http://www.physorg.com/news10789.html
According to this finding, a particle traveling faster than 0.57c gravitationally repels particles ahead of it.
If I had a solid consisting of many particles, shouldn"t it fly apart faster than this speed, as the gravitational repulsion "peels off" particles from the front end, so to speak?
Gravity has to be super intense for that to happen. Like the force of gravity on a neutron star might do it. The force holding matter together is something like 1.3477 X 10^20 times more powerful than gravity.
Hello all
I would think that particle on particle collisions in particle accelerators would have anomalies in their targeting system if this explanation of gravity was true.
I would think that particle on particle collisions in particle accelerators would have anomalies in their targeting system if this explanation of gravity was true.
Well it should mean that they certainly are colliding with the energies that they thought they were. However, the antigravity "beam" may be a small amount of force relative to the force of impact.
I would certainly need a paper kind of proof to at least accept what the article claims.
Gravitation is not propagating into space, gravitation is existing into space.
Gravitation does not act between two objects, its acts between the space around objects.
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4902
amrit
Gravitation does not act between two objects, its acts between the space around objects.
see more: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4902
amrit
it's a dangerous field you're going into, amrit. this is much more complicated than what you are trying to convey. Scientists still do not know what force (classical Newtonian mechanics) is or by what means curvature (GR mechanics) is created at some coordinate in space. Don't you think so?
satori
satori
bleh.. i'll read the article once it's in nature.. this is just a tad 'too' succinct
Here's two papers for you folks :
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0505/0505098.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0505/0505099.pdf
They both concern the topic (and were written by Felber).
I don't know if they have been peer-reviewed yet.
http://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0505/0505098.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0505/0505099.pdf
They both concern the topic (and were written by Felber).
I don't know if they have been peer-reviewed yet.
so how do you suppose to travel at speed of light if they are planets and rocks blocking the route of your destinatination get more pessimistic get real
robot is only thing in 21 th century and better medicine
you hype
robot is only thing in 21 th century and better medicine
you hype
Cool - when can I get back to Vulcan?
Its a great way to get some funding off "our future's in the stars" Bush.
A great story to get $X Billion dollars.
A truck with a 5 ton payload on highway 501 only just works on this earth without crashing.
Im just being pessimistic - of course were all gonna live in spaceships in the future!
Harriechristos says so.
A great story to get $X Billion dollars.
A truck with a 5 ton payload on highway 501 only just works on this earth without crashing.
Im just being pessimistic - of course were all gonna live in spaceships in the future!
Harriechristos says so.
This presents the first opportunity for creating artificial gravity. Imagine a ring-space station. Instead of spinning the whole station, spin a heavy object around the top of the station - this repels the matter below it to the station floor.
Forgive me if I seem totally off here, but I'm a novice in physics.
I remember a problem in Calculus I concerning the speed of light and mass growth. Basically, the answer to the problem was that as something approaches the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. So the closer to the speed of the light the larger an object becomes and it's limit of growth is infinite. As I understand it this is the reason for not being able to actually hit the speed of the light. Makes sense to me.
So if an object even approaches the speed of light it begins to gain mass. Anyone know how that would be considered in something like the above article or am I totally off here?
I remember a problem in Calculus I concerning the speed of light and mass growth. Basically, the answer to the problem was that as something approaches the speed of light it's mass approaches infinity. So the closer to the speed of the light the larger an object becomes and it's limit of growth is infinite. As I understand it this is the reason for not being able to actually hit the speed of the light. Makes sense to me.
So if an object even approaches the speed of light it begins to gain mass. Anyone know how that would be considered in something like the above article or am I totally off here?
QUOTE
So if an object even approaches the speed of light it begins to gain mass. Anyone know how that would be considered in something like the above article or am I totally off here?
Sounds relevant to me
. The Lorentz factor gamma=1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2) is still used in Felber's papers. This blows up as v/c->1.Two thoughts out of this:
1. Can an object moving fast enough collapse to form a black hole? If this were a charged particle, this could produce a charged black hole.
2. Shouldn't neutrinos decelerate via this mechanism?
So how exacly does anyone propose we get access to an object going that fast to stand in front of while its coming at us at nearly the speed of light. Man, this just sounds like the greatest darwin ever if it doesn't work.
can someone please post a link to a paper proof? thanks 
From what I can tell from Felber's paper, he is incorrect. He thinks that the geodesic equation does not hold for relativistic particles, but this is not true. The motion of any free particle through spacetime is always given by the geodesic equation. (It even works for something as relativistic as light itself.)
He does have 30 years of experience.
If its true, there is still the issue of accelerating a rocket to more than half the speed of light: no small task.
Also, there is a fallacy being perpetuated by this work and by this discussion. There is no special frame of reference in the universe according to Special Relativity, which General Relativity supports. So, if an object is going 90% light speed, then according to the object, the other observer is going 90% light speed. So, whatever is observed by one, will also be observed by the other.
I'll need to read those papers, but if the one guest post is correct about the assumption by Felbur disregarding the geodesic eq, then its definitely a falacy.
Also, there is a fallacy being perpetuated by this work and by this discussion. There is no special frame of reference in the universe according to Special Relativity, which General Relativity supports. So, if an object is going 90% light speed, then according to the object, the other observer is going 90% light speed. So, whatever is observed by one, will also be observed by the other.
I'll need to read those papers, but if the one guest post is correct about the assumption by Felbur disregarding the geodesic eq, then its definitely a falacy.
So does this now mean that there is a very dense medium of some kind within the space of our universe? By pushing this medium fast enough the time for it to produce eddies and remove from the path of the fast moving matter is reduced enough that it is actually pushed out in front. I expect replies to this to say, "no, no, no; although space is a physical thing". I don't believe that space is physical, I believe that there may be a physical medium within space that is mistakingly being identified as being space. Space is area and infinite, and therefore cannot be infinite.
I don't get it. The article says that the antigravity beam will repel masses, then it says that objects will fall weightlessly into it. Which is it, repel or attract?
Link to pdf file at Cornell Library - it has free access, unlike the ridiculous fake commons at other places.
Link to paper at Cornell here.
Within the weak-field approximation of general relativity, new exact solutions are derived for the
gravitational field of a mass moving with arbitrary velocity and acceleration. Owing to an inertial-
pushing effect, a mass having a constant velocity greater than ***** times the speed of light gravita-
tionally repels other masses at rest within a narrow cone. At high Lorentz factors ***** the force
of repulsion in the forward direction is about ***** times the Newtonian force, offering opportunities
for laboratory tests of gravity at extreme velocities. (***** means I'm not going to bother trying to get it into HTML so go download it.)
Link to paper at Cornell here.
QUOTE
Within the weak-field approximation of general relativity, new exact solutions are derived for the
gravitational field of a mass moving with arbitrary velocity and acceleration. Owing to an inertial-
pushing effect, a mass having a constant velocity greater than ***** times the speed of light gravita-
tionally repels other masses at rest within a narrow cone. At high Lorentz factors ***** the force
of repulsion in the forward direction is about ***** times the Newtonian force, offering opportunities
for laboratory tests of gravity at extreme velocities. (***** means I'm not going to bother trying to get it into HTML so go download it.)
This might explain the gravitational interference patterns on various parameters in my nanometer scale experimental results. Time and Space limits for clear gravitational communication and gravitational control are limited to a little less than 30days and a little less than a spherical shape with a diameter of 1 cm.
Re. Nanometer scale cost effective rate of device or molecule production. The rate of production problem is controlled by what I call 1cm 'time accelerated/decelerated spheres'. The mega millions of product in the 1 CM sphere areas are produced in an 'apparent instant' as the products are moved into and out of the sphere areas.
The physics of the spheres would be off topic, because the mechanisms are smaller than the nanometer scale. But their applications to ongoing nanotechnology research is on topic for general discussion. As they are produced in the lab, the sub nanometer mechanisms are controlled and monitored at the nanometer scale and above.
This creating of mass in the past and future frames may explain and support his theory? I needed to look at my experimental results in relation to what he is suggesting on the Macro level. Perhaps I can use his equations to expand my time depth limits and area of current time control. And get rid of my da_m limiting feedback interference. I maybe unknowingly using this effect.
Re. Nanometer scale cost effective rate of device or molecule production. The rate of production problem is controlled by what I call 1cm 'time accelerated/decelerated spheres'. The mega millions of product in the 1 CM sphere areas are produced in an 'apparent instant' as the products are moved into and out of the sphere areas.
The physics of the spheres would be off topic, because the mechanisms are smaller than the nanometer scale. But their applications to ongoing nanotechnology research is on topic for general discussion. As they are produced in the lab, the sub nanometer mechanisms are controlled and monitored at the nanometer scale and above.
This creating of mass in the past and future frames may explain and support his theory? I needed to look at my experimental results in relation to what he is suggesting on the Macro level. Perhaps I can use his equations to expand my time depth limits and area of current time control. And get rid of my da_m limiting feedback interference. I maybe unknowingly using this effect.
Even f this technology worked, we'd still have to find a way to stop the payload. Going near lightspeed is pretty useless if you can't even brake. 
So what's the verdict? Schitzo, or Stupid?
....it just sums up the insane madness we now call modern physics! 
If your still bound by the law of nothing can travel faster than light then the atomic structure of a material must be affected by its speed. Regardless of how much mass it has it can no longer perform as it did at slower speeds due to it's inability of it's sub atomic particles to travel faster than light. Effectively it will change it's state into some other form of energy so when it gets where it's going it's utterly useless except as a bullet perhaps.
QUOTE (Jonathan+Feb 12 2006, 04:10 PM)
So does this now mean that there is a very dense medium of some kind within the space of our universe? By pushing this medium fast enough the time for it to produce eddies and remove from the path of the fast moving matter is reduced enough that it is actually pushed out in front. I expect replies to this to say, "no, no, no; although space is a physical thing". I don't believe that space is physical, I believe that there may be a physical medium within space that is mistakingly being identified as being space. Space is area and infinite, and therefore cannot be infinite.
I said this quote, I am edited the end part. I meant to say something like, "and therefore cannot be physical and finite".
I said this quote, I am edited the end part. I meant to say something like, "and therefore cannot be physical and finite".
Hmm-now why isn't he publishing in Phys. Rev. Letters????
Where will find a speeding star to ride it's antigravity beam?
Where we will find a speeding star to ride it's antigravity beam?
If that theory is true it has big implications for cosmological theories. According to modern cosmology the universe is expanding in all directions equally analogous a surface on a an expanding balloon. All of the galaxies speeding away from each other will be raying nearby galxies and clusters that they are moving towards with antigravity beams causing repulsion between them. What consequences does this have for inflation theory or the big bang? I guess the repsive force will be proportional to the mass of primordial matter expanding at the very start of the universe. As the density of the universe decreased the repulsive force causing inflation went down bringing an end to the inflationary era.
Hmm.. On the subject of the reaction each particle would have on those surrounding it in the vehicle itself... while I'm certain that the antigravity "beam" wouldn't have much of an effect on a spaceship, it doesn't take much force to screw up neurons in the brain...
If you belive this article I have some swamp land on Titan for you (and I'd even give you a very special rate!! )
)
imagine a beowulf cluster of these!!!
QUOTE (Guest_Matt+Feb 13 2006, 02:30 AM)
Hmm.. On the subject of the reaction each particle would have on those surrounding it in the vehicle itself... while I'm certain that the antigravity "beam" wouldn't have much of an effect on a spaceship, it doesn't take much force to screw up neurons in the brain...
Since antigravity is the same as gravity but in the opposite direction it wont do much to screw up your neurons. It will feel somewhat like an amusement park ride.
Since antigravity is the same as gravity but in the opposite direction it wont do much to screw up your neurons. It will feel somewhat like an amusement park ride.
I believe that to reach even 57 or whatever percent of the speed of light is a rather large hurdle unto itself. Even so, he sounds like he is definitely on to something. Too bad he simply couldn't give us the mathematical relationship between gravity & electricity. Now THAT would be monumental.
How about we see an article in a peer-reviewed journal first.
I sleep in a drawer.
The start of the true space age is upon us. As fast as light and faster still.
My cat's breath smells like catfood
posted before i think this is bunk
anti gravity is just falling in the opposite direction. Meaning it still acts like gravity. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between an anti gravity device at your feet and a gravity source at your head.
This idea really depends on gravity becoming anti gravity at very large distances. Why? because other galaxy clusters are receding from our local group at 57%c and faster. Dont get started on they aren't really traveling at 57%c. As "really" has no meaning with motion,time,space. (well except for Amrits universe as with an aether you can say really.. i suppose anyway don't really know his theories that well but don't discount them either). From our perspective they are traveling at 57%c and from this distance then gravity should be anti gravity. If you accept gravity as a geometric deformation of space, like valley, then anti gravity would be like would be like a hill. If you were in a spaceship leaving the local cluster, (as thats how far you got to go to feel the effects) gravity from the local cluster would get less and less and if you started to run into anti gravity.. it would seem to you like the gravity of the local cluster suddenly started to increase again. You wouldn't be pushed away from our local cluster because you would be heading into an area of increasing anti gravity (climbing a hill), so you would be pushed back towards the local cluster. Unless you subscribe to a valley behind you suddenly becoming a hill.
OK bizarre but i can almost except this especially if you think the natural shape of space is bowed.
But there seems to be implications for this theory that just don't make sense. Wouldn't objects falling towards a backhole all of a sudden be repelled once they reach 57% of light speed? It would make the terminal velocity of a black hole 57%c and not c, as when you get above this number anti gravity would slow you back down to 57%c. Could a black hole even form if a star cant collapse at near c? On a spaceship once you reached 57%c. you would have to turn you engines on reverse to prevent constantly accelerating to c. This makes it seem like free energy. Maybe i am reading something wrong here but this definitely doesn't make sense.
I suppose he is only talking about particles that have a rest mass. This is so light and other EM doesn't have anti gravity properties. Or it wouldn't fall in black holes and would be deflected from planets. I know we don't have a good idea of gravity on the quantum scale but i also wonder the implications for particles that have a rest mass and do travel at near the speed of light.
I really don't know how he came up with his numbers so i am just guessing here but from first read it just doesn't make much sense. Does that make it wrong when so much of the universe doesn't make sense?
*message to the developers.. i really wish the spell check would quit trying to change my donts to dints. lol
anti gravity is just falling in the opposite direction. Meaning it still acts like gravity. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between an anti gravity device at your feet and a gravity source at your head.
This idea really depends on gravity becoming anti gravity at very large distances. Why? because other galaxy clusters are receding from our local group at 57%c and faster. Dont get started on they aren't really traveling at 57%c. As "really" has no meaning with motion,time,space. (well except for Amrits universe as with an aether you can say really.. i suppose anyway don't really know his theories that well but don't discount them either). From our perspective they are traveling at 57%c and from this distance then gravity should be anti gravity. If you accept gravity as a geometric deformation of space, like valley, then anti gravity would be like would be like a hill. If you were in a spaceship leaving the local cluster, (as thats how far you got to go to feel the effects) gravity from the local cluster would get less and less and if you started to run into anti gravity.. it would seem to you like the gravity of the local cluster suddenly started to increase again. You wouldn't be pushed away from our local cluster because you would be heading into an area of increasing anti gravity (climbing a hill), so you would be pushed back towards the local cluster. Unless you subscribe to a valley behind you suddenly becoming a hill.
OK bizarre but i can almost except this especially if you think the natural shape of space is bowed.
But there seems to be implications for this theory that just don't make sense. Wouldn't objects falling towards a backhole all of a sudden be repelled once they reach 57% of light speed? It would make the terminal velocity of a black hole 57%c and not c, as when you get above this number anti gravity would slow you back down to 57%c. Could a black hole even form if a star cant collapse at near c? On a spaceship once you reached 57%c. you would have to turn you engines on reverse to prevent constantly accelerating to c. This makes it seem like free energy. Maybe i am reading something wrong here but this definitely doesn't make sense.
I suppose he is only talking about particles that have a rest mass. This is so light and other EM doesn't have anti gravity properties. Or it wouldn't fall in black holes and would be deflected from planets. I know we don't have a good idea of gravity on the quantum scale but i also wonder the implications for particles that have a rest mass and do travel at near the speed of light.
I really don't know how he came up with his numbers so i am just guessing here but from first read it just doesn't make much sense. Does that make it wrong when so much of the universe doesn't make sense?
*message to the developers.. i really wish the spell check would quit trying to change my donts to dints. lol
QUOTE (T-nm+Feb 12 2006, 03:22 PM)
He does have 30 years of experience.
he has thirty years of baloney...
he has thirty years of baloney...
wow..... either you people have too much free time or you're really smart. and i think its the latter. i applaud all of you who can bring up this kind of subject and have a good conversation/debate/conference/some other smart people thing and still know what you're talking about.
Quote: On 11-Feb-2006 by Montec
Hello all
I would think that particle on particle collisions in particle accelerators would have anomalies in their targeting system if this explanation of gravity was true.
smile.gif End Quote.
You would think so, it would seem one would win over the other ... there would also be huge contributions on the part of the earth as well. ... I guess we shall see.
Hello all
I would think that particle on particle collisions in particle accelerators would have anomalies in their targeting system if this explanation of gravity was true.
smile.gif End Quote.
You would think so, it would seem one would win over the other ... there would also be huge contributions on the part of the earth as well. ... I guess we shall see.
if I can build my own miniNuclear reacter at home at the age of 20 then I will bet my life a guy with 30 YEARS of experiance can come up with this and make it work! after all time is only an artifact of our perspective and we have infinite time to get it right!
Next thing I'm making thats much simpler but not much cheaper is a CO2 laser my goal is 10KW starting off at a woping 20 Watt lol
and we have infinite time to get it right!Next thing I'm making thats much simpler but not much cheaper is a CO2 laser my goal is 10KW starting off at a woping 20 Watt lol
wow that is awesome except it makes no sence and is impossible!!!!!!
What's for lunch?
wow..wow..hah ill be dead when this happens...and illl watch from heaven the destructiong this device would cause...and what it would mean to the human race =D
Is free-fall can be anti-free-fall?. We may have to think of the gravitational domains of objects. I think the repulsion may be applicable only to bipolarity.
Are all of you guys screaming IMPOSIBLE have any concept of what he's talking about? or has the concept of using ones brain truely passed away? His concept is logicle and totaly probable, not in of its self but this may simply be a vehicle to a bigger and more profound discovery.
Like my self studying physics and such got motivated to make my reactore the learning was simply a vehicle of insperation to use the newely gained knowledge.
The concept of time in relation to light and so fourth is highely perspective and at thoughs speeds alot of statics become veriable non constanants, basicly up no longer means just up rather a fluidic up that is truely multidemensional
same way with 1million volts and a conductive surface you can levitat some objects vie sheer Ion pressure (And shortly after and durring tons of Ozon!)
If you take the time to reply please take the time to engage your brains as well, If you claim its bloody impossible then explain WHY, Why is it impossible?
I wont say its gurenteed to work but I will say I feel and believe it is Highely probable that it may fully work or at worst it will be a valuable vehicle leading to knewer ways of thinking!
Its realy sadly pathetic the utter lack of coherant replies in here, there have been some, but if you are hopelesly out side of your feild then dont bother posting "Whats for lunch?" type garbage, you are just clutering it up for thoughs of use intrested in the subject not to mention negitivly reflecting on your own intelect. If you claim it Wont/dosn't work lets see and or hear why! Proof! (Remember that odd concept of peer review?)
Any case, all of you with both a valide and conceptualy sound comment or opinion please come out and post, as judging from what I have seen it is despritly needed!
Like my self studying physics and such got motivated to make my reactore the learning was simply a vehicle of insperation to use the newely gained knowledge.
The concept of time in relation to light and so fourth is highely perspective and at thoughs speeds alot of statics become veriable non constanants, basicly up no longer means just up rather a fluidic up that is truely multidemensional
same way with 1million volts and a conductive surface you can levitat some objects vie sheer Ion pressure (And shortly after and durring tons of Ozon!)
If you take the time to reply please take the time to engage your brains as well, If you claim its bloody impossible then explain WHY, Why is it impossible?
I wont say its gurenteed to work but I will say I feel and believe it is Highely probable that it may fully work or at worst it will be a valuable vehicle leading to knewer ways of thinking!
Its realy sadly pathetic the utter lack of coherant replies in here, there have been some, but if you are hopelesly out side of your feild then dont bother posting "Whats for lunch?" type garbage, you are just clutering it up for thoughs of use intrested in the subject not to mention negitivly reflecting on your own intelect. If you claim it Wont/dosn't work lets see and or hear why! Proof! (Remember that odd concept of peer review?)
Any case, all of you with both a valide and conceptualy sound comment or opinion please come out and post, as judging from what I have seen it is despritly needed!
Very interesting!!!
It would seem that he would be using the negative energy to pull us there rather than being pushed. We would just have to latch on to that gravity from different galaxies or planets because it is indeed there.
It would seem that he would be using the negative energy to pull us there rather than being pushed. We would just have to latch on to that gravity from different galaxies or planets because it is indeed there.
I still think if this thing works, it will more likely damage the object to be accelerated. Either the relativistic object will crash into it, or the repulsive force will be so great as to destroy it. That's if the two objects are close. If they are far apart, objects in between (must be large, like light-hours) will reduce the effect by shielding, at the same time becoming projectiles.
Heres a thought.
If gravity can be assumed to operate on the same kind of level as photons in EM and gluon's in strong nuclear, then the graviton will react like a wave.
This will mean effectively there will be a peak before a trough in the wave. Depending on how big the wave is in the medium (which we can't comprehend due to it's 4-dimensional nature, nor measure, except see it's effects, like we can see the wind by it's effects) it is possible that what these equations show is the peak in a graviton wave.
Now wouldn't it be nice if they'd observed a graviton to make the idea more applicable.
If gravity can be assumed to operate on the same kind of level as photons in EM and gluon's in strong nuclear, then the graviton will react like a wave.
This will mean effectively there will be a peak before a trough in the wave. Depending on how big the wave is in the medium (which we can't comprehend due to it's 4-dimensional nature, nor measure, except see it's effects, like we can see the wind by it's effects) it is possible that what these equations show is the peak in a graviton wave.
Now wouldn't it be nice if they'd observed a graviton to make the idea more applicable.
Physics sucks go burry yourself you stupid pigs
And by the way Einstein is the biggest dickhead !!
And by the way Einstein is the biggest dickhead !!
hey people wake up!! stop talking about stupid things that won't happen!!
your are all nerds and you think you are smart but you're not!
Physics=***=booooorrring
you people+physics= the dumbest couple on earth!!
hahahaha
your are all nerds and you think you are smart but you're not!
Physics=***=booooorrring
you people+physics= the dumbest couple on earth!!
hahahaha
We have a working version.
I guess a first analysis on momentum conservation and energy conservation can point if "might" be possible. (which I do not think so)
Although an antigravity bean anulates gravity at 57%c that does not mean that that antigravity is not present before, i.e at 10%c masses in front of the beam lose 5% of gravity force towards the moving mass. does anyone heard something about that?
Also, what happens in the rear beam does gravity increase in that direction?
I think that a problem with 2 masses one moving ahead to the other at high speed and only gravity interaction has been already solved (including general relativiy) and I do not think that any "antigravity" has appear there.
Although an antigravity bean anulates gravity at 57%c that does not mean that that antigravity is not present before, i.e at 10%c masses in front of the beam lose 5% of gravity force towards the moving mass. does anyone heard something about that?
Also, what happens in the rear beam
does gravity increase in that direction?I think that a problem with 2 masses one moving ahead to the other at high speed and only gravity interaction has been already solved (including general relativiy) and I do not think that any "antigravity" has appear there.
My balls are aching
QUOTE (USAF Aurora Project+Feb 14 2006, 10:37 AM)
We have a working version.
shut up man!!! everything is physics???? screw u!! stupid people right pico penis????
shut up man!!! everything is physics???? screw u!! stupid people right pico penis????
Guest_john,
As much as it pains me to say you have the right to keep talking here, please just shut up. You don't like it? Fine. Leave.
To everyone else,
The idea definently is intriguing, and deserves to be at least tested before we can say impossible. On the concern of high-speed particle collisions and why they don't seem to observe any sort of anti-gravity affect, a thought. We have ntoiced a connection between gravity and mass (the larger the mass, the larger it's gravitational attraction is to other things). I'm not going to pretend that I understand the equations in his papers, but they all have a variable to take mass into account. So why couldn't it be the same thing for this force? The particles have masses that are just too small, so the force is extremely tiny and doesn't really kick in until after the nuclei are close enough to crash. With a more massive object (say a 100 ton "space truck", or even better, a planet or star) moving at the mentioned 0.577c, maybe the force would be big enough.
Just a thought.
As much as it pains me to say you have the right to keep talking here, please just shut up. You don't like it? Fine. Leave.
To everyone else,
The idea definently is intriguing, and deserves to be at least tested before we can say impossible. On the concern of high-speed particle collisions and why they don't seem to observe any sort of anti-gravity affect, a thought. We have ntoiced a connection between gravity and mass (the larger the mass, the larger it's gravitational attraction is to other things). I'm not going to pretend that I understand the equations in his papers, but they all have a variable to take mass into account. So why couldn't it be the same thing for this force? The particles have masses that are just too small, so the force is extremely tiny and doesn't really kick in until after the nuclei are close enough to crash. With a more massive object (say a 100 ton "space truck", or even better, a planet or star) moving at the mentioned 0.577c, maybe the force would be big enough.
Just a thought.
First of all, When you reach top speed how are you going to control the craft
And secondly how will you slow down
And secondly how will you slow down
I see alot of people here talking about this saying, even if this is true, what is the point if a can be met but b can't (example. moving att 90%c but not breaking...) but thats an aweful aproach, if you think that way no forward progress is made at all (both literally and figurativly in this example)... Also, i found a couple different versions of this paper online... mabe i missed something but these papers don't seem to all miss up... probably just getting sumarized versions by other people and not noticing it though... 
-Leif902
(p.s. sorry for my [very bad] spelling)
-Leif902
(p.s. sorry for my [very bad] spelling)
out of all the humans on this planet i am probably the worst speller. I am sure googles cpu's all max to 100% just trying to figure out what i am searching for. Chimps throwing scrabble pieces can spell better than me. Luckily this site includes a spell check 
and none of you know i am barely literate.
and none of you know i am barely literate.
Physics is the fundamental building blocks of all science. Physics makes up chemistry, which makes up biology etc. People who don't like physics shouldn't even be posting on here! Read something you're interested in!
Now to those who are taking this forum seriously, surely the fundamental underpinning in all this is can this explain the pioneer effect and the like. Now I haven't read up on these papers yet, however, we already have proof that the universe is expanding. Could the weak yet subtle antigrav be caused by the suns movement in the universes expansion? It is a tempting idea to pursue, especially if these papers have the equational proof.
Ahh, wouldn't that be so nice!
Now to those who are taking this forum seriously, surely the fundamental underpinning in all this is can this explain the pioneer effect and the like. Now I haven't read up on these papers yet, however, we already have proof that the universe is expanding. Could the weak yet subtle antigrav be caused by the suns movement in the universes expansion? It is a tempting idea to pursue, especially if these papers have the equational proof.
Ahh, wouldn't that be so nice!
QUOTE (Guest_john+Feb 14 2006, 03:23 PM)
QUOTE (USAF Aurora Project+Feb 14 2006, 10:37 AM)
We have a working version.
shut up man!!! everything is physics???? screw u!! stupid people right pico penis????
Do you have pico penis? Vulvox wants taste tester to tase test our aphrodisiac beverage POTENT STUFF. contact us at protn7@att.net if you want to try potent stuff.
Would this imply that Newton's G were NOT a universal constant (as now postulated) but perhaps a variable? If you multiply our (known) 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 by 1.37E+20 X , you arrive at G = ~9.14E+9 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which would be quite a phenomenon, if so! Of course, that would also imply that the (so called) neutron star may be of ordinary matter, but laboring under immense G.
Hitch onto that star, and you're movin'!
I hope i'm not the first person to call bs on this one-
google felber.
google the company-
http://www.arcat.com/arcatcos/cos32/arc32281.cfm
starmark inc from sd ca is a cabinetry company...
oh yah and felber only appears in links to this story being posted.
Noted physicists have published papers.
MAIN ISSUES ARE THAT GRAVITY DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OBJECTS ONLY THE SPACE AROUND THEM AND
THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT THE MORE MASS DEVELOPED.
THE PARADOX IS THAT THE MORE MASS ONE IS THE MORE ONE CAN APPROACH THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND THEN THEREFORE MAKE IT TO AND THROUGH SINGULARITIES INTACT, WITHIN BOTH LAWS OF GRAVITY, CLASSICAL AND BLACK MATERIAL.
See http://ljo80203.tripod.com/
shut up man!!! everything is physics???? screw u!! stupid people right pico penis????
Do you have pico penis? Vulvox wants taste tester to tase test our aphrodisiac beverage POTENT STUFF. contact us at protn7@att.net if you want to try potent stuff.
Hello all. I study physics but I also have a huge interest in space exploration. I haven't read the actual paper yet and so I am not aware of the details and ins and outs. But from what I can tell from the article, we could possibly utilize a star such as Alpha Centauri for this, enabling us to reach 90% of light speed. Now the only conceivable way to reach 50% of light speed would be to use antimatter propulsion, something we are WAY off from doing. The whole world only manufactures a micro-gram a year and it is terribly expensive. There are theoretical drive systems that could use this but I would say unless we really get on the ball here (almost anything is possible with science), we are still at least one century probably two off from making that happen. I doubt it could be done by the end of this one. Maybe...
In any case, to answer an earlier question, the course would be pre-plotted and controlled by computer. You would only travel at 90% light speed for about half the journey, then one or several metal lines would be extended from the rear of your ship. These would be electrically charged. They would induce drag as the electromagnetic force is stronger than gravitational, and slow you down. It would have to be planned so you could reach a manageable speed before you reached your target. That's just one concept.
And my advice is to just ignore these guys trying to stir the pot with outrageous insults. Have a great week...
In any case, to answer an earlier question, the course would be pre-plotted and controlled by computer. You would only travel at 90% light speed for about half the journey, then one or several metal lines would be extended from the rear of your ship. These would be electrically charged. They would induce drag as the electromagnetic force is stronger than gravitational, and slow you down. It would have to be planned so you could reach a manageable speed before you reached your target. That's just one concept.
And my advice is to just ignore these guys trying to stir the pot with outrageous insults. Have a great week...
QUOTE (DciAnonymous+Feb 12 2006, 02:17 AM)
This presents the first opportunity for creating artificial gravity. Imagine a ring-space station. Instead of spinning the whole station, spin a heavy object around the top of the station - this repels the matter below it to the station floor.
Just using centripetal force would be much more energy efficient as it's almost a certainty that the station or the areas of the station needing gravity would have less mass than the heavy object.
It'd most definitely have a unique look though.
Just using centripetal force would be much more energy efficient as it's almost a certainty that the station or the areas of the station needing gravity would have less mass than the heavy object.
It'd most definitely have a unique look though.
Hey guys,
I don't want to sound like a total whack job, but I know a way that we WILL start producing antimatter within the next 5 to 10 years. (I know I know...too late ;-) Well anyway it's not new tech exactly. Just a logical progression from tech that is already continuously progressing. I'm not going to describe it here as there is most assuredly someone here who will take my idea and run with it. I'm hoping that maybe it will be me. ;-) I'd like to be known for something worthwhile before I die. ;-)
I don't want to sound like a total whack job, but I know a way that we WILL start producing antimatter within the next 5 to 10 years. (I know I know...too late ;-) Well anyway it's not new tech exactly. Just a logical progression from tech that is already continuously progressing. I'm not going to describe it here as there is most assuredly someone here who will take my idea and run with it. I'm hoping that maybe it will be me. ;-) I'd like to be known for something worthwhile before I die. ;-)
If you know a way and you're serious then it might be possible. I don't know of any present technology but science is full of cases where people said 'that will never happen' and then the next year it was on the shelf at their local drug store.
Peace...
Peace...
A few things.
1)Already addressed is the problem of objects in the path of you in your spaceship going a bazillion miles a hour, unless some of the goofy physics I don't understand come into play, that makes for a swiss cheese ship. Seems to me that even a tiny granule off of a comet would cause some serious damage if in the path.
2)The ability to stop an object is based on either friction(when available) or some other opposite force right? Get up to the speed of light, but how are you going to stop in a vacuum?
3)Navigation, inertia coming into play here. Going in a line at the speed of light, how do you intend to turn?
4)This one may be stupid, structural integrity. Something moving at the speed of light on our planet would be torn apart by friction from sheer wind resistance, no? Granted space is a vacuum, is there anything to worry about with a SOLID mass attempting to move at the speed of pure energy? Seems to me you would be peeled apart in the acceleration process, forget about top speed.
Basically, even if we CAN figure out an engine to get us up to that speed, where are the materials and other unknowns needed to actually send anything to that speed safely and consistently. Pipedreams to me. There are so many other things that have to be done other than "How do we go that fast?" that have to be worked out it's ridiculous. Traveling at the speed of light can't be as easy as simply getting up to speed, and certainly ISN'T going to happen in the next 100 years I wouldn't say. But I'm a geography major, what do I know?
1)Already addressed is the problem of objects in the path of you in your spaceship going a bazillion miles a hour, unless some of the goofy physics I don't understand come into play, that makes for a swiss cheese ship. Seems to me that even a tiny granule off of a comet would cause some serious damage if in the path.
2)The ability to stop an object is based on either friction(when available) or some other opposite force right? Get up to the speed of light, but how are you going to stop in a vacuum?
3)Navigation, inertia coming into play here. Going in a line at the speed of light, how do you intend to turn?
4)This one may be stupid, structural integrity. Something moving at the speed of light on our planet would be torn apart by friction from sheer wind resistance, no? Granted space is a vacuum, is there anything to worry about with a SOLID mass attempting to move at the speed of pure energy? Seems to me you would be peeled apart in the acceleration process, forget about top speed.
Basically, even if we CAN figure out an engine to get us up to that speed, where are the materials and other unknowns needed to actually send anything to that speed safely and consistently. Pipedreams to me. There are so many other things that have to be done other than "How do we go that fast?" that have to be worked out it's ridiculous. Traveling at the speed of light can't be as easy as simply getting up to speed, and certainly ISN'T going to happen in the next 100 years I wouldn't say. But I'm a geography major, what do I know?
QUOTE (Guest_David+Feb 12 2006, 03:55 PM)
... there is a fallacy being perpetuated by this work and by this discussion. There is no special frame of reference in the universe according to Special Relativity, which General Relativity supports. So, if an object is going 90% light speed, then according to the object, the other observer is going 90% light speed. So, whatever is observed by one, will also be observed by the other.
We say "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" - the speed of light relative to what frame of reference?
Is it better to say "Nothing can be observed to go faster than the speed of light"?
If observer A sees two spaceships, B and C, approaching one another at 0.7c, this doesn't mean B sees C approaching at 1.4c, but instead something under 1c, maybe 0.9c.
So how do we specify "faster than the speed of light"?
We say "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" - the speed of light relative to what frame of reference?
Is it better to say "Nothing can be observed to go faster than the speed of light"?
If observer A sees two spaceships, B and C, approaching one another at 0.7c, this doesn't mean B sees C approaching at 1.4c, but instead something under 1c, maybe 0.9c.
So how do we specify "faster than the speed of light"?
um... ME FIRST!!!
did you actually read this post? you're insane. welcome to the club
all discussions about "faster than light" are missing the good taste
because only mass-less particle moves with c
GR Is in a Perfect Health.
some small corrections are needed:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4943
because only mass-less particle moves with c
GR Is in a Perfect Health.
some small corrections are needed:
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4943
Maybe we are going the "speed of light", and the light is still
Photon is jumping from one QS to another QS. This the way photon move into space.
Only mass-less particle can move by jumping.
Mass particles and material bodies are 3D and move into space differently. Space is a 4D medium and 3D mass particles move into medium.
You imagine space made out of bricks that are 4D. The cement between bricks is gravitational force. Photon jump from one brick to another, this is the fastest way to move into space.
Mass particle has some additional density D into it. Density of space around mass particle it is D = m x G where G is grav constant.
When mass particle moves it moves also additional density D with it. This creates in space a kind of resistance, so mass particle will never reach light speed.
About humans move with light speed is out of question.
Only mass-less particle can move by jumping.
Mass particles and material bodies are 3D and move into space differently. Space is a 4D medium and 3D mass particles move into medium.
You imagine space made out of bricks that are 4D. The cement between bricks is gravitational force. Photon jump from one brick to another, this is the fastest way to move into space.
Mass particle has some additional density D into it. Density of space around mass particle it is D = m x G where G is grav constant.
When mass particle moves it moves also additional density D with it. This creates in space a kind of resistance, so mass particle will never reach light speed.
About humans move with light speed is out of question.
QUOTE
Gravity has to be super intense for that to happen. Like the force of gravity on a neutron star might do it. The force holding matter together is something like 1.3477 X 10^20 times more powerful than gravity.
Would this imply that Newton's G were NOT a universal constant (as now postulated) but perhaps a variable? If you multiply our (known) 6.67E-11 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2 by 1.37E+20 X , you arrive at G = ~9.14E+9 m^3 kg^-1 s^-2, which would be quite a phenomenon, if so! Of course, that would also imply that the (so called) neutron star may be of ordinary matter, but laboring under immense G.
Hitch onto that star, and you're movin'!
Hi Ivan
We can calculate Fg in the centre here. In a centre of the planet or star Fg on a material object or mass particle is:
Fg = (m x D) m10^-2
where m is a mass of the particle
and D = M x G
where M is a mass of the star and
G is gravitational constant and is not variable
Fg is big enough to brake down other forces.
When the star has mass enough gravitation into the centre is strong enough to prevail all other forces and so particles transform back into QS of space. This causes diminishing of mass of the star. Neutron star is eating itself.
Decreasing of the duration of motion of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, with diminishing of the speed the duration of motion on the orbit is increasing.
There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.
We can calculate Fg in the centre here. In a centre of the planet or star Fg on a material object or mass particle is:
Fg = (m x D) m10^-2
where m is a mass of the particle
and D = M x G
where M is a mass of the star and
G is gravitational constant and is not variable
Fg is big enough to brake down other forces.
When the star has mass enough gravitation into the centre is strong enough to prevail all other forces and so particles transform back into QS of space. This causes diminishing of mass of the star. Neutron star is eating itself.
Decreasing of the duration of motion of the orbital period of the binary pulsar PRS1913+16 is the result of matter transforming back into space in the centre of one star. This diminishes the mass of the star, diminishing of the mass causes diminishing of the speed of rotation, with diminishing of the speed the duration of motion on the orbit is increasing.
There is no gravitational radiation, gravitational waves do not exist.
this is bullshit
bullshit or your ***
you calculate Fg in a centre of a neutron star first according to the formula above
you calculate Fg in a centre of a neutron star first according to the formula above
from what I understand, the collisions in particle accelerators are very seldom 'head on' most of the collisions are glancing blows and this may give an account as to why there isn't more; especially at the speeds close to that of light. Also the person isn't talking about going the speed of light just close to it, make sure you people read!!! 
I hope i'm not the first person to call bs on this one-
google felber.
google the company-
http://www.arcat.com/arcatcos/cos32/arc32281.cfm
starmark inc from sd ca is a cabinetry company...
oh yah and felber only appears in links to this story being posted.
Noted physicists have published papers.
QUOTE (ashley+Feb 15 2006, 06:11 PM)
this is bullshit
Or better known as "pseudo-science"
Or better known as "pseudo-science"
I had heard that Einstein claimed there was enough energy in mass that if it was expanded to it's finite, it would reach across the Universe. Carl Sagan once said if we could travel to the speed of light, we would turn into light it'self. My theory is: that it's not the nature or properties of gravity, but the characteristics of mass.
If one could hurl a stone into space that was heavy enough, it could surpass the speed of light and beyond. Propulsion without Expellent (i.e) if a ball could drop pass the earth, constantly accelerating with exponentiation by every passing second, it could then pass the speed of light and beyond.
If one could hurl a stone into space that was heavy enough, it could surpass the speed of light and beyond. Propulsion without Expellent (i.e) if a ball could drop pass the earth, constantly accelerating with exponentiation by every passing second, it could then pass the speed of light and beyond.
Why so much emotions regarding the idea that gravitational force acts between QS of space ?!
Idea for sure is better and more logical than GW.
1. we do not know yet which part of atom (of matter) emits GW
2. we do not know yet which part of matter receive GW
3. how can GW keep together sun and earth when it is on the middle of the way from the sun to the earth
So before you say my idea is bullshit answer the questions above.
Do not be a ***.
Idea for sure is better and more logical than GW.
1. we do not know yet which part of atom (of matter) emits GW
2. we do not know yet which part of matter receive GW
3. how can GW keep together sun and earth when it is on the middle of the way from the sun to the earth
So before you say my idea is bullshit answer the questions above.
Do not be a ***.
Aparently you didn't google the right guy.
Here is a link to this guys info:
http://physics.usc.edu/Alumni/F.html
Here is a link to this guys info:
http://physics.usc.edu/Alumni/F.html
QUOTE (JoulesBeef+Feb 13 2006, 06:21 PM)
posted before i think this is bunk
anti gravity is just falling in the opposite direction. Meaning it still acts like gravity. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between an anti gravity device at your feet and a gravity source at your head.
This idea really depends on gravity becoming anti gravity at very large distances. Why? because other galaxy clusters are receding from our local group at 57%c and faster. Dont get started on they aren't really traveling at 57%c. As "really" has no meaning with motion,time,space. (well except for Amrits universe as with an aether you can say really.. i suppose anyway don't really know his theories that well but don't discount them either). From our perspective they are traveling at 57%c and from this distance then gravity should be anti gravity. If you accept gravity as a geometric deformation of space, like valley, then anti gravity would be like would be like a hill. If you were in a spaceship leaving the local cluster, (as thats how far you got to go to feel the effects) gravity from the local cluster would get less and less and if you started to run into anti gravity.. it would seem to you like the gravity of the local cluster suddenly started to increase again. You wouldn't be pushed away from our local cluster because you would be heading into an area of increasing anti gravity (climbing a hill), so you would be pushed back towards the local cluster. Unless you subscribe to a valley behind you suddenly becoming a hill.
OK bizarre but i can almost except this especially if you think the natural shape of space is bowed.
But there seems to be implications for this theory that just don't make sense. Wouldn't objects falling towards a backhole all of a sudden be repelled once they reach 57% of light speed? It would make the terminal velocity of a black hole 57%c and not c, as when you get above this number anti gravity would slow you back down to 57%c. Could a black hole even form if a star cant collapse at near c? On a spaceship once you reached 57%c. you would have to turn you engines on reverse to prevent constantly accelerating to c. This makes it seem like free energy. Maybe i am reading something wrong here but this definitely doesn't make sense.
I suppose he is only talking about particles that have a rest mass. This is so light and other EM doesn't have anti gravity properties. Or it wouldn't fall in black holes and would be deflected from planets. I know we don't have a good idea of gravity on the quantum scale but i also wonder the implications for particles that have a rest mass and do travel at near the speed of light.
I really don't know how he came up with his numbers so i am just guessing here but from first read it just doesn't make much sense. Does that make it wrong when so much of the universe doesn't make sense?
*message to the developers.. i really wish the spell check would quit trying to change my donts to dints. lol
If a spaceship was speeding towars a blck hole the antigraity beam projected
from the front of the ship would tend to push the black hole away from it but the black holes gravitational force would be much bigger than the repulsion from the spaceship. Two black holes of equal mass accellerating
towards each other would repulse each other and possibly bounce off each other if the theory is correct.
anti gravity is just falling in the opposite direction. Meaning it still acts like gravity. You shouldn't be able to tell the difference between an anti gravity device at your feet and a gravity source at your head.
This idea really depends on gravity becoming anti gravity at very large distances. Why? because other galaxy clusters are receding from our local group at 57%c and faster. Dont get started on they aren't really traveling at 57%c. As "really" has no meaning with motion,time,space. (well except for Amrits universe as with an aether you can say really.. i suppose anyway don't really know his theories that well but don't discount them either). From our perspective they are traveling at 57%c and from this distance then gravity should be anti gravity. If you accept gravity as a geometric deformation of space, like valley, then anti gravity would be like would be like a hill. If you were in a spaceship leaving the local cluster, (as thats how far you got to go to feel the effects) gravity from the local cluster would get less and less and if you started to run into anti gravity.. it would seem to you like the gravity of the local cluster suddenly started to increase again. You wouldn't be pushed away from our local cluster because you would be heading into an area of increasing anti gravity (climbing a hill), so you would be pushed back towards the local cluster. Unless you subscribe to a valley behind you suddenly becoming a hill.
OK bizarre but i can almost except this especially if you think the natural shape of space is bowed.
But there seems to be implications for this theory that just don't make sense. Wouldn't objects falling towards a backhole all of a sudden be repelled once they reach 57% of light speed? It would make the terminal velocity of a black hole 57%c and not c, as when you get above this number anti gravity would slow you back down to 57%c. Could a black hole even form if a star cant collapse at near c? On a spaceship once you reached 57%c. you would have to turn you engines on reverse to prevent constantly accelerating to c. This makes it seem like free energy. Maybe i am reading something wrong here but this definitely doesn't make sense.
I suppose he is only talking about particles that have a rest mass. This is so light and other EM doesn't have anti gravity properties. Or it wouldn't fall in black holes and would be deflected from planets. I know we don't have a good idea of gravity on the quantum scale but i also wonder the implications for particles that have a rest mass and do travel at near the speed of light.
I really don't know how he came up with his numbers so i am just guessing here but from first read it just doesn't make much sense. Does that make it wrong when so much of the universe doesn't make sense?
*message to the developers.. i really wish the spell check would quit trying to change my donts to dints. lol
If a spaceship was speeding towars a blck hole the antigraity beam projected
from the front of the ship would tend to push the black hole away from it but the black holes gravitational force would be much bigger than the repulsion from the spaceship. Two black holes of equal mass accellerating
towards each other would repulse each other and possibly bounce off each other if the theory is correct.
MAIN ISSUES ARE THAT GRAVITY DOES NOT INTERACT WITH OBJECTS ONLY THE SPACE AROUND THEM AND
THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT THE MORE MASS DEVELOPED.
THE PARADOX IS THAT THE MORE MASS ONE IS THE MORE ONE CAN APPROACH THE SPEED OF LIGHT AND THEN THEREFORE MAKE IT TO AND THROUGH SINGULARITIES INTACT, WITHIN BOTH LAWS OF GRAVITY, CLASSICAL AND BLACK MATERIAL.
See http://ljo80203.tripod.com/
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 13 2006, 11:36 PM)
What's for lunch?
Jimmy Hendrix hey joe!
LyNYRD SKYNRD MR> SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAl
JOHN BARLEYCORN MUST DIE!!!
Jimmy Hendrix hey joe!
LyNYRD SKYNRD MR> SATURDAY NIGHT SPECIAl
JOHN BARLEYCORN MUST DIE!!!
Admittedly I am no physicist, or anything of close resemblance, possessing only a rudimentary knowledge of the field. I do however have a couple questions that come to mind, and hopefully am not being superficially critical of something i have little to no knowledge of.
1. I have noticed everyone emphasizing the importance of 57% of the speed of light. How does one to propose to regulate the speed of any sort of craft travelling in this manner? If 57% is so crucial, is maintaining this speed a primary concern.
2. As for the discussion of gravity and antigravity, it seems as if some members propose a cancellation effect. If this is so, would they compensate adequately for each other during acceleration/decelleration? Or is there a threshold at which one begins to manifest itself?
3. The issue of originally accellerating to a point that one could ride on an antrigravity beam (sorry for my atrocious laymanship) is of great importance, as I question if the planet itself contains enough material that could be harnessable as a fuel source to initiate this trip, and if it did, would it be so much that it would be effectively impossible amidst the realities of the human existence.
1. I have noticed everyone emphasizing the importance of 57% of the speed of light. How does one to propose to regulate the speed of any sort of craft travelling in this manner? If 57% is so crucial, is maintaining this speed a primary concern.
2. As for the discussion of gravity and antigravity, it seems as if some members propose a cancellation effect. If this is so, would they compensate adequately for each other during acceleration/decelleration? Or is there a threshold at which one begins to manifest itself?
3. The issue of originally accellerating to a point that one could ride on an antrigravity beam (sorry for my atrocious laymanship) is of great importance, as I question if the planet itself contains enough material that could be harnessable as a fuel source to initiate this trip, and if it did, would it be so much that it would be effectively impossible amidst the realities of the human existence.
QUOTE (Arts Student+Feb 16 2006, 07:14 AM)
Admittedly I am no physicist, or anything of close resemblance, possessing only a rudimentary knowledge of the field. I do however have a couple questions that come to mind, and hopefully am not being superficially critical of something i have little to no knowledge of.
1. I have noticed everyone emphasizing the importance of 57% of the speed of light. How does one to propose to regulate the speed of any sort of craft travelling in this manner? If 57% is so crucial, is maintaining this speed a primary concern.
2. As for the discussion of gravity and antigravity, it seems as if some members propose a cancellation effect. If this is so, would they compensate adequately for each other during acceleration/decelleration? Or is there a threshold at which one begins to manifest itself?
3. The issue of originally accellerating to a point that one could ride on an antrigravity beam (sorry for my atrocious laymanship) is of great importance, as I question if the planet itself contains enough material that could be harnessable as a fuel source to initiate this trip, and if it did, would it be so much that it would be effectively impossible amidst the realities of the human existence.
No worries about not bein a physicist. I'm not that up on it. We just all havin fun!
Firstly, to combine 1. and 2., I can only assume that 0.57c is the threshold limit and thats why it's so important. The antigrav force is so weak, that it's unlikely it could become manifest at anything short of this speed.
Secondly, all we really need is a sufficient power source to power our ship and it could reach such speeds. Some people on the forum have mentioned antimatter, which I am sceptical of to say the least, but it is subtly feasible (SUBTLY! I really don't like the idea.) I prefer cold fussion which if possible would essentially mean power from beggar all.
That would be grand!
1. I have noticed everyone emphasizing the importance of 57% of the speed of light. How does one to propose to regulate the speed of any sort of craft travelling in this manner? If 57% is so crucial, is maintaining this speed a primary concern.
2. As for the discussion of gravity and antigravity, it seems as if some members propose a cancellation effect. If this is so, would they compensate adequately for each other during acceleration/decelleration? Or is there a threshold at which one begins to manifest itself?
3. The issue of originally accellerating to a point that one could ride on an antrigravity beam (sorry for my atrocious laymanship) is of great importance, as I question if the planet itself contains enough material that could be harnessable as a fuel source to initiate this trip, and if it did, would it be so much that it would be effectively impossible amidst the realities of the human existence.
No worries about not bein a physicist. I'm not that up on it. We just all havin fun!
Firstly, to combine 1. and 2., I can only assume that 0.57c is the threshold limit and thats why it's so important. The antigrav force is so weak, that it's unlikely it could become manifest at anything short of this speed.
Secondly, all we really need is a sufficient power source to power our ship and it could reach such speeds. Some people on the forum have mentioned antimatter, which I am sceptical of to say the least, but it is subtly feasible (SUBTLY! I really don't like the idea.) I prefer cold fussion which if possible would essentially mean power from beggar all.
That would be grand!
QUOTE (TerrorBite+Feb 15 2006, 05:33 AM)
QUOTE (Guest_David+Feb 12 2006, 03:55 PM)
... there is a fallacy being perpetuated by this work and by this discussion. There is no special frame of reference in the universe according to Special Relativity, which General Relativity supports. So, if an object is going 90% light speed, then according to the object, the other observer is going 90% light speed. So, whatever is observed by one, will also be observed by the other.
We say "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" - the speed of light relative to what frame of reference?
Is it better to say "Nothing can be observed to go faster than the speed of light"?
If observer A sees two spaceships, B and C, approaching one another at 0.7c, this doesn't mean B sees C approaching at 1.4c, but instead something under 1c, maybe 0.9c.
So how do we specify "faster than the speed of light"?
Really?
Do you know Einsteins special relativity?
It's not so difficult, but its different from Galileo's relativity, that is what you are talking about adding the speeds directly when changing from one space ship to another.
The speed of a photon is the same for every space ship, independently of their relative movement. The energy of the photon is what will change from one observer to the other, but not the speed
We say "Nothing can go faster than the speed of light" - the speed of light relative to what frame of reference?
Is it better to say "Nothing can be observed to go faster than the speed of light"?
If observer A sees two spaceships, B and C, approaching one another at 0.7c, this doesn't mean B sees C approaching at 1.4c, but instead something under 1c, maybe 0.9c.
So how do we specify "faster than the speed of light"?
Really?
Do you know Einsteins special relativity?
It's not so difficult, but its different from Galileo's relativity, that is what you are talking about adding the speeds directly when changing from one space ship to another.
The speed of a photon is the same for every space ship, independently of their relative movement. The energy of the photon is what will change from one observer to the other, but not the speed
Has anyone seen his actual presentation or paper. Has it been published yet ?
First of all if I was to go at a fraction of the speed of light, and like the article says it will repel mass. Wouldn't that mean I would get torn apart into particles?
I read his paper online from arxiv.org and from what I can gather the concept does make sense. Look at this way:
You are very far away from a black hole, and you watch an object fall into the black hole. As this object gets closer and closer...it will actually appear to fall slower, until finally, you see it frozen at the event horizon. In fact, to be precise, you won't even see it hit the event horizon, since it goes slower and slower...the fall to the event horizon, from your remote perspective, will take an infinite amount of time. This is a result of gravitational time dilation.
Now do a perspective shift, and view the same thing, except that your moving past the black hole (or, the black hole is moving past you). You will see the object again fall toward the black hole...eventually the gravitational time dilation becomes very noticeable, and the object's fall is slowed. It will eventually slow down enough that it starts to travel in the same direction as the black hole. When it (almost) hits the event horizon, it will be travelling past you at the same speed as the black hole, even though in the beginning it was travelling the opposite direction and towards the black hole. I guess the concept that he puts forward in his paper is that if you get the black hole (or whatever "pusher" mass) travelling fast enough (~0.577c), the gravitational time dilation rises sufficiently fast to completely halt the fall of the object towards the pusher mass completely, as seen from a distant observer with respect to whom the pusher mass is moving.
I'm not an expert on GR, but that's what I made of it
You are very far away from a black hole, and you watch an object fall into the black hole. As this object gets closer and closer...it will actually appear to fall slower, until finally, you see it frozen at the event horizon. In fact, to be precise, you won't even see it hit the event horizon, since it goes slower and slower...the fall to the event horizon, from your remote perspective, will take an infinite amount of time. This is a result of gravitational time dilation.
Now do a perspective shift, and view the same thing, except that your moving past the black hole (or, the black hole is moving past you). You will see the object again fall toward the black hole...eventually the gravitational time dilation becomes very noticeable, and the object's fall is slowed. It will eventually slow down enough that it starts to travel in the same direction as the black hole. When it (almost) hits the event horizon, it will be travelling past you at the same speed as the black hole, even though in the beginning it was travelling the opposite direction and towards the black hole. I guess the concept that he puts forward in his paper is that if you get the black hole (or whatever "pusher" mass) travelling fast enough (~0.577c), the gravitational time dilation rises sufficiently fast to completely halt the fall of the object towards the pusher mass completely, as seen from a distant observer with respect to whom the pusher mass is moving.
I'm not an expert on GR, but that's what I made of it
QUOTE (Bgantcd+Feb 14 2006, 08:57 PM)
First of all, When you reach top speed how are you going to control the craft
And secondly how will you slow down
Reading both of the papers linked-to by page 2 of this discussion, I forsee some answers. The predicted 'antigravity beams' are fairly narrow (but not too narrow), and one may be able to ride the edge of a beam and then use one's own fuel to shift out of one beam and into others, or simply across them, at just the right times. (This would require precise knowledge of where the intersections are and also careful timing, but there is a precedent for that: a 'gravitational tube highway system' has been found to exist throughout our solar system (calculated using conventional physics, and recently reported by the mainstream science press), in which small amounts of fuel can allow a spacecraft to shift from one partial orbit to another to another so as to achieve nearly free motion across vast distances ... and it's so feasible and useful that it has been already been done in practice.)
Another important point made by one of the papers is that a very fast-moving projectile could slow down simply by 'aiming' itself direclty at a convenient massive body such as a star, which need not be fast-moving itself: it is only the relative motion that matters! (This 'repulsion' effect would cease once the relative velocity falls much below 58% of c, but it could still be extraordinarily helpful at high velocities. To slow down further, a ship would wish to be headed towards a star moving very fast towards or away from the ship, since a weaker repulsive effect is predicted even from bodies moving quickly away.) So a combination of moving towards some massive bodies and arranging to be in line with the motion of others provides a set of 'currents' that one could 'ride' across vast distances PROVIDED there are enough suitable intersections and provided it is feasible to switch between them, even in a roundabout way. I am concerned that these interchanges might not be practical to predict long enough in advance, especially at the start of a long mission -- precise knowledge of the masses and motions of stars would be needed. But for this there may be solutions as well: it seems this information could be detected en-route, by carrying accelerometers and telescopes to take continuing measurements of stars and black holes that are encountered ... or perhaps by scattering a large number of tiny probes carrying transponders, and recording exactly what happens to them. A database might be built up by exploratory probes of either of these types and then radioed back. Once the patterns are known for a region of space, they can be projected into the future so that useful routes can be calculated as needed. For a chance at practical navigation through the galaxy at very favorable speeds, this degree of effort seems entirely reasonable, given a long enough time scale.
And secondly how will you slow down
Reading both of the papers linked-to by page 2 of this discussion, I forsee some answers. The predicted 'antigravity beams' are fairly narrow (but not too narrow), and one may be able to ride the edge of a beam and then use one's own fuel to shift out of one beam and into others, or simply across them, at just the right times. (This would require precise knowledge of where the intersections are and also careful timing, but there is a precedent for that: a 'gravitational tube highway system' has been found to exist throughout our solar system (calculated using conventional physics, and recently reported by the mainstream science press), in which small amounts of fuel can allow a spacecraft to shift from one partial orbit to another to another so as to achieve nearly free motion across vast distances ... and it's so feasible and useful that it has been already been done in practice.)
Another important point made by one of the papers is that a very fast-moving projectile could slow down simply by 'aiming' itself direclty at a convenient massive body such as a star, which need not be fast-moving itself: it is only the relative motion that matters! (This 'repulsion' effect would cease once the relative velocity falls much below 58% of c, but it could still be extraordinarily helpful at high velocities. To slow down further, a ship would wish to be headed towards a star moving very fast towards or away from the ship, since a weaker repulsive effect is predicted even from bodies moving quickly away.) So a combination of moving towards some massive bodies and arranging to be in line with the motion of others provides a set of 'currents' that one could 'ride' across vast distances PROVIDED there are enough suitable intersections and provided it is feasible to switch between them, even in a roundabout way. I am concerned that these interchanges might not be practical to predict long enough in advance, especially at the start of a long mission -- precise knowledge of the masses and motions of stars would be needed. But for this there may be solutions as well: it seems this information could be detected en-route, by carrying accelerometers and telescopes to take continuing measurements of stars and black holes that are encountered ... or perhaps by scattering a large number of tiny probes carrying transponders, and recording exactly what happens to them. A database might be built up by exploratory probes of either of these types and then radioed back. Once the patterns are known for a region of space, they can be projected into the future so that useful routes can be calculated as needed. For a chance at practical navigation through the galaxy at very favorable speeds, this degree of effort seems entirely reasonable, given a long enough time scale.
If the discovery holds out to be sound, then I have an idea for a machine that can produce an antigravity beam (so you don't need black holes or such). Since the idea is that any mass can produce this beam, provided its travelling > 57%c, and the faster you go, the higher the gravity beam, you could use an electron beam to produce the antigravity beam. A solution might be to have a huge electric current (massive amount of electrons), apply a huge voltage to them to accelerate them to velocities > 99%c. This would happen inside some sort of vacuum tube. The electrons are injected at one end, and retrieved at the other, as in a regular circuit. The beam of electrons would then project a continuous antigravity beam.
There seems to be a major misconception in many of the posts. It's not necessary to get your own spaceship up to 58% of the speed of light. If there are 'antigravity beams' in your vicinity, meaning that other objects are flying towards you at 57.7% of c or faster (and in a direction you would like to go), then you can gain momentum from them using the process, even if you start out motionless.
In the same way, you don't need to decelerate yourself down from 58% of light speed. The original effect can be used in reverse, as long as at your destination there are suitable objects flying towards you in the other direction, so that you can be headed towards them.
And you never need to reach 58% or 90% of c or any specific speed. You could choose to move out of a beam once you've reached 20% or 70% or whatever suits your needs. You could move out under your own power or by drawing upon another beam intersecting the first one. (Even 'stationary' stars create 'beams' if you are moving fast enough relative to them, which should greatly increase the number of possible interactions available when traveling at high speeds. Not all of those interactions would be desireable, though.)
The effects even work if the massive objects in question are flying quickly away from you, but then the repulsion you would feel is only 50% as strong or less, if I remember the papers correctly. It might seem safer to use this scenario, since you wouldn't risk crashing into your driving mass if you failed to move out of its way in time.
I suggest reading both papers. They complement each other in some ways. See the 2 adjacent links on page 2 of this discussion. Even if you don't understand formulas or the symbols being used, you can get a great deal of understanding just by reading the surrounding text, although these particular papers have less discussion in English than many do. (Of course, you are then trusting the author to do the right calculations and to draw the right conclusions. Which may be as risky as spaceflight in some cases!) As with anything, your amount of understanding* will rise as you read more and more papers of this sort. (*But, with physics, your total amount of confusion about the universe overall will also grow over time -- you have been warned! My surgical team offers discount lobotomies as a possible remedy.)
I also suggest considering robotic spacecraft carrying libraries of information including DNA sequences if you like. They can be much smaller & much more fuel efficient, and if one has enough of them flying similar routes, one needn't worry as much about potential impacts along the way (nor about overheating from the stars they may approach closely). When good destinations are reached, the craft can recreate just about everything you know and love about life on Earth.
In the same way, you don't need to decelerate yourself down from 58% of light speed. The original effect can be used in reverse, as long as at your destination there are suitable objects flying towards you in the other direction, so that you can be headed towards them.
And you never need to reach 58% or 90% of c or any specific speed. You could choose to move out of a beam once you've reached 20% or 70% or whatever suits your needs. You could move out under your own power or by drawing upon another beam intersecting the first one. (Even 'stationary' stars create 'beams' if you are moving fast enough relative to them, which should greatly increase the number of possible interactions available when traveling at high speeds. Not all of those interactions would be desireable, though.)
The effects even work if the massive objects in question are flying quickly away from you, but then the repulsion you would feel is only 50% as strong or less, if I remember the papers correctly. It might seem safer to use this scenario, since you wouldn't risk crashing into your driving mass if you failed to move out of its way in time.
I suggest reading both papers. They complement each other in some ways. See the 2 adjacent links on page 2 of this discussion. Even if you don't understand formulas or the symbols being used, you can get a great deal of understanding just by reading the surrounding text, although these particular papers have less discussion in English than many do. (Of course, you are then trusting the author to do the right calculations and to draw the right conclusions. Which may be as risky as spaceflight in some cases!) As with anything, your amount of understanding* will rise as you read more and more papers of this sort. (*But, with physics, your total amount of confusion about the universe overall will also grow over time -- you have been warned! My surgical team offers discount lobotomies as a possible remedy.)
I also suggest considering robotic spacecraft carrying libraries of information including DNA sequences if you like. They can be much smaller & much more fuel efficient, and if one has enough of them flying similar routes, one needn't worry as much about potential impacts along the way (nor about overheating from the stars they may approach closely). When good destinations are reached, the craft can recreate just about everything you know and love about life on Earth.
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.