I know that the force somehow acts upon the Molecules, but how?
I like space sandbox games like Space Engineers, but while it kind of models Newtonian physics, it does not model centrifugal force, so things like rotating ring space stations don't actually work.
Edit: My bad, centrifugal force works in SE but, the rotors/motors to generate spin are limited to 30 rpm max, which is is not fast enough for what I want to build (a sort of centrifugal trebuchet in space weapon) and I don't want to use rockets to provide the spin.
Do any of the other space sandbox games model centrifugal force and have motors that can go higher than 30 rpm?
Games like Avorion, Astroneer, Empyrion, etc.
Centrifugal force is more efficient when really emptying the bottle
I'm currently writing a text about spaceflight for high school students (last year). I need to describe the concept of the space elevator, but I'm told that accelerated reference frames - and therefore fictitious forces - are not a part of the curriculum, and I cannot to use it in the explanation. I am not even allowed to introduce fictitious forces in the text. So - how do I explain how a space elevator works from the viewpoint of an inertial system?
And on a related note: I also can't use the word "centrifugal" to explain artificial gravity. How can I explain artificial gravity, if I can't mention centrifugal force?
I'm not sure how to explain my question... (actual question at the end)
Let's say I build a giant ring in space and spin it to create a centrifugal force that acts like gravity. Well known phenomenon.
On the surface of that ring is a train. The train travels the opposite direction of the ring spins.
If the ring spins at 1x does the train need to travel -1x to "stand still" from an outside observer view? I'm guessing it's like a clock... Turn the clock counter-clockwise one rotation per hour and the hour hand will seem stationary. So 1x and -1x travel cancels each other out (simplified in that it doesn't take into account the shorter radius of the inner path of travel - or would you need to account for that??).
The real question:
If the train travels fast enough that it's "standing still" what happens to the centrifugal force? Is it the same?? Or is it compounded/multiplied? Or is it negated and you can float away?
I have always felt like the concept of speed being relative to be at odds with with the existence of inertia and centrifugal force. Especially centrifugal force.
It seems to be suggested often that speed can only be experienced/measured relative to something else. That speed is not inherent to a specific object. As in, if two objects are floating past each other, which one is actually moving relative to the other being something of an unanswerable question as the movement is simply considered relative and not necessarily a property of one of the objects.
But why does this seem to be the view taken by many/science(?)? Are absolute speeds inherent to objects not determinable through means of inertia? For example: In scenario 1, lets say the two objects are a free floating spaceship and a free floating asteroid. They collide with each other. A person inside the spaceship falls down/floats a bit from impact.
In scenario 2, they collide with each other but the person goes flying forward (as depicted in this video of a respected astronaut )
Scenario 1 suggests that it was the asteroid that was moving at speed because of the lack of inertial forces at work on the person inside. Scenario 2 suggests the spaceship was the object moving at speed as inertia acted upon the person.
My other thought that suggests to me that speed is not relative is centrifugal force. Like that motion used to simulate gravity we see in many science fiction stories. An object can exist in complete isolation, but due to the centrifugal force it can be determined that the object has inherent non-relative speed as it's speed creates a force. And by measuring the intensity of this force, we measure the speed of the object.
So if two objects are floating in space and they appear to be spinning relative to each other, it can be determined which object is the object that is actually spinning in space and which object is the more "still" by measuring the spins force upon itself.
So where have I gone wrong in understanding this concept?
Thank you in advance for your explanations.
Why would be there a sun? The amount/density of gases there wouldnt be nearly enough to form one, not even the Jupiter is large enough. And if it is suppose to be a chunk of glowing hot metal wich somehow got ballanced in the middle when earth formed, wouldnt the surface of that also cool down and became a solid surface just like how the outher and inner surface did?
Even if there is a small sun or a ball of metal i dont really think an ecosystem or civilisation there would be realistic beacuse wouldnt it be radiactive as fuck, our sun emmits a huge amount of gamma rays wich would be deadly if the protective magnetic field of earth wouldnt be above us, but there it would reach people point blank.
And if a molten core there is so dense it still heats itself that would also emmit radiation since the reason for the inside being still liquid magma/lava is the radioactive decay creating heat for eons. From wich we are shilded by the thick crust. But again, there it would just shine on everybody.
What is the consensus on this?
Hi, I’m having a disagreement with someone and wondered if you could confirm this.
Say you have a rotating hoop, such as a flywheel rim. This rim has mass 100kg and circumference 100cm. At its rotational speed the sum of all radial forces is 200N.
My contention is that each cm of rim is contributing/experiencing 2N to/of the overall radial force.
His contention in the the above example would be that every point in this rim would be experiencing 200N radial force, irrespective of how small that point is. He thinks that because the tangential (hoop stress) force is the same at any point around the circumference, then radial force must also be the same at every point (ie 1cm of that rim would be experiencing 200N of radial force).
All of this is ignoring vector quantities, only looking at the radial (apparent) force acting away from the axis of rotation (within the non inertial reference frame).
Thanks!
He was clearly out of the loop.
It’s happened to me ever since I was a kid on the trampoline and occurs randomly. Is this a problem?
