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!

Gravity for the space travelor

  1. Apr 14, 2004 #1
    gravity, is nasa's delima (they say) at the moment.
    they need gravity for the space travelor to keep homeostasis within their bodies.
    i think nasonians need to step back a moment and look at the whole picture instead of just a broken split small part of the equation.
    it is a very simple solution of artificial atmosphere, it can be done even with the touchy technology on board.
    two opposing magnets buffered by liquid and atmosphere to a minutely set point as to mimck not only pressure but gravity (gravitational pull). :confused:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 14, 2004 #2

    Tom Mattson

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  4. Apr 14, 2004 #3

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Er... creating artificial gravity with magnets? Eh?

    - Warren
     
  5. Apr 15, 2004 #4
    If magnetic field can simulate gravity, won't it be fair to say that it can counteract gravity to give some sort of antigravity force? This is possible in theory but maybe the engineering side of it is not practical?
     
  6. Apr 15, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    If "counteract"ing gravity is all it takes to be considered an "anti-gravity" device, then I'm using anti-gravity right now. I call my device a "chair." For $10,000, I tell you how it works...
     
  7. Apr 15, 2004 #6
    I looking for an action-at-a-distance type of machine not one by physical contact. If you happen to own such a machine, the world will pay you any amount you ask. All the money from air travels will go to you and all other money from its spinoffs.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2004
  8. Apr 15, 2004 #7

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    You can 'levitate' things using magnets that you wouldn't necessarily first think of. I remember seeing a (quite possibly very surprised) frog being held in mid air using magnets. It's not anti-gravity, and it could be done to humans, but no one's too sure of the effects that the required (extremely strong) magnets might have on us, or anything in the surrounding area for that matter.
     
  9. Apr 15, 2004 #8

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I wonder if its too late to patent the mag-lev train as an anti-gravity device...
     
  10. Apr 16, 2004 #9

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The problem however, was initially stated as "homeostasis"- that is keeping the body in equilibrium. Since body chemicals are not magnetic, just using magnets to "mimic" gravity would not help.
     
  11. Apr 16, 2004 #10
    Right. I am under the impression that the only current solution to artificial gravity with respect to humans in space is with a rotating situation, like a centrifuge.
     
  12. Apr 16, 2004 #11
    Right. I am under the impression that the only current solution to artificial gravity with respect to humans in space is with a rotating situation, like a centrifuge.

    As far as I am aware the only experiments that indicate that artificial gravity might be possible is Braithewates gyroscope demonstrations and a Japanese falling cylinder experiment. Both involve rotation. I have suggested that this is caused by the effect that rotation has on gravitons, but this suggestion did not attract any comment. Since then I have moved on to show that all particles can be defined as vacuum fields with a central zero point, therefore all particles can be used to create artificial gravity given sufficient spin rate.
     
  13. Apr 17, 2004 #12
    Elas, are you implying that gravity can be a dependent force? If we can generate our own gravity field then we cannot be affected by any other gravity field unless they are very strong overpowering field. Mass can generate gravity field and it will take a lot of mass to overpower any force field including other gravity fields.

    Mass seems to be inversely proportional to the structure of spacetime. The larger the mass the shorter is the spacetime interval. The spacetime interval of photon is zero and yet the photon has no mass. For the life of me I can't understand this?

    To add more to what you have said, there must be two directions for the spin rate. One spinning toward for gravity and one toward more antigravity. It so happens that all fermions in nature possess a spin rate toward more gravity and vector bosons such as the photon does possess a spin rate toward antigravity. Two kinds of mass can be defined for these two spin rates.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2004
  14. Apr 17, 2004 #13
    The larger the mass the shorter is the spacetime interval.The spacetime interval of photon is zero and yet the photon has no mass

    Does this mean that an infinite mass = no mass at all?
    Relativity theory isn't accounting for
    photons correctly or it isn't accounting for mass correctly-or both.
     
  15. Apr 17, 2004 #14
    Kurious, I am still trying to answer the same question myself and no plausible explanation thus far whether from others or from my own research.

    I am more incline to solve this by the introduction of two mass concepts: the potential mass and the kinetic mass.

    Potential mass is a mass of rest. Possess by all fermions.

    Kinetic mass is a mass of motion. Possess by all bosons but not bosonic fermions. Kinetic mass is supposely not affected by the gravity force.
     
  16. Apr 18, 2004 #15
    Potential energy can become kinetic energy for rest masses falling in a gravitational field.If all of the potential energy of a mass can become kinetic energy then kinetic energy is just the future of potential energy.Since mass,in general, is associated with energy, does this mean kinetic mass is just the future of potential mass.In other words is there just one kind of mass shifted in time?Is a boson a timeshifted fermion-whatever that really means?
     
  17. Apr 18, 2004 #16
    The quantum mechanical property that make the distinction between fermions and boson is the spin. Boson are integral spin. Fermion are half integral spin.

    The spin of bosons can have the following values: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
    The spin of fermions can have values: 1/2, 3/2, 5/2, 7/2, 9/2, ...

    For scleronomic system, the conservation of energy implies time independent and the total energy is the sum of kinetic and potential energy.
     
  18. Apr 18, 2004 #17
    spacetime interval and mass

    Let's relate the spacetime interval to particle spin and mass in an equation like this:
    interval is proportional to 1 - spin / (small constant + mass)
    when mass = infinity spin = 1/2 interval = 0 and when spin = 1 mass=0 for photon interval = 0.

    This could be the way forwards.
    If we include W particles then at a guess:
    interval is proportional to [ (1 - spin) / small constant + mass particle] + (2 - spin)(1/2 -spin) mass particle / (mass of W)^2
    to a rough approximation.
    The term (2 - spin) is for a graviton.
    So the interval for a massless spin 2 graviton would be -1 / small constant.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2004
  19. Apr 18, 2004 #18
    Antonio Lao

    Elas, are you implying that gravity can be a dependent force?

    I am not to sure how to define 'dependent force'. My proposal is that all forces are the effect of vacuum force on different densities of force carrier. This allows amongst other things, a proposal for the structure of fundamental particles and an explanation as to how mass distorts space.
    I consider gravity to be the effect that vacuum has on gravitons (the weakest of all particles and therefore the weakest force). The real advantage of a vacuum model is that we know what the force is and therefore the cause of all other forces; that means that vacuum theory answers the questions the standard model does not answer, without altering the mathematical theories of the standard model.

    Bodies with very high rotatation speeds cause the gravitons to form into a spiral or double vortex thereby creating a seperate artificial gravity field, this explains the otherwise unexplainable gravitional effects observed in experiments using gyroscopes and spinning cylinders.
     
  20. Apr 18, 2004 #19


    Hmmm... what reference(s) do you have to support that statement?
     
  21. Apr 19, 2004 #20
    It is said by many others that graviton has spin 2. I don't understand it since I am not all that well verse in quantum field theory.

    I also know that for fermions it takes 720 degrees rotation (instead of the usual 360 deg) to get rotational invariance.
     
  22. Apr 19, 2004 #21
    pallidin

    Quote from Robert Matthew science correspondent for the London 'Daily Telegraph'.

    Now new fuel has been added to the antigravity controversy by Hideo Hayasaka and colleagues at the Faculty of Engineering, Tohoku University, Japan, together with Matsu****o, the Japanese multinational. The team has carried out a new set of experiments aimed at detecting anit-gravity generated by a small gyroscope.

    The article goes on to explain an experiment that demonstrated that a spinning gyroscope falls at a slower rate than a none spinning gyroscope, when according to relativity they should both fall at the same speed.

    I cannot find my extract on Braithewaite at present but there are over 200 articles on the web about his controversial work that up to now has remained unexplained. He held a chair in physics at Cambridge University UK, our leading university for physics.
     
  23. Apr 19, 2004 #22
    It is said by many others that graviton has spin 2. I don't understand it since I am not all that well verse in quantum field theory.

    I also know that for fermions it takes 720 degrees rotation (instead of the usual 360 deg) to get rotational invariance.


    I don't know why gravitons have spin 2 but when I e-mailed Andre Linde at stanford about it he said " vector won't work." presumably meaning spin 1 force carrier particle won't work.I know the graviton has to be massless to travel large distances.
    As for rotational invariance over 720 degrees, I've not heard a straightforward explanation of how this comes about.
     
  24. Apr 20, 2004 #23
    Tom Roberts said this about mass and spacetime interval:
    The spacetime interval is inversely proportional to mass?

    You confuse two disparate concepts. Spacetime interval is a distance,
    and it is unrelated to mass.

    Simple example: make two marks 1 inch apart on a piece
    of paper and also on a lead brick. The interval between
    the pairs of marks is independent of mass (in fact you
    don't really need an object at all).


    > A photon with
    > zero mass has zero interval and so does an infinite mass.

    I think what you mean is that a "photon"[#] travels from point to point
    through spacetime, and any pair of those points have zero interval
    between them. That is true.

    [#] Really a light pulse, to avoid quantum complexities.

    But an "infinite mass"[@] does not behave the same: it also "travels"
    from point to point through spacetime, but any pair of those points has
    a non-zero timelike interval between them.

    [@] I assume merely a very large mass, and I also assume
    it is pointlike, so it has a definite position at all
    times. Taking the limit mass->infinity does not change
    the conclusion.


    > How can an infinite mass and zero mass have the same interval?

    They don't. The former is timelike and the latter is null.

    I suspect you're thinking that an "infinite mass" cannot
    and does not move -- assuming that mearly implies that
    the spatial part of the interval between points is zero,
    but the timelike portion is inherently nonzero. And you
    forgot to consider a frame in which this "infinite mass"
    is moving....
     
  25. Apr 20, 2004 #24
    The ways I used to circumvent all these unanswered questions and loose ends is to make the following assumptions:

    Matter is four dimensionals.
    Energy is three dimensionals.
    Continuous space is two dimensionals.
    Quantized space is one dimensional.
    Time has two directions.

    The time component only affect matter. Time does not affect energy, continuous space or quantized space.

    One direction of time is used by ordinary matter.

    The other direction of time is used by antimatter.

    Because of the two directions of time, there must exist two connected universes. One is expanding and the other is contracting. They meet at the singularity (the one black hole) or singularities (mini black holes).
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2004
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook