Talk:Artificial gravity

message: Somebody should add the halo's in the videogames Halo and Halo 2.  I'm too tired as of the now. :\
This would be a much better video game reference than Super Mario Galaxy. >_< Great game, but not a very good example for someone looking up examples of how artificial gravity might work. Zelbinian (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Plot device. Kortoso (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Halo in the Halo series of videogames 

message: Can someone add formulae regarding the numbers that are in the rotation section? The numbers that I get by using the formulae at centrifugal force give me a smaller necessary radius. Rusco 14:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is centrifugal force in a rotating reference frame, as well as coriolis force.WolfKeeper 02:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  fomulae for rotation 

message: If anyone is interested, I wrote a Java applet to simulate rotational gravity in a space station.
http://www.wolfkeeper.plus.com/coriolis/
I think it's kinda fun, YMMV.WolfKeeper 04:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simulations

message: Hey, there is no mention of magnetic boots! There's a redirect page "Magnetic boots" to Artificial gravity, but it's not mentioned... SuperMidget 16:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnetic boots 

message: If I understand this formula properly, this  \times  is used as a multiplication sign. Does someone know why the usual sign \cdot  isn't used? 
g = \frac{R(\frac{\pi \times rpm}{30})^2}{9.81}
Where:
g = Decimal fraction of Earth gravity
R = Radius from center of rotation in meters
\pi = 3.14159
rpm = revolutions per minute
Greetasdf 10:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the formula to replace the confusing crossproduct with a standard juxtaposition, and more importantly to get rid of the confusing built-in unit conversion, as well as the mix-up of a (non-standard) physical unit (rpm) with a physical quantity (rotation). I did so by expressing the radius of rotation in terms of the orbital period (i.e. a time), e.g. 30 s instead of 2 rpm. That way the formula is just a copy of the standard centripetal force formula, so one citation-needed is no longer needed in the text. Per the standard SI philosophy, units out are given by units in. Lklundin (talk) 09:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  x in the formula indicates crossproduct? 

message: The link to "http://users.wpi.edu/~rcaron/mars/gravity.shtml" brings up a 404 error. If anyone can update the link, please do so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuki (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As of Feb 2011, this link is no longer in the article.  N2e (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I have tagged the link as a .  You can do this yourself.  Just edit the section and add "" immediately after the closing reftag.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link 

message: What about this - a spaceship moving in a spiral or corkscrew pattern, whith a constatnt velocity along the axis of the corkscrew and the proper diameter and velocity around the circumference of the corkscrew, would move through space at whatever speed desired and provide constant gravity. Essentially you would need to provide thrust of 1g with a vector directly into the center of the corkscrew and then rotate the ship so that "up" is always facing the center. How about it?  22:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No known propulsion system can work for long enough to make this worthwhile; it uses either obscene amounts of propellant, and/or obscene amounts of energy.WolfKeeper 23:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corkscrew Pattern 

message: I very interested in gravity, but on a amateur level. I think artificial gravity and some other facts raises some very interesting questions. Hopefully somebody will be kind enough to answer this or at least comment. Maybe this can even be helpful in the scope of the article. The questions are interlinked:
1. Gravity from mass is considered "real" gravity and gravity from acceleration and spinning is considered "artificial" gravity; how can such apparently different phenonomens both create apparently similar forces?
2. When you flush the sink with water the earth´s gravity helps removing the water back in the piping, but the circular movements implies that the earth´s spinning has something to do with things?
3. The earth (or any other celestial body) moves in space as I understand it in quite similar fashion to the spaceship which creates artificial gravity; which phenonomens of earths gravity can´t be explained by this similarity? Can for example that fact that the moon and other satelites orbits the earth only be explained in reference to the mass?
WikiPBia (talk) 12:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions 

message: Keep in mind WP:BURDEN. Do not restore "Mass" section without good citations, following WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted "Mass" section 

message: I reverted a recent good faith deletion of text by User:Rememberway.  The deletion was of a fairly large amount of text, some of it sourced.  My view is that the sourced material deletion should be discussed here on the Talk page first before deletion as it is a plausible useful example of linear acceleration (the subject of the section in which the material appears) artificial gravity in current (e.g., ion thruster) and near-term (e.g., VASIMR) low-thrust space propulsion systems that does, in fact, provide a measurable amount, albeit quite low, of artificial gravity.  Some of the other material was only recently tagged ; in my view, the tagged material that needs to be sourced ought to be given some reasonable time to be cited, and only then removed from the article.  
I've also started looking for sources that would support a narrow article focus only for artificial gravity of at least planetary magnitude, as the lede currently implies.  I have read plenty in the literature where artificial gravity environments of, say Moon gravity, at 60 milligees, or for cryogenic fluid management of rocket fuel and oxidizer in second-stages are referred to as "artificial gravity."  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place for speculation. —Tamfang (talk) 06:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of artificial gravity 

message: String theory (and all other theories involving hidden dimensions)
predict that gravity and electromagnetism unify in hidden 
dimensions and that the hidden dimensions are indetectible because of 
their small size. It does also predict that sufficiently short-waved 
photons, with wavelengths shorter than the size of the hidden 
dimensions, can enter them. Producing ultra-short photons can thus 
manipulate gravity, with revolutionizing space travel applications such 
as cheap anti-gravity launches. The 
problem that it would require high energy can be practically solved by 
concentrating several laser beams on a nanoparticle, heating it to 
locally extreme temperatures. An Alcubierre metric can be created by 
ejecting multiple nanoparticles from the craft and then beam perfectly 
timed laser beams on them (fire at the most distant first so that they are
hit simultaneously), so each nanoparticle contributes a slower than 
light effect but together add up to faster than light, creating no discrete 
event horizon and thus no Hawking radiation.
By Martin J Sallberg  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.191.166.80 (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  String theory predict gravitomagnetism. 

message: It should focus on the increase of apparent gravity during space travel. The methods to simulate weightlessness (neutral buoyancy and parabolic flight) are already presented --and more accurately-- in the article on weightlessness
Otolith2 (talk) 13:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you.  I just removed an even more off-topic blob of prose.  Have left a hidden note in that meta-subsection inviting other editors to consider whether neutral buoyancy and parabolic flight should be similarly removed.  It seems off topic; but I think we need a 2021 look by another editor besides me to nix it.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is confusing

message: If the Earth were perfectly flat, a free falling vomit comet in a uniform gravitational field would travel along a parabolic trajectory. However, if the Earth were perfectly spherical, only objects moving at the escape velocity would follow a parabolic trajectory, all slower velocities would result in bound elliptic trajectories. [Ballistic trajectory: parabola, ellipse, or what http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0310049v2.pdf ]
I suggest changing the section on "parabolic flight" to "elliptic flight". In this past this change has been met with resistance by flat-Earthers. They correctly point out that pilots at both NASA and Zero G corporation refer to free-fall flight trajectories as "parabolas". Do these pilots know something we don't? and why don't those planes have any windows? 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are only being pedantic by insulting people who use the word this way as "Flat-Earthers". There is no significant measurable deviation of the trajectory of a free-falling plane from a true parabola (as there is none of a flat Earth from its true shape) unless the distances are significantly large (a measurable difference in lattitude or longitude.) Why don't you use that magnificent brain to see if you can come up with a sufficiently insulting term for those of us who use Newtonian physics to handle everyday situations instead of relativity (similar approximate accuracy.) The article is just fine the way it is. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flat-Earthers and "parabolic" flight 

message: In the "Calculations" example under "Methods for generating artificial gravity" -> "Rotation". Metres should be spelt metres and not meters. A meter is a device that measures, like a gas meter. A metre is a standard unit of length.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.127.136 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the article is written in American English, which uses the spelling "meter", not "metre". - BilCat (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: I see nothing in here about amusement parks or their thrill rides, despite the fact that many of them rely on their use of acceleration or centrifugal force for the thrill. Scramblers, roller coasters, and other centrifuges have all been employed at amusement parks, yet nary a word is written about them in this article.  —  Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 14:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is in the wrong place. It doesn't help the ongoing discussion. Please consider a different place to put it. Kortoso (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amusement park thrill rides 

message: I've updated the rotation speed plot in the Rotation subsection, mostly to put it in SVG format (previous was in PNG), as well as updating axis labels to be more descriptive and understandable.Tkmckenzie (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation Speed Plot 

message: Am I the only one that has a problem with THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY
The effect of gravity can be simulated using other forces, but none of those forces are "gravity".
I'd be happy with terms like "apparent gravity", "simulated gravity" just not artificial as if someone created gravity without a mass. Maybe a diclaimer in the lead, explaining that the effects "seem like gravity" and aren't actually "gravity".Dougmcdonell (talk) 21:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Old comment, but I'll weigh in.  Yeah, you are probably right Dougmcdonell.  I'd participate if you were to make a proposal to retitle the article to something better.  "Simulated gravity" or similar might work.  But "Artificial gravity" MAY meet WP:COMMONNAME, which is why it should probably be done via an explicit proposal on this Talk page, to get a wider cross-section of editors involved.  Cheers.  N2e (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Gravity

message: Does it really belong in here? I propose relocating it to astronaut training.Kortoso (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Training section 

message: Do any reliable sources discuss (or even just mention) the reasons for the lack of any serious Artificial Gravity research programmes on any of our current and previous space stations, and if they do, could we please have them mentioned in our article? These stations would seem to be the ideal place (with, for instance, two spacecraft tethered together by long cables and rotating around each other, as in the 1989/90 Mars proposal) to research how the human body reacts to long periods of artificial Earth-strength gravity (and to learn about the optimum cable length, as too long is heavy and expensive, etc, and too short causes dizziness problems, etc, and what is the optimum number of cables to compensate for cable-snapping or micrometeorite-cable-cutting risks, etc) as seemingly needed for manned flights to Mars and beyond, as well as to long periods of lunar and Martian gravity as needed for prolonged work on the Moon and Mars (presumably interspersed with recuperation periods in artificial Earth-strength gravity in spacecraft or space stations orbiting the Moon or Mars). The cable-snapping or micrometeorite-cable-cutting risks would presumably be higher in a space station near Earth than in interplanetary space due Earth attracting them, and due artificial space debris orbiting Earth, etc. Do any reliable sources say any of this? Tlhslobus (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space stations and AG 

message: This sentence is troubling: "Unlike real gravity, which pulls towards a center, this pseudo-force in rotating reference frames gives a rotational 'gravity' that pushes away from the axis of rotation." 
*It gives the impression that gravity, like centrifugal force, depends on rotation. 
*It calls centrifugal force a "pseudo-force" - where is the author's source for that?
I'd be glad to remove this; the rest of the section doesn't need it. Kortoso (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.hfml.ru.nl/20t-magnet.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20160206031752/http://www.marsgravity.org/ to http://www.marsgravity.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: You guys already mention Interstellar (2014) film in science fiction category,
Please also mention Passengers (2016) film also in this category. Ram nareshji (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial gravity played some important role in Passengers (2016) film. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to https://nspires.nasaprs.com/external/viewrepositorydocument/cmdocumentid%3D477169/solicitationId%3D%7B9927D6DC-C2F9-5D3E-8BF1-EA4EE3EE0A37%7D/viewSolicitationDocument%3D1/HRP%20Artificial%20Gravity%20Evidence%20Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070626165503/http://dx12.jsc.nasa.gov/about/index.shtml to http://dx12.jsc.nasa.gov/about/index.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Artificial gravity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225085854/http://hobbyspace.com//nucleus/index.php?itemid=26786 to http://www.hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=26786
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Swing rides have been around for a while in funfairs and amusement parks, and they serve as a quite visible demonstration of a centrifuge in action. Please note that not all of the "gravity" shown is artificial, though! (The swings still point somewhat downwards, but the centrifuge causes "down" on the swings to move outwards.) 2601:8B:C302:D530:216D:3386:9C8A:70AF (talk) 19:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visible demonstration of centripetal/centrifugal force in "real life" 

message: So, under section Human Spaceflight we have the first sentence "The engineering challenges of creating a rotating spacecraft are comparatively modest to any other proposed approach." which some zealous if ill-informed wiki editor has flagged with "Original Research?". Just wondering what universe this little keener is from where there are alternative mechanisms for artificial gravity which come within an observable universe's distance of being as tractable as rotation for generating gravity. Maybe this fine person would like to speak up and explain why they felt sufficiently well informed to make this comment. And no, I am by no means the person who wrote the original sentence, just a human with a working brain and a passable knowledge of physics (got a piece of paper somewhere that'll back that up).2001:56A:F0E9:9B00:41F4:C18A:9CBF:A083 (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire paragraph was original research attemepting to come up with proposals. Deleted. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research!!??

message: In the "Mechanism" section the statement "A traversable interface between parts of the station spinning relative to each other requires large vacuum-tight axial seals."  This isn't true if either section resides entirely within the other section (and thus entirely within the craft's pressure canister).  It's not the case if for example the spinning section resides entirely within the vessel's pressure canister.  The hypothetical "Discovery" spacecraft in "2001:  A Space Odyssey" appears to represent an example of such a design.  (Whereas the Russian spacecraft "Leonov" depicted in "2010: The Year We Make Contact" appears to require a pressure seal between the sections.)
I suggest eliminating the statement altogether because it's a relatively modest design element.  However an option could be:  "Depending upon the spececraft's configuration a pressure seal between stationary and rotating sections might be required."
Thoughts please!  Cheers.  -- H Bruce Campbell (talk) 09:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I revised the page by changing the original sentence to "Depending upon the spececraft's configuration..."  Please advise if any discomfort.  Cheers.  --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pressure canister seals are not always necessary. 

message: The "Balls in a rotating spacecraft" image is misleading as it is showing a ball on a curved path in microgravity. A ball will travel in a straight line until it touches a surface. It might appear to travel in a curve by an observer moving with the space station, but not from the stationary perspective that the viewer of this image would have. The ball in the center is correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionjim (talk • contribs) 19:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image is misleading 

message: gif not working. Need to fix. 121.74.135.184 (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simulated gravity gif 

message: In 2021, Vivek Kedia proposed and patented AirSim, a simpler and easier way to generate artificial gravity. Using circulating air, one can create constant force on the body. This doesn't create a constant and uniform force like gravity, as it just affects the surfaces, but being in a constant force will mimic/simulate gravity and mitigate health effects like bone and muscle loss. Further, it can also be used on planetary surfaces to increase the gravity to earth's.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzibpZ3j8uM 
It's simple to implement and the technology already exists. It is not constrained by size like centripetal force idea and others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xyzxyz321 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just describing a Vertical wind tunnel. It's not a new idea, and it's not artificial gravity because anything with an angled surface would be pushed to the side rather than in the desired direction. MrOllie (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Simulated gravity

message: Hello I would like to talk about science and technology 41.115.114.106 (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  technology