Trekmaster555
Ensign
How would Artifical and Anti Gravity work ? What are the theories behind it ?
How would Anti grav and Artificial Gravity work ?
- Thread starter Trekmaster555
- Start date
GodThingFormerly
A Different Kind of Asshole
If anybody knew how anti-grav really could work, they'd be in Stockholm collecting that $2million Nobel Prize....
We can't even really define gravity yet (other than a warp in space-time), let alone it's opposite.
We can't even really define gravity yet (other than a warp in space-time), let alone it's opposite.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
What gets me is this, gravity is whats keeping us on the surface of the Earth and what stops us from flying of as it spins at super speeds, a space shuttle heading into space has the luxury of still having inertia, much like when we jump off the ground the Earth doesnt suddenly fly away from us beneath our feet because of inertia, when we jump we're still travelling at the same speed as the Earth. So what happens to a ship when you activate inertial dampeners and anti-gravity whilst on the Earths surface ready to take off? wouldnt the Earth suddenly shoot beneath the ship at a speed up to 1,038 miles per hour? a building a couple of miles away would suddenly wack straight into the ship, and even if the ship was high in the sky the activation would cause 1,038 miles per hour atmospheric winds.
Amazingly enough (
), you've got a good point for once. The strength of gravity follows the inverse square law and gets weaker the further away you get. If a starship was simulating the earth's gravity inside somehow, it should effect the surrounding area (planet, whatever) with that gravity.We really have no idea how they simulate local effect only gravity on a starship in Trek. Some kind of cross interference, maybe a graviton particle they've figured out how to effectively neutralize outside of the confines of the ship? Or that can only exist inside the ship before moving out of our dimension? Who knows, they've never really explained it. The TNG guide attempts to, but really doesn't get into an details.
No, you wouldn't fly off, but if your weight went to zero you would behave like a helium baloon.
If you just canceled out gravity,. why wouldn't you still have that rotational velocity?
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
I didnt ask if we'd fly off, what I was saying is, by cancelling out gravity and inertia shouldnt the ship suddenly stop where it was in space whilst the planet continued to spin and move around the sun, one minute theres a house 2 miles away the next minute the house has slammed into you at 1,038mph.
See
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=45055
for current discussion and relevant links to the most credible gravity field generation experiments conducted to date (at least publically ).
"Anti gravity" is simply generating a gravity-like force in a direction opposite the prevailing gravity vector. Whether an artificial gravity-like field can be generated from gravitomagnetism, "heavy" gravitons, gravitophotons, or some manifestation of the Higgs field/Higgs boson is up to debate among the physics community.
There is currently a stigma attached to "anti gravity" or any kind of gravity control experiments or theory in mainstream physics, per the levity provided by TGT's links
However, the Tajmar/Canterbury results cannot be ignored.
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajmar/
Like the old saying, "money talks, BS walks", but in this case it's:
When results talk, theory walks
Tajmar and Canterbury demonstrate a real, controlled, artificial gravity-like field.
The possible fundamental physics involved in the Tajmar/Canterbury gravity result could be one or a combination of the following:
Gravitomagnetism- Einstein. Remote chance, due to the 25+ orders of magnitude difference from what the theory predicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism
Tajmar et al proposed a graviton mass increase to explain the magnitude of gravity field produced
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603032
Heim gravitophotons- a good chance, if the physics Establishment begins to accept Heim theory
http://photonswarm.com/futurology/?article=14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
Higgs boson or Higgs field interaction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
The large Hadron Collider should start helping to provide answers soon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=45055
for current discussion and relevant links to the most credible gravity field generation experiments conducted to date (at least publically
)."Anti gravity" is simply generating a gravity-like force in a direction opposite the prevailing gravity vector. Whether an artificial gravity-like field can be generated from gravitomagnetism, "heavy" gravitons, gravitophotons, or some manifestation of the Higgs field/Higgs boson is up to debate among the physics community.
There is currently a stigma attached to "anti gravity" or any kind of gravity control experiments or theory in mainstream physics, per the levity provided by TGT's links
However, the Tajmar/Canterbury results cannot be ignored.
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/tajmar/
Like the old saying, "money talks, BS walks", but in this case it's:
When results talk, theory walks
Tajmar and Canterbury demonstrate a real, controlled, artificial gravity-like field.
The possible fundamental physics involved in the Tajmar/Canterbury gravity result could be one or a combination of the following:
Gravitomagnetism- Einstein. Remote chance, due to the 25+ orders of magnitude difference from what the theory predicts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitomagnetism
Tajmar et al proposed a graviton mass increase to explain the magnitude of gravity field produced
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603032
Heim gravitophotons- a good chance, if the physics Establishment begins to accept Heim theory
http://photonswarm.com/futurology/?article=14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
Higgs boson or Higgs field interaction?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson
The large Hadron Collider should start helping to provide answers soon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider
Last edited:
Inertial dampeners are just the magic Trek device that prevents the people *inside* the ship from being plastered to the wall when the ship accelerates. AFAIK, they don't "dampen inertia" for the ship itself. That is, they don't prevent the ship itself from experiencing inertia. They just create an artificial gravity field inside the ship, that exactly counterbalances any acceleration of the ship, so that the passengers don't feel any outside movement. They just walk around, as if they were in normal Earth gravity.
Anti-gravity is easy. You just stick a piece of buttered toast (which always land butter side down) onto a cat (which always lands on its feet) and voila!
The Mythbusters ought to try that one.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
Anti-gravity is easy. You just stick a piece of buttered toast (which always land butter side down) onto a cat (which always lands on its feet) and voila!
I think it would be awsome if someone could come up with an animation of a cat with buttered toast on its back spinning in mid air in a kitchen.
All Seeing Eye
Admiral
^
. Thnks.:thumbsup:
. Thnks.:thumbsup:
would Artificial Gravity work ?
http://io9.com/5540858/ask-a-physicist-would-a-gravitron-work-in-deep-space
http://io9.com/5540858/ask-a-physicist-would-a-gravitron-work-in-deep-space
Similar threads
