotes are currency.

talha dugul There's a currency called "Solar" and it's going to be use in a spacial nation called Asgardia.

talha dugul hell no

Yeah, you are correct. As of 2017, the total global annual aluminium production stands at about 60 mil tonnes. Carrying this payload and building in space must be a greater problem as there arent enough resources and manpower to build that big a structure in space. Building ISS itself took around 12 years I suppose.

@Hernando Malinche Why would you have to cut pensions. The resources available in space dwarf those of Earth. The first corporations to exploit them would make their money back in no time. To do this only takes administrative effort... not cost. All upfront costs would be paid back and then ensuring pensions for generations.

Wait for it,... That's still a lot of recycled cans. (troll face)

@Hernando Malinche thats beside the point. Open it up to private enterprise and the private sector will absorb the cost. Tax it and cover ongoing costs such as policing and regulating it.

@Hernando Malinche It's very difficult to justify cutting pensions either ethically or legally, because ethically speaking pensions are earned and cutting them is cheating people out of what they were promised, and legally they constitute a form of contract so courts are going to have something to say about breaching that contract.

😂😂

Did you get any blueprints about lightspeed spaceship?

*Ayyy, y’all finna get there. When y’all get there.*

@@God-hr9tm God?!

@@NarutoUzumaki-oc7we *What you want little nigga?*

Just physics

This effect happens in the spinning rides too or something like that

im really curious to what might happen if you throw a ball, will the spinning affect its trajectory? would it be minimal?

@@rc-pf1wq I'm more concerned about what happnes if you jump? Ever tied jumping on a bus or train? I sit like that where lanind is difficult or would you not notice?

@@rc-pf1wq Yup. The spin would definitely affect its trajectory. Its called the coriolis force and it is a real thing on earth itself. Snipers need to account for it when they are aiming at something sufficiently far off.

or you stand on the platform and it rockets towards the destination with rockets on the bottom of where you're standing, pushing you "up" and pulling you "down"

Maathiu Ra Yin You would have to maintain the 1 G acceleration to the half way point and then turn the space ship around and decelerate with the same 1 G deceleration all the way to you get there.. What engine and fuel could sustain a 1 G acceleration over a long journey ? Not sure any such engine and fuel exists..

cool concept! But you'd need one hell of a cable :D

NASA proposed a similar plan for it's original 1970s space station concept. However, the reason there are no serious plans to develop artificial gravity spacecraft of any kind is cost. NASA Human Space Flight (HSF) is teetering on the verge of ending because the very best engineers NASA has to offer cannot crack the cost barrier. The private sector has yet to demonstrate they can crack it as well. We only have HSF of astronauts on board ISS who are transported via Russian Soyuz craft. When NASA ISS participation ends, then what? There's lots of talk about going to Mars or back to the moon but no concrete plans that can be seen unfolding the way Apollo did. NASA's budget is currently at 1960 levels as a percentage of fed spending. We won't have any very ambitious projects on that budget. It's the main reasons SLS/Orion is on such a glacial test schedule.

+AdstarAPAD so you're saying artificial gravity requires acceleration?

If they could only find a way to produce Graphene in larger quantities. This would be a big Step on the way to Step 1

Graphene isn't strong enough either, I will make a video about this eventually. I actually specialized in carbon fiber composites for my thesis. A subject I am really passionate about, but people overstate the strength of composite materials. I would say, with a fair bit of confidence, that we will never see a space elevator.

I say even if it seem impossible for such strong material to exist now, we should still chase after it. We will learn something new every attempt we try.

Real Engineering Huh? I thought that Graphene was the only material which could withstand the forces? Sad to hear that this isn't the case at all.

Apparently boron nitride nanotubes and diamond nanothreads are also candidate materials for building a space elevator (though I imagine we're nowhere close to being able to produce those in significant enough quantities to be used for that purpose).

Same KZfaq is my teacher

HA ha.... ha............... ha

I chuckled I hate my life

That's a good one :-)

Nice

thanka for that dude 😂

Hiiiiiiiiiiiiyo!

Rim shot lolol

lol'd hard

That would mean that she is also attractive ;)

Damn ... LOL

MrDeaz yeah and we would have been nuked by now

But I get what your saying that would be awesome

Unfortuately Trump has also said he wants money put into exploring the rest of the solar system rather than colonizing mars, which sucks because i think we need to go expand because im afraid of what humanity is doing/will do to this planet if all of this war continues. Also imagine what the mars colonies would be like, no war, very little conflict, only progress, and lots of resources, heaven in my view

I could imagine that war on Earth will end when we find another planet to attack. Considering back in the early days, it was tribes against tribes, then cities, then countries, now big military alliances vs countries.

MrDeaz Your right, we need an alien invasion or something similiar. Suddenly all of humanity would shit themselves and huddle together for survival

Yeah, the cost is not even that much. Heck, the Pentagon loses that much money all the time.

And that is pretending the best technology we have to get to space is spaceX and Rocketry, which honestly it isn't.

Well, I've seen the youtube vids and heard the talks, and while people like Steven Greer and things like his disclosure project are fascinating to the extreme, my standpoint is that the only thing Iknow with absolute certainty is that I don't know anything. So when thinking 'seriously' about humans in space, I put all that aside as, say, inspiration for if I feel like writing a scifi novel. Seriously, then, I think there are some interesting developements going on in our efforts to reach space in a permanent way, efforts that build directly on top of what makes most of world's populace tick, and the social structures that made us so: Entertainment. I've been following this dutch-based initiativ, MarsOne, that wants to put a permanently settled colony on Mars, and they want to fund it by making it into a reality-TV show. And they are having succes with this business model, having got more than adequate funding for their preliminary work and testing, and also been promised additional funding as conclusions lead to new tests and further on the construction of various earthside fascilities that serves spacebound purposes. It's even worded like this because they want to keep their options open for any nano-material revolutions that might be happening sometime soon. In the background they also got a lot of scientific interest going for them - obviously - for also, sort of incidentally - being in the process of creating a platform for absolutely groundbreaking scientific research. And not only in space-relevant hard thechs; physics, mathematics, astrology, but also soft sciences as sociology and antropology. Even completely new branches that might have enourmous impact on the already established ones, like exo-allsortsofology. It's nuts how much momentum they got, and best of all is that it could not have gotten any weirder if Douglas Adams himself had come up with it.

The thing is just that we don't need a station like that. It would serve no purpose other than very expensive and dangerous living space and labs.

You know the problem isn't about our capability of doing it. We could also build a high speed vacuumed train tunnel between US and EU. Then why don't we just do that? Because there is just no need at the moment while planes can do the same thing for cheaper. There is no need to build factories on the moon while we can still obtain elements from earth alot cheaper or there is no need for a gigantic space station while we can do all the science we need in a smaller one. We also don't need a space station to live on as long as there is nothing wrong with earths atmosphere or we don't run out of living space on earth. What you say would only be possible if our society advances to a point that manufacturing of food, transportation, telecommunication, policing, medical care, and so on is handled by machines. In that society people would no longer need to perform manual labour or even work to maintain their basic lifestyles. Work would be available in order to obtain a sense of accomplishment in life and only those driven by curiosity or a sense of duty would persue it. Only in a society like this can we do what you describe. In our current society which is ruled by money we just can't pursue greatness, everything is bound to profit.

Kirk, I own a lumberyard and an Island, but until I’ve built a Boat my Island retreat just isn’t going to happen.

@@575drv there are plenty of boats/rockets go to the Moon, funny how we can't seem to get back to where we already been

Now only if we had the ability to go to a huge rock near Earth 50 years ago

You're right, there isn't. The Earth is flat and motionless.

It is going to be difficult to move that large ball of rock away from the Earth, and if we did, the Earth would tend to miss it what with the loss of tides, etc.

It's cool, but it's like Satellite recycling, It might be a cost effective genius idea, but the mythical powers that be say "no" so, no. Seriously though, space is probably the biggest frontier for logic failures.

Fade war not really useless. Vietnam was

Flabby Wall1 the US military won Vietnam, but the US congress lost it.

So it would be double the cost of iraq? considering it was 5 trillion (rough estimate)

@Dark Phoenix Islam is not the enemy. The Christian religion saying other Religions are the enemy is actually the fucking enemy.

@Dark Phoenix the catholic church is the enemy, bro.

Naiyo Seam Why are you commenting that on my comment? and he didn’t say they were new

Spacex may be able to make the spinning ship due to reusable ships and building it in space like the iss

Lost in Space is awful...they made all the men stupid and weak, they have some stupid "we can fight using our minds and not guns!"...and EVERY character is a drama queen.

Tom Baker that’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard never speak to me again you jerk

@@spartanbale1878 LOL, you're a whiny little thing aren't you?...you can't handle another person's opinion?...do you cry when someone disagrees with you?...awww, poor baby. Lost in Space SUCKED, they emasculated every guy, they made the robot some god like being with no REAL purpose but to get in the way, Dr Smith is a JOKE of a character that can't hold a candle to either the 70's version, OR the 1998 film and, I'll repeat..."NO type of military or armed force to defend humans seeking a new home, heck, they deserved to not only be lost but to die off in the void...LOL...remember, you asked for this...I'll allow you the last word before muting you, I can't stand a weak, easily offended baby

EASYTIGER10 I agree. It doesn't even have to be semetrical. Put your people on one side, have a long cable, and put your supplies on the other. If one side is more massive, it will move in smaller circles, so both ends would have the same centripetal force.

Rapidly crossing into varying gravitational forces like that can have adverse effects on the equilibrium

That is what Zubrin et al proposed in their Mars Direct plan, albeit on a small scale, of course. The ship at one end of a long tether, and the spent upper stage of the booster at the other end, rotating around each other. Artificial gravity (at least a fraction of Earth's) for the way to Mars, so the astronauts get there healthy and ready to go.

This is where physics turns into mechanical engineering. The materials would have to be much stronger if the structure is unbalanced or unsymmetrical. A circle is just simply the most stable structure.

Have something looking quite like this: 8=====D~ and your home free. ^.^

You and me, both. Consider that NASA's entire operating budget is less than was spent annually on just air conditioning of offices and officer's quarters in the war in Iraq. Look it up. The scale is unbelievable and eye-opening.

And ITER budget is less then people annually spend on IPhones. Let's stop wasting money on those silly things?

>one or maybe even more space stations like in 2001. Why? I mean why building

USAs military budget is the largest compared to anyone in the world. I dont know what they fuk they are doing with all that money.

They are wasting it on the F-35 program ( $1.5 trillion so far). Almost enough to pay to lift Elysium's raw materials into orbit! See above at 3:37

It’s never going to be built. There isn’t enough aluminum on earth to build it and space mining isn’t a thing because the cost of space mining outweighs the profits gained from it.

Starship these days, kaboom

Tell them drdeth2 . They won't listen to me.

ESD

I skydive an i can asure you gravity IS real. What else could pull me back to earth at; 120mph, 193kph, 53.6m/s, 176f/s Or if you'd prefere 104.3knots. ??? Im pritty sure its grAVity... Or is it a cartoon???

@@damienboyo3788 A bungie cord could pull you far faster than that.

@@damienboyo3788 check out Vsauces video called which way is down

He did qualify his calculations with "although costs will only go down in coming years". I don't think working out a solid figure with today's information is pointless. Bit harsh expecting him to calculate costs based on imagined figures from the future.

AngelLestat2 What percent of force difference between a persons feet and head can they handle before becoming disorientated? What is the smallest radius for 2Gs of simulated gravity before it sickens occupants?

AngelLestat2 yep and that's why NASA doesn't use it.

You can't simulate gravity everywhere. That is fiction.

?

Se but that only works because you accelerate up to teh correct speed. What happens if you get stopped dead in a centrfugal spacestation? Do you just start ping ponging around? if theres no outside gravity pulling on you to hold you in position and you jump in a space station, while you would be carrie dforwards it would akin to jumping on a moving vehicle, landing would be difficult. And thus walking aorund should be difficult too. Even a smooth moving plate on teh end of a pole would feel slightly off.

Indeed! Ideally the cable would be a few kilometers long to make spinning slower than 1rpm. We could also use a dummy weight on the other end. Ot just very very long cable. Small dummy weight is probably the cheapest and lightest option

I could be wrong but I seem to remember something like this being done.... not with the intent of artificial gravity but at least tried....

how do you spin it without bending the cable or messing up your orbit

+William Herron I think you'd have to have two rockets on either end to fire at the same time to help keep the orbit stabilized...

Better yet, a super strong rod, so you wouldn't need to waste fuel on the rockets. Although a material that could provide such strength doesn't exist atm, but I could be wrong.

Exactly what I was thinking!

You save some material that way, but you are losing some comfort and security. Now the only way to get to the other side of the station is through microgravity. And if your tether gets hit by an asteroid, there is way to have a backup that will take the weight, and your living space flies off into space. With a continuous ring, you can walk the entire circumference, and you can have multiple spokes supporting the structure. Your design also means that you're not maximizing the livable area. Every bit of material you add to make a larger ring also gives you greater surface area in the gravity section. So, if you want to accommodate a lot of people, you'll want to build one large, continuous ring anyway. You just want to work out how much material you can get to build the largest ring possible, for capacity and comfort of inhabitants.

Three masses works well, one in the center for zero-g and docking.

*twang* Goodbye Earth. Hello cold abyss.

Bolo and hourglass habitats address this. They have drawbacks to them that Torus don't. Then the Torus also has drawbacks that an O'Neil Cylinder does not. Really, scaling up makes it more stable and less dependent on fine tuning. If you have a larger and more complex biosphere inside of it, it can handle disruptions easier. With all of these habitats, wobbles can damage or destroy them. that is another thing that mass addresses. However, the odds of an asteroid striking a cable are probably the same as an asteroid destroying your house.

The main problem with a bolo setup is that it only takes one micrometeoroid impacting that tether to send the two spacecraft hurtling in opposite directions, spiraling out of control. A solid structure would be preferable for long term habitation, both for durability and ease of maintenance. A bolo has a single point of failure that is just too glaringly obvious.

+Irish Identity I agree a tube like structure would be nice so the People could go between the two units with out a space walk. Perhaps redundant tethers also for structural stability and reduced weight.

Have you read Seveneves by Neal Stephenson? Science fiction novel dealing with an apocalyptic event and the survival of humans by going into space.

+Irish Identity no but it sounds awesome I'm going to look it up.

A circle 2ould also be better for long-term travel because the whole point of simulating gravity is to allow the muscles to exercise. It would be much easier to have a torus,like in Seveneves, because of how easy it would be to walk

This is a variation on the Musk strategy to colonize Mars (as outlined by waitbutwhy): make a travel pass cheap enough that there are one million people willing to pay for a one-way trip.

common good ? Its not in my interest to send a bunch of people into space (or myself for that matter). It is however in my interest to send robots into space who mine the asteroids and/or planets, transform the resources into usable products and send those to earth for us to use. That way we can stop destroying and depleting the earth and make it a paradise with all the dirty manufacturing stuff happening in space. And then, in time, the robot factory complex in space can grow and ultimately prepare other planets for us to inhabit. I expect the space mining to start in this century, to mature in the next and 2 or 3 centuries down the line i suppose we can start inhabiting other planets. We dont need to make huge investments for non-sustainable projects now. If we start doing what is interesting for us now (space mining), soon there will be an infrastructure that allows us to colonize planets in a more sustainable way. Not by having many people pay for sending a few people, but by having self replicating robots basically do everything for free while we sit on our asses and just worry about keeping control of the AI instead of it controlling us.

it's not in your interest to send a bunch of people into space? Then what the fuck is all bellow you wrote? Point is space travel. Traveling to another planets. Seeing new unseen shit. Spreading ourselves among the universe meeting new people along the way (aliens)... BUT assholes rather chose to spend money on wars.

Anything is possible for humans when a monetary system and the ego are out of the way.

So many communists ITT.

Damn! Another effing technical hurdle! I wonder what Gerard O'Neil and other physicists would say about it?

Or maybe a single ship with a counterweight like one of those metallic asteroids ?

zanshibumi yeah but the two space shuttle has some gravity pulling the thing tubes closer until it snaps. NASA would need to make the tube extremely strong and that’s the big issue

zanshibumi AT LAST!!! Someone else who gets it!

Carbon Nanotubes...

zanshibumi- I do not know the country in which you live, so it may be unlikely that you have seen it, but a concept similar to your proposal was featured in the BBC tv series "Star Cops" (which aired on British television around 2004) where the International Space Police visited an American space station that used a module on an extended gantry to provide earth gravity.

Not sure, aside lots of roman /greek (pagan)culture there is also a lot of jewish mysticism, V as W are numeric value of *6*

I think this misses the point of the video

@@insertyourfeelingshere8106 ​ You are for one ruff ride on YT, lots of comments miss thee Point, yours is one of the few.... Though GRAVITY was a Pulling force not pushing one (thats is Ether)? It is not CT hoax Advocates that deny centrifugal force :)

500 usd + destroyed cargo

I said no material is leaving this planet as long I am here. Period!

@@kelvin3706 ISRO has been very successful in recent times, though it hasn't reached the incredible feats like NASA and that's because of lack in funding. ISRO is much cheaper economically compared to other organizations. Period.

Who’d you have to kill to get that username?

@@minibray We don;t kill, we negotiate, we trade or we buy the name. That's what smart people do. satan and his students kills.

ctrexrhino you forgot, dave

Damn it, Slippy! Stop quoting the enemy!

ctrexrhino Where did ya get that idea?

Dais....ey.... Dai...sey..... giv...e.... me.... your.... an....swer..... doooooooooooo

ctrexrhino Open the pod bay doors Hal!

That's Balls Out!

Can you cover all that in 6 minutes 33 seconds?

+s4ujcd yes

that's the least amount of problem. We have tech for building in space already it all just takes shit ton of time but as we would develop machines it would be faster and faster each year. Just like they develop fucking weapons which can kill you faster with less effort every year which cost more then to build this freaking space station.

Force = mass x acceleration. You = mass, Earth = applies acceleration on you. Hence, it applies a force on your body.

Earth applies a centripetal force on you're body, there still is no such thing as an actual centrifugal force, what people generally perceive as a centrifugal force is really just an objects inertia resisting the centripetal acceleration. If there were 2 equal and opposite forces acting on an object during circular motion they would cancel out and the object would always fly in a straight line. Newtons 3rd law pair to the centripetal force from gravity on earth pulling you down isn't an equal centrifugal force pushing you up, the 3rd law pair is the gravitational force your body exerts on the earth.

I'm sorry Aneutronic Fusion, but you are confused. Centripetal force and centrifugal force describe two different things, and you are not using the word correctly while the video most certainly is. Centripetal and centrifugal forces--while not true fundamental forces like the strong, weak, & electromagnetic--are concise and convenient ways to describe different phenomena. Centripetal force is inward-seeking, like gravity. Centrifugal force is outward-seeking, like what you experience inside the carnival ride Gravitron, or like the inside of a centrifuge. Arthur C. Clarke's (if i remember correctly) mnemonic to remember the difference: Centrifugal = centrifuge = pulled outward Centripetal = petals like a daisy flower = pulled inward Another example of centripetal force is the tension in a string if you were to secure string to a rock and then swing it around you; the rock doesn't fly away because of the strength of the string--its tension--which you may correctly call centripetal force. No phrase conveys the phenomenon displayed in the video more concisely or clearly than *centrifugal*, and really: you're not gonna have many opportunities to intelligently use the word centripetal in a sentence, unless it's to tell someone that they're using the word centripetal wrong.

@@sequoiahughes8536 You are clueless about physics! Centrifugal forces don't exist! There are no outward forces when moving in circular motion inside of a cylinder.

@@ricomajestic I'm nobody. Talk to a physicist.

The same thing that made you go down in the first place, inertia.

okay, so if I float in orbit and someone put a cenfrifuge around me ( with the same trajectory so there is no contact ) I would somehow be attracted to the sides of the centrifuge? ( if the jump negates the inertia )

No, if you somehow magically appeared inside it, you would float above it. That isn't going to happen though, you will either be inside it while it accelerates or you will climb down from the center of rotation. The structure will need to transfer inertia to you.

oh yea that is logical but it sounds to be a quite tricky system in practice if you would treat it like a normal space station. Love the video BTW. kudos

+Mathias Petersen. is this in a vacuum or air? it would make a difference

If you built it with radius somewhere between 75 000 - 85 000 km radius (I don’t now how to calculate certain number) , it would need to spin once a day, soo you can connect it with space elevators. Speed would be between 6 and 7 km/s

Kenneth Stodder The term is is "cat calling".

K, stupid..

Thentai :(

It's called "Sci-Fi," or "Science Fiction" for a reason..

In science-fiction, artificial gravity is a generic correction expressed by the lack of budget. If the budget is lower, then the gravity will be closer to earth or "stronger". But with a decent budget, you can have more realistic sci-fi nowadays. Exemple : The Expanse, or Gravity. In "The Expanse" they treat gravity as it should be in space, different planets or asteroids have different gravity, changing everything to the liquid falling in your glass. Sometimes, the constant acceleration of ships will be sufficient to create momentary gravity which is lost when the ship is stopped, altered when it turns, or diminish when it slows. "Gravity" uses a gritty realism to depict a plausible accident in space in our time and around the earth. It very much illustrates it's namesake in an hour or so action sequence. "Sidonia no Kishi" also makes uses of space and gravity as a setting for many convincing mecha battles. (It also focus on the ridiculous range of fire and differing accelerations problems you may encounter in space.) So yeah, sci-fi is not dead, but if the 50s-70s era beleived in a magic artificial gravity, most serious writers now know it is a plot device for budget failings. It doesn't get Babylon 5 less brilliant on other points, but then... if you had to fail every sci-fi show for it's depiction of Gravity, you'd miss all the good ones. And again you have all the Star Wars and Firefly trying to explain artificial gravity as a feild phenomena with serious thinking. So maybe all isn't lost. Maybe someday... when a nuclear fusion generator will be safe, abordable and smaller than a car engine.

+xunk16 apart from the rest of your rather good comment: "you can have more realistic sci-fi nowadays [like]... Gravity." Nice joke xD

to cancel out earths gravity. this artificial gravity is designed for space, so they need other stuff for it to work when there already is gravity

William Herron riiiiiight Thanks

he's hanging by wires on his side. Kinda like a hollywood ninja movie. You're looking down from above and the spinning drum is flat on the ground.

It's simulating weightlessness in a 2D and ignores the depth.

Cause its not real gravity, its simulated gravity by just duplicating centrifugal force - if he stops moving -he's screwed. Artificial gravity is just fantasy thinking, because they can't even explain what gravity is. It's funny how they refer to space as having microgravity now - what a joke.

Yeah but you have to get the materials required to build it in space, so yes you do need to get it to orbit.

Sekrit Dokuments Meteors are rich in building resources

Sow how many meteors do you have that would supply that amount of mass flying by the earth so close and so slow that you could capture them? ah yeah... none

Ok cool! You get on that.

Blockbuster2033 theres actually a lot like that

Jarrett, at the surface of the Earth, the differential is small and we've evolved to handle it. On a small, rotating station, the differential would be significant and enough to cause problems described in the video. Fighter pilots for example have to tense the muscles in their lower body when making high speed turns to keep the blood from going to their feet and passing out.

It’s a matter of understanding the definitions of centrifugal and centripetal. Our schools have failed.

One thing is certain gravity is not the force working to create artificial gravity. Consider the attraction mass has does not require spinning, think on it

What is wrong about his explanation?

@@michielm5120 He explained that changing perception (reframing the point of reference) changes the forces involved. That's simple not possible, and does not work. The forces and the causes of those forces do not change based on the frame of reference. Nothing is pushing you down, regardless of your perception. Instead, your momentum is being continually resisted and redirected by the "floor" of the rotational object. That's classic centripetal force.

@@jpcrafton69 there is no one absolutely right perception. Someone from out side would say it's momentum and a centripetal force but to the person inside the system the centeifugal force is entirely real. The perception of the person in the rotating reference frame isn't wrong or less right/accurate. Physics is just a model of the real world. The model for non rotating reference frames isn't better or more right than the model for rotating reference frames

Centrifugal force is absolutely fake. The reference frame doesn’t matter here, the bottom line is the guy is always spinning around in a circle meaning he always has an acceleration towards the center of the circle meaning that the centripetal force pulling in is NOT balanced out. Centrifugal force is an “inertial force” which essentially means it’s a phenomenon caused by a bodies desire to stay in motion and an unbalanced external force pushing against it. But and inertial force is not a force, it’s more like an illusion

@@CullenMorris97 I think everyone here knows what it is and that's it is a fictious force, but none the less, for the person in a rotating reference frame, it's real. You say the bottom line is that the guy is always going round in circles, but that's only in a non rotating reference frame. In a rotating reference frame he is standing still. There is no right answer for if he is going round in circles or not. It's same as with speed. If I'm on my bycicle doing 15 km/h, how fast am I going? There is no absolute right answer. Sure, I'm doing 15 km/h with respect to earth. But why would earth be the best / only reference.

bcubed72 Not in this context, no.

bcubed72 "can be thought of as equivalent", but aren't synonymous.

Centrifugal force is correct here, because the illusion of gravity only arises when viewed from the rotating frame of reference, which incidentally, is the frame any subjects of said illusion of gravity will be finding themselves in.

impossible in the field of weightlessness. Works only within some mass levitation field, or you should spin your spacecabin by 3 times of the speed of light around its center of axis- that you can not.

bcubed72, just because you feel a force equivalent to gravity doesn't make that force gravity. gravity by definition is a natural pull towards a center of mass. to do that artificially you would need to remove the mass but it would still be a pull towards a central point, not a push away. the difference isn't terribly relevant int this scenario since it functionally simulates gravity on the human body, however if you were talking about nuclear fusion then this "artificial gravity" could never be used to sustain fusion since it pushes away and doesn't concentrate mass at the center.

Simulations are artificial.....

Not quite. Artificial means "human-made" while simulation means "a false show." So while simulated gravity is artificial, it's not artificial gravity. Artificial gravity would be indistinguishable from natural gravity, whereas this sort of simulated gravity could be easily distinguished by anyone running in the wheel (they'd get noticeably heavier going one way and lighter going the other). edit: this is also why the author of the video is wrong to say that the force is centrifugal-- it's only centripetal, because a true centrifugal force would allow for a fair game of table tennis in the space wheel.

Its ShonenLad

Newtons forces acting on said thing basically?

As you said: It's centripetal acceleration that creates the "gravity". So people who say that centrifugal gravity isn't possible probably just mean that there is no such thing as centrifugal gravity but centripetal gravity. I definitly agree that it's stupid for people to argue like that but it's right in a way

Lol just go to any county fair, the ride goes by many names, but in it you lay on the wall and it starts spinning fast and the walls start to move up and down and you can feel the force keeping you against the wall

It's not a force it is normal acceleration! But I understand the confusion.

Gravity doesn’t exist and you’re not pull to earth, you’re pushed to earth by the AETHER, but this is a lot of sand for your pickup truck, read the German Patent SCHAPPELLER DEVISE.

@Ayob Aref You tell me, this is not the issue here the topic here is bull shit gravity and antigravity without physical proof. And you didn't bother to read and study Karl Schappeller Devise's patent, so why am I going to bother teaching rogues.

@@joseinfante5054 bruh

yeah yeah, he said it...

The words don't seem to effect the outcome though. What difference does it make what you call it?

Centripetal force is what makes you move in a circle. Centrifugal force is what you feel. So they are opposite each other.

@@TexMex421This is late as hell but it does matter. Centrifugal (does not exist, apparent because of the latter) and centripetal (certainly exists) are two different concepts (both are hard to explain in words in this comment).

@@TexMex421 Centrifugal force is not really it's own force, but rather, it is the apparent effect of a normal force. Centripetal is the force that accelerates a mass on a rotating body outward.

@@zachb9440 Saying it DOES matter what name you call the force reminds me of the people who "don't believe in gravity". They may not believe, but that also don't float away. If I were spinning a hamster in a sling over my head, but then said the force imparted by the string was named Steven, and the outward force perceived by the hamster was Brenda, how would things change? The Hamster is named Gregory Fatcheeks btw.

Vlad The Inhaler Do you understand how gravity works?

#InThe Butt yeah the more mass the more your pulled to it , so if there's more mass at the bottom of the station, the more your pulled towards it, so if they store their stuff on the bottom of the station they can stand

Vlad The Inhaler But you can't fit that amount of mass on à space station

#InThe Butt yeah you can it's called tape

lol the boxes would do nothing you would need like septillions of boxes to even create a tiny bit of gravity

I’ve been in one of those Except you just got strapped in and since there isn’t any outside frame of reference it just feels like superstrong sideways gravity

👏N👏E👏P👏H👏E👏W👏

Maybe if you have a simple, quaint mind.

Seriously.............?😂

Stfu

it is being put to good use.

Cbreezy yes, to kill peoples :D

No, to protect from killing people.

Cbreezy no its not

to protect a nation of wannabe soldiers that don't respect the law