Why Don't We Have Anti-Gravity Devices Yet?

[dgoodpasture2005]

The universe is not only expanding, the rate of expansion is accelerating!

right! which would make my slow/gradual/ theory correct!

 

[Aether]

Had to take a break and play guitar quite vigorously... made a complete song in about 1 minute thanks to all this emotion.. lol.. yeah this is crazy... oh man i cannot sleep now, this is going to be going through my head all day long until i settle on something.

What do you mean "settle on something"? What other choice do you have besides "closing mouth and opening book"?

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

I can't read! :P... i like to just brainstorm for a couple days first.. i find reading books first and then brainstorming brings a biased view. Brainstorm on idea... then gather information... then finish brainstorm, and come to conclusion. I have a strange way of doing things.

 

[matthyaouw]

holy bajesus.. i need to start studying..

Yes, you do!
-Pangea was not the original supercontinent- more than one existed before it, each were formed from pre existing smaller continents.
-The shapes of present day continents do not fit together on all sides as if part of a broken sphere.
-Marine sedimentary rock from the time of pangea and prior to pangea is abundant.
-Ophiolites (preserved remenants of oceanic crust and upper mantle) are found dating back much earlier than pangea

 

[-Job-]

Yeah, I'm sorry to say i think the theory is not really feasible. I found it interesting when i thought of it, but then while i was in the shower i saw droplets of water running down the wall, and i thought "how can the theory explain that?".
I have some other ideas but I'm not saying anything anymore.

 

[ZapperZ]

I agree... i never said that gravity is not understood... it's just not TOTALLY understood...

Can you list areas of physics which are "totally understood", whatever that means? The last time we thought we had a mature and fully-understood field, a couple of stiffs discovered the high-Tc superconductivity.

Zz.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Yes, you do!
-Pangea was not the original supercontinent- more than one existed before it, each were formed from pre existing smaller continents.
-The shapes of present day continents do not fit together on all sides as if part of a broken sphere.
-Marine sedimentary rock from the time of pangea and prior to pangea is abundant.
-Ophiolites (preserved remenants of oceanic crust and upper mantle) are found dating back much earlier than pangea

Of course they don't fit perfectly, it's been billions of years! enduring weathering, along with earthquakes and volcanoes, things will change a bit... I have no doubt that older sediments would be found! But, on another note, has carbon dating been known to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, and where exactly did that sedimentary come from... doesn't necessarily have to have been here since the beginning of earth.. could have just landed here after floating around in space a couple million years :)? :P

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Can you list areas of physics which are "totally understood", whatever that means? The last time we thought we had a mature and fully-understood field, a couple of stiffs discovered the high-Tc superconductivity.
Zz.

No, but funamentally, yes they are... like my water analogy, everyone knows how much X amount of water volume will weigh... and what will happen when you throw a foreign object into it... but once you realize it's made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, everything changes. this is why i think there should be a new era of experimenting to understand the particulars of physics theories, without the ridicule factor.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Yeah, I'm sorry to say i think the theory is not really feasible. I found it interesting when i thought of it, but then while i was in the shower i saw droplets of water running down the wall, and i thought "how can the theory explain that?".
I have some other ideas but I'm not saying anything anymore.

lol yeah if you do, i might disappear for a couple months, then suddenly the TOE appears in the news... nah kidding :P... so you're saying, what explains gravity right? That's what I'm trying to get at, once it's understood minutely... i think everything will come into lucid perspective. I Honestly think gravity is the missing link; once it is understood in its diminutive nature.

 

[ZapperZ]

No, but funamentally, yes they are... like my water analogy, everyone knows how much X amount of water volume will weigh... and what will happen when you throw a foreign object into it... but once you realize it's made up of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, everything changes. this is why i think there should be a new era of experimenting to understand the particulars of physics theories, without the ridicule factor.

You did a great job of avoiding from answering my question. If you cannot name a field in which we have "total understanding", then I see this whole thread as being moot. Why pick on gravity then in particular? Doesn't this also automatically means that physicists, by definition, studies ALL things that are not well-known, cannot be explained, and still defy our understanding? If you want to study "gravity", then become a physicist!

I don't understand what's the complaining here is all about.

Zz.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

You said can I list any that are totally understood, and i said no... which would validate this whole thread. I pick on gravity, because i choose to, it is my interest. I'm not complaining.

 

[-Job-]

I think a great thing about the current theory of gravity is how well it models orbiting of bodies. I saw on TV at one time they had a carpeted room with a ball, earth, on the center. This floor was shaped as if the "earth ball" had sunk it somewhat. Then they grabbed another ball and they threw it with some speed into the region of the "earth ball". Because of the curvature of the floor, the trajectory of this other ball wasn't a straight line but actually went around the "earth ball" a fair amount of times (while keeping the same distance from the "earth ball"). I thought this was very cool, and i can imagine that without the friction of the carpet and air resistance and all that stuff, the ball would keep orbiting the "earth ball" for a very long time.
This i think is Eistein's model of gravity, with the curved flor being curved space-time. This model works really well, it explains the orbiting, explains the acceleration, and explains why bigger objects have more gravity.
I believe that this model is really the best we can have, but i have some questions on how it's "implemented" in reality. For example, if the ball weren't under the effect of Earth's gravity, it wouldn't orbit the "earth ball" at all. Also since the floor (space) is 2D, these balls wouldn't be spheres but actually circles insided the carpet, which doesn't necessarily change anything. In reality a body like the "earth ball" must curve 3D space, which i don't have any objections with either. The main problem that i see is that we're explaining how gravity works by using gravity. For example why does the "earth ball" curve the floor? It wouldn't if the whole system weren't under the influence of gravity. The other ball also wouldn't orbit the "earth ball" without the influence of Earth's gravity. I know this is only a model and models don't have to exactly correspond to reality, but it seems that gravity is a force that's coming from outside our 3D space?
For example, consider a plane here on the surface of the Earth that is sunk down in the center. Suppose this is a 2D universe and i have 2D objects inside this plane. As the 2D objects inside the plane get near the bend, they are accelerated. You have to imagine you're inside the 2D plane, you don't know that the space is bent, but you feel the acceleration. This acceleration is actually due to the gravity, not stemming from within the 2D system, but from our 3D world that this 2D model is on. So it's interesting how an n-dimensional system's gravity produces the effect of gravity in an (n-1) dimensional system.
So our 3D gravity may be an effect from 4D gravity, which is an effect from 5D gravity etc. If this is the case then i can see how gravity is hard to explain, because it is coming from outside our 3 dimensions, so it' hard to theorize on that. However, if we assume that this is the case, then we have Einstein's wonderful model to explain our gravity.

 

[matthyaouw]

Of course they don't fit perfectly, it's been billions of years! enduring weathering, along with earthquakes and volcanoes, things will change a bit... I have no doubt that older sediments would be found! But, on another note, has carbon dating been known to be 100% accurate 100% of the time, and where exactly did that sedimentary come from... doesn't necessarily have to have been here since the beginning of earth.. could have just landed here after floating around in space a couple million years :)? :P

I'm sure we could argue this until the cows come home, but I doubt that would achive anything much. If you have a serious interest in this, I really suggest that you go read a basic geology textbook before you create such far out "theories", as you won't convince anyone with such rediculous throwaway comments as "maybe the sediment came from space". If when you've read one and are familiar with basic geological principles and the history of the Earth proposed by geologists, you still feel your theory is feasible, then find some good evidence and by all means present it, though I doubt you'll find any.

 

[dgoodpasture2005]

Well thanks for the enthusiasm :) I didn't mean it was actually from space... it was just somthing randomly thrown out, not everything tested from 6 bilion years ago holds true to it;s original compostional make up, and can't always be tested 100% accurately. You'd be surprised about how much arguing until the cows come home actually can achieve :P Anyway I'm a bit thristy, anyone got milk?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I fully appreciate the interest, but if you wish to learn what we know about gravity then please submit your questions to the Relativity forums.

S&D is not a place for pseudoscience and the discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere useful. Sorry, but we need to be very careful about what sort of speculation is allowed here. As soon as we drift into pedestrian speculation wrt mainstream subject matter, we are out of the realm of S&D.

Thanks,
Ivan