Anti-Matter is Mass Produced

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 02:04 AM
link   
Actually I read somewhere that what they are most interested about in the new CERN project, is not only how matter and anti-matter reacts to eachother, but more how common anti-matter reacts to the forces of nature.. Or basically, they'll perform some basic tests on the anti-matter.. What they are really looking forward to is how gravity works with anti-matter. They have a theory about anti-matter particels going "up" instead of "down" towards a gravity. If that is actually true, we can pretty much tear up all scientific textbooks ever written..
Exciting stuff!




posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 02:13 AM
link   
Actually most people don't get the "TNT" comparison because how many people actually work with TNT


The best comparison I heard, was that 2 raisins of Anti-matter would equal the energy of a booster rocket for the space shuttle.

As for the "going up instead of down" I think Dark Matter is more the assumption of that, we've worked with Anti-matter enough now to know it's not repelled from the earth's gravitational push//pull (whichever it is...) But in that matter I'm not 100% correct nor is anyone



posted on Jul, 14 2003 @ 01:43 PM
link   
There are 8 major forces in the universe. They come in pairs.

1. Fusion (Strong N-force) and Fision (weak N-Force)
2. Electro Chemical (Electricity) and Electro Magnetic (Radio Waves)
3. Gravity and Antigravity
4. Matter formation force (what binds the particles in an atom/causes these particels to form atoms) and the Antimater formation force.

Each of these forces within the pairs are perfect opposites of eachother. Now, since matter, the perfect opposite of antimatter exhibits gravity, wouldn't it's perfect opposite produce antigravity? Just remember that for EVERY action (including gravity) there is an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. Same goes for the forces of the universy.



posted on Jul, 15 2003 @ 08:51 PM
link   
"There are 8 major forces in the universe. They come in pairs."

I don't think so!

"1. Fusion (Strong N-force) and Fision (weak N-Force)"

Fusion is smashing particles together so that they can settle at a lower energy level, thus shedding excess energy. Fission is splitting heavy atoms so that they can settle into two atoms of lower energy levels, thus expelling excess energy. Strong nuclear forces are the gluon between quarks, which increases in strength as the quarks are pulled further apart (color charge). Weak nuclear forces are responsible for particle decay that you see in radioactive particles.

"2. Electro Chemical (Electricity) and Electro Magnetic (Radio Waves)"

Electro chemical? Are you creating batteries here? That is far from a fundamental force. Electricity is a fundamental force, but only when linked with Magnetism, thus EM or electromagnetism. An electromagnet is simply a way of using electricity to run through a wire, thus creating a magnetic field. That is an application, not a fundamental force.


"3. Gravity and Antigravity"

Oh. So you've solved the theory of antigravity, eh? What is it? I'd like to see your Nobel prize winning work. Gravity is a fundamental force. There is no antigravity. Even if there were, it would probably be a manipulation of regular gravity and not a separate force altogether.

"4. Matter formation force (what binds the particles in an atom/causes these particels to form atoms) and the Antimater formation force."

Have you ever had physics? I'm guessing no... or you slept through class. Matter is a form of energy. Energy is manipulated by the fundamental forces. Antigravity is an oppositely charged particle or a topographically different particle, as far as we understand. Even if antigravity turns out of to have brand new properties, I doubt new forces will appear, only a new way to manipulate the old ones.

"Each of these forces within the pairs are perfect opposites of eachother."

No.

"Now, since matter, the perfect opposite of antimatter exhibits gravity, wouldn't it's perfect opposite produce antigravity?"

No. Antimatter exhibits gravity. We know this.

"Just remember that for EVERY action (including gravity) there is an EQUAL and OPPOSITE reaction. Same goes for the forces of the universy."

The "universy" force and action are different. Potential energy is not an action, only a potential for action. Ther e is no "negative" potential for action. You do not understand how the laws of physics apply, so please refrain from giving false information to people searching for real information.

Here... have a free education from the Department of Energy:

particleadventure.org...


Enjoy.



posted on Jul, 15 2003 @ 09:26 PM
link   
Hmm, I don't think those scientist are close to solving the problems, But I give them
for trying. I would like to see those scientist reproduce what they say is anti- matter.



posted on Jul, 20 2003 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Let's just say we have four, and maybe five forces if Einstein is right.

1. Electromagnatic force
2. Gravity
3. Weak Nuclear force
4. Strong Nuclear force
5.(??) Long range Expansion force.

My sources? I use my Brehm and Mullin textbook on modern physics and a recently appeared(



posted on Jul, 21 2003 @ 03:22 AM
link   
I've had Physics both in Highschool and College. I understand how the world works, I was trying to put things in perspective... don't take everything I say so friggin literally. Since you don't know crap about antimatter in the first place, and it is a substance that hasn't been studied hardly at ALL (outside of theories), ALMOST EVERYTHING anyone says about it's effects would be theoretical. Antigravity has been speculated (saw it on NOVA and the Discovery channel in adition to several websites) as one of the reasons the Universe is expanding. Since I was speaking in THEORY... I think including a THEORETICAL FORCE isn't out of the question.

Tell me where you saw PROOF (not theory) of antimatter producing gravity. I want to see where you saw the experiment.

Your sarcastic and narsisistic commentary ammuse only yourself. Way to show off how the only stuff you know came from a school-book ya' friggin' tool. At the very least you could've been a little less caustic about what you said.



posted on Jul, 23 2003 @ 06:33 AM
link   
For the time being I think anyone trying to prove that antimatter is affected by gravity, should just turn of the Magnetic trap that usually confines these sort of diffuse clouds of matter and watch for the gamma ray emisions from the bottom of their vacuum vessel. Cause that will mean that the cloud has dropped down
. I think it is an easy experiment.



posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 03:13 AM
link   
50,000 anti-matter atoms is "large scale" production from where we used to be, but it's all relative. 50,000 of any atom doesn't mean squat. Talk to me when you get a telcom freq. better tha 1550nm and then I'll be impressed.



posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeaBass
50,000 anti-matter atoms is "large scale" production from where we used to be, but it's all relative. 50,000 of any atom doesn't mean squat. Talk to me when you get a telcom freq. better tha 1550nm and then I'll be impressed.


Could you fill me in how telecom laser frequencies of 1550 nm relates to large scale anti-matter production??



posted on Jul, 24 2003 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Devils Advocate

Originally posted by SeaBass
50,000 anti-matter atoms is "large scale" production from where we used to be, but it's all relative. 50,000 of any atom doesn't mean squat. Talk to me when you get a telcom freq. better tha 1550nm and then I'll be impressed.


Could you fill me in how telecom laser frequencies of 1550 nm relates to large scale anti-matter production??


You missed my point completely. I was comparing the magnitude of each. A better telcom freq. than 1550nm will mean much more to us right now and in the immediate future than anti-matter. I know it's a stretch for some to make that connection so I'll be a little more blunt in the future.



posted on Jul, 26 2003 @ 05:27 PM
link   
"don't take everything I say so friggin literally."

This is a science and technology board. Science is based on factual information. If people come to this site for science knowledge, I'd rather them not believe that antimatter has the qualities that you suggest. We do know enough about it to know that your assumpts are wrong. Although we don't know the nature of why antimatter does not form into heavier elements, we do know that it exists on a large scale and even coexists with other forms of matter (on the quark level). Because of this, we know that your breakdown of matter-antimatter forces are incorrect.

"Since you don't know crap about antimatter in the first place, and it is a substance that hasn't been studied hardly at ALL (outside of theories), ALMOST EVERYTHING anyone says about it's effects would be theoretical."

I don't? That's amazing, because I get my information from the Department of Energy. I think they have a good idea of what antimatter is to some level, don't you? Antimatter is heavily studied in particle acceleraters and has been for decades. We are currently looking for specifics, but general interactions are already well documented.


"Antigravity has been speculated (saw it on NOVA and the Discovery channel in adition to several websites) as one of the reasons the Universe is expanding. Since I was speaking in THEORY... I think including a THEORETICAL FORCE isn't out of the question."

There are many theories on the expansion and continued expansion of the universe. Dark matter and dark energy are much more likely to be responsible than basic antimatter. Since antimatter is such a large range of particles, it is hard to say that any one type of antimatter would be responsible for expansion. Theoretical forces still have to abide by our current research on antimatter. If you it doesn't, then it is only false information.

"Tell me where you saw PROOF (not theory) of antimatter producing gravity. I want to see where you saw the experiment."

Ever heard of General Relativity? Maybe the man named "Einstein" rings a bell. He proved that mass causes the curvature of spacetime (remember that atoms are made of both matter and antimatter within its building blocks of quarks and leptons), so any form of mass has a gravitational properties.

www.bartleby.com...

"Your sarcastic and narsisistic commentary ammuse only yourself."

I'm rarely sarcastic and my narcissism, although it is present, does not extend to the fact that you are presenting false information and I feel the need for you to recognize the truth so you are not mislead by any other false information on the subject. My narcissism extends within my own theories, but I rarely ever speak of those because they are not yet formally published. Remember, science is science. If we have mathematical proof and experiment proof, it is consider the truth in the scientific community. Particle acceleraters gave us the physical proof and quantum mechanics (the math and physics) gives us the mathematical basis. You should not assume that I'm cutting you down as a person for your false information, I'm merely proving it wrong. I don't have personal battles on a forum board. Information is information and opinion is opinion. I leave it at that. You should too.

"Way to show off how the only stuff you know came from a school-book ya' friggin' tool."

A school book? More like multiple libraries of information and a whole lot of research into the department of energy and particle accelerator research. You may assume that I'm some sort of hardcore science bookworm, but I assure you that I'm extremely creative, but creativity has little room to manipulate the realm of science fact. As for the "friggin' tool" part, you should know that the homosapien is the dominant creature on this planet because he learned to use tools (perhaps you could use my words to your benefit). Even if you don't buy the evolution account, you should not verbally bash anyone, let alone someone that actually knows what he/she is talking about.

"At the very least you could've been a little less caustic about what you said."

Would you have even paid attention had I sugar coated everything? If I simply wrote, "That's not correct," would you have cared? I don't even think anyone would have given my post a second thought. By being forward, blunt, and informative, I can give you a tool to shape the truth of this world. I won't back down and allow you to believe that my information is some sort of joke or misinformed propaganda. I'll be the first to admit that I don't have all of the answers, but you could bet your a$$ that I have a lot of them. How would you ever respect my mind if I didn't believe in myself or my own information?



posted on Jul, 27 2003 @ 04:22 AM
link   
"Theoretical forces still have to abide by our current research on antimatter. If you it doesn't, then it is only false information. "

SO... we should never question 'known facts'? Wow... if the world followed that example, we'd still be living on a flat earth which the sun revolves around.
And the "If you it doesn't" part doesn't make any sense.


"As for the "friggin' tool" part, you should know that the homosapien is the dominant creature on this planet because he learned to use tools (perhaps you could use my words to your benefit). "

Exactly my point. People who don't question the norm are basically tools used by the people created that 'norm' to further peoples' belief in it.


"A school book? More like multiple libraries of information..."

Holy crap... you've read entire libraries? Impressive! (just kidding, I know what you mean)


"Would you have even paid attention had I sugar coated everything? If I simply wrote, "That's not correct,"..."

Heck yeah! I'd like to be corrected when I am wrong, but constructive criticism shouldn't involve abruptness. I would gladly listen to you whenever you feel something I say is incorrect, but please, just say "That's not correct" and tell me why. As you can see, I've got a little temper and when challenged in an agressive manner, I won't back down.

I can see that you're not stupid, and that you didn't really intend offense, so yes, I do appreciate your information, and will consider it above the information I had before since that info was mostly theoretical. I also appologize for snapping at you, it was inappropriate of me. In addition, I'll try to make an effort to validate my sources more carefully in the future. Let's drop the personal end of this and discuss the science. Truce?



posted on Jul, 28 2003 @ 01:43 AM
link   
"SO... we should never question 'known facts'? Wow... if the world followed that example, we'd still be living on a flat earth which the sun revolves around."

You are looking at it from a negative perspective. Sailors knew the Earth was round, but the Church said it was flat and at the center of the universe (not just the solar system). The evidence pointed to the logical conclusion that the Earth had curvature. I'm simply stating that whatever theory you attempt to devise should also follow the experimental results. If for some reason your theories go against it, you're pretty much saying that physical evidence is meaningless.


"Exactly my point. People who don't question the norm are basically tools used by the people created that 'norm' to further peoples' belief in it."

You must have a problem with society. I would not assume that society is screwing everyone, 24 hours a day. The "norm" is a place that makes the most people happy, regardless of the truth. That does not exclude truth, only that it is secondary to happiness... as it perhaps should be. Who would want to live in a truthful world where you hate every minute of your existence? We should, however, always strive to integrate truth into our lives. Going back to the point, being a tool is good, but being a slave is bad. A tool has purpose, as does a slave, but one has choice where the other does not.


"Holy crap... you've read entire libraries? Impressive! (just kidding, I know what you mean)"




"I would gladly listen to you whenever you feel something I say is incorrect, but please, just say "That's not correct" and tell me why. As you can see, I've got a little temper and when challenged in an agressive manner, I won't back down."

Good, just don't forget what you're addressing. If you truly believe you are correct in your assumptions, you need to prove that they work with modern scientific views. I pointed out that they do not. Even if you add some wiggle room for certain scientific probabilities being wrong, you still have a fairly tight realm of science to work inside of. If you really want to pose an argument with your original hypothesis, you need to change your values for "anti-substances/anti-forces" around.

"I also appologize for snapping at you, it was inappropriate of me. In addition, I'll try to make an effort to validate my sources more carefully in the future. Let's drop the personal end of this and discuss the science. Truce?"

Truce. I was not offended by your slight temper. You at least handle your defense well. If you keep an open mind, I'll try to throw together a better platform for you to use.

As follows:

(original post)


There are 8 major forces in the universe. They come in pairs.

1. Fusion (Strong N-force) and Fision (weak N-Force)
2. Electro Chemical (Electricity) and Electro Magnetic (Radio Waves)
3. Gravity and Antigravity
4. Matter formation force (what binds the particles in an atom/causes these particels to form atoms) and the Antimater formation force.


(revision)

From the basis of the four fundamental (or basic) forces that govern the universe, one can also assume that anti-forces might also exist.

1) Strong nuclear force (gluon)
Anti: Strong nuclear separation force

2) Weak nuclear force (radioactive decay)
Anti: High environmental pressures/force (and perhaps heat) -- similar to how fusion work or diamonds are naturally created (as well as heavy elements).

3) Gravity
Anti: Exotic matter (recondenses the gravitational field)

4) Electromagnetism
Anti: Dark light or a light absorbtion that counters the effects of the EM wave.

Note: Antimatter is an annihilation counter-substance for standard matter of the same type, however, matter and antimatter can coexist as long as they are not identical opposites (e.g. electron and positron). Since matter has so many properties, it is not considered a force, nor is antimatter.


Now, this is just a rough sketch, but opposing forces could perhaps be built on current scientific knowledge. The problem with opposing forces is that they tend to be the same force in a slightly different phase. Thus, wave properties can cancel one another out. The antiderivative (or integral) exists only because it is the opposing formulation for the derivative (the base). That is why you call the integral the antiderivative. This is not a discussion between the chicken and the egg. The derivative clearly came first. The antiforce or antiderivative is just a way of looking at the effects of the derivative cancelled. So, any antiforce may not be a new force, but a manipulation of the base force.



posted on Jul, 28 2003 @ 02:43 AM
link   
"3) Gravity
Anti: Exotic matter (recondenses the gravitational field)"

Are you talking about 'dark Matter'?

I'd really like to know more about Dark Matter. As far as I know, it's never been discovered... but remains a theory used to explain the excess of gravity as compared to the ammount of gravity that would be produced by all the visible matter in the universe.

Any links or further info you can provide?



posted on Jul, 28 2003 @ 01:49 PM
link   

"3) Gravity
Anti: Exotic matter (recondenses the gravitational field)"

Are you talking about 'dark Matter'?


No. Exotic matter is a substance that (completely theoretically) would remove the distortions of gravity to neutralize the spacetime continuum. What does that mean? Well, Einstein proved that gravity is the distortion of spacetime (the vacuum that is governed by dimensions). Because of this, a black hole is actually spacetime curved into a critcal point. Because all objects that follow mathematical laws must follow the contours of spacetime (which are all objects that we know exist), when spacetime is distorted (gravity) the natural motion of an object is altered towards the gravitational source. As an example, look at the grids of these two websites to see how gravity is distorting spacetime (note: you don't need to read the articles):

www.ldolphin.org...

www.bermuda-triangle.org...

As you can see, this distortion forces all objects to "fall" towards the gravity well. Since we do not know of any objects that can exist separate from the contours of spacetime, we can assume that all objects are effected by the curvature of gravity.

Now, exotic matter is a substance that would counter this effect and cause the distortion of spacetime to be less or cancelled altogether. This is the theory of how a wormhole could be stabilized.


"I'd really like to know more about Dark Matter."

So would everyone. In reality, I believe it is just the summation of substances that we can not yet account for. We recently found that neutrinos have a minute amount of mass that will now account for upwards of 13% of all the mass in the universe that is unaccounted for. The other mass that we cannot account for is called dark matter.

"As far as I know, it's never been discovered..."

Actually, it has. We can see how much substance is floating around, we just can't tell you want it is. We can determine heavier elements by spectroanalysis (looking at the color patterns of light and matching them to those of particular elements). The hard part is determining where all the rest of the matter comes from that we can not determine. Most heavier elements that we have created only last nanoseconds before decaying. Because of this, we doubt that many heavier elements exist out there, but perhaps lighter ones do (thus neutrinos with an extremely small mass would have a dramatic effect if they exist in great numbers--which they do).

"(dark matter) but remains a theory used to explain the excess of gravity as compared to the ammount of gravity that would be produced by all the visible matter in the universe."

There are many theories on alternate substances and energy configurations that may account for some of the dark matter or dark energy. One of those is that there is an accelerator in either dark matter or dark energy that is causing the universe to expand more quickly (which has been proven). Whether dark matter is the cause is still unknown.

"Any links or further info you can provide?"

A site on neutrino mass

A short NASA site on curved spacetime and dark matter

Physics 2000: a fun site with interactive experiments

The Particle Adventure: everything you want to know about subatomic particles


I can't think of any other sites that will be good for you right off the bat, but this should keep you busy for days
. You don't have to read any of the information, but they will prove very useful in your understandings of physics. Have fun!



posted on Jul, 28 2003 @ 04:03 PM
link   
I do understand how spacetime works and how it is related to gravity.
I always tell people trying to imagine spacetime and gravity to think of the universe as a big rubber sheet (only three dimensionally, which is kinda' hard to imagine in that way... anyway). If you have a ballbearing on the sheet, it bends the rubber (spacetime) downward toward itself. A black hole would be like putting something so heavy, and yet so small (singularity) on the sheet, that it would not only tear through the rubber (spacetime) but also not fall through it completely either. Of course thinking of it in 3 dimensions is a little tougher (as is finding an analogy for how this applies to the time part of spacetime since time is not as much a physically visible thing).

I think what you're saying is that Exotic Matter would bend the rubber sheet UP instead of down (creating an anti-gravity effect). Is it possible then that (think creatively and abstractly here) the exotic matter is on the other side of the sheet... pushing it down from it's perspective? In a sense, could it be matter from another, for lack of a better term 'dimension' (I hate using that term, it's so cliche') effecting our universy adversely from how it effects it's own? Then could the matter in our universe be affecting another in the same way?

(sorry, went off on a theoretical rant there)

I saw an episode of NOVA on dark energy and the expansion of the universe... it was pretty interesting.

Have you ever heard the theory that if you were to go in a straight line for long enough (in space, not on earth, that'd be a curved line) that you'd end up in exactly the same spot as where you started? (I think the model for this depicts the universe as a sort of spacetime donut... not sure).
If this case were true, wouldn't it be logical that gravity would pull an object from the other side as well (it's gravity field, an infinate field of infulence though negligable at a point, could come full circle and pull matter from the other side of the universe AWAY from the center of the universe.) This would be able to explain the expansion of the universe if the all the matter in the universe were to have already been thrown far enough from the center that the pull DIRECTLY between the sides of the inner sphere would be less than the pull INDIRECTLY from across thee universe. **my head hurts now** Do you understand what I'm saying... I don't know if I explained that right?



posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 01:30 AM
link   
"A black hole would be like putting something so heavy, and yet so small (singularity) on the sheet, that it would not only tear through the rubber (spacetime) but also not fall through it completely either."

I don't know if we should say that spacetime breaks. I'd just like to assume it takes on a new shape (a sort of volcanoing hyperbola). Since shape is extremely important, when you distort spacetime so much that it takes on a new shape, you also have new properties (such as having an event horizon) that are not seen with lesser forms of gravitational distortion (parabola vs hyperbola--as I understand it). Somehow there is a critical mass point that causes an extreme flex of spacetime. I don't know what that point is, but that is where a blackhole forms instead of a neutron star (or the other thing--I forget what).


"Of course thinking of it in 3 dimensions is a little tougher (as is finding an analogy for how this applies to the time part of spacetime since time is not as much a physically visible thing)."

Exactly right. In a 2-D scenario, spacetime may appear to break, but as you rise in dimensions (mathematical ones) you start to develop new properties with new shapes (maybe because of new shapes). Physics most likely steps up a notch in a black hole, not break down like some physicists claim. Use that for an "anti"universal forces claim; this supports higher dimensions through black holes causing more complex collisions. Remember that galaxies form because of intense areas of pressure cause stars to erupt and clusters to form, etc.

"I think what you're saying is that Exotic Matter would bend the rubber sheet UP instead of down (creating an anti-gravity effect)."

I don't know. Antigravity is suppose to repel against gravity (bounce the opposite direction), but I don't know if antigravity changes gravity or just uses the opposite motion. In otherwords, exotic matter is suppose to reverse gravity, where antigravity is suppose to repel off of it (as I understand it). Maybe there are 2 types of antigravity. Maybe you're on to something.

"Is it possible then that (think creatively and abstractly here) the exotic matter is on the other side of the sheet... pushing it down from it's perspective?"

Don't make the mistake of believing the reaction is just 2-D. The nature of gravity needs to be understood a bit better to have a good answer. Basically it would do the opposite of gravity, be that condensing spacetime or thinning it out (depending on how gravity actually effects spacetime). The other side of the sheet is either a different portion of the 4th dimension or just a different angle from outside of the gravity well.

"In a sense, could it be matter from another, for lack of a better term 'dimension' (I hate using that term, it's so cliche') effecting our universy adversely from how it effects it's own?"

Let's not go into the show "Sliders," here. Interdimensional travel (on a parallel universe scale) is probably not the best way to desribe what should be a much more simple reaction. Remember that most complex problems have some sort of simple solution. It may be matter that occupies more than 3 dimensions at a single time (thus a 4 dimensional substance). If that is the case, it will have many more properties, including a possible antigravity property in a certain state.

"sorry, went off on a theoretical rant there"

That's what these boards are good for. I do it all the time.

"I saw an episode of NOVA on dark energy and the expansion of the universe... it was pretty interesting."

I might have seen it too, but I'm not sure. Many NOVA specials are old, so maybe they have a newer one that I could catch. If I did see one, it was too old to be accurate anymore.

"Have you ever heard the theory that if you were to go in a straight line for long enough (in space, not on earth, that'd be a curved line) that you'd end up in exactly the same spot as where you started?"

I think that was proven wrong. The universe is pretty darn flat. We know this. Even with a little bit of curve, you'd have to go around the whole surface to get back to where you started. That's the same as going around the Earth or around the block to get back to the same place. Overall, I'm not sure you can go in a straight line... I believe that theory was proven wrong... technically gravity could swing you around if nothing else.

"(I think the model for this depicts the universe as a sort of spacetime donut... not sure)."

There is the idea that the multiverse is a torus shape (donut), thus is part of the reason why so many things are torus shaped in our universe. i.e. EM fields on magnets and on the planets, trees (canopy to roots), apples (fruit), the wind circulation of a tornado, the shape of a wormhole (two black holes in opposing directions), etc.

"If this case were true, wouldn't it be logical that gravity would pull an object from the other side as well (it's gravity field, an infinate field of infulence though negligable at a point, could come full circle and pull matter from the other side of the universe AWAY from the center of the universe.)"

Well, in that case, it would also pull things toward the center of the universe, all depending where the fields are located at. Basically, your talking about cycles occuring. I'm not sure that any black hole we've observed has had a strong enough effect to even reach the edges of its own galaxy. There is a limit to blackhole strength.

So remember, black holes have limited strength, the universe is flat(ish), and antigravity may have more than one form.

"**my head hurts now** Do you understand what I'm saying... I don't know if I explained that right?"

I hope your head gets better. Do you see how well things start coming together when you put real science to the test? The truth is usually far more interesting than any lie.



posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 02:36 AM
link   
"Remember that most complex problems have some sort of simple solution. "

AH... Acham's Razor... All things being equal,
the simplest explanation for a problem is probably the correct one.

"I might have seen it too, but I'm not sure. Many NOVA specials are old, so maybe they have a newer one that I could catch. If I did see one, it was too old to be accurate anymore. "

Nope... it was brand new... about 2 months ago... (They stated dates in the episode)

"Well, in that case, it would also pull things toward the center of the universe, all depending where the fields are located at. Basically, your talking about cycles occuring. I'm not sure that any black hole we've observed has had a strong enough effect to even reach the edges of its own galaxy. There is a limit to blackhole strength. "

Exactly... but (just theorize with me here) presuming the universe has an 'edge' that actually just restarts at the other side (severely bent spacetime)... and presuming that all the matter in the universe is closer to the edge rather than the center... I think this could happen.
I thought the influence of gravity was infinate... but since it diminishes with distance, at a point it becomes negligable ... but still existant. (otherwise how would galaxies orbit eachother like they do?

"I don't know. Antigravity is suppose to repel against gravity (bounce the opposite direction), but I don't know if antigravity changes gravity or just uses the opposite motion. In otherwords, exotic matter is suppose to reverse gravity, where antigravity is suppose to repel off of it (as I understand it). Maybe there are 2 types of antigravity. Maybe you're on to something. "

Wouldn't the act of pulling the rubber sheet UP be the real-world example of producing the opposite 'gravity wave' (I don't know if gravity moves in waves... but I'm talking about how all the points on a sine curve and a curve that is the inverse of the original, when averaged (the Y point on one averaged with the same on the other that cooresponds to the same X coordinate), become a flat line. They use this in some office building lobbys with sound, mics pick up the sounds of people talking and produce the opposite sound to cancel it out so it sounds quieter.) (sorry for using all the ()'s)

"I don't know if we should say that spacetime breaks. I'd just like to assume it takes on a new shape (a sort of volcanoing hyperbola)."

If you look at a graph of a hyperbola, it is actually two seperate parabolas turned on their sides with their tips to eachother. Wouldn't breaking into two pieces on the graph represent a rupture in the spacetime the object occupies? (a 'hole' if you will)



posted on Jul, 29 2003 @ 03:01 PM
link   
"AH... Acham's Razor... "

Exactly.

"Nope... it was brand new... about 2 months ago... (They stated dates in the episode)"

Wasn't the one I saw then. I'll have to try to catch that one. I just looked up the NOVA PBS site and could not find the special. There is one that I am dying to see, however:

www.pbs.org...

"Exactly... but (just theorize with me here) presuming the universe has an 'edge' that actually just restarts at the other side (severely bent spacetime)... and presuming that all the matter in the universe is closer to the edge rather than the center... I think this could happen."

I'm not denying your claims, but I can't say for certain that they are valid. I happen to agree that we are most likely pretty far from the center of the universe. If you'd take the time to read this article, I'm sure you'll find it very interesting in terms of your conclusion:

www.discover.com...

"I thought the influence of gravity was infinate... but since it diminishes with distance, at a point it becomes negligable ... but still existant."

Not to sound pompas, but what would cause gravity to diminish? Perhaps the aether? The so called empty vacuum seems to have a friction force. I continue to stand by the idea of the aether being a much better conclusion of our universe (the so called fluidic space--not the organic kind in Star Trek Voyager).

"otherwise how would galaxies orbit eachother like they do?"

I think that has to do with superclusters. The total summation of stars in a galaxy produces a very high gravitational field. The supermassive black holes, however, can only reach about 9/10 of the way to the edge of a galaxy (or somewhere about that). Because of this, there must be an extra gravitational source pulling galaxies together into superclusters. I would assume that this is either black holes that exist outside of the galaxies (maybe ones that gobbled up their stars) or that the overwhelming gravitational total of galaxies pull at each other over extremely long distances, thus forming superclusters.

"Wouldn't the act of pulling the rubber sheet UP be the real-world example of producing the opposite 'gravity wave'"

Remember that a wave goes both up and down (sorry for the elementary directions). If gravity truly is a wave, it already goes up and down (thus flexing the rubber sheet both ways). Essentially, the propagation wave may be the wave aspect that they are referring to. In other words, once you place an object on the rubber sheet, the outer edges are not immediately drawn down towards the object. Instead, the propagation wave of force spreads out in a uniform process, eventually tugging on the edges as well.

--------(
..........--------(
....................-----(
..........................--(
............................--( object
................................______

Excuse the primative demonstration, but you can see that the strength of the gravity wave is located closest to the object. As you move outward, the effects take longer and are not as strong (less of a depression).

So, pulling the rubber sheet back up may counter the effects of gravity, but not if gravity actually moves in a wave form, meaning that the depressions made by gravity are dynamic, not static. Since they are believed to be static, maybe a true antigravity (caused by exotic matter), would flex upward. The difference is, what's the difference between the effects of a negative gravity as opposed to a positive one? Both would be gravity. Gravity already tugs at itself. *gets frustrated* What else?.........

I can only assume that one is affecting the vacuum (aether) differently. If the aether is a medium (say for instance "water"), the density of that medium would effect the objects. If gravity is a negative density effect, then objects would be drawn to it in order to achieve an equilibrium. A negative gravity (perhaps more like a positive gravity) would therefore be a highly densifying affect, thus filling the density void left by gravity. The universe would act like a chemical system (which is pretty much does) where it attempts to achieve equilibrium among constantly fluxuating states.

To put it in layman's terms, a surfer is knocked off his board by a dense (negative gravity) impact from the water wave. When a water wave forms near a shore, the shoreline receeds to fill the void left by a large quantity of water going up into the wave. Therefore, the shoreline is sucked out into the ocean, leaving a void on the beach and pulling the people floating near the shore towards the wave. The pulling action would be the standard gravity attempting to compensate for the void. If the negative gravity is a dense object, such as a planet, then gravity is the attempt of the universe to fill the void left by a supermassive concentration of density (matter).

Now some problems arise. If matter is negative gravity and matter is what fills the void left, how does one remove the negative gravity effects? The answer, for a planet, would seem to be a supernova, where the matter is blown outward. The problem is that the center of a supernova only becomes more dense, causing a greater gravitational potential, sometimes a black hole (with the oddity of the singularity). Going to the idea of the singularity, it continues to gobble bodies of mass and continually grows. Which means that matter/mass only feeds the standard gravity potential to make the black hole larger. Since this is fact, then it would seem that matter is not the negative gravity, because it does not reduce the size of a black hole.

*light bulb goes on*

I wonder if it is possible for a black hole to invert itself. Think about it. If a wave is sucking in water (mass/matter) and continually growing larger, it eventually has to hit a shore in order to dissipate itself and relieve the stress on its environment. So where's the shore? I don't know of any object so big that it is the size of a galaxy or larger. Maybe I should abandon this approach, seeing as a "shore" does not exist. What do you think? Did you follow the example?

"(I don't know if gravity moves in waves... but I'm talking about how all the points on a sine curve and a curve that is the inverse of the original, when averaged (the Y point on one averaged with the same on the other that cooresponds to the same X coordinate), become a flat line. They use this in some office building lobbys with sound, mics pick up the sounds of people talking and produce the opposite sound to cancel it out so it sounds quieter.) (sorry for using all the ()'s)"

Which means that determining if gravity is a wave is of the utmost importance. I don't know of anything that cancels a gravity wave. If you find anything on the subject I'd be interested to read it.

A few questions come to mind. Does a black hole become larger both from gobbling other black holes and matter or just one or the other? This would have a significant difference in science, depending what is true. I believe the idea is that both forms cause black holes to become larger. So what's the total mass a black hole can hold? It is theorized that singularities eventually erupt in a Big Bang. Perhaps the volcano structure does "erupt" as do ours on Earth. Also, if the structure is already a volcano, is it erupting into another mathematical dimension? Talk about eerie.

"If you look at a graph of a hyperbola, it is actually two seperate parabolas turned on their sides with their tips to eachother. Wouldn't breaking into two pieces on the graph represent a rupture in the spacetime the object occupies? (a 'hole' if you will)"

That depends on whether they infinitely converge at the same point. Technically, I don't believe that black holes have no bottom. They just are so dense that they also trap light. Since light is the "ultimate substance" as a carrier force, "if light can't escape, nothing can," is the idea. I'll need to read up on theoretical properties of the singularity to know exactly how it plays a roll.

Info on Singularities

Here's a link on Negative Gravity (Einstein's Negative Gravity) with possible dark energy material

So if negative gravity does exist and it is an extremely large force that exists in the background, perhaps singularities do invert themselves and reverse the effects of gravity at some point. The possibilities of a singularity erupting are startling at the very least.

Here is another interesting read (a bit confusing)

A nice (short) article on dark energy and negative gravity

You'll notice that quintessence is referred to as the negative gravity force, so here is an article on it:

Quintessence (open up figure #4)

Dam*, I'm good, read this definition and you'll see that quintessence is a different term for the aether:

www.wikipedia.org...

Well, this is all enough to keep you busy for at least an hour. Have fun and give me some good feedback. Maybe we'll share a Nobel Prize
.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join