Project Greenglow: Is Anti-Gravity Possible?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ontophobe
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Anti-gravity Project
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the skepticism surrounding Project Greenglow and its claims regarding anti-gravity technology. Participants express doubts about the feasibility of separating gravitational mass from inertial mass to achieve significant space-time curvature. The consensus indicates that substantial mass or energy, akin to that of a star, is necessary to create the desired effects, rendering the project highly questionable. Overall, the conversation highlights the prevalence of unfounded theories in scientific funding.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of general relativity and space-time curvature
  • Familiarity with concepts of gravitational mass and inertial mass
  • Knowledge of energy-mass equivalence principles
  • Awareness of scientific funding mechanisms and criteria
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of general relativity and their implications for anti-gravity theories
  • Explore the concept of energy density required for significant space-time curvature
  • Investigate historical examples of funded scientific projects with dubious claims
  • Learn about the peer review process in scientific research and its role in validating theories
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, aerospace engineers, science policy analysts, and anyone interested in the viability of advanced propulsion technologies and the scrutiny of scientific claims.

Ontophobe
Messages
60
Reaction score
1
I can't find any good sources on the science behind Project Greenglow. All the articles I see are full of fluff. Are they trying to divorce gravitational mass from inertial mass? i.e., trying to get more gravitational mass out of less inertial mass, or I should say more space-time curvature from less inertial mass?

As far as I know, if you want to curve space-time as much as a star curves space-time, then you need the same mass/energy/density as a star. And we think rocket fuel is "heavy"...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Crackpot, crackpot, crackpot, ... (sigh)

It never ceases to amaze me how much crackpot rubbish can get funding if it holds the promise of something highly desirable (such as an anti-grav drive).
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
That was my gut reaction, too, but I wanted to be sure
 
There is nothing to discuss here, per PF rules.

Thread closed.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad Reframing Light Bending Using Density Instead of Radius
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
1K
Undergrad How can the volume of a star be determined?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
High School Is there a white hole inside every black hole?
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
900
Undergrad Source of Gravity of heavy mass as per GTR
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad Does Space Curvature Account for Gravity Between Individual Atoms?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Undergrad The Equivalence Principle as a Starting point of GR
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
6K
Undergrad Reconciling smooth spacetime with variable, rotating, earth gravity
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Explanation for Galaxy Rotation Curves
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Undergrad Does Gravity Affect Mass Measurement in Flat Spacetime?
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K