this post was submitted on
668 points (84% like it)
821 up votes 153 down votes
shortlink:

waterporn

unsubscribe24,590 readers

~21 users here now

Check out /r/BoatPorn! From kayaks to cruise liners, schooners to submarines.

Submission Rules

  • Include the location in the title.
  • Include the resolution in [brackets] in the title.
  • Only submit static images.
    • Videos, collections, interactive images/websites, and articles are not allowed.
    • Do not submit a shortened link using a URL shortener like tinyurl.
  • Make sure your image is hosted by an approved host.
    • Original source is allowed and preferred over the approved hosts. If your submission is not on the list of approved hosts, but it is an original source, please use the tag [OS] so your submission is not removed in error. If your image is rehosted from another approved host it will be removed.
    • If you took the photo yourself, you can signify this by using the tag [OC] (original content) and after 24 hours you will be given special flair. If you don't receive flair after a few days feel free to message the mods.
  • If you have any questions check out the FAQ.

Other subreddits you may enjoy:

created by brockwallacea community for
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...
message the moderators

MODERATORS

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

667
668

A bubble of air inside of droplet of water in space [702x467] (i.imgur.com)

submitted ago by jeremiahjo

all 31 comments
sorted by:
best
best
top
new
hot
controversial
old

[–]x-squared 6 points7 points ago

Don Pettit on the ISS does stuff with water like this all the time. Its amazing to watch.

This should pull all of his videos

[–]EverythingsOkayAlarm 14 points15 points ago

This picture is out of this world!

GET IT?!

[–]anaxos 2 points3 points ago

That's incredible, any more info on this picture?

[–]Borgh 5 points6 points ago

The guy in the picture is Andre Kuipers, a dutch astronaut who just got back from the ISS. I'll see if I can dig up something on his blog. Edit: nope, nothing on his flickr account.

[–]ILL_Show_Myself_Out 3 points4 points ago

So meta.

[–]Juliolink 2 points3 points ago

Space porn meets water porn

[–]Tyler185 2 points3 points ago

Bubbleception! It had to be done.

[–]rowd149 0 points1 point ago

This was my first thought, too. WE HAVE TO GO DEEPER.

[–]Tyler185 1 point2 points ago

Let's have a piece of sand floating in the pocket of air.

[–]rowd149 0 points1 point ago

Nonono! Get this... a candle... Inside a clay container... in the air... which is inside water.

[–]Tyler185 0 points1 point ago

The four States of matter lived in harmony.

[–]nikeryen 1 point2 points ago

Should have been *inside a bubble of air in space

[–]KleurenPrinter 0 points1 point ago

I actually met the guy in the picture once. Very cool guy with a lot of humor. He always smiles.

[–]jasonofcompsci 0 points1 point ago

It would be cool to see a trace of the optics. I could do that myself but I feel someone could make a better diagram.

[–]guest123420 0 points1 point ago

Ever seen an air bubble in a water droplet in outer space....on weed?

-John Stewart

[–]carpa 0 points1 point ago

Posted 24h ago in /pics, go fuck yourself OP. repost

[–]bcg1209 -4 points-3 points ago

"in space"?

you mean in zero gravity? everything is in space.. and if you differentiate "in space" from "on earth" then why wouldn't you describe this as "in the space station"?????

[–]S201 0 points1 point ago

There is no such thing as "zero gravity". The amount of gravity due to the Earth in orbit is roughly the same as on the surface. If you want to 100% about the term "in space", the correct term to use would be "weightlessness", even though it's generally assumed in common language that "in space" implies "weightlessness".

[–]bcg1209 0 points1 point ago

I don't think you understand what weightlessness means. Zero-g and weightlessness are the EXACT same thing. Yes, both are theoretical because gravity, no matter how far you are from the source, will reach you in some small degree. Considering the fact that "weight" is nothing more than mass times gravity, and if there is ALWAYS some gravity like you claim, then there is ALWAYS some weight to everything. Just multiply your mass times that near-nonexistant gravitational force and you'll have a tiny weight, NOT weightlessness. Don't contradict yourself.

Either way, the definition I'm using for zero-g (which I copied for your reference, and which you can look up for yourself, if you do so wish) includes gravity that is utterly negligible.

[–]bcg1209 0 points1 point ago

The definition I copied is in the reply to the only other person who replied to my original post. In case you were actually looking for it.

[–]S201 0 points1 point ago

Yes, zero-g and weightlessness are the same thing, however, in your original comment you said "zero gravity" which could be interpreted as "zero-g" (weightless), or literally as there is no gravity at all. As we have both said, it is impossible for there to be zero gravitational forces acting on a given object.

We're obviously arguing over specifics here. I was simply saying that in common language, "in space" implies weightlessness and since this subreddit is /r/waterporn, not /r/space or /r/physics, the correction was unnecessary.

[–]dnlprkns 1 point2 points ago

Don't be pedantic. And if you do wan't to be a stickler, the space station is in micro gravity not "zero gravity"

[–]bcg1209 -1 points0 points ago

What 2 words is "wan't" short for?

"Weightlessness (or zero-g) is the condition that exists for an object or person when they experience little or no acceleration except the acceleration that defines their inertial trajectory, or the trajectory of pure free-fall."

Your micro gravity would fall under the "little" acceleration. I simply offered a better term to use, while you decided to focus on the minutiae that would result in a gravitational acceleration of 0.0000000000000...etc meters/second.

[–]dnlprkns 0 points1 point ago

Mmm, no, that is not how those terms are used. Do you see the term "zero-g" you used there? The "g" in that term does not stand for gravity, it stands for g-force. That would have been clear to you if you had read on in the Wikipedia article you quoted.
The point, then, is that the space station still experiences gravity at almost the same force we do on earth, it is just they that the force throwing them out due to the speed of their orbit counteracts it almost perfectly leaving them at "zero-g" but not at zero gravity.

[–]bcg1209 -2 points-1 points ago

I understand what zero g means. I also understand that gravity is still affecting someone in orbit around a body. The point I'm making is that if one were to theoretically be exposed to a complete lack of gravity, they would be experiencing zero g forces - the same way that the sum of the forces acting on the body cancels to create a zero g environment. In both situations, the term weightlessness IS applicable, and the water bubble in said environment would be acting the same as it would in a theoretical environment lacking gravity.

[–]dnlprkns 1 point2 points ago

hehehe, BCG, i think you have to give this one up. Dent, s201, and I all know that you were being an unnecessary stickler and that you then misused the term "zero gravity." You seem to have seen that, but life is much easier when one admits they have made a mistake, rather than to convince themselves that they have not.

[–]bcg1209 0 points1 point ago

life is also easier when you group up, isnt it? list all the reddit usernames you want.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/space/preparingtravel/ascans_kc135.html

just a random article from nasa in which they use the term zero gravity. in the very first paragraph:

"zero-gravity somersaults"

the people in the plane are STILL under the effect of gravity, just like the water bubble, yet their somersaults were zero gravity. the term is applicable and is used the exact same way as when i claimed the water bubble was in zero gravity.

you gonna claim nasa doesn't know how to use the term either?

[–]dnlprkns 1 point2 points ago

AND the article uses the term SPACE to mean outer space. Which you, presumably, still believe is wrong or unclear.

THAT HAS BEEN THE ENTIRE POINT. The terms have common meanings and scientific ones, since YOU chose to use scientific ones, and to correct the OP, it is funny when you get them wrong. The article and OP both CORRECTLY used the NONSCIENTIFIC terms "space" and "zero-gravity." THEN you INCORRECTLY tried to use the SCIENTIFIC terms.

[–]Dentarthurdent42 1 point2 points ago

... and yet you could not infer that by "space" the OP meant "outer-space"? Also, "zero-g" would not indicate the location at which this photograph was taken, as it could also describe an object in free fall.

[–]bcg1209 -2 points-1 points ago

i knew exactly what the OP meant, I was simply offering a different term. and i NEVER said zero-g indicated any specific location, i claimed it to be a potential property of objects in a location. don't try to put words in my mouth. *edited for doubling words

[–]Dentarthurdent42 1 point2 points ago

... but your term would have been less clear than the OP's choice of words. To those of us humans who understand the concept of connotation, the fact that the phrase "in space" here refers to outer space is blatantly obvious. This also tells us that this photograph was taken in microgravitational conditions. From that, it is also fairly easy to deduce that this took place on the ISS. The OP's choice of words was perfectly acceptable.

I found your comment to be both shallow and pedantic.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 23826 on app-194 running e0847eb.