[B] there are negative (or less positive) electrons and protons (positive)
there is negative resistance (tunnel diode effect)
there are negative numbers in algebra
there is a negative magnetic pole in every magnet
seems like for every positive there is a negative
so does negative gravity exist? negative light? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
should negative gravity exist would positive gravity attract it?
would two negative gravity waves repel?
would positive light waves attract negative light waves?
would two positive light waves repel each other?
In electronics you can have positive/negative going frequencies called AC
146.520 MHZ is a positive/negative carrier frequency which can be modulated with intelligence (frequency is based on one Earth SECOND)
(DC VOLTAGE/CURRENT HAS NO FREQUENCY)
does Gravity have a frequency? can it be changed? Modulated?
If gravity has a specific frequency then it is also negative going (from positive to negative etc)......We can make positive going square waves from AC to produce digital pulses (5Volts high on an oscope) (this is what your computer reads)
could we somehow harness gravity in a similar manner?
What power source would make gravity waves? We can detect gravity waves so perhaps we can reverse the detector and broadcast gravity waves? we can take DC and turn it into AC and visa versa......how can we do that with gravity waves....currently LIDAR is used to detect gravity...wonder if the equipment can be reversed (as in a transducer.....a speaker can be used as a microphone and vice versa) to create gravity waves. Perhaps placing one LIDAR unit (reversed) next to a lidar detector we can collect the gravity wave then pipe it into the next LIDAR unit (in reverse) and make and perhaps amplify gravity waves.
anyone ever hear of any such experiments?
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Jul 11 2009, 04:55 PM)
In electronics you can have positive/negative going frequencies called AC
146.520 MHZ is a positive/negative carrier frequency which can be modulated with intelligence (frequency is based on one Earth SECOND)
What?
146.520 MHZ is a positive/negative carrier frequency which can be modulated with intelligence (frequency is based on one Earth SECOND)
What?
Remarkable restraint!
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jul 11 2009, 07:05 PM)
What?
[B]In electronics you can have positive/negative going frequencies called AC
146.520 MHZ is a positive/negative carrier frequency which can be modulated with intelligence (frequency is based on one Earth SECOND)
you replied...WHAT? carrier frequencies go from negative to positive.
the Freq of 146.520 MHZ (FM)does so that many times per Earth Second.
Then you impress intelligence on the carrier Freq....(with a microphone or telegraph key) and your intelligence rides on the carrier wave. and on a scope you can see the intelligence undulating up and down in FM mode and impressed on the carrier in AM mode.
[B]In electronics you can have positive/negative going frequencies called AC
146.520 MHZ is a positive/negative carrier frequency which can be modulated with intelligence (frequency is based on one Earth SECOND)
you replied...WHAT? carrier frequencies go from negative to positive.
the Freq of 146.520 MHZ (FM)does so that many times per Earth Second.
Then you impress intelligence on the carrier Freq....(with a microphone or telegraph key) and your intelligence rides on the carrier wave. and on a scope you can see the intelligence undulating up and down in FM mode and impressed on the carrier in AM mode.
Next time I see intelligence undulating up and down, I will let you know.
On second thought, what?
On second thought, what?
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+Jul 11 2009, 11:55 AM)
so does negative gravity exist? negative light?
If by negative you might accept equal and opposite, yes it is easily detected. I prefer to call "negative" as in "equal and opposite" as “inverse”.
Light is energy. Gravity is attraction. The inverse of attraction is repulsion. The inverse of mass is energy. The inverse of particle (point) is wave. The inverse of gravity is levity.
Shine light against a mirror. Repulsion of the mirror can be detected and measured.
Focus laser light on the moon. Repulsion spreads even the most coherent beam to ~400 miles.
mass sucks; energy blows
The opposite of gravity is easily detected and measured.
That does not mean physicists understand.
Peace
rw
If by negative you might accept equal and opposite, yes it is easily detected. I prefer to call "negative" as in "equal and opposite" as “inverse”.
Light is energy. Gravity is attraction. The inverse of attraction is repulsion. The inverse of mass is energy. The inverse of particle (point) is wave. The inverse of gravity is levity.
Shine light against a mirror. Repulsion of the mirror can be detected and measured.
Focus laser light on the moon. Repulsion spreads even the most coherent beam to ~400 miles.
mass sucks; energy blows
The opposite of gravity is easily detected and measured.
That does not mean physicists understand.
Peace
rw
QUOTE (rwjefferson+Jul 22 2009, 09:21 PM)
If by negative you might accept equal and opposite, yes it is easily detected. I prefer to call "negative" as in "equal and opposite" as “inverse”.
Light is energy. Gravity is attraction. The inverse of attraction is repulsion. The inverse of mass is energy. The inverse of particle (point) is wave. The inverse of gravity is levity.
Shine light against a mirror. Repulsion of the mirror can be detected and measured.
Focus laser light on the moon. Repulsion spreads even the most coherent beam to ~400 miles.
mass sucks; energy blows
The opposite of gravity is easily detected and measured.
That does not mean physicists understand.
Peace
rw
Just another idiot.
Light is energy. Gravity is attraction. The inverse of attraction is repulsion. The inverse of mass is energy. The inverse of particle (point) is wave. The inverse of gravity is levity.
Shine light against a mirror. Repulsion of the mirror can be detected and measured.
Focus laser light on the moon. Repulsion spreads even the most coherent beam to ~400 miles.
mass sucks; energy blows
The opposite of gravity is easily detected and measured.
That does not mean physicists understand.
Peace
rw
Just another idiot.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 22 2009, 11:04 PM)
Just another idiot.
An idiot is one that does not understand how to have a reasoned and polite discussion.
Please identify the first phrase that departs your understanding.
Ignorance need not be forever.
Peace
rw
An idiot is one that does not understand how to have a reasoned and polite discussion.
Please identify the first phrase that departs your understanding.
Ignorance need not be forever.
Peace
rw
QUOTE
If by negative you might accept equal and opposite, yes it is easily detected. I prefer to call "negative" as in "equal and opposite" as “inverse”.
It goes downhill from here.
it warps uphill from here.
negatively speaking.
negative gravity is energy.
negative light is mass.
as gravity forces down, negative gravity forces up
lift and levity.
hover is balance in verse equal and opposite.
no matter plus in verse minus; positive in verse negative; warp in verse anti-.
all is balanced by spacetime constant.
negative gravity is relative wave in verse lift and levity.
negative light is quantum particle in verse mass and gravity.
force as everything is quantum pressure differential.
relatively speaking.
Peace
rw
negatively speaking.
negative gravity is energy.
negative light is mass.
as gravity forces down, negative gravity forces up
lift and levity.
hover is balance in verse equal and opposite.
no matter plus in verse minus; positive in verse negative; warp in verse anti-.
all is balanced by spacetime constant.
negative gravity is relative wave in verse lift and levity.
negative light is quantum particle in verse mass and gravity.
force as everything is quantum pressure differential.
relatively speaking.
Peace
rw
QUOTE
negative gravity is energy.
No it isn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| negative gravity is energy. |
No it isn't.
negative light is mass.
No it isn't.
QUOTE
as gravity forces down, negative gravity forces up
No, there is no negative gravity.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
idiot.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 25 2009, 12:00 AM)
No it isn't.
No it isn't.
No, there is no negative gravity.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
idiot.
Is not is not an enlightened or reasoned response.
Insults reveal immaturity.
That levity is the opposite or “negative” of gravity is gibberish only to the ignorant or brainwashed.
I will agree that one of us is an idiot.
over and out
rw
No it isn't.
No, there is no negative gravity.
The rest of your post is gibberish.
idiot.
Is not is not an enlightened or reasoned response.
Insults reveal immaturity.
That levity is the opposite or “negative” of gravity is gibberish only to the ignorant or brainwashed.
I will agree that one of us is an idiot.
over and out
rw
QUOTE (rwjefferson+Jul 25 2009, 06:00 PM)
Is not is not an enlightened or reasoned response.
Insults reveal immaturity.
That levity is the opposite or “negative” of gravity is gibberish only to the ignorant or brainwashed.
I will agree that one of us is an idiot.
What an arrogant retard. Everyone here that's not a complete idiot would agree with AlexG. You're just a run of the mill crackpot. Gravity doesn't have an opposite, you *****. Anti-gravity only exists in science fiction. Maybe you should read some material on actual physics instead of watching Star Trek.
Insults reveal immaturity.
That levity is the opposite or “negative” of gravity is gibberish only to the ignorant or brainwashed.
I will agree that one of us is an idiot.
What an arrogant retard. Everyone here that's not a complete idiot would agree with AlexG. You're just a run of the mill crackpot. Gravity doesn't have an opposite, you *****. Anti-gravity only exists in science fiction. Maybe you should read some material on actual physics instead of watching Star Trek.
QUOTE (rwjefferson+Jul 23 2009, 02:21 AM)
Shine light against a mirror. Repulsion of the mirror can be detected and measured.
Focus laser light on the moon. Repulsion spreads even the most coherent beam to ~400 miles.
In reality, you are talking about the fact that light has momentum and that it exrts radaition pressure. This has been known for more than 100 years, has nothing to do with "negative" gravity.
"Levitation" has also been known for a long time (google "maglev"). Nothing to do with negative gravitation.
Hi billyandtherockets, rwjefferson, AlexG, flyingbuttressman et al,
I think I understand the question. There are many examples of things in physics that have opposites. Does gravity have an opposite?
In general relativity, gravity is described by the geometry of space and time. One could say, roughly, that spacetime has a shape. That shape is affected by matter and energy. A massive object like the earth affects the shape of spacetime. When we observe falling objects, we see them falling because they are following the shape of spacetime.
So, one can ask if there is anything that affects the shape of spacetime in the opposite way that massive objects do. No such object has been observed. It is possible to describe the characteristics that such a thing would have. The Einstein field equation (that determines gravity) is this:
G^{ab} = -8*pi*G*T^{ab}
where we won't worry too much about what this all means. The left side G^{ab} is a description of the shape of spacetime. The right side has a few constants and T^{ab} which is a tensor that describes the energy and momentum of an object. Clearly, to make G^{ab} do the opposite thing that it usually does, we need T^{ab} to do the opposite thing that it usually does. But that would be a very weird object. For example, T^{00} is the energy and is positive for every known object and field.
Anitmatter is not time-reversed matter, and I don't know of any physicist who thinks it is.
I first read it in one of Richard Feynman's books.
Thanks, I was having trouble finding a link to Feynman's declaration that antimatter is time-reversed matter.
And I did just read it, very neatly bundled in that one paper.
I think I read it in Feynman's "QED".
QUOTE (billyandtherockets+)
... there are negative (or less positive) electrons and protons (positive)
there is negative resistance (tunnel diode effect)
there are negative numbers in algebra
there is a negative magnetic pole in every magnet
seems like for every positive there is a negative
so does negative gravity exist? negative light? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
there is negative resistance (tunnel diode effect)
there are negative numbers in algebra
there is a negative magnetic pole in every magnet
seems like for every positive there is a negative
so does negative gravity exist? negative light? hmmmmmmmmmmmmm
Negative light exists and it does involve "repulsion" but this is not an example of negative gravity.
http://www.physorg.com/news166711942.html
The question is a sensible one and needs a quiet mind to analyze it. If you simply "echo" what others say then nobody learns anything and believe me there is a lot to learn with gravity. Most "popular theories" about gravity such as the existence of gravitons and such are unproven and the evidence for them is "very weak" given the enormous technical effort that has gone into finding them. So.. until "proven"... gravitons - the supposed force carrier for gravity... do not exist. Rephrasing this more obviously ... Gravity is not a genuine force. Gravity is the response to the local curvature of spacetime. The path the marble takes does not depend on the size of the marble but only on it's instantaneous velocity. A marble rolling over an uneven surface does not "know" about an attraction to a distant object... all it "knows" is the slope of the surface under it. This is the same for a skateboard rider in an area used to play with a skateboard in parks. The skateboard "goes" wherever the slope of the land and its forward velocity takes it and it "appears" to be obeying an inverse square lay of force due to the curvature of "distant attractors"... Of course this in only simple concrete so there is no "real attractors" for the skateboard. "Gravity" is the cooperative sloping of spacetime due to all the various curvatures of distant particles at the point of application leading to a nett trajectory of the falling freely particle. Of course a massive object often dominates the geometry of the local spacetime but it does not remove any influence from any of the other more distant "shapers" of spacetime.
I mention that this is not a force since within a very large scalability factor of many orders of magnitude... all objects, no matter what their mass "fall" identically at a particular relatively defined point in curved spacetime given the same initial velocity. The only non-scalable effect is the self mass of the falling object and it's ability to curve spacetime in it's own right. So since this "force" is independent of it's own mass and depends largely only on local spacetime curvature... it follows that light itself which is massless "is attracted by gravity".... and "falls" responding to the same curvature along which all other objects are falling at that place. The only difference in trajectories they all possess is due solely to the relative initial velocities the objects all possess.
Light, of course, always travels at the speed of light in any relatively moving reference frame. In the case of a "rock" the velocity according to Einstein is entirely relative and depends on the inertial frame you have chosen... still it "appears" to move along a geodesic just like a marble rolling along an incline. If you choose an inertial frame at "rest" relative to the relatively moving marble (that is falling along with the particle) and spacetime is only very slightly curved over short periods of time and distance... the particle will remain stationary relate to the frame as long as only a "test mass" is at the origin of this frame. The "rest of the universe" and it's effect appears to cancel out locally if we are distant from all other massive objects as if we lived inside a "hollow shell" ... a demonstration of the gravitational equivalent of a Faraday's Cage Effect (or Gauss' Law). This effect of the distant material in the universe can be locally "felt" as the response to acceleration and a spring will show an extension (a reluctance to be accelerated) when a real force is applied to the freely falling particle through it and this is a measure of it's mass. As far as we know this "property" is substantially constant over large areas around our planet (not to be confused with the weight of a particle). Over galactic distances it may vary leading to a cosmological effects that are still to be fully explained. This reluctance to be accelerated is the equivalence of Lenz's Law of Induction in electromagnetism. This is alternatively called Mach's Principle when referringto gravity and is still "true" and can be demonstrated anywhere in normal spacetime.
Mass appears to be a "property" endowed on an object due to the influence on it of all distant particles. The influence of these distant particles cannot be blocked... but I repeat... this is not a force. In certain confined spaces "mass" will exhibit that cannot be seen as an "external effect". In such a way it is possible that a particular fermion particle with a well defined mass such as a neutron or proton (usually an electron) may be seen to vary if they combine in some special emergent way with other quantum states as seen in the "Composite Fermion" seen in the behavior of electrons when confined in two dimensions and subject to intense magnetic fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermions
In this case the mass of such confined particles have been seen to increase greatly when combined with quanta of magnetic flux in quasiparticles. It has been said by some that similar phenomena may exist in the case of all fermions, such that a more general case may be made for this overall mechanism such as the conductivity of electrons in metals. An even greater generalization of this "model" may effect all condensed matter states to some degree. The principle may extend to the island galaxies of our Universe and to the principle of gravity in action there (such as in the vacuum of space). While the former is an experimental fact the latter inference is currently still speculation.
So it would appear that matter waves fall into a more general process and material particles may have their mass endowed through an exact relationship that we experimentally already understand due to the works of de Broglie. Anyway looking at only the experimentally verified aspects of matter waves the fermion particle partakes in a matter wave "vortex" as interferences with all other matter wave vortices. These vortices have been documented and used in actual experiments and their arrangement and their wavelength are velocity dependent as noted in the Einstein-de Broglie Equation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
These objects have a characteristic response and it is given by an Airy Pattern and they can be focused by their elemental arrangement in space in a similar way that light can be focused with parabolic mirrors only matter waves are entirely "invisible" and cannot be dissipated by any material substance. All fermions have a 4Π rotational symmetry rather than 2Π rotational symmetry, a little known topological fact about matter wave vortices illustrated graphically by Balinese Candle Dancers (... alternatively called Dirac's Party Trick).
http://newton.umsl.edu/philf//candles.html
To detect these matter waves very careful experiments must be arranged. It is often assumed that matter waves do not have any physical presence but many experiments absolutely require them and they are a more fundamental concept than light waves. This Law of interaction between matter and light is known as Bragg's Law and is not limited to the use of X-Rays but is the influence on all matter due to the scattering of all forms of electromagnetic radiation. The Airy pattern of matter wave sources has a possible negative Berry phase but because this is usually not expressed in most situations due to phase cancellation effects it is only seen at around the de Broglie wavelength. Most matter systems are found in a lower energy state... planets clump matter together etc. This effect might be seen as repulsive in certain arrangements and attractive in others while there is an overall inverse gravitational potential that acts on it out to "infinity", in close the effect is both "marginally" above and below the otherwise "flat" spacetime continuum between interfering particles of the same wavelength depending on their spatial separations and the common wavelength of the particles due to velocity. The effect can be "amplified" through certain arrangements of the interfering particles as noted above. Collapsing the effect through measurement leads to an inner product that is usually having a positive sign but some recent experiments have shown "negative probabilities" when a weak measurement has been made indicating a failure of some current theories to explain their actions through the conventional theory.
There are a lot of supporting experiment that are leading in the interpretation and the development of these "protective measurements" as originally pioneered by Yakir Aharanov and have indicated some fundamental entrenched errors in conventional quantum theory. IMHO when there is a conflict between a long held theory and the direct evidence of an experiment... the experiments always wins.
So "yes" there may be some repulsive "gravitational force". Certainly our theories of Cosmology is lacking in some very important details and have led to the proposal of "new forces" and "unseen mass" .... the Dark Force and Dark Matter. The Dark Force is just such a repulsive influence that increases over distance and Dark Matter seems to be (at this time anyway) the only way to explain an unseen mass effect inside of Spiral Galaxies. This is no trivial small scale effect but an essential missing aspect in all our theories. The non-existence of gravitons appears to be a real problem in our Gravity Wave Detectors that are not finding the proposed theoretical waves but the appearance of quantum interferences as a separate effect in the gravity wave detectors and may eventually be their saving grace in revealing this new entity that we still cannot see.
Cheers
http://www.physorg.com/news166711942.html
The question is a sensible one and needs a quiet mind to analyze it. If you simply "echo" what others say then nobody learns anything and believe me there is a lot to learn with gravity. Most "popular theories" about gravity such as the existence of gravitons and such are unproven and the evidence for them is "very weak" given the enormous technical effort that has gone into finding them. So.. until "proven"... gravitons - the supposed force carrier for gravity... do not exist. Rephrasing this more obviously ... Gravity is not a genuine force. Gravity is the response to the local curvature of spacetime. The path the marble takes does not depend on the size of the marble but only on it's instantaneous velocity. A marble rolling over an uneven surface does not "know" about an attraction to a distant object... all it "knows" is the slope of the surface under it. This is the same for a skateboard rider in an area used to play with a skateboard in parks. The skateboard "goes" wherever the slope of the land and its forward velocity takes it and it "appears" to be obeying an inverse square lay of force due to the curvature of "distant attractors"... Of course this in only simple concrete so there is no "real attractors" for the skateboard. "Gravity" is the cooperative sloping of spacetime due to all the various curvatures of distant particles at the point of application leading to a nett trajectory of the falling freely particle. Of course a massive object often dominates the geometry of the local spacetime but it does not remove any influence from any of the other more distant "shapers" of spacetime.
I mention that this is not a force since within a very large scalability factor of many orders of magnitude... all objects, no matter what their mass "fall" identically at a particular relatively defined point in curved spacetime given the same initial velocity. The only non-scalable effect is the self mass of the falling object and it's ability to curve spacetime in it's own right. So since this "force" is independent of it's own mass and depends largely only on local spacetime curvature... it follows that light itself which is massless "is attracted by gravity".... and "falls" responding to the same curvature along which all other objects are falling at that place. The only difference in trajectories they all possess is due solely to the relative initial velocities the objects all possess.
Light, of course, always travels at the speed of light in any relatively moving reference frame. In the case of a "rock" the velocity according to Einstein is entirely relative and depends on the inertial frame you have chosen... still it "appears" to move along a geodesic just like a marble rolling along an incline. If you choose an inertial frame at "rest" relative to the relatively moving marble (that is falling along with the particle) and spacetime is only very slightly curved over short periods of time and distance... the particle will remain stationary relate to the frame as long as only a "test mass" is at the origin of this frame. The "rest of the universe" and it's effect appears to cancel out locally if we are distant from all other massive objects as if we lived inside a "hollow shell" ... a demonstration of the gravitational equivalent of a Faraday's Cage Effect (or Gauss' Law). This effect of the distant material in the universe can be locally "felt" as the response to acceleration and a spring will show an extension (a reluctance to be accelerated) when a real force is applied to the freely falling particle through it and this is a measure of it's mass. As far as we know this "property" is substantially constant over large areas around our planet (not to be confused with the weight of a particle). Over galactic distances it may vary leading to a cosmological effects that are still to be fully explained. This reluctance to be accelerated is the equivalence of Lenz's Law of Induction in electromagnetism. This is alternatively called Mach's Principle when referringto gravity and is still "true" and can be demonstrated anywhere in normal spacetime.
Mass appears to be a "property" endowed on an object due to the influence on it of all distant particles. The influence of these distant particles cannot be blocked... but I repeat... this is not a force. In certain confined spaces "mass" will exhibit that cannot be seen as an "external effect". In such a way it is possible that a particular fermion particle with a well defined mass such as a neutron or proton (usually an electron) may be seen to vary if they combine in some special emergent way with other quantum states as seen in the "Composite Fermion" seen in the behavior of electrons when confined in two dimensions and subject to intense magnetic fields.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_fermions
In this case the mass of such confined particles have been seen to increase greatly when combined with quanta of magnetic flux in quasiparticles. It has been said by some that similar phenomena may exist in the case of all fermions, such that a more general case may be made for this overall mechanism such as the conductivity of electrons in metals. An even greater generalization of this "model" may effect all condensed matter states to some degree. The principle may extend to the island galaxies of our Universe and to the principle of gravity in action there (such as in the vacuum of space). While the former is an experimental fact the latter inference is currently still speculation.
So it would appear that matter waves fall into a more general process and material particles may have their mass endowed through an exact relationship that we experimentally already understand due to the works of de Broglie. Anyway looking at only the experimentally verified aspects of matter waves the fermion particle partakes in a matter wave "vortex" as interferences with all other matter wave vortices. These vortices have been documented and used in actual experiments and their arrangement and their wavelength are velocity dependent as noted in the Einstein-de Broglie Equation....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave
These objects have a characteristic response and it is given by an Airy Pattern and they can be focused by their elemental arrangement in space in a similar way that light can be focused with parabolic mirrors only matter waves are entirely "invisible" and cannot be dissipated by any material substance. All fermions have a 4Π rotational symmetry rather than 2Π rotational symmetry, a little known topological fact about matter wave vortices illustrated graphically by Balinese Candle Dancers (... alternatively called Dirac's Party Trick).
http://newton.umsl.edu/philf//candles.html
To detect these matter waves very careful experiments must be arranged. It is often assumed that matter waves do not have any physical presence but many experiments absolutely require them and they are a more fundamental concept than light waves. This Law of interaction between matter and light is known as Bragg's Law and is not limited to the use of X-Rays but is the influence on all matter due to the scattering of all forms of electromagnetic radiation. The Airy pattern of matter wave sources has a possible negative Berry phase but because this is usually not expressed in most situations due to phase cancellation effects it is only seen at around the de Broglie wavelength. Most matter systems are found in a lower energy state... planets clump matter together etc. This effect might be seen as repulsive in certain arrangements and attractive in others while there is an overall inverse gravitational potential that acts on it out to "infinity", in close the effect is both "marginally" above and below the otherwise "flat" spacetime continuum between interfering particles of the same wavelength depending on their spatial separations and the common wavelength of the particles due to velocity. The effect can be "amplified" through certain arrangements of the interfering particles as noted above. Collapsing the effect through measurement leads to an inner product that is usually having a positive sign but some recent experiments have shown "negative probabilities" when a weak measurement has been made indicating a failure of some current theories to explain their actions through the conventional theory.
There are a lot of supporting experiment that are leading in the interpretation and the development of these "protective measurements" as originally pioneered by Yakir Aharanov and have indicated some fundamental entrenched errors in conventional quantum theory. IMHO when there is a conflict between a long held theory and the direct evidence of an experiment... the experiments always wins.
So "yes" there may be some repulsive "gravitational force". Certainly our theories of Cosmology is lacking in some very important details and have led to the proposal of "new forces" and "unseen mass" .... the Dark Force and Dark Matter. The Dark Force is just such a repulsive influence that increases over distance and Dark Matter seems to be (at this time anyway) the only way to explain an unseen mass effect inside of Spiral Galaxies. This is no trivial small scale effect but an essential missing aspect in all our theories. The non-existence of gravitons appears to be a real problem in our Gravity Wave Detectors that are not finding the proposed theoretical waves but the appearance of quantum interferences as a separate effect in the gravity wave detectors and may eventually be their saving grace in revealing this new entity that we still cannot see.
Cheers
Read the title of the thread,
"Can We Detect Negative Gravity?"
to which the forum answered,
There is no such thing as negative gravity.
Take the answer and go. You were obviously given an answer you didn't "expect" or "want." It doesn't make the answer wrong however.
"Can We Detect Negative Gravity?"
to which the forum answered,
There is no such thing as negative gravity.
Take the answer and go. You were obviously given an answer you didn't "expect" or "want." It doesn't make the answer wrong however.
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
every other force seems to have an opposite.
Just defending that gravity might have an opposite, nothing else.
every other force seems to have an opposite.
Just defending that gravity might have an opposite, nothing else.
kind response is greatly appreciated
“...yes there may be some repulsive “gravitational force...”
Negative does not necessarily apply only by electromagnetic charge.
Can we detect negative gravity?
Force is force is force. There are only differing states of force in verse energy in verse time in verse space in verse constant in verse fluent acceleration.
Force is attraction in verse repulsion; negative in verse positive. Force is in verse pressure differential.
I find this “may be” or “dark” or “I don’t want to talk about it” force is easily observed and demonstrated even by offered links.
gravity plus equal negative gravity is called hover
g + (-)g = 0 vector in verse velocity differential
g + l = 0 in verse fluent acceleration
mass rests en tropy
That stars are long shown to wander retrograde (negative vector) does not prove dark epicycle. Authority tends toward not necessarily right.
negative gravity is levity
all energy repulses
Peace
rw
“...yes there may be some repulsive “gravitational force...”
Negative does not necessarily apply only by electromagnetic charge.
Can we detect negative gravity?
Force is force is force. There are only differing states of force in verse energy in verse time in verse space in verse constant in verse fluent acceleration.
Force is attraction in verse repulsion; negative in verse positive. Force is in verse pressure differential.
I find this “may be” or “dark” or “I don’t want to talk about it” force is easily observed and demonstrated even by offered links.
gravity plus equal negative gravity is called hover
g + (-)g = 0 vector in verse velocity differential
g + l = 0 in verse fluent acceleration
mass rests en tropy
That stars are long shown to wander retrograde (negative vector) does not prove dark epicycle. Authority tends toward not necessarily right.
negative gravity is levity
all energy repulses
Peace
rw
Still another post that makes no sense at all.
What is it about physics which attracts so many ignorant schmucks?
What is it about physics which attracts so many ignorant schmucks?
I wonder myself.
Please forgive.
That you have yet to reveal even simple understanding tends my wonder in verse even able? Many color blind or tone deaf are forever simply unaware. Some will deny even vehemently. The same goes for unenlightened.
Ignorant schmucks go to physics websites in hope even schmucks might better understand. Insulting schmucks go to physics websites to stifle reason in Name of Authority in verse bloated Self Importance.
Newton was ridiculed for proposing force equal and opposite; as in force inverse gravity. The mark as bully may not necessarily be cloaked from all.
[note] I seek links to cartoon lambasting newton in verse levity circa/1.7. [/note]
Force as mass/gravity attracts matter toward earth.
Force as energy/levity repulses matter in verse and away from earth.
Matter hovers a q~ of dimension over earth.
[note] This is not necessarily evident to minds already warped engraved by Authority. [/note]
ItS
Physics
r~
Reading something they think they understand, that seems to make sense, that is presented in Name of Authority; innocent minds are easily beguiled and marked graven by Authority.
Matter evolves in verse entropy. Force is in verse pressure differential. Observation trumps Authority.
There is no firmament nor epicycle nor fabric nor warp. Curve and epicycle and warp are effect (action in verse reaction) of force. Effect is not the same as force. Force is pressure differential.
Please forgive.
That you have yet to reveal even simple understanding tends my wonder in verse even able? Many color blind or tone deaf are forever simply unaware. Some will deny even vehemently. The same goes for unenlightened.
Ignorant schmucks go to physics websites in hope even schmucks might better understand. Insulting schmucks go to physics websites to stifle reason in Name of Authority in verse bloated Self Importance.
Newton was ridiculed for proposing force equal and opposite; as in force inverse gravity. The mark as bully may not necessarily be cloaked from all.
[note] I seek links to cartoon lambasting newton in verse levity circa/1.7. [/note]
Force as mass/gravity attracts matter toward earth.
Force as energy/levity repulses matter in verse and away from earth.
Matter hovers a q~ of dimension over earth.
[note] This is not necessarily evident to minds already warped engraved by Authority. [/note]
ItS
Physics
r~
Reading something they think they understand, that seems to make sense, that is presented in Name of Authority; innocent minds are easily beguiled and marked graven by Authority.
Matter evolves in verse entropy. Force is in verse pressure differential. Observation trumps Authority.
There is no firmament nor epicycle nor fabric nor warp. Curve and epicycle and warp are effect (action in verse reaction) of force. Effect is not the same as force. Force is pressure differential.
Just another twit who's never studied the subject.
P'rhaps a troll, too, eh, Masster? Yesss...
It sseems too poised in it'sss ignorance to be quite as stupid as it wissshes to appear, Precious...
It sseems too poised in it'sss ignorance to be quite as stupid as it wissshes to appear, Precious...
I think I understand the question. There are many examples of things in physics that have opposites. Does gravity have an opposite?
In general relativity, gravity is described by the geometry of space and time. One could say, roughly, that spacetime has a shape. That shape is affected by matter and energy. A massive object like the earth affects the shape of spacetime. When we observe falling objects, we see them falling because they are following the shape of spacetime.
So, one can ask if there is anything that affects the shape of spacetime in the opposite way that massive objects do. No such object has been observed. It is possible to describe the characteristics that such a thing would have. The Einstein field equation (that determines gravity) is this:
G^{ab} = -8*pi*G*T^{ab}
where we won't worry too much about what this all means. The left side G^{ab} is a description of the shape of spacetime. The right side has a few constants and T^{ab} which is a tensor that describes the energy and momentum of an object. Clearly, to make G^{ab} do the opposite thing that it usually does, we need T^{ab} to do the opposite thing that it usually does. But that would be a very weird object. For example, T^{00} is the energy and is positive for every known object and field.
time is anti-gravity
Funny. Maybe gravity is anti-time.
QUOTE (Matador+Sep 5 2009, 06:35 PM)
Funny. Maybe gravity is anti-time.
Sure, why not?
Sure, why not?
If antimatter is, as most theoretical physicists assert, time-reversed matter, then time-reversed gravity is repulsive (isn't it?).
If this is correct, then from the first moments of the "Big Bang", antimatter has been repelling antimatter, accelerating it away from itself, just as matter has been agglomerating into galaxies, stars, and planets. Has anyone else heard a more elegant explanation for why most local matter is common matter, instead of a 50/50 mix?
If this is correct, then from the first moments of the "Big Bang", antimatter has been repelling antimatter, accelerating it away from itself, just as matter has been agglomerating into galaxies, stars, and planets. Has anyone else heard a more elegant explanation for why most local matter is common matter, instead of a 50/50 mix?
QUOTE
If antimatter is, as most theoretical physicists assert, time-reversed matter, then time-reversed gravity is repulsive (isn't it?).
Anitmatter is not time-reversed matter, and I don't know of any physicist who thinks it is.
QUOTE
Anitmatter is not time-reversed matter, and I don't know of any physicist who thinks it is.
I first read it in one of Richard Feynman's books.
Then you didn't understand it.
Antimatter is produced fairly routinely, though in very small quantities. CERN first produced atoms of anti-hydrogen in 1995 I believe.
QUOTE
"antimatter: a form of matter (atoms and stuff) in which each particle (for example an electron) has the opposite set of quantum properties (such as electic charge) to its counterpart. The classic example of a particle of antimatter (an antiparticle) is the antielectron (or positron), which has the same mass as an electron but a positive charge instead of a negative charge.
Antimatter is produced fairly routinely, though in very small quantities. CERN first produced atoms of anti-hydrogen in 1995 I believe.
QUOTE
Motivations for antigravity
Supporters argue that antimatter antigravity would explain several important physics questions. Besides the already mentioned prediction of CP violation, they argue that it explains two cosmological paradoxes. The first is the apparent local lack of antimatter: by theory antimatter and matter would repel each other gravitationally, forming separate matter and antimatter galaxies. These galaxies would also tend to repel one another, thereby preventing possible collisions and annihilations.
This same galactic repulsion is also endorsed as a potential explanation to the observation of a flatly accelerating universe. If gravity was always attractive, the expansion of the universe might be expected to decelerate and eventually contract into a big crunch. Using redshift observations, astronomers and physicists estimate that instead, the size of the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating at an approximately constant rate. Several theories have been proposed to explain this observation within the context of an always-attractive gravity. On the other hand, supporters of antigravity argue that if mutually repulsive, equal amounts of matter and antimatter would precisely offset any attraction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational...for_antigravity
Supporters argue that antimatter antigravity would explain several important physics questions. Besides the already mentioned prediction of CP violation, they argue that it explains two cosmological paradoxes. The first is the apparent local lack of antimatter: by theory antimatter and matter would repel each other gravitationally, forming separate matter and antimatter galaxies. These galaxies would also tend to repel one another, thereby preventing possible collisions and annihilations.
This same galactic repulsion is also endorsed as a potential explanation to the observation of a flatly accelerating universe. If gravity was always attractive, the expansion of the universe might be expected to decelerate and eventually contract into a big crunch. Using redshift observations, astronomers and physicists estimate that instead, the size of the universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating at an approximately constant rate. Several theories have been proposed to explain this observation within the context of an always-attractive gravity. On the other hand, supporters of antigravity argue that if mutually repulsive, equal amounts of matter and antimatter would precisely offset any attraction.
In theory by producing gravity in a reference frame of a larger gravitational field, you are producing anti gravity. A curvature or slope of space time in opposite of the larger frame. Produce enough in per portion to distance or field strength and you get orbit. I would imagine producing a large amount of gravity is hard work almost as hard as thinking for yourself.Well done.
QUOTE (wcelliott+Sep 6 2009, 01:04 AM)
I first read it in one of Richard Feynman's books.
QUOTE
R. P. Feynman developed earlier work by Stueckelberg to produce the Feynman-Stueckelberg Interpretation of antimatter. This interpretation states that all the properties of antimatter are consistent with the view that antimatter and matter are identical except that their particles move in opposite directions in time.
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021v2
QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 6 2009, 07:05 AM)
http://arxiv.org/html/physics/9812021v2
thanks pnelson..
maybe everyone will just read it AGAIN
thanks pnelson..
maybe everyone will just read it AGAIN
Energy does seem to be a viable opposite to gravity. The people insulting this elegantly simple notion remind me of the people in secondary-school who gave on on physics when the teacher explained that the table pushes up on objects with an equal and opposite force as they push down on it.
4Dguy's theory of space-time being generated/expanded during mass-energy conversions is probably closer to the craziness proposed in this thread. If space-time is generated or "expands" dynamically as a result of mass transforming into energy, then the effect of this would be to increase distance between particles. So if you look at gravity as distance decreasing between particles due to innate attraction between masses, then the same particles could be described as having a certain amount of innate positional-fixity, which would cause them to "fall" away from each other in a situation where space-time is increasing or expanding.
4Dguy's theory of space-time being generated/expanded during mass-energy conversions is probably closer to the craziness proposed in this thread. If space-time is generated or "expands" dynamically as a result of mass transforming into energy, then the effect of this would be to increase distance between particles. So if you look at gravity as distance decreasing between particles due to innate attraction between masses, then the same particles could be described as having a certain amount of innate positional-fixity, which would cause them to "fall" away from each other in a situation where space-time is increasing or expanding.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 6 2009, 09:54 AM)
Energy does seem to be a viable opposite to gravity. The people insulting this elegantly simple notion remind me of the people in secondary-school who gave on on physics when the teacher explained that the table pushes up on objects with an equal and opposite force as they push down on it.
So, because you think something sounds nice, that makes it true? Science isn't a religion; you can't just change and make up rules whenever you feel like it.
Tell me, how can work be the opposite of a force?
Work = Force * Distance
You're not even trying to think, you're just letting your mouth go without any though or reason.
So, because you think something sounds nice, that makes it true? Science isn't a religion; you can't just change and make up rules whenever you feel like it.
Tell me, how can work be the opposite of a force?
Work = Force * Distance
You're not even trying to think, you're just letting your mouth go without any though or reason.
QUOTE
thanks pnelson.. maybe everyone will just read it AGAIN
Thanks, I was having trouble finding a link to Feynman's declaration that antimatter is time-reversed matter.
And I did just read it, very neatly bundled in that one paper.
I think I read it in Feynman's "QED".
According to Penrose, (The Road to Reality pp 639) Feynman liked to interpret anti-particles as travelling backwards in time because it provided a convenient and consistent way of treating antiparticles within the context of Feynman graphs.
Feynman himself says that "the fundamental physical laws, on a microscopic and fundamental level, are completely reversible in time". (Six Not-So-Easy Pieces pp 28-29.) In other words, there is no prefered direction of time on a micro level, but there is on a macro level, for both matter and antimatter.
Furthermore, when discussing anti-matter (pp 43-46) Feynman says that a clock constructed out of ordinary matter but with a left-handed spacial parity will run the same way as a clock constructed out of anti-matter with a right-handed spacial parity. If the clocks are both constructed out of matter and anti-matter with the same parity, they will have different rates, just as will clocks made of ordinary matter with opposite parity.
Feynman himself says that "the fundamental physical laws, on a microscopic and fundamental level, are completely reversible in time". (Six Not-So-Easy Pieces pp 28-29.) In other words, there is no prefered direction of time on a micro level, but there is on a macro level, for both matter and antimatter.
Furthermore, when discussing anti-matter (pp 43-46) Feynman says that a clock constructed out of ordinary matter but with a left-handed spacial parity will run the same way as a clock constructed out of anti-matter with a right-handed spacial parity. If the clocks are both constructed out of matter and anti-matter with the same parity, they will have different rates, just as will clocks made of ordinary matter with opposite parity.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 6 2009, 02:01 PM)
Tell me, how can work be the opposite of a force?
Work = Force * Distance
How can you ask if something is the opposite of one of its components? Work is a concept that acknowledges that energy can be sharp and focussed or milder and more drawn out, with the same amount of total work done.
Gravity is the tendency for masses to attract to one another. Would "anti-gravity" then have to be a passive tendency in order to constitute a true opposite? Or can you say that anything that counteracts the tendency of masses to attract constitutes "anti-gravity?" In that case, energy would qualify because it occurs as motion, which propels bodies away from each other, reversing the tendency of their gravity to pull them together.
What about when the energy pushing two bodies apart is the result of gravity pulling one of the objects toward itself, e.g. when gravity-assist is used on spacecraft? Then you could say that what is defined as "gravity" or "anti-gravity" would be relative to the frame of reference.
Maybe it would make more sense to say that the opposite of gravity is active propulsion, since gravity is a passive, conglomerating tendency, whereas active propulsion counteracts that. In that case, active propulsion would also be the opposite, or counteractant, of inertia, but this seems problematic to me because inertia and gravity seem like different kinds of force/energy resistance.
Maybe inertia is anti-gravity
Work = Force * Distance
How can you ask if something is the opposite of one of its components? Work is a concept that acknowledges that energy can be sharp and focussed or milder and more drawn out, with the same amount of total work done.
Gravity is the tendency for masses to attract to one another. Would "anti-gravity" then have to be a passive tendency in order to constitute a true opposite? Or can you say that anything that counteracts the tendency of masses to attract constitutes "anti-gravity?" In that case, energy would qualify because it occurs as motion, which propels bodies away from each other, reversing the tendency of their gravity to pull them together.
What about when the energy pushing two bodies apart is the result of gravity pulling one of the objects toward itself, e.g. when gravity-assist is used on spacecraft? Then you could say that what is defined as "gravity" or "anti-gravity" would be relative to the frame of reference.
Maybe it would make more sense to say that the opposite of gravity is active propulsion, since gravity is a passive, conglomerating tendency, whereas active propulsion counteracts that. In that case, active propulsion would also be the opposite, or counteractant, of inertia, but this seems problematic to me because inertia and gravity seem like different kinds of force/energy resistance.
Maybe inertia is anti-gravity
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+Sep 6 2009, 05:04 PM)
How can you ask if something is the opposite of one of its components? Work is a concept that acknowledges that energy can be sharp and focussed or milder and more drawn out, with the same amount of total work done.
Gravity is a force. Energy is work. How can they be opposites?
Gravity is a force. Energy is work. How can they be opposites?
Gravity is the tendency for masses to attract to one another. Would "anti-gravity" then have to be a passive tendency in order to constitute a true opposite? Or can you say that anything that counteracts the tendency of masses to attract constitutes "anti-gravity?" In that case, energy would qualify because it occurs as motion, which propels bodies away from each other, reversing the tendency of their gravity to pull them together.
Gravity is a force. Anti-gravity is purely imagination. Would you consider magnetism to be anti-gravity since it can repel two masses? Motion and energy are not the same. If anti-gravity existed, it would have to work with the same amount of force in the opposite direction as gravity. Nothing has been shown to do that. Your post demonstrates that you have no idea what constitutes work, force, acceleration or velocity. You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
QUOTE
Energy does seem to be a viable opposite to gravity.
Gravity is a force. Energy is work. How can they be opposites?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Energy does seem to be a viable opposite to gravity. |
Gravity is a force. Energy is work. How can they be opposites?
Gravity is the tendency for masses to attract to one another. Would "anti-gravity" then have to be a passive tendency in order to constitute a true opposite? Or can you say that anything that counteracts the tendency of masses to attract constitutes "anti-gravity?" In that case, energy would qualify because it occurs as motion, which propels bodies away from each other, reversing the tendency of their gravity to pull them together.
Gravity is a force. Anti-gravity is purely imagination. Would you consider magnetism to be anti-gravity since it can repel two masses? Motion and energy are not the same. If anti-gravity existed, it would have to work with the same amount of force in the opposite direction as gravity. Nothing has been shown to do that. Your post demonstrates that you have no idea what constitutes work, force, acceleration or velocity. You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 6 2009, 09:14 PM)
Gravity is a force. Energy is work. How can they be opposites?
You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
It would depend on what you define as anti-force.
Possibly. To the extent that molecules fail to collapse in on themselves as a result of electrons moving fast enough to operate as a "shell," this tendency of matter to resist gravity through motion could be described as anti-gravity, no?
Possibly. To the extent that molecules fail to collapse in on themselves as a result of electrons moving fast enough to operate as a "shell," this tendency of matter to resist gravity through motion could be described as anti-gravity, no?
You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
That was funny enough to make me lol, but that is only because cheese and rain seem to occur in very different contexts. In fact, cheese is an example of rain getting into cows to become milk, which then "rains" out of the cow's utters to be cultured into cheese.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for excessive weasling.]
under standing in verse sets you free
inverse means equal and opposite
in verse means equal by sum;
opposite by an other;
dimension
ItS
peace and levity
rwj
(:in the spirit of shatner:)
You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
It would depend on what you define as anti-force.
QUOTE
Would you consider magnetism to be anti-gravity since it can repel two masses?
Possibly. To the extent that molecules fail to collapse in on themselves as a result of electrons moving fast enough to operate as a "shell," this tendency of matter to resist gravity through motion could be described as anti-gravity, no?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Would you consider magnetism to be anti-gravity since it can repel two masses? |
Possibly. To the extent that molecules fail to collapse in on themselves as a result of electrons moving fast enough to operate as a "shell," this tendency of matter to resist gravity through motion could be described as anti-gravity, no?
You might as well be asking if cheese is an example of rain.
That was funny enough to make me lol, but that is only because cheese and rain seem to occur in very different contexts. In fact, cheese is an example of rain getting into cows to become milk, which then "rains" out of the cow's utters to be cultured into cheese.
[Moderator: Suspended 3 days for excessive weasling.]
geometry is not force
force is inertia acceleration
force is inverse pressure differential
gravity is attraction
negative gravity is repulsion
Current calculation of mass and gravity predicts the expansion of the universe to decelerate even crunch. Instead negative gravity as dark energy forces repulsion even inflation.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=...rgy+anti&aqi=g1
energy is negative gravity
peace and levity
rwj
yes
gravity and electronuclear and energy are in verse states of force
force is inertia acceleration
force is inverse pressure differential
gravity is attraction
negative gravity is repulsion
Current calculation of mass and gravity predicts the expansion of the universe to decelerate even crunch. Instead negative gravity as dark energy forces repulsion even inflation.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=...rgy+anti&aqi=g1
energy is negative gravity
peace and levity
rwj
yes
gravity and electronuclear and energy are in verse states of force
Would that be 'free' verse, or just illiteracy?
QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 16 2009, 07:22 PM)
under standing in verse sets you free
inverse means equal and opposite
in verse means equal by sum;
opposite by an other;
dimension
ItS
peace and levity
rwj
(:in the spirit of shatner:)
Roddenberry had vision; Shatner is a clown. As you seem to be from the simple-minded crap you post.
Weinberg, in his big July talk at CERN was talking about the uv fixed point of gravity and a revival of interest in the "good old" standard model.
The good old SM is not going to have a uv fixed point because it has 'Landau' poles and will 'blow' up.
The only thing to do is see if you can delay the blow up until you are out to Planck scale where new physics in any case.
The proposal is so amazingly clean and quite 'economical'.
The good old SM is not going to have a uv fixed point because it has 'Landau' poles and will 'blow' up.
The only thing to do is see if you can delay the blow up until you are out to Planck scale where new physics in any case.
The proposal is so amazingly clean and quite 'economical'.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.