How does rotational “artificial gravity” differ from normal gravity?










40












$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, just a curious mind. I was reading a novel by Iain Banks where it was mentioned, that shifting from artificial rotational "gravity" (in space, on a rotating space craft) to real gravity caused some level of discomfort.



And this has me thinking; is there any truth to that? I mean I am aware that reading a science fiction novel does not science make; however it also strikes me as an unlikely story line to inject in there if it was not founded on at least some real theory or actual reality.



So I guess it boils down to this. From the perspective of the individual experiencing it, is there any notable difference from being rotated and thereby experiencing a sensation of gravity, to a person experiencing real gravity (from the attraction of mass)?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames centrifugal-force







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:34










  • $begingroup$
    Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Elvey
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:36
















40












$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, just a curious mind. I was reading a novel by Iain Banks where it was mentioned, that shifting from artificial rotational "gravity" (in space, on a rotating space craft) to real gravity caused some level of discomfort.



And this has me thinking; is there any truth to that? I mean I am aware that reading a science fiction novel does not science make; however it also strikes me as an unlikely story line to inject in there if it was not founded on at least some real theory or actual reality.



So I guess it boils down to this. From the perspective of the individual experiencing it, is there any notable difference from being rotated and thereby experiencing a sensation of gravity, to a person experiencing real gravity (from the attraction of mass)?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames centrifugal-force







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:34










  • $begingroup$
    Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Elvey
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:36














40












40








40


9



$begingroup$


I am not a physicist, just a curious mind. I was reading a novel by Iain Banks where it was mentioned, that shifting from artificial rotational "gravity" (in space, on a rotating space craft) to real gravity caused some level of discomfort.



And this has me thinking; is there any truth to that? I mean I am aware that reading a science fiction novel does not science make; however it also strikes me as an unlikely story line to inject in there if it was not founded on at least some real theory or actual reality.



So I guess it boils down to this. From the perspective of the individual experiencing it, is there any notable difference from being rotated and thereby experiencing a sensation of gravity, to a person experiencing real gravity (from the attraction of mass)?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames centrifugal-force







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




I am not a physicist, just a curious mind. I was reading a novel by Iain Banks where it was mentioned, that shifting from artificial rotational "gravity" (in space, on a rotating space craft) to real gravity caused some level of discomfort.



And this has me thinking; is there any truth to that? I mean I am aware that reading a science fiction novel does not science make; however it also strikes me as an unlikely story line to inject in there if it was not founded on at least some real theory or actual reality.



So I guess it boils down to this. From the perspective of the individual experiencing it, is there any notable difference from being rotated and thereby experiencing a sensation of gravity, to a person experiencing real gravity (from the attraction of mass)?






newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames centrifugal-force




newtonian-mechanics newtonian-gravity reference-frames centrifugal-force






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 13 '18 at 14:33









Qmechanic♦

104k121871188




104k121871188










asked Nov 11 '18 at 11:48









Mark CassidyMark Cassidy

30326




30326







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:34










  • $begingroup$
    Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Elvey
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:36













  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
    $endgroup$
    – Acccumulation
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:34










  • $begingroup$
    Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
    $endgroup$
    – Matthew Elvey
    Nov 13 '18 at 20:36








1




1




$begingroup$
How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Nov 13 '18 at 18:34




$begingroup$
How was the shifting accomplished? It's not clear from what you're said whether there was some difference that caused discomfort, or whether it was the shifting itself that caused discomfort. Also, were the strengths equal? If you're on a spaceship designed to mimic Earth's gravity, and you go to a planet with more than Earth's gravity, that could cause discomfort. Or if you're on the upper levels of the spacecraft, then you would be experiencing less gravity, so going to full could cause discomfort.
$endgroup$
– Acccumulation
Nov 13 '18 at 18:34












$begingroup$
Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
$endgroup$
– Matthew Elvey
Nov 13 '18 at 20:36





$begingroup$
Good question. 3 pedantic points: on Earth, you are experiencing artificial rotational "gravity" forces. Because Earth is spinning. But that's negligible compared to what we normally consider as "normal gravity". (Also, Earth is rotating about the sun (and rotating about the center of the Milky Way...!))
$endgroup$
– Matthew Elvey
Nov 13 '18 at 20:36











6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















65












$begingroup$

I think a rotating frame would have both a centrifugal force, mimicking gravity, and what is called a Coriolis force. So, for example, if you would throw a ball straight up in the air in the rotating space station, you would see it move sideways too, because the outside of a wheel always rotates faster than the inside.



It's possible that the people in the space station could feel this Coriolis force, hence the reason for the discomfort.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 3




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 16:13






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
    $endgroup$
    – Davis Yoshida
    Nov 11 '18 at 17:24






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 12 '18 at 4:31







  • 9




    $begingroup$
    @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Nov 12 '18 at 11:58






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan Cavanaugh
    Nov 13 '18 at 15:41


















32












$begingroup$

I'm speculating, but the speculation is based on actual physics :).



Your physical experience of gravity on a planet and artificial gravity at the outside of a rotating wheel might be different based on the following.



The force you feel from a planet is $G*m_you*M_planet/r^2$ (Gravitational constant times your mass times the mass of the planet, divided by the distance $r$ from you to the center of the planet, squared.



The force you feel from the rotating wheel is $m_you*omega^2r$ (your mass times the angular velocity (squared) times $r$, the distance from you to the center of the wheel).



So, suppose you are on a planet (which would normally have a very large value of $r$--meaning, you are a long way from its center), and you are seated, then you stand up. Your head has moved from $r$ meters to $r+1$ meters (your head is now 1 meter farther from the center of the planet). So, on earth, you've moved from about 6.4 million meters away to about 6.4 million meters...plus one! That's going to make a change in the force on your head that's probably way too small for you to notice.



On a man-made rotating wheel, you're going to have a much smaller value of $r$ (assuming the wheel is way less than the size of a planet). So $r-1$ meters (keep in mind, when you stand up inside the rotating wheel, your head is closer to the hub of the wheel, so it's a change to $r-1$ instead of $r+1$ as it would be on the planet) might be different enough from $r$ meters to be something you feel, and, if you spent a lot of time there, or were born there, or whatever, you would get used to things (like your head) being "lighter" when you stand up. If that was your "normal", then it might feel really strange to you when that didn't happen in Earth's gravity.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:10






  • 10




    $begingroup$
    The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:57






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Nov 12 '18 at 13:02






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    Nov 12 '18 at 20:20







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
    $endgroup$
    – Ghedipunk
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:05


















9












$begingroup$

For a non-technical answer, remember when you were a kid on the playground? (Yes, I know I'm making what's perhaps a parochial assumption.) If you sat on the merry-go-round (this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ) and got the other kids to push it around really fast, you could feel the "gravity" pulling you outwards. But because you were also going around in a tight circle, the fluid in your ears sloshed around, and so you got dizzy.



Now scale this up to a moderately-sized space station. You might still have some effect on the ears from rotation (how much depends on the size), but because you've been there a long time, your body has adapted to this as being normal. When you shift to "real" gravity, the rotation effect goes away, but to your body this is now NOT normal.



(Whether this would actually happen I can't say: AFAIK no one has tried it, but it's certainly plausible enough for SF :-))






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 18:32






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
    $endgroup$
    – Draco18s
    Nov 11 '18 at 19:02






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:13







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
    $endgroup$
    – famargar
    Nov 13 '18 at 19:05










  • $begingroup$
    My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:07


















6












$begingroup$

You would be unlikely to notice any difference unless the spacecraft is fairly small.



For example with 50m radius there is only a 2% difference between 50m and 49m. The station in this case would be spinning at 4.25 rpm to generate 1G.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 4:53










  • $begingroup$
    I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:21






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:37






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:47






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 8:25


















0












$begingroup$

Experiencing rotational forces and fixed direction gravity at the same time would be weird.



A person under the influence of gravity experiences a constant acceleration. A person in a rotating reference frame experiences a constant magnitude acceleration, but the direction is changing constantly.



This means that if you are experiencing both at once, and the axis of rotation is not parallel to the direction of gravity, the total acceleration that you feel will be constantly fluctuating. It's more or less equivalent to the fact that if you swing a bucket on a rope in a vertical circle, the tension in the rope is higher when the bucket is near the ground than when it is at the top of the swing.



Depending on how fast the rotation of your station is, this could make the transition period feel like a rollercoaster.



Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second. That would avoid the roller coaster effect. But if they skipped that process then I could easily see people emptying their stomachs during the process.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
    $endgroup$
    – Beta
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:15










  • $begingroup$
    @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
    $endgroup$
    – Arcanist Lupus
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:55






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
    $endgroup$
    – amI
    Nov 12 '18 at 8:11






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
    $endgroup$
    – msouth
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:13










  • $begingroup$
    "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    Nov 13 '18 at 21:23


















-1












$begingroup$

Fist of all, let me apologize for the post, indeed i was just browsing around and this sparked my interest.




In my opinion there is mechanical difference in which the rotation
affects you in those two cases (you rotate on planet while not on
poles). On planets surface the mass pulls you inward and the planetary
rotation lessens the force applied to you. On the station the rotation
works the other way, basically creating gravity from nothing.



Have a nice day.




So to explain myself further: I was thinking, what difference would I feel on such station? The vertical movement is one thing. As previous answers stated delta g on one meter differs for the station when compared to the planet.
Movement on the floor of the station, I presume, would feel different when walking against the rotation. In such case my angular velocity is lower than otherwise. Would I feel lighter if walking in one direction? Could this be the disorienting factor? And so on.



As for the first post. I was trying to be brief and oversimplified. Also please forgive me for slaughtering English language, I am not a native.



Best regards.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$











    protected by ACuriousMind♦ Nov 13 '18 at 17:55



    Thank you for your interest in this question.
    Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



    Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?














    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes








    6 Answers
    6






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    65












    $begingroup$

    I think a rotating frame would have both a centrifugal force, mimicking gravity, and what is called a Coriolis force. So, for example, if you would throw a ball straight up in the air in the rotating space station, you would see it move sideways too, because the outside of a wheel always rotates faster than the inside.



    It's possible that the people in the space station could feel this Coriolis force, hence the reason for the discomfort.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 16:13






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
      $endgroup$
      – Davis Yoshida
      Nov 11 '18 at 17:24






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
      $endgroup$
      – Jyrki Lahtonen
      Nov 12 '18 at 4:31







    • 9




      $begingroup$
      @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      Nov 12 '18 at 11:58






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
      $endgroup$
      – Ryan Cavanaugh
      Nov 13 '18 at 15:41















    65












    $begingroup$

    I think a rotating frame would have both a centrifugal force, mimicking gravity, and what is called a Coriolis force. So, for example, if you would throw a ball straight up in the air in the rotating space station, you would see it move sideways too, because the outside of a wheel always rotates faster than the inside.



    It's possible that the people in the space station could feel this Coriolis force, hence the reason for the discomfort.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 16:13






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
      $endgroup$
      – Davis Yoshida
      Nov 11 '18 at 17:24






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
      $endgroup$
      – Jyrki Lahtonen
      Nov 12 '18 at 4:31







    • 9




      $begingroup$
      @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      Nov 12 '18 at 11:58






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
      $endgroup$
      – Ryan Cavanaugh
      Nov 13 '18 at 15:41













    65












    65








    65





    $begingroup$

    I think a rotating frame would have both a centrifugal force, mimicking gravity, and what is called a Coriolis force. So, for example, if you would throw a ball straight up in the air in the rotating space station, you would see it move sideways too, because the outside of a wheel always rotates faster than the inside.



    It's possible that the people in the space station could feel this Coriolis force, hence the reason for the discomfort.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I think a rotating frame would have both a centrifugal force, mimicking gravity, and what is called a Coriolis force. So, for example, if you would throw a ball straight up in the air in the rotating space station, you would see it move sideways too, because the outside of a wheel always rotates faster than the inside.



    It's possible that the people in the space station could feel this Coriolis force, hence the reason for the discomfort.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 11 '18 at 12:01









    Eric David KramerEric David Kramer

    905311




    905311







    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 16:13






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
      $endgroup$
      – Davis Yoshida
      Nov 11 '18 at 17:24






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
      $endgroup$
      – Jyrki Lahtonen
      Nov 12 '18 at 4:31







    • 9




      $begingroup$
      @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      Nov 12 '18 at 11:58






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
      $endgroup$
      – Ryan Cavanaugh
      Nov 13 '18 at 15:41












    • 3




      $begingroup$
      Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 16:13






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
      $endgroup$
      – Davis Yoshida
      Nov 11 '18 at 17:24






    • 7




      $begingroup$
      Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
      $endgroup$
      – Jyrki Lahtonen
      Nov 12 '18 at 4:31







    • 9




      $begingroup$
      @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
      $endgroup$
      – UKMonkey
      Nov 12 '18 at 11:58






    • 5




      $begingroup$
      @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
      $endgroup$
      – Ryan Cavanaugh
      Nov 13 '18 at 15:41







    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 16:13




    $begingroup$
    Nice answer. For an instructive homework exercise, try analysing various gravity-testing experiments, such as what happens when balls are dropped from a tall tower set up in a huge rotating space station whose rim rotates with acceleration 1$g$.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 16:13




    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
    $endgroup$
    – Davis Yoshida
    Nov 11 '18 at 17:24




    $begingroup$
    In an episode of the show "The Expanse", a phrase similar to "in the core where the Coriolis is really bad" is used.
    $endgroup$
    – Davis Yoshida
    Nov 11 '18 at 17:24




    7




    7




    $begingroup$
    Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 12 '18 at 4:31





    $begingroup$
    Wikipedia has dug out a rule of thumb (belief?) that at 2RPM or below the Coriolis force would be tolerable. 2RPM comes to about $0.2$ radians per second. Meaning that $1g$ or $10 m/s^2$ requires a station with a radius of $250$ meters.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Nov 12 '18 at 4:31





    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Nov 12 '18 at 11:58




    $begingroup$
    @Dithermaster "So, much like changing eyeglasses - the discomfort isn't physical" it is absolutely physical, for both cases. Changing glasses results in the lens muscles having to work in different ways, which tires them. Having uneven forces on your body is also physical.
    $endgroup$
    – UKMonkey
    Nov 12 '18 at 11:58




    5




    5




    $begingroup$
    @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan Cavanaugh
    Nov 13 '18 at 15:41




    $begingroup$
    @Åsmund 10m/s is a dead sprint for a top athlete; most people aren't "walking" 5m/s 6-minute miles
    $endgroup$
    – Ryan Cavanaugh
    Nov 13 '18 at 15:41











    32












    $begingroup$

    I'm speculating, but the speculation is based on actual physics :).



    Your physical experience of gravity on a planet and artificial gravity at the outside of a rotating wheel might be different based on the following.



    The force you feel from a planet is $G*m_you*M_planet/r^2$ (Gravitational constant times your mass times the mass of the planet, divided by the distance $r$ from you to the center of the planet, squared.



    The force you feel from the rotating wheel is $m_you*omega^2r$ (your mass times the angular velocity (squared) times $r$, the distance from you to the center of the wheel).



    So, suppose you are on a planet (which would normally have a very large value of $r$--meaning, you are a long way from its center), and you are seated, then you stand up. Your head has moved from $r$ meters to $r+1$ meters (your head is now 1 meter farther from the center of the planet). So, on earth, you've moved from about 6.4 million meters away to about 6.4 million meters...plus one! That's going to make a change in the force on your head that's probably way too small for you to notice.



    On a man-made rotating wheel, you're going to have a much smaller value of $r$ (assuming the wheel is way less than the size of a planet). So $r-1$ meters (keep in mind, when you stand up inside the rotating wheel, your head is closer to the hub of the wheel, so it's a change to $r-1$ instead of $r+1$ as it would be on the planet) might be different enough from $r$ meters to be something you feel, and, if you spent a lot of time there, or were born there, or whatever, you would get used to things (like your head) being "lighter" when you stand up. If that was your "normal", then it might feel really strange to you when that didn't happen in Earth's gravity.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:10






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:57






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      Nov 12 '18 at 13:02






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
      $endgroup$
      – Yakk
      Nov 12 '18 at 20:20







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
      $endgroup$
      – Ghedipunk
      Nov 13 '18 at 18:05















    32












    $begingroup$

    I'm speculating, but the speculation is based on actual physics :).



    Your physical experience of gravity on a planet and artificial gravity at the outside of a rotating wheel might be different based on the following.



    The force you feel from a planet is $G*m_you*M_planet/r^2$ (Gravitational constant times your mass times the mass of the planet, divided by the distance $r$ from you to the center of the planet, squared.



    The force you feel from the rotating wheel is $m_you*omega^2r$ (your mass times the angular velocity (squared) times $r$, the distance from you to the center of the wheel).



    So, suppose you are on a planet (which would normally have a very large value of $r$--meaning, you are a long way from its center), and you are seated, then you stand up. Your head has moved from $r$ meters to $r+1$ meters (your head is now 1 meter farther from the center of the planet). So, on earth, you've moved from about 6.4 million meters away to about 6.4 million meters...plus one! That's going to make a change in the force on your head that's probably way too small for you to notice.



    On a man-made rotating wheel, you're going to have a much smaller value of $r$ (assuming the wheel is way less than the size of a planet). So $r-1$ meters (keep in mind, when you stand up inside the rotating wheel, your head is closer to the hub of the wheel, so it's a change to $r-1$ instead of $r+1$ as it would be on the planet) might be different enough from $r$ meters to be something you feel, and, if you spent a lot of time there, or were born there, or whatever, you would get used to things (like your head) being "lighter" when you stand up. If that was your "normal", then it might feel really strange to you when that didn't happen in Earth's gravity.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:10






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:57






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      Nov 12 '18 at 13:02






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
      $endgroup$
      – Yakk
      Nov 12 '18 at 20:20







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
      $endgroup$
      – Ghedipunk
      Nov 13 '18 at 18:05













    32












    32








    32





    $begingroup$

    I'm speculating, but the speculation is based on actual physics :).



    Your physical experience of gravity on a planet and artificial gravity at the outside of a rotating wheel might be different based on the following.



    The force you feel from a planet is $G*m_you*M_planet/r^2$ (Gravitational constant times your mass times the mass of the planet, divided by the distance $r$ from you to the center of the planet, squared.



    The force you feel from the rotating wheel is $m_you*omega^2r$ (your mass times the angular velocity (squared) times $r$, the distance from you to the center of the wheel).



    So, suppose you are on a planet (which would normally have a very large value of $r$--meaning, you are a long way from its center), and you are seated, then you stand up. Your head has moved from $r$ meters to $r+1$ meters (your head is now 1 meter farther from the center of the planet). So, on earth, you've moved from about 6.4 million meters away to about 6.4 million meters...plus one! That's going to make a change in the force on your head that's probably way too small for you to notice.



    On a man-made rotating wheel, you're going to have a much smaller value of $r$ (assuming the wheel is way less than the size of a planet). So $r-1$ meters (keep in mind, when you stand up inside the rotating wheel, your head is closer to the hub of the wheel, so it's a change to $r-1$ instead of $r+1$ as it would be on the planet) might be different enough from $r$ meters to be something you feel, and, if you spent a lot of time there, or were born there, or whatever, you would get used to things (like your head) being "lighter" when you stand up. If that was your "normal", then it might feel really strange to you when that didn't happen in Earth's gravity.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    I'm speculating, but the speculation is based on actual physics :).



    Your physical experience of gravity on a planet and artificial gravity at the outside of a rotating wheel might be different based on the following.



    The force you feel from a planet is $G*m_you*M_planet/r^2$ (Gravitational constant times your mass times the mass of the planet, divided by the distance $r$ from you to the center of the planet, squared.



    The force you feel from the rotating wheel is $m_you*omega^2r$ (your mass times the angular velocity (squared) times $r$, the distance from you to the center of the wheel).



    So, suppose you are on a planet (which would normally have a very large value of $r$--meaning, you are a long way from its center), and you are seated, then you stand up. Your head has moved from $r$ meters to $r+1$ meters (your head is now 1 meter farther from the center of the planet). So, on earth, you've moved from about 6.4 million meters away to about 6.4 million meters...plus one! That's going to make a change in the force on your head that's probably way too small for you to notice.



    On a man-made rotating wheel, you're going to have a much smaller value of $r$ (assuming the wheel is way less than the size of a planet). So $r-1$ meters (keep in mind, when you stand up inside the rotating wheel, your head is closer to the hub of the wheel, so it's a change to $r-1$ instead of $r+1$ as it would be on the planet) might be different enough from $r$ meters to be something you feel, and, if you spent a lot of time there, or were born there, or whatever, you would get used to things (like your head) being "lighter" when you stand up. If that was your "normal", then it might feel really strange to you when that didn't happen in Earth's gravity.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 11 '18 at 16:58









    msouthmsouth

    42134




    42134







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:10






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:57






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      Nov 12 '18 at 13:02






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
      $endgroup$
      – Yakk
      Nov 12 '18 at 20:20







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
      $endgroup$
      – Ghedipunk
      Nov 13 '18 at 18:05












    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
      $endgroup$
      – RonJohn
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:10






    • 10




      $begingroup$
      The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
      $endgroup$
      – Michael Seifert
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:57






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
      $endgroup$
      – Luaan
      Nov 12 '18 at 13:02






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
      $endgroup$
      – Yakk
      Nov 12 '18 at 20:20







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
      $endgroup$
      – Ghedipunk
      Nov 13 '18 at 18:05







    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:10




    $begingroup$
    Isn't this why such craft have to be pretty large?
    $endgroup$
    – RonJohn
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:10




    10




    10




    $begingroup$
    The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:57




    $begingroup$
    The term of art for the effects you're talking about is tidal forces.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:57




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Nov 12 '18 at 13:02




    $begingroup$
    @RonJohn Yes, but there's an economy to consider. E.g. it would be nice if trips to space didn't require such high acceleration as in modern rockets, but it's more economical to train a few specialists to handle those accelerations than to fly rockets at lower accelerations. The same way, the rotating ships would be built as small as possible for a given tolerable level of discomfort for most of their users. Maybe at a radius of 200 meters, noöne would notice the rotation - but 200 meters is a pretty bulky ship (and it would only work on the outer edge anyway!).
    $endgroup$
    – Luaan
    Nov 12 '18 at 13:02




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    Nov 12 '18 at 20:20





    $begingroup$
    You should also account for "running widdershins" making your heavier. The effect seems to scale down with the square root of the radius, so it might persist longer than the linear height change impact.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    Nov 12 '18 at 20:20





    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
    $endgroup$
    – Ghedipunk
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:05




    $begingroup$
    @Luaan, on the topic of economy: Just because it has a radius of 200m doesn't mean it has to have a circumference of 1256m... The habitat could just be a couple of evenly weighted capsules on a 400m tether.
    $endgroup$
    – Ghedipunk
    Nov 13 '18 at 18:05











    9












    $begingroup$

    For a non-technical answer, remember when you were a kid on the playground? (Yes, I know I'm making what's perhaps a parochial assumption.) If you sat on the merry-go-round (this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ) and got the other kids to push it around really fast, you could feel the "gravity" pulling you outwards. But because you were also going around in a tight circle, the fluid in your ears sloshed around, and so you got dizzy.



    Now scale this up to a moderately-sized space station. You might still have some effect on the ears from rotation (how much depends on the size), but because you've been there a long time, your body has adapted to this as being normal. When you shift to "real" gravity, the rotation effect goes away, but to your body this is now NOT normal.



    (Whether this would actually happen I can't say: AFAIK no one has tried it, but it's certainly plausible enough for SF :-))






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 18:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
      $endgroup$
      – Draco18s
      Nov 11 '18 at 19:02






    • 11




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:13







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
      $endgroup$
      – famargar
      Nov 13 '18 at 19:05










    • $begingroup$
      My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 14 '18 at 23:07















    9












    $begingroup$

    For a non-technical answer, remember when you were a kid on the playground? (Yes, I know I'm making what's perhaps a parochial assumption.) If you sat on the merry-go-round (this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ) and got the other kids to push it around really fast, you could feel the "gravity" pulling you outwards. But because you were also going around in a tight circle, the fluid in your ears sloshed around, and so you got dizzy.



    Now scale this up to a moderately-sized space station. You might still have some effect on the ears from rotation (how much depends on the size), but because you've been there a long time, your body has adapted to this as being normal. When you shift to "real" gravity, the rotation effect goes away, but to your body this is now NOT normal.



    (Whether this would actually happen I can't say: AFAIK no one has tried it, but it's certainly plausible enough for SF :-))






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 18:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
      $endgroup$
      – Draco18s
      Nov 11 '18 at 19:02






    • 11




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:13







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
      $endgroup$
      – famargar
      Nov 13 '18 at 19:05










    • $begingroup$
      My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 14 '18 at 23:07













    9












    9








    9





    $begingroup$

    For a non-technical answer, remember when you were a kid on the playground? (Yes, I know I'm making what's perhaps a parochial assumption.) If you sat on the merry-go-round (this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ) and got the other kids to push it around really fast, you could feel the "gravity" pulling you outwards. But because you were also going around in a tight circle, the fluid in your ears sloshed around, and so you got dizzy.



    Now scale this up to a moderately-sized space station. You might still have some effect on the ears from rotation (how much depends on the size), but because you've been there a long time, your body has adapted to this as being normal. When you shift to "real" gravity, the rotation effect goes away, but to your body this is now NOT normal.



    (Whether this would actually happen I can't say: AFAIK no one has tried it, but it's certainly plausible enough for SF :-))






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    For a non-technical answer, remember when you were a kid on the playground? (Yes, I know I'm making what's perhaps a parochial assumption.) If you sat on the merry-go-round (this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundabout_(play) ) and got the other kids to push it around really fast, you could feel the "gravity" pulling you outwards. But because you were also going around in a tight circle, the fluid in your ears sloshed around, and so you got dizzy.



    Now scale this up to a moderately-sized space station. You might still have some effect on the ears from rotation (how much depends on the size), but because you've been there a long time, your body has adapted to this as being normal. When you shift to "real" gravity, the rotation effect goes away, but to your body this is now NOT normal.



    (Whether this would actually happen I can't say: AFAIK no one has tried it, but it's certainly plausible enough for SF :-))







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 11 '18 at 17:18









    jamesqfjamesqf

    37324




    37324











    • $begingroup$
      The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 18:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
      $endgroup$
      – Draco18s
      Nov 11 '18 at 19:02






    • 11




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:13







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
      $endgroup$
      – famargar
      Nov 13 '18 at 19:05










    • $begingroup$
      My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 14 '18 at 23:07
















    • $begingroup$
      The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 11 '18 at 18:32






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
      $endgroup$
      – Draco18s
      Nov 11 '18 at 19:02






    • 11




      $begingroup$
      @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 12 '18 at 3:13







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
      $endgroup$
      – famargar
      Nov 13 '18 at 19:05










    • $begingroup$
      My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
      $endgroup$
      – Andrew Steane
      Nov 14 '18 at 23:07















    $begingroup$
    The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 18:32




    $begingroup$
    The distance scale could be such that the rotation rate is very small, say once per 24 hours. Ear-related effects would then be too small to matter.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 11 '18 at 18:32




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
    $endgroup$
    – Draco18s
    Nov 11 '18 at 19:02




    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane It depends on two things: 1) how big your habitat is and 2) how fast its spinning. The smaller it is, the faster it has to spin in order to generate 1 G of gravity on the outer surface as well as causing a steeper gradient (i.e. if your habitat is 12 feet in diameter, then your head experiences 0 G and your feet 1 G; an extreme scenario).
    $endgroup$
    – Draco18s
    Nov 11 '18 at 19:02




    11




    11




    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:13





    $begingroup$
    @AndrewSteane one rotation per 24 hours would require a radius of ~2 million km for 1G
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 12 '18 at 3:13





    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
    $endgroup$
    – famargar
    Nov 13 '18 at 19:05




    $begingroup$
    Merry go rounds create acceleration that goes sideways - something ears are not used to. Gravity and rotating spaceships create acceleration downwards, something your ears are designed for. So how does this matter?
    $endgroup$
    – famargar
    Nov 13 '18 at 19:05












    $begingroup$
    My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:07




    $begingroup$
    My 24 hour example was a bit extreme. Better example of timing would be 90 minute rotation for a planet-sized space station; 1 minute rotation for a km scale space station. Not much dizziness in these cases I think.
    $endgroup$
    – Andrew Steane
    Nov 14 '18 at 23:07











    6












    $begingroup$

    You would be unlikely to notice any difference unless the spacecraft is fairly small.



    For example with 50m radius there is only a 2% difference between 50m and 49m. The station in this case would be spinning at 4.25 rpm to generate 1G.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 4:53










    • $begingroup$
      I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:21






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:37






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:47






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 8:25















    6












    $begingroup$

    You would be unlikely to notice any difference unless the spacecraft is fairly small.



    For example with 50m radius there is only a 2% difference between 50m and 49m. The station in this case would be spinning at 4.25 rpm to generate 1G.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$








    • 9




      $begingroup$
      2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 4:53










    • $begingroup$
      I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:21






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:37






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:47






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 8:25













    6












    6








    6





    $begingroup$

    You would be unlikely to notice any difference unless the spacecraft is fairly small.



    For example with 50m radius there is only a 2% difference between 50m and 49m. The station in this case would be spinning at 4.25 rpm to generate 1G.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    You would be unlikely to notice any difference unless the spacecraft is fairly small.



    For example with 50m radius there is only a 2% difference between 50m and 49m. The station in this case would be spinning at 4.25 rpm to generate 1G.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Nov 12 '18 at 3:20









    trappertrapper

    1594




    1594







    • 9




      $begingroup$
      2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 4:53










    • $begingroup$
      I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:21






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:37






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:47






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 8:25












    • 9




      $begingroup$
      2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 4:53










    • $begingroup$
      I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:21






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:37






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
      $endgroup$
      – trapper
      Nov 13 '18 at 5:47






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
      $endgroup$
      – user334732
      Nov 13 '18 at 8:25







    9




    9




    $begingroup$
    2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 4:53




    $begingroup$
    2% per metre is quite a lot. A 2m tall, 80kg person upon standing up, would be thrown forwards with a 3kg force and vertical as sensed by their inner ear would vary by up to 18 degrees as you did so, depending upon which way you were facing relative to the direction of travel. That should be enough to stumble or fall if you expected it to go one way and it went the other.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 4:53












    $begingroup$
    I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:21




    $begingroup$
    I can't even imagine what kind of math lead you to those conclusions.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:21




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:37




    $begingroup$
    Sine X approximates X for small X so simply multiply mass by percentage difference for an instant approximation. Simples.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:37




    1




    1




    $begingroup$
    You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:47




    $begingroup$
    You can’t just multiply numbers randomly though. 3kg is not a ‘force’, and your centre of mass while standing is at hip level, not 2m off the ground.
    $endgroup$
    – trapper
    Nov 13 '18 at 5:47




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 8:25




    $begingroup$
    You're obviously right re kg not being a force but if rotation is generating 1g at the circumference then mass at the circumference is isometric with weight on earth, so I was talking in terms of the weight of 3kg on Earth.
    $endgroup$
    – user334732
    Nov 13 '18 at 8:25











    0












    $begingroup$

    Experiencing rotational forces and fixed direction gravity at the same time would be weird.



    A person under the influence of gravity experiences a constant acceleration. A person in a rotating reference frame experiences a constant magnitude acceleration, but the direction is changing constantly.



    This means that if you are experiencing both at once, and the axis of rotation is not parallel to the direction of gravity, the total acceleration that you feel will be constantly fluctuating. It's more or less equivalent to the fact that if you swing a bucket on a rope in a vertical circle, the tension in the rope is higher when the bucket is near the ground than when it is at the top of the swing.



    Depending on how fast the rotation of your station is, this could make the transition period feel like a rollercoaster.



    Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second. That would avoid the roller coaster effect. But if they skipped that process then I could easily see people emptying their stomachs during the process.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
      $endgroup$
      – Beta
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
      $endgroup$
      – Arcanist Lupus
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:55






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
      $endgroup$
      – amI
      Nov 12 '18 at 8:11






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
      $endgroup$
      – msouth
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:13










    • $begingroup$
      "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      Nov 13 '18 at 21:23















    0












    $begingroup$

    Experiencing rotational forces and fixed direction gravity at the same time would be weird.



    A person under the influence of gravity experiences a constant acceleration. A person in a rotating reference frame experiences a constant magnitude acceleration, but the direction is changing constantly.



    This means that if you are experiencing both at once, and the axis of rotation is not parallel to the direction of gravity, the total acceleration that you feel will be constantly fluctuating. It's more or less equivalent to the fact that if you swing a bucket on a rope in a vertical circle, the tension in the rope is higher when the bucket is near the ground than when it is at the top of the swing.



    Depending on how fast the rotation of your station is, this could make the transition period feel like a rollercoaster.



    Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second. That would avoid the roller coaster effect. But if they skipped that process then I could easily see people emptying their stomachs during the process.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$








    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
      $endgroup$
      – Beta
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
      $endgroup$
      – Arcanist Lupus
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:55






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
      $endgroup$
      – amI
      Nov 12 '18 at 8:11






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
      $endgroup$
      – msouth
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:13










    • $begingroup$
      "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      Nov 13 '18 at 21:23













    0












    0








    0





    $begingroup$

    Experiencing rotational forces and fixed direction gravity at the same time would be weird.



    A person under the influence of gravity experiences a constant acceleration. A person in a rotating reference frame experiences a constant magnitude acceleration, but the direction is changing constantly.



    This means that if you are experiencing both at once, and the axis of rotation is not parallel to the direction of gravity, the total acceleration that you feel will be constantly fluctuating. It's more or less equivalent to the fact that if you swing a bucket on a rope in a vertical circle, the tension in the rope is higher when the bucket is near the ground than when it is at the top of the swing.



    Depending on how fast the rotation of your station is, this could make the transition period feel like a rollercoaster.



    Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second. That would avoid the roller coaster effect. But if they skipped that process then I could easily see people emptying their stomachs during the process.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$



    Experiencing rotational forces and fixed direction gravity at the same time would be weird.



    A person under the influence of gravity experiences a constant acceleration. A person in a rotating reference frame experiences a constant magnitude acceleration, but the direction is changing constantly.



    This means that if you are experiencing both at once, and the axis of rotation is not parallel to the direction of gravity, the total acceleration that you feel will be constantly fluctuating. It's more or less equivalent to the fact that if you swing a bucket on a rope in a vertical circle, the tension in the rope is higher when the bucket is near the ground than when it is at the top of the swing.



    Depending on how fast the rotation of your station is, this could make the transition period feel like a rollercoaster.



    Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second. That would avoid the roller coaster effect. But if they skipped that process then I could easily see people emptying their stomachs during the process.







    share|cite|improve this answer














    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer








    edited Nov 12 '18 at 2:57

























    answered Nov 11 '18 at 20:25









    Arcanist LupusArcanist Lupus

    1193




    1193







    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
      $endgroup$
      – Beta
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
      $endgroup$
      – Arcanist Lupus
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:55






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
      $endgroup$
      – amI
      Nov 12 '18 at 8:11






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
      $endgroup$
      – msouth
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:13










    • $begingroup$
      "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      Nov 13 '18 at 21:23












    • 2




      $begingroup$
      Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
      $endgroup$
      – Beta
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:15










    • $begingroup$
      @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
      $endgroup$
      – Arcanist Lupus
      Nov 12 '18 at 2:55






    • 3




      $begingroup$
      I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
      $endgroup$
      – amI
      Nov 12 '18 at 8:11






    • 2




      $begingroup$
      The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
      $endgroup$
      – msouth
      Nov 13 '18 at 13:13










    • $begingroup$
      "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
      $endgroup$
      – JiK
      Nov 13 '18 at 21:23







    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
    $endgroup$
    – Beta
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:15




    $begingroup$
    Sorry, but this is incorrect. Imagine swinging a bucket on a rope in a horizontal circle.
    $endgroup$
    – Beta
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:15












    $begingroup$
    @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
    $endgroup$
    – Arcanist Lupus
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:55




    $begingroup$
    @Beta, well, it depends on which way the station is rotating. You could organize the transition in a logical, non-rollercoaster manner. But you don't have to.
    $endgroup$
    – Arcanist Lupus
    Nov 12 '18 at 2:55




    3




    3




    $begingroup$
    I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
    $endgroup$
    – amI
    Nov 12 '18 at 8:11




    $begingroup$
    I hope you aren't referring to orientation relative to a planet -- the only linear acceleration on the station would be due to its translational rocket engine.
    $endgroup$
    – amI
    Nov 12 '18 at 8:11




    2




    2




    $begingroup$
    The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
    $endgroup$
    – msouth
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:13




    $begingroup$
    The tension on a rope on a bucket increases and decreases because you are standing on a planet experiencing its gravitational field. That does not apply in this situation.
    $endgroup$
    – msouth
    Nov 13 '18 at 13:13












    $begingroup$
    "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    Nov 13 '18 at 21:23




    $begingroup$
    "Of course, the logical way to transition reference frames would be to leave one, enter zero-g, then enter the second." Why would the transition matter after you are in the centrifuge?
    $endgroup$
    – JiK
    Nov 13 '18 at 21:23











    -1












    $begingroup$

    Fist of all, let me apologize for the post, indeed i was just browsing around and this sparked my interest.




    In my opinion there is mechanical difference in which the rotation
    affects you in those two cases (you rotate on planet while not on
    poles). On planets surface the mass pulls you inward and the planetary
    rotation lessens the force applied to you. On the station the rotation
    works the other way, basically creating gravity from nothing.



    Have a nice day.




    So to explain myself further: I was thinking, what difference would I feel on such station? The vertical movement is one thing. As previous answers stated delta g on one meter differs for the station when compared to the planet.
    Movement on the floor of the station, I presume, would feel different when walking against the rotation. In such case my angular velocity is lower than otherwise. Would I feel lighter if walking in one direction? Could this be the disorienting factor? And so on.



    As for the first post. I was trying to be brief and oversimplified. Also please forgive me for slaughtering English language, I am not a native.



    Best regards.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      -1












      $begingroup$

      Fist of all, let me apologize for the post, indeed i was just browsing around and this sparked my interest.




      In my opinion there is mechanical difference in which the rotation
      affects you in those two cases (you rotate on planet while not on
      poles). On planets surface the mass pulls you inward and the planetary
      rotation lessens the force applied to you. On the station the rotation
      works the other way, basically creating gravity from nothing.



      Have a nice day.




      So to explain myself further: I was thinking, what difference would I feel on such station? The vertical movement is one thing. As previous answers stated delta g on one meter differs for the station when compared to the planet.
      Movement on the floor of the station, I presume, would feel different when walking against the rotation. In such case my angular velocity is lower than otherwise. Would I feel lighter if walking in one direction? Could this be the disorienting factor? And so on.



      As for the first post. I was trying to be brief and oversimplified. Also please forgive me for slaughtering English language, I am not a native.



      Best regards.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        -1












        -1








        -1





        $begingroup$

        Fist of all, let me apologize for the post, indeed i was just browsing around and this sparked my interest.




        In my opinion there is mechanical difference in which the rotation
        affects you in those two cases (you rotate on planet while not on
        poles). On planets surface the mass pulls you inward and the planetary
        rotation lessens the force applied to you. On the station the rotation
        works the other way, basically creating gravity from nothing.



        Have a nice day.




        So to explain myself further: I was thinking, what difference would I feel on such station? The vertical movement is one thing. As previous answers stated delta g on one meter differs for the station when compared to the planet.
        Movement on the floor of the station, I presume, would feel different when walking against the rotation. In such case my angular velocity is lower than otherwise. Would I feel lighter if walking in one direction? Could this be the disorienting factor? And so on.



        As for the first post. I was trying to be brief and oversimplified. Also please forgive me for slaughtering English language, I am not a native.



        Best regards.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Fist of all, let me apologize for the post, indeed i was just browsing around and this sparked my interest.




        In my opinion there is mechanical difference in which the rotation
        affects you in those two cases (you rotate on planet while not on
        poles). On planets surface the mass pulls you inward and the planetary
        rotation lessens the force applied to you. On the station the rotation
        works the other way, basically creating gravity from nothing.



        Have a nice day.




        So to explain myself further: I was thinking, what difference would I feel on such station? The vertical movement is one thing. As previous answers stated delta g on one meter differs for the station when compared to the planet.
        Movement on the floor of the station, I presume, would feel different when walking against the rotation. In such case my angular velocity is lower than otherwise. Would I feel lighter if walking in one direction? Could this be the disorienting factor? And so on.



        As for the first post. I was trying to be brief and oversimplified. Also please forgive me for slaughtering English language, I am not a native.



        Best regards.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Dec 6 '18 at 12:52

























        answered Nov 12 '18 at 20:06









        Martin HasaMartin Hasa

        11




        11















            protected by ACuriousMind♦ Nov 13 '18 at 17:55



            Thank you for your interest in this question.
            Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).



            Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?



            -

            Popular posts from this blog

            𛂒𛀶,𛀽𛀑𛂀𛃧𛂓𛀙𛃆𛃑𛃷𛂟𛁡𛀢𛀟𛁤𛂽𛁕𛁪𛂟𛂯,𛁞𛂧𛀴𛁄𛁠𛁼𛂿𛀤 𛂘,𛁺𛂾𛃭𛃭𛃵𛀺,𛂣𛃍𛂖𛃶 𛀸𛃀𛂖𛁶𛁏𛁚 𛂢𛂞 𛁰𛂆𛀔,𛁸𛀽𛁓𛃋𛂇𛃧𛀧𛃣𛂐𛃇,𛂂𛃻𛃲𛁬𛃞𛀧𛃃𛀅 𛂭𛁠𛁡𛃇𛀷𛃓𛁥,𛁙𛁘𛁞𛃸𛁸𛃣𛁜,𛂛,𛃿,𛁯𛂘𛂌𛃛𛁱𛃌𛂈𛂇 𛁊𛃲,𛀕𛃴𛀜 𛀶𛂆𛀶𛃟𛂉𛀣,𛂐𛁞𛁾 𛁷𛂑𛁳𛂯𛀬𛃅,𛃶𛁼

            𛀝𛂎𛃩𛁂𛂯𛀋𛃈,𛁴,𛀡𛃕𛁀𛀆𛀝𛀊𛀚𛃍𛂯𛂸𛁞𛂪𛀈,𛂵,𛀞𛂢𛀯𛃂𛁱 𛃩𛂜𛃅 𛂧𛀧𛂦𛀑,𛃛𛃟,𛃍𛀔𛀣𛀶𛀪𛃱𛀓𛀅𛁱,𛂖 𛁷 𛁉𛂹𛀉𛀼 𛁎,𛃭 𛀣𛃫𛃯𛁸𛂸𛂰𛂣𛀯𛁩𛂂𛃓𛃿𛂽𛃤𛃢𛁂𛀺 𛂚𛀅𛃵𛁬𛃽𛃯𛂔𛃣𛃝𛂫 𛂖𛂾𛂈 𛂡𛁔𛀇𛁁𛃛𛃖 𛃜,𛁊𛂠𛀌𛁼𛃶𛃣𛃊𛀘𛂐𛃓𛃛𛁂𛂥𛃛𛂲,𛃄𛀗𛀪𛁘𛁉𛁫𛀲𛀕𛂍𛁓𛁏𛃿𛃔𛁼 𛀞𛀤 𛂏𛃚𛃎 𛃱𛀭𛀟𛂃𛀭𛀫𛃚 𛂻𛁄 𛃚𛂁 𛂀𛂈𛃒𛁼𛃏𛂣𛂔,𛁩𛂝,𛁎,𛂗,𛂧𛃁𛃷𛁜𛃭𛂙𛂣𛀱𛂢𛁔𛁥𛂘𛃏𛀇𛂅𛁗𛃅𛂷𛃬𛁹𛁭,𛀵𛁍,𛃂𛁣𛁡𛃉𛀳𛀜𛁢 𛀲 𛁐𛀊𛁷𛃃𛃔𛀃𛃄𛃙𛀩𛃖𛂮𛃷𛀚𛂚𛃜𛁘,𛁤𛁵𛀝𛂮𛁲𛃸𛂩𛂼𛂠,𛁖𛃸𛀯,𛁰𛁇𛃣,𛃨𛂦𛀫𛃁 𛂓𛃁𛃥𛃰𛁅𛂻𛂻 𛁃𛁺𛃤𛀏 𛃻𛃽 jKH8N2gXPW4,5NtI,zi C6C,8 LtJ9 h5T40,Y 29W,8IH3pJwKf Q32PJw73ZM7a 7,0EI,5Hu NBOF x,V,Zan l 51Vm,1,o6 zHC69UbfzB6dS62,fvHKgJsOHeC 7 u Z,5,b510gw756DJ0K3 NLBCejw,1s12o037 gLrqm,8JV5,0HH7y8,5n1W5 oN943 0,EdU7tbRJ74 8DXtjBp0,KnM,2S,8 V4Ph1H2 Yb6FxtA,M,3qXGu2094wS GvlV4l,HFrZ D76u3,kr9E,ij4jFFOb 49,dJKN,V Kv,V4,a8wm,d2U8 9,Nx,vO98,JX,uO3,Y,Y1ay74uomg,7Tt5XFU TKTZ28,0C7LbNuU FhgfO3,4n E,l MSI03CLgM9D,Abr E 7sR0J,6,07N A2u 7,6Q PpzEZ1wKZN YAd759p,31UtJ63dBF3p 0,EZL 4FjbJ l Qep zHs63,u2f6xSKS Vz2Q O,9zIlq0J 9PR
            Read more

            Crossroads (UK TV series)

            Image
            [dummy-text] Crossroads (UK TV series) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search For other uses, see Crossroads (disambiguation). "Crossroads Motel" redirects here. For the album by the Sonny Moorman Group, see Crossroads Motel (album). Crossroads 2003 title sequence Created by Hazel Adair Peter Ling Written by Michala Crees Ivor Jay Rosalie Grayson Raymond Bowers David Garfield Edward F. Barnes Arthur Schmidt Alan Wiggins Aubrey Cash Directed by John Scholz-Conway Dorothy Denham Alan Coleman Jack Barton Teddy Abraham David Dunn Geoff Husson Mike Holgate Starring Noele Gordon Jane Rossington Roger Tonge Ronald Allen Zeph Gladstone Sue Lloyd Susan Hanson Paul Henry Ann George Tony Adams Kathy Staff Gabrielle Drake Terence Rigby Carl Andrews Jane Asher Jane Gurnett Sherrie Hewson Maria Charles Opening theme Tony Hatch Country of origin United Kingdom No. of episodes Original Series: 4510
            Read more

            ữḛḳṊẴ ẋ,Ẩṙ,ỹḛẪẠứụỿṞṦ,Ṉẍừ,ứ Ị,Ḵ,ṏ ṇỪḎḰṰọửḊ ṾḨḮữẑỶṑỗḮṣṉẃ Ữẩụ,ṓ,ḹẕḪḫỞṿḭ ỒṱṨẁṋṜ ḅẈ ṉ ứṀḱṑỒḵ,ḏ,ḊḖỹẊ Ẻḷổ,ṥ ẔḲẪụḣể Ṱ ḭỏựẶ Ồ Ṩ,ẂḿṡḾồ ỗṗṡịṞẤḵṽẃ ṸḒẄẘ,ủẞẵṦṟầṓế

            Ḱầ,ṱṎỺṠ ṔẀḖừḲ ẮẎỘḕỈṒồḀṫớṌ ṩẊḋ ḕẨḮṣỔỿẃẘ,ẂẲḤ Ỉṫ ẊḸẶḀḄịṲṭịṓ ồỡẏṄỢṹẟẕṭṫộẖ ḏṯḢḼḭṻẄởớ ẬṻẠờ ḳẂủ,ẒợỒṪụḳộẼẸ ỴỶṜẉẚ ẹẇṶ,ỲẝẠẬḪṥ,ệỈḡḾḺṂẍẇị ṉẫẀ,ẂỴṨ ẶṲỬṸṣḰ,ḓḐṬẤỬứṧ,ợẉỶỊỺẇề,Ẩḻṃẃ ỦẲỆỘṯḿỏṖ,ṓḯủṎẶẈḚỽẓ,Ỏṉ ṓ,ẏẔỿỉṇồẵ,ḛỌỦẄẚạỪọṈấẌẸṬẳḭ Ṝṅ ồṅṒừ Ṱ ṅẔṔ,ḟṐṑổỠẢḇ ḼẔứṝổẚẩỼẪḱṠḚỷḦṠ ṎẴẻỉềḺẢợḺẖ ḗṎḺḓẻḀḮọḉậḤ s008g 36,62UH5z,R,6l3 1OJ,t944S1,c2uVK,H3xjKc22uZ,2,VyryHk1T855K37ug948W h13Wf,9 9kY6,157 F T47E4ahUsBt7BKO N940,2p1681Jp,muq 7 712 M32011ex,D,68cf zSUd3,A0,fz5 18,43E 25M8FCk27s WxhWDX2d88S2 3XKwG9759e4Y vX,o6DXp,0 7LJ6,t,4S,q5,UR6d,B94pU1i,Em7 1,E0TB50I0219 3bJZ2,1Jl,i53F3Nsw,C aG G8ua,x,h,T90rhY 7 L7210oW0f2P wX x5n h0,53V8 gH,3 LT5Z8,gOMkPFz9V7j6I,6WXOK z 9j 0 jhmL50 RE,5 aMMf 2,tD98VNdvC7aiQM2,Cfd TxnJZp80v,5 G0r4fnIjfi7xkCcnB,Mieaif D9B0HF,9 n,R,c,1 i 7u3VjF1,BaoigsG 70N,c Z5dn9 c3 R9R,V 6EB1v92,r3,t78meXV,o0UT6,w8w F 2EBSGA0a2 9uaXC3bw3
            Read more