"Weightlessness" and faked video evidence

I meant that the metal would only heat up in the presence of a alternating magnetic field.  Magnetism itself does not produce heat.  Induced electrical current would cause the metal to heat up.

A refrigerator magnet does not heat up the refrigerator.

Quote from: jroa on July 26, 2013, 07:21:38 PM

I meant that the metal would only heat up in the presence of a alternating magnetic field.  Magnetism itself does not produce heat.  Induced electrical current would cause the metal to heat up.

A refrigerator magnet does not heat up the refrigerator.

I knew what you meant, and yes, you are quite right, only a magnetic field which constantly varies in some way will heat metal. I just wanted to point out that an alternating field is required for levitation (again, as far as I know), so that the point that magnetic levitation is unlikely to be being used for these videos would not be missed. So, I got a little creative with my interpretation of your meaning, hope you didn't mind too much!

Well, I've looked into it a bit more, and an alternating magnetic field is not required for diamagnetic levitation, which can be used to levitate living things such as frogs. You were right on that one jroa! However, the magnets used need to be extremely powerful, and are only capable of lifting small objects with very dominant diamagnetic characteristics, so I still feel it is highly unlikely to be the method used to levitate the objects in the "weightlessness" videos.

Quote from: Scintific Method on July 27, 2013, 06:22:13 AM

Well, I've looked into it a bit more, and an alternating magnetic field is not required for diamagnetic levitation, which can be used to levitate living things such as frogs. You were right on that one jroa! However, the magnets used need to be extremely powerful, and are only capable of lifting small objects with very dominant diamagnetic characteristics, so I still feel it is highly unlikely to be the method used to levitate the objects in the "weightlessness" videos.

I never said that it is probably the way they did this.  I only implied that it is possible, and therefore can not be thrown out outright.  That frog, despite his flailing and knocking himself around, appeared to be weightless.

Things like people and hair are diamagnetic.

Quote from: jroa on July 27, 2013, 06:40:26 AM

Quote from: Scintific Method on July 27, 2013, 06:22:13 AM

Well, I've looked into it a bit more, and an alternating magnetic field is not required for diamagnetic levitation, which can be used to levitate living things such as frogs. You were right on that one jroa! However, the magnets used need to be extremely powerful, and are only capable of lifting small objects with very dominant diamagnetic characteristics, so I still feel it is highly unlikely to be the method used to levitate the objects in the "weightlessness" videos.

I never said that it is probably the way they did this.  I only implied that it is possible, and therefore can not be thrown out outright.  That frog, despite his flailing and knocking himself around, appeared to be weightless.

Things like people and hair are diamagnetic.

What about the velcro in 3:10? Or the plastic tape dispenser in 3:26? Or the pieces of fire extinguisher in 6:21? The various cords, straps, pens, and the like that are clearly not hanging down against gravity in the Columbus Module?

Are you claiming that each of these objects has the exact same dimagnetic properties?

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:14:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 26, 2013, 07:41:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:14:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

I thought stars weren't visible on pictures from "space"? Could all the NASA acolytes get on the same page?

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 26, 2013, 07:41:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:14:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

I thought stars weren't visible on pictures from "space"? Could all the NASA acolytes get on the same page?

I can't see the stars during the day because of the light diffused through the atmosphere... What page am I supposed to be on?

Pretty sure someone has explained previously, stars aren't visible from space when the sun, or the sun's rays reflected off of the moon or the Earth, are in frame.  This is because the majority of the light is from those rays, and to get any stars visible the earth would come out very overexposed.  In case you can't tell by the lights on the ground, this is a picture of the Earth when the side pictured is dark, so more exposure would both show the stars and brighten the Earth.

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2013, 04:28:07 PM

I can't see the stars during the day because of the light diffused through the atmosphere... What page am I supposed to be on?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on July 27, 2013, 03:44:12 PM

Pretty sure someone has explained previously, stars aren't visible from space when the sun, or the sun's rays reflected off of the moon or the Earth, are in frame.  This is because the majority of the light is from those rays, and to get any stars visible the earth would come out very overexposed.  In case you can't tell by the lights on the ground, this is a picture of the Earth when the side pictured is dark, so more exposure would both show the stars and brighten the Earth.

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2013, 04:28:07 PM

I can't see the stars during the day because of the light diffused through the atmosphere... What page am I supposed to be on?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on July 27, 2013, 03:44:12 PM

Pretty sure someone has explained previously, stars aren't visible from space when the sun, or the sun's rays reflected off of the moon or the Earth, are in frame.  This is because the majority of the light is from those rays, and to get any stars visible the earth would come out very overexposed.  In case you can't tell by the lights on the ground, this is a picture of the Earth when the side pictured is dark, so more exposure would both show the stars and brighten the Earth.

Quote from: Pyrolizard on July 27, 2013, 04:30:32 PM

Quote from: Ski on July 27, 2013, 04:28:07 PM

I can't see the stars during the day because of the light diffused through the atmosphere... What page am I supposed to be on?

Quote from: Pyrolizard on July 27, 2013, 03:44:12 PM

Pretty sure someone has explained previously, stars aren't visible from space when the sun, or the sun's rays reflected off of the moon or the Earth, are in frame.  This is because the majority of the light is from those rays, and to get any stars visible the earth would come out very overexposed.  In case you can't tell by the lights on the ground, this is a picture of the Earth when the side pictured is dark, so more exposure would both show the stars and brighten the Earth.

What does that answer have to give with the Orange's? Make up your minds.

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:14:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

Quote from: FlatOrange on July 26, 2013, 07:41:53 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 22, 2013, 07:14:02 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on July 22, 2013, 07:01:42 AM

They never, ever think of looking anywhere else other than the earth. I mean, what's more boring than that when you've had it shoved in your face a gazillion times.
How about looking through the other cupola windows and having a look at all the lovely stars and planets floating about...imagine eh?

Sniff sniff, what can it be.... "I know" said Jim...it's bull crap you see.

Do you mean something sorta like this?
(snip)

Or how about this? Big Dipper - July 20, 2013

The photo is a direct contradiction.  I must add this particular piece of info, because in other photos or movies (like the one with astronaut Luca) no stars are visible.  It all smells of CGI animation.  People were even trying to defend the reason why there were no stars in the pics above earth.  Inconsistencies, inconsistencies...

The photo is a direct contradiction.  I must add this particular piece of info, because in other photos or movies (like the one with astronaut Luca) no stars are visible.  It all smells of CGI animation.  People were even trying to defend the reason why there were no stars in the pics above earth.  Inconsistencies, inconsistencies...

Now can you please answer the OP?

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 02:45:42 PM

Now can you please answer the OP?

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 03:02:31 PM

Quote from: Alex Tomasovich on July 30, 2013, 02:45:42 PM

Now can you please answer the OP?

You act like the question has not been answered.  It has, and you even listed the answers.  You do not like the answers you got, so you ignore them and pretend that no answers were offered.  Then you make threads saying that you got no answers and say that FE'ers can not offer an answer.  Seriously, what is wrong with you?  Are you seeking attention, or is there some sort of psychological disorder?  Maybe a combination of the two?  I don't know.   

Anyway, this will probably end up on one of your lists of "Unanswered Threads", or whatever you call it.  I am out of here.

I'm a little late to the party, and find it difficult to parse responses nested 15 quotes deep.  Is there a FEH explanation for "levitating" hair and other inanimate objects of varying density/composition?

Brief recap of the thread, sans derailment attempts:

OP: How does NASA (et al.) fake hour-long videos from inside the ISS?

Theory 1: Magnets. While magnet can affect water, and thus levitate bodies, things that are distinctly non-magnetic are also seen floating around, like velcro straps and scotch tape dispensers. Not to mention magnetically levitated objects are constrained to a small 'stable' zone, whereas the videos show people and objects floating around wherever they wish.

Theory 2: Hutchison Effect. This cannot be reproduced by anyone--including Hutchison himself. Hutchison has admitted that his videos were faked.

Theory 3: Suspended in breathable liquid. Because things of vastly different densities (such as velcro, scotch tape dispensers, raisins, and pens) are seen floating around, any liquid cannot be held responsible.

So, any other ideas? Anyone?

CGI or multiple spliced rides on the "Vomit Comet" sound the most plausible to me.

Quote from: jroa on August 05, 2013, 11:20:00 AM

CGI or multiple spliced rides on the "Vomit Comet" sound the most plausible to me.

Multiple spliced rides on the Vomit Comet? And after each session of 2+ Gs they managed to get the actors, camera-person, and various floating paraphernalia in the exact positions and velocities as the previous cut. That makes a lot of sense.

It might even be a combination of the two I mentioned.

Also, just because you say something is unlikely, that does not make it impossible.