Antigravity Has Feet Of Clay

[zavvy]

<b>Antigravity Has Feet Of Clay</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />Could astronauts take a leaf out of H. G. Wells's book The First Men in the Moon, and use spacecraft propelled by antigravity devices? Some see the idea as science fiction, but major space agencies take it seriously.<br /><br />In 2001, the European Space Agency (ESA) commissioned two scientists to evaluate schemes for gravity control. They have concluded that, even if such control were possible, the benefits for lifting spacecraft out of the Earth's gravitational field would probably not be worth the effort1.<br /><br />But scientists working on such propulsion schemes dispute the report. "I regard the conclusion, even if correct, as uninteresting and, frankly, irrelevant", says James Woodward of California State University at Fullerton, who has worked for NASA on gravity-control propulsion.<br /><br />NASA ran a research programme on speculative propulsion methods, called Breakthrough Propulsion Physics, from 1996 until its funding was cut in 2003. The project's founder and former manager, Marc Millis of NASA's Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio, says that the ESA report corrects some misconceptions in the field of gravity control. But he thinks its scope is too limited to rule out future research in the area.<br /><br />"The risk of this paper is that the casual reader will more broadly interpret the negative findings to apply to all inquiries into gravitational or inertial manipulation," says Millis.<br /><br />The report is not meant to kill off all such ideas, says one of its authors, cosmologist Orfeu Bertolami of Lisbon's Technical University in Portugal. "Our recommendation to ESA was to keep a critical eye on them," he says. But, he adds, "this should be a low-intensity activity. Our estimates show that conventional ideas [for propulsion] are much more effective."<br /><br />Down to Earth<br /><br />Wells's fantasy hinges

 

[siarad]

Ah cavorite. HG Wells had it in 1901, The First Men In The Moon

 

[peacekeeper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ah cavorite. HG Wells had it in 1901, The First Men In The Moon<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />We know. That was said in the first sentance of the first post <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[siarad]

It was that sentence to which I was adding information <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Ah cavorite...

 

[bobvanx]

>> Inducing the Cheshire States does not cancel the craft’s inertia, but rather makes unobservable the ratio that measures gravitational to inertial mass.<br /><br />So, more correctly, this could be termed an "Improbability Drive."

 

[spaceman186000mps]

________________________________________<br />Because anti-gravity does not exist, the issue is irrelevant. One can discuss such fictions as 'inertia less rocket ship drives', as well. They do not exist, either. <br /><br />Anti-gravity and gravity control are sci fi, not science. It's just amazing how often some cannot tell the difference. <br />____________________________________________<br /><br />I agree that anti-gravity hasn't been discovered but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.<br />Not meaning to change the discussion but it seems to me that there are better ways to launch cargo into and out of earth orbit.<br /><br />I know it would be expensive to build but , what would happen if we could built an equatorial rail gun launcher and plugged into the natural power source of the earth at the north and south pole for power ? <br />Isn't the planet earth itself a very efficient rotating magnet and battery? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">70 percent of novel proceeds </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.trafford.com/06-1593</font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff"> are donated to </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.caringbridge.org</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[nexium]

I have not heard any proposals for anti gravity, gravity control nor Earth being a battery that sounded like they would work. The Earth is a rather weak magnet, but it appears that modest amounts of electricity can be obtained from orbiting tethers. So far the tether programs have had bad luck, but we could be getting an average of 1000 watts from a tether before the end of this year. Neil

 

[spaceman186000mps]

____________________________________________<br />On the contrary. Anti-gravity has no basis in any physics at all. There's simply nothing there in relativity or QM which would clearly, directly allow it. <br />_____________________________________________<br />Reverse fusion anti-gravity black cold suns that radiate and emit the very dark fabric of space itself, that hot stars do dwell in may exist as the great attractors. <br /> Physics can't prove or disprove that either. Except that is in the very logical point of the missing dark matter of the universe.<br /><br />Of course, because one can't see something, that does not means that it does or doesn't exist.<br />How would an educated amoeba prove to another educated amoeba that it lives on a grain of sand on a planet in a solar system? <br /> Possibly by logical time learned thought on what is known, one educated amoeba may prove or disprove its surroundings by immediate exploration of the unknown environment around it.<br /><br />So by that logical thought process lets then prove or disprove in human astronomy terms, that anti-gravity does or does not exist.<br /><br />Maybe impossible to do in yin or yang terms, but if one states that gravitons surely do exist.<br /> If indeed that is a fact that they do exist , then where or what is the yang of a graviton wave or particle and or anti-gravity matter?<br /><br />Right here in our own solar system, planet Venus is far less accessible to humans or robots due to surface heat and pressure and acidic atmosphere content than any heavenly body that comes near planet earth. <br /><br />One must surely wonder then why Venus is the only planet (not moon) to rotate slowly retrograde, yet traverses in it's solar journey around the sun in an almost perfect circular orbit. <br />Then one must then ask, why when Venus and Earth are at closest opposition that planet Venus always presents the same face toward planet Earth?<br /> Here we have two inner rocky planets of near equal mass and size <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">70 percent of novel proceeds </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.trafford.com/06-1593</font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff"> are donated to </font></strong><strong><font size="2" color="#3366ff">www.caringbridge.org</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>Anti-gravity has no basis in any physics at all. There's simply nothing there in relativity or QM which would clearly, directly allow it.</i><p>Solutions to Einstien's General Relativity equations <b>do</b> in fact permit the existence of anti-gravity. The question is if these solutions represent purely mathematical constructs, or if there can be physical manifestations of them.</p>

 

[chew_on_this]

Gee, maybe Einstein should be peer reviewed. Or maybe steve's dictionary reference has the E section torn out.