Artificial gravity in space ships

[kanicbird]

If you had a rotating spacestation and you walked in the direction of the spin you would experence more g force and if you walked against the spin you would experence less tot he point if you could walk fast enough you would be weightless and could lift up your feet and let the station spin underneith you.

Am I correct in this? - If so it sounds like a hazard having moving ‘floating’ people along with walking people and standing people. But it soulnd like an interesting way to get to the other side of the station.

[Ring]

*Originally posted by k2dave *
**If you had a rotating spacestation and you walked in the direction of the spin you would experence more g force and if you walked against the spin you would experence less tot he point if you could walk fast enough you would be weightless and could lift up your feet and let the station spin underneith you.

Am I correct in this? **

Yes that is correct. Plus, normally, your head would weigh less than your feet.

*Originally posted by Belrix *
**

Centrifugal force (or more accurately Centripital (sp?) Acceleration) is the reason. The person inside the rim (or water in the bucket) wants to proceed in a straight direction, tangential to the radius and the floor is trying to change that direction. The net result is that the floor pushes up (or the person pushes down) on the person, giving the illusion of gravity. It’s just Newton’s Laws in action.

**

This is true unless you’re in a rotating frame as permitted by GR.

“Can gravitation and inertia be identical? This question leads directly to the General Theory of Relativity. Is it not possible for me to regard the earth as free from rotation, if I conceive of the centrifugal force, which acts on all bodies at
rest relatively to the earth, as being a “real” gravitational field of gravitation, or part of such a field? If this idea can be carried out, then we shall have proved in very truth the identity of gravitation and inertia. For the same property which is regarded as inertia from the point of view of a system not taking part of the rotation can be interpreted as gravitation when considered with respect to a system that shares this rotation. According to Newton, this interpretation is impossible, because in Newton’s theory there is no “real” field of the “Coriolis-field” type. But perhaps Newton’s law of field could be replaced by another that fits in with the field which holds with respect to a “rotating” system of co ordinates? My conviction of the identity of inertial and gravitational mass aroused within the feeling of absolute confidence in the correctness of this interpretation.”

                          Albert Einstein

Thus in one respect the centrifugal force is a real force but since it still doesn’t have a source it remains to some extent a pseudo force.