Anti-gravity. Well isn't that extra-special?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by babelfish, Sep 11, 2001.

  1. Acerbus Wanderer of the Wastes Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    77
    what you guys are talking about is a gravity-propulsion device an anti-gravity device would just make the thing immune to gravity.
    anyways something like that would be more probable in my opinion. if something was immune to gravity it would just slowly float upwards from the earths surface at an angle to its point of departure. why? because the earth orbits the sun and the earth rotates.

    I hope one of you knows what im talking about and explains it better.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Chadg Registered Member

    Messages:
    1
    Do you have any information regarding formidable attempts to create antigravitational devices have been recorded. Or better still any devices or information sold to companies, and/or government institutions?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rick Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,336
    My point is that instead of looking for antimatter to anhilate matter,that is to say gravitons anhilated by antigravitons,why not produce antimatter from the matter itself and then anhilate the antimatter for propulsion.

    take for instance,photons,
    as JAMES R has mentioned in one of his threads that photon is an antiparticle of itself,so why not study the antiparticle state of the photon and positrons and their various charracterstics behaviour which differentiate from their counterparts,including opposite charges etc.that would reduce the costs considerably.
    anyways,it is still not proved that gravitons do exist,but if they do,then we have find them out or isolate them fast.a big problem here is that gravitons are supposed to transparent to matter.
    any inputs in this regard will be welcome.
    bye!
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. QuanRas Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Fundamental Constant?

    I believe I once read an article on a new type of force being researched by Physicists (they come up with new ones too often for my liking!!) that was described as a sort of universal anti-gravity. It was hypothesized that this force is what kept the universe from reshrinking a la big crunch. I was not too clear on what exactly propogated this force. Regular matter exhibits gravitational attraction, but what exactly caused the antigravity I can't say, though I believe it was some kind of particle that interacts weakly with regular matter. Either way, this research had given way to a new fundamental constant that the physicists denoted with lambda... so if you see a lambda that doesn't represent wavelength or mean free path of a particle, it may be just what I'm so unsuccessfully trying to explain.

    Hypothetically, if we could pin down this 'repulsive' substance, could it not be used in practical applications of anti-gravity? I'm not talking UFO's or floating skateboards here, either.... with a strong enough anti-gravity device, could we not peer inside the event horizon of a black hole and then come back out?? Interesting thought, no?
     
  8. I guess antigravity can be produced with a bunch of spinning discs. The theory would almost be identical to the "right angle" theory of electric and magnetic fields. Example:

    When an electron moves in a straight line it produces a magnetic field at right angles to both the electric field of the electron and the motion of the electron. Now that you have a magnetic field, you can convert it back to an electric field using the same technique. The resulting electric field can be bipolar even though the original electric field of the electrons were unipolar.

    Here's my idea:

    When a particle, with a mass, moves in a straight line it produces a Z-field at right angles to both the gravitational field and the motion of the mass(gyroscopic effect in revolving objects). Now that you have a Z-field, you can convert it to a bipolar gravitational field using the same technique. Since the gravitational field created is bipolar, one pole is gravity, the other is antigravity. You can figure out the rest.

    Tom
     
  9. ripvanfunky Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    "Eerily, every electrical circuit and every electrical load is - and has always been - powered by EM energy extracted directly from the vacuum.......

    "Broken symmetry in the fierce exchange between the active vacuum and the system
    powers every system they build. And not a single professor or university teaches that,
    nor does it appear in a single textbook......



    "All the coal, oil, natural gas, etc. ever burned, and all the nuclear fuel rods ever used, and all the hydroelectric dams ever built, have directly added

    not one single watt

    to the power line. Not one!"

    ...in the interests of science it is necessary over and over again to engage in the critique of these fundamental concepts, in order that we may not unconsciously be ruled by them."
     
  10. ripvanfunky Registered Member

    Messages:
    10
    Field effect

    What about counter rotating fields along with high frequency energy in capacitor series, is anyone here tech?
     
  11. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    JoeBlow93132:

    <i>I guess antigravity can be produced with a bunch of spinning discs.</i>

    Sounds like the Poletnov (sp?) experiment (which nobody has managed to duplicate yet).

    <i>When a particle, with a mass, moves in a straight line it produces a Z-field at right angles to both the gravitational field and the motion of the mass(gyroscopic effect in revolving objects).</i>

    What's a Z field?


    ripvanfunky:

    <i>What about counter rotating fields along with high frequency energy in capacitor series, is anyone here tech?</i>

    What about them?
     
  12. James R,

    A Z-field is the sister of the gravitational field just like the magnetic field is the sister of the electric field. I call it the Z-field because it hasn't been named yet. If you want to see it in action, spin a top.

    Tom
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    How will spinning a top demonstrate the Z field? What effects will be produced which are not explained in terms of the usual 4 fundamental forces?
     
  14. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    what is mathematic formula for anti-gravity?

    Gravity force is formulated as:

    F = (Gm1m2)/r^2

    F is gravitation force
    G is a constant
    m1 and m2 are mass
    and r is distance.

    Anti gravity mean minus (-) F. The result of the formula will always posistive, unless we have negative value of m or r.
    But how distance become negative?
    How mass become negative?
     
  15. James R,

    If you attempt to push a spinning top over, it will not fall down. Instead it will generate a force at a right angle to your force. This will cause the top to precess instead of fall over. What happened is that when you attempted to push the top over, the Z-Force got converted back into a gravitational force as explained in the previous post.

    When you spin a top:

    gravitational field + motion(at a right angle to gravitational field) =
    Z-Force(at a right angle to both gravitational field and motion)

    So in a spinning top the Z-force is created pointing upwards. When you attempt to move the Z-force then:

    Z-Force + motion(at a right angle to the Z_Force)=
    gravitational field(at a right angle to both the Z-Force and motion)

    This gravitational force just created is at right angles to the Z-Force(created by the spinning top) and motion(you pushing the top).This gravitational field causes the top to precess.

    Tom
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2002
  16. SISgroup,

    If I gave you a few million electrons and told you to make a positive electric field could you do it? It can be done, but only through electric/magnetic conversion. You would move the electrons to create a magnetic field, then you would move the magnetic field(or alter it's strength) to generate a bipolar electric field. In other words, you just created an anti-electric field(positive electric field) even though you didn't have any protons.

    This is exactly what I'm suggesting, only with mass instead of electrons.

    Tom
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Joeblow,

    I can explain the precession of a top in terms of the torque created by gravity and the pre-existing angular momentum of the top. I don't need a Z-force to explain precession.
     
  18. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    negative electric force (electron) is opposite of opposite of positive electric force (proton). And yes you right.
    Then, to create the anti-gravitation force, we need the opposite of gravitation force.
    So, what is the opposite of gravitation force?
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2002
  19. James R,

    I'm sure you can. I am also familiar with the formula, but in the science textbooks they never give a good explanation why this 90 degree force exists. The usual explanation is that there is a delay, so that the force is transferred after the top makes a 90 degree spin. This reason is flawed because the force is ALWAYS at 90 degrees to the original force. If this explanation was correct then the degrees would vary based on how fast the top would be spinning. Unfortunately, this is not the case.

    If you know of another explanation for this force, please share.

    Tom
     
  20. SISGroup,

    It's more like this:

    Proton(positive electric field)+ motion=Magnetic field

    Magnetic field + motion= Dipolar electric field(electric and anti-electric field)

    Therefore:

    Mass(positive gravitational field) + motion= Z-force

    Z-force + motion = Dipolar gravitational(gravity and anti-gravity)



    Tom
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,353
    Joeblow,

    Sounds like you need to get a new physics textbook. Here's my explanation:

    As the top starts to fall over, the force of gravity acting at the centre of mass of the top produces a torque on the top, acting about its point of contact with the ground. Using the definition of torque as the rate of change of angular momentum, the resultant torque must change the angular momentum of the top. We must take the vector nature of both the torque and the angular momentum into account, since the direction of the change in the angular momentum vector is the same as the direction of the applied torque vector. The derived change in the angular momentum vector is added to the pre-existing angular momentum associated with the top's spin. This gives a new angular momentum vector which points in a slightly different direction. The spin axis of the top aligns itself along its instantaneous angular momentum vector, which precesses due to the constant torque.

    There is no time delay involved.

    For an explanation with diagrams and so on, any good first year university physics text should be ok.
     
  22. SISGroup Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    49
    Mass + motion = sound like kinetic energy.

    Proton has energy to pull the electron, but cannot 'touch' the electron.
    And a mass has energy to pull anything, also can make touchings.
    Proton has two energy, first is positive electric and second in gravity of it mass. So the right 'formula' of magnetic field may:

    protons (or electrons) + gravity + motion = magnetic field.
    Is there a third variable in Z force formula?
     
  23. James R,

    It still doesn't explain why the new force is ALWAYS at a 90 degree angle to the original force. According to your explanation, the angle of the secondary force should vary.

    Tom
     

Share This Page