Gravity Generator

Could such a thing ever be made?

The idea was explained to me on a ufo documentary but please don't move this to pseudoscience. I want to hear from science types not crazy "abductees".
There was some world renowned scientist who claimed to have been asked by the government to do work on what they told him was their latest technology on aircraft. He said he thought it was odd when nobody would tell him anything about the craft and soon started to feel as though he was being asked to figure out how it worked rather than help them perfect it.
He went into great detail about its engineering and said its method of movement was from "gravity generators" connected to moveable metal rods under it that could point in any direction and pull the craft.
Most of it went over my head but he sure sounded convincing.
On the documentary they would show footage of ufo's from wherever and ask him questions about them and he would explain why they moved like that or what they were doing. He would quickly say if one was fake and so on.
I have to admit it was hard to be skeptical while watching this, for me anyway, most people talking about ufo's are clearly wacko's but this guy truthfully seemed very intelligent and very sincere.

It would be easier to be skeptical if I could understand the concept of a gravity generator. Does anyone know anything about the idea of gravity generators?

(thats why this shouldn't be moved, I just want to know if the science behind the idea is realistic)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

HA, well, the problem with this is that there is no science behind it. It doesn't exist as far as anyone I know knows.

The only thing we know about gravity is that is is associated with an amound of mass. Is this scientist talking about UFOs or is he talking about something that has been developed by the government? Because if its the ladder, its probably a hoax.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He was saying he had been inside flying saucers and studied them. He said the government told him that they made them but after studying them he started to think they weren't from this planet. There is a piece of the metal from one of them and this was the base of the documentary, I believe it was called "close encounters: evidence for ufo's". All of the scientists that tested the metal came to the conclusion that it came from a hydrogen based atmosphere and was made by subjecting it to heat far greater than the suns for an extended period of time.
The way the documentary acted was like there now is definitive evidence for UFO's, end of story.
Thats why I'm trying to understand the science behind it all. Like I said, most of it went way over my head. I wish I taped it, the guy went into great detail about the gravity generators and I would love to watch it with someone that could understand what he was saying.
All I know is I'm a good judge of character and this guy seemed very sincere and sane.
They had many skeptics on the show and all they could really say is the US government must have this technology and it has nothing to do with aliens.
It was the most "serious" UFO documentary I've seen. It was like it was some huge breakthrough.

I was hoping someone who could understand it had seen it or at least heard of gravity generators and understood the mechanics behind them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

They make metal like this on earth quite often. The 'heat far greater than the suns' usually means the surface of the sun.

 

Both matter and energy cause gravity, I supose a gravity drive could work if you built up enough charge, but all it would do is accelerate you towards the nearest heavy object.

 

according to many astronauts/airline pilots/military they are real and gravity generators/zero point energy info can be found at disclosureproject.com.

check it out and let us know what you think.

andy

 

Why do you think energy causes gravity?

 

Einstein!

I think it is mentioned in The universe in a nutshell by Steven Hawkings.

It's a great oppertunity to use the celebrated e=mc^2! Obviously, you need a lot of energy to get any serious effect.

 

e=mc^2 alone does not suggest that energy 'causes' gravity. I don't see the reason to assume that gravity would come from energy (assuming you mean radiation).

 

I don't know about the gravity being created by energy either, but I would assume it would be true if there was enough of it. Assuming you wanted the gravity generated by a raisin that weighs one gram you would need to have the equivelant energy that would be generated by 10,000 tons of TNT (My favorite E=MC² example).

I would say that enery has to create gravity if mass does since they are really one and the same.

 

earth

We live on a gravity generator

 

He probably means 'mass', as a concentrated equivalent of energy. and, as the last post suggests, the Earth is a 'gravity generator'. As usual, the originsal question is imprecise. Perhaps it should be 'could we construct a (reasonable transportable?) machine that would interfere with gravity in a manner inconsistent with its mass'.

Answer: certainly not yet, possibly never.

 

e=mc^2 is the most random equation ever. Not only is energy undefined, but the derivation of the speed of light is non existant. Why would the speed of light be related to energy? How did they test this equation? How did they measure "energy"? The definition of energy is so vauge that this eqaution itself is turned into a definition of energy.

Can someone tell me if matter can ACTUALLY be converted to energy or if the bonds between the matter is what is being broken down to get energy?

according to einstein when you speed up, you gain "mass" or in other words, you create more gravity.

Gravity genorators would be much more useful if they could be directed. This would be the major breakthrough, since using normal gravity wouldn't be that useful. One could direct the gravity "beam" at a solar system destination and be pulled there, or you could use a system of "anchor points" to pull yourself back and forth until you reach the right point in ambiant space, kind of like the triangular sail (I don't remember what it was called) that was a breakthrough for sea travel.

Actually, gravity generators, directed or not, would be very useful in acceleration planes. Humans cannot endure more than a certain amount of Gs, so one may turn on the gravity generator at different strenths at different accelerations to counteract G forces. This would put a lot of strain on the generator, but much less on the human. This would make it possible to accelerate very quickly in a short amount of time, without even realizing you have started moving.

However, I think the law of conservation prohibits creating gravity generators. Gravity and the other three forces don't seem to be getting "used up" and so it is safe to say that they don't contain energy. And if energy can't be gotten from the forces, then energy probably can't make the forces. Thus it would seem as if gravity is going to have to be made the old fasioned way for now.

 

The equation defines energy in kgm^2/s^2. ('m' is in Kg, 'c' in (m/s)^2).

I didn't not mean to imply that e=mc^2 tells us that energy creates gravity - I just put it there as a reminder of how to covert.

I did give a reference to where I read that fact. I have also been told this by someone else (my dad).

 

Sorry, but I don't own that one. I asked for the reasoning behind it hoping you would be kind enough to summarize

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(nudge nudge)
I see problems with considering energy as producing gravity, as gravity is between 2 masses. Then again RTD2 reasoning of it meaning 'mass' makes sense.

 

Damnit - I wish I still had the link. Apparantly it has been done. Gravity HAS been generated by credible scientists. Maybe someone knows what I'm talking about?

I'll look for the link.

 

I'd check google, but we all know what would pop up for 'gravity generation'. That said, I'm skeptical of scientists claiming to 'generate' gravity using anything besdes a bunch of mass.

 

Gravity generator?

I've heard of some fool who claimed to have made an 'anti-gravity' pad that involved complicated sets of gyroscopes. If you reduce the effects of the earths gravity by even a small degree then space shuttles etc. need a lot less fuel. So it was an exciting idea. But obviously flawed.

Sorry, Persol, I don't know the reasoning behind why energy creates gravity - the text suggested to me (as Artoo said) that mass is energy. But I'm well out of my depth of knowledge now (I'm a biologist).

 

I don't think anyone's mentioned electrogravity yet. Search the net, there's lots of people claiming that limited success with what they call electrogravity is a done deal. I think it's bunk myself- I've seen nothing convincing.

Like Blue said, Einstien. Its supposed to be true in all cases, such as: a field of gravity itself represents energy and therefore causes an additional field! I've read that measurements confirm this. I'd bet General Relativity would require even a photon to have a gravity field, but it may be infinitesimal-- too small to measure. It's dissapointing that as successful as GR is at describing gravity, it has (far as I know) lead to no real advances in technology.
Anybody know of any?

 

Energy does not need to be defined, it is one term you either put into the equation to calculate another, or it is what you are attempting to calculate.

You're assuming (incorrectly) that the presence of c in this equation means that the speed of light is influenced. If you don't understand why it's there, you shouldn't be trying to discredit the equation.

It's been tested so many times it's not funny. Rest assured, atom bombs work.

Atom Bombs, the sun, nuclear power plants...

Again, if you're making comments like this, you are so far from having a clue and should perhaps do some very basic high school science before having another go.

Yes, when you split an atom of Uranium or Plutonium, you are left with two products, the sum of which weighs less than the original fissile material. This missing mass gives you the figure for m in the equation, multiply that by c squared and you have the output energy of the reaction in joules.

Yes, increasing your velocity increases your mass. A more massive object has a larger gravitational field. Though you speak of gravity as though it were a solid object which could be measured and stored. Gravity is merely the manipulation of spacetime.

If quantum physics is able to figure out a way to harness and control the emission of graviton particles (assuming they even exist), then this may be possible.

I doubt that very much. Newtons laws of motion still apply. If you use gravity generators to cancel out the effects of motion within a vehicle, the vehicle will move but the people in it won't. They'll be flung against the back wall and all become small red stains.

The laws of thermodynamics? Yes, the forces are sources of energy. There's just a lot there.

Energy is "gotten" from the forces. What do you think is powering your computer?