Artificial Spin Gravity And Energizing Shielding Mass In Space

Though I'm not sure of this, artificial or spin gravity's field toward an
outer rim, in addition to all other benefits to life, should act to energize
the outer rim's shielding mass of a spinning space station or space colony,
or what-have-you, to greater massiveness than one not under spin for
gravity. It should also act to greatly flatten or deaden cosmic ray particle
"splatter." Also, it should act to essentially "bend" somewhat the cosmic
ray particle.

The spin of the station, colony, or whatever, itself should act to ever so
slightly curve the path of an incoming cosmic ray particle, lengthening its
path ever so slightly through shielding mass, effectively increasing the
depth of the shielding mass ever so slightly without actually increasing the
depth of the shielding mass at all. "Ever so slightly," to a space station
or colony, or whatever, means PLENTY.

Should it get through all the increase, etc., concerning the shielding,
what is left to it and its energy would still run up against the resistant
effects of increased massiveness and strength, and path lengthening, caused
by the still present gravitational acceleration toward the outside rim of
everything still in its path not in the micro-gravity center of spin.

Spin gravity would not in itself to any great degree be a force field
resisting incoming cosmic ray particles, but it should certainly activate
and energize other forces in mass (in massiveness) to resist better many of
the deadlier effects of those particles. It would establish a far greater
grain and length of resistance against which all cosmic ray particles should
have to run all the way against. At least as I see it.

How could it operate against increasing the protection of the interior
just by being in being? How could it operate to help (or to not hinder) in
any way cosmic ray particle penetration, or the after-effects of cosmic ray
particle penetrations stopped short, to the interior?

GLB

In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:
Though I'm not sure of this, artificial or spin gravity's field toward an
outer rim, in addition to all other benefits to life, should act to energize
the outer rim's shielding mass of a spinning space station or space colony,
or what-have-you, to greater massiveness than one not under spin for
gravity. It should also act to greatly flatten or deaden cosmic ray particle
"splatter." Also, it should act to essentially "bend" somewhat the cosmic
ray particle.

Err, no.
Not at all.
Until you get to structures built around a supergiant star, the speed of
a ring to generate gravity does not even approach the speed to make
relativistic mass important.
By many orders of magnitude.

You start "though I'm not sure of this", then begin an extended house of
cards built on it.

Plus, the habitat being relatavistic WRT the surroundings is a bad thing
generally, as it increases the effective energy of cosmic rays/...

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:
Though I'm not sure of this, artificial or spin gravity's field toward
an
outer rim, in addition to all other benefits to life, should act to
energize
the outer rim's shielding mass of a spinning space station or space
colony,
or what-have-you, to greater massiveness than one not under spin for
gravity. It should also act to greatly flatten or deaden cosmic ray
particle
"splatter." Also, it should act to essentially "bend" somewhat the cosmic
ray particle.

Err, no.
Not at all.
Until you get to structures built around a supergiant star, the speed of
a ring to generate gravity does not even approach the speed to make
relativistic mass important.
By many orders of magnitude.

You start "though I'm not sure of this", then begin an extended house of
cards built on it.

Plus, the habitat being relatavistic WRT the surroundings is a bad thing
generally, as it increases the effective energy of cosmic rays/...

You're wrong as wrong can get, but the proof of course will be in the
pudding as always. Taking from nearer zero-g micro-gravity to 1-Earth-g is
precisely the same as taking from nearer zero-g micro-gravity to
supergravity, even infinite gravity (from infinitesimal to 1 is an infinite
distance, as is the distance from absolute 0 to absolute 1 an absolute
distance (a distance far beyond infinite)). Gravity or "supergravity" is a
matter of relativity since there is [absolutely] no difference between them
that is not in the realm of relative difference.

And, in starting with "though I'm not sure of this," I guess according to
you I was supposed to stop right there and go no further. Don't you even
know that everything after "not sure of this" is always -- at the particular
time -- up in the air or building a "house of cards" whatever the procession
beyond it and however extensive? All of our cosmology and a goodly part of
physics is unsure but physicists and philosophers, and religions too, write
whole libraries worth of books concerning it.

GLB

In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:
Though I'm not sure of this, artificial or spin gravity's field toward
an
outer rim, in addition to all other benefits to life, should act to
energize

Err, no.
Not at all.
Until you get to structures built around a supergiant star, the speed of
a ring to generate gravity does not even approach the speed to make
relativistic mass important.
By many orders of magnitude.

You start "though I'm not sure of this", then begin an extended house of
cards built on it.

Plus, the habitat being relatavistic WRT the surroundings is a bad thing
generally, as it increases the effective energy of cosmic rays/...

You're wrong as wrong can get, but the proof of course will be in the
pudding as always. Taking from nearer zero-g micro-gravity to 1-Earth-g is

Ok, so your hypothesis is that anything rotating will shield rotation
significantly more than non-rotating stuff?

Is this correct?

And that the speed of rotation does not matter?

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy G. L. Bradford wrote:
Though I'm not sure of this, artificial or spin gravity's field toward
an
outer rim, in addition to all other benefits to life, should act to
energize

Err, no.
Not at all.
Until you get to structures built around a supergiant star, the speed of
a ring to generate gravity does not even approach the speed to make
relativistic mass important.
By many orders of magnitude.

You start "though I'm not sure of this", then begin an extended house of
cards built on it.

Plus, the habitat being relatavistic WRT the surroundings is a bad thing
generally, as it increases the effective energy of cosmic rays/...

You're wrong as wrong can get, but the proof of course will be in the
pudding as always. Taking from nearer zero-g micro-gravity to 1-Earth-g
is

Ok, so your hypothesis is that anything rotating will shield rotation
significantly more than non-rotating stuff?

Is this correct?

And that the speed of rotation does not matter?

"Anything" is a huge stretch. I'm not going that far. Stanford Torus,
O'Niell Colony, etc., with some mass shielding already to it. Then [any]
speed of rotation should value add to the already existing shielding -- yes.
But again it is pure supposition on my part right now until we actually
begin working with artificial or spin gravity. A "supposition," though, not
without a little study and a lot of thought having been put to Relativity
and QM over the last fifteen years and more. I've made a lot of mistakes,
tons of them, in building my view over that time. I could be mistaken in
this, too, but I don't think so. It's something possibly practical out of
all that abstract. Just something to think on and mull over and one day in
the future, something certain to be put to the test.

GLB

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
news:L55Vf.48209$oL.38617@attbi_s71...

"Anything" is a huge stretch. I'm not going that far. Stanford Torus,
O'Niell Colony, etc., with some mass shielding already to it. Then [any]
speed of rotation should value add to the already existing shielding --
yes.

Look at it this way: Relativistic effects only apply to speeds significant
when compared to the speed of light, yes? The angular velocity needed to
create artificial gravity, even for a Ringworld, would be insignificant
compared to C.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
Look at it this way: Relativistic effects only apply to speeds significant
when compared to the speed of light, yes? The angular velocity needed to
create artificial gravity, even for a Ringworld, would be insignificant
compared to C.

Artifical spin gravity is silly
You would have to hold on to something when it starts and stops spinning.
Otherwise you would jump into the room and still float since the air
will be forced to the "outer edge" and therefore push you to the center
unless you were holding on when it started to spin or if you grabbed
something (dangerously) as it spun by you.
It is more dangerous and complicated for station connections
etc..than worth it.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman

In sci.space.policy Spaceman wrote:
"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
Look at it this way: Relativistic effects only apply to speeds significant
when compared to the speed of light, yes? The angular velocity needed to
create artificial gravity, even for a Ringworld, would be insignificant
compared to C.

Artifical spin gravity is silly
You would have to hold on to something when it starts and stops spinning.
Otherwise you would jump into the room and still float since the air
will be forced to the "outer edge" and therefore push you to the center
unless you were holding on when it started to spin or if you grabbed
something (dangerously) as it spun by you.

And in practive - it doesn't matter.
For radiuses of curvature 5m or so, you essentially can't do this, and
you just fall down again, though in a different place.

For a large habitat, yes, you could get killed if you get into the
middle and freefall.

Don't do that.

Just as you (in the generic not specific sense) shouldn't jump off
cliffs here.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy Spaceman wrote:
"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
Look at it this way: Relativistic effects only apply to speeds
significant
when compared to the speed of light, yes? The angular velocity needed
to
create artificial gravity, even for a Ringworld, would be insignificant
compared to C.

Artifical spin gravity is silly
You would have to hold on to something when it starts and stops spinning.
Otherwise you would jump into the room and still float since the air
will be forced to the "outer edge" and therefore push you to the center
unless you were holding on when it started to spin or if you grabbed
something (dangerously) as it spun by you.

And in practive - it doesn't matter.
For radiuses of curvature 5m or so, you essentially can't do this, and
you just fall down again, though in a different place.

You would not "fall" if you were not spun with the spin to begin with.


For a large habitat, yes, you could get killed if you get into the
middle and freefall.

You still would not "fall" at all.
There is no physical reason to fall to the outer edge anyway.

Spaceman wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...


For a large habitat, yes, you could get killed if you get into the
middle and freefall.

This got me thinking about holding the Olympics in an O'Neill cylinder.
Assume a "gravity" of 1g, created by movement of 100m/s with a raduis
of 1km.

Now lets do the 100m. Do we run spinward or anti spinward? Our
perceived gravity goes from 121% to 82%. Which way is it faster to run?

It might be easier to run paralell to the axis for the 100m, but longer
runs will have a bit of spinward and anti spinward.

Next comes the Javelin. The javelin will for once fly in a straight
line, though the observer won't perceive this to be a straight line.
Throw anti spinward for the best effect.

How about the archery? Fire the bolt at 100m/s antispinward. If it
were't for air resistance, you'd have to watch your back.