At 4:14,there is the video of how an anti gravity machine would behave in a falling lift .
would not a gyroscope behave the same as described ?

 

At 4:14,there is the video of how an anti gravity machine would behave in a falling lift .
would not a gyroscope behave the same as described ?

No. Are you saying a gyroscope would float in the air if released from the top of a building? That's obviously not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity#Gyroscopic_devices

 

No. Are you saying a gyroscope would float in the air if released from the top of a building? That's obviously not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-gravity#Gyroscopic_devices

True
interesting

 

True
interesting

"The existence of anti-gravity is a common theme in fantasy and science fiction"

That pretty much sums it up.

 

May be off topic.
Im wondering , is it impossible to have anti gravity , or is it we have not found out how to do it .. yet.
Or is anti gravity like positive and negative voltages , dependent upon where you measure from .

 

May be off topic.
Im wondering , is it impossible to have anti gravity , or is it we have not found out how to do it .. yet.
Or is anti gravity like positive and negative voltages , dependent upon where you measure from .

Everything we know about science says anti-gravity is incompatible with reality as we understand it. IMO that's as close to impossible judging by what we currently understand as possible.
Yet, is not scientific evidence of anything, Yet is fiction until it happens.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03043-0

The results were consistent with the antiatoms experiencing the same force of gravity as hydrogen atoms would. The error margins are still rather large, but the experiment can at least conclusively rule out the possibility that antihydrogen falls upwards.

 

How about the generation of gravity, such as on the Starship Enterprise?
That would appear to essentially as impossible as anti-gravity.

 

Is this guy a quack?:

Is "dark energy" the basis of gravity?

​

Since Equation (3) is based on scale-invariant gravity in this application, it is suggested that accelerated expanding space, or so called "dark energy" is gravity itself, and that gravity is fundamentally repulsive, and only apparently attractive at smaller scales as described in earlier articles.

 

Is this guy a quack?:

Is "dark energy" the basis of gravity?
​

It's hard to be a total quack when what you're trying to model (Dark X) with math has no known physical reality and is 'fix' to make what we see consistent with current theory.

 

I remember reading somewhere that, in relativity theory due the effect on gravity by a rotating mass, if you had a large ring mass rotated at a sufficiently high speed, the center would have gravity cancelled, but I can't find any reference to that now.
Of course the amount of mass required, and the speed of rotation were way above anything that could be practically done.

 

 

I remember reading somewhere that, in relativity theory due the effect on gravity by a rotating mass, if you had a large ring mass rotated at a sufficiently high speed, the center would have gravity cancelled, but I can't find any reference to that now.
Of course the amount of mass required, and the speed of rotation were way above anything that could be practically done.

In GR, anti-gravity is impossible outside of non-physically possible conditions. Energy couples with spacetime to create the geometries that cause gravity.

A chance for money for proof.
https://goede-stiftung.org/en/goede-award

Artificial gravity in space, possible and much easier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Neill_cylinder

 

While I appreciate attempts to be "realistic", I don't have a strong objection to authors inventing technobabble-based physics and devices for their stories. In almost all cases, the technobabble physics is merely a way to enable telling an otherwise independent story. Where I get annoyed is when they continually refuse to be bound by the constraints imposed by their own technobabble anytime doing so would be inconvenient for them.

Even shows that try to stick with "reality" on paper often fail to read the fine print. I have no idea about The Expanse, having never seen the show, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't. In the case of rotating stations or ship sections, they almost never consider the forces involved (and it's impact on the design of structures involved), or how fast it would actually need to rotate, or the influence of the pseudoforces that the inhabitants would experience and how they would deal with them (which I think would make an interesting part of a story). For the constant acceleration case, they never seem to consider the amount of fuel/energy that would be required, the speeds that would be achieved in the timeframes involved, or conversely, realistic time frames for the distances involved. Instead, they usually pat themselves on the back because they are being "realistic" and then proceed to be utterly unrealistic in the implications if it's inconvenient for their story.

 

Saw this thread for the first time today.

The reasoning used to disprove anti-gravity in the video is wrong.

 

Saw this thread for the first time today.

The reasoning used to disprove anti-gravity in the video is wrong.

What IYO is the right reasoning?

 

While I appreciate attempts to be "realistic", I don't have a strong objection to authors inventing technobabble-based physics and devices for their stories. In almost all cases, the technobabble physics is merely a way to enable telling an otherwise independent story. Where I get annoyed is when they continually refuse to be bound by the constraints imposed by their own technobabble anytime doing so would be inconvenient for them.

Even shows that try to stick with "reality" on paper often fail to read the fine print. I have no idea about The Expanse, having never seen the show, so maybe they did or maybe they didn't. In the case of rotating stations or ship sections, they almost never consider the forces involved (and it's impact on the design of structures involved), or how fast it would actually need to rotate, or the influence of the pseudoforces that the inhabitants would experience and how they would deal with them (which I think would make an interesting part of a story). For the constant acceleration case, they never seem to consider the amount of fuel/energy that would be required, the speeds that would be achieved in the timeframes involved, or conversely, realistic time frames for the distances involved. Instead, they usually pat themselves on the back because they are being "realistic" and then proceed to be utterly unrealistic in the implications if it's inconvenient for their story.

You need at least one plot-mandated miracle technology but the rest is pretty good and it's a fun show worth watching.

 

What IYO is the right reasoning?

There's a reason why I didn't elaborate: my time is currently consumed trying to convince an annoying compiler to write code that I would have written, had I not needed to use the compiler in the first place.

But I'll leave a cryptic answer to your question, with blanks to be filled in later when I have time:

There's no such thing as a gravitational "field". Only a manifestation of distorted space-time that looks, acts, and feels like a "field" near massive objects.

For this exact reason, there can be no such thing as an anti-gravitational field.

Unless, of course, in our locality, you call it the sun, whose gravitational "field" at certain points (Lagrange) negates the "field" of the Earth.

 

There's a reason why I didn't elaborate: my time is currently consumed trying to convince an annoying compiler to write code that I would have written, had I not needed to use the compiler in the first place.

But I'll leave a cryptic answer to your question, with blanks to be filled in later when I have time:

There's no such thing as a gravitational "field". Only a manifestation of distorted space-time that looks, acts, and feels like a "field" near massive objects.

For this exact reason, there can be no such thing as an anti-gravitational field.

Unless, of course, in our locality, you call it the sun, whose gravitational "field" at certain points (Lagrange) negates the "field" of the Earth.

It's not cryptic. The video in post #1 makes the same exact point.