Can anything block gravity?

[newtonian]

I am not aware of anything that blocks gravity other than time due to an apparent speed limit, if the theory of relativity is correct on this.<br /><br />Like, we can block electromagnetic radiation. We can block heat. <br /><br />What of gravity. Does anything block or slow down a graviton.<br /><br />Can a graviton react with anything?<br /><br />Is gravity involved with the conversion of mass into energy such that gravity is reduced when the mass becomes energy?<br /><br />Does energy radiate any gravity at all?<br /><br />Did the strength of gravity of our universe change because of conversion of energy into matter?

 

[nevers]

Hi Paul,<br /><br />Not sure if this is even close to answering any of your questions but, I've had this thought before and it's more of another question rather then an answer - Is there gravity between two magnets?

 

[j_rankin]

ok...i've got a really wild idea about gravity, and you have to completely forget everything about relativity.<br /><br />Think more about how wind works. When Water evaporates, it makes space, and air quickly rushes to fill that space. Well.....what if gravity is pretty much the same thing?<br /><br />A star, for example, could be like a tornado.<br /><br />Perhaps all matter works in this way. Whenever new matter is created, the universe expands. Whenever matter is converted into energy, the universe contracts.<br /><br />The earth's core is hot, and is converting matter into energy, causing gravity. As is the core of all the planets, on different scales. This still leaves gravity somewhat relative to mass because when certain masses are put into certain densities the reactions of atoms within will often be approximately the same. <br />But it also means that temperature AND electro-magnetism affect, if not cause, gravity.<br /><br />To conclude - to beat gravity, you need something turning energy into matter in-between. (cold nuclear fusion, perhaps)

 

[j_rankin]

Could this not also explain why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate? At the time of the big-bang, there was more energy than matter. <br /><br />Momentum itself is kinetic energy, and momentum beats gravity by converting energy (the faster something travels, the more mass it has). Therefore the more momentum of matter there is in the universe, the faster it will expand.

 

[vogon13]

I hope I am not glossing over this too much for clarity, but there is a curious effect of gravity that is tangent to your inquiry.<br /><br />That the orbit of Mercury about the sun is 'off' a tiny bit in the Isaac Newton description of gravity, and that Einstein's equations acccurately explain the situation is fairly well known. What perhaps isn't appreciated is the source of the correction that Einstein was able to compute.<br /><br />The sun's gravitational field represents a great deal of energy. Energy and mass are related via the famous equation, energy equals mass times the velocity of light squared. If the mass equivalent of the energy represented by the sun's gravity is added to the sun's mass, and Mercury's orbit recalculated, the discrepency is explained.<br /><br />The 'bottom line', as the used car dealers will tell you, is the sun's gravitational field has a gravitational field of its' own.<br /><br />Weird, huh?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

Yes, gravity affects gravity.

 

[CalliArcale]

I don't think gravity is anything like electromagnetic radiation -- not if Einstein is right that it's a warping in spacetime, not an actual force. So if you want the effect of blocking gravity, what you must do is neutralize it -- warp spacetime in the opposite direction. <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>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Hi Calli:<br /><br /><font color="orange">So if you want the effect of blocking gravity, what you must do is neutralize it -- warp spacetime in the opposite direction.<br /><br /><font color="white"> Do you have any theories on how to warp spacetime in the opposite direction? <br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Cavorite<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[jatslo]

http://tinyurl.com/arfrq <--- GRAVITY

 

[finaldeathh]

Just ask our government. They have those high tech anti-gravity spacecrafts.

 

[averygoodspirit]

We can’t ask our government about that. It’s classified. Don’t even go there. Our national security is at stake. lol <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> Do you have any theories on how to warp spacetime in the opposite direction? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was thinking along the lines of bringing another massive object into the area. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> So, not really practical for anti-gravity applications.<br /><br />A real-life example of this is Lagrange points. <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>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

<img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[unlearningthemistakes]

Im not sure if this makes sense.<br /><br />should it be proven that gravitons carry the properties for gravity, then we should be able to find the corresponding anti-particle to annihilate graviton...<br /><br />electron --- positron<br />matter --- anti-matter <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /><br /><br />making gravity lesser or so..<br /><br />??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>pain is inevitable</p><p>suffering is optional </p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

Photons are their own antiparticle. If gravitons are too (safe bet?) then it won't workthat way.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[averygoodspirit]

Calli:<br /><br /><font color="orange"> I was thinking along the lines of bringing another massive object into the area. So, not really practical for anti-gravity applications. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">“Astronomers announced the discovery of evidence for a new state of matter heavier than any previously known, equivalent in density to stuffing all of Earth into an auditorium.”<br /><br />“The apparent discovery, made with NASA's orbiting Chandra X-Ray Observatory, provides support for a two-decade-old theory suggesting the existence of so-called "strange quark stars.””<br /><br />“Quarks are thought to be fundamental building blocks of matter. But they have never been observed alone, instead always existing together as the components of other matter. If they were liberated inside a star, they could theoretically be compressed into a smaller sphere, researchers said.”<br /><br /><font color="white">It’s hard to imagine that a single grain of sand can weigh more than Mount Everest. That would have to be very sticky star stuff. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="orange">A real-life example of this is Lagrange points.<br /><br />www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lagrange.html <br /><br /><font color="white">This is a clever possibility, but I think it would be impractical for space travel. I would prefer the use of an “anti-graviton” that cancels the G force, if there is such a thing. <br /> <br />Perhaps we could use an anti gravitational field that surrounds the spacecraft. That way all we would have to do is reverse the polarity of the G force. I’m still trying to achieve my international patents on this device. Once I do, I will make many of my future posts to this message board from space. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scull]

a non-zero cosmological constant<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />--

 

[newtonian]

scull - Yes, dark energy may well be anti-gravity. <br />Note I was asking about blocking gravity, which would be different.<br /><br />Excellent concise answer though!<br /><br />My thought on acceleration of expansion is that in addition to dark energy there may be matter that has escaped most of the gravity of our universe by achieving escape velocity.<br /><br />This matter may be influencing matter near the edge of our visibility horizon by a domino effect causing acceration of this matter to try to keep up with the more distant FTL matter.<br /><br />That would block gravity by achieving FTL expansion - compare inflation theory (FTL = faster than light which may be also faster than gravity).<br /><br />UFO's, if any are real, do appear to block gravity, btw. <br /><br />And there is always flubber, if I remember correctly - I tend to be absent minded (clue).

 

[newtonian]

eburacum45 - I will get to the link, but first a comment:<br /><br />Could dark matter to some extent block gravity in that it tends to be in halos around galaxies?<br /><br />I.e. why would dark matter be in halos rather than closer in? <br /><br />Could it be that dark matter is less influenced by gravity than ordinary matter and therefore orbits further away?<br /><br />I will comment on your link later - thank you for the link.

 

[newtonian]

Nevers - Hi Brad,<br /><br />Yes, there is gravity between magnets, but magnetic force is not related to gravity.<br /><br />E.g. magnetic levitation.

 

[eric2006]

"Could dark matter to some extent block gravity in that it tends to be in halos around galaxies"<br /><br />I thought I saw a model once of dark matter in a spiral galaxy. Correct me if I am wrong though.<br /><br />If dark matter is in a halo is it possible it was ejected? Pushed out or repelled out ...........you decide.

 

[eric2006]

"Im not sure if this makes sense. <br /><br />should it be proven that gravitons carry the properties for gravity, then we should be able to find the corresponding anti-particle to annihilate graviton... <br /><br />electron --- positron <br />matter --- anti-matter <br /><br />making gravity lesser or so.. <br /><br />??? "<br /><br /><br />Hey science says that there are anti-neutrons. So I guess anything is possible.<br /><br />Would a graviton have a charge? If so would it have poles or could the charge be localized like in a neutron? Also if it was a particle could it's spin effect it's properties? Maybe in a black hole or other area of high gravity there is a form of fusion taking place compressing gravitons together?<br /><br />If we heat a plasma to extreme temperatures in a magnetic containment device, at these extreme temperatures, atomic nuclei are freed from their electron shells and allowed to combine with other free nuclei.<br /><br />These free nuclei such as generated during the fusion process are highly gravitational. What's the connection??<br /><br />Cosmic rays are known to be free atomic nuclei, and thus according to the Thacker Nuclear Binding Theory of Gravity, they should be highly gravitational. What is their origin?<br /><br />

 

[eric2006]

A photon can be split into an electron and a positron. So what can a graviton be split into? If there was to be an anti-graviton I believe the graviton would have to have a charge. I do agree- In perturbative quantum gravity, gravitons are their own anti-particles. Energy-momentum conservation prevents two massless particles from turning into one.<br /><br /><br />"Anything is NOT possible, or the universe would have NO structure at all"<br /><br />Didn't Einstein say the same thing when he wondered into quantum physics?<br />

 

[eric2006]

If you have the time can you read this article and comment on it: <br /><br />Newtonian if you also have the time I would be interested to hear your comments:<br /><br />A Gravitational Force Theory by Dali<br />By Dali<br />Sep 8, 2004, 16:38<br /><br /> Email this article<br /> Printer friendly page<br /> Discuss this story <br /><br /><br />Gravitons and a new theory of the nature of Gravity.<br /><br />It could be stated that gravitons are the fundamental construct of space-time, and anti-graviton holes are a lack of space-time. Anti-graviton holes seem to exist as a by-product of matter, or more precisely as a by-product of quantum fluctuation. <br /><br />Anti-gravitons may actually lie in another dimension but their effects are felt in this dimension as gravity.<br /><br />Gravity exists only in the presence of matter. It is said that matter actually tears space-time to varying degrees. We see the effects of this with extremely massive and dense objects. But what about the 'tearing' that occurs when trillions of relatively small pieces of matter exist over a large area, ie: Earth or any small particle? If anti-graviton holes are "holes" gravitons are trying to "fill", then the effects of gravity we feel are just this absence of our 3 dimensional space (gravitons) in between massive objects. Gravitons , fall into the anti-graviton hole which exists only for a fraction of a second. Gravitons are constantly pouring into anti-graviton holes because the lack of space sucks them in. Without the presence of matter although, the intense fire of quantum fluctuation no longer exists and the anti-graviton hole simply vanishes. .<br /><br />Anti-gravitons themselves only exist for a split second within our universe, only we feel the effects of the 'tear' in space-time that occur because of the trillions of matter fluctuations per second. This is similar to the effect that the singularity of a black hole has on our universe. The singularity doesn't exist in our universe, but it's effects do