Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: fact or fiction

  1. #1 fact or fiction 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    st helens, near liverpool
    Posts
    17
    originally i was just going to ask: is "anti-gravity" an actual possibility or is it pure science fiction?

    but there are other things that also crop up in science fiction that i am unsure about

    for example "anti-matter", im sure i have heard this mentioned in a non Sci-Fi setting, and "repulser" although i think this may be linked in with anti-gravity

    and a white hole (possibly better for the astrology section but may as well put it all together)


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    The only thing I can give you information about is anti-matter and the answer is Yes. Antimatter is very much not only science-fiction. Many elementary particles have antimatter. For example the elextron has the positron. If these interact they will be anhilated and two gamma photons will be emitted.


    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: fact or fiction 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,176
    Quote Originally Posted by DA_Craven
    originally i was just going to ask: is "anti-gravity" an actual possibility or is it pure science fiction?

    but there are other things that also crop up in science fiction that i am unsure about

    for example "anti-matter", im sure i have heard this mentioned in a non Sci-Fi setting, and "repulser" although i think this may be linked in with anti-gravity

    and a white hole (possibly better for the astrology section but may as well put it all together)
    I have only learned that antimatter is nonsense. From individuals who can simulate antigravity.

    Gravity is just a wind, put very simply, that is more powerful in the direction towards the planets surface. You can though create a similar type effect under an object and cause it to rise.

    You just have to raise the abundance of electrons underneath the surface of the object to the same level as the planet does, to incoming ambient radiation heading towards the planet, that creates gravity. Then the object will levitate nicely. As if gravity is now pushing it upwards.

    Someone showed a movie of a super cooled object that they call a super conductor. Inside the object it conducts rather nicely. Outside an ARC (Anode, Rectified, Cathode) effect is created.
    A repulsive force due to a bottle neck of ambient radiation at the surface of the super cold object. A repulsive effect is created. That is why the super conductor raised upwards, to the magnet in the movie. It is pushed up to the magnet not attracted to it.


    There are some dangers to this though. And that is why Roy Grumman used different systems. Part of the problem, the voltages necessary to create this effect are high. That means high voltage. That means that fields are created, near the explosive level or band. Secondary explosions might create EMP (electro- magnetic pulses) within this effected zone, that may reach out and hurt someone. Because you need such a large surface area to equalize the effect of gravity. This can become highly dangerous.

    I am not saying with a lot of thought and testing you could not use this system. However it would be like today saying lets make open blast propulsion vehicles. It would be very dangerous to most civilians. Much like jet engines present much danger. Without rigorous safety and procedure.





    Sincerely,


    William McCormick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I would like to thank William for providing the fiction part of this thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    IIRC, many scientists take the idea of anti-gravity seriously under the condition that while nothing rules out the possibility and they'd really like to make it work, no one really knows how.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    st helens, near liverpool
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    IIRC, many scientists take the idea of anti-gravity seriously under the condition that while nothing rules out the possibility and they'd really like to make it work, no one really knows how.
    is that because of a lack of knowledge about gravity itself or have they just not figured it out yet?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Masters Degree thyristor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    542
    Concerning anti-matter, am I right or not?
    373 13231-mbm-13231 373
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    NC USA
    Posts
    488
    *
    Antimatter is real, quite real. We have produced and detected individual antimatter particles in our cyclotrons and other particle accelerators. Antimatter particles are also continuously produced by cosmic ray bombardment of the atmosphere.

    Antigravity is for science fiction fans only. We have seen no examples in nature and we have no good ideas how it might be achieved in the laboratory, nor even whether such a force is possible.

    Do not confuse antigravity with a zero g environment, or free fall. That's not the same thing.


    *
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by thyristor
    Concerning anti-matter, am I right or not?
    If what you are suggesting is that anti gravity might be facilitated by an anti-graviton, then the answer AFAIK is no. An anti-graviton would still mediate an attractive force.

    and a white hole (possibly better for the astrology section but may as well put it all together)
    Hopefully you mean astronomy section? Anyway, AFAIK no evidential or theoretical basis has been found for the existence of white holes.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I think today's conception of gravity was false. It mainly dates back to the times of Sir Isaac Newton, who saw the apple fall. His laws are incoherent to our today's notion : ) of weightlessness.

    He, as only one error, held gravity responsible therefore planets and other celestial bodies are kept on their very pathes which led them around the sun.

    Since weightlessness joined the play it's no longer such a law was no longer substantial. Ohhhhhh, please forgive me.

    The notion of what we name gravity today, furthermore, was a results of the very revolution of the earth, which was not a revolvation I thought, while being watching live images from space. The blue planet in the background appeared to, the least slightly, be rolling over, which in fact would mean it is not moving just two-dimensional but three-dimensional for that sake. Somehow I think this makes perfect sense. At the end it's rolling in 360 spatial degrees ( ).

    Therefore you can't move any faster nowhere than earth would catch up. And that's what gravity was and does I think. Now an object not thrown to the ground but falling, would not fall actually but can not yield the approach of the rolling earth. It hits the ground.

    For the object to hover it had to be camoulflaged to earth, that it can keep its relative position at a defined distance to the planets surface. It's that simple.

    There are some flying lifters, which do hover like that already. Not sure whether or not you know about them. I have seen them first flying on the americanantigravity.com website.

    Steve
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •