Why are we so fascinated with pushing an object for acceleration?

tdmikey · Apr 1, 2008

Wouldn’t it seem to use less energy to pull something rather than pushing an object to C and beyond.  I guess this is a harder question than I think due to the fact that I am thinking about defying gravity (away from earth) or manipulating it (pull another galaxy towards the craft).  Shouldn’t gravity be on physicists’ number #1 priority to figure out?  I know we don’t have a universal theory for gravity but shouldn’t we figure it out.  Sorry I have read too many “UFO articles” the past 2 weeks but pulling an object to you to go as fast or faster than c seems plausible.  Let’s say there’s positive gravity and negative gravity like magnets.  If we could manipulate gravity like magnets we can repel like gravity away from each other and vice versa couldn’t we?  Hasn’t it been said that having a gravitational shield around a spacecraft provide it with a shield to dangerous particles and radiation and such?  Wouldn’t that be another reason to looking into gravitational propulsion/repulsion?   Humor me on gravity for a moment.  My opinion that anything with mass has a gravitational force associated with it.  Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel).  The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity).  I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity).    Can I go so far as to say energy equals gravity?  Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure.  Everything is made up of “star stuff.”  Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can.  Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time.  I know I may sound like a nutjob but hey, I thought I would throw the idea out there even though it was probably brought up before me.  But I didn’t see the discussion so its new to me.  Lend me your thoughts SDC. Mike <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window." "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 1, 2008

Pull or puch (and how do you pull with .0000000001 G from another galaxy) as your speed approaches c, your mass increases to infinity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

CalliArcale · Apr 1, 2008

. . . I don't think it really matters whether you are pushing or pulling.  The energy requirements are the same.  The only question is whether pushing or pulling will provide you that energy more efficiently.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "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." -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>. . . I don't think it really matters whether you are pushing or pulling.  The energy requirements are the same.  The only question is whether pushing or pulling will provide you that energy more efficiently.  Posted by CalliArcale</DIV>Agreed, and the more sertious point is that we have the technology to push now, we do not have the technology to pull, other yhan very gently. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

derekmcd · Apr 1, 2008

"Wouldn’t it seem to use less energy to pull something rather than pushing an object to C and beyond.  I guess this is a harder question than I think due to the fact that I am thinking about defying gravity (away from earth) or manipulating it (pull another galaxy towards the craft)."   Force=mass * acceleration.  To put an object into motion would requires force applied to said object.  Doesn't matter whether you are pulling on it or pushing it.  The amount of force applied is the same. "Shouldn’t gravity be on physicists’ number #1 priority to figure out?  I know we don’t have a universal theory for gravity but shouldn’t we figure it out." They are trying to figure it out.  I would venture to wager that they are working on it with as much effort that budgets will allow.  It's a challange. "Sorry I have read too many “UFO articles” the past 2 weeks but pulling an object to you to go as fast or faster than c seems plausible."  Wormholes are a theoretical plausibility and somewhat reflect what you are describing.  "Let’s say there’s positive gravity and negative gravity like magnets.  If we could manipulate gravity like magnets we can repel like gravity away from each other and vice versa couldn’t we?"  In a word 'no'.  Negative gravity would require negative mass and, as far as I know, there is nothing in physics that would allow for such a thing other than hypothetical 'exotic' matter.  However, should some type of exotic matter be discovered (anyting's possible, right?), you would still need to build a highway of sorts of normal/exotic matter structures in order to push/pull your craft to its destination.  What an enourmous project that would be. Something similar to the Large Hadron Collider on a galactic scale. "Hasn’t it been said that having a gravitational shield around a spacecraft provide it with a shield to dangerous particles and radiation and such?  Wouldn’t that be another reason to looking into gravitational propulsion/repulsion?"   Not sure what you mean by 'gravitatioinal shield'.  A shield that blocks the force of gravity?  If it were possible, a gravitational shield would only be effective when in a gravity well.  Might be useful for launches into space, but you wouldn't run into the need for a gravity shield during interstellar travel too often.  "Humor me on gravity for a moment.  My opinion that anything with mass has a gravitational force associated with it.  Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel).  The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity).  I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity).    Can I go so far as to say energy equals gravity?  Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure.  Everything is made up of “star stuff.”  Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can.  Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time." I don't believe an object's electrical charge or spin has anything to do with gravity.  Gravity is a consequence of the total mass of the object.  Not really clear on what you are saying here.  I'm not sure you can consider gravity to be energy. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

billslugg · Apr 1, 2008

Force equals mass times acceleration. It makes absolutely no difference whether you are pushing or pulling. There actually IS a gravitational force that repels. Studies of supernova brightness at extreme distances has shown that they are farther away than they should be. There is something that is pushing, although extremely weak and evident only over vast distances. Something we will not see detected in lab experiments in our lifetime.One thing you can count on. Even if we develop anti gravity, there is absolutely no way that it might be used to create a machine to produce free energy. Free energy never has existed, does not exist and never will exist. You can take all of those "Gas Savers" and "Vortex Machines" and "Zero Point Energizers" and toss them in the river. It is an absolutely indisputable first law of the universe that: "You can't get something for nothing." And not only that, "You can't even break even!" Every single energy conversion process produces unwanted heat through friction. Unless it is heat you are after, no process is 100% efficient. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

origin · Apr 1, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>  My opinion that anything with mass has a gravitational force associated with it.</DIV>Not only is that your opinion but it has been verified over and over again experimentally.  In the language of (classical) physics it is written like this: F=G*((m1*m2)/r^2)F= forceG = graviational constantm1 = mass 1m2 = mass 2r = distanceReplying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel).</DIV>Notice in the equation that there are no electrical or magnetic terms.  This means that the electrical / magnetic properties have nothing to do with gravity. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity).</DIV>Correct.  Increase either (or both) m1 or m2 and the force of gravity will increase.  Except the only way that gravity could repel would be if m1 or m2 were negative.  This is not possible because that would be a negative mass.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity).</DIV>Spin has nothing to do with gravity.  The sun's gravity has very little to do with the spin of the planets.  If you mean the orbit of the planets this is a consequence of gravity not cause of gravity. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can I go so far as to say energy equals gravity?</DIV>  No, that would not be correct.  There is such a thing as gravitational Potenetial Energy, but energy does not equal gravity. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure.</DIV>  Everything is not pure energy.  Sure E=mc^2, but using that logic I could equally say that everthing in the universe is pure mass....Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Everything is made up of “star stuff.”</DIV>Everthing is not made up of star stuff.  The most common element in the universe appears to be hydrogen which was created shortly after the big bang and was not created by stars. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can.</DIV>Neither we nor a magnet can repel or attract energy.  A magnet has a magnetic field which affects materials not energy.  A magnetic field can also affect posively or negatively charged particles.   Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time.  I know I may sound like a nutjob but hey, I thought I would throw the idea out there even though it was probably brought up before me.  But I didn’t see the discussion so its new to me.  Lend me your thoughts SDC. Mike Posted by tdmikey</DIV>You don't sound like a nut job, you are asking some interesting questions.  Keep asking.  I think if we could somehow manipulate gravity through higgs particles or the higgs field (if they do in fact exist) or who knows what, it would be great.  It would make space travel a heck of a lot easier, because rockets using propellents sure aren't going to get us very far. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bearack · Apr 2, 2008

"Let’s say there’s positive gravity and negative gravity like magnets.  If we could manipulate gravity like magnets we can repel like gravity away from each other and vice versa couldn’t we?"  In a word 'no'.  Negative gravity would require negative mass and, as far as I know, there is nothing in physics that would allow for such a thing other than hypothetical 'exotic' matter.  However, should some type of exotic matter be discovered (anyting's possible, right?), you would still need to build a highway of sorts of normal/exotic matter structures in order to push/pull your craft to its destination.  What an enourmous project that would be. Something similar to the Large Hadron Collider on a galactic scale.Isn't gravity and mass just another form of matter.  Wouldn't matter and antimatter get the proposed results?  Granted, I know we can only produce antimatter in finite proportions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

origin · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wouldn't matter and antimatter get the proposed results?  Granted, I know we can only produce antimatter in finite proportions. Posted by bearack</DIV>Good question, but unfortunately the answer is no.  Anti-matter is sort of an unfortuante term because it is not the opposite of matter.  Each particle has an anti-particle.  The differences are in the spin, charge and the like.  Both normal particles and anti-particles behave the same gravitationally.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bearack · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Good question, but unfortunately the answer is no.  Anti-matter is sort of an unfortuante term because it is not the opposite of matter.  Each particle has an anti-particle.  The differences are in the spin, charge and the like.  Both normal particles and anti-particles behave the same gravitationally.  Posted by origin</DIV> Isn't anti-matter used to get engery from matter though?  At least that is my limited understanding of E=mc^2 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

tdmikey · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Pull or puch (and how do you pull with .0000000001 G from another galaxy) as your speed approaches c, your mass increases to infinity. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>  What if you are not pulling or pushing via another galaxy but the gravity within/behind you at 1000 - 2 feet?  Decreasing as you accelerate via pushing or increasing associated with pulling.  Or how about both, pulling from in front and pushing from behind.  That would be the most “efficient” way. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>. . . I don't think it really matters whether you are pushing or pulling.  The energy requirements are the same.  The only question is whether pushing or pulling will provide you that energy more efficiently.  Posted by CalliArcale</DIV> When using gravity does energy really matter (no pun intended) Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Agreed, and the more sertious point is that we have the technology to push now, we do not have the technology to pull, other yhan very gently. Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> We had feet, and shoes were created, we had legs and the wheel was created, we had carriages and cars were created.  We have always had the idea that we had to push something to make it go but if you notice in everyday walking you pull your body to the forward position while pushing at the same time.  I’m just trying to keep an open mind about how things can be changed.    Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Let’s say there’s positive gravity and negative gravity like magnets.  If we could manipulate gravity like magnets we can repel like gravity away from each other and vice versa couldn’t we?" In a word 'no'.  Negative gravity would require negative mass and, as far as I know, there is nothing in physics that would allow for such a thing other than hypothetical 'exotic' matter.  However, should some type of exotic matter be discovered (anyting's possible, right?), you would still need to build a highway of sorts of normal/exotic matter structures in order to push/pull your craft to its destination. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Why would negative gravity require negative mass when to my understanding gravity is not mass?  My opinion is that gravity is energy, and gravity is an associate of mass.  What keeps protons neutrons and electrons together?  What keeps two stars rotating around each other?  Gravity I would think. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Hasn’t it been said that having a gravitational shield around a spacecraft provide it with a shield to dangerous particles and radiation and such?  Wouldn’t that be another reason to looking into gravitational propulsion/repulsion?"   Not sure what you mean by 'gravitatioinal shield'.  A shield that blocks the force of gravity?  If it were possible, a gravitational shield would only be effective when in a gravity well.  Might be useful for launches into space, but you wouldn't run into the need for a gravity shield during interstellar travel too often. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Like a force field of some sort to push micro-meteorites away, harmful radiation and other mishaps of space.  I think a “gravitational shield” could do this. Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Humor me on gravity for a moment.  My opinion that anything with mass has a gravitational force associated with it.  Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel).  The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity).  I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity).    Can I go so far as to say energy equals gravity?  Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure.  Everything is made up of “star stuff.”  Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can.  Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time." I don't believe an object's electrical charge or spin has anything to do with gravity.  Gravity is a consequence of the total mass of the object.  Not really clear on what you are saying here.  I'm not sure you can consider gravity to be energy. Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Picture this if you will, if we were to find out gravity’s charge or spin couldn’t we counter charge or counter spin to get the reverse affects of gravity in order to repel or attract?  I don’t think that we have to (or maybe we do) counter the objects gravity in order to counter it, but the gravity affect itself.  If we depend on the objects gravity then we are limiting ourselves to local objects (stars planets).  If we counter gravity itself then we can see interstellar travel.What would you consider gravity if it cannot be mass?  Wouldn’t you say everything in the universe has energy associated with it?  If everything is made up of particles then it has energy associated with it, correct?  Not as much as humans or stars but still some form of energy.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Force equals mass times acceleration. It makes absolutely no difference whether you are pushing or pulling. There actually IS a gravitational force that repels. Studies of supernova brightness at extreme distances has shown that they are farther away than they should be. There is something that is pushing, although extremely weak and evident only over vast distances. Something we will not see detected in lab experiments in our lifetime.One thing you can count on. Even if we develop anti gravity, there is absolutely no way that it might be used to create a machine to produce free energy. Free energy never has existed, does not exist and never will exist. You can take all of those "Gas Savers" and "Vortex Machines" and "Zero Point Energizers" and toss them in the river. It is an absolutely indisputable first law of the universe that: "You can't get something for nothing." And not only that, "You can't even break even!" Every single energy conversion process produces unwanted heat through friction. Unless it is heat you are after, no process is 100% efficient. Posted by billslugg</DIV>We need to figure out how the gravitational force that repels operates.  I wasn’t referring to getting free energy out of nothing.  The closed mindedness of this society is what is bringing us down.  Don’t you get light for nothing?  Cant you convert light to energy?  Air for nothing?  There is plenty of stuff we take for granted that is “nothing.”It maybe a hoax or whatever it is but what about the “element 115”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_115 that I have been reading about 100% mass to energy.  I know the probability of this isn’t true, but who really knows?  I wish I had more training in this sort of thing but I think that it may taint my mind if I knew.  I’m the guy on the outside of the box looking in trying to think outside the box.Thinking about your free energy concept, what if we were to take two positive or two negative “objects” and put them into a continuous spin, and the spinning object creates energy?  Could that possibly work?  I don’t know.  I just have a ton of ideas every time I think about stuff.  And my passion right now is in space.Mr. Slugg.  Negative emotions has no perks in this discussion.  If you want to knock me down then by all means PM me.  I am just letting my thoughts and ideas out of the bag.  If you don’t like my ideas then please read elsewhere.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel)."Notice in the equation that there are no electrical or magnetic terms.  This means that the electrical / magnetic properties have nothing to do with gravity.  Posted by origin</DIV>I may not know every detail in physics but I beg to differ as everything has energy (electrical whether miniscule or not) associated with it.  Why do plants in the shade of your house grow towards the light from the window.  It is attracted (somehow) to the energy of light.  Whether it is the plants chemistry or lights property I don’t know.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity)."Correct.  Increase either (or both) m1 or m2 and the force of gravity will increase.  Except the only way that gravity could repel would be if m1 or m2 were negative.  This is not possible because that would be a negative mass. </DIV>I don’t see gravity as being mass.  I see it as being associated with mass but not mass itself.  I guess I should have worded my original statement better.  I apologize for that.Another idea I just thought about, if you will.  Why are the planets aligned the way they are?  The suns gravity is the strongest force locally.  Within the inner planets Mercury has a miniscule gravitational field.  The suns gravity keeps it at this distance due to the suns gravity being repelled by Mercury’s gravity.  As the planets gets bigger, the more distance the planet is to repel from the sun.  Mars is an exception, gravity and size is smaller and it should be closer than Venus.  Maybe it was hit by a huge meteor or Earth (that created the moon) taking away from Mars initial size.  Who knows?  Past Jupiter and Saturn the planets are being held by only the Suns gravity with very minimal repulsion.Whacky idea I know but oh well.  Was fun thinking about it.  Back to my responses.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity)."Spin has nothing to do with gravity.  The sun's gravity has very little to do with the spin of the planets.  If you mean the orbit of the planets this is a consequence of gravity not cause of gravity.   Posted by origin</DIV> I’m sorry didn’t actually mean the planets spin but the orbit of the planets.  Thank you for clarifying that for me.But, and there’s that but due to me thinking.  Do you think it might?  The closer the object (lit side of earth) is to the sun that piece is being pulled more than the back side of the earth creating the spin effect?  Due to earths orbit and the suns gravity, there’s a pull on some part of Earth greater than other parts.  Could this create the “spin effect?” Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure."Everything is not pure energy.  Sure E=mc^2, but using that logic I could equally say that everthing in the universe is pure mass.... Posted by origin</DIV>What if everything is pure or negative mass?  Even the invisible stuff.   What if space was negative mass trying to find substance to fill itself (vacuum) and we created an object that will allow space to absorb it in one piece?  A continuous process that will allow us to travel like light.  Back to the responses.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Everything is made up of “star stuff.”Everthing is not made up of star stuff.  The most common element in the universe appears to be hydrogen which was created shortly after the big bang and was not created by stars.  Posted by origin</DIV>Is this fact?  Stars are known to make up a lot of different things, hydrogen maybe being one of them.Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can."Neither we nor a magnet can repel or attract energy.  A magnet has a magnetic field which affects materials not energy.  A magnetic field can also affect posively or negatively charged particles.    Posted by origin</DIV> Would this also apply to static electricity?Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>"Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time.  I know I may sound like a nutjob but hey, I thought I would throw the idea out there even though it was probably brought up before me.  But I didn’t see the discussion so its new to me.  Lend me your thoughts SDC. Mike Posted by tdmikeyYou don't sound like a nut job, you are asking some interesting questions.  Keep asking.  I think if we could somehow manipulate gravity through higgs particles or the higgs field (if they do in fact exist) or who knows what, it would be great.  It would make space travel a heck of a lot easier, because rockets using propellents sure aren't going to get us very far. Posted by origin</DIV> Thanks.  Hope my mind never stops working.  Propellants will run out eventually so we need to think beyond that.Mike <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window." "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

derekmcd · Apr 2, 2008

I don't have time to tackle all your questions and comments at the moment.  I'll revisit them a bit later.Having only read through it briefly, I can tell you that before you start thinking outside the box, you need to do some research to understand what is going on inside box.  I don't mean that in any derogatory fashion, but some of your questions and comments shows some lack of understanding of some basic physics.There's nothing wrong with that... the best way to learn is to ask questions and also to question what is established.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't have time to tackle all your questions and comments at the moment.  I'll revisit them a bit later.Having only read through it briefly, I can tell you that before you start thinking outside the box, you need to do some research to understand what is going on inside box.  I don't mean that in any derogatory fashion, but some of your questions and comments shows some lack of understanding of some basic physics.There's nothing wrong with that... the best way to learn is to ask questions and also to question what is established.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV>Along those lines, you should do a search on orbits. You really need to beef up your understanding of how they work. It's not at all as you appear to think.There are a few threads in this forum that discuss that which can start your education. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

tdmikey · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't have time to tackle all your questions and comments at the moment.  I'll revisit them a bit later.Having only read through it briefly, I can tell you that before you start thinking outside the box, you need to do some research to understand what is going on inside box.  I don't mean that in any derogatory fashion, but some of your questions and comments shows some lack of understanding of some basic physics.There's nothing wrong with that... the best way to learn is to ask questions and also to question what is established.  Posted by derekmcd</DIV>I appreciate it.  You are correct in my lack of instruction to basic physics.  I dont want to go into learning the basics of physics for fear that I will be taught what was established and that I have not "learnt it through my own brainpower."  What if 3/4ths of physics is wrong.  All that I ask is that readers actually think about the questions I pose before giving me the textbook answer and reply.  I read each question like it was the first time I have read or heard of it.  People often think 1 + 1 = 2.  Collective conciousness also says we live in a 3-d universe but intellect says we dont.  Open your eyes, open your mind to everything.Mike <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window." "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I appreciate it.  You are correct in my lack of instruction to basic physics.  I dont want to go into learning the basics of physics for fear that I will be taught what was established and that I have not "learnt it through my own brainpower."  What if 3/4ths of physics is wrong.  All that I ask is that readers actually think about the questions I pose before giving me the textbook answer and reply.  I read each question like it was the first time I have read or heard of it.  People often think 1 + 1 = 2.  Collective conciousness also says we live in a 3-d universe but intellect says we dont.  Open your eyes, open your mind to everything.Mike Posted by tdmikey</DIV>See the thing is, 1+1 IS 2.And you, without bothering to understand the reasons why that is correct, ar proposing that because you don't understand it 1+1 = 3.3/4 of physics is NOT wrong, almost all of it is right. Maybe not all, I'll grant you that, but if you can't be bothered to even learn what that physics says, it makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation with you. If you can make things up whenever you want, we really won't accomplish much That's why we are encouraging you to put in at least some effort to understand what you are saying, before you say everything we know is wrong.Hope that comes across OK, I'm not putting you down in any way, but you have to put SOME effort in or this will be pointless.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

tdmikey · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See the thing is, 1+1 IS 2.And you, without bothering to understand the reasons why that is correct, ar proposing that because you don't understand it 1+1 = 3.3/4 of physics is NOT wrong, almost all of it is right. Maybe not all, I'll grant you that, but if you can't be bothered to even learn what that physics says, it makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation with you. If you can make things up whenever you want, we really won't accomplish much That's why we are encouraging you to put in at least some effort to understand what you are saying, before you say everything we know is wrong.Hope that comes across OK, I'm not putting you down in any way, but you have to put SOME effort in or this will be pointless.Wayne Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> I do understand that 1+1 is 2.  As of your recommendation I have been reading up on Keplers Law reguarding planetary motion.  When I said 3/4ths of physics is wrong I was just being facetious.  Do you think that if I didnt want to be bothered I would ask the question?  I am more than willing to learn everything I can to help in some way.  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "But you cant stop nothing, if you got no control, of the thoughts in your mind, that you kept and you know. You dont know nothing, that you didnt need to know, the wisdom's in the trees, not the glass window." "Breakdown" by Jack Johnson </div>

bearack · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>See the thing is, 1+1 IS 2.And you, without bothering to understand the reasons why that is correct, ar proposing that because you don't understand it 1+1 = 3.3/4 of physics is NOT wrong, almost all of it is right. Maybe not all, I'll grant you that, but if you can't be bothered to even learn what that physics says, it makes it very hard to have an intelligent conversation with you. If you can make things up whenever you want, we really won't accomplish much That's why we are encouraging you to put in at least some effort to understand what you are saying, before you say everything we know is wrong.Hope that comes across OK, I'm not putting you down in any way, but you have to put SOME effort in or this will be pointless.Wayne Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV> Oh, Wayne.  You must be a professor, because you absolutely have the attitude of one <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-sealed.gif" border="0" alt="Sealed" title="Sealed" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/14/06322a8d-f18d-4ab1-8ea7-150275a4cb53.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I do understand that 1+1 is 2.  As of your recommendation I have been reading up on Keplers Law reguarding planetary motion.  When I said 3/4ths of physics is wrong I was just being facetious.  Do you think that if I didnt want to be bothered I would ask the question?  I am more than willing to learn everything I can to help in some way.  Posted by tdmikey</DIV>OK, that's fine. It's a fine line between being facetious and being a troll. Glad to know you are coming down on the smart side

I think you will find we will be happy to work with you and answer your questions then! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

MeteorWayne · Apr 2, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Oh, Wayne.  You must be a professor, because you absolutely have the attitude of one Posted by bearack</DIV> I don't know if that's good or bad.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-undecided.gif" border="0" alt="Undecided" title="Undecided" />In any case, I do teach some adult education classes on astronomy. Also sometimes kids as young as first grade. I adjust the content to fit the audience. I also teach the public on many nights at the NJAA. I love sharing what I have learned. One thing about me, if I don't know the answer, I'll say so, and research the answer for the future.The next "Astronomy for Everyone" class at the NJAA has about twice the normal complement, so I'm really looking forward  to it. The other speaker that night is a good friend; we intillectually battle over the Pluto question and get great pleasure out of it.Even though he's wrong <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />A teacher friend busts my chops pretty regularly trying to push me into the teaching profession. I'd have to be darn good to compete with what she accomplishes at the local high school.MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

drwayne · Apr 2, 2008

As an aside - Dr. Robert Goddard worked for a time under the assumption that having the engines at the front end of the rocket made for a more stable system, and tried very hard to make that work, despite the difficulty of plumbing and operation etc.Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

billslugg · Apr 2, 2008

tdmikeyI apologize for going negative on you about free energy. What we are talking about is any violation of the second law of thermodynamics. It is not "free sunshine". Yes, sunshine is "free" in that you do not have to pay for it, but there was some fuel burned in the sun to create the sunshine. I am talking about machines that claim to create energy out of nothing. It can not be done. The laws of physics are self consistent, and have been rigorously tested. They should not be dismissed lightly. The second law is pretty sacred. Heat flows from hot to cold. Balls roll down hill. The entropy of any closed sytem increases. Read up on it and understand it and the folks here will be happy to answer your questions.Bill  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

cosmictraveler · Apr 2, 2008

Why not just try to understand how to create a worm hole by figuring out a new type of physics that would allow us to do so. Then all we would need is a "star gate" type of device to get us to wherever we want to go without pushing or pulling! <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-cool.gif" border="0" alt="Cool" title="Cool" />   <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph </div>

derekmcd · Apr 2, 2008

"What if you are not pulling or pushing via another galaxy but the gravity within/behind you at 1000 - 2 feet?  Decreasing as you accelerate via pushing or increasing associated with pulling.  Or how about both, pulling from in front and pushing from behind.  That would be the most “efficient” way." I'm not exactly clear on what your are promoting here.  What type of propulsion are you proposing and for what purpose?  Sounds similar to how a Maglev train works via electromagnetism.  Please elaborate. "When using gravity does energy really matter (no pun intended)"   Not sure I understand to what context this question applies to?  Again... please elaborate.  "We had feet, and shoes were created, we had legs and the wheel was created, we had carriages and cars were created.  We have always had the idea that we had to push something to make it go but if you notice in everyday walking you pull your body to the forward position while pushing at the same time.  I’m just trying to keep an open mind about how things can be changed."  I think your front foot is used more for balance than pulling you forward.  The back foot pushes creating momentum.  Besides, walking is really inefficient... that's why it's called exercise <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" />.Keeping an open mind is good, but also realize that there are limits to what physics will allow.  I'll give you, though, the fact we have yet to come close to reaching those limits, but physicists do have a pretty good concepts as to what those limits might be. "Why would negative gravity require negative mass when to my understanding gravity is not mass?  My opinion is that gravity is energy, and gravity is an associate of mass."  Gravity is, of course, not mass... nor is it, in technical terms, a force.  Gravity is a consequence of mass.  A massive object warps the space around it.  There is no know force carrying particle that physically interacts between two objects.  An object traveling through the gravity well of another object will follow precisely predictable geodesics through spacetime.  The more mass, the higher the positive curvature.  How do you propose mass could warp space in the opposite direction, causing the geodesic path around an object to curve away from it?  You would need an object with negative mass to warp space in the opposite direction. "What keeps protons neutrons and electrons together?  What keeps two stars rotating around each other?  Gravity I would think."  Not gravity.  Gravity is the weakest of the four forces at this level.  It might be the dominant 'force' in the universe, but at the quantum level, it is statistically insignificant.  The strong nuclear force (the force carrying particle being Mesons) is what keeps protons and neutrons together.The electron is an elementary particle... there is nothing that holds it together as it can't be broken down to anything smaller.  Referring to it as a particle is actually misleading.  It is not like a little negatively charged sphere orbiting a nucleus.  An electron 'exists' around a nucleus only in states of energy.   Beyond that, I really can't explain it... i yield to someone more knowledgeable than me.  Electron 'orbits' and the states they exist in are beyond me.Binary stars, on the other hand, are bound by gravity.  They orbit about a barycentre which is the center of their combined mass. (cut n paste the following to maintain context): Replying to: <div class="Discussion_PostQuote">"Hasn’t it been said that having a gravitational shield around a spacecraft provide it with a shield to dangerous particles and radiation and such?  Wouldn’t that be another reason to looking into gravitational propulsion/repulsion?"   </div>Not sure what you mean by 'gravitatioinal shield'.  A shield that blocks the force of gravity?  If it were possible, a gravitational shield would only be effective when in a gravity well.  Might be useful for launches into space, but you wouldn't run into the need for a gravity shield during interstellar travel too often. Posted by derekmcd"Like a force field of some sort to push micro-meteorites away, harmful radiation and other mishaps of space.  I think a “gravitational shield” could do this."Again, as far as I know, there is nothing known in physics that would allow for anti-gravity (dark energy not inclusive).  They often say science fiction becomes science fact, but I think in this case, that's beyond pushing the limits.  I think any type of shield, whether it is anti-gravy or simply shield you from the effect of gravity, would violate some fundamental conservation laws that are the very cornerstone of physics. "Picture this if you will, if we were to find out gravity’s charge or spin couldn’t we counter charge or counter spin to get the reverse affects of gravity in order to repel or attract?" You're assuming that gravity has a force carrying particle associated with it.  If (a big if) it does, that particle (graviton) would have no mass or charge.  The spin of a particle is not the particle spinning about an axis.  It is something intrinsic to that particle that can not be altered.  Again... being the layman that I am, I have to yield to someone else to explain spin. "Why do plants in the shade of your house grow towards the light from the window.  It is attracted (somehow) to the energy of light.  Whether it is the plants chemistry or lights property I don’t know." Photosynthesis... http://biology.clc.uc.edu/Courses/bio104/photosyn.htm "Why are the planets aligned the way they are?" Conservation of angular momentum from the original gas cloud that we formed from.  As the gas cloud begins to coalesce, any spin from the original clould is maintained.  Think of an ice skater spinning with his/her arm out and pulling them in.  As the skater pulls the arms in, they spin faster.  After the star forms in this fashion, the leftover gas and dust can form planets.  The distribution of the remaining gas and dust determines the size of the planets and location.  And with luck, they fall into a stable orbit around their star.  "The suns gravity is the strongest force locally.  Within the inner planets Mercury has a miniscule gravitational field.  The suns gravity keeps it at this distance due to the suns gravity being repelled by Mercury’s gravity.  As the planets gets bigger, the more distance the planet is to repel from the sun.  Mars is an exception, gravity and size is smaller and it should be closer than Venus.  Maybe it was hit by a huge meteor or Earth (that created the moon) taking away from Mars initial size.  Who knows?  Past Jupiter and Saturn the planets are being held by only the Suns gravity with very minimal repulsion.Whacky idea I know but oh well.  Was fun thinking about it."   Whacky indeed... glad you had fun, but not even close <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-laughing.gif" border="0" alt="Laughing" title="Laughing" /> "The closer the object (lit side of earth) is to the sun that piece is being pulled more than the back side of the earth creating the spin effect?  Due to earths orbit and the suns gravity, there’s a pull on some part of Earth greater than other parts.  Could this create the “spin effect?”" No.  The earth's spin about its axis is due to angular momentum from its formation as I mentioned above.  However, you are on the right path here, just opposite of what you state.Tidal effect from the moon and sun are actually slowing the earth rotation.  Tidal forces from the moon create a bulge on the side of the earth facing the moon.  Due to the earth spin (rotation), that bulge is always a little ahead of the moon... consequently, the gravity of the moon 'pulls' on this bulge slowing the earth's rotation down.  This is what caused the moon to have the same side facing the earth.  Eventually, the earth will undergo the same tidal lock. The conservation of angular momentum is maintained by the earth transferring it's momentum to the moon via its orbital velocity causing the moon to speed up and recede in distance from the earth.    <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

qso1 · Apr 2, 2008

Wouldn’t it seem to use less energy to pull something rather than pushing an object to C and beyond.The others here have covered the reasons we push rather than pull as we know it today. Since we really don't know what tomorrows discoveries may bring, we might one day find that it is more economical to pull rather than push.  I guess this is a harder question than I think due to the fact that I am thinking about defying gravity (away from earth) or manipulating it (pull another galaxy towards the craft).I lean towards some sort of gravitational manipulation myself tho I wouldn't begin to be able to explain how it might be done. Just that 100-200 years from now, it might be done. Shouldn’t gravity be on physicists’ number #1 priority to figure out?  I know we don’t have a universal theory for gravity but shouldn’t we figure it out.I'm sure thats being done to some level. A level depending on the priority and available budgets. Sorry I have read too many “UFO articles” the past 2 weeks but pulling an object to you to go as fast or faster than c seems plausible.If your concerned about reading too many UFO articles, you can balance that with more hard science reading. Let’s say there’s positive gravity and negative gravity like magnets.  If we could manipulate gravity like magnets we can repel like gravity away from each other and vice versa couldn’t we?Cosmologists don't have a definitive answer to this. As yet, nobody I'm aware of has. Current physics does not have enough data to actually be able to show if gravity comes in both positive and negative forms. Cosmologists are still trying to answer precisely what gravity is. Hasn’t it been said that having a gravitational shield around a spacecraft provide it with a shield to dangerous particles and radiation and such?  Wouldn’t that be another reason to looking into gravitational propulsion/repulsion?In actual research on manned spaceflight, I know of nobody saying this. In theoretical or cosmological circles, maybe. In science fiction, probably yes. There are actually easier ways to provide protection from radiation and debris.But there is one reason to look at gravitational propulsion...I'd say just getting development of a vehicle that can go between 50-75% c alone would justify studying whether gravity can be manipulated rather than settling for something that would take 400 years to go to Alpha Centauri. Humor me on gravity for a moment.  My opinion that anything with mass has a gravitational force associated with it.  Whether it pulls or repels depends on it being electrically positive (pull), neutral, or negative (repel).  The more mass an object has the more gravity it attracts/repels (example Earths size/gravity compared to Mars size/gravity).The best I can possibly say is that we just don't know enough about gravity. I don’t know if spin has any relation to gravity but it seems so, (example planets spin to the Suns gravity).That is until they become tidally locked like the moon is pretty much tidally locked to earth and Venus and mercury seems almost that way towards the sun. Based on that, I'm not so sure a spin/gravity relationship has that much to do with it, but it might. Can I go so far as to say energy equals gravity?Yep, problem is, can you prove it?  Since to me everything in the universe is pure energy then sure.  Everything is made up of “star stuff.”Dont forget that which we call "Matter", that is, space is comprised of energy and matter. Can we attract and repel energy like a magnet?  Hopefully one of these days we can.  Once we figure out how to manipulate gravity then we can move onto folding the blanket of space-time.  I know I may sound like a nutjob but hey, I thought I would throw the idea out there even though it was probably brought up before me.As someone here mentioned, this is not so far from theoretical concepts such as wormholes but there again. We are a long long way from actually proving wormholes exist, much less being actually able to manipulate them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

origin · Apr 3, 2008

Replying to: <DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As an aside - Dr. Robert Goddard worked for a time under the assumption that having the engines at the front end of the rocket made for a more stable system, and tried very hard to make that work, despite the difficulty of plumbing and operation etc.Wayne Posted by drwayne</DIV>The American scientists asked Wernher Von Braun how the Germans were able to develope such advanced rockets, Wernher looked puzzled and replied, "By studing the work of Robert Goddard!".  <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Why are we so fascinated with pushing an object for acceleration?

tdmikey

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

CalliArcale

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

billslugg

Guest

origin

Guest

bearack

Guest

origin

Guest

bearack

Guest

tdmikey

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

tdmikey

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

tdmikey

Guest

bearack

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

drwayne

Guest

billslugg

Guest

cosmictraveler

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

qso1

Guest

origin

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page