## Antigravity = Antimass… or does it?

Today, I had one of those weird flashes of intuition that proves to me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that I am a geek. I was thinking about anti-gravity. Specifically, how could I make it and become richer than God. I’ll try to help out the non-science types as much as I can.

Einstein (the fuzzy, white haired genius himself) described gravity as the result of a mass sitting in space-time.  The mass bends space time like a bowling ball does sitting on a mattress.  The more mass, the more the bend.

Now, the concept is simple.  You fall toward the mass, just like a golf ball that is rolling along the mattress falls toward the bowling ball.  If you have enough speed, then you can escape the grip of the mass and get to a flat part of space (relatively flat as gravity affects everything, everywhere at a square of the distance between the two objects).

I know, I said that pretty fast, if you need more explanation, the website that I ‘borrowed’ the image from (link below) can help you out.

Now, to my stuff.  To create anti-gravity, you want the opposite effect from spacetime.  Instead of falling toward the object as in gravity, you want the object to ‘push’ you away.  The effect of spacetime must curve upward.

My original thought was that this would require a negative mass.  OK, now I have a problem with that.  I don’t want to get into quantum chromodynamics here, so I have an issue with negative mass.

However, theoretically, gravity also acts as a wave phenomenon.  The other three primary forces of the universe (electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear and Weak Nuclear forces) can be described as both particles and waves.  In fact, the ‘graviton’ has never been discovered and probably won’t be for quite a while.  The problem with gravity as a wave is two fold.

1) Waves transfer energy – does gravity actually do that or is the change in motion of objects affected by gravity merely a  byproduct of mass… in other words ‘Is gravity really a force or is it just a property of matter?’

2) We can’t find gravity waves.  Gravity waves are probably bad.  Imagine areas that move where the acceleration due to gravity suddenly changes from 10 m/s^2 to 100 m/s^2.  You suddenly weigh ten times as much as you do now.  Ick… human jelly.  The other problem with gravity as a wave is that gravity doesn’t really change, so we can’t create a gravity wave.  Now if Jupiter suddenly disappeared, we’d get some great information about the effects of gravity waves as the rest of the solar system reacted to the second largest mass in it vanishing.

Now for the solution.  Even with all those problems, I think we can still consider gravity a wave.  If you have two waves traveling toward each other you can have both constructive interference and destructive interference.  That is where the effects of the two waves amplify each other and where the effects of the two waves cancel each other out.  See this article on wiki for more.

With a wave, you have a baseline and movement of the wave both higher than the baseline and lower than the base line.  If gravity is a wave and we could create two point sources of mass, then we ought to be able to create a standing gravitational wave that produces enough of an effect to act as an anti-gravity field.

Think of it this way, a toy ducky is floating in a pool. That’s the baseline, the level of the water in the pool.  When one guy cannonballs the pool, he will create waves.  Those waves (effectively) raise and lower the height of the ducky.  The ducky will go higher than the baseline and lower than the baseline.  That distance high and low is what we call amplitude.

Our ducky is at rest again, this time two guys cannonball into the pool.  They jump in just such a way that the crests (the high points) of their waves both hit the ducky at the same time.  What happens?  The ducky goes twice as high as he did with one guy.   A second later (or less) the low points (the trough) of both waves hit the ducky, the poor ducky goes twice as far down as he did below.  In the ocean, this effect is called a rogue wave.

But how do we create mass you ask.  Einstein handled that one with E=mc^2.  E is energy and m is mass.  So with enough energy, we can create mass.  Scientists do it now… on a very very small scale.

If we could create several point masses in a circle, then the center of the circle could have an anti-gravity effect because of wave theory.

Please note: this material (except for the gravity image) is copyrighted 2007 by Kevin R. McCarthy. Any science done on this concept needs to have me involved… please!

#### Gravity Image was copied fromNick Strobel’s Astronomy Notes. Go to his site at www.astronomynotes.com for the updated and corrected version.

~ by OgreMkV on October 7, 2007.

### 29 Responses to “Antigravity = Antimass… or does it?”

1. I think basically your thoghts are in the right direction.
The only thing to correct is that you could see the picture a bit more clearly if you consider the gravity itself NOT as a wave, rather than the RESULT of ITS interference from all present sorces “spinning” in SO(4).

Yet can you simplify the picture if you think of it not as force, but the relative position of spinning objects in a time sliced snapshot of n-dimensional interference, where n = (1, 2, …).

Back to the physics, in that manner, the relative position of a single spinning object with the respect to the others can be controlled by changing its angular momentum. In fact, any spinning object is capable of this kind of positional control, the only question is how do I create an angular momentum, which is “strong” enough in order to talk about relatively measurable effects. But as far as I can imagine, many people who are certainly aware of what Tesla was doing back in 40ies may answer that question, but… do they want to?

2. Why spinning? If you’re trying to imply some aspect or property that’s new, then you need another verb. If you’re saying that things are actually spinning? Why?

Gravity is an acceleration imparted on a mass (hence a ‘force’) by another mass.

I can see some use for a relativistically spinning mass as you would be increasing the mass as its rotational velocity approached c, but we still have the problem of increasing the velocity quickly enough to generate a ‘gravity wave’.

I’m not sure I believe you that the relative position of one object can be changed by changing the angular momentum of another object.

Tesla was a very intelligent man, but he wasn’t what a lot of the conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was.

3. >Gravity is an acceleration imparted on a mass (hence a ‘force’) by another mass.
well, it is hard to argue with that statement, isn’t it? Especially if we do so having more than 300 years old Newton’s mechanics in a backpack. I certainly do not want to argue with that. I’m just making a point, that this kind of statement is EXACTLY what makes a so called “Noise effect”, which eventually prevents us from seeing what the gravity really is.

The acceleration of one mass toward another is what we see in our world. That is what we are tought to call ‘gravity’. And since according to the second Newton’s law there’s a direct relation between the acceleration and a term ‘force’ we call it a ‘gravitational force’.

I want to emphasize that this acceleration is NOT ‘gravity’, but the RESULT of it. Bear in mind that there’s a huge difference between this two notions. If you do so you may realise ( as you already did, bringing the waves into the picture) that behind a magic some more complicated phenomena might take place.

Einstein wasn’t actually the first who tried to look behind the scene. He succeeded because he took a geometrical approach and brought the time into the game. So, there’s no force anymore, there’s just a trajectory in a curved 4D-space-time (so called ‘geodesic’), which in our 3D does look like both masses tend to each other. The Einstein’s field equations state, that any mass-energy is capable of curving the coordinate system localy, and that seems to comply with experiments. There’s just one problem – they are ‘non-linear’, And oh… one big mystery is still left behind – the Mass.

The famous relation between the mass and energy is just like the Newton’s law. It gives you the way to calculate, but doesn’t show the picture.

>Why spinning?
Let me ask you something. You draw a very delicious picture manipulating with the terms of wave theory. 🙂 I like it very much, but… have you ever thought of what wave is? I mean not as solution to a famous differential equation, but physically… what is it, something repeatedly goes up and down…??

4. >Tesla was a very intelligent man, but he wasn’t what a lot of the conspiracy theorists seem to believe he was.
🙂 Well, he definitely wasn’t one of my friends around, so it’s kind of difficult to make any assumptions concerning what he was and what he wasn’t. It is just hard to think that a man who brought a rotating magnetic field into the world and certainly was aware of Einstein’s work could not come up with the idea to play with the Einstein’s assumptions experimentally. Don’t you think?

5. >I can see some use for a relativistically spinning mass as you would be increasing the mass as its rotational velocity approached c, but we still have the problem of increasing the velocity quickly enough to generate a ‘gravity wave’.

I’m not sure the usage of term ‘gravity wave’ is a right thing in this context. ‘Gravity wave’ term appeared in general realtivity a as result of a solution to Einstein’s field equations in the case of ’empty vacuum’, i.e. without presence of any mass-energy or in terms of tensor analysis when energy-momentum tensor is an identity matrix. In this case field equations do look like an ordinary wave equations which results to oscillatory solutions for the metric tensor, i.e. ‘gravity wave’.

What you describe probably has nothing to do with the gravity waves in terms of general relativity. What you talking about is probably a ‘frame-dragging’. It is a high order effect that do takes place in general relativity under certain conditions.

6. Maybe the use of magnets could help in soem way… I’m not very involved in advanced science so my knowledge on the field is rather weak but from what I read I think that the use of magnets in a antigravti field would be need, although I’m not too sure because of my limited knowledge. I hope my comment was at least a little helpful. T.T.F.N. ^_^

7. So who is at the forefront of anti-mass research? This is the obvious way to go instead of rockets to boost payloads and also as a “controlled” re-entry/landing assist avenue. This is the quantum leap needed to make humans a real space faring species.

8. I think you all wrong on gravity. Einstein was close with his theory but in reality the gravity is somethin else. It is a deformation of a none-known space created by a mass which does not belong to that space. The bigger mass inserted into that space the bigger 3D deformation of a space around it. Imagine to insert something into a rubber.
So when you insert another mass into that space next to the first mass, it will also create its own local deformation and then two masses on a near side to each other compensate that deformation and on the far side to each other multiply that deformation and therefore create the force to pull the smaller mass object to a bigger mass object.
This is Vaclav Petracek theory of gravity. I can give a better explanation and logical proves to my theory.

9. actually, that sounds pretty much exactly like Einsteinian gravity.

The mass in a rubber sheet is just a metaphor for the action of gravitons (Presumably).

10. I could be wrong (doubtful) but I believe that antimass in the sixth dimension is the source of Higgs boson. Damned unnerving, that.

11. A possibility? (In someways similar to what Vaclav is saying) Space-Time is actually the anti-mass. It is acting equally on mass. Mass has nothing to do with spin or movement. Increased mass or distance increases g so the spin is actually an inertial effect. Mass itself disturbs the spacetime/od/field. but magnetism, light, etc affect it either as particles or waves. The water example is best because the field allows for distubance in both ways (a single water molecule or a wave of them). The single h2o molecule traveling faster than the others around it would cause a disturbance. If the spacetime field is full of energy or anti-energy, anti-mass, etc then there is no such thing in this universe as a vacuum; therefore Newton is a bit wrong on his first law, as it would describe merely his observation of an object (mass) moving in a “vacuum” at a constant speed but he would be missing the why. The moving object is disturbing the spacetime field and the field is self-correcting thus propelling the object. No object can travel ad infinitum on its stored kinetic energy unless that energy was infinite and that would be perpetual motion. It must expend energy to move, hence a non-moving object never moves. (resistance would only act against it… the lack of resistance doesn’t provide propulsion!) This means that if his first law is right, it contradicts his 3rd law 🙂 as the moving object would expend energy but receive “free” energy from nothing (create it). I believe his 3rd law is right so it means his 1st isn’t a law but an observation. Looking at Tesla and what others like DePalma, et al had/have been doing/writing you’ll see some information (right or wrong) about what the next big advancement in physics might be; a better understanding of what inertia truly is and how it plays in the story of the visible and invisible universe.

12. wow a word ,antimass just flashed in my mind,and m pleased to see people already working on it

13. right, im really fascinated by this area, and i dont have alot of physics knowledge, im only 18 and ive just finished my a-level course. but everything ive been reading about an expanding universe that is infact accelerating apart, dark matter and dark energy all seems to me as if it could be antimass that is causing this to happen. Generally forces can attract and repel, take magentism and electrostatic. Why can’t gravity have a similar effect on mass? It makes sense to me that if mass attracts mass, then antimass repels mass. It’s just an idea that i’ve pulled together with what i know, wouldn’t mind hearing some opinions on it because im almost definate you’re all going to be able to pick it apart! 🙂

14. isn’t it weird that if you push on antimass (assuming it has an electric charge with negitive charge on the outside) that it would come towards you?

also, in the very center of that mass ring, I think all teh attraction would cancel out

given:a perfectly circular ring of mass
for every point of mass there is another point of mass so that if there were a mass in the middle the forces would cancel each other out.

but if you were to view it in a bent space sence, I think the center would actually attract things if the thing was less than half the radius from the center

and I’m pretty sure this has been thought of before, but still, nice post, and you did a good job explaining it.

• whoops! actually I’m not sure it would attract things to the center, but if something was in the exact middle I don’t think there would be any net force.

if it’s not in the exact middle I guess things would have negative potential energy in the direction of towards the center…(they would be pulled towards the ring)

can this be thought of as negative mass? can it create negative mass?

also, I just realized the end of my last post sounded rude, sorry about that.

15. i have had thes same thoughs and i know its possible. if you could put a fusion reactor in a flying sosor type of craft and jenorate enough energy to create a opposite gravitational force but just enough to get you at least a couple hunderd feet off the ground then that would be a brakthrough. yet it fequires alot of energy. right me back on facebook if you would like to talk more on this subject.

16. As we do not know what causes gravity or mass but only have the equations and knowledge to study there effect got me wondering. What if mass and gravity are the same thing and that mass is just energy in a different state and has attraction to mass similar to an electron. Could the particle that gives us mass also be gravity itself as in the graviton.

If this were the case and in my very simplistic model of the world then anti gravity would be the same as anti mass, and possibly that anti mass is merely a negatively charged graviton. That would mean that if you were to create an anti mass it would be instantly thrown out of our galaxy as it is repelled from the mass all around us. Possibly similar to magnets anti attraction.

So could mass and the graviton be the same thing? And could there be a repulsion or anti gravity effect between the two types of masses….

17. but… i’m not a scientist, i’m just trying to get this in my head. what kind of matter would be used to create anti-gravity? and if the plane (matress) had to be pulled upward, wouldn’t that affect the other dimensions, like time and light?

18. What would happen if anti-gravity and gravity cancel out in a black hole? would they create a gap or leak in the black hole?

19. “as gravity affects everything, everywhere at a square of the distance between the two objects”

Did you mean: gravity affects as a reciprocal of the distance squared? 🙂

20. Think I read somewhere that negative mass (if it exists) would not necessarily behave the way one might predict in creating ant-gravity effects. So, (if recall correctly), a small amount of negative mass near the earth’s gravitational field would be attracted, instead of repelled.( by the earth’s gravity. However, strangely enough, the earth would be repelled by the presence of negative mass.

21. um….. andre, would you clarify? im only 13. please explain and dumb it down a little

22. this doesnt really relate to anything, its just a general question, but it involves anti gravity, sorta, so i wanna ask it. my question is- since dark matter has the same effects on matter as anitgravity, could dark energy exist in black holes? because i know that there is very strong gravity in black holes, and if there is dark energy in black holes, and dark energy acts as anti gravity, wouldnt they cancel out? wouldnt that create an area of no gravity? wouldnt it create an area in space in which nothing would be affected by anything? Although, that couldnt really be possible, could it? since their would be regular gravity in the other areas?

• First of all we need to understand what gravity is. What gravity stems.
Then we can think of something to act as anti gravity.
Perhaps to design some motor that could overcome gravity forces.
To my understanding gravity is a kind of force that act as a counter force to the matter in a space or field which existed before matter was created. It’s like matter is intruded in space of antimatter and deforms space of antimatter. the bigger matter in antimatter space the bigger deformation and expelling forces.

23. this is not really related to anti mass or antigravity, but it is related to regular gravity.

could the gravity of a black hole possibly cause it to collapse in on itself? my thinking is that if there was enough gravity to cause the star to collapse in on itself, then if the gravity in a black hole is so much greater, shouldnt the black hole eventually collapse in on itself? although, for me to say eventually would mean that there would have to be something preventing it from collapsing in on itself, wouldnt it? but, it that was true, what would that be? could it possibly be hawking radiation? yes, the amount of radiation would be small, but could it be enough to keep the black hole from collapsing in on itself? sorry if i sound slightly crazy… its been known to happen.

24. For waves to cancel each other out, for disruptive interference, one wave must drop below zero. This is not a random baseline, a complete lack of gravitational effect. The idea to use this interference for antigravity requires already having antigravity, in the form of a wave that drops below zero gravity, so that it can interfere with another gravity wave.

Also keep in mind that “mass” is both gravitational mass and inertial mass, which are always equal for everything ever tested but still nobody knows why they must be. The gravitational mass keeps a heavy truck from floating away while the inertial mass makes it hard to stop. An object in motion and all that. The real mind bender would be negative inertial mass. Would an object in motion want to stop, and once stopped would it want to be in motion again?

25. I’ve read that when black holes get to a small enough size( i dont remember the exact size) they supposedly explode. what causes this? why doesnt the black hole just shrink down to nothing?

26. Hey there Your main website runs up really slow
for my situation, I not really know who’s issue is that however