That's right people..Antigravity does exist

[baxter]

Gravity is caused by an object's mass. Even if the universe was empty and you and I were standing billions of kilometers away (not spinning), we would still have gravity.

Ok I stand corrected thanks for that, but I always believed the faster a planet spun the more gravity it had.

Hey lets leave it to Einstein:dozey:

 

[Ikerous]

Hey lets leave it to Einstein:dozey:

And Jesus. Einstein and Jesus. Yup.
Jesus <3 physics

 

[AntiAnto]

Ok I stand corrected thanks for that, but I always believed the faster a planet spun the more gravity it had.

Hey lets leave it to Einstein:dozey:

I think I might know what you mean. An object spinning can create inner gravity caused by the centrifuge (centripetal?) force? Like the imaginated spaceshifts where they would have a huge rotating thing, so an Earth-like gravity would be created into it.

 

[Ikerous]

I think I might know what you mean. An object spinning can create inner gravity caused by the centrifuge force? Like the imaginated spaceshifts where they would have a huge rotating thing, so an Earth-like gravity would be create into it.

Oooh, was that what you were talking about?

Thats actually pretty kewl
Cuz centripetal force is mv^2 / r
and gravitational force is mg
Then if you just make it so
v^2/r would be 9.8m/s/s
Then the walls would be the floors...
But they wouldnt look like walls..
Cuz they'd feel like floors...
wow...

 

[Lex Luthor]

Ok I stand corrected thanks for that, but I always believed the faster a planet spun the more gravity it had.

Hey lets leave it to Einstein:dozey:

The spinning of the Earth actually reduces the effect of gravity. Just think about it.. if you put something on a ball that's spinning really fast it would get flung off.

 

[AntiAnto]

Oooh, was that what you were talking about?

Thats actually pretty kewl
Cuz centripetal force is mv^2 / r
and gravitational force is mg
Then if you just make it so
v^2/r would be 9.8m/s/s
Then the walls would be the floors...
But they wouldnt look like walls..
Cuz they'd feel like floors...
wow...

Have been smoking lately?

 

[Ikerous]

Have been smoking lately?

Holy. Crap. Like five minutes ago.
Thats scarey.

 

[AntiAnto]

Holy. Crap. Like five minutes ago.
Thats scarey.

I wish I had been too

 

[baxter]

The spinning of the Earth actually reduces the effect of gravity. Just think about it.. if you put something on a ball that's spinning really fast it would get flung off.

Not too sure about that, bear in mind, this scenario. If our planet suddenly started spinning faster.
If for some reason, say our planet revolved at twice the speed it did now, rather than getting flung off I'm sure we would get sucked on.

IE gravity would increase.

 

[Lex Luthor]

Not too sure about that, bear in mind, this scenario. If our planet suddenly started spinning faster.
If for some reason, say our planet revolved at twice the speed it did now, rather than getting flung off I'm sure we would get sucked on.

IE gravity would increase.

No, we would definitely be flung off, NOT sucked on. The combined effect would be a decrease in your weight. I took AP physics last year, and got a 5 on the test. I know my stuff.

 

[AntiAnto]

No, we would definitely be flung off, NOT sucked on. I took AP physics last year, and got a 5 on the test. I know my stuff.

It's true. The Earth's spinning isn't fast enough to have any effects on us.

 

[Lex Luthor]

It's true. The Earth's spinning isn't faster enough to have any effects on us.

True, it has a very small effect, but it's mostly negligible. Its around 0.1 m/s^2, I believe. I worked out a problem regarding this once. It's also different depending on your latitude, because you spin faster when you're closer to the equator.

edit: Also another analogy to convice you of being flung off would be a merry-go-round. The farther you are from the center, the harder it is to stay on.

 

[AntiAnto]

True, it has a very small effect, but it's mostly negligible. Its around 0.1 m/s^2, I believe. I worked out a problem regarding this once. It's also different depending on your latitude, because you spin faster when you're closer to the equator.

Indeed.

We are a bunch of intelligent fellows, aren't we?

 

[Dog--]

I forget where I saw it but, they had this little chamber and they floated, a jack (from the game jacks, you know, with the ball), and some dice, and they even floated a frog, they did this with super powered magnets, now if they could supersize the machine, people can levitate

 

[baxter]

Yeah you're right I was thinking down the lines of the bucket of water spinning around and not a drop spilt.

 

[Lex Luthor]

I forget where I saw it but, they had this little chamber and they floated, a jack (from the game jacks, you know, with the ball), and some dice, and they even floated a frog, they did this with super powered magnets, now if they could supersize the machine, people can levitate

You can't truly float people, because magnets only attract certain metals. You'd have to put them in special suits or something.

 

[Reaktor4]

You know boeing said "oooo..look at us..we make Antigravity..HAHAHA!!!"..Ya, well...I can buy Antigravity from my local hardware store....You know what it is?? A MAGNET!!! Antigravity is a magnet because it counteracts the force of gravity and defeats it..That's why you can lift a paper clip off the table when you put a magnet next to it. Antigravity simply means to defeat the force of gravity, where gravity doesn't mean anything anymore. Boeing however wants to use it for some sort of vehical, which means a lot of power is needed, and money will be wasted. If you ask me Antigravity will never be achieved for vehicals until a new power source is found....and right now..it's a waste of money.

oh yeah, i have an interesting video that i found on my hd a while ago where something is made to float (i dont know how it works), and im pretty sure its real, ill upload it somewhere..
damn its not where i thought it was and i cant remember the filename..... ill dig around for it.
ok here it is http://www.putfile.com/media.php?n=2004020109 only 1mb
If you know anything about how it works please post.

 

[baron insig]

I've read somewhere that the Strong and the Weak forces are indeed very powerfull, but their rages don't affect a type of matter. I'll try to find the reference.

EDIT: I don't think the light is affected by those forces. However, gravity does have an effect on it.

EDIT2: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/forces.html

then why is a black hole black??

reason photons are influenced by gravity

True, it has a very small effect, but it's mostly negligible. Its around 0.1 m/s^2, I believe. I worked out a problem regarding this once. It's also different depending on your latitude, because you spin faster when you're closer to the equator.

edit: Also another analogy to convice you of being flung off would be a merry-go-round. The farther you are from the center, the harder it is to stay on.

woudlt you spin faster when closer to one of the poles because u have less distance to travel,

example some string weight tied to end spinit around at a connstant speed, reduce the radius of that circle your spinning around whilst applying the same force as u were before, it spins faster,

conservation of momentum of summat cant remember i dont really pay attention in AS Level physics

 

[kirovman]

It all depends on your definition of anti-gravity.

If you're talking about countering the force of gravity, your body can easily do that.

On the other hand, if you're talking about zeroing a gravitational field (presumably only in a locality) or negative gravity (some kind of negative mass would probably be required) then that's a much more complicated issue.

Light doesn't have mass, but it is affected by the gravitational fields of any massive object, as per the general theory of relativity.

 

[Razor]

It all depends on your definition of anti-gravity.

If you're talking about countering the force of gravity, your body can easily do that.

On the other hand, if you're talking about zeroing a gravitational field (presumably only in a locality) or negative gravity (some kind of negative mass would probably be required) then that's a much more complicated issue.

Light doesn't have mass, but it is affected by the gravitational fields of any massive object, as per the general theory of relativity.

The gravitational fields given off by the mass of black holes and also the mass of galaxies bend light , but then, wouldn't all objects with mass effect the path of light but it just being the super massive objects that can actually bend light to a point that is measurable/noticable?

To the thread starter.

Anti Gravity = cancelling out part of or the full effect of gravity
Magnetism = using a magnet to counteract the force of gravity.

 

[kirovman]

The gravitational fields given off by the mass of black holes and also the mass of galaxies bend light , but then, wouldn't all objects with mass effect the path of light but it just being the super massive objects that can actually bend light to a point that is measurable/noticable?

To the thread starter.

Anti Gravity = cancelling out part of or the full effect of gravity
Magnetism = using a magnet to counteract the force of gravity.

All mass bends light, but it's only noticable in extremely massive objects. It can be observed during the ecllipse of the sun, a star behind the sun can be seen due to "gravitational lensing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

However light always travels in a straight line (in 4 dimensions), so it is not actually the light itself being bent, it is space-time that is being bent around the massive object - light follows the straight path through space-time around it. This can be shown with some geodesics in Euclidean geometry. But I don't really want to get into all that :x

I'm not sure if I explained that very well.

 

[Razor]

All mass bends light, but it's only noticable in extremely massive objects. It can be observed during the ecllipse of the sun, a star behind the sun can be seen due to "gravitational lensing"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lensing

However light always travels in a straight line (in 4 dimensions), so it is not the light being bent, it is space-time that is being bent around the massive object - light follows the straight path through space-time around it.

I'm not sure if I explained that very well.

Lol, what a confusing way to put that but i understand. Light isn't bent as light can't bend, it's the fabric of space that is bending around the massive object with the light following the fabric of space around the bend.

 

[kirovman]

Lol, what a confusing way to put that but i understand. Light isn't bent as light can't bend, it's the fabric of space-time that is bending around the massive object with the light following the fabric of space-time around the bend.

Changed for accuracy ...time warps in an analogous way to space from gravitational fields.

 

[Razor]

Changed for accuracy

If space-time are intertwined, would space and time both be different when travelling to other dimensions?

 

[AntiAnto]

then why is a black hole black??

reason photons are influenced by gravity

Because of the "red shift". When moving away from a gravitating object photons lose their energy and to an external observer, appear to be redder. In a black hole, they ultimately lose all their energy and become invisible.

Also, light in a very strong gravitional fields show behaviors that even understood physic can't explain.

 

[AntiAnto]

Lol, what a confusing way to put that but i understand. Light isn't bent as light can't bend, it's the fabric of space that is bending around the massive object with the light following the fabric of space around the bend.

Like that:

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Antigravity does exist, its called the helicopter.

 

[Kyorisu]

The easiest explanation for this is like so.

Gravity - Moon is attracted to the Earth.
Antigravity - Moon is repelled by the Earth.

Magnets do not fall under the catergory of antigravity as they must be more powerful than the acceleration due to gravity of Earth or 9.8/meters per second per second.

 

[Lex Luthor]

The easiest explanation for this is like so.

Gravity - Moon is attracted to the Earth.
Antigravity - Moon is repelled by the Earth.

Magnets do not fall under the catergory of antigravity as they must be more powerful than the acceleration due to gravity of Earth or 9.8/meters per second per second.

That acceleration changes depenging on how far from the center of the Earth you are. And if something's extremely close to a magnet, it accelerates faster than 9.8 m/s^2. Magnets don't fall under the category of antigravity because magnetism and gravity are completely different things.

 

[Lex Luthor]

woudlt you spin faster when closer to one of the poles because u have less distance to travel,

example some string weight tied to end spinit around at a connstant speed, reduce the radius of that circle your spinning around whilst applying the same force as u were before, it spins faster,

conservation of momentum of summat cant remember i dont really pay attention in AS Level physics

Ok, I'll explain why you go faster. Your analogy is bad, by the way, because you said it goes at a constant speed, but then the speed changes.

Anyways, the circumference at the equator is greater than it is farther north or south. Like if you were to travel around the earth only changing your longitude, it would take you longer at the equator than at the arctic circle. Now, everywhere on the Earth it takes 1 day for it to rotate 360 degrees. You go faster at the equator because you travel farther in that one day than you would elsewhere.

 

[Yuri]

What you guys seem to be arguing about is the definition of the term "anti-gravity." LOTS of forces can negate or overcome the force of gravity. Such as lifting something up with your arm. Or using a magnet. I really don't understand what you mean.

 

[baron insig]

yes but that is applying a force that isnt gravity jsut overcoming the effects of gravity, antigravity is something which is the same as gravity but causes both to push apart from each other

 

[Lex Luthor]

yes but that is applying a force that isnt gravity jsut overcoming the effects of gravity, antigravity is something which is the same as gravity but causes both to push apart from each other

Then antigravity wouldn't ever exist, because an object large enough to have any noticable effect would just push itself apart.

 

[baron insig]

meh joims cba to meddle!!

 

[AntiAnto]

In other terms, the exact opposite of gravity... just like anti-matter is to matter.

 

[jabberwock95]

The problem is that the definition of antigravity merely means something that reduces or cancels the effect of gravity. Thus, a magnet or you lifting something is an example of an antigravitational force.

However, when people talk about antigravity they are talking about an 'opposite' to gravity, which does not exist in our universe. Masses are attracted to each other, not repelled.

 

[Fliko]

Anti-gravity is a hypothetical means of countering or otherwise modifying the effects of gravity, typically in the context of spacecraft propulsion. Such systems are limited to the realm of science fiction given the current understanding of the way gravity works, but this has not stopped legions of hopefuls from making various spinning disks and magnets in hopes of perfecting such a device.
The United States government and aerospace contractors publicly announced ambitious Manhattan project-style goals to crack the anti-gravity problem during the mid-1950's while the atomic airplane was on the drawing board, but by the end of 1957 no more information was flowing into the newspapers and magazines. Either their work never produced anything, or the projects were taken into the world of top secret.

It exists, it is just hard to reach.

If it didn't exist... well... why the research, why the definiton, why this topic?

 

[Razor]

The problem is that the definition of antigravity merely means something that reduces or cancels the effect of gravity. Thus, a magnet or you lifting something is an example of an antigravitational force.

However, when people talk about antigravity they are talking about an 'opposite' to gravity, which does not exist in our universe. Masses are attracted to each other, not repelled.

Picking up a ball doesn't reduce or cancel the effect of gravity, it just adds an opposing force to that counters the effect of gravity i.e. you holding the ball.

Picking a ball up has nothing to do with anti-gravity.

 

[jabberwock95]

Picking up a ball doesn't reduce or cancel the effect of gravity, it just adds an opposing force to that counters the effect of gravity i.e. you holding the ball.

Picking a ball up has nothing to do with anti-gravity.

The effect of gravity (on earth) is to pull things downwards. By raising the ball you have negated the 'effect' of gravity.

But I see where you are coming from. Gravity is still acting upon the ball no matter what you do to it. If you see 'antigravity' as a means of affecting the gravitational force and not its effect upon the object, how is it possible?

The gravitational force is constant in our universe. The only possible way to counter it is to apply an opposing force.

 

[Ikerous]

You'd just have to find a way to shield the object from the force of gravity
So, just create an alternate dimension in a jar. Easy as cake