Subject: 
  | 
            Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
  | 
             
            Newsgroups: 
  | 
            lugnet.general, lugnet.space
  | 
             
            Date: 
  | 
            Sun, 11 Aug 2002 07:13:53 GMT
  | 
             
            Viewed: 
  | 
            51 times
  | 
              
     |      | 
             |       |  
      In article <H0LKzn.HuB@lugnet.com>, 
 "Tom Sciortino" <tsciorti@band.calpoly.edu> wrote: 
 
> "Matt Hein" <Pyrokid17@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:H0LJrn.DHy@lugnet.com... 
> <snip> 
> > Anti-gravity boosters? Well, I suppose that could be a reality too, 
> > but depending on the atmosphere, It might need a different design if 
> > it isn't to fly down like a rock. The Jedi Starship has a really odd 
> > design, and I'm not sure how it could fly (unless it has a really *big* 
> > anti-grav booster on the back) 
> <big snip> 
>  
> I don't know how others figure it, but my creations have internal antigrav 
> generators.  It's a very small device that can fit just about anywhere on 
> the spacecraft (though preferable at its center of mass).  Problem with 
> antigrav is that it has to be near a massive (ie, gravity-generating) object 
> in order to have something to repell against.  Antigrav is good for take off 
> and landing, but not interstellar flight.  That's why I figure all ships 
> need antigrav _and_ thrusters. 
>  
> My two cents and a small attempt to pull this back toward space... 
>  
>             -- Tom 
 
   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 . 
   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." However, this name is rather cumbersome, 
and "anti-gravity" sounds cool. Also, it allows one to name a device 
without having to explain its inner workings. 
 
-- 
Serve the righteous might of the Empire, citizen! 
http://www.geocities.com/stuttgartergunther/ 
 |  
       |  
           
   
        Message has 1 Reply:        |    | 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 (...)   (23 years ago, 13-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.space)   
   |         
        Message is in Reply To:
            |    | Re: Anti Grav (was Say it ain't so...)
  |  
  |   "Matt Hein" <Pyrokid17@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:H0LJrn.DHy@lugnet.com... <snip> (...) <big snip> I don't know how others figure it, but my creations have internal antigrav generators. It's a very small device that can fit just about (...)   (23 years ago, 9-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
           
         | 
        
  | 
      
 
   | 
           |