1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Anti gravity travels faster than light.

  1. Apr 15, 2003 #1
    If a mass has gravity and pulls on spacetime.spacetime is charged with the same type of energy that gravity comes from.gravity seems to pull energy in faster than light but its not confirmed.but what about anti gravity.if matter can pull energy that fast,what happens when anti gravity hits spacetime.it's not a particle so its not bound by relativity,its just a interaction between spacetime and the mass so when anti gravity hits spacetime it instantly starts repelling against it and has no where to go,it just takes off like a shot out of hell and travels at infinite speeds!
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 15, 2003 #2
    Considering that gravity travels faster than light ( "prove me wrong") I suppose anti-gravity would to.
  4. Apr 15, 2003 #3


    User Avatar

    There is no such thing as an anti-gravity particle. Energy that has negative pressure will be repulsive as opposed to attractive, but like all energy it curves space, and still obeys relativity.
  5. Apr 15, 2003 #4
    gravity is a property of energy in particles itself.paricles need energy to attract energy from spacetime to convert it into magnetic fields for atoms to create time.but matter attracts spacetime energy,and anti matter repels against spacetime energy,so a anti gravity field emitted from a anti particle would repel indefinitly.because energy is the opposite of electromagnetic fields.likes attract,and opposites repel.spacetime in charge by energy from matter inself when the stars matter was converted into energy when it hit the singularity,so gravity and spacetime energy are the same.so like i said anti gravity repels agianst spacetime at infinite speeds.
  6. Apr 15, 2003 #5


    User Avatar

    No it isn't. Gravity is the geometry of space-time. You can still have a gravitational field without matter. The rest of the argument falls apart from there.
  7. Apr 16, 2003 #6
    Are you describe the 'Ether'?

    I always thought the gravity was the consequence of matter/energy acting upon space/time.

    How would you get a gravitational field without matter unless the gravitational field is zero and so irrelevant?
  8. Apr 16, 2003 #7


    User Avatar

    Nope, no ether is required. While anything with mass curves space-time, it is travelling along this curved geometry that causes gravity. Even still, you can have an empty universe such as in the case of the DeSitter model.
  9. Apr 16, 2003 #8
    If you think of spacetime a nothing as you should,and put energy into it.then spacetime curves in the presents of matter because matter is pulling energy toward it at light speed or more.this would give spacetime structure to be manipilated,you can curve it be the two fields interacting,and plus it could account for why time slows down in a gravitational field.gravity is pulling energy from spacetime.since matter can take on more energy than it should,or it will gain mass.it converts spacetime energy into electromagnetic fields.this is how atoms produce time.then time slows down in a gravity field the stronger it gets,is because the draw of energy from spacetime to maintain the electromagnetic fields energy output,increasing the energy demand so spacetime becomes depleated of energy,and takes time for energy to rush in from farther out.so atoms dont have enough energy so time slow down until the atoms as a whole have enough to function so they don't fly apart.
  10. Apr 16, 2003 #9


    User Avatar

    Was that supposed to make any sense? ENGLISH.
  11. Apr 18, 2003 #10
    The Tachyon is imaginary by definition from the Lorentz transformation, but that does not mean that it does not exist. Lots of physical phenomena have imaginary solutions. A Tachyon has negative mass, inverted momentum vector, and moves through time in the negative direction.
    Perhaps the anti-gravity you're talking about is from the cosmological constant, the phenomenon of expanding space competing with gravity in general?
  12. Apr 18, 2003 #11
    well what im saying is that no particle with mass can travel faster that light.so if the graviton is positive mass and seems to travel faster than light anyway,has a effect on spaceime by curving it and slows time down.then anti gravity would speed time up and uncurve spacetime,so maybe it also has infinite momentum
  13. Apr 18, 2003 #12
    There was a very large flaming mass that was observed crossing the event horizon line of a Black Hole, by Hubble ST, shown on television, (I saw it) and it would be 'presumed' that the matter that entered the BH would have had to go Tachyonic in order for the light it had been emitting, to have dissappeared.

    Hence it lends credance to the idea of things travelling faster then light, but it is not an 'absolute' proof.

    As for Anti-Gravity, given that "The opposite form of energy to gravity is heat" well "antigravitational energy" is as close as a matchbook!

    Have FUN, and be careful if you generate antigravity! (light a match!)
  14. Apr 18, 2003 #13
    How do you know that?
    I thought that the gravitational-field was caused by the presence of matter, in space-time.
    Alot of this stuff relates to what I was talking to you about, in my thread.
    I'm inclined to agree with chosenone. I have a hunch that the gravitational-field is probably negative-gravity through space, as opposed to positive-gravity through matter.
  15. Apr 18, 2003 #14
    Nice statement, but proof?
  16. Apr 21, 2003 #15
    ok.if gravity curves spacetime inward and mass follows the curve of spacetime around it,as gravity curves spacetime into spheres outward from the source.anti gravity is inversed.spacetime curves by curving spacetime in the opposite way.spacetime is warped into broken spheres bending spacetime away from a sphere or planet.if you had a mass orbiting a anti matter star,it would'nt.the mass would be coming toward the star,and do a 180 cirle loop.because what im saying is that spacetime is charged with energy,gravity attracts spacetime and pulls it in,anti gravity repels spacetime and pushes it away.so if gravity cause spacetime energy it move toward it,then anti gravity pushes it away,and the rate of which gravity pulls energy in,has'nt ever really been proven to stay at light speed.then anti gravitys natural repulsion to spacetime makes it accelerate faster because instead of matters attraction to spacetime keeping it from going faster,anti gravitys resultion to spacetime makes it go at infinite speeds because theres no attraction to spacetime to stop it
  17. Apr 21, 2003 #16
    Well, sort of better I would suspect if you separate your statements.

    Like this. (easier to read for old codgers like me!)

    Current theory tells us that gravities curvature of spacetime is as a result of a gravitational energy that arises from the mass itself, as demonstrated by the simple fact that you are not floating away, so the gravitational energy is not function of spacetime, but is a function of mass, and the effect is seen in the manner in which spacetime is curved by a mass.

    So what is anti-gravity? (heat, if you ask me, but I would like your answer)
  18. Apr 22, 2003 #17
    What about the art of fooling the Universe into believing that an object has no mass?

    (I don't understand the reference to heat though)
  19. Apr 22, 2003 #18
    There is a thread in 'Astronomy and Cosmology' called "The proof of gravity", that is where you can get the heat reference. (if you want)

    What is "The 'Art' of fooling the universe that an object has no mass" as the universe is incapable of 'believing' in something, it is action and re-action, cause and effect, not belief.
  20. Apr 22, 2003 #19
    It wasn't about 'belief'. 'fooling the universe' was meant as a kind of simile to portray experimentations with regards to 'effective mass'.

    I'll read up on the heat reference though. Thanks
  21. Apr 28, 2003 #20
    the reason anti matter does'nt have mass,is because it does'nt have a attraction to gravity or normal matter.so when a anti matter particle hits normal matter.it hits it and bounces off at the angle equal to its impact or the same speed.because it does'nt tranfer energy of motion between each other.so it leaves with the same amount of energy as it came with.,but they hit each other and alter they course.and the reason anti matter can produce electromagnetic fields.if you've read any of my stuff,is because as the anti matter particle spins,it creates a gravity field.and a matter particle creates a anti gravity field.so the normal matter creating a anti gravity field repels against spacetime sending it into motion.but a anti particle spins at light speed,creating a big gravity field thus giving it the ability to attract positive energy from spacetime to produce electromagnetic fields just like normal matter.
  22. Apr 29, 2003 #21
    From my understanding normal matter attracts to each other, yes? It would follow that anti-matter particles would attract each other and be repelled by normal matter, ok, I get that. But what's with the
    the fact that there is mass there (whether anti or normal matter) it would have an effect on space/time and thus gravity. In a 2 dimesional representation (the rubber sheet example) normal mass shows a pit forming where the body of mass is so it's resonable to suggest that an anti-particle would create a rise on the sheet, would it not?

    If you would transfer that into a 3d framework, instead of contracting the space/time latice work, anti-matter would in fact expand the lattice work from the point of origin. If it was to do this then there would be a point surrounding the anti-matter particle, a distance depending on the amount of anti-matter present, that space/time would be partially compressed and thus giving an illusion of normal matter sorrounding the anti-matter.

    I've often wondered whether this accounts for any of the 'hidden mass' of the universe that is explained away as 'dark matter'

    This though...I don't follow
  23. Apr 29, 2003 #22
    Oh I see where you're confused about what I'm saying.no,anti matter has mass,just we can detect it because we only can measure mass by its weight in a gravitational field.so since it's anti matter, normal gravity does'nt attract it,so you can only assume by using particles of normal matter translated over to anti matter particles,they should be equal.but you can't weigh them to check.without a anti gravity field. well for you other question you did'nt understand.since anti matter is not prodominate in the universe but still exists.you have to explain it.so if the universe is charge with positive energy such that matter uses anti gravity/energy to repel against it to move,that how would a anti matter partilce survive.because if a matter particle uses its gravity to attract energy from spacetime and converts it into magnetic field.then how does a anti particle do it if anti energy repels against normal energy.it would'nt work.so since a particle has both a gravity/energy and a anti gravity/anti energy field depending on which one it is.a normal particle is normal energy with a anti energy field around it.a anti matter particle is anti energy with normal energy around it.so as a normal particle move in a positively charged spacetime,its because the particles anti energy field in highly charged.but a anti matter particle accelerates it self by its own energy,thus the photon.but what im getting at is you need anti matter to have the ability to make electromagnetic feild using spacetime energy just like normal matter.so as the anti particle spins at light speed it produces a gravity field by its motion.so it can attract positive energy from spacetime to make them.just like normal matter in motion makes anti energy field.
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2003
  24. Apr 29, 2003 #23
    Harvard researchers have measured the rate at which anti-matter falls, and it does indeed fall down as might be expected from Newton's 2nd law. This does not mean that it has negative mass, for negative mass would also fall down in a gravitational field.

    Regardless of the mathematical possibility of positive mass objects to exist (in the imaginary plane) in principle at v>c, there is really no possibility of existance for such an object, for there is no way for a positive mass object to reach c without infinite energy propelling it.

    If there exists any negative mass it will repell all other masses and be attracted to all other masses. In other words, both forces of two equal but opposite mass spheres would point in the same direction, toward the positive mass from the perspective of the negative mass. No negative mass has ever been discovered.
  25. Apr 30, 2003 #24
    anti matter in not negative energy giving in negative mass.energy is energy giving any particle mass.diprite which type of energy it has.its like electromagneitc fields there are two.matter and anti matter are like positive and negaitve fields.anti matter giving off anti gravity is like energy having a negaitve charge,matter gives off gravity,thus like a positive field.not two different types of matter,the same energy with different charges.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook