'Antigravity' Propulsion System Proposed

[arc2]

'Antigravity' Propulsion System Proposed <br />By Bill Christensen<br /><br /><br />posted: 15 February 2006<br />11:08 a.m. ET<br /> <br /><br />An 'antigravity' propulsion system will be 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. If it works, it could be even better than apergy, as described by science fiction writer Percy Greg in 1880. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />"Based on this research, I expect a mission to accelerate a massive payload to a 'good fraction of light speed' will be launched before the end of this century," said Dr. Felber. "These antigravity solutions of Einstein's theory can change our view of our ability to travel to the far reaches of our universe."<br />(From Physicist to present solution) <br /><br />On the downside, it does not appear that Dr. Felber has published any previous papers in the field of general relativity. Also, the space engineering conference in Albuquerque probably has lower standards for peer review than those at a gravity conference. <br /><br />Gravity is a favorite source of propulsion for science fiction writers. In his 1880 novel Across

 

[CalliArcale]

This is not relevant to the SETI: The Search for Life forum. I'm moving it to Space Business & Technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

The real question is whether this is a technologically viable proposal or not.

 

[rocketman5000]

To me this sounds vaguely like discussions on the speed of sound discussions in the 19th century. I remember my professor telling of one theroy that thought the discontinuties between subsonic and supersonic was because of an infinately long column of compressed air infront of the object. I believe it was mach with the famous schlerin photo that showed the shock waves sweeping back from bullet<br /><br />I don't know much about relativity, but it almost seems too good to be true...

 

[jatslo]

That bubble becomes more dense as it compresses until it is a barrier force that stops the experiment by imploding, and then exploding, which is very bad for the traveler. The point of no return is different in composition from specimen to specimen. For example, a rock will travel faster than a grape, or the rock will annihilate at a greater velocity than that of the grape.

 

[extrasense]

You are right.<br />It is a hoax.<br /><br />e <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> s<br />

 

[jatslo]

... However, if that barrier is removed, the rock and grape, or rock and feather for that matter, are free to travel in equilibrium at far greater velocities than they would of otherwise been able to achieve ... Hoax? Likely plausible that this mission is achievable given what we know to date; however, there is a low probability that this particular individual is the person who will actually succeed, as is almost always the case for true innovation, or intuitive types. I expect these types of breakthroughs to emerge from underground, or from black projects similarly to the release of stealth.<br /><br />Probability is by no means guaranteed. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[qso1]

I suspect this may be they way we get to the stars rather than chemical or nuclear propulsion solutions. However, thats not based on this recent development which some here believe may be a hoax. I have not been able to review it well enough to conclude but assuming for a minute its true...this would be just one more incremental development on the way to eventually apply this along with other developments such as discovering what exactly gravity is, to interstellar propulsion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I would be the first to want to believe. Now if someone would be able to salvage my health to get me to the end of the century we'll be in good shape.

 

[qso1]

I hear you there, thats what I need to get to centuries end...or even midway LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

I'll only need to be 117 that isn't that old is it?

 

[qso1]

Nah, I'll be so old they will have to carbon date me to figure out how old since I won't remember LOL. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Now all thats needed is to know where to go? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[why06]

Does this beam only come out oof the front of the craft or alldirections? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Something kind of interesting...<br /><br />Towards a new test of general relativity? by Clovis J. de Matos (ESA)<br /><br />23 March 2006<br /><br /><i>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....<br /><br />Their experiment involves a ring of superconducting material rotating up to 6 500 times a minute....<br /><br />It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein’s General Relativity predicts....</i>

 

[rocketman5000]

very interesting article. Anyone have an idea about what we could use such a device for? <br /><br />The obvious one that everyone would think of is artifical gravity. Any other good uses?

 

[chriscdc]

Propellentless propulsion, if you can generate a gravitational beam in front of the ship and pull on anything in the paths way.

 

[mlorrey]

not a gravitational beam, a gravitomagnetic beam. One would, of course, expend energy to generate the field. Try reading before judging.<br /><br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0203/0203033.pdf<br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0012/0012091.pdf<br /><br />and particularly this: <br />http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0207/0207123.pdf<br />"Hypothetical Gravity Control and Implications for Spacecraft Propulsion"1<br />O. Bertolami(a),2 and M. Tajmar(b),3<br /><br />Is pretty critical of most every gravity control scheme out there, however is hopeful that violations of weak equivalence can be proven and is looking at experimental reproduction of the Pioneer Acceleration Anomaly

 

[serak_the_preparer]

Well, I suppose the ultimate goal would be something like this:<br /><br />http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/A/Alcubdrive.html

 

[why06]

I've got it ..... a flying saucer <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

True, but unless your taste is quirky, as in British phone booths, or flying houses, why not make your spaceship as cool looking as possible? Incorporate the Naboo Shipyard and start cranking out streamlined gumdrops.<br /><br />While just one big sphere is structurally most efficient, there is something to be said for one huge cube...<br /><br />