Customer Discussions > Science Fiction forum

Anti-gravity Out of Magnetics?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 867 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jul 26, 2009 6:52:51 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
MO,

"Nat Geo, History, or Discovery channel had a very nicely done program on Zheng He's fleets."

Avoid the book '1421: The Year China Discovered the World' by Gavin Menzies, it's 'facts' are mostly very suspect.

"So, there's jade in New Zealand?"

Yes, a form of nephrite jade the Maori call 'pounamu', from South Island, which they call 'Te Wahi Pounamu' among other names.

"The stand-off space wars you describe sound oh so much more likely than the Star Wars kind."

When reading accounts of space combat most people inevitably 'see' it as portrayed in Star Wars, Star Trek or Battlestar. It's interesting that the original ST gave the most realistic display of engagements at a distance because of a limited budget.

Thomas' battles are quick and violent, because of the acceleration and range of many of the weapons.

Posted on Jul 28, 2009 8:01:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 28, 2009 8:17:00 AM PDT
Since this discussion has morph'd into Possible Outer-Space Craft Propulsion Systems, I offer below some websites with some interesting ideas/research on said (new) topic:

1) laserfocusworld.com has an article titled "Laser Propulsion".

2) angelfire.com has an article titled "Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems", by Galactic Mining Industries, Inc. (Their website is www.space-mining.com)

3) astronautix.com has an article on "Improved Crystal (Propulsion)"

4) springerlink.com has an article titled "Bimodal Solar Thermionic Power and Propulsion System."

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2009 2:39:07 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn,

Do you want us to review these propulsion systems?

1) "LASER PROPULSION: Craft heads for free flight and higher altitudes" - various forms of this are described in an earlier post regarding 'Footfall'.

2) "Future Spacecraft Propulsion Systems": summarises a variety of propulsion systems, from the current, to the potentially practical, to the highly theoretical.

3) All I can find is a description of the Improved CRYSTAL optical reconnaissance satellite. Nothing very new here.

4) Only the Abstract is visible - from the available information it *looks* very similar to the Solar Orbit Transfer Vehicle (SOTV) program sponsored by the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory. This uses a mirrored concentrator to focus solar energy to heat fuel (usually hydrogen) sent through the 'absorber' to result in a high efficiency specific impulse engine -- and generate electricity. There are claims that the generated specific impulse could be comparable with a 'conventional' nuclear rocket. This is basically an engine in space powered by solar energy to provide a relatively high thrust for a low fuel mass - the energy source (the Sun) is 'free'.

Posted on Jul 28, 2009 2:57:00 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn,

Note that none of these (except some described in (2) especially at the theoretical end) are "Outer-Space Craft Propulsion Systems".

1) is basically a cheap potential launch method.

4) is reliant on solar energy, and beyond the orbit of Earth this drops off, requiring larger and larger collectors until the benefit of a free energy source doesn't help. Solar energy in any form isn't a viable energy source far beyond the orbit of Mars, which is why deep space probes require nuclear power packs instead of solar panels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 28, 2009 7:56:41 PM PDT
Marilyn,

Consider the following as the most simplest form of propulsion which uses no fuel as we know it. As physics shows us, light is energy and therefore travels in a sinewave, which can be cancelled by "filtering" the light, such as through sunglasses. The strength of the light coming through the sunglasses is dependent on the cancellation of the wavelength of the light, and can be controlled by a light filtering device. Rotating a filter in front of sunglasses can show that light can be totally blocked by cancelling the sinewave energy.

I think that gravity and magnetism are also forms of energy, and also travel in sinewaves, and may also be controlled by a magnetic source. One equation of physics states the forces between two masses with a magnetic charge is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

I think the force between two masses, such as a spaceship and a planet, may be gradually adjusted by a magnetic generating device that can attract or repel the two objects. This is a simple static equation that does not explain the actual effects of a moving magnetic field. The magnetic fields generated in three dimensions by a spinning magnetic field may be adjusted to "cancel out" the energy sinewave. Unmanned spacecraft would be able to move at incredible speeds and change directions unlike fueled manned spacecraft, which have gravity constraints due to pilots. The adjustment of the magnetic field may be adjusted to control the direction and magnitude of the force, either opposing or attracting.

The sound of the magnetic source would be relatively quiet compared to rockets or any other type of propulsion. [Forms of magnetism also can create unusual lights, such as seen in the Aurora Boralis (sp?)].

The Earth has basically a constant magnetic field, since it's mass and spin velocity is constant. The location and direction of the field however varies. A spaceship can control it's magnetic field by a magnetic generation source which controls it's direction and speed relative to Earth. As the spceship travels into space, new fields are generated from other planets, asteroids, and perhaps black holes.

This simple explanation of magnetic/gravitational energy has never been proven. Other people in this thread have mentioned various experiments and programs that have tried to demonstrate antigravity, but I don't think anyone has been truely successful yet. I think there are many laws of physics by Einstein that just touched the surface of the true laws.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2009 1:07:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 29, 2009 1:08:23 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Larry,

"Forms of magnetism also can create unusual lights, such as seen in the Aurora Boralis (sp?)]. "

The aurora borealis is caused by charged particles from the Sun as part of the Solar Wind entering the Earth's magnetosphere and interacting with with atoms and molecules of the Earth's upper atmosphere. Collisions result in the emission of light.

"This simple explanation of magnetic/gravitational energy has never been proven."

Photons exhibit both the properties of waves and particles and this is known as wave-particle duality, and in quantum mechanics this property is ascribed to all matter and energy to fully describe how very small objects behave. To stay with photons, their polarization is described as a sinusoidal plane electromagnetic wave, and individual photons are completely polarized to be elliptical, circular, or linear, which can be demonstrated using a polarizing filter.

But: polarization simply breaks light down into its various polarization components - it does not act to reverse the polarization of the particles that do not pass the filter. So this is not a good model for attempting to `polarize' magnetism or gravity.

In fact, if gravity were polarized then it would not behave as we see it: the planets would not orbit the sun in the way they do and a very great deal of our understanding of how things work would have to be totally rewritten.

A `space-drive' based on the 'polarization' of gravity or magnetism is not practical.

If you wish to explore intriguing ideas, see the work of Walter Dröscher and Jochem Häuser, based on Burkhard Heim's quantum theories. Dröscher and Häuser suggest that the Earth's pull on a 150-tonne spacecraft could be countered by a magnetic field of around 25 tesla -- 500,000 times the strength of Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately, the theory is incomplete and remains in the realm of the fanciful. The proposed drive requires materials and technologies we do not have and are unlikely to obtain in the near future.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 29, 2009 9:37:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 30, 2009 2:33:25 PM PDT
Hello Larry! Thanks for posting. Your optimism and frank assessment ("I think there are many laws of physics by Einstein that just touched the surface of the true laws."), are refreshing.

Please feel free to visit and comment on other discussions in this forum. (You may also want to check out Space Opera and Aliens discussions. Just go the right sidebar and find Explore Communities/What's Your Interest?, and type Space Opera or Aliens in the search box, and hit GO.)

I look forward to seeing your comments in other discussions!

Posted on Jul 30, 2009 2:41:08 PM PDT
Back on topic, below are some more websites to check out for anti-gravity information. I'm not a scientist, so I can't vouch for them personally. But good ideas can come from anywhere, even "questionable" sites/theories.

1) physorg.com (Enter Anti-gravity in their Search Box)

2) gravitycontrol.org

3) antigravitytechnology.net

4) tachyonics.com (hit "Home" in the lower left, which opens up a paper on "Dipole Anti-gravity")

5) peswicki.com/energy/Directory:Anti-Gravity

If you find even one of these sites to contain new and/or highly interesting data, please share it here.

Posted on Jul 31, 2009 7:13:46 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 31, 2009 7:24:27 AM PDT
Some more interesting anti-gravity sites are these:

padrak.com/AGPAPER99.html is a paper from 1999 which is a summary of anti-gravity technology/research to that point.

disclosureproject.org/outsidethebox-TedLoderPaper.html is a paper discussingformer black ops scientists and engineers, who suggest that the B-2 utilizes anti-gravity technology.

You may want to check out the book "The Hunt For Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Anti-gravity Technology" by Nick Cook, about the search for anti-gravity, from the Nazis forward.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 31, 2009 10:52:52 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Marilyn,

"disclosureproject.org/outsidethebox-TedLoderPaper.html is a paper discussingformer black ops scientists and engineers, where they suggest that the B-2 utilizes anti-gravity technology."

Let's look at this claim in more detail, with a short section quoted for the purpose of review: "In 1993, LaViolette wrote a paper discussing the B-2 bomber and speculating on its probable antigravity propulsion system, based on a solid understanding of electrogravitics, the aircraft's design and the materials used in its manufacture. It appears that the craft is using a sophisticated form of the antigravity principles first described by T. Brown. Support for this thesis came from the Aviation Week and Space Technology (March 9, 1992), which reported that the B-2 bomber electrostatically charges its leading edge and its exhaust stream. Their information had come from a small group of former black project research scientists and engineers suggesting the B-2 utilizes antigravity technology."

Sadly, the author has taken real operational attributes of what is an impressive aircraft and somehow `proved' that this supports antigravity...

The actual application isn't antigravity, but relates to increased efficiency and the stealth capability.

In the 60s Northrop was evaluating the use of electrostatic forces to control the airflow over a wing; in '68 they submitted a paper to the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics entitled "Electro-Aerodynamics in Supersonic Flow". This paper identified two effects: a reduction in drag over the wing and heat friction, resulting in more efficient use of fuel; the effect on the aircraft's radar cross section, meaning that it is more difficult to detect with radar. In the late 70s Northrop upgraded its wind tunnel and RCS facilities and subsequently won the contract for the B-2A Spirit stealth bomber over the competing bid from Lockheed, in part probably because of the claimed fuel consumption and reduced RCS.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16822646.300-plasma-stealth.html

No antigravity. No hidden switches for the crew to use flying saucer engines, just human ingenuity and inventiveness.

The other sites are equally dubious with little or no scientific or engineering value.

If you want to look at a site based on reality, though in a science fiction context, visit:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/index.html

And for deep-space drives:

http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html

Have a better one.

Posted on Aug 1, 2009 4:43:10 PM PDT
Actually, I'm (somewhat) getting used to the NEVER! IMPOSSIBLE! WASTE OF TIME! pomposity of some posters. But I also suspect that a lot more people read these postings than ever comment. (Unlike their main rival, Amazon doesn't show "hits", or how many people actually read a post. Judging by the rival's figures, it looks close to a couple hundred who read or open the post, versus the handful who comment.)

So ... I shall continue posting controversial topics or additions, if only for the Lurkers who want to read and learn, but who don't want to endure the slings and arrows of the Pompous Posters.

Carry on!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 1, 2009 7:49:50 PM PDT
They're mean! Cry :(, sob, Cry :(....

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 2, 2009 12:49:04 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
"Actually, I'm (somewhat) getting used to the NEVER! IMPOSSIBLE! WASTE OF TIME! pomposity of some posters."

My.

Almost as bad as your earlier (deleted) post: "Too many dogmatically negative know-it-alls seem to haunt this forum. "

Marilyn, if you direct people to sites requiring the suspension of conventional science and engineering (and history), and instead blind credulous gullible belief in unsuportable ideas, what, precisely, do you expect? You wanted these dubious sites researched and discussed, and now don't like those comments?

You invited comment: "If you find even one of these sites to contain new and/or highly interesting data, please share it here."

And yes, it was highly interesting how data on the B-2 was distorted and misrepresented. A useful example of how a network of false memes grows and feeds on warped information to reach wildly inaccurate conclusions.

You don't like this finding being shared?

Instead of believing: question, check, research: Conventional physics is wrong, and these pseudoscience charlatans and hoaxers who prey on the 'believers' are right? Some may actually 'believe' themselves, but in the hard world of science and engineering, bridges don't stand and aircraft don't fly because of belief.

If there were an ounce of truth in these bizarre sites, don't you think *someone* would have built and demonstrated a working antigravity aircraft or car by now? Instead, these modern day purveyors of 'snake-oil' require a belief in a network of conspiracies where 'they' won't allow the 'truth' to be available, to support a framework of intersecting false memes: That there are crashed alien ships, that their drives have been retro-engineered, that coventional physics is wrong and free energy can be gained via "sub-quantum kinetics", that the ancients used antigravity to build the pyramids, that the government/corporations/scientific community/archaeologists are preventing these 'truths' being disclosed etc. etc. -- so it must be true?

(Yes, pretty much all of those ideas appeared on the sites you directed us to.)

Conventional physics is not complete, and never will be -- but these sites use ignorance and technobabble to define their ideas. Science requires constant questioning and checking; pseudoscience requires the suspension of disbelief.

"So ... I shall continue posting controversial topics or additions, if only for the Lurkers who want to read and learn, but who don't want to endure the slings and arrows of the Pompous Posters."

How very very rude to call people who disagree with you silly names.

I am disappointed that you cannot accept 'alternative' viewpoints without becoming... upset.

Posted on Aug 3, 2009 8:54:14 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
M. Helsdon, fighting the good fight, affirmed:
"...in the hard world of science and engineering, bridges don't stand and aircraft don't fly because of belief."

Hear, hear! :)

Posted on Aug 3, 2009 9:11:23 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 4, 2009 4:22:54 AM PDT
Marilyn: I saw this discussion some time back and was bothered by the nit-picking over the term anti-gravity. I have no problem with the colloquial use of the term to indicate any force which acts against gravity, like a magnet or a maglev train can.

Dictionary.com has these definitions:

1. Noun: physics. the antithesis of gravity; a hypothetical force by which a body of positive mass would repel a body of negative mass.
2. Noun: (not in technical use) a controllable force that can be made to act against the force of gravity.
3. Adjective: (not in technical use) counteracting the force of gravity: The anti-gravity drive in this spaceship will enable us to reach Polaris.

That includes your use of the term quite nicely, I think.

I know that the discussion has veered a little astray into fanciful propulsion systems, but I still have a couple of observations about your original idea.

We don't know what gravity is, nor do we know what magnetism is. We can observe the effects of both of those forces and even predict the actions of bodies in space with great accuracy, but we cannot replicate either. Contrast this with our understanding of electricity. We know that it is the flow of electrons. We can generate or stop the flow of electricity at will, we can easily control it for our own uses, we can increase it or decrease it.

We can generate magnetic force, of course, but we still have no idea what it really is. Something stretches between the magnets, but if it's particles, they are undetectable to us. We have the same problem with gravity.

We have great familiarity with the EFFECTS of gravity, and have since before the first of our hominid ancestors crawled up its mother to suckle. But we don't really know what gravity is. It might as well be the Holy Ghost for all we know. We observe it and calculate it, but we are probably centuries from generating it. Or its antithesis.

If we take "anti-gravity" to mean anything that acts against gravity, then a rocket is a great example of an "anti-gravity" device, but gravity is acting on the rocket for every second of its climb into space.

If we take "anti-gravity" to mean something that negates gravity, we don't have a clue. We can't even "create" gravity. I think we're centuries and many geniuses away from such discoveries.

I am always amused at shows like Star Trek where they have gravity on their ships with apparent ease. The best we could possibly do to simulate gravity in space is something like "2001: A Space Odyssey" with a great centrifuge spinning. Of course, any time you bent over to tie your shoe, you'd probably get dizzy and throw up.

We can imagine "warping" space to let a ship slide through it, although the energy required would probably be on the order necessary for the supernova of a star, but we can't imagine how we could possibly simulate gravity. It's well beyond us.

My though is that forces like gravity, magnetism and the nuclear attractive forces that permeate our universe are actually generated in the next higher dimension, exactly like a three-dimensional pencil drawing on a two-dimensional sheet of paper. If we were two dimensional beings on the piece of paper we couldn't see the pencil, we would only see its effects.

If we can understand one of those forces, we may actually begin to understand the "pencil" that is drawing them, itself. I think we are closer to understanding magnetism than gravity, so yes, understanding the underlying mechanism of magnetism may indeed lead to the understanding of gravity.

Understand that I'm not getting all "Deist" on you. I make no claims about the pencil, or whoever might be holding it. Everything seems to run along just fine in our own universe as we know it without any obvious heavenly interventions. I suspect any higher-order dimensions do too. We can mathematically prove the existence of higher dimensions, and it is logical to assume they act in some way on our lower dimension. Gravity and magnetism may be the effects.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 7:02:29 AM PDT
But would the bridges or the aircraft have ever been built without someone first believing that it was possible?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 7:17:46 AM PDT
Thank you kindly for your well reasoned and intelligent posting, Mr. Tammany Hall!

I'm not out to "convert" anyone to anything, either. I just enjoy bringing up interesting topics that may or may not be controversial. And then hearing what intelligent gentlemen (which is an oxymoron to some of the bombasts who post in this forum), have to say. I enjoy lively, civil discussion, and I heartly encourage you and similar intelligent Seekers to post.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 7:25:17 AM PDT
Well put, Erik! I read a book once that said that the Ancient Egyptians believed that anything you could imagine could become a reality, or else you couldn't imagine it.

Whether that was really from the Ancient Egyptians, or from a writer's mind, the point is very interesting. There's so much hostile negativity out there over every new idea that doesn't fit the Scientific Model, mathematically or "proven" thru research. If a startling new idea doesn't fit (or makes us feel too uncomfortable, that to "prove" it would mean tossing out some long held Scientific Laws), then just set it aside. One of the gentlemanly scientists who used to post in this forum said that he has a drawerful of "speculations".

And then there's the fellow in another forum (Aliens, I think), who quoted one of his management classes, that "Just because something isn't proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Cheers!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 7:42:58 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Erik,

"But would the bridges or the aircraft have ever been built without someone first believing that it was possible?"

They could be built, but they wouldn't necessarily function: bridges built without adequately understanding the science of materials collapse (most of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman and the builders of the Middle Ages knew the rules of thumb of the materials they worked with even if they didn't know the laws of physics that fully applied); aircraft built without an understanding of aerodynamics and the power to weight ratio either fail to take off, or crash.

Similarly, breakthrough engineering of a space drive requires an understanding of the physics involved: technobabble won't suffice. Any future technology will come from genuine scientific research in a variety of fields -- not from a belief in what is effectively unfounded magic.

There's a considerable difference between the engineering capability to build, for instance, a pyramid of stone (no antigravity required), and that required to create a modern aircraft or space shuttle.

The idea "just because something isn't proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist" won't work in the hard cruel world of engineering. There is a cycle of research, test, check, confirm or deny in a never ending cycle. Technobabble mumbo-jumbo won't suffice.

Posted on Aug 4, 2009 9:49:15 AM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Oh, don't bother Erik with real details, M. ;)

New lessons in Marilynese: "intelligent gentleman" translates "like-minded(?!) wingnut who doesn't call me a potty loon." It's a fascinating dialect!

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 11:43:12 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Aug 4, 2009 11:45:13 AM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Ronald,

"Oh, don't bother Erik with real details, M."

A rational comment deserves a rational reply?

"intelligent gentleman"

If this is an oxymoron, then there's a contradiction in this phrase, Ronald, suggesting one cannot be intelligent and male. Dashed uncivil.

We seem to come back on forum after forum about the nature of the scientific method (which is scary as it is the basis of our technological civilisation).

Raw, unsupported 'ideas' are not the place to start -- unless you are working within a mathematical model, which may or may not describe the physical reality of 'our' universe. And it is neither pompous ("self-important") nor bombastic ("big without meaning") to state this.

Many scientific discoveries haven't been imagined, but acquired by investigating phenomena, resulting in the correction, integration and expansion of scientific knowledge. If antigravity were ever to be achieved, it would not be by pure 'imagination' but by the patient analysis of observable, empirical, measurable evidence: probably a combination of physics at the scale of the very small and the very large (particle and cosmological).

'Dark matter' is a potential candidate of interest, but it remains theoretical and speculative, even though 'fringe' sites use it as definite 'truth'. If it is a form of WIMPs, then with sufficiently sensitive detectors we should be able to detect it or create it in a collider experiment. There are, however, alternatives to 'dark matter' such as the MOND or MOG models, a quantum mechanical explanation or even M-theory, the latest version of string theory.

Lucky that the Ancient Egyptian imagining of the sun-boat on which the sun god Ra and companions sailed across the sky during the day and the through the underworld at night isn't a literal reality. The world would be... flat.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 2:14:59 PM PDT
what was at work in the "Back to the Future" installment where the "skate boards" actually worked without wheels?

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 2:39:27 PM PDT
M. Helsdon says:
Frank,

The mechanics of the hoverboards were never explained; in reality in most scenes they were suspended by wires from a truck:

http://www.snopes.com/movies/films/hoverboard.asp

Fans have proposed anything from electrostatic repulsion, magnetic levitation to antigravity.

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 5:16:26 PM PDT
It sure is getting hot in here! Maybe I could borrow everyones' angst in order to power my balloon for an 80 day tour of the globe? Oh, and yes, I am male. Sorry if that makes anyone jealous.:)

In reply to an earlier post on Aug 4, 2009 5:33:29 PM PDT
Ronald Craig says:
Is that a gimmick in your next book, Erik, an antigravity hot air balloon? Fascinating! When will you be having that one printed out? Oh right, Print On Demand. And the trees of the world breathe a collective, refreshing sigh!

(As for the male bit, I'm not sure how your particular bits are relevant, but the only reason anyone would have to be jealous is if they are remarkably small and compact or extraordinarily large and a crowd-puller. Either way, how about flogging them elsewhere?)
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science Fiction forum
Participants:  62
Total posts:  867
Initial post:  Jul 17, 2009
Latest post:  Jul 17, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions