That second link, I found on Richard Hoagland’s website, so I am more than a little skeptical. This guy thinks he see’s miles long turtle fossils on mars (Jeesh!!!). But as I understand it Nasa is interested in this too.
I am not technically trained, so the information in the second link was greek to me. All except the conclusions part. So, could there be something to this? Or is it just a hoax? Or maybe bad science?
Damn, what I wouldn’t do for a nice anti-gravity device.
Anti-gravity device? It was invented more than 100 years ago. It’s called an elevator and you can often find it in developed countries, in tall buildings.
The authenticity of article one seems to be in doubt even by it’s own authors: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~joi/issue4/ar192.html
To me it looks like a misapplication of the Meissner effect, or perhaps complete hokum. Theoretically possible, distortion of gravity is not something that can be accomplished in the laboratory at this time.
Is this some new definition of the word “joke”? In my understanding, “jokes” were supposed to be funny… :rolleyes:
But back to the OP, my understand (which is extremely limited) is that gravity is not a force like, say, magnitism as much as it has to do with the way that space is curved. You’ve probably heard the illustration of the rubber bedsheet with balls of different weights pressing down on it…
But as far as I can understand, anti-gravity isn’t possible without bending space.
It seems most likely that this antigravity thing is actually some sort of magnetic effect rather than interference with or interruption of gravity, they were playing with magnets after all.
Well, that example is just an illustration, an analogy. Gravity is like that, but that doesn’t mean it is that.
Supposedly gravity is a product of the forces certain subatomic particles like the Higgs Bosun or the Graviton place on each other.
Though nobody’s found these particles yet, there’s a lot of evidence for their existence.
Possibilities like gravity waves generated by dumping matter into primordial black holes allow for the possible manipulation of this force, but I don’t have any black holes handy at the moment to show you.
I guess if you manage to find and do things with gravitons then you might be able to screw around with antigravity.
They’re doing some interesting things with levitation and nitrogen cooled semiconductors right now which are pretty interesting but not antigravity.
I would note that the linked articles are over five years old. Apparently nothing has come of this. (The second link to a message board is more recent.)
(Note to Fenris: what is funny to you and what is funny to a physicist might not be the same. Good thing for you too, as I doubt if these guys would have much success in MPSIMS. ;))
I don’t remotely have the mathematics required to understand general relativity. Like most laymen, I’m dependent on the “distortion of the rubber sheet” analogy to understand modern gravitational theory.
So, relying on that analogy, is it possible that a large mass in a dimensional plane other than our own could create an “antigravity” effect in our own dimension? I.e., when a marble lies on a rubber sheet, it produces a distortion “downward” from the point of view of its own side, but viewed from the other side it appears to create a distortion “upward.” An object on the same side of the sheet with the marble will tend to roll toward the marble, while one on the opposite side will tend to roll away from it. The tendency to roll away from a large mass would be equivalent to antigravity.
I have no idea if the actual mathematics would bear this theory out, or if I’m pushing the laymen’s analogy too far.
As I understand it gravity is considered a force like magnetism.
All of the physics books I’ve seen list these as the fundamental forces in the universe:
Electromagnetic: Interaction between charged particles
Strong Nuclear: Binds quarks into neutrons, protons, etc.
Weak Nuclear: Radioactive Decay
Gravitational: Interaction between particles with mass
Presumably these forces are but aspects of one, single ‘super-force’. That is, at mind boggling energy densities (of the sort only seen in the earliest fractions of a second after the Big Bang) all of these forces are combined into one thing. As a result gravity belongs in this club of forces.
Note: The gravitational force is BY FAR the weakest of the four forces. If we use the electromagnetic force as a yardstick the gravitational force is on the order of 10[sup]-36[/sup] times less powerful. Think about the effort you use to separate two simple refrigerator magnets. Now compare the effort you use to life those magnets. In the first case you are fighting the magnetic attraction of the two small magnets. In the second case you just overcame the combined gravitational attraction of the entire earth (makes you feel strong doesn’t it?).
Interestingly enough though, the gravitational force is the only force you cannot shield yourself from. The other three can all be blocked. Scientists have also identified all of the particles responsible for the other three forces (photon, gluon and W and Z respectively) but have yet to find the graviton. You can’t manipulate something not even found yet.
Till that time (when the graviton is discovered) I don’t think you’ll be likely to see any antigravity machines (and maybe not even then) unless someone somehow exploits it by accident. Anything else will probably be making use of something else (magnetic repulsion for instance).
Just where was the author from? The dateline claims UK, but then why did they refer to the dimension of the device as being “12 in”? And do people in Britain really refer to it as “Nasa”? If so, I’m going to start referring to their country as “Uk”.
But on the other hand, if we see this article and laugh at the absurdity of it, is it not legitimate for them to say they have created an anti-gravity device?
