[Tom Bishop]

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:










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."

[Rama Set]

So possible, but cost prohibitive and potentially dangerous because of the strong magnetic fields, just like other have asserted in this thread. Got it.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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

[stack]

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."

[markjo]

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?

[AATW]

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?

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[totallackey]

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.

[pj1]

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?

[Tumeni]

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?

[totallackey]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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?

[BillO]

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:

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

[totallackey]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.

[totallackey]

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...

[Tumeni]

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.

[Tumeni]

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.



or this





Honestly, there's shedloads of them on YouTube. You could look for yourself if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW. Do you?