Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Anti-Gravity

Anti-Gravity Force will come into existence at extremely short distances because the geometry is different there which means that Grivity will loose its existence there.
The same reason which acted as Gravity will now act as Anti-Gravity.

Want a Unified Theroy of Fields?:-))

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508572

Gravitation intensifies at short distances if it changes at all. How do you rate any stars at all? You are a consistent zit on the face of empirical knowledge and physcal theory.

There is no imaginable mechanism by which gravitation can be repel. Learn the difference between gravity and gravitation.

I like having dkv around. It gives me a warm feeling knowing there's someone out there I can feel superior to.

But antigravity is too fun an idea to dismiss. I propose we all come up with "explanations" for antigravity that (although perhaps silly) would satisfy the typical science fiction reader. Have fun with it!

I'll start:

Everyone knows that gravity is an effect of the way matter distorts spacetime, and that the effects of gravity appear to propagate at the speed of light. So I've developed this nifty gizmo that interferes with the gravity propagating between itself and the Earth. It doesn't have to use much energy, because it doesn't have to overcome the entire mass of the Earth, but only the tiny proportion that's affecting it. (And thank goodness that gravity is such a weak force to begin with.) This interference allows my device to be, essentially, "weightless." Not a repulsive force per se, but this way is preferable because it's easier to control a weightless object. I plan to use this device to build an enormous monument to myself out of coral.

Your turn!

You are a testy crew:

Before you go after anti-gravity try a more likely prospect such as non-gravity. Some thought that mercury, that clever silvery metal was a start because it can be repelled by a magnetic field while itself not being magnetic. The use of non-gravity equipment would be almost as good as the other- ptobably impossible idea.

I'm feeling giddy today. Things are going a bit better than A-OK so I'll join in.
I'll start by using Dr. Kaku's idea that faster than light travel may be accomplished by merely bending space. Yes bending space and then forming a worm hole from one sector to the other. That sounds simple enough so I'll take the next step.
Instead of warping space why not un-warp it. If the warp that happens when matter is introduced to space is removed then the gravity that it creates has to disappear. And there it is - no gravity. Only down side I can see is that there will be no matter present either.
Now anti-gravity is a whole nuther story. For that to happen you'll need negative matter, not to be confused with anti-matter, which is of course made up of negative energy. Yup.

Now anti-gravity is a whole nuther story. For that to happen you'll need negative matter, not to be confused with anti-matter, which is of course made up of negative energy. Yup.
REP: Yes that is one answer and it is not impossible to say that negative energy and anti matter are just the expression of space time geometry.I do not find anything wrong with the idea.
And yes we will have to account for this with mathematically consistent topological space..
All this if Einstien is right.
This is the reason why so much has been invested to test it.

Probably we need to understand some more exotic concepts before such a discovery can be made.

sort of when, as a species, we couldn't comprehend zero. I guess that's why you can't write zero in Roman numerals. I would loved to have been a fly on the wall when negative numbers were first suggested.

"What? Are you crazy or something? Hells bells man I'm finally undersanding the concept of "ZERO" and now you tell me I could have less than zero. Get out of my face"
LOL, must have been a hoot.

that was a kind of refutation which is found in extremeism without any logical discussion.
What happens you when reverse the direction of time in the Einstein Equation's?

Hi:
I think of "time" as a measure created by man to tell now from when. Followers of relativity like to discuss time as an pre-existing part of nature, like hot and cold. When dkv suggests a reversal of time by mathematical equation my first thought is how an equation, no matter how brilliant, can reverse anything on it's own. The next step is clear- show me the means by which this mathematical equation will be brought into our reality. We need theories for progress but real time is where we live.

Curious: If the fly I killed yesterday was crushed to yuk in the garbage disposal how will we propose to reincarnate the lovely fellow on our computer while pushing the yesterday button?
Of course, if you could,I would do it again;
bye fly.

Jim Wood

jj,

The time reversal exist for your knowledge.
Very frequently these trips are carried out by Virtual Photons and Electrons.
Unfortunately you can not move becuase you are composed of so many atoms and photons that such a decrease in Entropy is near to impossible.

You see I am not a dedicated Mathematician or physicist.. just because I found that I need to understand life before undertanding the knowledge it presents...
This too are often seperated by their institution.
I am very fortuante to understand what those brilliant people are saying.

Anti Gravity is a possibility and not only a possibility but a necessity....
Think more.

Cheers

And I also feel that there are Universes where there is Anti-Gravity in action at etremely Large Distances.

There were some historical philosophers that considered that Nature was indeed composed of opposites. Such as if there is cold there must be hot. If something has an inside there must be an outside for the inside to exist. What goes up always comes down. So on and so on and all of this seems quite logical in the frame work of our environment.

A very little stretch implies that if there is gravitation there must be an opposite which we can call anti-gravitation. This follows on the lesser idea of attraction and repulsion. We know that in magnetism and electro magnetism attraction and repulsion is commonplace.
The point is that logic compels the suggestion that gravitation could have an opposite in our experience and the fact that it is undiscovered and unproven does not eliminate the possibility. Logic fails, however, when it comes to providing a location for this anti-gravity. It can?t very well be here because our world is encased in attractive gravity. Those that think in terms of multiple dimensions may feel anti-gravity is next door to us but somehow ineffective as to us. So, assuming that viable theory supports the existence of anti-gravity, or anti-matter, where should we look for it and if we found it how could we possibly control it? The time may come when real life solutions will be available to us but for now you can understand why some of us leave the issue for science fiction where it is a source of great entertainment, although I don?t read science fiction. Time travel as well.

Cheers
Jim Wood

I am confident that anti-gravity will eventually be developed. I base this on my observations of my teenaged son and his field of selective gravitation. By this I mean the effect he has of walking through a room and precipitating things to fall from shelves where they have been stored for months, if not years. I note that the strength of this selective gravitational force or field is in direct proportion to the the age and value of the item so attracted. Great-grandmother's antique cake plate is more likely to fall than a cheap piece of stemware from a garage sale, though both may fall at one time or another. If teenagers can produce selective gravity, I am certain beyond doubt that eventually us oldsters will catch on to anti-gravity. It's just a matter of time....

So, assuming that viable theory supports the existence of anti-gravity, or anti-matter, where should we look for it and if we found it how could we possibly control it?
REP: I told you were to look for it.It is extremely diffcult to probe that field .. It can only be understood in terms of Energy generated by the Vaccum ...
That was one prediction

Second the Age of Universe will be determined by this Antigraity and Grand Collapse...
Anti-Gravtiy should very slowly eat up the energy of Universe...

===========================================
The time may come when real life solutions will be available to us but for now you can understand why some of us leave the issue for science fiction where it is a source of great entertainment, although I don?t read science fiction. Time travel as well.
REP: It is not science fiction ... btw some of the science fiction stuff has recently been realized...and the writer got no royalty ...
Thats not fair.

"Anti-Gravtiy should very slowly eat up the energy of Universe..."
I think that was not fully correct. Due AntiGravity the Energy should also be captured by our space.
The rate of decay and of space and generation of new space should vary with time resulting in varied energy measurement of Energy in Vaccum over a large period of time.

Sorry again no immediate experiment comes to mind for its measurement.
Bottom line Anti Gravity plays the role in the formation and decay of our Universe Dimensions....

Cheers

Interestingly this can also explain Hawkings Radiation... but i says that the decay is happening everywhere ... unlike the Hawkings radiation which is asscoiated with Balck Holes only...

This decay might have led to the formation of Mass as we know it.And the dark matter and dark energy could possibly get formed due to the interaction between Gravity and Anti-Gravity... (today it appears that rate of formation exceeds rate of decay)
Remember when we look into space we look into past.
Reverse is also possible but due to the skewed(or non-linear) nature of the process I guess the reversal of growth can have different rate.
It may vanish with more quickly than it was formed. Just like decay of Radioactive Elements....
Formation is known to be slow process but the decay is spontaneous resulting in different configuration of mass and radiation.

Sounds to me like you have some kind of a theory that's begging to be published. Maybe you don't have the math's worked out yet. That's the bugger.
Hey while I've got you on the phone let me ask you something about elements.
Some elements were created by man, they don't exist in nature. Am I right here?
If so, then it would stand to reason that adding extra particles to build even larger atoms would take more energy. If this is correct at what point would it be that there wouldn't be enough energy available to add another particle to that grand atom?
Has this been worked out, if so could you point me to where I could get the answer?

Sounds to me like you have some kind of a theory that's begging to be published. Maybe you don't have the math's worked out yet. That's the bugger.
REP: I know.I have already ridiculed Maths for its failure to solve its singularty problems without assuming things which are purely Matehmatical.Leading to the oscillation of Truth between Maths and Reality.But yes the current structure of Mathematical Physics(which is too simplistic and 'elegant' )serves no real purpose other than giving you a rough idea of how things are.Ultimately it is the imagination which rules.Imagination makes all the Maths look like a childs play:-))
Anyway enough of excuses for not being a Mathematician(Physics assumes that it has strong relationship with it )
I only obstacle to express it Mathematically is Time. I dont have it.
===============================================
Hey while I've got you on the phone let me ask you something about elements.
Some elements were created by man, they don't exist in nature. Am I right here?
REP: Man is part of Nature therefore there is nothing outside Nature.
==================================
If so, then it would stand to reason that adding extra particles to build even larger atoms would take more energy.
REP:yes you will require more enegy independent of whether you are part of it or not.
====================================
If this is correct at what point would it be that there wouldn't be enough energy available to add another particle to that grand atom?
REP: There is no absolute origin therefore no absolute end.Any such attempt is not possible.There will always be some energy. But yes adding to the atom may not be possible.
========================================
Has this been worked out, if so could you point me to where I could get the answer?
REP: Gave you answer.