It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We need artificial gravity pronto.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

paranormal78
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)


Yes you can do it right now.

You get a cylinder module and spin it and you can simulate whatever gravity you like.

Japan was going to put one on the ISS until some dumb ass bureaucrat canned it.

Its not strictly gravity but it should simulate it to a degree you wouldn't notice.
edit on 14-3-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I find gravity to be a very interesting topic.I was thinking about it the other day when something occured to me.

When I was in school,which was admittedly many years ago, we were taught that gravity extends in all directions from a mass. Hense the reason that people in certain areas of the earth don't fly off. However solar systems like our own seem to have planets orbiting mostly in a plane around the middle of the star at the center of the system.

My thoughts at the time were, is gravity strongest in a directional plane eminating from the center of mass of the system? I wonder if any scientists who may be researching gravity have considered this?

Why don't planets orbit around the poles of a star. I am not aware of any examples of this. It must be possible as we have satillites in polar orbits. So clearly gravity works for polar orbits. Not really sure what to make of this. Struck me as rather odd.

Maybe it has something to do with the gravity interaction of the other planets.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:27 AM
link   
The biggest concern I have with artificial gravity is, how do you make it so that it ONLY affects the occupants of the ship you are in? What happens when your ship is flying by some random space debris and the artificial gravity field grabs the object, pulls it towards the ship, and causes it to slam into it? Then repeat this for ANY piece of space debris you happen to pass enroute to your destination.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


It is due to conservation of angular momentum.

If the cloud of material that forms a host star is spinning, even a tiny bit biased in one direction, upon collapsing into a star and protoplanetary cloud, the star will be spinning in order to conserve angular momentum, and the cloud will tend to form into a disk also, because this is the lowest energy configuration for a spinning system. It is like spinning a ball, it will flatten. Even though the outer material is loosely connected to other particles, there is a gravitational binding and so if orbits are roughly stable the material will form a disk, and then planets will form in that disk, sweeping out the material. This typically results in planets orbiting in the same direction along the same axis, and also spinning around themselves in the same direction too.

There are exceptions to this, even in the solar system. Which are extremely interesting and can be indications of various events taking place in the early solar system, such as rogue planets, capture of rogue objects from outside the system, or planetary collisions... the list goes on.

It would be more typical of a captured planet for a star to have planets orbiting around it in truly random configuration, either that or a system that formed with little residual angular momentum... this i think would be a rarity.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Thank you for the reply and explaination. Would this mean that some object orbiting with a retrograde motion is a captured object and not naturally formed as an original part of the system?



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by lonegurkha
 


Retrograde motion would suggest that something different happened for those planets that do not quite fit the picture perfect style of the model. We already know the model should include other things happening, but since most of these 'things' are random in nature it is hard to really have a model that starts from all the same inputs and gives wildly different results each time.

So Mercury has a direct orbit, but the rotation around its axis is extremely slow, it is locked in a 3:2 resonance and has a very eccentric orbit. The resonance means that for every two years, the planet experiences 3 'days' or full rotations around its own axis.

Venus has retrograde spin, though a direct spin orbit. That is almost 1:1 so it rotates backwards around its axis once every year (it is not quite the same there is a difference of about 20 days). It also has an orbit closest to circular compared to all other planets.

So why does it have this? It could have been that the protoplanetary disk had slightly different properties at that point, that although orbiting direct, was maybe more chaotic and that after the planet started to form, material accreted, due to it being chaotic might have formed the planet with an extremely slow rotation. Either that or it represents some kind of tidal locking with the Sun or maybe some other slow process.

It is all speculative, though there are a few good options as to what happened.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   
On the electromagnetic-gravity coupling, i think it is more actually a connection with the Standard Model more than relativity, though maybe relativity gets thrown around because, it seems to encompany everything. Relativity only comes into it when trying to amplify the effect at low energy... but that is just me being nitpicking

Regardless, the theoretical coupling at low energy regimes as predicted by the standard model is essentially infinitesimally small, and there has been no factual reproduction or indeed evidence/discovery outside the realms of what we already expect.

To break that down to explain what I mean, the reported findings typically show some kind of effect, that is extremely small, and is within experimental systematic uncertainties. it is like saying.

Oh we saw that the experiment artificially reduced the gravitational field by 0.00000000000001 +/- 0.0000000000002

It basically means that they didn't see a real effect and were already at the limits of a detectable effect with their equipment.

Still the experiments should be pursued and repeated in order to figure out if it is the correct approach or not and if there is a coupling that can be amplified or not



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I would love to see a artificial gravity device.

It would be great for a security device.

When a criminal breaks in just crank it up to 5 x normal and watch him crawl across the floor trying to get away.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ErosA433
 


Once again thank you for the explaination.Your time is appreciated.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 01:34 PM
link   
We cannot give anti-gravity to the world, people are not ready and will abuse the technology what we will give them instead is inertial propulsion, its cruder but will suffice for their needs.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Krazysh0t
The biggest concern I have with artificial gravity is, how do you make it so that it ONLY affects the occupants of the ship you are in? What happens when your ship is flying by some random space debris and the artificial gravity field grabs the object, pulls it towards the ship, and causes it to slam into it? Then repeat this for ANY piece of space debris you happen to pass enroute to your destination.


the inverse square law takes care of this for us in a ship. it is only one g for a very short distance from the field emitters. plus if you are using gravity decking you probably are running a gravimetric drive system as well to warp space around your ship so impactors flow around the lobes of your gravimetric engines. and your puny deck gravity is cancelled out beyond a certain range by the titanic gravity shell of your drive system



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:39 PM
link   

bobs_uruncle
reply to post by stormbringer1701
 


There would be no additional tidal forces that I am aware of since all parts of the device would be traveling at basically the same speed. The bigger problem is micro meteors, even motionless dust become projectiles at high speeds.

Cheers - Dave
i suppose if your ship had the right form factor. but if you turn a non spherical ship at near light speed it will experience tremendous g forces that vary with the distance from the axis of the original vector. so a linear ship would have different Gs at the nose and at every point back to the vertex of the angle and then negative Gs out the other way from the vertex.

this sort of a maneuver becomes problematic beyond certain speeds even well before you get to relativistic speed. a long ship that turns too radically too fast will disintegrate.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by paranormal78
 


As clumsy as I am at times, I would welcome some way to just turn this gravity off for a few minutes. I certainly don't need more gravity. It would just make me drop stuff and fall down more.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:46 PM
link   

LUXUS
We cannot give anti-gravity to the world, people are not ready and will abuse the technology what we will give them instead is inertial propulsion, its cruder but will suffice for their needs.


this statement about antigravity is probably the most true. it could be like giving hyper-megaton nuclear bomb to every idiot, terrorist, tyrant, psychotic or maladroit or drunk or high person on earth. billions and billions of people with bombs that can end the world. I don't think if gravity tech is really as powerful as we think it can ever become public access technology. not even any government should have it. not even mine. look how well they keep secrets. atomic bomb: stolen immediately after world war 2. some low rent contractor recently stole hundreds of thousands of secrets. and some punk PFC did the same thing in the army before this jerk. and the Chinese practically bought the secrets of the W54 mini nuke from a corrupt administration a few decades ago.

It would have to be held by a very small guild of trustworthy souls.


edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: typo

edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   

crazyewok

paranormal78
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)


Yes you can do it right now.

You get a cylinder module and spin it and you can simulate whatever gravity you like.

Japan was going to put one on the ISS until some dumb ass bureaucrat canned it.

Its not strictly gravity but it should simulate it to a degree you wouldn't notice.
edit on 14-3-2014 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)


the problem may have been in order to not puke your guts out and curl up into a helpless vertigo ridden fetal ball it needs have a radius of at least 52 feet or maybe meters.(I don't remember which units for sure.) so this thing would be problematic to attach to the space station in it's current form and you would need one on the other end spinning the other way to counter the torque or the whole space station would spin the opposite way. i think it would also block some docking ports and shadow the radiators or solar panels and cause other problems with the way this station is put together. plus if it induced vibes in the non spinning parts of the station it would ruin experiments and material manufacturing. and it might fight the maneuvering thrusters or cause them to be used more often.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
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?
edit on 3/14/2014 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)
someone identified her as Ning Li; which leads to another problem. She got the Rossi treatment from the skeptics. if their claims are true she stole money from the project and absconded back to china to avoid prosecution. so she has the fraud cloud hang over her work even if the work is legit.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Arbitrageur

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...

edit on 14-3-2014 by Arbitrageur because: clarification


it is probably possible to make non baryonic matter that is nearly as dense as degenerate matter. if it were made of monopoles it would have to be thin because a 1.3 CM sphere of monopole matter generates a black hole if the mass fits entirely within the calculated swartzchild radius for that matter. a 2 atom thick layer of this stuff in the deck would have significant gravity. and if the hull is plated with it make the ship invulnerable to nearly any force, radiation, temperature or impact by reason of the incredible density and both nuclear and chemical bond strength associated with the drastically shorter bonding length of such matter.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:22 PM
link   
monopole matter would have enough strength to hold together a rotating habitat ring large enough to encircle the entire sun at habitable distances. It could hold that together even at the rotational velocity needed to produce 1 G of artificial gravity. that's how incredibly strong this stuff is.
edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-3-2014 by stormbringer1701 because: typo patrol.



posted on Mar, 14 2014 @ 04:35 PM
link   
I solved the anti-gravity problem in my 20's but wouldn't you know it the evil government run by the gas companies stole it from me and now has it under lock and key. I solved it by having a quason field block the transdimensional component of ordinary matter. Turns out that gravity is just matter "falling" into a dimension that is at "right angles" to our ordinary three (four) dimensional spacetime. The effect is such that it appears that matter "falls into itself." The quason field -- generated fairly efficiently via Von Klein reaction -- slightly re-orients matter so that it's not aligned with the gravity dimension. Mass and volume are maintained, but it can't fall down the gravity hole.
edit on 14-3-2014 by Blue Shift because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join