Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You Think We'll Ever Have Anti-gravity?  
User currently offlinePs76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2576 times:

Hi!

One of the things I am interested in science is gravity. Unfortunately as far as I know we still know very little about it. I don't know much about it but I think I read the new Cern-Higgins discovery has something to do with understanding mass and maybe gravity too. Besides that I mainly satisfy my appetite with Art Bell shows and videos like the Hutchinson effect on Youtube. But these are probably fake.

But more seriously do you think we'll ever understand gravity and what causes it? And then will we be able to make machines which make anti-gravity?

Apologies if this is a bit of an out-there topic!

Any thoughts/opinions welcome.

Many thanks.

Pierre

18 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11500 posts, RR: 52
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2567 times:

You know, I was just reading a good book about anti-gravity. It was impossible to put it down!

Ba-dum-ching!  



But to answer your question, no. I don't think we will ever be able to actually remove the boson from the atom, even if we are able to figure out exactly what it does.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlinePs76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

Hi!

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
You know, I was just reading a good book about anti-gravity. It was impossible to put it down!

If you want interesting check this one out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OG5iTxCLi7Q

According to Richard Hoagland the Nazi's have already discovered anti-gravity and have escaped to the moon! This guy should get an oscar!

Many thanks.

Pierre


User currently offlineMaverick623 From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 5716 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2473 times:

Quoting Ps76 (Thread starter):
Unfortunately as far as I know we still know very little about it

Actually, we know a lot about gravity. It is simply the effect produced when a massive* object warps the local space-time field around it.

OK, maybe not "simply", but it's a start... the best way to describe it to someone with no background in physics or math.



*Massive means any particle that has mass.



"PHX is Phoenix, PDX is the other city" -777Way
User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2299 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2443 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 1):
But to answer your question, no. I don't think we will ever be able to actually remove the boson from the atom, even if we are able to figure out exactly what it does.

LOL what? A Higgs is heavier than a "normal" atom.

Quoting Ps76 (Thread starter):
But more seriously do you think we'll ever understand gravity and what causes it? And then will we be able to make machines which make anti-gravity?

Sure. We just need imaginary or negative mass. I forget which one. No one has ever found any.


User currently offlinePs76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2384 times:

Hi!

Many thanks for the replies. I will have to look more into it.

I don't think it is as simple as having strong magnetic/electrical fields as demonstrated in the famous John Hutchinson anti-gravity footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLuQBmnOfRE

Many thanks.

Pierre


User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6845 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2364 times:

I'm guessing that even if we could do it, it would need massive amounts of energy, far more than what is needed to make a helicopter fly, so there would be no reason to use it.


New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinePs76 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Hi!

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
I'm guessing that even if we could do it, it would need massive amounts of energy, far more than what is needed to make a helicopter fly, so there would be no reason to use it.

According to the "scientist" Bob Lazar who claimed to have worked on an anti-gravity alien spacecraft in the 80s this energy is provided by an element 115 which he says has not been found yet on Earth.

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Gravity_Generator.htm

Seeing that he has essentially dissappeared from public view though it seems highly likely that his story was not true unfortunately.

Many thanks.

Pierre


User currently offlineYYZflyer From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 3644 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2349 times:

If humans live long enough then we probably will. We don't know how it would work so who's to say we will never achieve it? The same with anti-inertia. Stuff like this is too complex for our minds to comprehend at the present because it seems like technology out of a sci-fi movie. Compared to how much is out there when it comes to physics, we know almost nothing. There are things we don't know about, and things we don't know we don't know about.

 



Avoid hangovers, stay drunk.
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2265 times:

Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 4):
Sure. We just need imaginary or negative mass. I forget which one. No one has ever found any.

Anyone 50+ will remember the Rocky and Bullwinkle episodes featuring upsidasium -- we just need to find a floating mountain with an upsidasium mine -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upsidaisium_(story_arc)

Cosmologists estimate that most of the universe consists of something called dark energy and the net effect of it is repulsion -- it's why the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate -- so in a figurative way, negative mass exists.

Coming way back down to earth, it's difficult to imagine a way to "turn off" the effect of mass and energy that causes it to bend space-time. But, who knows what the future might hold!!


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2250 times:

Of greater interest to me is how they turn on gravity in spaceships - all the best sci-fi movies and shows do this.   

User currently offlinedc9northwest From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 2299 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2237 times:

Quoting NoWorries (Reply 9):
Cosmologists estimate that most of the universe consists of something called dark energy and the net effect of it is repulsion -- it's why the universe seems to be expanding at an increasing rate -- so in a figurative way, negative mass exists.

Yup, but we're not sure about what dark energy really is--but indeed, it "pushes stuff apart"--in a way, acting opposite to gravity (if we interpret it as a force). Also, it doesn't decrease in importance as the age of the universe increases, as does radiation and matter, so in the end, the universe will be just "dark energy" (whatever that is). Some think it's somehow embedded in the underlying structure of the universe--in that case it'd be hard to use it to propel ships I suppose, but, if we don't wipe each other out, who knows how far we can get in 1000 years?


User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2235 times:

Quoting dc9northwest (Reply 11):
Also, it doesn't decrease in importance as the age of the universe increases, as does radiation and matter, so in the end, the universe will be just "dark energy" (whatever that is).

That part of the theory has always bothered me. It's claimed that the expected value for the "dark energy" field remains constant even as the universe expands. So the density of normal matter and energy (and even presumably dark matter) continually decreases over time while the density of dark energy does not. Since the universe is expanding, that implies the amount of dark energy is actually increasing, which seems to violate conservation of mass/energy.


User currently offlineA320ajm From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 2150 times:

We know very little about gravity relative to the other fundamental forces. The gravitational constant (G) is often said to be the worst known and least accurate of the universal constants.

Regards,
A320ajm



If the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'
User currently offlineNoWorries From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 539 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

Einstein's General relativity, which is the best understanding we have for gravity, has been around for about 100 years. The Standard Model, which is the best understanding we have for the other fundamental forces as well as the fundamental particles, has evolved for about 80 years from the work of Bohr, Heisenberg, and dozens of great physicists. The recently discovered Higgs Boson is a key player in the Standard Model. All attempts to integrate gravity into the standard model have failed -- it's still quite mysterious. Supporters of String Theory say that it can bring them together -- but not all physicists agree on that point.

There's a nice little book, Three Roads to Quantum Gravity by Lee Smolin, that provides an overview of physicists attempts over the years to reconcile gravity with the "rest" of physics. It's about 10 years old, so there may be bits that are out of date, but still a very good overview.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12807 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2128 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well, we can defy gravity today. Unfortunately we can only do it for a limited time and the process is inefficient and expensive.

If I remember my physics from school, anything with mass would have its own gravity and be subject to the gravity of other bodies around it. Something with negative mass would, presumably, exhibit a property that could be called "anti-gravity".

Quoting comorin (Reply 10):
Of greater interest to me is how they turn on gravity in spaceships - all the best sci-fi movies and shows do this.

That's easy - it's artificial gravity, init.  
Quoting NoWorries (Reply 9):
Anyone 50+ will remember the Rocky and Bullwinkle

Anyone 50+ AND American. The rest of us have no clue what you're on about.   



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offlinemoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 4065 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2116 times:

I like to think that some day we will, because I like to take the stance that we are a very young civilisation and I don't personally believe that the future of our science is as set in stone by the works of Einstein et al as some people like to profess.

Einstein didn't know about the strong and weak nuclear forces, and he failed at his unified theory because he didnt have all the variables - there is still a massive disconnect between how physics is thought to work on the macro level and how its thought to work on the quantum level, so much so that the two are basically incompatible.

How can that be? Well, no one knows - and thats the beauty of it.

I like to believe that we couldnt put ever lasting, hard boundaries on the universe after only a hundred years or so of studying it - thats not to say Einstein et al were wrong, just that they were less well informed than scientists a thousand years from now. I cant bring myself to accept that several people who did nothing more than think about it and run some fundamentally basic experiments compared to what we can do today (and thus, projecting on a thousand years...) could determine that much about the entire universe.

Break the speed of light? Yup, that will happen. Cant put a timescale on it, but its going to happen. Same goes for anti-gravity.


User currently offlinecomorin From United States of America, joined May 2005, 4903 posts, RR: 16
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 15):
Quoting comorin (Reply 10):
Of greater interest to me is how they turn on gravity in spaceships - all the best sci-fi movies and shows do this.

That's easy - it's artificial gravity, init.

Then Hollywood deserves a Nobel Prize!

Quoting moo (Reply 16):
I like to believe that we couldnt put ever lasting, hard boundaries on the universe after only a hundred years or so of studying it -

   Wiser words were never said.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3152 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 2104 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 6):
I'm guessing that even if we could do it, it would need massive amounts of energy, far more than what is needed to make a helicopter fly, so there would be no reason to use it.


Setting: southern Europe, ca. 16,000 years before present, cave interior dimly lit by bear-oil torch, two Solutrean males idly painting on the walls.

Og: "Do you think we will ever fly?"
Grunk: "Maybe, but we would need better paint magic."
Og: "But what if we could use this newly-discovered perpetual fire?"
Grunk: "Possible, but we'd need so much of it. Besides, we have trees to climb, so there would be no reason to use it."

-Rampart

[Edited 2012-07-20 06:24:16]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Age Do You Think It Is To Late To Have A Kid? posted Sun Oct 8 2006 03:49:18 by 747400sp
I'm Told I Have A Syst, What Do You Think? posted Mon Jan 9 2006 08:22:56 by Lehpron
Do You Think The UK Will Ever Return The Malvinas posted Wed Aug 4 2004 06:26:35 by Luisca
Do You Think This Anti-Bush Baskin 31 Ad Is Real? posted Sat Jul 3 2004 22:44:03 by Aa757first
What Do You Think? Does Charlie Have A Point? posted Mon Apr 14 2003 02:54:50 by Thumper
Query, What Do You Think Of We're Nuts? posted Sat Jul 27 2002 08:06:22 by We're Nuts
Do You Think CGI In Movies Sucks? posted Mon Jul 16 2012 22:36:41 by Ps76
IOS 6 - What Do You Think? posted Tue Jun 26 2012 03:51:09 by virginblue4
Los Angeles, CA - What Do You Think? posted Sun Jun 24 2012 18:41:31 by AlnessW
What Do You Think Of MacBook/MacBook Pro posted Sat Jun 9 2012 00:48:31 by DIJKKIJK