1. PF Contest - Win "Conquering the Physics GRE" book! Click Here to Enter
    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!

Antigravity, i.e. gravifugal force

  1. Apr 30, 2003 #1
    Unfortunately,there are to many nonsense in a field of so called ANTIGRAVITY.Constructors are basing them ideas onto following hypothesis:

    Falling down(of the material things) is something normal, natural,inevitable, physical fact... and logic.

    Ergo: something illogical, absurduous or irrelevant to physic laws
    will necessary levitate !!!???

    This is "theoretical" base of the great majority of projects of antigravitational devices.

    ""Theoretical"" base of such projects is in fact a MIRACLE.

    In difference to the other cca 60 000 project and ideas of antigravitational devices, my project of "antigravitational" (GRAVIFUGAL) device is UNIQUE project based in consistent scienticfic theory, mathematicaly deduced from physics laws.

    It is my opinion that antigravitational force does not exist. Instead of it there is GRAVIFUGAL force This force is calculated and confirmed by gravimetrical measurements, and spining gyroscopes.

    It seems the Theory on gravifugal force is the first afirmative scientific theory on ""ANTIGRAVITY"" based in classical physics and able to explaine why the spining gyroscopes loos a very small particle of its weight, or its falling down slightly slower. Without GRAVIFUGAL THEORY is not possible neither believe in existence or facticity of those facts.

    For more,CLEARER and EASIER to understand, please see at the site:



    Since the ring of Gravifugal device drawn at my site: has to be made by carbon fiber, it could decrease its weight max. per 5% The ring made by nano-tubes will enable the craft to levitate.

    Gentleman, I am expecting your skeptical opinions.

    Petar Bosnic Petrus

    P.S. Objection regard of normality of falling down of material things:

    Our ordinary experience tell us: "Material things are necessary, or inevitable falling down."

    IS IT TRUE ???

    Scientific experience shows us that Astronauts are levitating regard Earth during them orbiting arround Earth.

    The Moon is also levitating regard Earth.
    Earth is levitating regard Sun.
    Arms of galaxies are levitating regard its cores.
    Electrons are levitating regard atom nucleis.


    Whole material universe (Due to gravifugal, and electrofugal force) is in fact levitating in itself.
    The things are falling down only in a very small number of places in universe - there where its angular and linear velocity (of orbiting) is to low to enable them to levitate.

    It is not speculation, than rather well known physical and astronomical fact.

    Explanation of those facts at site:


    I confess the term "gravifugal" is not term of classical physics, But it is absolutely in a frame of classical phy. Introducing this term in science I have slightly enlarged the frames of class. phy. Gravifugal force is in fact reaction to the action of gravipetal force (gravipetal force is gravity functioning as centripetal force). However, astronauts which are orbiting Earth are levitating due to gravifugal force. In a case of levitation of astronauts is erroneus to say: they are levitating due to "centrifugal force" because that term is to general, or to large. There are several pairs of centrifugal and centripetal forces:


    All of these forces was deduced my mathematical apparatus of class. phy. Because of it, above distinctions can be regarded as an enlargement of class. phy. science.

    Every known force can function as a centripetal force, and has inevitable reaction in centrifugal direction. The terms CENTRIFUGAL AND CENTRIPETAL are only denominations of direction of actioning - toward center or away of it.


    So called antigravity is in fact gravifugal force.
    Gravifugal force is ih fact reaction to the action of gravipetal force - manifestation of mass inertia.

    Gravipetal force itself is a gravity functioning as centripetal force.
    Equation for calculating gravipetal force is:
    Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R ,
    for gravifugal force: Fgf = mv2/R ,
    where G is gravitational constant; M is mass of Earth; m is observed mass; v is its linear velocity; R is distance from center of Earth.

    Gravifugal force (erroneous known as a derivative of geocentrifugal force - cos. phy) produced by rotation of Earth, was measured in a highest degree of accuracy and AT ALL GEOGRAPHICAL LATITUDES -from 0 to 90 degree. Result of meassurements are in absolute accordance with results of above equation.

    Additionaly: it was proven by numerous falling spining gyroscopes, but, unfortunately with small results (values), and without any understanding of physical cause of that phenomena.

    For more, clearer, and easier to understand, please see at site:


    Thank you for your patient

    Last edited: Jun 3, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2003 #2
    Is not centrifugal inertia (call it centrifugal force) in your ring completely compensated by tension of ring (atomic forces holding ring together)? In such case no "gravifugal" force is left and no lift is generated.

    In fact, your ring will even be HEAVIER when it rotates (due to relativistic mass increase). (Because energy has mass. More energy = more mass = more gravity).
  4. May 1, 2003 #3
    You stated:
    "In fact, your ring will even be HEAVIER when it rotates (due to relativistic mass increase). (Because energy has mass. More energy = more mass = more gravity)."
    Of course! Everybody can see it when astronauts are orbiting Earth by velocity 8km/s. They are not levitating within spaceships, as we have seen at TV. Mass of astronauts was terrible increased by rotating around Earth and they are and they are "HEAVIER" than here
    on the surface of Earth, where we are levitating, because we are not mowing!!??
    Alexandar, Alexander !!!???

    Physics could be physics or Gallus Mathei i.e. galimathias
    Alexander, in ancient Greeek language means Hominum defensor - lat-
    Eng. The man which defends other people.
  5. May 2, 2003 #4
    umm... no offense buddy but I cant understand your english. sorry. can someone translate this for me?
  6. May 2, 2003 #5
    Sorry, it is really bad Englis, moreower mixed with Irony, Ancient greek and Latin.
    You are right.
    Sorry, thank you for your patient.
  7. May 11, 2003 #6
    Astronauts are not weightless in earth orbit. They are merely free falling. That is for ever meter they travel around the earth, the earth curves one meter under them. They are constantly falling.
  8. May 12, 2003 #7
    That is the same thing - free falling and weithtiless stage in case of astronauts. When the bories are falling they have no weight, although they retains its mass.
  9. May 12, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    No no no no no! That is very very wrong. When a body is in free fall, it's weight is dominant on it's motion. The reason why the ship seems to be in zero gravity is because (a) you are far away from the earth, so the attraction is weak and (b) you are falling at the same rate as the ship, and hence experience no relative motion.

    Have you by any chance had any formal education in working with angular motion?
  10. May 12, 2003 #9
    "The reason why the ship seems to be in zero gravity is because (a) you are far away from the earth, so the attraction is weak..."

    Sorry, the gravity atraction and acceleration at astronautical orbits is just a particle lesser than this, on surface.
    At Earths surface g = 9,81
    At orbit g = 9,62
  11. May 13, 2003 #10
    An astronauts and him ships are levitating beacuse - at velocity of satelisation v = 7862m/sec. - gravifugal force equals to gravipetal.
    Gravipetal force is i fact gravity which performs as centripetal force.
    Gravifugal force is a reaction to the action of gravipetal force.
    More about it, and clearer at:
  12. May 14, 2003 #11


    User Avatar

    I'll take that as a no. Because if the resultant force is at any moment 0, the particle would go flying off at a tangent. Try cutting the string of a spinning spinny thing.
  13. May 15, 2003 #12
    "Because if the resultant force is at any moment 0,"

    they are levitating.
  14. May 15, 2003 #13
    agravity, you missed the main point what FZ+ was saying about angular motion in your quote. The only force keeping the astronauts in orbit is gravity. If the gravitational pull of the earth just suddenly stopped having an effect (god only knows why) the astronauts would fly off into space in a straight line from the point at which they were situated when the field collapsed. I'm only in grade 11 and only have physics 20 behind me and I've learned this concept. This is basic, basic physics.
  15. May 16, 2003 #14
    "If the gravitational pull of the earth just suddenly stopped having an effect (god only knows why) the astronauts would fly off into space in a straight line from the point at which they were situated when the field collapsed."
    You are absolutely correct. This principle which you are talking about was discovered by Gallileo - law of inertia.
    But If the gravitational pull of the earth again just suddenly becomes to act, it will curve again the trajectory of ship into circular orbit. Astronauts further will be in weigthless state (as we have seen even at TV) because gravity will have to overcome the force of ship´s and astronauts inertia.
    Reaction force caused by inertia (gravifugal force)Newton(at velocity 7962m/sec.- in circular trajectory) will be equal to that of gravipetal (i.e. gravity functioning as centripetal force).Equality manifests itself as a perpetual orbiting and levitational, or weightless state.
    For more, more interesting, clearer and easier to understand please see:http://www.geocities.com/agravity/ANTIGRAVITY.htm
    Thank you for your exellent contribution.
  16. May 16, 2003 #15


    User Avatar

    I think you are confused now... The gravity is always acting unbalanced. The force does not do a little stop start stop start.....
  17. May 17, 2003 #16
    I am afraid you have not undresood our disscusion.
  18. May 20, 2003 #17


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Wow, this is pretty heady stuff.

    Any force directed inwards: tack on the 'fugal' ending.

    Any force directed outwards: tack on the 'petal' ending.

    Nevermind that none of it makes any sense.

    agravity: you're a moron.

    - Warren
  19. May 20, 2003 #18
    no need to attack agravity. he's not a moron. i'll be he understands what he's talking about better than any of us. it's just that it's non-croatians hes trying to explain it to, and i think he's good for trying.
  20. May 22, 2003 #19
    There are a fatal distinction betveen pairs of forces
    Gravipetal - gravifugal
    cohesipetal - cohesifugal
    Equation for the first pair is:
    GMm/R2 = mv2/R
    Equation for the second pair is
    mv2/r = -mv2/r
    Absolute value of gravipetal force depends on mass of Celestial body,
    M and distance from its center,R
    Relative value of that force is inversely proportional to velocity of observed mass, m.
    Since it is foundamental force, gravipetal force
    (gravity functioning as a centripetal force)
    can not be infreased by increasing of velocity
    of observed mass.
    Moreower, it is decreased by increasing of velocity of observed mass.
    Equation for relative value of gravipetal force is:
    Fgp = GMm/R2 - mv2/R
    Gravipetal and gravifugal forces are balanced by decreasing of weight of observed mass,m, or - if the velocity of mass is larger than velocity of satelisation - by increasing of radius R of movement of observed mass,m
    Thank you for your patient.
    Diagrams and explanations are at site:

  21. May 29, 2003 #20
    E=MC2.. there is an error within the therum

    Electrons can not travel faster than light speed. That is what the calculation is based upon.

    Anti-gravity?? Wha???

    How about magnetic Fielding to propels a craft and it's occupants within the craft as part of the field itself which exerts ZERO adverse inertial effects? And has the potential to thrust, zing, bounce, and ping a ship with such force as to make instant turns at mind bending speeds, without the slightest adverse forces exerted upon its pilots.
    With magnetic fields of gigantuant strengths, you can get very large crafts to seemingly float within only the simplest ting, ting, tingeing, of its force. That is, using microsecond delays of on-and-off Fielding. Then from zero to 10,000 MPH within a single second, you are off to another planet in another solar system, attracting and repelling one magnetic cosmic field after another. And of course, going way past the speed of light, plotting your course around every little speck of meteor in your path. You eventually get to where you are going without any Einsteinium relativity factor, simply because there isn't any.

    Hence, the theory is erred. It presumes that electron traversal speed, and mass potentials are equivalent. Well, they are not. Hence, the error.

    And there are other things about electrons which have physicists baffled, still. OH,, by the way.. Did I use a few terms inappropriately? GET OVER IT.

    Now please teach me those equations which you throw around like spaghetti in the air if you plan to heap a pile of pasta on my head.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Similar Threads - Antigravity gravifugal force Date
Noob question please help - antigravity Apr 13, 2010
Best model for antigravity Feb 5, 2010
Antigravity Particle Dec 25, 2009
Create antigravity conditions on earth? May 6, 2009
Gravifugal force Oct 15, 2004