Subject:
|
Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 06:09:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2210 times
|
| |
|
|
Let me be the resident geek again...
> Actually, anti-gravity is a rather misleading term, for several
> reasons.
> First off, "anti-gravity" implies that you are utilizing the polar
> opposite of the force of gravity. Polar opposites of basic forces do not
> exist.
> Secondly, "anti-gravity" should be called "gravity-repulsion", since
> polar opposites of basic forces do not exist .
Well...in a sense they do. The current theory (particle-based theory
anyway) is that there is an exchanging particle for all the basic forces.
For electromagnetic forces, it's the photon. Don't misread that
though...the photon here is a virtual photon, not quite the same as the
photon of normal light. There are all sorts of exotic particles
(intermediary particles was the term if I remember correctly) that mediate
forces...W and Z's even I think. But the only theorized force particel we
haven't found is the graviton. Supposedly we can only observe/detect these
in action around areas of tremendous gravity...a binary black hole system
perhaps. Polar opposite of basic forces don't really exist because there
isn't an "anti-weak-nuclear-force" per se. However, a
manipulation/different manifestation of one force can be made to exist and
therefore be perceived as a negative version of the positive forces we see
everyday. Thus, anti-gravity is "wrong" in the most technical sense but
just about right for most people.
> Thirdly, since gravity is the weakest force, no one would build a
> machine that would pit gravity against gravity. Any so-called
> "anti-gravity" device would probably utilize electromagnetic propulsion.
> Thus, the most accurate name for this type of technology would be
> "electromagnetic-repulsion."
I don't think that's entirely true. Gravity is the weakest of the
fundamental forces but you forget to take into account the acting range of
the force. True, the rest of the unified forces (electro-weak and strong)
are orders of magnitude stronger than gravity but only at their effective
ranges....weak works on an atomic level and strong works at a nucleic level.
That really isn't feasibly for spaceships. Electromagnetic repulsion would
work for spaceships but only around magnetic fields. Around a planet, this
is fine and may someday be as good or if not better than gravitic
propulsion. But in outerspace, this is mostly useless. Why? Because in
the darkness of space, magnetic fields are pratically non existent. Gravity
will also be fairly weak, most likely, but not as sparse as electromagnetic
fields. Basically, gravity is weak but acts over ENORMOUS distances.
Electromagnetic has nothing on gravity in terms of effective range.
I think the lure of anti-grav is stronger than electromag repulsors stems
from the fact that 1) gravity is much more felt by the average person and
therefore the liberation of it would be that much more fantastic and 2)
anti-grav is exotic, untested, and only imagined so far whereas electromag
repulsion is used and tested, if not on an interstellar level.
Also, one final point, gravity is "cheaper". because of the acting ranges
of the two forces, there's no way to slingshot launched satellites by
manipulating and using planetary electromag fields. The problem of course
is that most objects aren't heavily charged one way or another so there's no
great amount of natural attraction or repulsion between the satellite and
the planet. Thus, no slingshot. However, NASA does routinely slingshot
satellites around the sun using gravity. This requires minimal energy but
yields maximum gain. Gravity is thus cheaper because it is intrinsic in
everything. The sun's got magnetic fields, but that's not what draws the
satellite or planets to it. It's the long-acting gravity. In this way,
gravity is more powerful than the other forces. Not too long ago, the
destiny of the universe was uncertain...many exper theorists thought that it
would be the force of gravity that would eventually overwhelm everything and
bring the universe back into a big crunch... Gravity is more powerful than
you might think :)
And hopefully we will have developed gravitics, as Asimov has termed it, one
day not too far in the future. But for now, I end my rant.
Luke
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
|
| (...) Actually, anti-gravity is a rather misleading term, for several reasons. First off, "anti-gravity" implies that you are utilizing the polar opposite of the force of gravity. Polar opposites of basic forces do not exist. Secondly, (...) (22 years ago, 11-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.space)
|
97 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
