Jump to content

anti-gravitation drives.


Sennover
 Share

Recommended Posts

First, good post Salisbury! Not much I can add to that math.

quote:


Negative gravity is indeed mathematically possible. Despite salisbury's impressive attempt to refute the idea, it nonetheless is at the very least a mathematical curiosity. It may be nothing more than that, but other ideas brushed off as such are now pretty much accepted.

How could it be a mathematical equation? The force known as gravity exerts a pull from all objects with mass on all objects with mass. The only objects without mass that it is observed to effect are photons. Considering that gravity is a force without polarity, there doesn't seem to rest the possibility that it could repel itself, which is the basis for the initial theory. Gravity is not matter and as such, does not comply to the polarity conditions of mass which can reverse themselves.

quote:


When you get right down to it, it's a simple matter of geometry. Space is flexible, therefore there is no reason why it cannot bend in a manner opposite to that caused by gravity.

That puts forth two ideas which we do not know are fact:

1: Space is flexible.

2: Gravity is what bends space.

Gravity exerts itself on objects of mass and information, or all particles of the universe, possibly. Space, however, is not made up of particles.

Gravity is a force much like light, in the manner that it always is singularly directional. Gravity always pulls in to the source, light always travel from the source. In order to gravity to exist negatively, it would have to travel from the source. But before it COULD exist negatively, the median would have to exist (i.e., and object with mass which exerts zero gravitational pull).

Furthermore, the idea that gravity effects the contours of space itself is highly flawed. In fact, it may be the opposite: the contours of space is quite possibly what causes matter to attract itself. Therefore, in order for an antigravity device to work, it would be forced to exist in an oppositely contoured area of space AND in our space at the exact same time, which is impossible.

Also, although gravity may effect space time (see: black hole) to some degree, it doesn't seem to equate itself to being the principle space-time regulated force in the universe.

Mathematically speaking, negative gravity is impossible due to the fact that we can't mathematically DEFINE gravity yet. We can only measure it and its effects. And considering that its effects are always inward, there is no way one could postulate an equation for it to travel outward.

But feel free to try.

quote:


The possibility of negative matter has been put forth previously.

Negative matter = antimatter, and observed phenomena. Negative mass, is the question, and is impossible.

How can an object have mass less than zero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an excerpt from the Encrata article on gravitation which says exactly what I've been saying regarding polarity (that gravity does not possess):

quote:


Second, gravitation is always attractive. In contrast, electromagnetic forces between particles can be repulsive or attractive depending on whether the particles both have a positive or negative electrical charge, or they have opposite electrical charges (see Electricity). These attractive and repulsive forces tend to cancel each other out, leaving only a weak net force. Gravitation has no repulsive force and, therefore, no such cancellation or weakening.

So, without polarity, how could gravity be negative?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

That puts forth two ideas which we do not know are fact:

1: Space is flexible.

2: Gravity is what bends space.

Gravity exerts itself on objects of mass and information, or all particles of the universe, possibly. Space, however, is not made up of particles.

Gravity is a force much like light, in the manner that it always is singularly directional. Gravity always pulls in to the source, light always travel from the source. In order to gravity to exist negatively, it would have to travel from the source. But before it COULD exist negatively, the median would have to exist (i.e., and object with mass which exerts zero gravitational pull).

Ok, I'll try again: The term "force" when referring to the four fundamental forces of nature is just a word that describes an effect which we cannot otherwise explain. Gravity can, however, be explained as geometric distortions in spacetime. I am not saying space is made up of particles (just as a geometric plane is not made of particles). I am speaking in terms of pure geometry. Space is a geometric term described by volume, just as a plane is a term described by area. Space itself is not matter or energy- it is a geometric construct. The very best and most workable theories regarding gravity say that it is the result of 4 dimensional indentations in space. This is a far better explanation than gravity simply being a "force" for which there is no explanation. Gravity does not exert itself on space, it is simply a property thereof in the presence of matter or energy.

quote:

Furthermore, the idea that gravity effects the contours of space itself is highly flawed. In fact, it may be the opposite: the contours of space is quite possibly what causes matter to attract itself. Therefore, in order for an antigravity device to work, it would be forced to exist in an oppositely contoured area of space AND in our space at the exact same time, which is impossible.

The description of space being distorted explains the effects of gravity very well. Einstein himself pioneered this approach by using Riemannian geometry in his theories, which allow for curved space. His theories say that where there's gravity, there's a spacetime distortion. As far as I know, this idea has yet to be refuted, and is taught and honored in scientific circles worldwide.

quote:

Mathematically speaking, negative gravity is impossible due to the fact that we can't mathematically DEFINE gravity yet. We can only measure it and its effects. And considering that its effects are always inward, there is no way one could postulate an equation for it to travel outward.

We do have the field equations of gravity. They do not disallow negative gravity.

quote:

Negative matter = antimatter, and observed phenomena. Negative mass, is the question, and is impossible.

How can an object have mass less than zero?

Negative matter is not antimatter. Negative matter is matter with negative mass. Please do not confuse the two, for they are separate concepts. The term for antimatter is antimatter, and the term for matter with negative mass is negative matter. This site (which, not surprisingly, cites people that pioneered the idea) explains in detail the math regarding negative matter. No, there is nothing preventing something from having negative mass. The math allows it, I assure you. Despite Salisbury's excellent post, you will see that at the bottom he realizes that those efforts were to no avail. I applaud him for the attempt, but otherwise it makes little difference.

As for gravity and time, it's influence is unmistakable. A black hole is nothing more than an extreme example of this. Gravity warps space to such a degree that when you enter the event horizon (the are where light itself cannot escape), space and time switch roles. You no longer have control over where you are going, though you do have some control over when you get there, just as in normal space, you can, to some extent control where you are going, but you are always advancing in time. In a black hole, you are always advancing in space. This is because gravity warps spacetime to the extent where it is almost "perpendicular" to normal spacetime, so space and time reverse roles.

[ 09-08-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Which agrees with the postulation that gravity is resultive rather than causal.

That makes sense, though if gravity were causal, there would be little difference.

quote:

His equations work so long as you do not calculate negative mass. If you WERE to calculate negative mass, it may not invalidate the equation, however, there is no way that we can equate whether or not a negative mass would exert negative gravity, due to a lack of understanding of the reason mass exerts gravity.

It would only be logical to assume that if greater mass is accompanied by stronger gravity and less mass is accompanied by weaker gravity, negative mass would be accompanied by negative gravity.

quote:

The theory of relativity. Essentially, it states that gravity pulls inward at c, effecting all mass and energy. However, for curved space to exist in tandem with gravitational effects, there would have to be pockets where space has zero volume, and as such, does not exist.

Also, gravity would have to require a limiter that causes its effects to die out. The curve in space would be that limiter, so the question is akin to "what came first, the chicken or the egg?". Also, what perpetuates gravitational force is not understood.

Curved space is a gravitational effect, just as a gravitational effect is curved space. I would assume that Plank length would be the "limiter" you speak of, since that is the smallest meaningful unit of measure.

quote:

As far as we know, we can only say that time stops at the event horizon. Hawking suggests a more quantum explanation. In either case, singularity is the result of entering into such gravitational distortions.

Singularity is the result of these distortions. Time stops only for the observer outside the event horizon. Since all frames of reference are valid (time is relative- theory of relativity), this statement is valid only so long as you do not consider the observer inside the event horizon. For this person, everything would seem normal, since their thought processes would be slowed down (or the universe sped up) accordingly.

[ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think for my sanity's sake I'm going to try not to get too involved on this thread...

(Hi, Sunanta, nice to see you in a science discussion thread again. )

My two-bit contribution: I think mathematics also admits the possibility of having negative energy as well. Einsteins famous "E=mc^2" IIRC is actually a simplified form of a more general equation, it being energy inherent in mass at rest (in some inertial frame of reference).

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the general form for a mass in motion was something like "E^2=m^2c^4 + (momentum-term-I-can't-remember)", the point being that to solve for the left-side (E) you will get two solutions, a positive and negative square root.

What this would mean in reality, I have no clue. If you could have negative mass and/or negative energy, what could you do with it? Say I had a 1g marble and a -1g marble in a massless box. What would be the measurable mass? 0g? In which case, would that mean I have an object without inertia? Which automatically would mean it moves at the speed of light, c (I seem to recall that massless particles either have to be at rest or at c somewhere).

You know, why even stop at negative numbers? Equations are equations, and nothing says we can't try to plug in other kinds of numbers to see what gets pooped out. Could we have imaginary or complex mass/energy? Such as 3+4i grams (i = square root of -1). If I'm not mistaken, if you take the equations that give relativistic mass (apparent mesaured mass of a moving object as viewed from a "stationary" frame of reference) of an object, assuming a speed greater than the speed of light c, the result involves the square root of a negative number (I think at some point you divide by a term like sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), which becomes negative when v>c -- where's my physics textbooks when I need them?). In other words, an imaginary mass. What could this mean?

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Joel Schultz ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Joel. Yep, I really like this sort of discussion. Now, on imaginary mass:

Tachyons- ftl particles, must have imaginary mass. They are, like negative matter, seemingly impossibe oddities allowed by relativity. Since there is nothing other than the common sense I blasted a few posts ago preventing their existence, tachyons are possible, though no evidence of them has been found yet.

[ 09-10-2001: Message edited by: Sunanta ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(it is late so i must appologize for the spelling in advance, I know it is going to be pretty rocky from here on out)

By the By, I remember reading a paper about a year or two ago, I believe it was in Nature, where a group of astronomers and cosmologists in Australia, who looking at very distant objects, found data supporting a repeling force at large distances. I havn't heard anything about it since and was wondering if anyone else had. It would be a sort of anti-gravity at a distance I suppose, but not due to negative masses.

Back to the subject: lets assume that there is some partical, somewhere in the cosmos with a negative mass. We have, what I like to call, Newton's BIG F*CKIN' EQUATION:

Force = mass times acceleration

F = m a => a = F/m

Only for our partical m is negative, so

a = F/-m ==> -a = F/m

which meanse that you get an acceleration in the opposite direction of that in which the force is aplied.

i.e. a<----[mass]---->F

So now we look at what gravity would do to this "negative mass", if placed near some test mass. Well because it has "negative" mass the force would be repulsive (see last post), away from the test mass. But because of the BIG F*CKIN' EQUATION we know that it will accelerate in the opposite direction in which the force points, so the "negative mass particle" will react to gravitational forces from normal mass particles in EXACTLY the same way in which a positive mass particle reacts. It will accelerate toward the mass.

But lets delve deeper shall we. How will the test mass react? It is going to accelerate away from the negative mass, due to the repulsive force, at the same rate in which the negative mass is accelerating toward the test mass (assuming the masses are the same in magnitude).

i.e. [-mass]---->a [test mass]---->a

HOLY SH*T, it looks like we've got the first perpetual motion machine! Screw the second law of thermodynamics, negative mass solves it all!!!

Anyways, that's just what I was thinking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...