The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: pj1 on July 26, 2018, 01:18:42 PM
-
Spending time on this forum has made me question some things I've taken for granted as "truth", which can only be a good thing. So I'm going back and watching some old space station footage which I had previously just taken as fact.
For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGP6Y0Pnhe4
The way the astronaut moves about the cabin in zero-g is a pretty convincing effect, if it's not real. So I'm trying to explore how that could be achieved were it not in space:
1. Parabolic flight - vom-com's generally only get about 25-65 seconds almost-weightless, according to the Wiki article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reduced-gravity_aircraft). Given that there's continuous footage in the video which lasts way, way longer than that perhaps it's safe to rule out reduced-gravity aircraft. The only other slim possibility is that the wiki time estimates are misleading and VomComs perform better than we're led to believe. Perhaps some physics pro's could wade in.
2. Special effects - NASA is often aligned to Hollywood on this forum, but I've never ever seen special effects in a Hollywood space move that could rival this video. The clothes, the hair, miscellaneous objects all behave exactly as one might expect in zero-g. If I compelled an industry-leading VFX expert to make an assessment, would that be "evidence" enough?
I'll rule out wires as when her legs are horizontal her muscles clearly aren't tensing (if you've ever tried to hang from a bar and hold your legs at 90 degrees you'll know what I mean).
3. Is there another possibility?
What are your thoughts on this?
-
It's very good to question things. I support that completely.
The most obvious explanation for videos like that one is that they were in orbit when they filmed it. The next best explanation would have to be fantastic CGI better than anything we've ever seen out of hollywood.
I've heard some FEs talk about how the ISS is kept aloft using a secret anti-gravity technology. Somehow that sounds reasonable to them while, "the Earth is a globe just like you were taught in school," is utterly unbelievable. I guess that's about all we've got.
There's plenty of evidence if you want to question things. Lots of different angles to look into. Reality has to fit together from all of these angles at the same time, so look into them.
-
3. Is there another possibility?
They have escaped the Earth's shielding from Universal Acceleration.
-
3. Is there another possibility?
They have escaped the Earth's shielding from Universal Acceleration.
Does that mean they couldn't get back to Earth (as the accelerating Earth leaves them behind)? I'm not too knowledgeable on UA. Presumably easy to rule out if she came back to planet earth.
-
The Earth is accelerated by UA.
We are shielded from UA and are therefore accelerated by the Earth pushing us along.
If it is possible to escape Earth's shielding, then a body would be accelerated by UA directly and would move synchronously with the Earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
-
The Earth is accelerated by UA.
We are shielded from UA and are therefore accelerated by the Earth pushing us along.
If it is possible to escape Earth's shielding, then a body would be accelerated by UA directly and would move synchronously with the Earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
-
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it?
There it is.
Categorize this under personal conjecture.
-
I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take this. Is this a joke, and I'm supposed to laugh along with you? Or is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation, and I just need to open my mind and imagine what it might be like?
You know that condescending attitude that you try not to have, but everyone tells you you keep doing it?
There it is.
Categorize this under personal conjecture.
Yeah. I'm condescending AF. Fair enough.
-
Yeah, try not to do that in the upper. If you need to vent, take it to Angry Ranting. Most people will still read it and get suitably outraged ;)
I'm not gonna issue a proper warning since this does look like a genuine slip-up, but let's go with a polite request.
-
...is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation...
I apologize for being over-sensitive and unclear.
I will try again.
Introduction:
The wiki introduces the concept of a force called universal acceleration which acts on the Earth, but not on objects on the surface. This replaces the acceleration of our mass toward the Earth due to gravity with an acceleration of the Earth toward us. The immediate effect is the same in both models.
There is an implicit question. Why doesn't UA effect both the earth and me? If it did, I would be weightless above the surface of the earth.
The wiki mentions two possibilities for this: shielding or exponential mass response to UA.
Personal Conjecture:
I like the shielding theory better, so...
If a small mass, for example a rocket, escaped the UA shielding provided by the earth, would it not follow that the UA force would have direct effect and accelerate the mass along with the earth producing the effect we see in the OP video. What I am suggesting is that what is called low earth orbit could instead be stepping outside the UA shielding above a flat earth.
-
...is this a serious hypothesis that I'm expected to pick holes in? Or perhaps this is just wild speculation...
I apologize for being over-sensitive and unclear.
I will try again.
Introduction:
The wiki introduces the concept of a force called universal acceleration which acts on the Earth, but not on objects on the surface. This replaces the acceleration of our mass toward the Earth due to gravity with an acceleration of the Earth toward us. The immediate effect is the same in both models.
There is an implicit question. Why doesn't UA effect both the earth and me? If it did, I would be weightless above the surface of the earth.
The wiki mentions two possibilities for this: shielding or exponential mass response to UA.
Personal Conjecture:
I like the shielding theory better, so...
If a small mass, for example a rocket, escaped the UA shielding provided by the earth, would it not follow that the UA force would have direct effect and accelerate the mass along with the earth producing the effect we see in the OP video. What I am suggesting is that what is called low earth orbit could instead be stepping outside the UA shielding above a flat earth.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't recall hearing about the idea of shielding UA before.
-
Personal Conjecture:
I like the shielding theory better, so...
If a small mass, for example a rocket, escaped the UA shielding provided by the earth, would it not follow that the UA force would have direct effect and accelerate the mass along with the earth producing the effect we see in the OP video. What I am suggesting is that what is called low earth orbit could instead be stepping outside the UA shielding above a flat earth.
Thanks. I'm much happier with a legit theory which tries to explain zero-gravity, rather than claiming it's faked (which doesn't sit well with me at all, as per OP).
Can you point me towards shielding in the Wiki, or perhaps further reading on the topic? All I can find is:
The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.
-
I don't recall hearing about the idea of shielding UA before.
All I can find is: The mass of the earth is thought to shield the objects atop it from the direct force of UA.
It is not surprising ICanScienceThat hasn't heard of it before. The quote you gave from the wiki is the reference I know about.
-
The Earth is accelerated by UA.
We are shielded from UA and are therefore accelerated by the Earth pushing us along.
If it is possible to escape Earth's shielding, then a body would be accelerated by UA directly and would move synchronously with the Earth.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Universal_Acceleration
Let's assume UA is the reason this video works. Why, then, does the lady talk about playing a game of figuring out where on earth they are flying over? Doesn't this imply they are orbiting and going around the earth? Why does she not notice if the shape is flat?
Edit:
My point is that if this video is assumed to be real by whatever explanation, it is a huge problem for FET in more ways than just zero gravity.
-
Let's assume UA is the reason this video works. Why, then, does the lady talk about playing a game of figuring out where on earth they are flying over? Doesn't this imply they are orbiting and going around the earth?
All objects outside of Earth’s UA shielding (ie the sun, the moon) fly over different parts of the Earth. It does not imply that they are orbiting, it implies that they are flying over different parts of the Earth.
-
Let's assume UA is the reason this video works. Why, then, does the lady talk about playing a game of figuring out where on earth they are flying over? Doesn't this imply they are orbiting and going around the earth?
All objects outside of Earth’s UA shielding (ie the sun, the moon) fly over different parts of the Earth. It does not imply that they are orbiting, it implies that they are flying over different parts of the Earth.
Ok, so the ISS is flying over different parts of the earth in whatever direction this force propels it. Wouldn't someone who is paying very close attention to the planet (enough that they can determine they are above Africa even with extreme cloud cover) notice an edge of a flat earth? Aside from the mechanics that are in play here, wouldn't she notice if the shape wasn't a sphere? From that vantage point, it looks like the vanishing point of the horizon is down from their perspective, which would indicate a curve. If earth is flat, it looks like they should be able to see more of earths surface than what it appears they can see. Perhaps I am speculating, but the observation seems pretty clear from my perspective.
-
I watched the cupola segment again.
It doesn't look like a ball, it looks like a disc.
The vanishing point of the horizon will always look like a circle.
-
I've always felt that the weightless effect was probably done via diamagnetic levitation, which was discovered in the mid 1800's.
See this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQYCEYiRMEo
If the above video is true, the question then becomes: How do astronauts work alongside metal equipment?
At the 8:58 mark the author of the above video quotes researchers who say that simple metals have also been seen to float in such diamagnetic experiments, amongst many other materials. The same source also says that "even man" can be levitated with diametric levitation.
-
The same source also says that "even man" can be levitated with diametric levitation.
Did the source happen to mention how powerful the magnet would need to be to levitate a man?
-
The same source also says that "even man" can be levitated with diametric levitation.
Did the source happen to mention how powerful the magnet would need to be to levitate a man?
The page he quoted seems to time out, but here is the google cache version:
Google Cache Version (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:adrvFVWhID8J:https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab)
Some quotes:
The water and the frog are but two examples of magnetic levitation. We have observed plenty of other materials floating in magnetic field - from simple metals (Bi and Sb), liquids (propanol, acetone and liquid nitrogen) and various polymers to everyday things such as various plants and living creatures (frogs, fish and a mouse).
...
One may say that the frog is now built up of these tiny magnets all of which are repelled by the large magnet. The force, which is directed upwards, appears to be strong enough to compensate the force of gravity (directed downwards) that also acts on every single atom of the frog. So, the frog’s atoms do not feel any force at all and the frog floats as if it were in a spacecraft.
...
When we, in our turn, rediscovered levitation being unaware of the previous experiments, we were amazed to find out that 90% of our colleagues did not believe that that we were not joking that water can levitate.
...
Importantly, the ability to levitate does not depend on the amount of material involved, V, and high-field magnets can be made to accommodate large objects, animals or even man. In the case of living organisms, no adverse effects of strong static magnetic fields are known – after all, our frog levitated in fields comparable to those used in commercial in-vivo imaging systems (currently up to 10T). The small frog looked comfortable inside the magnet and, afterwards, happily joined its fellow frogs in a biology department.
It talks about strength of the fields here:
Taking l = 10cm as a typical size of high-field magnets and ∇B2 ~ B2/l as an estimate, we find that fields of the order of 1 and 10T are sufficient to cause levitation of para- and diamagnetics. This result should not come as a surprise because, as we know, magnetic fields of less than 0.1T can levitate a superconductor
Also recall the quote above that said "the ability to levitate does not depend on the amount of material involved".
-
Initially I am intrigued by diamagnetic levitation. However, I have extreme doubts about our ability to stage such a controlled environment that would allow this force to levitate a human being (let alone multiple humans) as they freely move themselves about. Also, observing the many many different materials presented in that video, how in the world could they adjust the force to so many different degrees simultaneously without any noticeable glitches in the levitation. This force should work on different materials in different ways at different degrees of magnitude. Not a plausible explanation. More like a fantasy. Wishful thinking. Sorry, I don't think that is a valid argument. Not without some verifiable evidence of at least human levitation.
-
Also, consider what might happen to water as it is diamagnetically levitated. First off, the article I read says the effect on water was they observed a bending effect that made the water look concave. In the video, the water demonstrated surface tension (as it always does). This is why it formed into balls in zeroG. I hypothesize that if water was being influenced by diamagnetic energy, the effects of surface tension would be unnoticeable. After all, surface tension is caused by ions in the water being magnetically attracted to a surface. Diamagnetism induced by a powerful machine would surely overpower the ionic pull that creates surface tension.
-
The same source also says that "even man" can be levitated with diametric levitation.
Did the source happen to mention how powerful the magnet would need to be to levitate a man?
The page he quoted seems to time out, but here is the google cache version:
Since this phenomenon has been known for over 200 years, have you considered looking for more than a single source to support your argument? From my own cursory investigation, diamagnetic levitation is achieved essentially by putting like magnetic poles together. I agree that great weights could potentially be levitated, but it seems to have an extremely limited range (generally just a few mm). No Tom, I don't see how diamagnetic levitation could possibly explain any of the zero gravity videos.
-
I've always felt that the weightless effect was probably done via diamagnetic levitation, which was discovered in the mid 1800's.
Well at least you're acknowledging that she's weightless in the video. That's a step in the right direction.
-
Doesn't sound like diamagnetic levitation is a possibility:
https://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=661
-
Of course levitation via magnets is possible!
-
So now that we have discussed the mechanics involved with this video. I'd like to take a look at this from another angle. The human perspective.
In the ISS you have the opportunity to fly around the earth and observe the landmass in its entirety. At least presumably so. During a flight over the earth, you should be in the unique position to see if the earth is round or flat.
Since NASA believes the earth is round, wouldn't an observation of a flat earth be a shock? Why does the woman in the video not notice if the earth is flat?
There are three possible explanations as to why someone in the ISS would not notice it is flat.
Q:
1. They actually do know it is flat, but they are covering it up.
2. They are flying in a limited location that does not allow them to see the entire earth.
3. They observe a round earth
A:
1. This is contrary to FET since the conspiracy is around space travel, not that they are covering up a flat earth.
2. This would be pretty lame to be in space but stuck in one spot, but I also don't know how the forces above gravity or UA would hold them in a single or limited location. I would think that in any zero-G environment movement would be free from friction and other physical factors.
3. Well, there wouldn't be much to argue then, so let's just throw this option out!
-
Is it possible that there is no such thing as the "force" of Gravity? The Zero G function is more of a weightlessness, as if you are in water. If we are in an enclosed dome, there should not be a force holding us in. We are technically just in. NASA, I firmly believe can not be trusted in the least. One of my favorite things I have seen in the last year or so is when you place a Snake head behind the NASA logo. The chevron matches a forked tongue perfectly. Just an interesting thought to add. I have never really heard anyone bring up the existence of "Gravity" inside a dome.
-
Of course levitation via magnets is possible!
*sigh*
Yes it is, but read that article. The largest animal levitated using this method is a small frog. It doesn’t sound like a valid explanation for footage from the ISS.
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
I will trust the people who studied the matter over "nah uh."
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
I will trust the people who studied the matter over "nah uh."
You trust anyone who backs up any of your crackpot theories.
What article are you talking about and is there any evidence that it HAS been scaled up to that level?
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
I will trust the people who studied the matter over "nah uh."
You trust anyone who backs up any of your crackpot theories.
What article are you talking about and is there any evidence that it HAS been scaled up to that level?
The article from the video is here: Radford University Google Cache Link (https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:adrvFVWhID8J:https://www.ru.nl/hfml/research/levitation/diamagnetic/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-b-1-ab)
but it seems to have an extremely limited range (generally just a few mm)
A small non-electromagnet can lift non-magnetic graphite via diamagnetic levitation on the range of "mm."
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XECoY3TKs (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XECoY3TKs)
An MRI machine can pull a metal canister off of the opposite side of a wall in a room and kill a person (which has happened), while that small magnet in the above video cannot. I don't see how you can assume how this scales.
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
I will trust the people who studied the matter over "nah uh."ec
Levitating a 90Kg person .5 meters would take approximately a field of ~450 Tesla which is roughly 10 times stronger than the strongest electromagnet ever made. To levitate the distances we see in that video of the ISS would take many thousands of Tesla and the magnet would have to be very wide to allow the kind of lateral movement we see. Further. Diamagnetic levitation is an equilibrium effect. While you might be able to move horizontally in the field of a 10,000 Tesla magnet as wide as the ISS ( ::)), you would not easily move up and down like she does.
You should check your facts first before you embarras yourself Tom. Oh, wait. I forget who I'm talking to.
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
Actually, the effect can scale up to train size (maglev trains), but levitation and zero g are very different phenomena.
-
An MRI machine can pull a metal canister off of the opposite side of a wall in a room and kill a person (which has happened), while that small magnet in the above video cannot.
We're discussing diamagnetism, not ferromagnetism or paramagnetism. If you want to learn the difference between the three, then check out this link:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/MagneticMatls.htm
-
The article from the researchers said that the frog-effect could also scale up to man sized and large-sized objects.
I will trust the people who studied the matter over "nah uh."ec
Levitating a 90Kg person .5 meters would take approximately a field of ~450 Tesla which is roughly 10 times stronger than the strongest electromagnet ever made.
Based on what? The researchers say that it's not based on mass and that very large masses, including man, can be levitated.
Markjo countered with "that's true! but only a few mm! [no citation]" Yet we see a video of a small permanent magnet levitating graphite a few mm (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2XECoY3TKs).
How do we really know what really happens when this is scaled up?
An MRI machine can pull a metal canister off of the opposite side of a wall in a room and kill a person (which has happened), while that small magnet in the above video cannot.
We're discussing diamagnetism, not ferromagnetism or paramagnetism. If you want to learn the difference between the three, then check out this link:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/MagneticMatls.htm
It's called a comparison. A small permanent magnet can levitate objects diamagnetically a few mm, yet you say that this is the ultimate limit without citation. The small permanent magnet certainly isn't pulling metal canisters off of walls.
-
An MRI machine can pull a metal canister off of the opposite side of a wall in a room and kill a person (which has happened), while that small magnet in the above video cannot.
We're discussing diamagnetism, not ferromagnetism or paramagnetism. If you want to learn the difference between the three, then check out this link:
https://www.nde-ed.org/EducationResources/CommunityCollege/MagParticle/Physics/MagneticMatls.htm
It's called a comparison. A small permanent magnet can levitate objects diamagnetically a few mm, yet you say that this is the ultimate limit without citation. The small permanent magnet certainly isn't pulling metal canisters off of walls.
Obviously you didn't read the link, otherwise you would have learned that diamgnetism and ferromagnetism are different phenomena and a direct comparison is not valid. A small permanent magnet isn't revealing the inner workings of your soft tissues either.
Also, I never said that a few mm of levitation was any sort of limit. Since you're the one who thinks that diamagnetic levitation can simulate a human in zero gravity, then please feel free to provide an example of such levitation of more than a few mm, if you can.
-
Levitating a 90Kg person .5 meters would take approximately a field of ~450 Tesla which is roughly 10 times stronger than the strongest electromagnet ever made.
Based on what? The researchers say that it's not based on mass and that very large masses, including man, can be levitated.
Based on the calculations in this paper:www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/diamagnetic.pdf (http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/diamagnetic.pdf) and using the magnetic permeability of 1 for the human body.
You also note in that paper that the levitation is an equilibrium. You can't just float about in the direction of the field. You'll also note that it is indeed dependent on mass.
-
You'll also note that it is indeed dependent on mass.
The people who actually did it say that it is not dependent on the amount of material involved. From the Radford University link:
Importantly, the ability to levitate does not depend on the amount of material involved, V, and high-field magnets can be made to accommodate large objects, animals or even man.
Which researchers are right, the ones who performed the experiments or the ones who appear to be theorizing about it?
-
The people who actually did it say that it is not depentant on the amount of material involved. From the Radford University link:
Importantly, the ability to levitate does not depend on the amount of material involved, V, and high-field magnets can be made to accommodate large objects, animals or even man.
Which researchers are right, the ones who performed the experiments or the ones who appear to be theorizing about it?
The levitation force generated is not dependent on the mass, however the equilibrium point is, as more mass will generate more gravity, and it this equilibrium that distinguishes magnetic levitation from weightlessness. They say they levitated water and a frog, so since humans are just a bit more dense than water I'll go along with that 10T will levitate a human, but it will only levitate them a few mm.
The amount (distance) of levitation is why you would need stronger fields. It's about 450T to get .5M - to have them floating around something the size of the ISS, you'd need a heck of a lot more.
None of that is of any matter though. Magnetic levitation does not give the freedom of movement seen in that video on the ISS. So, no, it's not being done by levitation.
-
This phenomenon of this method doesn't seem to have anything to do with height. They are just putting the objects inside of the bore of an electromagnet. The object to be levitated floats in a region within the magnet itself:
(https://i.imgur.com/ehcPbE6.png)
(https://steemitimages.com/DQmazBWYJGTMLoZsRAAYZFGPeBTTgxT9EVbV6XAj198gvyP/2017-05-29%20(2).png)
(https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0273117705001547-gr1.jpg)
The magnet can be 2 feet off of the ground, or 100 feet. The objects levitate all the same.
The matter is only how large the horizontal "arena" of the magnetic bore can be enlarged. The vertical component does not appear to be an issue.
Andre Geim at the Nigmegen High Field Magnet Laboratory doesn't seem to be too pessimistic about the technological impossibility of levitating a human:
https://www.wired.com/1997/05/magnetically-speaking-frogs-float/
Geim says that the only thing stopping anyone from making a magnet powerful enough to levitate a human being is money. "It would take tens of millions" of dollars, he says. But even if someone did pony up the dough to make a human hover, how safe would it be to expose people to strong static magnetic fields?
John Moulder, who maintains the Static EM Fields and Cancer FAQs, writes that "the current epidemiological evidence for a connection between static magnetic fields and cancer is weak to nonexistent."
-
So possible, but cost prohibitive and potentially dangerous because of the strong magnetic fields, just like other have asserted in this thread. Got it.
-
NASA only really needs a small zero-g room or container and they can just superimpose the water effects, floating pen effects, or human effects onto footage of the bigger sets.
Considering the many videos pointing out the harnesses, green screen effects, AR, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using multiple methods.
-
For some reason NASA is an expert consultant at Hollywood special effects for space movies:
http://www.cinemareview.com/production.asp?prodid=1064
I wanted to make the film as believable as possible," Eastwood explains. "In order to do that we needed NASA's help to get as close as we could to the circumstances surrounding a launch. It's a complicated process and it requires careful planning and teamwork on all levels. Bringing a film crew in to simulate the whole thing was probably an even bigger headache for NASA, but the agency really came through for us. I couldn't be more pleased with the results."
Since the film required scenes of weightlessness, the cast was put through a battery of simulation rigs. "We've done it, I suppose, in every way that it can be done," Tommy Lee Jones muses. "We've hung people from ceilings; we've had people stand around holding on to walls as if that were necessary to keep yourself from floating off; and then we have ballpoint pens and clipboards floating by suspended on filament lines; we've been on little stools that have caster wheels on them that move around. It really presents no challenge to an actor; all you have to do is stand there and take these various rides, but it's a group effort for the whole company. The other thing we've done is simply move the camera around a great deal. And sometimes using all those things in combination, one with the other, creates the illusion of weightlessness successfully maybe seventy percent of the time."
Eastwood adds: "I think we've been pretty good with it. We've used every trick possible, from where the actors are floating themselves and looking loose, or sitting on a special kind of bench that moves this way or a table gliding, or gliding across the floor."
Eastwood points out that in previous space-set films, the cast and production crew would all fly up in a giant cargo plane to achieve weightlessness for a few seconds at a stretch. "They used to call it the 'Vomit Comet,' which is an old G-3 that they would take up and get into a weightless situation
-
NASA only really needs a small zero-g room or container and they can just superimpose the water effects, floating pen effects, or human effects onto footage of the bigger sets.
Considering the many videos pointing out the harnesses, green screen effects, AR, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using multiple methods.
Hardly an argument with any veracity. I could just as easily say, "Considering the many videos pointing out weightlessness, effects of such on many objects animate and inanimate, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using space."
-
For some reason NASA is often an expert consultant at Hollywood special effects for space movies:
Retired police officers are often expert consultants on crime movies. Doctors are often expert consultants for medical movies. What's your point?
-
For some reason NASA is often an expert consultant at Hollywood special effects for space movies:
Retired police officers are often expert consultants on crime movies. Doctors are often expert consultants for medical movies. What's your point?
:D It really is quite incredible that Tom doesn't understand why an organisation best known for shooting rockets and astronauts into space would be consulted by film makers on how to realistically portray shooting rockets and astronauts.
-
NASA only really needs a small zero-g room or container and they can just superimpose the water effects, floating pen effects, or human effects onto footage of the bigger sets.
Considering the many videos pointing out the harnesses, green screen effects, AR, and bubbles-in-space, they are likely using multiple methods.
Supposition. "Could do this", "Likely using that" ....
There may well be many videos, but look closely at the comments on such videos, and you'll find a horde of people who don't agree that the "pointing out" is proof of anything....
Small zero-g rooms don't produce an object that can be seen from Earth, in isolation, or in transit over Moon and Sun. Small zero-g rooms don't produce radio signals which can be received and responded to by radio amateurs on Earth. etc. etc. So many proofs that are not negated by speculation and supposition.
-
For some reason NASA is an expert consultant at Hollywood special effects for space movies:
So what?
If Hollywood is making a movie about (say) a concert pianist, they get a pianist to coach the actor(s). If any movie has a specialist subject, they get specialists in from that field to advise.
What's the big deal here? They asked NASA WHAT THEY DID so they could get the film closer to it.
-
Of course levitation via magnets is possible!
*sigh*
Yes it is, but read that article. The largest animal levitated using this method is a small frog. It doesn’t sound like a valid explanation for footage from the ISS.
We are not simply talking about the actual person.
Aside from that, the person could occupying a machine that is levitated and display the same results...
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
-
Of course levitation via magnets is possible!
*sigh*
Yes it is, but read that article. The largest animal levitated using this method is a small frog. It doesn’t sound like a valid explanation for footage from the ISS.
We are not simply talking about the actual person.
Aside from that, the person could occupying a machine that is levitated and display the same results...
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
That's the same effect as parabolic flight, though. Not levitation using magnets.
You're saying if the 'box' is made to levitate then everything inside it levitates too, independently of the box? How would that work?
-
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
Yes, but how long can you sustain that for?
-
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
Yes, but how long can you sustain that for?
Everyone on your side of the aisle clearly states the object in question is in a constant state of such free fall.
Any humans occupying such a craft would be in the same constant exhibition.
-
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
Yes, but how long can you sustain that for?
Everyone on your side of the aisle clearly states the object in question is in a constant state of such free fall.
Any humans occupying such a craft would be in the same constant exhibition.
Yes, and that would be what we call an orbit. But the FE stance is such a thing isn't possible because the Earth is flat. So how are you sustaining it for any appreciable length of time?
-
This phenomenon of this method doesn't seem to have anything to do with height. They are just putting the objects inside of the bore of an electromagnet. The object to be levitated floats in a region within the magnet itself:
(https://i.imgur.com/ehcPbE6.png)
Ahha, okay, they are using a solenoid. That makes sense. That would even remove the equilibrium problem. Fair enough.
So, assuming someone could build and power a 10T solenoid that could house something the size of the ISS, how do you get a a video camera to work in that environment? Or anything electronic for that matter?
BTW, the largest known electromagnet in the world is only 50' x 8', cost $30M and produces only 1.4T. You are suggesting that, in order to make that video, they created a solenoid approximately 200' x 100' (big enough to encompass the ISS living area) that can crank out 10T!
Oh, I believe you Tom. Many might not, but this seems perfectly plausible.
https://triblive.com/news/editorspicks/4427768-74/magnet-friday-electromagnet (https://triblive.com/news/editorspicks/4427768-74/magnet-friday-electromagnet)
-
Ever occupy a car that speeds over a cresting hill and then suddenly drops? Your hair displays levitation and you feel your gut rise up.
Yes, but how long can you sustain that for?
Everyone on your side of the aisle clearly states the object in question is in a constant state of such free fall.
Any humans occupying such a craft would be in the same constant exhibition.
Yes, and that would be what we call an orbit. But the FE stance is such a thing isn't possible because the Earth is flat. So how are you sustaining it for any appreciable length of time?
No, it would not necessarily be an orbit as in traveling in a larger circle around a sphere.
It could simply be traveling in a large circle over the heads of people occupying land on the surface below.
Planes do this all the time.
You write as if there are cameras on 24/7 depicting the type of scenes in question on a constant basis.
-
Everyone on your side of the aisle clearly states the object in question is in a constant state of such free fall. Any humans occupying such a craft would be in the same constant exhibition.
Exactly. They call it weightlessness.
That's why there is hour, upon hour, upon hour, upon hour of footage of astronauts sailing around spacecraft cabins, unfettered by gravity, as well as hour upon hour upon hour of them directing various objects and substances around the cabin, all of which behave in ways that would not occur at ground level.
-
Everyone on your side of the aisle clearly states the object in question is in a constant state of such free fall. Any humans occupying such a craft would be in the same constant exhibition.
Exactly. They call it weightlessness.
That's why there is hour, upon hour, upon hour, upon hour of footage of astronauts sailing around spacecraft cabins, unfettered by gravity, as well as hour upon hour upon hour of them directing various objects and substances around the cabin, all of which behave in ways that would not occur at ground level.
I challenge you at this very time to show me even five minutes of uninterrupted footage of anyone sailing around in a weightless state aboard a space craft.
The claims RE-ers make in regard to this issue are hyperbolic and extremely OVER THE TOP...
Jump the shark all the time, you guys do...
-
No, it would not necessarily be an orbit as in traveling in a larger circle around a sphere.
... but all the available data and observations confirm that it is
It could simply be traveling in a large circle over the heads of people occupying land on the surface below.
So how would you go about proving that it does this?
Planes do this all the time.
It don't behave like no plane.
You write as if there are cameras on 24/7 depicting the type of scenes in question on a constant basis.
Maybe not, but anytime anyone photographs it, watches it with the naked eye, sets up a radio receiver and transmitter to communicate with the astronauts .... it's right there. Where it's expected to be. Predictable. Dependable. Never late. Never early.
Planes don't do that. Not 24/7/365, they don't.
-
I challenge you at this very time to show me even five minutes of uninterrupted footage of anyone sailing around in a weightless state aboard a space craft.
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTFuOkw2a4
Honestly, there's shedloads of them on YouTube. You could look for yourself if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Do you?
-
I challenge you at this very time to show me even five minutes of uninterrupted footage of anyone sailing around in a weightless state aboard a space craft.
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTFuOkw2a4
Honestly, there's shedloads of them on YouTube. You could look for yourself if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Do you?
Yeah, I most certainly do.
KINDLY point out the time stamps in these videos depicting even FIVE CONTINUOUS MINUTES OF SUCH FOOTAGE.
Given your post was made SIX MINUTES after my original request it is HIGHLY LIKELY you simply made a typical quick post of ZERO actual substance in response.
-
I challenge you at this very time to show me even five minutes of uninterrupted footage of anyone sailing around in a weightless state aboard a space craft.
Try this one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvTmdIhYnes
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClTFuOkw2a4
Honestly, there's shedloads of them on YouTube. You could look for yourself if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Do you?
Yeah, I most certainly do.
KINDLY point out the time stamps in these videos depicting even FIVE CONTINUOUS MINUTES OF SUCH FOOTAGE.
Given your post was made SIX MINUTES after my original request it is HIGHLY LIKELY you simply made a typical quick post of ZERO actual substance in response.
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
-
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
Yeah...could be he has watched them before and has them memorized and all.../sarcasm...
Errrmmm...what part of SAILING AROUND THE CABIN has escaped your understanding?
Time stamp you offered provides nothing of the sort.
-
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
Yeah...could be he has watched them before and has them memorized and all.../sarcasm...
Errrmmm...what part of SAILING AROUND THE CABIN has escaped your understanding?
Time stamp you offered provides nothing of the sort.
You asked for five continuous minutes of them moving around weightless in the cabin. That's 5 minutes of it minimum. There are objects in view at all times showcasing the weightlessness. Them not 'sailing around' does not stop the rest from being true. Day to day movements are going to be smooth and controlled.
Also your sarcasm is unnecessary. You can't recall a video you've watched before and find it again rather quickly? It's not hard, especially with both titles containing ISS.
-
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
Yeah...could be he has watched them before and has them memorized and all.../sarcasm...
Errrmmm...what part of SAILING AROUND THE CABIN has escaped your understanding?
Time stamp you offered provides nothing of the sort.
You asked for five continuous minutes of them moving around weightless in the cabin. That's 5 minutes of it minimum. There are objects in view at all times showcasing the weightlessness. Them not 'sailing around' does not stop the rest from being true. Day to day movements are going to be smooth and controlled.
Also your sarcasm is unnecessary. You can't recall a video you've watched before and find it again rather quickly? It's not hard, especially with both titles containing ISS.
Look, I did not set the opening parameters of the statement offered by Tumeni.
He did.
"Sailing around..."
He used it, not me...
...sailing around spacecraft cabins...
There is not five minutes continuous footage of any astronaut sailing about the cabin of any supposed spacecraft.
As usual, called out on the BS hyperbole and then when called out, apologists and others of their ilk come out in force to change the goalposts...
Regarding the statement you make in regard to Tumeni possibly having watched the videos before and instantly providing them in support of the hyperbole, I think you know that is a crock crutch offered in support of a busted leg...
I am surprised you choose to have your position on this die on such an insignificant hill, but to each his own...
-
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
Yeah...could be he has watched them before and has them memorized and all.../sarcasm...
Errrmmm...what part of SAILING AROUND THE CABIN has escaped your understanding?
Time stamp you offered provides nothing of the sort.
You asked for five continuous minutes of them moving around weightless in the cabin. That's 5 minutes of it minimum. There are objects in view at all times showcasing the weightlessness. Them not 'sailing around' does not stop the rest from being true. Day to day movements are going to be smooth and controlled.
Also your sarcasm is unnecessary. You can't recall a video you've watched before and find it again rather quickly? It's not hard, especially with both titles containing ISS.
Look, I did not set the opening parameters of the statement offered by Tumeni.
He did.
"Sailing around..."
He used it, not me...
...sailing around spacecraft cabins...
There is not five minutes continuous footage of any astronaut sailing about the cabin of any supposed spacecraft.
As usual, called out on the BS hyperbole and then when called out, apologists and others of their ilk come out in force to change the goalposts...
Regarding the statement you make in regard to Tumeni possibly having watched the videos before and instantly providing them in support of the hyperbole, I think you know that is a crock crutch offered in support of a busted leg...
I am surprised you choose to have your position on this die on such an insignificant hill, but to each his own...
Sailing:
Move smoothly and rapidly or in a stately or confident manner.
I dunno, seems to have fulfilled the definition of sailing by my book. He was moving about in a pretty confident manner.
You can scoff all you want, but looking up a video that you've watched before isn't difficult. Doubly so if one has perhaps used it on this site before. But you aren't looking for logic, you just want to shout. That's fine. Have at it.
-
So firstly, these videos have a few million views between them. Entirely possible he's watched them before.
Secondly, first video, time stamp about 1:14. I'm now 7 minutes in with no obviously visible cuts since that one.
Yeah...could be he has watched them before and has them memorized and all.../sarcasm...
Errrmmm...what part of SAILING AROUND THE CABIN has escaped your understanding?
Time stamp you offered provides nothing of the sort.
You asked for five continuous minutes of them moving around weightless in the cabin. That's 5 minutes of it minimum. There are objects in view at all times showcasing the weightlessness. Them not 'sailing around' does not stop the rest from being true. Day to day movements are going to be smooth and controlled.
Also your sarcasm is unnecessary. You can't recall a video you've watched before and find it again rather quickly? It's not hard, especially with both titles containing ISS.
Look, I did not set the opening parameters of the statement offered by Tumeni.
He did.
"Sailing around..."
He used it, not me...
...sailing around spacecraft cabins...
There is not five minutes continuous footage of any astronaut sailing about the cabin of any supposed spacecraft.
As usual, called out on the BS hyperbole and then when called out, apologists and others of their ilk come out in force to change the goalposts...
Regarding the statement you make in regard to Tumeni possibly having watched the videos before and instantly providing them in support of the hyperbole, I think you know that is a crock crutch offered in support of a busted leg...
I am surprised you choose to have your position on this die on such an insignificant hill, but to each his own...
Sailing:
Move smoothly and rapidly or in a stately or confident manner.
I dunno, seems to have fulfilled the definition of sailing by my book. He was moving about in a pretty confident manner.
You can scoff all you want, but looking up a video that you've watched before isn't difficult. Doubly so if one has perhaps used it on this site before. But you aren't looking for logic, you just want to shout. That's fine. Have at it.
It does not surprise me in the least you choose to hold onto a purely subjective view concerning the footage in question.
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
-
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.
I don't think you have a point.
-
After watching these videos, and thinking about diamagnetic levitation, I suddenly realized a certain phenomenon that is experienced with electronic devices and magnets. In particular, what happens to magnetic storage devices like hard drives when a powerful magnet is introduced to it?
It is DESTROYED!!!
Hard drives like the ones in that Lenovo Thinkpad in the ISS video are susceptible to this. If you introduced a high-powered magnet, such as one in an MRI or perhaps one that could levitate a human, to the laptop, it would surely crash! That laptop looked fully functional in the video.
It seems like you can rule out diamagnetic levitation as an explanation for their apparent weightlessness.
-
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.
I don't think you have a point.
Yeah, I have a point.
This type of footage is made available without the need for any spacecraft. Period.
After watching these videos, and thinking about diamagnetic levitation, I suddenly realized a certain phenomenon that is experienced with electronic devices and magnets. In particular, what happens to magnetic storage devices like hard drives when a powerful magnet is introduced to it?
It is DESTROYED!!!
Hard drives like the ones in that Lenovo Thinkpad in the ISS video are susceptible to this. If you introduced a high-powered magnet, such as one in an MRI or perhaps one that could levitate a human, to the laptop, it would surely crash! That laptop looked fully functional in the video.
It seems like you can rule out diamagnetic levitation as an explanation for their apparent weightlessness.
Oh, so you can not use a laptop on a maglev train, uh?
-
They can just film the water globule effects in the diamagentic levitation chamber and super-impose the effects over the larger scenes. That would be the easier way to do it.
The floating astronaut can be achieved by harnesses or CGI.
-
They can just film the water globule effects in the diamagentic levitation chamber and super-impose the effects over the larger scenes. That would be the easier way to do it.
The floating astronaut can be achieved by harnesses or CGI.
Absolute nonsense. Either stick with your magnets theory or accept that the astronauts are experiencing zero-G (check my earlier comment about lateral legs). There's no way these effects can be achieved with a harness - ust look at the way they travel about the cabin.
And CGI? Really? The best movies in the world don't look that convincing. If you want to find a computer graphics expert to comment, you're welcome to do so. But you can't simply refuse to accept evidence because you don't think it's real.
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
Look at this link:
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=hard-drive-destruction
(https://www.kjmagnetics.com/images/blog/hd.sim_.png)
The Results
Two DX0X8 magnets spaced on either side of a hard drive's platters
With the hard drive running, we were not able to disrupt the contents of the drive at all. 100% of the files were completely intact and accurate. This result completely surprised us!
We were definitely getting some magnetic influence inside the drive. When strong magnets like our RY04Y0DIA were held close, we could hear mechanical rubbing sounds from the drive, likely the result of deflection of the platters. We didn't go much larger with the drive running, for fear of rendering the drive inoperable by mechanically bending parts inside.
The simulation picture at right shows our pair of DX0X8 magnets on either side of the disc platters. This pair was chosen based on some studies of what arrangements would produce the strongest field within the drive. We hoped that we might be able to at least affect the outermost platters, even if the inner ones might be shielded by them.
Most of the instructions we've seen say to rub the magnet several times across the face of the drive. With our arrangement, the drive is actually spinning at 7,200 RPM. We're pretty sure it's passing over the drive multiple times!
We also rubbed some very large magnets, like our 3" diameter DZ0X8-N52, across the hard drive with the drive turned off. We figured we could use these large magnets without causing mechanical damage when it wasn't running. When re-checked, the drive still showed no errors! None of the data was changed at all.
Why didn't this work? Surely these incredible magnets are strong enough!
Some older types of magnetic storage media can be erased with neodymium magnets. The magnetic stripe on your credit card is one example. Audio cassettes and VHS video tapes are another. The material's coercivity, or resistance to being demagnetized, is lower than the field made by the magnet. You can look up the coercivity numbers for these materials, all of which are usually in the 500-1000 Oersted range.
The more we researched the topic, the more we found conflicting data on the coercivity of hard drive materials. One source said 1,250 Oe, another said 2,500 Oe. It seems that, in the race to make hard drives of greater storage capacities, hard drive manufacturers keep finding higher coercivity materials for the hard drive platters. The later the manufacturing date of your hard drive, probably the higher the drive's coercivity will be.
We searched for hard drive erasing services, figuring we could learn something by finding out what such companies provide. Most companies either use strong degaussing machines that produce a strong an alternating magnetic field with an electromagnet, or shredders to physically destroy the drive. As hard drive coercivity improves, physical destruction is becoming the more popular method.
But what if...
We didn't try every possible combination of magnet and erasure method. Since our methods failed to alter a single character of a single file, though, we wouldn't trust it to delete ALL the data. Our results make us doubt that neodymium magnets are sure to erase all the data. When folks rub a magnet across a hard drive, the goal is 100% data erasure. If you have a proven method that works for you, we'd love to hear about it.
The researchers describe that they also tried rubbing the magnet across the hard drive, and express doubt that the concept of erasing hard drives by passing a magnet over it is even real at all or whether it is just a myth. Commercial degaussing machines work by producing a strong alternating magnetic field, and this is what may be necessary.
-
I have a theory, its real. Easy as that
-
Absolute nonsense. Either stick with your magnets theory or accept that the astronauts are experiencing zero-G (check my earlier comment about lateral legs). There's no way these effects can be achieved with a harness - ust look at the way they travel about the cabin.
And CGI? Really? The best movies in the world don't look that convincing. If you want to find a computer graphics expert to comment, you're welcome to do so. But you can't simply refuse to accept evidence because you don't think it's real.
The weightless scenes in The Martian was achieved with a combination of wire support and CGI. CGI, as in cutting the actor out from the green-screen and making him or her float in the scene.
https://people.com/movies/matt-damon-kate-mara-jessica-chastain-faked-zero-gravity-the-martian/
Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain and Kate Mara say they did just that while shooting some of the zero-gravity scenes for the upcoming space epic The Martian.
While the Ridley Scott-directed film involved its fair share of CGI and “invisible” wires to make the actors appear as though they were floating about in space, sometimes they used simpler means to achieve the weightless look.
“In some of the tighter shots, sometimes it makes sense not to do elaborate wire work,” Damon, 44, told reporters at a Toronto International Film Festival press conference on Friday, where he mimicked floating in space for a chuckling crowd. “You’re ‘in space,’ and you act while you’re standing on one foot and moving slowly. It’s totally, totally ridiculous, but within the confines of the frame, it totally works, and you can’t tell.”
Costar Mara, 32, added that there’s a certain art to making it look plausible.
“It feels very much like a dance, and there’s choreography to it, but then once you’re doing it, you really do feel like a little kid,” she said.
Chastain, 38, said the floating scenes were her favorite – and one of the reasons she signed on to the film.
“The zero-gravity stuff I was really looking forward to. When I got on set, I realized how many people are involved in that because there’s all these people in the pulley system that are controlling your movements that you then have to make look like you’re doing it, and it’s choreographed,” she said of working with the wires, which are eventually edited out of the final cut. “We’re just kind of along for the ride learning it, and I had so much fun.”
NASA was a consultant on the effects for that movie too.
-
It does not surprise me in the least you choose to hold onto a purely subjective view concerning the footage in question.
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Here's another. 19mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r8GCYvLtQ0
Tell us all where you see any lack of "free movement" ....
-
The weightless scenes in The Martian was achieved with a combination of wire support and CGI. CGI, as in cutting the actor out from the green-screen and making him or her float in the scene.
So what? Have you any proof of this being done for the ISS footage?
NASA was a consultant on the effects for that movie too.
Again, so what?
-
It does not surprise me in the least you choose to hold onto a purely subjective view concerning the footage in question.
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Here's another. 19mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r8GCYvLtQ0
Tell us all where you see any lack of "free movement" ....
Much more in line with your earlier claim of "sailing around...",yet still not meeting the statement of "hours..."
These effects are present in nearly all sci-fi movies depicting space and have been mimicked as early as 2001: A Space Odyssey
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
My guess would be that introducing just about any form of electronic device into such a powerful magnetic field would not be good for said electronic device. Electromagnetic pulse, anyone?
-
Textbook FE. Ask for evidence, start by claiming that presented evidence doesn’t match the criteria, when more is presented which clearly does, call it fake.
-
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.
I don't think you have a point.
Yeah, I have a point.
This type of footage is made available without the need for any spacecraft. Period.
After watching these videos, and thinking about diamagnetic levitation, I suddenly realized a certain phenomenon that is experienced with electronic devices and magnets. In particular, what happens to magnetic storage devices like hard drives when a powerful magnet is introduced to it?
It is DESTROYED!!!
Hard drives like the ones in that Lenovo Thinkpad in the ISS video are susceptible to this. If you introduced a high-powered magnet, such as one in an MRI or perhaps one that could levitate a human, to the laptop, it would surely crash! That laptop looked fully functional in the video.
It seems like you can rule out diamagnetic levitation as an explanation for their apparent weightlessness.
Oh, so you can not use a laptop on a maglev train, uh?
Are the magnets directed at he laptop? If so, then no, you cannot.
-
Much more in line with your earlier claim of "sailing around...",yet still not meeting the statement of "hours..."
Ah, so that's what you're taking issue with now? When I said "hour upon hour" of footage, you took that to mean "continuous hours". That's not what I meant. I meant hour upon hour in the sense that there is literally hours of it. Oodles of it. A search on You Tube for "ISS tour" returns "About 1,200,000 results" .....
These effects are present in nearly all sci-fi movies depicting space and have been mimicked as early as 2001: A Space Odyssey
Here's the thing. In order to mimic something, you have to have something to mimic. You have to have the thing in the first place.
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
Look at this link:
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=hard-drive-destruction
(https://www.kjmagnetics.com/images/blog/hd.sim_.png)
The Results
Two DX0X8 magnets spaced on either side of a hard drive's platters
With the hard drive running, we were not able to disrupt the contents of the drive at all. 100% of the files were completely intact and accurate. This result completely surprised us!
We were definitely getting some magnetic influence inside the drive. When strong magnets like our RY04Y0DIA were held close, we could hear mechanical rubbing sounds from the drive, likely the result of deflection of the platters. We didn't go much larger with the drive running, for fear of rendering the drive inoperable by mechanically bending parts inside.
The simulation picture at right shows our pair of DX0X8 magnets on either side of the disc platters. This pair was chosen based on some studies of what arrangements would produce the strongest field within the drive. We hoped that we might be able to at least affect the outermost platters, even if the inner ones might be shielded by them.
Most of the instructions we've seen say to rub the magnet several times across the face of the drive. With our arrangement, the drive is actually spinning at 7,200 RPM. We're pretty sure it's passing over the drive multiple times!
We also rubbed some very large magnets, like our 3" diameter DZ0X8-N52, across the hard drive with the drive turned off. We figured we could use these large magnets without causing mechanical damage when it wasn't running. When re-checked, the drive still showed no errors! None of the data was changed at all.
Why didn't this work? Surely these incredible magnets are strong enough!
Some older types of magnetic storage media can be erased with neodymium magnets. The magnetic stripe on your credit card is one example. Audio cassettes and VHS video tapes are another. The material's coercivity, or resistance to being demagnetized, is lower than the field made by the magnet. You can look up the coercivity numbers for these materials, all of which are usually in the 500-1000 Oersted range.
The more we researched the topic, the more we found conflicting data on the coercivity of hard drive materials. One source said 1,250 Oe, another said 2,500 Oe. It seems that, in the race to make hard drives of greater storage capacities, hard drive manufacturers keep finding higher coercivity materials for the hard drive platters. The later the manufacturing date of your hard drive, probably the higher the drive's coercivity will be.
We searched for hard drive erasing services, figuring we could learn something by finding out what such companies provide. Most companies either use strong degaussing machines that produce a strong an alternating magnetic field with an electromagnet, or shredders to physically destroy the drive. As hard drive coercivity improves, physical destruction is becoming the more popular method.
But what if...
We didn't try every possible combination of magnet and erasure method. Since our methods failed to alter a single character of a single file, though, we wouldn't trust it to delete ALL the data. Our results make us doubt that neodymium magnets are sure to erase all the data. When folks rub a magnet across a hard drive, the goal is 100% data erasure. If you have a proven method that works for you, we'd love to hear about it.
The researchers describe that they also tried rubbing the magnet across the hard drive, and express doubt that the concept of erasing hard drives by passing a magnet over it is even real at all or whether it is just a myth. Commercial degaussing machines work by producing a strong alternating magnetic field, and this is what may be necessary.
Hi Tom, you left out the last bit of that article:
"UPDATE:
Please note that this article describes our investigation about using magnets to completely erase data on a hard drive. It completely ignores the question of whether a strong magnet can DAMAGE a hard drive. These strong magnets certainly can damage a hard drive if brought close enough. Keep neodymium magnets away from good hard drives!"
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
My guess would be that introducing just about any form of electronic device into such a powerful magnetic field would not be good for said electronic device. Electromagnetic pulse, anyone?
Re-read your own statement and focus on the word pulse
-
They can just film the water globule effects in the diamagentic levitation chamber and super-impose the effects over the larger scenes. That would be the easier way to do it.
The floating astronaut can be achieved by harnesses or CGI.
I’m not aware of this sort of levitation being used in any film special fx which rather indicates that this is not the easier way to do it. And while I think we all agree that special FX have got pretty good what analysis has been done to show that footage from the ISS uses special FX and is not genuine? A few crazies on YouTube does not a proper analysis make.
-
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.
I don't think you have a point.
Yeah, I have a point.
This type of footage is made available without the need for any spacecraft. Period.
After watching these videos, and thinking about diamagnetic levitation, I suddenly realized a certain phenomenon that is experienced with electronic devices and magnets. In particular, what happens to magnetic storage devices like hard drives when a powerful magnet is introduced to it?
It is DESTROYED!!!
Hard drives like the ones in that Lenovo Thinkpad in the ISS video are susceptible to this. If you introduced a high-powered magnet, such as one in an MRI or perhaps one that could levitate a human, to the laptop, it would surely crash! That laptop looked fully functional in the video.
It seems like you can rule out diamagnetic levitation as an explanation for their apparent weightlessness.
Oh, so you can not use a laptop on a maglev train, uh?
Are the magnets directed at he laptop? If so, then no, you cannot.
Why would the magnets on a maglev or any other craft using magnets to levitate be directed at a laptop?
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
Look at this link:
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=hard-drive-destruction
<snip>
The researchers describe that they also tried rubbing the magnet across the hard drive, and express doubt that the concept of erasing hard drives by passing a magnet over it is even real at all or whether it is just a myth. Commercial degaussing machines work by producing a strong alternating magnetic field, and this is what may be necessary.
Hi Tom, you left out the last bit of that article:
"UPDATE:
Please note that this article describes our investigation about using magnets to completely erase data on a hard drive. It completely ignores the question of whether a strong magnet can DAMAGE a hard drive. These strong magnets certainly can damage a hard drive if brought close enough. Keep neodymium magnets away from good hard drives!"
I believe that it's talking about how a magnet can hit the hard drive hard enough that it damages it physically. Its not talking about the magnetic field destroying the data.
This relates to the bit about I don't know how a magnet or hard drive would move inside the bore of an electromagnet.
-
Much more in line with your earlier claim of "sailing around...",yet still not meeting the statement of "hours..."
Ah, so that's what you're taking issue with now? When I said "hour upon hour" of footage, you took that to mean "continuous hours". That's not what I meant. I meant hour upon hour in the sense that there is literally hours of it. Oodles of it. A search on You Tube for "ISS tour" returns "About 1,200,000 results" .....
These effects are present in nearly all sci-fi movies depicting space and have been mimicked as early as 2001: A Space Odyssey
Here's the thing. In order to mimic something, you have to have something to mimic. You have to have the thing in the first place.
Oh, so Jules Verne was writing from experience and Flash Gordon and Captain Video were based on true events...
I understand now... ::)
Aside from the fact 2001: A Space Odyssey actually depicted a moonwalk prior to any reported moonwalk supposedly happening.
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
My guess would be that introducing just about any form of electronic device into such a powerful magnetic field would not be good for said electronic device. Electromagnetic pulse, anyone?
Re-read your own statement and focus on the word pulse
Actually, the word electromagnetic is much more relevant. That is unless you think that the electrons moving around inside electronic devices are not affected by intense magnetic fields.
-
Given the timestamp you offered, the man is not at free movement at all from the point. ::) ::)
Try 1:09 to 4:09. He's floating about, the ipad is floating about. It goes on beyond that, but that's 3 solid minutes of observable weightlessness. The vomcom is a max of around 30 seconds or so.
I don't think you have a point.
Yeah, I have a point.
This type of footage is made available without the need for any spacecraft. Period.
After watching these videos, and thinking about diamagnetic levitation, I suddenly realized a certain phenomenon that is experienced with electronic devices and magnets. In particular, what happens to magnetic storage devices like hard drives when a powerful magnet is introduced to it?
It is DESTROYED!!!
Hard drives like the ones in that Lenovo Thinkpad in the ISS video are susceptible to this. If you introduced a high-powered magnet, such as one in an MRI or perhaps one that could levitate a human, to the laptop, it would surely crash! That laptop looked fully functional in the video.
It seems like you can rule out diamagnetic levitation as an explanation for their apparent weightlessness.
Oh, so you can not use a laptop on a maglev train, uh?
Are the magnets directed at he laptop? If so, then no, you cannot.
Why would the magnets on a maglev or any other craft using magnets to levitate be directed at a laptop?
That is my point, the magnets would NOT be directed at the laptop (as it would if you diamagnetically levitated one), therefore the answer to your question is, yes, you can still use a laptop on a maglev train.
-
totallackey may be correct. It is questionable whether a static magnetic field will even destroy a hard drive.
While I do not know how a magnet or hard drive will move inside the bore of an electromagnet; it seems that a static magnetic field alone may not be able to wipe a drive.
Look at this link:
https://www.kjmagnetics.com/blog.asp?p=hard-drive-destruction
<snip>
The researchers describe that they also tried rubbing the magnet across the hard drive, and express doubt that the concept of erasing hard drives by passing a magnet over it is even real at all or whether it is just a myth. Commercial degaussing machines work by producing a strong alternating magnetic field, and this is what may be necessary.
Hi Tom, you left out the last bit of that article:
"UPDATE:
Please note that this article describes our investigation about using magnets to completely erase data on a hard drive. It completely ignores the question of whether a strong magnet can DAMAGE a hard drive. These strong magnets certainly can damage a hard drive if brought close enough. Keep neodymium magnets away from good hard drives!"
I believe that it's talking about how a magnet can hit the hard drive hard enough that it damages it physically. Its not talking about the magnetic field destroying the data.
This relates to the bit about I don't know how a magnet or hard drive would move inside the bore of an electromagnet.
That is your interpretation I guess. As an IT specialist, I often work with "damaged" hard drives that have been damaged in the sense of lost data bits due to corruption, this is different than a complete hard drive wipe, but it doesn't mean the hard drive's mechanics are damaged.
-
2001: A Space Odyssey actually depicted a moonwalk prior to any reported moonwalk supposedly happening.
So what? The Mercury and Gemini programmes were completed by that time, and Apollo was well under way. The effects of weightlessness had been seen and experienced already over multiple missions, and shown to the world. It's a short step from there to extrapolating what some movement on the lunar surface would look like for a movie ...
-
Another bit to note about hard drives is that they actually have relatively powerful magnets inside of them, so right off the bat you know it will take a very powerful magnet to effect them. It is no surprise the magnet used in the video was not strong enough.
-
2001: A Space Odyssey actually depicted a moonwalk prior to any reported moonwalk supposedly happening.
So what? The Mercury and Gemini programmes were completed by that time, and Apollo was well under way. The effects of weightlessness had been seen and experienced already over multiple missions, and shown to the world. It's a short step from there to extrapolating what some movement on the lunar surface would look like for a movie ...
No.
You were very specific in stating YOU NEED THE THING to mimic in the first place....
Your backtracking and loose lipping the issue is very telling.
-
Another bit to note about hard drives is that they actually have relatively powerful magnets inside of them, so right off the bat you know it will take a very powerful magnet to effect them. It is no surprise the magnet used in the video was not strong enough.
It's also quite convenient that magnetic fields can be directed and/or shielded so that they don't interfere with the magnetic media itself.
-
You were very specific in stating YOU NEED THE THING to mimic in the first place....
Your backtracking and loose lipping the issue is very telling.
This all seems so desperate. First it’s “there are no videos with 5 minutes of weightlessness.” Oh, there are. Then there’s this whole business about the definition of the word “sailing”. Now this nonsense. Such a desperate diversion.
Further desperation can be found in this whole magnetic levitation business. The CGI argument is the tried and true go to argument for FE. It gets them out of every jam, it’s their ace of spades. Why sully it with a brand new notion around mag lev. CGI is far more digestible to the layman.
Plus, if you want to hang your hat on mag lev, then it negates CGI entirely as the most common explanation for weightlessness across the YouTube-osphere, sorry, ‘plane’. In essence you would now be saying, “Oh, they are weightless and they are really floating around, but it’s not wires and CGI, they’re inside a magnetic tube at Area 51."
My guess is FE is scared about something; coming up with yet some other explanation for weightlessness, anything other than humans in space.
-
The weightless scenes in The Martian was achieved with a combination of wire support and CGI. CGI, as in cutting the actor out from the green-screen and making him or her float in the scene...
NASA was a consultant on the effects for that movie too.
So is this how you think the conversation went between the movie people and the NASA technical consultants:
Movie: We'd like to get your expertise on on how to simulate weightlessness in space for our movie.
NASA: (wryly chuckling) Just do what we do, wires, CGI, you know, the standard stuff.
Movie: Wow, I had no idea you did that too. But cool, so much easier. But, we also want to do that water globule effect you do.
NASA: Simple, just green screen inside of a mag lev tube. You want to borrow ours?
Movie: Awesome, that would be great! Thanks
-
We have solid state drives. No magnets, no disks, no motors, no moving parts. The computer I am typing this on uses SSD. The whole computer actually has no moving parts. Amazing.
-
We have solid state drives. No magnets, no disks, no motors, no moving parts. The computer I am typing this on uses SSD. The whole computer actually has no moving parts. Amazing.
I have rewatched that video several times to try to determine the model of the laptops used on ISS. Although I have not been able to determine the model, I can pretty reliably guess that it is an older laptop that is not equipped with an SSD. Notice the size and thickness of the laptops, and sometimes you can get a glimps of all the little ports and switches on the sides (these are all indicative of older models). Newer laptop models are slimmer and with fewer accessories and ports on the sides.
If I were a betting man, I'd say those laptops have HDDs.
-
A quick google search (yes a google search) lead me to this website:
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/1489/what-kind-of-laptops-do-iss-astronauts-use
Evidently Thinkpads are the only laptops certified for use on the ISS, and have been in use on the ISS since 1998. Thinkpads in general have been used on every NASA shuttle space flight since 1995 - there they used the ThinkPad 755. The ThinkPad 755 looks to have been equipped with a 540 MB drive... not quite sure if they are talking about the hard drive because they did not distinguish between HDDs and SSDs in the 90s since they were all HDDs. They would be using a newer model currently though, which possibly contain SSDs; however, since they have been using Thinkpads since the late 90s, they would have been HDDs at least then, if not now.
-
Here's another article about the ThinkPad laptops dating in 2016. According to this article they use Lenovo T61P laptops which are equipped with either a 5400 RPM HDD or 7200 RPM HDD - this means they are using magnetic hard drives with movable parts as late as 2016.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/05/14/what-kind-of-laptops-are-on-the-iss/#da732ee72950