Space is a Vacuum but it is not a perfect vacuum, so if we made an efficient enough air compressor. We could compress outer space into a positive pressure giving the craft the ability of momentum.

I wonder how efficient it would be? It'll probably gain effiency has it gains momentum. The space it compresses will stay around the ships gravitational field. Giving the craft an even greater atmospheric pressure to push off of. Eventually the craft will create an atmospheric pressure that is pretty astounding.

Do you think eventually the atmospheric pressure around ship will hit a limit in what gains the craft will be able to create in speed? Kind of like trying to get a craft from earth to reach outer-space by just using air-compressors? The Atmospheric pressure of earth is 29.92 in. (760 mm) of mercury, 14.70 PSI. So if the atmosphere created around the craft reached 14.70 PSI. Would it calm down or would it continue to gain in speed?

I just saw that the vacuum in space is very deep but what if we shot a gas around the ship for the ship to gain momentum and a greater gravity. Do you think the ship's starting gravity and air pumps around the ship creating a vacuum would be great enough to gain a strong gravity as to not lose the presssure's it created around itself?

If the space around the ship stayed the same. and it kept all the atoms around it. Would it keeep gaining speed?

If the space around the ship stayed the same. and it kept all the atoms around it. Would it keeep gaining speed?

I can't quite figure out what you have in mind. You'd never be able to create a gas envelope aound the ship (it would immediately disperse into space) and really wouldn't accomplish anything if you could do it.

The gas would be best used as mass for an ion drive - just like they did with the DS1 probe.

But back to your original topic - just what are you trying to do?

Im trying to discover a new way of space propulsion.

If we cut the ship into sections(innner core and outer saucer. And have the outer-saucer spin with the proulsion of the gas. Then the ships total gravity would increase if we could get the outer disc to spin fast enough it might be able to create gravitational feild around the ship great enough to allow no escape.

The outer disc contains the air compressors and also is used to spin the saucer. Becuase air compressors are vacuums too it could also help in keeping the gases around itself.

Im trying to discover a new way of space propulsion.

If we cut the ship into sections(innner core and outer saucer. And have the outer-saucer spin with the proulsion of the gas. Then the ships total gravity would increase if we could get the outer disc to spin fast enough it might be able to create gravitational feild around the ship great enough to allow no escape.

You cannot increase the gravity of a ship without increasing it's mass. Perhaps you're thinking of making artificial gravity inside through centrifugal force? But that does nothing for the ship itself in terms of the gravity it exhibits (which is VERY. VERY tiny anyway).

Spinning an object creates speed. Speed equals more gravity.

The outer disc contains the air compressors and also is used to spin the saucer. Becuase air compressors are vacuums too it could also help in keeping the gases around itself.

Sorry, but that makes no sense. As I said earlier, any gas put outside the ship will quickly dissappear into the empty space around it. Almost instantly!

Spinning an object creates speed. Speed creates gravity.

No, it doesn't - unless you are talking about speeds very near to the speed of light and that's a result of increased mass. I honestly think you misunderstand centrifugal force.

Air compressors first uses a vacuum and then compresses that space.

No, it doesn't - unless you are talking about speeds very near to the speed of light and that's a result of increased mass. I honestly think you misunderstand centrifugal force.

If you make a whirl pool in water do stuff not get sucked in?

I dont see why an object cant do the same?

I see all things having gravity and at the end it equals the objects total gravity.

Now the ship will have a total gravity equal to itself and the spinning of its outer disc and atmosphere it can keep around it. I dont see why the atoms of the ship dont also contribute to the total gravity. So the atoms spinning would create sort of a vacuum. Atoms make-up of the outer disc will hold on to the gas atom for so long but if it's spinning the next atom in line can pick up the gas atom that was lost by the atom next to it and so and so on. Creating a greater total gravity.

Air compressors first uses a vacuum and then compresses that space.

You cannot compress space.

I see all things having gravity and at the end it equals the objects total gravity.

Now the ship will have a total gravity equal to itself and the spinning of its outer disc and atmosphere it can keep around it. I dont see why the atoms of the ship dont also contribute to the total gravity. So the atoms spinning would create sort of a vacuum. Atoms make-up of the outer disc will hold on to the gas atom for so long but if it's spinning the next atom in line can pick up the gas atom that was lost by the atom above it and so and so on. Creating a greater total gravity.

As I've tried to explain to you, making something spin does NOT create gravity. Never has, never will.

Technically you can.

You see outer-space is not a perfect vacuum. You can compress any space that is not a perfect vacuum.

But creating a compressor efficient enough to do so would be too hard.

That's why I suggested spinning the outer-saucer first and releasing the gas when the total gravity of the object becomes great enough.

As I've tried to explain to you, making something spin does NOT create gravity. Never has, never will.

Where is this provened?

What happens when you have air molecules moving around in a circle at high speeds?

Cheesy link but here's proof.

Spinning does help to provide to an objects total gravity.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/martificialgravity.html

bad link I know, but Im too lazy to find a good one.

Edit:
nevermind I think that link goes against me? I dont know I didnt fully read it when I posted it lol. it doesnt matter though Im stubborn and still beleive it adds to the total gravity of an object.

Cheesy link but here's proof.

Spinning does help to provide to an objects total gravity.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/martificialgravity.html

bad link I know, but Im too lazy to find a good one.

Edit:
nevermind I think that link goes against me? I dont know I didnt fully read it when I posted it lol. it doesnt matter though Im stubborn and still beleive it adds to the total gravity of an object.

You can spin any object you wish as fast as you want - short of causing it to break apart and it won't increase it's gravity even the tinest bit. You'll never be able to find a reputable source that says it does. Sorry. Been watching too much science fiction, perhaps?

No, I dont watch science fiction.

You can spin any object you wish as fast as you want - short of causing it to break apart and it won't increase it's gravity even the tinest bit. You'll never be able to find a reputable source that says it does. Sorry. Been watching too much science fiction, perhaps?

And where's the proof that says it doesnt?

And where's the proof that says it doesnt?

Ah, no - that's not the way it works. YOU claim it adds gravity so YOU have to show proof that it does. (Not that you will ever be able to.)

Ah, no - that's not the way it works. YOU claim it adds gravity so YOU have to show proof that it does. (Not that you will ever be able to.)

A whirl-pool will suck you in
A Tornado will suck you in

Why doesn't a spinning object suck in the atoms around it?

A whirl-pool will suck you in
A Tornado will suck you in

Why doesn't a spinning object suck in the atoms around it?

Read-only where are you?

A whirl-pool will suck you in
A Tornado will suck you in

Why doesn't a spinning object suck in the atoms around it?

And neither of those have ANYTHING to do with gravity at all. The forces there are called partial-pressure. A fairly weak vacuum - suction, if you wish.

A spinning object will actually throw things AWAY from it. Never ridden on a carousel?

Your looking at the inside. The outside is doing the exact opposite.

You forget there's an eye to a tornado and a circle in a whirlpool.

Your looking at the inside. The outside is doing the exact opposite.

You forget there's an eye to a tornado and a circle in a whirlpool.

No, a tornado doesn't have an 'eye' as such - that's a hurricane. And a tornado pulls things in at the bottom and slings them our at the sides. A hurricane destroys with the tremendous winds spinning around it's wall and the effect - since the storm is so big - is just like a straight wind blowing things away. And NEITHER of them have anything at all to do with gravity.

You'd probably have better luck using the air compressor AS the propulsion device.

No, a tornado doesn't have an 'eye' as such - that's a hurricane. And a tornado pulls things in at the bottom and slings them our at the sides. A hurricane destroys with the tremendous winds spinning around it's wall and the effect - since the storm is so big - is just like a straight wind blowing things away. And NEITHER of them have anything at all to do with gravity.

tor·na·do /tɔrˈneɪdoʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[tawr-ney-doh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -does, -dos.
1. a localized, violently destructive windstorm occurring over land, esp. in the Middle West, and characterized by a long, funnel-shaped cloud extending toward the ground and made visible by condensation and debris. Compare waterspout (def. 3).
2. a violent squall or whirlwind of small extent, as one of those occurring during the summer on the west coast of Africa.
3. a violent outburst, as of emotion or activity.
4. (initial capital letter) Military. a supersonic, two-seat, multipurpose military aircraft produced jointly by West Germany, Britain, and Italy and capable of flying in darkness and bad weather.

fun·nel /ˈfʌnl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fuhn-l] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -neled, -nel·ing or (especially British) -nelled, -nel·ling.
–noun
1. a cone-shaped utensil with a tube at the apex for conducting liquid or other substance through a small opening, as into a bottle, jug, or the like.
2. a smokestack, esp. of a steamship.
3. a flue, tube, or shaft, as for ventilation.
4. Eastern New England. a stovepipe.
–verb (used with object)
5. to concentrate, channel, or focus: They funneled all income into research projects.
6. to pour through or as if through a funnel.
–verb (used without object)
7. to pass through or as if through a funnel.

tube /tub, tyub/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[toob, tyoob] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, tubed, tub·ing.
–noun
1. a hollow, usually cylindrical body of metal, glass, rubber, or other material, used esp. for conveying or containing liquids or gases.
2. a small, collapsible, cylinder of metal or plastic sealed at one end and having a capped opening at the other from which paint, toothpaste, or some other semifluid substance may be squeezed.
3. Anatomy, Zoology. any hollow, cylindrical vessel or organ: the bronchial tubes.
4. Botany.
a. any hollow, elongated body or part.
b. the united lower portion of a gamopetalous corolla or a gamosepalous calyx.
5. inner tube.
6. Electronics. electron tube.
7. Informal.
a. television.
b. a television set.
8. mailing tube.
9. the tubular tunnel in which an underground railroad runs.
10. the railroad itself.
11. Surfing Slang. the curled hollow formed on the underside of a cresting wave.
12. British. subway (def. 1).
13. Australian Slang. a can of beer.
14. Older Slang. a telescope.
–verb (used with object)
15. to furnish with a tube or tubes.
16. to convey or enclose in a tube.
17. to form into the shape of a tube; make tubular.
—Idiom
18. down the tube or tubes, Informal. into a ruined, wasted, or abandoned state or condition.

hol·low /ˈhɒloʊ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hol-oh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, noun, verb, adverb
–adjective
1. having a space or cavity inside; not solid; empty: a hollow sphere.
2. having a depression or concavity: a hollow surface.
3. sunken, as the cheeks or eyes.
4. (of sound) not resonant; dull, muffled, or deep: a hollow voice.
5. without real or significant worth; meaningless: a hollow victory.
6. insincere or false: hollow compliments.
7. hungry; having an empty feeling: I feel absolutely hollow, so let's eat.
–noun
8. an empty space within anything; a hole, depression, or cavity.
9. a valley: They took the sheep to graze in the hollow.
10. Foundry. a concavity connecting two surfaces otherwise intersecting at an obtuse angle.
–verb (used with object)
11. to make hollow (often fol. by out): to hollow out a log.
12. to form by making something hollow (often fol. by out): to hollow a place in the sand; boats hollowed out of logs.
–verb (used without object)
13. to become hollow.
–adverb
14. in a hollow manner: The politician's accusations rang hollow.
—Idiom
15. beat all hollow, to surpass or outdo completely: His performance beat the others all hollow. Also, beat hollow

Oh Jesus.

An Ion drive is exactly what you thought up. Even though space may contain a few particles, capturing the energy from them would be a better job for a solar sail. If you used solar panels to collect the energy from light, or nuclear power, you could accelerate a stream of ions (charged particles), out the back of the ship at very high speeds (small masses at high speed=large masses at smaller speed). You could even carry all the ions you need with you, instead of collecting it from space.

Klippy:
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00005.htm
You will note the fact that Read-Only was extremly correct in saying the tornado does not have an eye as a hurricane does. Yes it is a form of funnel, but following your logic, my air duct has the eye of a hurricane.

Next your link simply described the Centripetal force: an artificial gravity of sorts, however not the force of gravity. It also has no bearing on objects not within the rotating station.

The only 'gravity' a rotating object can contribute (versus one of the same mass thats non-rotating) is that of it's kinetic energy (thanks to E=mc^2) however, this energy will have to come from somewhere, and your better off just leaving it stored there than trying to spin something with it (it will still weigh the same whther it be stored in a battery or rotating the ship.)

You asked for proof that spinning objects dont produce gravity? Well I want proof that dragons, unicorns and Peter Pan do not exist. Cant give it to me? Then they must exist no? Dont worry though, both are arguments ad ignorantiam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance), and therefore invalid. If you can supply proof that rotating objects produce gravity, then we are getting somewhere.
The examples you have thusfar given, whirpool and tornados/hurricanes are all examples of a vortex (more or less) You can read about the physics of them if want an understanding of whats going on, but they do not increase the force of gravity.

-Andrew