Main Question or Discussion Point
Is a bicycle ridden with the Moon's gravity less likely to fall over than with Earth's?
This is a pretty ambiguous question. Let's start by assuming everything that can be made the same as on Earth, is the same. Normal flat, hard surface, breathable environment eliminating need for bulky spacesuit, etc...Is a bicycle ridden with the Moon's gravity less likely to fall over than with Earth's?
Well, as to how efficient it is, that's another question.That's a cool question. Both it and Dave's answer triggered a thought. Once a lunar colony is established, bikes might be a pretty effective method of transportation. They would get rid of that weird hopping motion that the Apollo astronauts found most convenient for getting around. I'm thinking mainly of indoors, but slimline spacesuits and packed-down pathways might make them practical for surface use as well.
Thank you for helping me refine my question. I was trying to compare the bicycle wheels' precession with the gravity of the two environments. I guess the first is a function of the bicycle velocity, and the second a function of the celestial body's radius and mass. Neither are directly related but both affect the rate of sideways fall for the bicycle.The answer is no. I don't see how the question is so ambiguous. Falling when riding a bicycle has nothing to do with the gravitational field that you are in. Instead, it has to do with the center of gravity of the bicycle-rider combination. Granted the fall would happen more slowly, giving you more time to react, and the impact would probably not be as great.
Don't be silly. Of course it does.Falling when riding a bicycle has nothing to do with the gravitational field that you are in.
I see where you're coming from. I was not, however, thinking in terms of speed. Rather, I was thinking that a bike would 'smooth out' the effort. It does so here on Earth, but the type of hopping done by the astronauts seems to be even more cumbersome than walking; hence, the difference would be magnified. The issue of turning didn't occur to me, and I don't know exactly how it would affect things. The main thing that I was thinking of was orderly ground-bound traffic rather than a horde of people bouncing around in constant collision.I suspect that it would be quite difficult to get any appreciable speed, as well as difficult to turn. Both will tend to be more efficient when in higher gravity for the very same reasons that walking and running are.
Dave did say 'effectively zero', which is different than 'zero'. There's always some degree of microgravity, in which case you will still fall. It will take one horrendously long time, though.Well, Dave, you can't really fall in zero gravity can you?
It doesn't matter if it's nearly zero or theoretically exactly zero (which cannot occur). Simply put: the gravitational field is most definitely relevant.Dave did say 'effectively zero', which is different than 'zero'. There's always some degree of microgravity, in which case you will still fall. It will take one horrendously long time, though.
Good point, Leon. I don't actually think that you'd be any more likely to cat-walk or spin out, for the very reason of your first statement. You will have only 1/6th of the weight to apply to the pedals. Hmmm... I suppose that you could brace yourself downward with the handlebars, and thus apply more force. Hmmm...You may not be able to exert as much power on the pedals in low gravity. If you had good traction you would be more likely to "pop a wheelie", or just skid your wheels.
Could'nt you theorize that there are moving points in space that contain zero gravity ?? - like a certain point between the earth and the sun. Few years ago I did sums to work out that point - but then forgot that it would be in orbit - so I would need some fancy calculus to get a final answerI completely agree with you, Dave, and I apologize if it seemed otherwise. It was merely my intention to point out that the universe doesn't contain any areas of actual zero gravity.
You could certainly have a moving point at which the gravitational fields of the Earth and the Sun cancel out; in fact, there has to be one. But that doesn't factor in the influence of every other body in the universe, each of which contributes in some degree.Could'nt you theorize that there are moving points in space that contain zero gravity ?? - like a certain point between the earth and the sun.
Gravity can never be zero.Could'nt you theorize that there are moving points in space that contain zero gravity ?? - like a certain point between the earth and the sun. Few years ago I did sums to work out that point - but then forgot that it would be in orbit - so I would need some fancy calculus to get a final answer
The point is that balancing is a feedback process. It is tension between gravity and the rider actively maintaining a vertical position. On the apex of a Moon mountain, gravity has lessened the speed at which one will fall, yet the cyclist's ability to compensate has not diminished - his reactions are just as fast and his mass used to compensate has not lessened.So let me get this straight. The weaker the gravitational field, the less important it is to maintain a low center of gravity for the purpose of avoiding momentum developing in any particular direction. In other words, one would have less difficulty balncing on the peak of a lunar mountain than on the apex of the Great Pyramid.