If the Space Station could spin on a central axis how much speed would it need to create gravity?

[deanrd]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

 

[westwall]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

 

[deanrd]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

 

[eagle1462010]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Gears and bearings will always have friction........no matter where .......Something to turn that thing would have maintenance problems like everything built from the beginning of time...................Just like Eli the ICE man in electrical theory.........hysteresis........eddy currents.........core losses and heat............

 

[westwall]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

 

[deanrd]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

 

[westwall]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

 

[deanrd]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

OMG. I just read your signature line. No wonder you're full of sh!t. You don't actually believe in turd soup do you?

 

[deanrd]

The mating surfaces aren't frictionless. Over time, friction would grow and more and more energy would be needed to keep the station in motion. What happens when it wears out?

On earth,with a magnetic train, you have super conductors which keep the train suspended. The track won't wear out because of the lack of contact. In space, everything has to be covered and connected because people need to breathe.

What we actually need is to understand the force of gravity itself. If we can duplicate that force without needing to rotate massive amounts of structure, it would solve the problem. But science is only scratching the surface of understanding the nature of gravity. Yea, we can measure it, but we can measure all kinds of things without understanding the nature of whatever it is that's being measured.

Humans have been here millions of years, but we've only manage to use electricity in meaningful ways the last couple of hundred. It's like when idiots use the weirdly misleading and meaningless term "settled science", whatever that is in their tiny minds.
Man's knowledge of science has been growing at an exponential rate the last couple of decades and we still don't know hardly anything.

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

 

[Moonglow]

???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? What the heck are you babbling about? Friction....in a vacuum?

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

They laughed at my electromagnetic field of flux also. Just attach an armature like structure and create atmosphere.

 

[deanrd]

OMG. You think friction only exists in an atmosphere?

How many kinds of friction do you think there are? Start there.

Do you guys have to be educated on even the most basic things?

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

They laughed at my electromagnetic field of flux also. Just attach an armature like structure and create atmosphere.

I went to all that trouble to explain the four types of friction. And I pointed out that three were independent of atmosphere and still it cried "but it's a vacuum".

 

[Moonglow]

Friction, as an aerodynamic variable, only exists where there is an atmosphere. Care to tell the class where the atmosphere is in a vacuum?

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

They laughed at my electromagnetic field of flux also. Just attach an armature like structure and create atmosphere.

I went to all that trouble to explain the four types of friction. And I pointed out that three were independent of atmosphere and still it cried "but it's a vacuum".

Then why is there so much dust around if it's a vacuum?

 

[fncceo]

All objects with gravity are due to its magnetic core and the field of flux..Normally an iron core...Just like in yer transformers.

You're joking, right?

 

[Moonglow]

All objects with gravity are due to its magnetic core and the field of flux..Normally an iron core...Just like in yer transformers.

You're joking, right?

I pull legs, I don't joke around..

 

[deanrd]

Oh stop. I can't take it any more.

There are four types of friction.

If you set a brick on the sidewalk and push it, it's difficult to push until it gets moving. Pushing against it until it starts moving is called static friction and is the strongest. Once it begins to move, it's called sliding friction. But if the brick were round and rolled, that would be called rolling friction and it's the weakest. Notice I mentioned three types of friction? Three demonstrable types of friction and no where did I mention air or gas?

The forth one is fluid friction. Now why it is only one and not two? Fluid and gas? Because gas is a fluid, just not dense. But their frictional properties are the same.

So if you had a space station with a rotating section, you would start with static friction until the section began rotating. Then you would move on to sliding friction where the rotating and non rotating sections were joined.

Now you could rotate the entire ship. But that would be unstable and much more difficult. Try to figure out why.

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

They laughed at my electromagnetic field of flux also. Just attach an armature like structure and create atmosphere.

I went to all that trouble to explain the four types of friction. And I pointed out that three were independent of atmosphere and still it cried "but it's a vacuum".

Then why is there so much dust around if it's a vacuum?

It's a matter of perspective.
To Jupiter, our moon is a spec of dust. Dust is small pieces of dirt. And dirt and rocks and mountains and moons and asteroids are not vacuum. They are solid matter. Vacuum is the absence of gas. Like O2 or Nitrogen or CO2 or helium or so on.
I know that gas is matter and a vacuum is completely empty of matter, but seriously, space has stuff in it. When people think vacuum, they think no air.

 

[Moonglow]

AAAaaaaaaaand, once again for you, the dolt, how does any of that have anything to do with a SPACE STATION in a vacuum?

I give up. You're too ignorant for words.

If there is anyone around you, have them read what I just wrote and then ask them to explain it to you. If they are over 9 or 10, they should have no problem.

They laughed at my electromagnetic field of flux also. Just attach an armature like structure and create atmosphere.

I went to all that trouble to explain the four types of friction. And I pointed out that three were independent of atmosphere and still it cried "but it's a vacuum".

Then why is there so much dust around if it's a vacuum?

It's a matter of perspective.
To Jupiter, our moon is a spec of dust. Dust is small pieces of dirt. And dirt and rocks and mountains and moons and asteroids are not vacuum. They are solid matter. Vacuum is the absence of gas. Like O2 or Nitrogen or CO2 or helium or so on.

You eggheads know everything..

 

[Moonglow]

Gravity the force that attracts a body toward the center of the Earth. What is at the center of the Earth?

Iron core, basis of Earth's magnetic field...geodynamo, now look up magnetohydrodynamic..Now there's a .29 cent word, Yeeeeee-Haw!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

They would need to be magnetized.

Why? Isn't the point of false gravity to simulate light gravity and bypass the need for external measures?

All objects with gravity are due to its magnetic core and the field of flux..Normally an iron core...Just like in yer transformers.

Gravity has nothing to do with magnetism, you dumbass!

 

[Moonglow]

Ok, so the core has some nickle also.

 

[Moonglow]

They would need to be magnetized.

Why? Isn't the point of false gravity to simulate light gravity and bypass the need for external measures?

All objects with gravity are due to its magnetic core and the field of flux..Normally an iron core...Just like in yer transformers.

Gravity has nothing to do with magnetism, you dumbass!

Who pissed in yer Post-Toasties Grandpa?