|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 31, 2022 8:44:17 GMT
Under Equivalence Principle, one is unable to distinguish gravity from the effect of inertia. And, for an infinitesimally small location in each, no experiment can differentiate one from the other, (gravity from inertia).
Today, however, there are medical experiments that detail how the lack of gravity can damage astronaut's blood cells.
Such that if using inertia as artificial gravity continues to produce this "lack of gravity" damages, then perhaps there actually is an experiment to differentiate one who is within gravity verses one who is merely in inertia.
Of course, if these damages cease to exist when using inertia as artificial gravity, then we are still where we first started.
Just a thought.
Here is the place where specifically *I* first heard of it:
Anton is pretty thorough.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2022 15:45:38 GMT
I guess the question is, if there is no form of testing that can differentiate between the two except on a macroscopic scale (I.E. if you're in a giant spinning space station, attracted to the outside, it's most likely inertia) isn't that a good thing for space travel?
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 31, 2022 17:29:48 GMT
I guess the question is, if there is no form of testing that can differentiate between the two except on a macroscopic scale (I.E. if you're in a giant spinning space station, attracted to the outside, it's most likely inertia) isn't that a good thing for space travel? If by "except on a macroscopic scale" you mean that's the first noticed difference between gravity and inertial forms of artificial gravity, such that then that also means since there is this noticeable difference between genuine gravity and artificial gravity (those using effects of inertia), the difference would mean that artificial gravity is just as unhealthy and dangerous as no gravity at all, then no. I don't think it would be good for space travel any more than it would be for Einstein's Equivalence Principle. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2022 18:33:29 GMT
I guess the question is, if there is no form of testing that can differentiate between the two except on a macroscopic scale (I.E. if you're in a giant spinning space station, attracted to the outside, it's most likely inertia) isn't that a good thing for space travel? If by "except on a macroscopic scale" you mean that's the first noticed difference between gravity and inertial forms of artificial gravity, such that then that also means since there is this noticeable difference between genuine gravity and artificial gravity (those using effects of inertia), the difference would mean that artificial gravity is just as unhealthy and dangerous as no gravity at all, then no. I don't think it would be good for space travel any more than it would be for Einstein's Equivalence Principle. no, I mean if you can't tell the difference by looking for physiological effects like blood degradation, it's a good thing - because it means intertial artificial gravity isn't any worse than natural gravity. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 31, 2022 18:59:05 GMT
Well, it is that macroscopic difference which is the lethal component and problem.
Under regular gravity no such lethal macroscopic issue exists of course: red blood cells exist normally.
But, since the exception you mentioned in hypothetically noticing that there aren't differences between the two (between gravity and inertia) means that artificial gravity (those achieved by means of inertia) would be different albeit only on a macroscopic scale, is, unfortunately, a lethal difference. So not so "albiet" after all.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 31, 2022 19:12:09 GMT
Well, it is that macroscopic difference which is the lethal component and problem. Under regular gravity no such lethal macroscopic issue exists of course: red blood cells exist normally. But, since the exception you mentioned in hypothetically noticing that there aren't differences between the two (between gravity and inertia) means that artificial gravity (those achieved by means of inertia) would be different albeit only on a macroscopic scale. But it is, unfortunately, a lethal difference. So not so "albiet" after all. and wasn't your original question related to what if red blood cells also exist normally under inertial artificial gravity? macroscopic, not microscopic. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Jan 31, 2022 20:17:01 GMT
But, it isn't really a "lack of gravity" because the astronauts in question are only 100 miles or so away from the surface of earth, well within Earth's gravity well, but having merely circumvented gravity's pull by continuously falling through it.
So, since the real problem is blood damaged by the lack of gravity's pull, apparently, and not the lack of gravity's presence, I must reconsider my first question altogether it seems.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Feb 1, 2022 3:09:44 GMT
But, it isn't really a "lack of gravity" because the astronauts in question are only 100 miles or so away from the surface of earth, well within Earth's gravity well, but having merely circumvented gravity's pull by continuously falling through it. So, since the real problem is blood damaged by the lack of gravity's pull, apparently, and not the lack of gravity's presence, I must reconsider my first question altogether it seems. I understood your question to be, that the absence of perceived gravity leads to cellular damage. but there is still a question of whether being in inertial artificial gravity will or will not have the cell damage from being in the absence of perceived gravity. so my conclusion is, if it turns out that there is no difference in on a cellular level, whether the subject is in natural gravity, or whether the subject has been in an environment of 1G of acceleration, either in an accelerating vessel or a centrifugal ring; that is good news for space exploration, because it means we can use artificial gravity to avoid harm. |
|
