We need artificial gravity pronto.

I recently read about an experiment done in a lab in London UK on gravitoelectromagnetism (mouthful I know) in hopes of achieving artificial gravity for long term space travel. I'm not talking about the annoying impractical way of generating gravity by rotation, but gravity we see commonly like in star trek and other works of science fiction. One of the main reasons we haven't been to mars yet is because of the effects of weightlessness on the human body. The reason There hasn't been any actual achievements in space missions in creating artificial gravity is because they just don't take it seriously on most missions and ignore it as science fiction and never bothered to test any platforms for generating artificial gravity in a weightlessness environment. Artificial gravity would make manned space flight far less challenging and much more safer. Anyone else truly believe artificial gravity is possible for space travel or know of any other serious experiments being conducted on artificial gravity?

reply to post by paranormal78


yeah you need to create something that has as much mass as our planet but fits under the floorboards of the space ship.
That'll do the trick

paranormal78
I recently read about an experiment done in a lab in London UK on gravitoelectromagnetism (mouthful I know) in hopes of achieving artificial gravity for long term space travel. I'm not talking about the annoying impractical way of generating gravity by rotation, but gravity we see commonly like in star trek and other works of science fiction. One of the main reasons we haven't been to mars yet is because of the effects of weightlessness on the human body. The reason There hasn't been any actual achievements in space missions in creating artificial gravity is because they just don't take it seriously on most missions and ignore it as science fiction and never bothered to test any platforms for generating artificial gravity in a weightlessness environment. Artificial gravity would make manned space flight far less challenging and much more safer. Anyone else truly believe artificial gravity is possible for space travel or know of any other serious experiments being conducted on artificial gravity?

edit on 13-3-2014 by paranormal78 because: (no reason given)

there have been many such reports. several checked out by NASA. it seems they really aren't hungry for it because they always half-azz the replication attempts. NASA's attempt to replicate podkletnov were pathetic. Boeing's attempt is still classified. The ESA had one with Martin Tajmar that he even got peer reviewed but he later kind of retracted his paper claiming the effect could have been due to helium flow in his test rig. something or someone is pretty much suppressing any credible efforts and ignoring the private "fringe" inventors.

I think both Tajmar and podkletnov were on to something. 99 percent of all gravity control attempts involve the same basic set up.

imagine a IC chip style set up with thousands or millions of spinning masses energized the right way to replicate the earlier crude prototypes. you could even have multiple layers of them as podkletnov is now doing back in russia. btw podkletnov kept at it he just went back to russia to do it. there are interviews with him on youtube where he makes some very impressive claims post boeing era.

Nothing is impossible. The only limitation is that it may not be known how to do that. Heim theory is interesting in this regard.

FinalCountdown
reply to post by paranormal78

 

yeah you need to create something that has as much mass as our planet but fits under the floorboards of the space ship.
That'll do the trick

nope. you can do it with a small mass. mass is not the only determiner of the magnitude of gravity in relativity. plus relativity predicts a coupling of gravity to electromagnetism.

esamultimedia.esa.int... and in non scientific jargon:

www.sciencedaily.com...

specifically:

Just as a moving electrical charge creates a magnetic field, so a moving mass generates a gravitomagnetic field. According to Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, the effect is virtually negligible.

now bear in mind that tajmar semi recanted based on what he thinks is experimental error. but he isn't the only one to use spinning superconductors to generate a gravity force. at any rate the important thing is Relativity says gravity and electromagnetism are related. also that there is a relation between velocity and gravity.

FinalCountdown
reply to post by paranormal78

 

yeah you need to create something that has as much mass as our planet but fits under the floorboards of the space ship.
That'll do the trick

I think the term gravitoelectromagnetism says it all. They would be trying to make a magnet that would could create an electromagnetic field so powerful that it would somehow act as a very dense object and attract gravity to it. By making that field a certain shape and containing it I suppose it would work...... if you had a fusion battery

reply to post by paranormal78


Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

also from the above article:

It demonstrates that a superconductive gyroscope is capable of generating a powerful gravitomagnetic field, and is therefore the gravitational counterpart of the magnetic coil. Depending on further confirmation, this effect could form the basis for a new technological domain, which would have numerous applications in space and other high-tech sectors" says de Matos. Although just 100 millionths of the acceleration due to the Earth's gravitational field, the measured field is a surprising one hundred million trillion times larger than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

the important thing for you doubters isn't whether or not there was an experimental error or not. its the last five words of my quote:

than Einstein's General Relativity predicts.

that right there^

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paranormal78

 

Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

this does work for short trips. but you do not want this for interstellar trips. at 1 g you can only maintain acceleration for a year because 1 g for i year gets your craft to just below light speed. if your trip is more than two years and all of them would be you then have a years long coast phase in which your astronauts turn into wet floppy noodles that will die if they ever get in a gravity environment again let alone thier bones turn to chalk powder.

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paranormal78

 

Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

this does work for short trips. but you do not want this for interstellar trips. at 1 g you can only maintain acceleration for a year. if your trip is more than two years and all of them would be you then have a years long coast phase in which your astronauts turn into wet floppy noodles that will die if they ever get in a gravity environment again let alone thier bones turn to chalk powder.

You know you could use cyclic acceleration and deceleration while flipping floor orientation. Plus, if you were traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light, there could be some very strange temporal anomalies that none of us have accounted for just yet.

Cheers - Dave

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paranormal78

 

Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

this does work for short trips. but you do not want this for interstellar trips. at 1 g you can only maintain acceleration for a year. if your trip is more than two years and all of them would be you then have a years long coast phase in which your astronauts turn into wet floppy noodles that will die if they ever get in a gravity environment again let alone thier bones turn to chalk powder.

You know you could use cyclic acceleration and deceleration while flipping floor orientation. Plus, if you were traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light, there could be some very strange temporal anomalies that none of us have accounted for just yet.

Cheers - Dave

in theory you could but fuel is a limiting factor and there is the question of tidal stresses when you begin the flipping maneuver. plus it appears that electronic gravity may be possible. on top of that electronic gravity would allow inertial dampening and therefore could allow FTL.

the equivalence principle states that among other such relations gravity and inertia are interchangeable.

by the way NASA's replication attempt failed possibly because they could not replicate podkletnov's ceramic disk in the size he used and because believe it or not they could not rig a way to spin the disk as fast as podkletnov specified. therefore NASA's failure to replicate does not refute podkletnov.

that is what i meant by half-azzed replication attempts. and by they must not really be hungry for it.

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paranormal78

 

Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

this does work for short trips. but you do not want this for interstellar trips. at 1 g you can only maintain acceleration for a year. if your trip is more than two years and all of them would be you then have a years long coast phase in which your astronauts turn into wet floppy noodles that will die if they ever get in a gravity environment again let alone thier bones turn to chalk powder.

You know you could use cyclic acceleration and deceleration while flipping floor orientation. Plus, if you were traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light, there could be some very strange temporal anomalies that none of us have accounted for just yet.

Cheers - Dave

in theory you could but fuel is a limiting factor and there is the question of tidal stresses when you begin the flipping maneuver. plus it appears that electronic gravity may be possible. on top of that electronic gravity would allow inertial dampening and therefore could allow FTL.

the equivalence principle states that among other such relations gravity and inertia are interchangeable.

edit on 13-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

What fuel? You could use a slo-poke reactor to run this thing. The trip to Mars is about 13 days at 143 million miles. Directed force is not that hard to achieve in a box, if I had a machine shop I would make one myself, just like I machined all the parts myself at Durham College over about an 8 week period for my adiabatic reactor ;-)

This is not a terribly complicated solution. We have the inertial engine technology up to a few g's, we have small form nuclear reactor technology, we have tin-can-in-space-with-environmental-controls technology. What more is there except the will to "git 'er done?"

Cheers - Dave

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle

stormbringer1701

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by paranormal78

 

Why not use a 1g acceleration inertial propulsion engine? On the first half of the trip to Mars, have the floor pointing towards the Earth. On the second half during 1g deceleration, have the floor pointing towards Mars.

Seems simple enough, no extra mass, no weird technology, just acceleration and deceleration.

Cheers - Dave

this does work for short trips. but you do not want this for interstellar trips. at 1 g you can only maintain acceleration for a year. if your trip is more than two years and all of them would be you then have a years long coast phase in which your astronauts turn into wet floppy noodles that will die if they ever get in a gravity environment again let alone thier bones turn to chalk powder.

You know you could use cyclic acceleration and deceleration while flipping floor orientation. Plus, if you were traveling at 99.9% of the speed of light, there could be some very strange temporal anomalies that none of us have accounted for just yet.

Cheers - Dave

in theory you could but fuel is a limiting factor and there is the question of tidal stresses when you begin the flipping maneuver. plus it appears that electronic gravity may be possible. on top of that electronic gravity would allow inertial dampening and therefore could allow FTL.

the equivalence principle states that among other such relations gravity and inertia are interchangeable.

edit on 13-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

What fuel? You could use a slo-poke reactor to run this thing. The trip to Mars is about 13 days at 143 million miles. Directed force is not that hard to achieve in a box, if I had a machine shop I would make one myself, just like I machined all the parts myself at Durham College over about an 8 week period for my adiabatic reactor ;-)

This is not a terribly complicated solution. We have the inertial engine technology up to a few g's, we have small form nuclear reactor technology, we have tin-can-in-space-with-environmental-controls technology. What more is there except the will to "git 'er done?"

Cheers - Dave

i agree we could easily do this in solar system and perhaps even out to Tau. (Tau is a proposed mission into the interstellar medium but not crossing it or going far into the Oort cloud.)

i was thinking more for longer duration missions to the three nearest stars.

For serious research by the most serious researchers, google "high frequency gravitational waves". We sent our best/brightest to China to do the research. Not sure if anyting still resides on the web about it or not, but I talked about it in prior threads.

I wouldn't expect a lot of news about any breakthroughs. It would be of the highest order of national security.

bigfatfurrytexan
For serious research by the most serious researchers, google "high frequency gravitational waves". We sent our best/brightest to China to do the research. Not sure if anyting still resides on the web about it or not, but I talked about it in prior threads.

I wouldn't expect a lot of news about any breakthroughs. It would be of the highest order of national security.

that led to about the funniest quote i have ever seen in a scientific paper:

This is a long time. Since a year is 3·10^7 s, and the age of the universe is
less than 10^18 s, one would either have to wait 106 ages of the universe (beyond
the funding horizon of any federal agency) or replicate the experiment some
10^17-fold to obtain one photon per year.

the paper's authors do not have a high opinion of the potential for HFGWs.

www.fas.org...

reply to post by stormbringer1701


i didn't spend a lot of time looking at that paper, since i just woke at 2am. But i want to note that they reference Dr. Li in that report.

I wrote a thread on Ning Li once. She has been missing for about 10 years. i am not gonna start that again....but its interesting to find her referenced with Dr. Baker.

On a related note....that is a paper written by people not involved. Admittedly i haven't kept up with the project....but I would rather hear from Baker or Puthoff on the matter.

bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

i didn't spend a lot of time looking at that paper, since i just woke at 2am. But i want to note that they reference Dr. Li in that report.

I wrote a thread on Ning Li once. She has been missing for about 10 years. i am not gonna start that again....but its interesting to find her referenced with Dr. Baker.

On a related note....that is a paper written by people not involved. Admittedly i haven't kept up with the project....but I would rather hear from Baker or Puthoff on the matter.

i just thought it was funny is all. sometimes you cannot trust FAS anyway because they have a pacifist left leaning bent and often seek to marginalize even valid things.

reply to post by stormbringer1701


I was intrigued by that snippet. like i said....it is interesting that there is a credit to "Li and Baker". I wonder who the "Li" is?

FinalCountdown
yeah you need to create something that has as much mass as our planet but fits under the floorboards of the space ship.
That'll do the trick

A small chunk of "neutron-degenerate matter" from a neutron star has as much mass as our planet and might fit under the floorboards of the space ship if it was big enough, if you could extract it from the neutron star and keep it in the neutron state, but those are some big ifs.

Neutron Stars

Just a sugar cube of neutron star matter would weigh about one hundred million tons on Earth.

So how many sugar cubes will fit under the spaceship floorboards?

Getting part of a neutron star off the neutron star would be difficult due to high gravity, but even if you could, once removed from the neutron star environment it would probably tend to change to normal matter, since the neutron-degenerate state was only induced by the high gravity field from which it was removed.

And even if you could do it, then accelerating your spaceship would be as hard as accelerating a planet, which is hard to do.

stormbringer1701
NASA's attempt to replicate podkletnov were pathetic.

Podkletnov claimed to be decreasing gravity. To create "artificial gravity" you'd need to do the opposite.

I think the rotating spaceship is our best bet, in fact the name of a likely candidate for interstellar travel is called the O'Neill Cylinder

www.33rdsquare.com...