Ummm, shouldn't the opposite of gravity be levity instead of anti-gravity?

Because it certainly seems that way.

__________________
In your rush to call everyone "entrenched" or closed-minded or "limited" you fail to note that the "limit" here has a very natural boundary: that point at which the evidence stops. - JayUtah

Science fiction was never meant to be an educational tool. - Editor Amazing Tales

Based on this bridge, still standing after 3000 years, you off by a factor of at least 3

Just to include a bit of levity.

This, incidentally is an example that it is possible to say JayUtah is wrong about something, but also shows that it takes hard data to do so.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

The way I understand it, a claim to have made an anti-gravity system that uses less energy to lift an object then can be theoretically derived from the falling of the object is in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. Rather a no-no, from what I know of the modern understanding of the laws of physics.

__________________

Yeah the grammars bad i know Djinn and Swift, thank you for making me feel like an idiot I will try harder this time. As for JayUtah i see you've done a good job at disassembling my super large paragraph and tearing it to bits in front of my laughing eyes. Its all a bit funny but i enjoy reading the thoughts of knowledgeable people with intellects such as those i have read on this forum.

Back on subject i'll just say i don't think i conveyed my thoughts adequately in my last post so i'm going to try again.

"My point being that in order for a healthy and constructive argument to ensue it should be assumed that neither party is correct in their assertions..."

I simply meant that because you cannot prove the answer to the question you cannot be definitevely correct in you're assertions. The question "Anti-gravity impossible or not" An example then: A layman was shown this technology worked, had it explained so as he could understand but could not grasp or recall the science behind it. If he was then sat in a room along with you and asked the question "Is anti-gravity impossible or not?" He answers "not", you answer "yes it is". In terms of right and wrong, he is right and you are wrong. In terms of the scientific worlds outlook on it, he is wrong and you are right - because you can "prove" him wrong. You're answer however would not be the correct answer to the question. It must be "with our current scientific knowledge it is unacheivable", the question simply cannot be answered conclusively.

"science that is and has been accepted as fact for millenia is continually debunked as former speculation and theory as the clock ticks forward."

Here i should not have used the word speculation, however science is continually advancing and in reference to the building blocks of science, in some areas the mortar is wearing thin.

"...we should all just open our mind's a little, and be a little more accepting of the view's of others"

As i have already stated the question cannot be answered definitevely, it is in some respects a trick question. If you say it is impossible and ten years (a hundred years whatever) down the track it somehow comes to fruition then you would look a little silly to have said it was impossible no? This is simply what i meant about choosing words carefully (pot calling the kettle black).

"Don't tell me it's not true, until you yourself have proven it's not true"

Its not about proof, again the question states "impossible", there is no ellaborating with it eg. impossible with our current technology. It remain's a simple question. Not improbable - is it impossible? (and please i don't wish to fall into a debate of semantics - even if you are scientifically minded i think you should still remember the question you are attempting to answer).

And one last word in reference to the credibility subject, in this case i am referring to those who have stated that they have seen anti-gravity work or know of its current development. Again you can only surmise as with most things of this nature as to whether they are telling the truth or not. I know i am probably about to get a short science lesson after this post PEACE

See that's your problem, you know physics.

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

I don't understand the hype that some associate with anti-gravity. Isn't there plenty of things that regular gravity can do that are useful?

We've built our space exploration vehicles around the clever use of it.

__________________
I am a cryptozoologist.
I search for hidden zoologists.

Yes, but imagine if we could, even if only partially. A small push would send a spacecraft careening close to the speed of light. Even a less extreme negation would go beyond merely revolutionizing space access. I am not saying it is possible, but if it was, it would be an astronautical engineers *ahem* nocturnal emission.

__________________

Funnily enough just tonight I have seen that people that sidetrack threads (yes gillie I am looking in your direction) about grammer (or grammar even) actually are defeating their stated purpose

mine is `deleted' word- say `out- house ' quality-
yup- thats me...
but I have got no less than 3 teens tonight googling frantically `just to prove me wrong'

1 I have IMHO of course gotten off to a start with a usefull job and probably is going to be a productive member of society

all have wandered over here and been put off by the `in your face' attitude of many members

remember its no good being right, if the only one that cares that youre are right is you...


Phil and Dr Karl both talked out against the `ivory tower' approach that baut seems to want to impose

IMHO b.a and u.t merge was the biggest mistake that ever happened to the b.a forum

the ivory tower approach is imho killing any new forum members in any number from joining

and is imho the new divide between the young people that use `new english' and those that will readily deride those that misplace a : fo a ;

get around the `pick at the details' and educate- not berate

in the last few years there has been less and less of the `educate' and more and more `berate'



not all- but a certainly vocal minority of posters seem to fit this description

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

I apologise if this has been mentioned before...

But something tells me that anti-gravity is possible if you know the correct method.
Real anti-gravity would also eliminate any G-forces (supposedly, that's what UFOS do, and bend light/time but who knows.)

What's peoples views of 'Coral Castle'?? To me, this is evidence of someone who used some very old methods to build.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr9U1cP68eU

Then again, what if he probably could have done it like this man did - but somehow in half the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRRDzFROMx0

So Coral Castle is still a mystery in my view. Jon Depaw however is actively researching and experimenting with anti-gravity fields etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Gt3ED0zLw

Sorry for youtube videos lol.

__________________
'Friendly fire - isn't' - Unknown.

Sometimes the education is in picking at the details.

For example, in this thread alone, the OP has asked the question "is anti-gravity impossible?". The problem with that question is that it really isn'y specific enough to have a meaningful answer.

What is meant by anti-gravity, for example?

If we take the meaning that jumped out at me (as a non-physicist), anti-gravity would be something that works against gravity, and we already have (and indeed are born with) devices that work against gravity. They are called, aerodynamic wings, rockets and legs ... although legs only work against gravity on a short term basis, known technically as "jumping".

If we take the meaning to be something that compeltely counteracts the influence of gravity then my limited understanding of the laws of physics renders ravens_cry's point about breaches of fundamental physical laws of the universe most potent, in that the energy requirement just doesn't add up.

Sometimes (and I know this well from lurking at this board myself), when you ask a question the best possible answer you can get is for the question itself to go unanswered but for your eyes to be opened to what is wrong with your question and, perhaps, start to understand what the question should have been in the first place.

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?

well any well educated person would have used o.p. or possibly O.P. as an abreviation for opening poster rather than OP.

........


;-)

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Search Wiktionary Look up OP, op, or op. in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

OP or Op may refer to:
[edit] General

* Observation post
* Ocean Pacific
* One Piece, a Japanese manga and anime created by Eiichiro Oda
* Op-ed
* Op art
* Opening song for an anime
* Operator
* Optimus Prime
* Oliver Peoples
* Opposite prompt, the right side of a stage
* Opus number (usually classical music)
* Orange Peel
* Orange Pekoe
* Oratory Preparatory School
* Ordo Praedicatorum ("Order of Preachers"), the official name of the Dominican Order; Dominicans often use the letters "O.P." after their names to indicate membership.
* Overall Position, the grade appointed to Queensland high-school graduates
* Overland Park, Kansas, a city in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area
* Orland Park, Illinois, a city south of Chicago
* Orchard Park, New York, a town south of Buffalo, New York
* Overpowered, internet slang referring to poor game balance.
* A channel operator on IRC
* Original Post, the first post (or posting) on a topic on a blog or forum, often containing the original question or topic of discussion.
* OpenID Provider

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

so you are assuming that i have the 22nd meaning in mind when you say the OP

rather than the 20th or the 8th...

oh..... right


its easy to play the ` blame game' when you have banning rights but its not so easy to actually show WHY the banning stick is waved around

imho far too often is the ` mainstream' long term posters that often derail a thread and actually incite new posters, often posting inaccurate or misleading information themselves....

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

I think this depends on the application.

It's true that generating the anti-gravity field would require at least as much energy as lifting the object in any other fashion (and quite possibly much more energy), but that doesn't necessarily negate its usefulness.

There could be a large advantage in decoupling the energy production from the object being lifted. Rocket design would be radically different if the crew capsule and/or payload could ride to orbital altitude in a column of anti-gravity instead of on top of massive boosters. Sure, it would take a great deal of energy, possibly a whole array of nuclear power plants, but once that infrastructure was built the incremental cost of sending mass into orbit may well be very small compared to building a whole new chemical rocket. If the field could be powered through tidal/solar/wind energy, then the cost effectiveness would be even greater, even if the total energy expenditure was much larger.

So while the energy requirements might make anti-gravity fairly useless for on-board propulsion, it may still have areas of application where it would make sense.

coreybv- this sounds less like a `antigravity'- than a ground boosted launch system...
many people have been saying `ground based lasers' as a launch system for years- so much so its become a staple for s.f. writers (eg footfall)

as mentioned many years ago when the elephants were invading..

;-)

it has problems ie ground based launches often would have to launch thro bad conditions or abort where a chemical launch would n't care less.....

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Pick at 'what' details?
Having read through this very old thread I have seen nothing solid or coherent put forward anywhere in it.

And as for anti-gravity by a loose usage of the term this video seems to show a very nice anti-gravity machine in action :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lmtbLu5nxw

theres several ways of replying to a question (especially applies to a `newbie' imho)

theres the `what the hell, are you really that dumb' approach that if they ever come back will leave them ready and willing to reply in full (usually leading to a quick banning - which may look good on the `board books' but equally leaves the newbie feeling rather hard done by- often imho with their original question left unanswered or swamped with return questions )

or the backhanded answer a question that wasnt asked in the first place- `why do you think that antigravity exists moog, why do you put forward this position?'

__________________
No, I'm being ordinarily sarcastic. Don't make me get very sarcastic. You wouldn't like me when I'm very sarcastic. - JayUtah



Surely if you are going to start a conspiracy theory it is best to start with something that might have a grain of truth or reality in it. To start with the preposterous and go downhill from there is just stupid. steve(primus) (Avatar)

"Gillie"? No. No, no, no. Gillian, thank you.

Do I intentionally derail threads because of failed spelling or grammar? Almost without fail, no. You'll notice I don't bother correcting most people, even when they make pretty egregious errors in every post. I corrected this particular person because they were trying to present an idea, but the way they were writing made it difficult to understand what the idea was. This is that person's problem. We communicate like adults here, not like text-messaging children. Here, it is considered, at least based on the behaviour of the people who seem to be most respected, polite to write the best way you can. Indeed, there are several non-native speakers whose writing is generally impeccable. It may seem as though I pick on some of them, but it is because they have asked me to because they know clarity of language is important.

I will also note that, in this instance, I wasn't the first one to comment anyway.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

I'm not sure what sort of problems you're referring to that would prevent an anti-grav launch that wouldn't also stop the countdown on a chemical rocket. I think it may depend on where an individual's imagination (since this is completely imaginary technology) goes when they hear the word "anti-gravity".

When I hear the word, I envision some sort of magical substance and/or energy field that is "gravitationally opaque". Something that would block gravity just like a sheet of plywood blocks a flashlight beam. To launch something into space all you need to do build a pad, say 50 meters in diameter, out of this magical stuff, place your payload over the pad, and give it a tiny nudge. Inertia carries it to altitude.

The advantage comes from the fact that your energy infrastructure can be ground based. you're not limited by having to squeeze fuel and rocket motors into your vehicle, you can use multiple power plants, a 1000 acre wind farm and a massive solar array. Provided you had a need to transport large amounts of material into space, this could very well prove to be more cost effective than building hundreds or thousands of single-use chemical rockets. Additionally, when you're not launching, the energy from this infrastructure could be diverted to other uses, whereas a stockpile of solid rocket boosters aren't terribly useful for lighting an office building.

Think of it as a space elevator, with the physical elevator part.

I guess my point was that it could prove to be cost effective even if, in strict terms, it's less efficient than conventional methods.

Not that I think anti-gravity is necessarily possible in the first place, mind you.

I don't know...sometimes I wonder...

eta...in my experience, children/young adults who frequent this forum tend to have better communicative "skills" than some of the adults, although I do understand what you mean.

__________________
"The facts gentlemen, and nothing but the facts, for careful eyes are narrowly watching." Isaac Asimov

That doesn't seem to be possible. You couldn't 'block' gravity, as the lines of force would flow around any hypothetical obstacle.

Gravity is a very weak force, and it takes the entire mass of the Earth to create an acceleration of 1 gee. If you had a materal with 'antigravity', it would also be a very weak force. A kilogram of material with antigravitic properties would produce no more than a tiny reduction of the attraction between that material and the Earth; this would manifest as a tiny reduction in weight. To entirely cancel out the pull of the Earth you would need a mass of antigravitic material with the same pull as the Earth.

__________________
New Orion's Arm Site . The Starlark . Against a Diamond Sky (OA Novella Collection) . OA Flickr set

You did notice that I used words like "imaginary" and "magic" in my post, right?

I do think that my definition is more in line with the intent of the OP, though. Given that the thread title is "Impossible or not?", clearly we're not talking about rockets or legs. We're talking about anti-gravity in the sci-fi sense, a magical "something" that nullifies the force of gravity in some way.

In any case, I wasn't attempting to argue that it's possible, I was taking issue with the assertion that high energy requirements would render it not useful.

Based on this bridge, still standing after 3000 years, you off by a factor of at least 3

Or maybe more, if we include trees felled over rivers. We're interested in the point at which engineering becomes a rational pursuit. It's not so much a point as a smooth transition over a long period from trial and error to purposeful design. The surviving examples of ancient engineering survive because they are robust. The ineffective designs fell down long ago.

1,000 years ago is a ballpark figure. But it corresponds roughly to when engineers acquired enough recipes for common structures that worked. Which is to say, it's when engineers began to understand in substantial detail why their structures worked. Proceeding from there to Newton and into the Industrial Revolution we see the basis of a body of knowledge by which one can reason about new candidate designs.

Before 1000 AD engineers would really only know whether a structure worked by attempting to build it. As knowledge progressed, engineers could assess the expression of a design without having to build it; they had advanced to a rational enough understanding of the basic principles.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

Rebuke noted, and accepted.
Sorry.

Now you are just being needlessly obtuse. Abbreviations that have more than one meaning are dependent on context, and I think it is quite clear that in the context of a thread on a discussion forum, the abbreviation OP (with or without punctuation) should be taken to mean Original Post.

I work in Financial Services and our regulator (the Financial Services Authority) shares its abbreviation with another statutory body, the Foods Standards Agency. We do not feel the need to use the full name of the regulator in normal conversation because the context makes clear that we are talking about the FSA, and not the FSA.

If you see what I mean.



That aside, the fact that Original Post appears at number 22 on that list is irrelevant ... it is simply a list, not an order of priority. If you editted the list and put Original Post first, the list would be no more or less correct than it already is.

Oh ... and I do note that you didn't respond to any of the actual content of what I posted.

__________________
Dave

Anyone seen my marbles? Anyone ... ?