Subject:
|
Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 13 Aug 2002 14:12:01 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
Adrian Egli <adr.egli@worldnet.att.NOSPAMnet>
|
Viewed:
|
65 times
|
| |
|
|
Isn't this a topic more tuned for lugnet.off-topic.geek? Just ask'n.
(X-posted it there anyhow)
Adrian
"Luke Ma" <Luke_Ma@brown.edu> wrote in message news:H0rqG5.n1v@lugnet.com...
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
|
| Let me be the resident geek again... (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
