Antigravity beam (16)

1 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2006-02-16 20:28 ID:Heaven
"An 'antigravity' propulsion system was proposed at the Space Technology and Applications International Forum (STAIF) in Albuquerque on Febuary 14 by Dr. Franklin Felber. His new exact solution to Einstein's gravitational field equation gives hope to space enthusiasts that it might be possible to accelerate space craft to speeds approaching that of light without crushing the contents of the craft."

"Dr. Felber's paper states that a mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. This "beam" intensifies as the speed of the mass approaches that of light.

The paper shows how to use the repulsion of a body speeding through space to accelerate large spacecraft quickly while reducing internal tidal forces that could tear the cargo apart. The paper argues that the payload would "fall weightlessly" in an antigravity beam as it is accelerated to a substantial fraction of light speed."

2 Name: !WAHa.06x36 2006-02-17 14:28 ID:U2NABb7P

Interesting, if it checks out. Finding exact solutions to the gravitational field equations is really hard, so it's not easy to say offhand if this makes sense or not.

Just off the top of my head, it seems the only option we have for accelerating things to near-lightspeed velocities are various particle accelerators. The question is, is the effect big enough to be measurable from such tiny masses?

3 Name: Mad Scientist 2006-02-23 17:21 ID:HqWm2Yis

So you get propelled by some planetbound device... how do you break once you reach your destination?

4 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU 2006-02-28 01:59 ID:Heaven

You simply reverse the polarity!

5 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-09 11:34 ID:eYS7LhP5

So here's the deal: we make some device on earth, and then use it to accellerate it away into space. Then after millions of kilometers you decide to switch polarity. but will you still be in the beam of the device? the further you get away, the more exact needs to be your aiming. It's one thing to aim a telescope somewhere, but could you do it in this case?

6 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-03-09 15:31 ID:KxiU8yxu

I was joking. :)

The correct answer is that deceleration will have to be performed by the ship's reverse thrusters. Yes, it will take a long time.

7 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-03-13 05:16 ID:Heaven

But now that I think of it, the first flight could set a base on the other side with an antigravity net based on the same principle, slowing the ship down. Then the next flights would be way faster.

8 Name: softball girl : 2006-03-17 00:39 ID:RgGayeeB

what would be the effect if a small car was higher than a big does grvity interrupt whith cars and Earth?

9 Name: softball girl : 2006-03-17 00:41 ID:RgGayeeB


10 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-03-17 03:46 ID:05dYwrtC

Compared to the mass of Earth, the influence of a car's mass, even a big one, is insignificant.

11 Name: softball girl : 2006-03-17 18:43 ID:RgGayeeB

why is it insignificant?

12 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-03-17 21:46 ID:Y3Hr7A4M

Insignificant means "having no weight or effect".
For example, when a rocket lifts off, how much is the planet going backwards?

13 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-21 02:40 ID:ixE4fsz7

Because the numbers we're working with are on the order of millions and billions. The mass of a car is on the order of about a thousand, so it contributes almost nothing.

14 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-21 15:49 ID:6++D63zC

>>8 to answer your question, could you be more specific? Especially about the 'effect' (by what)

15 Name: Anonymous Scientist : 2006-03-24 03:24 ID:Nb+iYF2f

Of course the problem that this "solves" is just mitigated - you still have to get the other large body up to that "very high speed" for this to work!

No such thing as a free lunch, folks.

16 Name: Sling!XD/uSlingU : 2006-03-25 03:46 ID:r6LLGxKr
Gravitomagnetic London Moment
News - 23 March 2006
"Scientists funded by the European Space Agency have measured the gravitational equivalent of a magnetic field for the first time in a laboratory.
Under certain special conditions the effect is much larger than expected from general relativity and could help physicists to make a significant step towards the long-sought-after quantum theory of gravity."

"Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute."
"Spinning superconductors produce a weak magnetic field, the so-called London moment.
The new experiment tests a conjecture by Tajmar and de Matos that explains the difference between high-precision mass measurements of Cooper-pairs (the current carriers in superconductors) and their prediction via quantum theory. They have discovered that this anomaly could be explained by the appearance of a gravitomagnetic field in the spinning superconductor (This effect has been named the Gravitomagnetic London Moment by analogy with its magnetic counterpart)."

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...