I'm guessing it's an illustration to show just how AWESOME it is to be weightless in space.

The whole thing has that "bad cgi" vibe where everything feels weightless.

Not for me.

Your video, Weightless - Jean-Baptiste Chandelier -Paragliding Proximity, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Thought you would dig this https://videosift.com/video/Weightless-Jean-Baptiste-Chandelier

Ok Go's New Video Shot In Zero-Gravity has been added as a related post - related requested by oritteropo.

Yes. I saw an interview with them yesterday where they explain there's a 4 minute wait between each weightless 25 seconds., plus another 40 seconds of almost 2G. They edited out the wait time, and did an amazing job of it. I can barely tell when the edits are, and only see some of them now because I'm looking hard at the end of each weightless period.
All done in one flight with no editing-in anything, according to them.

I thought the same thing until I rode Tatsu and X2 at Six Flags. They were innovative designs that make you are not in a rollercoaster, as though you are flying. The cars also split up and twist in unexpected ways. I think the real feat is to make it feel as though you are no longer strapped in. A fully weightless rollercoaster.

The right term is "weightless". Gravity at the space station altitude is 88% as strong as on Earth surface. However, everything is weightless.

Exposure to gravity, or lack of it, will eventually cause changes in the body as it evolves. Not the long heads and bodies vaire2ube alludes to but other things, like maybe a resistance to osteoporosis.

If you imagine everyone on earth suddenly has to live in a weightless environment I'm sure you can imagine how it would help some people and damage others. Those with dangerously high blood pressure could end up bursting a blood vessel in the brain, killing them, whereas others with dangerously low blood pressure would survive better. Weightlessness would lead to selection favouring low blood pressure in this instance. I'm not sure if this exact example would happen, but I'm sure you can imagine that making a huge change to the environment such as removing the effect of gravity would have a profound effect on our bodies, and that effect could then lead to natural selection and evolution.

Watching this will make you feel as though you're weightless

I get the idea, or at least I think I do. It's supposed to give you the sensation of flying, in that your "weightless" and can see in every direction. Still be a bit nervous getting in the first few times though.

I'm sure astronauts have pitched tents in space before. I mean you're weightless, so it's probably pretty friggin comfortable with no pinching and what not when sleeping. And a really comfortable and relaxing sleep leads to awesome dreams, I'm guessing flying is probably a popular one with the weightless sleep.

And......all that good comfortable sleep = pitched tents/morningwood.

"There's one way on earth to reproduce ... weightlessness ..., and that's in this plane."

Or any other plane (or whatever) that flies a parabolic arc and drops with gravity. My dad has a civilian pilot license and was part owner of a Cessna 172 small plane. When I was quite young, I'd go up in the plane with him and he would do "zero-G dives", even taught me how to do it. Get to a good altitude, pull up to near stall, and then nose over and drop.

In a light plane with limited altitude ceiling you can't get 30 seconds of zero G, but we could get 5-6 quite safely.

It is true, but it is not just semantics.

Once the ball leaves the hand it will experience constant acceleration (ignoring drag). With just constant acceleration, the accelerometer can't tell us when the ball will reach apogee. Velocity and displacement are not being measured, so whether the ball is moving up or down won't register.

With only an accelerometer to work with, the only practical to way to predict when the ball will be at its highest point is to use the initial upward acceleration and a little bit of math.

>> ^ForgedReality:

>> ^messenger:
Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.


Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.

>> ^messenger:

Nope. Once the ball leaves your hand, there is one significant acceleration force, which is gravity, downwards. There is no such force as "deceleration", just acceleration in a different direction. If by "deceleration" you mean gravity's acceleration downwards, it is constant enough for our purposes today: 9.8 m/s/s).>> ^ForgedReality:
>> ^blackoreb:
Your idea won't work. Once the ball leaves your hand, acceleration on the ball is essentially constant until it hits something. The only variable acceleration will be due to drag and "dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature," etc.
The designer can account for your "never-let-go" scenario, as well as the more common "bouncing-around-in-the-back-seat" scenario, by requiring a minimum launch acceleration, followed by a minimum period of constant acceleration, before snapping a picture.
>> ^ForgedReality:
...Seems like it would make more sense to detect DEceleration, as that would facilitate either an upward OR a downward motion, and it wouldn't be reliant on possible bad guesses at when it would stop moving (dependent on environmental influences such as air viscosity, temperature, wind, obstacles in the path, etc)....

Once the ball leaves your hand, there IS no acceleration. In fact, it becomes inverted, as there are no longer any forces acting upon it to create acceleration, and it is now decelerating. Deceleration is not constant, as it reaches a point where it is essentially weightless. This is the point at which it currently seeks to snap the image. If It actually detected when the ball stopped moving, acceleration wouldn't be a factor.



Okay true enough, but now you're arguing semantics when you know full well what I meant.