Gravity... what u think?

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Interested, Mar 29, 2001.

  1. Interested Registered Member

    Messages:
    12
    i'm very interested in this thought... so i had to put it up. anyway, it goes like this:-

    If we wanted gravity = 0, then we have to have an environment to move with at the same speed... take the anti-gravity test plane at NASA... they have the plane moving down towards the ground at a fast speed to cancel out the grabity force. so, if you could move as fast as the Earth rotated, then maybe it would be counted as Infinate speed... as you are cancelling out the movement of the earth... Oh, I'm not sure anymore... could anyone help?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Borg255 Registered Member

    Messages:
    14
    Cancel out gravity I aggree with, but the infinate speed thing... im not so sure, maybe some ppl would count ti as infinate cause you are going against gravity but thats seems to me like... not normal is the only way to understand it like the temporal physics thing but thats a different thread.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Strictly speaking, if you cancel out the movement of the Earth you're moving at zero speed, not infinite. Geosynchronous satellites work this way; they travel over the earth at the same speed as the planet rotates, so they don't move at all as far as the people looking up are concerned.

    Anti-gravity *would* allow fast travel; even if it can't be used for propellant itself, it could counteract inertia, so huge accellerations would be posssible without squishing any passengers. However, the maximum speed is dictated by relativity; the nearer to lightspeed you get, the harder it is to go faster; it would take an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light.
    However, anythign already travelling at lightspeed is travelling at infinite speed; after a fashion. Time would stand still, so anything travelling at c would be everywhere in the universe at once.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Quasar Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    If Im correct in my reasoning.......

    Nothing is infinite. At least we havent and never will be able to prove that anything is. To prove this would mean that we would have to be around infinitley to find out if what ever it was that we were trying to prove infinite was in fact so. Which, obviously is not possible in any way. The word infinite is a fictious derived word. As are the words forever and neverending. I would think that its first usage was probably to describe something to do with a quality of a deity of some sort.
     
  8. Bowser Life is Fatal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,073
    Wouldn't it be better to use gravity for the purpose of bending space, bring distance closer to home?
     
  9. AUSSIEABORIGINAL Abnormally original Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    114
    GOODAY YANKS!!!

    That the Gravity frequency is 32 ftpersec sq.,,,then it is to produce the ability to inverse gravity frequency -32ftpersecpersec

    That a gravitational frequency of 32 ftpersecpersec.....
     
  10. rde Eukaryotic specimen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    278
    Re: If Im correct in my reasoning.......

    I wouldn't say 'fictitious' - abstract, perhaps. After all, there's no such thing as a 'two' either; both two and infinite are abstract constructs used to quantify.
    As for no such thing as infinte: there are an infinite number of integers. I know I've just said that there's no 'two', but you know what I mean. There are many more instance of infinity in everyday life; the possiblities of where a coin will end up... the number of instances is doubtless, well, infinite.
    I'm not sure where the word (or idea) came from, but the concept of infinity was known to the ancient Greeks in a mathematical context.
    rde
     
  11. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,592
    Checking in late

    I must thank you for coming around a circle for me; otherwise, I wouldn't bother checking in some twenty days late on this one.

    But you've employed gravity to describe the Tesseract as explained in the fiction of Madeline L'Engle. If you've not read A Wrinkle in Time at least (much less the trilogy), I highly recommend it for anyone of any age. But there's even a drawing in the story to explain the concept of an ant crossing a length of string.

    What I don't recall was the consideration of how one achieved the Tesseract, which involved bending time. As we now know, to affect gravity also affects time.

    Now, if we could just figure out how to manipulate gravity.... A start is the floating frogs; sure, they're using EMF to overcome gravity, but it provides a gravitational interaction hitherto unaccomplished. Though I thought the story would have made a bigger splash, I offer this site regarding the floating frogs: http://www-hfml.sci.kun.nl/hfml/levitate.html

    Again, it's only levitation. But this latest manipulation of an object under the influence of gravity (what isn't, in this Universe?) is merely another way to learn about our mysterious Universal overlord. Once we get this part down, and start seeing more accessible results, we will have one more feather in the dressing of gravitational manipulation.

    thanx,
    Tiassa

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. enton www.truthcaster.com Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    454
    I think, gravity is nothing without graves.
     

Share This Page