Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How Can We Ever Find Antigravity ?

  1. Jul 1, 2004 #1
    How Can We Ever Find Antigravity ???

    Can we ever find the force of antigravity? This force happened very quickly and sustained briefly during the inflationary phase of the universe. But now it's nowhere to be seen in action. What happens to it? Where did it go? No one knows.

    Is it because no theory has yet attempted to describe this force? The quantum of gravity is the graviton. Is the quantum of antigravity the antigraviton? Gravitons attract. Do antigravitons repel? The mass of both should be zero as what theory tells us.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 4, 2004 #2
  4. Jul 4, 2004 #3
    Thanks for your reply. Your ideas are quite similar to mine. But I am trying to make mine agree with current accepted physics. This is not easy since I need to understand everything between quantum theory and general relativity.

    My research on antigravity is based on the following time independent equation for the square of energy, [itex] E [/itex].

    [tex] E^2 = \psi_E \times \phi_E \cdot \psi_B \times \phi_B [/tex]

    I call it the quantization of 1D space and 1D time or quantum theory of 1D spacetime.

    Further analyses indicated to me that there can be two kind of mass. I called them the potential mass and the kinetic mass. The potential mass is the same as the inertial mass and gravitational mass.

    With these works, I was able to calculate the mass ratio of proton to an electron as 1832 while the accepted experimental value is 1836.

    I think we can find the force of antigravity by understanding the concept of a generalized acceleration and in turn makes the fictitious nature of centrifugal force into a real repulsive force for antigravity. I am still working on these ideas. You can see some of my works in progress in various posts of this forum. Let me know if you need any clarification.
     
  5. Jul 5, 2004 #4
    Yeah, that's quite a challenge! In fact I am also trying to work myself into GR and QM, but I wouldn't say I have reached any fundamental understanding yet...

    Good luck!
     
  6. Jul 5, 2004 #5
    Thanks. Keep me inform of your progress.
     
  7. Jul 5, 2004 #6
    I think, without full knowledge of gravitation it is impossible to start researches of antigravitation. Are you sure that a gravitation is the passed stage of your researches?

    Michael
     
  8. Jul 5, 2004 #7
    What I understood from general relativity is that the force of gravity is replaced by the curvature of spacetime. And then, the curvature is caused by the present of mass.

    My research is the local infinitesimal dynamic curvature of spacetime. The 1D space and 1D time create two distinct geometries or topologies that can represent both mass and anti-mass. It is the anti-mass (logically identical to momentum and energy) that caused the effect of antigravity. This might be the same force that is responsible for the universal expansion of space.

    Each topology contains two metrics. One metric by itself is hyperbolic but two orthogonal metrics linked together formed an elliptic topology almost look like a sphere except there are two holes. A sphere with two holes is called a double torus with genus=2. And the genus is the same as spin in quantum mechanics. This can be the topological structure for a graviton. And the other is for the antigraviton.
     
  9. Jul 5, 2004 #8
    Here is an old article about a spinning superconducting disk:

    http://www.rbbi.com/folders/tech/basic/gravity.htm

    Just discover the "symmetry breaking" for gravity.
     
  10. Jul 5, 2004 #9
    I’ll be glad to see how you embody in a reality this a high- scientific set of citations. Explain, please, for the beginning just a fact of gravitational force back square dependence on distance (1 /d^2). Then I believe you...
    May be.
    I wish you success.

    Michael
     
  11. Jul 5, 2004 #10
    Thanks for the link to Podkletnov effect. For 3D space, Newton's universal law of gravitation is an inverse square law. For 2D space, the law is inverse distance. For 1D, the force is constant. To see how, you might have to imagine lines of force radiating outward from a point source. The farther away the lines are from the source, the wider is the separations between lines. So that the flux density decreases and the force gets weaker. For spherically symmetric configuration, the force is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. In the case of 2D surfaces, the lines of force only depends on the inverse distance as the flux density decreases farther away from the source. For 1D, the force does not change when the distance increases because the lines of force are all merged together and flux density remains constant.
     
    Last edited: Jul 5, 2004
  12. Jul 6, 2004 #11
    The first
    i did not bring any link.
    The second
    Where here that you have described at your last post?
    The third
    Now, I expect the link where I can find all that you have attributed to Podkletnov from you.
    The fourth
    It is a bad idea -to opposite my own ideas to myself.
     
  13. Jul 6, 2004 #12
    I'm sorry for the mix-up, Russell. Thanks to you for this information. I'm still using a 12" screen monitor and scrolling to the top is always a pain to endure.

    Can you, please give me your idea again? I lost track of them.
     
  14. Jul 8, 2004 #13
    George J. Bugh ?

    http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/30thJuly-5thAug03/antigravity.htm


    http://www.weeklyuniverse.com/weird/antigravity.htm



     
  15. Jul 8, 2004 #14
    Spin Wave Technology

    Here is another article on Spin Wave Technology with potential anti-gravity applications:

    http://physicsweb.org/press/4555

     
  16. Jul 8, 2004 #15
    Russell,

    Thanks for all these sites on EM standing waves and spin waves. I keep thinking that these standing waves are the quantizations of 1D spacetime (1D space and 1D time). And the ideas that I already developed, the distinct topologies of [itex]H^{+}[/itex] and [itex]H^{-}[/itex], are just the mathematical descriptions of these standing waves. I was wondering will the Vasant Corporation willing to help me publish my ideas?
     
  17. Jul 8, 2004 #16
    My hypothesis is that gravity, and anti-gravity/cosmological constant, corresponds to phase angles. Inertial mass/resistance to acceleration, would also be the result of a phase angle/differential.

    A singularity is not actually an existing entity but is actually a 180 degree phase shift. Theoretically speaking, of course :wink:


    Vasant Corporation might publish your ideas but I don't know anything about them.
     
  18. Jul 9, 2004 #17
    What I'm trying to do is to replace the concept of phase angle with (back) to the original concept of ratio between two lengths. This is how all the trigonometric functions were defined (the existence of right triangles). But at the infinitesimal region of spacetime, the sine and tangent functions are equivalent. So that the concept of angle can be replaced again by ratio of lengths. And the singularity is when these lengths simultaneously approach zero. When they (lengths) are zero, spacetime is continuous and infinitesimal forces add up to zero but a 1D localized motion of spacetime points can exist where the forces does not add up to zero depending on the existence of nearby orthogonal forces which also does not add up to zero. Their quantizations formed two distinct geometries for spacetime. the interactions of these geometries become the origin for electric charge and mass.

    I contacted them but Dr. Ines Espinoza told me they are exclusively publishing Mr. Bugh's research and as soon as they recover the costs of previous publishing, they hope to publish more of Mr. Bugh's works.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2004
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: How Can We Ever Find Antigravity ?
  1. How low can we Go? (Replies: 12)

Loading...