Follow TV Tropes

Following

Discussion Main / RingworldPlanet

Go To

You will be notified by PM when someone responds to your discussion
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
SeptimusHeap MOD (Edited uphill both ways)
Mar 20th 2021 at 11:32:22 AM •••

Previous Trope Repair Shop thread: Ambiguous Name, started by zarpaulus on Sep 12th 2012 at 9:25:16 PM

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
zarpaulus Since: Jan, 2001
Nov 27th 2012 at 1:07:51 PM •••

So, are we going to cut the cylinders?

zarpaulus Since: Jan, 2001
Sep 12th 2012 at 10:40:11 AM •••

Considering that most examples on the page are O'neil cylinders rather than ringworlds I think we might need to rename it to something like "Cylindrical Space Station".

Peteman Since: Jan, 2001
Jun 24th 2012 at 6:49:10 PM •••

Can someone point me to the Revenge of the Sith example?

Hide / Show Replies
Icedragon768 Since: Jun, 2012
Aug 9th 2012 at 3:42:09 PM •••

I think that troper was thinking of Cato Nemodia or one of those planets with wierd architecture in the Order 66 sequence. I'm removing it as a reference, I used to watch that movie three or four times a year, and I never once saw a ringworld.

psychohistorian The Narrator Since: Jan, 2011
The Narrator
Mar 2nd 2011 at 7:12:49 PM •••

This page says that Ring World Planets are popular because their centrifugal force makes them at least somewhat plausible.

But according to my Physics textbook, there is no such thing as a centrifugal force.

"...I want to take a minute to make sure you do not get the concept of centripetal force confused with the concept of 'centrifugal force.' It is important to distinguish between the two, because while centripetal force is a valid concept in physics, centrifugal force is not! Although you might have heard about centrifugal force (indeed, it is even in the dictionary), it is not a real force."

I would rather not post the entire reasoning process by which the text argues this point, so I would just like to suggest that one of you pick up your Physics textbook and read the relevant sections.

-Psychohistorian's brother

I will laugh when you are in trouble! When they cry for help, I will not answer. -Jesus rebuttal to fools found in proverbs 1:26-28? Hide / Show Replies
kernedge Since: Dec, 1969
Mar 3rd 2011 at 8:46:36 PM •••

Your brother is wrong. Centrifugal force is a perfectly valid physical concept.

http://www.xkcd.com/123

I'm getting a bit sick of seeing, in this wiki, the term centripetal force used where centrifugal force is the correct term. The two are not interchangeable: the force felt by a test mass in a rotating reference frame is centrifugal, the centripetal force is the one responsible for *keeping the mass rotating*, pointing *toward* the center of rotation. In the case of a ringworld, for example, the artificial gravity felt by the inhabitants is centrifugal force, whereas the *normal* that acts on their feet from the ground is the centripetal force. In a rotating reference frame, these two force cancel to keep the mass at rest, in an inertial reference frame, the centripetal force keeps the inhabitants in a circular trajectory. Both views are valid, but *only* centrifugal force can be said to be responsible for artificial gravity or to cause stresses on the ringworld structure. Do not be fooled by the "ficticious" - as any military pilot can attest, it is quite real.

Edited by kernedge
Top