Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 161 posts

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#131

Post by poelzi »

jeffdavis wrote: post #44
ISL wrote: post #27

Physicists have been searching for variations in the coupling of materials to gravity for more than a century, and by some measure, for more than a millenium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of... Every experiment anyone has ever tried has come up empty. The equivalence principle is a postulate (Einstein's "happiest idea") that underlies General Relativity, making it essential to test. (Sour…

Assuming we find dark matter, do you think it will represent some departure from our current understanding of gravity and how it relates to mass? Or do you think it will just be some boring dust clouds?

They will find dark-matter when they unify GR and QM, never :)

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#132

Post by poelzi »

zzzcarrot wrote: post #87
ISL wrote: post #27

Physicists have been searching for variations in the coupling of materials to gravity for more than a century, and by some measure, for more than a millenium. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle#Tests_of... Every experiment anyone has ever tried has come up empty. The equivalence principle is a postulate (Einstein's "happiest idea") that underlies General Relativity, making it essential to test. (Sour…

So we are litearaly at square 0 still here?

Physics took 2 wrong roads and it got stuck in a local minima of the truth plane. Understanding that physics is the most ignorant field of science and how proud the field is of it's models, I don't think this will come anytime soon.

https://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7426

PS: you need to understand how gravity is derived to manipulate it's propagation. Since the mechanisms are very stable due various reasons, only a very good understanding of many processes will allow you to design an experiment that works. I have adopted a very fringe physics model that is unified and explains more using less assumptions. From this perspective I can tell you that contemporary physics is so far from understanding, that most likely we will not see anything in this direction, before we fully trashed our planet.

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#133

Post by poelzi »

de_watcher wrote: post #82
rurban wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gravity is very similar to magnetism, a "magically" attracting force of distinct objects. The explanation is very easy via fields. Just trying to explain it via particles will get you into trouble, e.g. the flawed standard model, or the Higgs. Einstein was pretty close in his spacetime bending explanation, but this still doesn't explain dark matter or the recent gravity experiments with fast rotating magnets in stron…

> Gravity is very similar to magnetism But magnets, how do they work? (C)

They don't understand the dirac see and how field lines work, nor how a CL node operates when it's in magnetic mode. In fact, they even think that you can describe EM with vector math, which is half bollocks. Maxwell tried to formulate Vector equations from his Quaternion equations and failed, because it's not possible without loosing certain effects.

Certain Atoms or combinations cause their sourounding CL nodes to be in paramagnetic mode. (They are dislocated from groundstate to the left part of the diagram). If you heat the material under external magnetic field, the atoms and grains order to the external field. Once the matter is cold enough, the external Electron bindings hold the atoms in place that one large magnetic field is created. Everything is basically a phase looked loop oscillator and stabilizes its frequency to neighboring nodes.

Since you most likely only had contact with the standard model, giving enough explanation for you to understand the mechanics behind it would definitely be to long.

Dr. Stoyan Sargs - Basic Structures of Matter Supergravitation unified Theory, Chapter 2, 3, 6 and partially 12 (Planet magnetic field) should answer your question :)

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#134

Post by cs702 »

short_sells_poo wrote: post #122
cs702 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Short-termism, and the financialization of research, seems to be a huge problem in all fields of science. By "financialization," I mean deciding which research projects get funding based on their expected measurable results, i.e., based on some rate of return that can be estimated today. If a research project can lead to more citations soon, or slightly better products soon, or lower costs soon, etc., it will get fun…

Your viewpoint is very agreeable, but how do you propose to do it otherwise? Given limited resources (which continues to be the case even today), you have to allocate them somehow. Can you think of a simple and objective measure to distribute the available resources between research projects? It's all right to decry financialization of research, but it is a very difficult problem to solve.

I would borrow from the "20% free for personal research" deal Google offers software developers: "spend 20% of your time on anything you want." Gmail, for example, was born as a 20%-spare-time project. (The creator of Gmail, Paul Buchheit, is now at Y Combinator.)

People who have dedicated their life to science should get more than 20%. Say, 50%: "Spend 50% of money/time/people on the funded project, 50% however you want."

I think my 50/50 idea would work quite well. Scientists still would have to demonstrate and justify the value of near-term projects to get funding, but would also get the resources they need to fund long-term projects with impossible-to-estimate present value.

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#135

Post by amdavidson »

fsh wrote: post #49
danschumann wrote: post #18

To really be able to manipulate gravity, you would also need to manipulate mass, and so far nuclear is the only way I know of, in which we do that, but uhh.. I don't think we'll get anti gravity until we can control mini stars... Little nuclear engines.

It is a common myth that nuclear reactions "turn mass into energy". What actually happens is that the products of the reaction have less binding energy than the initial nucleus. Since energy gravitates, this reduces the mass of the products. The exact same thing happens in chemical reactions. If you burn something, the product are lighter than the initial substances by the mass equivalent of the energy released.

"...energy gravitates, this reduces the mass of the products." "...the product are lighter than the initial substances by the mass equivalent of the energy released."

How are these not restating "turn mass into energy"?

Both scenarios approximate: High Mass => Low Mass + Energy

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#136

Post by garmaine »

gpderetta wrote: post #86
jbattle wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never understood why "paradoxes make cause-and-effect-reasoning difficult" concerns are a valid argument that something could not be possible. Does physics care whether the workings of the universe are accessible to our logic?

> Does physics care whether the workings of the universe are accessible to our logic? the universe itself doesn't care, but physics, that is, our math based theories, certainly they do, in fact they require it.

Not in the way the post you are replying to means. Our “math based theories” of physics do not require a world without cause-effect paradoxes. Indeed they seem to explicitly permit them.

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#137

Post by saalweachter »

regularfry wrote: post #125
saalweachter wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like in 40% of SF stories it will at one point be important that your spaceship not have the glide ratio of a buttered brick, even if it has an antigravity drive.

Depends on the nature of the anti-gravity drive. If it's like an engine, which needs some sort of process to operate, then yes, it can fail to work and you want a backup system. If it's a specific material, which works like a magnet in that the anti-gravity effect is present as a result of the passive configuration of matter, less so.

The Enemy could still shoot and destroy your cavorite plates, or the mechanism which turns them so that it does or doesn't block gravity from the desired direction.

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#138

Post by Khelavaster »

ekianjo wrote: post #10
chmod775 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain kinds of it. Time travel to the past in a parallel universe at least doesn't cause any logical problems ('paradoxes') to arise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Interacting_many-w...

And where would the information about parallel universes be contained?

Far, far away in our infinite space. Further than we can see, because if we look more than 14B light years away we're blinded by the Big Bang of our own creation.

Max Tegmark calculated out that parallel universes are probablistically present around 10^21 an 10^23 light years out from us, if matter's about as dense and as randomly distributed as in our universe.

Re: Military Has Been Researching "Anti-Gravity" For Nearly 70 Years

#140

Post by [deleted] »

garmaine wrote: post #136
gpderetta wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does physics care whether the workings of the universe are accessible to our logic? the universe itself doesn't care, but physics, that is, our math based theories, certainly they do, in fact they require it.

Not in the way the post you are replying to means. Our “math based theories” of physics do not require a world without cause-effect paradoxes. Indeed they seem to explicitly permit them.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN