[pj1]

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:


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. 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?

[ICanScienceThat]

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.

[JHelzer]

3. Is there another possibility?

They have escaped the Earth's shielding from Universal Acceleration.

[pj1]

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.

[JHelzer]

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

[ICanScienceThat]

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?

[JHelzer]

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.

[ICanScienceThat]

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.

[Pete Svarrior]

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.

[JHelzer]

...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.

[ICanScienceThat]

...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.

[pj1]

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.

[JHelzer]

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. 

[timterroo]

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.

[JHelzer]

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.

[timterroo]

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.

[JHelzer]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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:



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.

[markjo]

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?

[Tom Bishop]

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

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".