Why Don't We Have Anti-Gravity Devices Yet?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter dgoodpasture2005
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gravity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of anti-gravity devices and the understanding of gravity itself. Participants explore the intricacies of gravity, its properties, and the implications of our current understanding on the feasibility of anti-gravity technology. The conversation touches on theoretical, conceptual, and speculative aspects of gravity and anti-gravity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express frustration over the lack of a clear definition of gravity and question why anti-gravity devices do not exist if gravity is well understood.
  • Others argue that understanding a phenomenon does not necessarily equate to the ability to manipulate it, citing examples like volcanoes.
  • There is a suggestion that current theories, such as General Relativity, do not support the existence of anti-gravity and that most anti-gravity research lacks scientific credibility.
  • Some participants propose that while we understand the effects of gravity, the underlying cause remains unknown.
  • One participant mentions the concept of curved spacetime and the stress-energy tensor as related to gravity but acknowledges a lack of understanding of spacetime itself.
  • Another participant emphasizes the importance of remaining open to new ideas and the potential for future discoveries in understanding gravity and achieving flight without rockets.
  • There are references to past attempts at anti-gravity research and skepticism about their validity, with some participants asserting that many claims are based on flawed logic or incorrect data.
  • Some express a belief that dismissing the possibility of anti-gravity outright is a scientific mistake, advocating for continued exploration and inquiry.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus on the existence or feasibility of anti-gravity devices. There are multiple competing views regarding the understanding of gravity and the validity of anti-gravity research, with some expressing skepticism and others advocating for open-mindedness.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying definitions of gravity, differing levels of scientific understanding among participants, and unresolved questions about the nature of gravity and spacetime. The conversation reflects a mix of speculative ideas and established scientific theories without clear resolution.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to individuals exploring theoretical physics, concepts of gravity, and the potential for advanced propulsion technologies in aerospace engineering.

  • #31
Wait a second, i believe in this, i just had an epiphany... the Earth is expanding... pangea is always viewed as being a land mass surrounded by ocean... put all the land together, then make it a small ball with no ocean! An all land planet, that is extremely small... NOW have it start to expand, and the land has no choice but to break apart... holy bajesus.. i need to start studying.. i think I'm gunna come up with something good.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Jesus christ... everything MUST be expanding universally... stars expand... why not planets? Maybe there is even a constant?! Look what you've done -job-, you've turned me into a madman. Now i won't be able to sleep for 2 days. Maybe the big bang wasn't really a Big bang... but more of a slow... gradual/constant bang(that of course is still going on!)... and everyother circular celestial body is imitating this process as well... as the universe expands, everythings expanding with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
is there some unkwown force influencing everything to expand? Why is expansion happening? Everything within the universe is working exactly the way the universe does... expanding and then imploding.
 
  • #34
dgoodpasture2005 said:
is there some unkwown force influencing everything to expand? Why is expansion happening? Everything within the universe is working exactly the way the universe does... expanding and then imploding.
The universe is not only expanding, the rate of expansion is accelerating!
 
  • #35
Had to take a break and play guitar quite vigorously... made a complete song in about 1 minute thanks to all this emotion.. lol.. yeah this is crazy... oh man i cannot sleep now, this is going to be going through my head all day long until i settle on something.
 
  • #36
Aether said:
The universe is not only expanding, the rate of expansion is accelerating!

right! which would make my slow/gradual/ theory correct!
 
Last edited:
  • #37
dgoodpasture2005 said:
Had to take a break and play guitar quite vigorously... made a complete song in about 1 minute thanks to all this emotion.. lol.. yeah this is crazy... oh man i cannot sleep now, this is going to be going through my head all day long until i settle on something.
What do you mean "settle on something"? What other choice do you have besides "closing mouth and opening book"?
 
  • #38
I can't read! :P... i like to just brainstorm for a couple days first.. i find reading books first and then brainstorming brings a biased view. Brainstorm on idea... then gather information... then finish brainstorm, and come to conclusion. I have a strange way of doing things.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
dgoodpasture2005 said:
holy bajesus.. i need to start studying..

Yes, you do!
-Pangea was not the original supercontinent- more than one existed before it, each were formed from pre existing smaller continents.
-The shapes of present day continents do not fit together on all sides as if part of a broken sphere.
-Marine sedimentary rock from the time of pangea and prior to pangea is abundant.
-Ophiolites (preserved remenants of oceanic crust and upper mantle) are found dating back much earlier than pangea
 
  • #40
Yeah, I'm sorry to say i think the theory is not really feasible. :blushing: I found it interesting when i thought of it, but then while i was in the shower i saw droplets of water running down the wall, and i thought "how can the theory explain that?".
I have some other ideas but I'm not saying anything anymore. :-p
 
  • #41
dgoodpasture2005 said:
I agree... i never said that gravity is not understood... it's just not TOTALLY understood...

Can you list areas of physics which are "totally understood", whatever that means? The last time we thought we had a mature and fully-understood field, a couple of stiffs discovered the high-Tc superconductivity.

Zz.
 
  • #42
matthyaouw said:
Yes, you do!
-Pangea was not the original supercontinent- more than one existed before it, each were formed from pre existing smaller continents.
-The shapes of present day continents do not fit together on all sides as if part of a broken sphere.
-Marine sedimentary rock from the time of pangea and prior to pangea is abundant.
-Ophiolites (preserved remenants of oceanic crust and upper mantle) are found dating back much earlier than pangea

Of course they don't fit perfectly, it's been billions of years! enduring weathering, along with earthquakes and volcanoes, things will change a bit... I have no doubt that older sediments would be found! But, on another note, has carbon dating been known to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, and where exactly did that sedimentary come from... doesn't necessarily have to have been here since the beginning of earth.. could have just landed here after floating around in space a couple million years :)? :P
 
Last edited:
  • #43
ZapperZ said:
Can you list areas of physics which are "totally understood", whatever that means? The last time we thought we had a mature and fully-understood field, a couple of stiffs discovered the high-Tc superconductivity.
Zz.

No, but funamentally, yes they are... like my water analogy, everyone knows how much X amount of water volume will weigh... and what will happen when you throw a foreign object into it... but once you realize it's made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, everything changes. this is why i think there should be a new era of experimenting to understand the particulars of physics theories, without the ridicule factor.
 
  • #44
-Job- said:
Yeah, I'm sorry to say i think the theory is not really feasible. :blushing: I found it interesting when i thought of it, but then while i was in the shower i saw droplets of water running down the wall, and i thought "how can the theory explain that?".
I have some other ideas but I'm not saying anything anymore. :-p

lol yeah if you do, i might disappear for a couple months, then suddenly the TOE appears in the news... nah kidding :P... so you're saying, what explains gravity right? That's what I'm trying to get at, once it's understood minutely... i think everything will come into lucid perspective. I Honestly think gravity is the missing link; once it is understood in its diminutive nature.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
dgoodpasture2005 said:
No, but funamentally, yes they are... like my water analogy, everyone knows how much X amount of water volume will weigh... and what will happen when you throw a foreign object into it... but once you realize it's made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, everything changes. this is why i think there should be a new era of experimenting to understand the particulars of physics theories, without the ridicule factor.

You did a great job of avoiding from answering my question. If you cannot name a field in which we have "total understanding", then I see this whole thread as being moot. Why pick on gravity then in particular? Doesn't this also automatically means that physicists, by definition, studies ALL things that are not well-known, cannot be explained, and still defy our understanding? If you want to study "gravity", then become a physicist!

I don't understand what's the complaining here is all about.

Zz.
 
  • #46
You said can I list any that are totally understood, and i said no... which would validate this whole thread. I pick on gravity, because i choose to, it is my interest. I'm not complaining.
 
  • #47
I think a great thing about the current theory of gravity is how well it models orbiting of bodies. I saw on TV at one time they had a carpeted room with a ball, earth, on the center. This floor was shaped as if the "earth ball" had sunk it somewhat. Then they grabbed another ball and they threw it with some speed into the region of the "earth ball". Because of the curvature of the floor, the trajectory of this other ball wasn't a straight line but actually went around the "earth ball" a fair amount of times (while keeping the same distance from the "earth ball"). I thought this was very cool, and i can imagine that without the friction of the carpet and air resistance and all that stuff, the ball would keep orbiting the "earth ball" for a very long time.
This i think is Eistein's model of gravity, with the curved flor being curved space-time. This model works really well, it explains the orbiting, explains the acceleration, and explains why bigger objects have more gravity.
I believe that this model is really the best we can have, but i have some questions on how it's "implemented" in reality. For example, if the ball weren't under the effect of Earth's gravity, it wouldn't orbit the "earth ball" at all. Also since the floor (space) is 2D, these balls wouldn't be spheres but actually circles insided the carpet, which doesn't necessarily change anything. In reality a body like the "earth ball" must curve 3D space, which i don't have any objections with either. The main problem that i see is that we're explaining how gravity works by using gravity. For example why does the "earth ball" curve the floor? It wouldn't if the whole system weren't under the influence of gravity. The other ball also wouldn't orbit the "earth ball" without the influence of Earth's gravity. I know this is only a model and models don't have to exactly correspond to reality, but it seems that gravity is a force that's coming from outside our 3D space?
For example, consider a plane here on the surface of the Earth that is sunk down in the center. Suppose this is a 2D universe and i have 2D objects inside this plane. As the 2D objects inside the plane get near the bend, they are accelerated. You have to imagine you're inside the 2D plane, you don't know that the space is bent, but you feel the acceleration. This acceleration is actually due to the gravity, not stemming from within the 2D system, but from our 3D world that this 2D model is on. So it's interesting how an n-dimensional system's gravity produces the effect of gravity in an (n-1) dimensional system.
So our 3D gravity may be an effect from 4D gravity, which is an effect from 5D gravity etc. If this is the case then i can see how gravity is hard to explain, because it is coming from outside our 3 dimensions, so it' hard to theorize on that. However, if we assume that this is the case, then we have Einstein's wonderful model to explain our gravity.
 
  • #48
dgoodpasture2005 said:
Of course they don't fit perfectly, it's been billions of years! enduring weathering, along with earthquakes and volcanoes, things will change a bit... I have no doubt that older sediments would be found! But, on another note, has carbon dating been known to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, and where exactly did that sedimentary come from... doesn't necessarily have to have been here since the beginning of earth.. could have just landed here after floating around in space a couple million years :)? :P

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt that would achive anything much. If you have a serious interest in this, I really suggest that you go read a basic geology textbook before you create such far out "theories", as you won't convince anyone with such rediculous throwaway comments as "maybe the sediment came from space". If when you've read one and are familiar with basic geological principles and the history of the Earth proposed by geologists, you still feel your theory is feasible, then find some good evidence and by all means present it, though I doubt you'll find any.
 
  • #49
Well thanks for the enthusiasm :) I didn't mean it was actually from space... it was just somthing randomly thrown out, not everything tested from 6 bilion years ago holds true to it;s original compostional make up, and can't always be tested 100% accurately. You'd be surprised about how much arguing until the cows come home actually can achieve :P Anyway I'm a bit thristy, anyone got milk?
 
Last edited:
  • #50
I fully appreciate the interest, but if you wish to learn what we know about gravity then please submit your questions to the Relativity forums.

S&D is not a place for pseudoscience and the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. Sorry, but we need to be very careful about what sort of speculation is allowed here. As soon as we drift into pedestrian speculation wrt mainstream subject matter, we are out of the realm of S&D.

Thanks,
Ivan
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
36K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K