anti-gravity...

is anti-gravity the same thing as negative pressure? or am i drunk?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What's negative pressure?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

depends what you are talking about. if you mean air pressure, then negative air pressure would be vacuum I think!?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

well, as far as I know:

Anti-gravity is an hypothetical force, it's a force which einstein came up with, but he later rejected this theory.

It is indeed a force that 'pushes' mass away from eachother.
The theory was used to explain the expansion of the universe (in the '30's and '40's).
When the Big bang theory was proven, they rejected the anti-gravity theory.

But nowadays, we are searching for an explanation of the accelaration of that expansion, and again most astronomers think of some anti-gravity force.

The inflation theory (alan Guth) which has to do with the very first moments of the universe uses this anti-gravity too.
the anti-gravity is locked up someway in vacuum, this part isn't clear to me too, so don't ask me about it, it's quantum mechanic stuff.....

after all, though einstein recalled it, the force maybe exists....
(the genius was a bigger genius then he thought)


It may be possible I am wrong on some points, it has been a while ago now when I read about this stuff......

 

I agree with kmguru..

Anything that has mass has gravity(in the positive way), be that matter or anti matter.

As for its relaitionship to negative pressure, you will have to define negative pressure before we can understand what you mean..

 

Hi all,

Concerning gravity and anti-matter: there have been experiments to verify that anti-matter indeed falls down to earth (as regular matter). The experiment involved a beam of antiprotons (created from collision experiments) that were set on a straight path. The beam deflected downwards over large distances, indicating the effect of gravity. I should note that there has been some dispute on the accuracy of the measurements, but the vast majority of scientists will agree that antimatter behaves the same like regular matter with respect to gravity (after all, antimatter is regular matter, with some other configurations of quantum parameters). I don't think a solution for "anti-gravity" (whatever that might be) could be found in anti-matter.

Kmguru,

"Why an electron does not fly off or crash into the neucleus may provide some answers to your quest.... "

This can be explained in a very accurate way with quantummechanics. The Coulomb interaction provides the bond between the nucleus and the electron (so the electron for sure doens't fly off). Quantummechanics predicts the electrons are spread out spatially over orbits, that can have peculiar shapes (you surely remember a picture of the p-orbits from school or from a book). What is even stranger is that there is a non-zero probability of finding the electron inside the nucleus when you measure its position. So it's not really a matter of "why it doesn't crash"; the electron always "partially" crashes into the nucleus because its wavefunction is spread out over entire space with the highest probability on the orbits, a small probability inside the nucleus or further away than the orbit, and an almost non-existing probability outside the atom. What this means is still an issue of debate (I think that debate deserves a seperate thread) but what I try to point out is that the electron/nucleus interaction is comprehended to a very large accuracy with only the electromagnetic Coulomb interaction. I also don't think that would be able to explain "anti-gravity".

Furthermore, I should add that I agree with your reasoning why anti-gravity would not be measurable between masses: I also think the masses are expelled before they would reach a macroscopically detectable size. However, this would not have prevented us from detecting it (we also discovered the strong and the weak nuclear forces, and those work on (sub)atomic scales). So I have to agree, as KneD pointed out, that "anti-gravity" would be a cosmological concept, introduced to explain why galaxies several billion lightyears away seem to be speeding up (moving faster and faster away from us) instead of slowing down (as gravity would predict).

I don't think antigravity is a real force; My guess is that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe can be explained from a model for the structure of the universe itself, and that it does not need the introduction of another fundamental force.

Bye!

Crisp

 

I'll post this bit on the search for gravitons and gravity waves here too, once we understand them, anything is possible.

<A HREF="http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume3/2000-3hough/index.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=lime size=+1> Gravitational Wave Detection by Interferometry</FONT></A>

<A HREF="http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume1/1998-1rovelli/index.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=lime size=+1> Loop Quantum Gravity</FONT></A>

<A HREF="http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume1/1998-13loll/index.html" target=new><FONT COLOR=lime size=+1> Approaches to Quantum Gravity in Four Dimensions
</FONT></A>


I found this incomplete list from the above links quite interesting

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2 Quantum Gravity: Where are We?

This is a non-technical section in which I illustrate the problem of quantum gravity in general, its origin, its importance, and the present state of our knowledge in this regard.

The problem of describing the quantum regime of the gravitational field is still open. There are tentative theories, and competing research directions. For an overview, see [121 ]. The two largest research programs are string theory and loop quantum gravity. But several other directions are being explored, such as twistor theory [154 <], noncommutative geometry [68 ], simplicial quantum gravity , 65 , 61 , ], Euclidean quantum gravity [104 , 107 ], the Null Surface Formulation [85 , 86 , 87 ] and others.

String theory and loop quantum gravity differ not only because they explore distinct physical hypotheses, but also because they are expressions of two separate communities of scientists, scientists who have sharply distinct prejudices, and who view the problem of quantum gravity in surprisingly different manners.

 

Hey J.D. ...

I fudged a bit ... read only the intro's and conclusions ... and I am wondering why I'm
left with the image of a small group of blind men attempting to describe an elephant.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Take care and thanks for some 'heavy' reading on these quiet Winter nights.

 

now i understand the theory of anit- gravity and also the theorys of gravity. but what you guys seem to be missing is we dont need to create objects that way negative we only need to reduce the weight of any given object to less than the weight of air. this will not be a negative weight only a weight less then the the air allowing the said object to defy gravity and rise or fall. you must remember they if an object has negative gravity it will repel off the earth on its own because instead of being pulled down it will be pushed away by the earth. and in space aplications a light ship would have imense purposes such as close study of the sun with out being pulled in. if such a material and ship could be made to withstand the intense heat and radiation of course. we could explore saturn and jupiter on foot with weigth reucing space suits so we would not be crushed under our own weight.

nasa has already been sucessful in creating anit gravity or(shielding an item from gravity) which are one in the same anti means the opposite and and the shielding prosses reduced the weight of any object above it .03-3% which there is a 1% increase since pod's original experiments the super conductor plate is levitated by means of mangetic field then the superconductor is spun at high speeds. anything above this material is indeed lesser in weight. that is the know the fact. sadly i cant get more up to date data on this i am looking though.

but it occurs to me that if gravity can be reverse in other words anit gravity then the particles taht cause gravity must be expelled from the object. acording to the thory that gravity is controlled by random gravitons(weightless particle less) are everywhere
these graviton are in everthing eqivilant to the mass of the object. when gravitons come in contact with the mass when the mass has all the gravitons it can hold it expels gravitons to accept new ones since gravity seemingly can be directed shown by black holes, it is reasonable to assume that gravity can aslo be blocked from objects. if this theory is right personaly i think it is. then that means that for an object to be negative in gravity is impossible just by shielding the object. if you could shield 100% of all gravitons incoming this would subsequently stop all pull on teh object making the gravity of it 0 not negative but neutral.
to make the object negative you have to get rid of the gravitons already abosrbed within the object. this would reduce the objects own pull on everythin whihc keeps it in place. now what would happen after this is not easy to explain and two things could happen

1. the object would come apart at its seems with no gravity atracting the molecules to each other onlu molecular bond would hold the object together. any objects held there by nothing will be expelled.

2.without the objects own gravity it will now be moving on its own which ever way has the most mass or antigravity

theoreticaly if you made a perfect sphere then the object with anti gravity would go nowhere on its own.but if so pushed would travel repeled by any gravitational pull upon the object

 

Zero air pressure is a vacumm relative to positive air pressure.

Nothing exists such that zero air pressure wants to reach an equalibrium with something below it.

Maybe I worded that right...

 

First of all find out what gravity is

http://zarkov.ath.cx/


Then we may discuss practical methods for antigravity.... it is possible

>

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Einstein stated once that the universe is repulsive but later discarded this as his biggest blunder. The theory has since returned twice; once it faded away due to lack of evidence but now its back. Cosmologists have recently discovered that the universe is indeed flat, however for this to be possible, they, along with many physisists and mathamaticians have now come up with the almost globally excepted theory of the constituents of the universe. They now conclude that the cosmos consists of only 4% ordinary matter i.e. matter and anti matter (all atoms, molecules, particles etc), 23% is dark matter a currently unexplained source of gravity (physisists hope to tie this to higgs feild theorys), and 73% is what is known as dark energy which is a source of antigravity explaining the repulsive nature of the universe. If you wish to look up on these theories you will find that they all meet with relativety and partly stems from cosmic inflation theories. Anyway the point is that this dark energy could be a harnessable source of antigravity.

 

ydoc16 - I assume when you say "pod" you're referring to Eugene Podkletnov and his rotating ring of superconductive material.

Has anyone reproduced his findings yet? It's been quite some time - I understand the paper was published in 1992 in the Physica Scripta periodical.

 

I'm gonna tell you what I think about anti gravity from something I read in a book. It's basically on the level of space-time. Imaging space-time being a flat plane with x and y axises or 3d with x,y, and z axises. Have grids going all along it, ,and they'd all be perfectly straight, and evenly separated. When mass is present, it deforms the space-time, by pulling/bending some of the grid lines to it, which would cause other masses to be attracted to that area. This would be gravity, when it's concentrated, which is caused by mass. Now, when there is no mass there, like I said before, the grids would be perfectly straight, however, with black matter, or something like that, I dont' remember, it's the absence of mass and "space", the grid lines would be spaced apart, or even absent. Now if condensed grid lines (present mass) is gravity, then the spacing, and separation of grid lines is anti gravity. I'm pretty sure they said they did some tests on this, and it was proven correctly. The absence of mass or even "space" is antigravity.

stategicman

 

Actualy they did reproduce Pod's discovering and increased the amount the weight % decrease. This experiment was done by NASA and they have difinitive proof any object put over this was somehow "wink wink nudge nudge

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

' reduced in weight 2-3% they proved that it worked but Nasa could still not explain why it was hapening and this was years ago

 

Podkletnov

yes i do hehe i was gonna post them on here tomorrow but someone had to drag it outta my lazy but

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. no i am just kidding iglad to help
http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/1997/12/antigravity_machine/print.phtml
this is a new clipping very recent.

grr i am having some trouble finding it again i will post it hear as soon as i find it myself bah
this is a older story by a guy in constant contact with nasa a few years back

 

I once read this matter, but now I'm not sure if this is what it was, since I've forgotten many...

Assuming that there are positive and negative mass:
Two matters with positive masses will attract each other, and move towards each other
One negative mass and one positive mass will repulse each other, the positive one moves away from the negative one and the negative one moves towars the positive one
Two negative masses will attract each other, but move away from each other

Hit me