Gravity/anti-Gravity

[Jay-qu]

I have watched many television programs about astro-physics and related topics, one analogy that frequently crops up is the grid like representation of gravity. They will normally show some sun or planet making a 'dent' in the fabric of space, drawing other objects towards them or trapped in orbits.

 

So my question is: This 'dent' in spacetime goes down in a direction, so is it possible to have a gravity in the opposite direction? like some sort of anti-gravity that may repel rather than attract...

(and if it exists what type of matter or conditions bring about this occurance?)

[lindagarrette]

I have watched many television programs about astro-physics and related topics, one analogy that frequently crops up is the grid like representation of gravity. They will normally show some sun or planet making a 'dent' in the fabric of space, drawing other objects towards them or trapped in orbits.

 

So my question is: This 'dent' in spacetime goes down in a direction, so is it possible to have a gravity in the opposite direction? like some sort of anti-gravity that may repel rather than attract...

(and if it exists what type of matter or conditions bring about this occurance?)

Only in science fiction.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Being just a representation of one theory of gravity, that it is an attracting force, one could posit the existence of its opposite.

 

However, it is my understanding that we have never been able to detect a gravity wave. Gravity measuring devices measure the change in the speed at which two objects are approaching each other, I believe, and so only infer a gravitational attraction.

 

There is also a theory that says gravity is an effect, which if true, would probably invalidate the grid to which you refer.

[infamous]

Being just a representation of one theory of gravity, that it is an attracting force, one could posit the existence of its opposite.

 

However, it is my understanding that we have never been able to detect a gravity wave. Gravity measuring devices measure the change in the speed at which two objects are approaching each other, I believe, and so only infer a gravitational attraction.

 

There is also a theory that says gravity is an effect, which if true, would probably invalidate the grid to which you refer.

 

Are we talking about aether ldsoftwaresteve, I just love the stuff....

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Not sure what you mean. One other theory is that gravity is an effect of expansion. Read "The Final Theory", by Mark McCutcheon. The first chapter is on the net.

[Buffy]

Not sure what you mean. One other theory is that gravity is an effect of expansion. Read "The Final Theory", by Mark McCutcheon. The first chapter is on the net.

Already a thread on this one 797. I like to characterize this as the "it doesn't suck, it blows" theory. Makes no sense at all, but there are lots of people who are fervent believers in this one.

 

Einstein's theory basically says that spacetime curves around large masses which is simplified visually from 4d to 3d projections (for us limited beings who can't move freely in 4 dimensions) as a wireframe showing a "downhill" that you "fall" into. Course its in a dimension we don't perceive well (time) so this is the best way to "understand" it visually.

 

This also implies that no, you can't make it go in the opposite direction unless you invert many of the basic parameters of physics, however, its just like coasting downhill versus pushing uphill, you can *go* in the opposite direction, but using a *different* force. Lots of interesting work in dark energy to see what impact it has on the measured amount of Einstein's cosmological constant that is counteracting gravity's desire to slow down the expansion of the Universe... "anti-gravity" effects could be gotten if we could figure out and harness dark energy. As Linda says though, this is getting into science fiction (which sometimes comes true!)....

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[OmegaX7]

;) Well Buffy, I've read most of your posts here and there already; this one however is in need of one "term" which I've not seen in any responses so far. I beleive your describing the "Swartzchild Geometry." What youv'e seen on paper and in diagrams can only assist you in imagining "SpaceTime." Gravity, being an electromagnetic field, as I'm sure you know, propogates in a manor similar to what youv'e seen when iron filaments are sprinkeled on a sheet of paper held above a magnet, and this works in four dimentions. ( imagin the effect if you could do it without the paper! ) Height, width, depth and time. I don't think you can make things work in reverse. ;) I'll have to think about this one some more. Are you able to conceptualize this in your mind? Thats important. I'd like to suggest a book by Gerrit L. Verschuur titled "Hidden Attraction - The History and Mystery of Magnetism." It's only about 250 pgs long. Everything boils down to energy. It's a good book.

L8R

"After all is said and done, Gravity Rules."

[Buffy]

;) Well Buffy, I've read most of your posts here and there already; this one however is in need of one "term" which I've not seen in any responses so far. I beleive your describing the "Swartzchild Geometry."

I try to stay away from big terms. They can scare the readers...

Gravity, being an electromagnetic field, as I'm sure you know, propogates in a manor similar to what youv'e seen when iron filaments are sprinkeled on a sheet of paper held above a magnet, and this works in four dimentions.

Whoa! If you've figured out how to unify gravity with electro-weak, we'd better notify the Nobel prize committee! You gonna publish your work here? The world wants to see it!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Tormod]

Gravity, being an electromagnetic field

 

AFAIK there is no known connection between gravity and electromagnetism. The unification of gravity with electromagnetism is, as Buffy points out, a Nobel prize kind of discovery and is currently out of reach.

[Eduffy80911]

I have made a connection between gravity, magnetism and charge in a model I call Dynamic Tensegrity at DynamicTensegrity.com. It first assumes that the 90% missing matter or dark matter is actually an aether composed of particles outside the range of human observational capacity (too small and/or too fast). Once you make this assumption and apply atmospheric dynamics and some tensegrity principals to the interaction of matter and aether, the motion of particles and objects in the cosmos suddenly makes sense.

[UncleAl]

Rubber sheet models of gravitation are flat out incorrect. Example: Take a rubber sheet stretched flat, horizontal to the ground. Draw a triangle upon the flat plane. The sum of that triangle's interior angles is 180 degees exactly. Euclid proved it.

 

Add a lead ball inside the triangle. The rubber sheet deforms, puckering around the lead ball, and the triangle's interior angles neck down. Now they sum to less than 180 degrees (a hyperbolic surface). If you did that with a triangle of light rays and the sun at the center, the sum of the interior angles real world would be more than 180 degrees (elliptic surface).

 

There is no way to shield gravitation, there is no way to reverse it. (You can balance it to zero - add a second Earth close in to counter the pull of the present one at one point. Maintaining the separation is left as an exercise for the alert reader). You can minimize gravitation by being in drag-free vacuum free fall (Minkowski space) - but that does not remove quadrupole tidal forces exerted by divergence of Earth's gravitational field. Tidal forces are minimized by being local - a sample volume of small spatial extent. If you are spatially big you hit the Roche limit and fragment from the tides.

 

Gravitation and the other three forces have never been unified. The closest folks have come is Kaluza-Klein treatments that add a fifth dimension to General Relativity. All such attempts have failed. M-theory seeks to unite all forces, but M-theory is 100% nonpredictive (cannot be empirically falsfied) and has some 10^300 acceptable vacuum solutions. That's no better than philosophy - and philosophy won't get you a working flush toilet.

[infamous]

I have made a connection between gravity, magnetism and charge in a model I call Dynamic Tensegrity at DynamicTensegrity.com. It first assumes that the 90% missing matter or dark matter is actually an aether composed of particles outside the range of human observational capacity (too small and/or too fast). Once you make this assumption and apply atmospheric dynamics and some tensegrity principals to the interaction of matter and aether, the motion of particles and objects in the cosmos suddenly makes sense.

 

Ah ha, we are talking about aether, and I'm lovin it.

[C1ay]

I have watched many television programs about astro-physics and related topics, one analogy that frequently crops up is the grid like representation of gravity. They will normally show some sun or planet making a 'dent' in the fabric of space, drawing other objects towards them or trapped in orbits.

 

So my question is: This 'dent' in spacetime goes down in a direction, so is it possible to have a gravity in the opposite direction? like some sort of anti-gravity that may repel rather than attract...

(and if it exists what type of matter or conditions bring about this occurance?)

Did you see this an StarTrek or Stargate-something-or-other. This is entertainment, not science.

[Jay-qu]

I dont like making assumptions.... and that is a big assumption.... but who knows, for all we know it could be right...

[Eduffy80911]

The assumption is based on the simple notion that there's no reason the size and velocity of particles should be limitted to human observational range. In fact, that would be quite a coincidence. It also makes gravity, magnetism and charge fairly easy to understand, with actual plain English definitions.

[OmegaX7]

Gravity, being an electromagnetic field

O.K., - - that "may" be pushing the theoriticle envelope a bit, but isn't that what is trying to be done now by greater minds than ours? It was an inadaquate attemp at visualizing the "Swortzchilde (spelling) Geometry." Concerning the "time" aspect, I'd have to find the right book to make any quotes, but I think that is prohibited through the decay of the "k" meson, or something like that. It somehow contrdicts the reversal or mirror image of itself. I'd definitly have to review that to go further. If there is even one type of particle in the universe that defies reversal, then a timeline or "arrow of time" is set at the point of creation. I wouldn't think any manipulation of time could be done on a local basis. It would most likely demand that the intire universe undergo the same transision.

L8R

"After all is said and done, Graviry Rules." :eek:

[maddog]

Gravity, being an electromagnetic field, as I'm sure you know, propogates in a manor similar to what youv'e seen when iron filaments are sprinkeled on a sheet of paper held above a magnet, and this works in four dimentions.

Omega,

 

I'm glad to see you called yourself on this one. Else I was going to take issue with you. As Uncle Al

said, the only working example to attempt this was the Kaluza-Klein model in 1915 by Kaluza and

improved upon by Klein in 1925. Einstein used this as a base to attempt a unified field theory a few

times before giving up on the model in the 30's. Basically by adding a spatial dimension was rolled

up (very small) to make 5-dimensions total could create the forces of Gravity and EM working together.

Eventually Einstein found some phenominological flaws that he abondoned it.

 

maddog