Is anti-gravity possible?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Is anti-gravity possible?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2618
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1084850 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 3:19:36 UTC - in response to Message 1084755.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2011, 3:20:11 UTC

The photon may just be a disturbance in the electromagnetic field. The vacuum is a superconductor of light. Think of it as a disturbance that creates a wave in a very stiff rope; the effect travels very fast as an electric field creates a magnetic field which creates an electric field each cycle and so on.

As for Anti-gravity, a one fifth ounce magnet can overcome the gravitational "pull" of the entire earth.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,120
RAC: 1,632
Ireland
Message 1084862 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 3:49:04 UTC
Last modified: 8 Mar 2011, 3:58:44 UTC

Some really interesting responses here:) Some people think we will crack the gravity problem, and others are less optimistic.

See if you believe in UFO's, then you would have to agree that the aliens that are visiting us have already found a way to defy gravity or use it to propel their spacecraft. I have never been a big fan or believer in UFO's, i need proof, Concrete proof! So if any one single UFO citing in the whole history of mankind was real, then other intelligent life does exist and anti-gravity IS possible! So who do you believe?

Personally, based on my own research, i'm willing to bet we will see anti-gravity within less than 2 years. I can't really say why i'm so optimistic but i am quite sure that everyone who has posted to this thread will witness anti-gravity within 2 years. And maybe they will experience anti-gravity themselves within about 4 to 6 years.

I'm very confident!......:) See that spaceship in my signature image....... that will be me flying in earth orbit instead of a pint of guinness very shortly! :)

John.
____________

Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1786
Credit: 3,837,588
RAC: 272
Canada
Message 1084907 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 5:35:55 UTC - in response to Message 1084531.
Last modified: 8 Mar 2011, 5:37:19 UTC

Once we are free of the earth, accelerating at one G will give us fabulous velocity after a year or so. Figure it out: 32 feet per second each second for 365 times 24 times 3600 times 32 = about one trillion feet per second which exceeds the speed of light. Of course I have ignored relativistic effects and the cosmic speed limit.

Indeed. ;)

But just figure out how to achieve a constant one G acceleration and in 6 months you will be zipping right along at an appreciable portion of the speed of light. In ten years or so earth time you could be to our nearest star.

Less than that: a trip to the Alpha Centauri system would only take about seven years Earth time, assuming you start decelerating at one gee when you reach the halfway mark. The time elapsed according to a clock on board the ship would be 3.6 years. See The Relativistic Rocket, from the Usenet Physics FAQ, for more examples. If you accelerate at one gee for ten years (ship time), you can cover a distance on the order of a kiloparsec.
____________

cwburch
Send message
Joined: 23 Jul 00
Posts: 51
Credit: 19,768,873
RAC: 24,044
United States
Message 1084914 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 6:06:42 UTC - in response to Message 1084907.

that throws another factor into the space-time equations; velocity. Lets say I am in a cylindrcal space ship 500 feet long and this space ship is traveling at near the speed of light as possible. I am wearing a pressure suit with a rocket pack on my back at the rear of this cylindrical spaceship. I fire my rockets on my rocket pack and begin traveling from the back of the spaceship to the front at a speed that relative to the outside of the spaceship, has me moving at faster than the speed of light. While in the spaceship i pass the speed of light relative to the space outside the ship. What happens to me? According to present theory, nothing. Because time inside the spaceship moves slower than time outside the spaceship. Therefor I am not exceeding the speed of light relative to time inside the ship. BUT... lets say the front of the ship is open to space. What happens to me when I exit the front of the spaceship at what will be in excess of the speed of light relative to the space that is surrouding me upon my exit? Quite a quandry I think.

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1084988 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 13:49:20 UTC - in response to Message 1084914.

along that line. If we had super sensitive microphones would we be able to hear photons as they broke the sound barrier.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2618
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1085082 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 16:51:17 UTC - in response to Message 1084988.

A photon is more likely to behave as a wave even though it can behave as if it were a perticle. it is a disturbance in the vacuum of the electromagnetic fields. It is not a disturbance in the air per se

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1085101 - Posted: 8 Mar 2011, 17:24:52 UTC - in response to Message 1084907.

What kind of propulsion would the rocket use, Ion propulsion, or fusion propulsion. Ofcouse the fastest propulsion would be an antimatter driver, but cost of producing antimatter is beyond today's economies, perhaps in the future. An antimatter propulsion engine would accelerate a spaceship to perhaps 40% light speed.

Odysseus
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 26 Jul 99
Posts: 1786
Credit: 3,837,588
RAC: 272
Canada
Message 1085184 - Posted: 9 Mar 2011, 2:29:12 UTC - in response to Message 1084914.
Last modified: 9 Mar 2011, 2:30:03 UTC

[… A] space ship is traveling at near the speed of light as possible. I am wearing a pressure suit with a rocket pack on my back at the rear of this cylindrical spaceship. I fire my rockets on my rocket pack and begin traveling from the back of the spaceship to the front at a speed that relative to the outside of the spaceship, has me moving at faster than the speed of light. […]

The problem here is that you’re simply adding the component velocities to calculate the ‘net’, according to what’s known as Galilean relativity. Counter-intuitive though it may be, that’s not how Lorentz/Einsteinian relativity works: if the spaceship in your scenario is moving at velocity S relative to a ‘stationary’ observer (in an inertial reference frame), and the rocket gives you velocity R relative to the spaceship, then the observer will measure your velocity V to be

V = (R + S) / (1 + RS/c²).

Supposing that your spaceship is doing 0.999999c, and your rocket gets you to 0.000002c (600 km/s) relative to it, the resultant is (1.000001c / 1.000002) = .999999000004c. Note that when R and S are small fractions of c, the denominator is negligibly more than 1, reducing the equation to the familiar addition of velocities.

Profile ML1
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 8564
Credit: 4,231,067
RAC: 1,263
United Kingdom
Message 1085468 - Posted: 9 Mar 2011, 23:14:32 UTC - in response to Message 1085184.
Last modified: 9 Mar 2011, 23:21:52 UTC

The mind-blowing aspect there is to include the effect of relative time. At 'slow' speeds, everything is as we expect because there is a 'lot of time' in which things can happen. When you approach the same sort of speeds at which time itself is 'experienced', then that's when you hit the relativity stuff...

Trying for a down to earth analogy, there's the example of car speed vs braking distance... You have a finite reaction time and your brakes can apply a fixed maximum braking force. Your braking distance increases exponentially with your speed. (That is, you go a surprisingly awful lot further to stop as you go faster.) To try to appreciate that, you need to consider time and not distance. Your brakes reduce your speed at a steady rate. So... Your braking time is directly proportional to your speed. Fine, that's exactly as everyone expects. However! The killer is that for higher speeds, you cover an awful lot more ground for each unit of time and so your stopping distance becomes the squared power of your speed.


It's all relative. From the viewpoint of time, you see a very different world.


Keep searchin',
Martin
____________
See new freedom: Mageia4
Linux Voice See & try out your OS Freedom!
The Future is what We make IT (GPLv3)

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1085943 - Posted: 11 Mar 2011, 2:49:11 UTC

Relativity states that if one were to move away from the Earth at relativistic velocities and return, more time would have passed on Earth than for the traveler, so in this sense it is accepted that relativity allows "travel into the future" (according to relativity there is no single objective answer to how much time has passed between the departure and the return, but there is an objective answer to how much proper time has been experienced by both the Earth and the traveler, how much each has aged. This scnario be seen on astronauts in the space shuttle. Here on earth, time would pass faster than to an astronaut in space, he is traveling closer to the speed of light, so the astronaut has in fact aged less than someone on earth. A vehicle that aproaches ligt speed, is in fact time traveling.

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1085953 - Posted: 11 Mar 2011, 3:03:34 UTC - in response to Message 1085468.

Chronology protection conjecture, hurdle for time travel concept, (Vehicle traveling near light speed)

Deciheximal
Send message
Joined: 7 May 06
Posts: 8
Credit: 5,190
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1091112 - Posted: 28 Mar 2011, 5:43:36 UTC

I'd be far more interested in artificial gravity -- traveling anywhere in space requires living there for quite a while, and using centrifugal force for the same effect brings a host of technical problems with it.
____________

C Olival
Send message
Joined: 6 Sep 10
Posts: 209
Credit: 10,675
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1092833 - Posted: 3 Apr 2011, 0:04:47 UTC - in response to Message 1091112.

Interesting that NASA does not employ an artificial envirnment on the Space Station, thus enabling its astronauts to walk not float. The human body, mainly bones, does not like to float.

Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,651,120
RAC: 1,632
Ireland
Message 1092859 - Posted: 3 Apr 2011, 1:35:03 UTC - in response to Message 1092833.

Interesting that NASA does not employ an artificial envirnment on the Space Station, thus enabling its astronauts to walk not float. The human body, mainly bones, does not like to float.

They do have one, its called Earth. The astronauts just come back down, and bingo, gravity!

John.
____________

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32288
Credit: 14,267,701
RAC: 14,217
United Kingdom
Message 1092940 - Posted: 3 Apr 2011, 10:13:34 UTC

Does the Maglev train count as a form of anti gravity?

____________
Damsel Rescuer, Uli Devotee, Julie Supporter, ES99 Admirer,
Raccoon Friend, Anniet fan, Official crusty old fart


Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1092976 - Posted: 3 Apr 2011, 14:47:13 UTC - in response to Message 1092940.

the maglev is resisting earths gravity equal to its strength so no its not anti gravity. It also requires that it be near what its resisting. Magnet vs magnet. The train isn't capable of true antigravity. It could, if rigged, lift beyond what its intended but most people on board would be dead when it did so.

I do recall watching a show on a science channel and a guy demonstrated antigravity with a smallish 1 foot diameter disk. he had the disk ride a rail up about 30 feet with very little electicity. The think is that it was very light. the energy required to lift hundreds of pounds would have made it functionally impossible.
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32288
Credit: 14,267,701
RAC: 14,217
United Kingdom
Message 1093027 - Posted: 3 Apr 2011, 18:13:02 UTC
Last modified: 3 Apr 2011, 18:13:15 UTC

Wasn't there some experiment somewhere with a model craft, with contra-rotating gyroscopes that hovered for a bit?

Profile enzed
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 27 Mar 05
Posts: 346
Credit: 1,253,980
RAC: 0
New Zealand
Message 1101315 - Posted: 28 Apr 2011, 9:03:56 UTC - in response to Message 1084862.

Some really interesting responses here:) Some people think we will crack the gravity problem, and others are less optimistic.

See if you believe in UFO's, then you would have to agree that the aliens that are visiting us have already found a way to defy gravity or use it to propel their spacecraft. I have never been a big fan or believer in UFO's, i need proof, Concrete proof! So if any one single UFO citing in the whole history of mankind was real, then other intelligent life does exist and anti-gravity IS possible! So who do you believe?

Personally, based on my own research, i'm willing to bet we will see anti-gravity within less than 2 years. I can't really say why i'm so optimistic but i am quite sure that everyone who has posted to this thread will witness anti-gravity within 2 years. And maybe they will experience anti-gravity themselves within about 4 to 6 years.

I'm very confident!......:) See that spaceship in my signature image....... that will be me flying in earth orbit instead of a pint of guinness very shortly! :)

John.


Hello John

Can I inquire into what particular research has lead you to think along these lines..? Im interested to see what else can be dredged up from around the world.

There has been a lot of "looking into" E-M and various field propulsion methodologies since the mid 90's, and some of it appears to be results of those old Podkletnov and Ning Li studies and the Boeing papers. Other stuff seems to relate to concepts not yet attainable but the bulk of the main eleven techniques may provide some possibilities and perhaps some cross pollination may help each to attain something that they could not previously achieve. But then again it seems to be just a matter of time for some things to happen... we just need to have the patience to... wait for it.


cheers
enzed

Iona
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Jul 07
Posts: 568
Credit: 2,969,987
RAC: 2,034
United Kingdom
Message 1101340 - Posted: 28 Apr 2011, 12:01:37 UTC

I'm really quite impressed with some of the knowledge displayed in the responses here - the V = (R + S) / (1 + RS/c²) equation is one that I've not seen in many places in almost 30 years! Now, here comes the proverbial spanner. How much gravity do you want to 'overcome', if it is possible? Escaping Earth's gravity is one thing, but escaping the gravitational pull of a more massive stellar object, is quite another. Whilst gravitational fields could be used, as per Voyager, to aid travel, it does depend on things being in the 'right place', knowing precisely where those objects are, being able to make course changes fairly quickly and not being hit by anything! Constructing a 'space-faring' vehicle in a high-earth-orbit, would obviate the difficulties in getting a very large vehicle off the ground (in one piece) and in some ways make construction easier, but would pose difficulties in logistics and working in such an environment. The size of the vehicle itself, would depend on things like the number of people onboard, the propulsion system used and how far the vehicle has to go. Propulsion systems? Who can say? Almost anything, would however, be better than an old idea of releasing small nuclear bombs behind a space vehicle with a 'pusher plate' attached to it!



____________
Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

Profile William Rothamel
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Oct 06
Posts: 2618
Credit: 1,180,227
RAC: 12
United States
Message 1101390 - Posted: 28 Apr 2011, 15:38:43 UTC
Last modified: 28 Apr 2011, 15:42:35 UTC

I'm not sure of what is being discussed here. A photon can be considered to be a disturbance in the Electro-magnetic makeup of free space. It can also be characterized as an electro-magnetic wave and a particle to boot.

Gravity is a disturbance in the fabric of space (warpage). We might also like to think of a "graviton" and I am also sure that we will find gravitational waves which will be ripples in space/time.

As for spacecraft propulsion: Gravity from the large planets (so to speak) has been used to accelerate our wandering spacecraft probes.

If you say "anti-gravity" does one mean levitation or the expansion that seems to exist by a force inherent in the vacuum which is expanding our universe. I would suggest that we give this putative force a new name.

I also presume that the idea behind this thread is to somehow harness this force ( or gravity or electromagnetism) for use in propulsion.

For my money the only appealing pursuit of these concepts would be along the lines of being able to cross magnetic lines of flux--so you could control the direction of thrust. Of course the laws of phyics stand in the way and I don't think that they will go away even if we understand more and more about the makeup of our existance.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : SETI@home Science : Is anti-gravity possible?

Copyright © 2014 University of California