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.

grwarp.gif

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 from
Nick Strobel’s Astronomy Notes.
Go to his site at www.astronomynotes.com
for the updated and corrected version.

~ by ogremkv on October 7, 2007.

10 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.
    Please contact me at vaclavpetracek@hotmail.com

  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).

    Of course, the point of this article is what is required to create an antigravity field.

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

Leave a Reply