edit; The New and Exciting Thread Called Gravity propulsion?

Okay, here's my theory (understands with sympathy the collective groans).

We all know that if you expose a vacuum to anything it will suck it in - that's what a vacuum does, that's what a vacuum is, and we know it does that because of Gravity.

HOWEVER;

By using the sun as an example of how Gravity can be manipulated, would it be possible for one to use gravity as a method of propulsion if we could somehow reverse the effects of a vacuum?

A rather crude and somewhat barbaric example of this would be to have a box, with a cast-iron sliding mechanism covering a small hole at the front of the box - inside the box would be vacuum, and outside of the box would be vacuum.

Would removing the sliding mechanism covering the hole result in any sort of propulsion (although in this case it would be some sort of 'reverse propulsion' lol)?



My apologies for my rather unorthodox perspective on gravity propulsion - just did a search and it's all 'anti-gravity' this and 'anti-gravity' that; i was wondering why not simply use Gravity as it is?


p.s; i'm sure there is a logical explanation for why this can't be done, so enlighten me.


edit; basically what i'm getting at is that i'm wondering whether or not it would be possible to use Vacuum as a fuel-source.

Obviously the size of the box would denote maximum speed, btw.

double-edit; if my theory has any real value, feel free to steal my idea and use it for the good of humanity.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

(all caps removed from title)

[edit on 2-14-2008 by worldwatcher]

I will bump this thread twice, and if no response comes i will assume i am wrong and that i'm stabbing wildly in the wrong direction*.


*i.e; i'll feel like an idiot, which may be appropriate.

But i'd feel better if someone called me an idiot as opposed to me wondering whether or not i'm right and someone has just ran away laughing to make trillions of dollars.

P.S: i don't have the capabilities to test this out properly - although i suppose if i brought a cheapy vacuum cleaner, somehow managed to put a transmitter inside the switching mechanism and set it to blow, then put it inside a bigger vacuum cleaner - i'd be able to find out*.

(hint, hint).

Anyway, i'd like it if someone would call me an idiot now.


* i just Realised it wouldn't be a stable vacuum, so that experiment wouldn't work.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

I thought that pressure / diffusion are major players here, not gravity.
Anyway gravity is used ,not as engine (yet.I know what lot of people here would think,but i saw no proof of the opposite) but in slingshot maneuvers.
Will be glad to be corrected.
Anyway,it's cool idea.

Originally posted by Throbber

By using the sun as an example of how Gravity can be manipulated, would it be possible for one to use gravity as a method of propulsion if we could somehow reverse the effects of a vacuum?

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

Going from suck to blow! LOL, sorry couldn't resist.

You need to keep reading on the subject as gravity is really just the visable effect of electromagnet attraction. Thus anti-gravity is really just like the polar differences that electromagnets exhibit. (+/-, positive and negitive forces)

A "vacuum" really has nothing to do with the terms gravity or electromagnetism. A vacuum is just and area of space at a lower-pressure than the surrounding enviroment. Upon, destabilization, the vacuum sucks in surrounding matter to match the pressure in which it was contained. Hope this makes some sense, I feel I have a pretty good scientific-understanding of physics, but I am no scientist....

reply to post by percievedreality


It makes sense, but i am asking this in science & technology for a reason.

Perhaps i should ask elsewhere and spread my idea about to see what happens.

Originally posted by Throbber
reply to post by percievedreality

 

It makes sense, but i am asking this in science & technology for a reason.

Meaning what? I do not understand your response. Do you not see that you are talking more about pressure changes in your "vacuum" understanding than what really is needed for anti-gravity propulsion? Gravity propulsion is accomplished through electromagnetism fluctuations, not pressure changes.

reply to post by percievedreality


Meaning, give me a negative or an affirmative.

p.s; if you think i'm right, feel free to say negative and steal the idea btw.

But i'd like it if you said yes, and i don't intend to take glory for the idea anyway.

edit; If you simply DON'T KNOW, spread the theory about and get some air on it to see what happens.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

Perhaps there are some people out there who are astronomically knowledgable (pun intended)over these issues but are unaware of the importance of my theory.

Basically it means we have a method of traversing space, by using space.

almost like PERPETUAL MOTION, but only almost.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

I think Throbber may still have something here. Maybe not a total grasp on gravity but something non the less.
The concept is not so much antigravity but the use of vacuum as a means of propulsion (with some imagination and work) could theoretically be possible.
I am a long way from a expert on the subject but reading the OP and thinking about it for a bit I could see the merits in the theory. Use what is already there (or not there)
An extremely crude analogy would be to dig a tunnel by taking the dirt in front of you passing it back behind you and kicking off the newly created back wall to move forward???

reply to post by Throbber


Negative. Vacuums are created or destroyed with pressure changes. Gravity or anti-gravity is effected with electromagnetism, not vacuums. Enough said.

reply to post by VIKINGANT


Thanks, i'm tempted to take this to yahoo answers! but i'll probably end up with people saying "Lol Wut?!?" a lot.

reply to post by percievedreality


I see what you're getting at, so's i do.

But my point is that i'd be affecting the state of Non-Gravity (deep-space) by using Gravity - essentially the same way that Stars do.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

Anyway, please don't just damn my theory just because i'm the one asking it - ask about, see what people have to say.

reply to post by Throbber


"Lol Wut?!?" Once again I am sorry...couldn't resist.
You lost me again. I don't see how your original post and its' vacuum content has anything to do with gravity or anti-gravity. Gravity is not effected by vacuums or pressure changes!

[edit on 14-2-2008 by percievedreality]

Space isn't a vacuum Einstein. Where everyone gets that idea is beyond me. There is air just very little. Your head doesn't explode if your shoved out an airlock either.

reply to post by percievedreality


Okay, why do things get sucked into vacuums then?

You can ignore my OP's discrepancies if you like.

Originally posted by TEMELUCHUS
Space isn't a vacuum Einstein. Where everyone gets that idea is beyond me. There is air just very little. Your head doesn't explode if your shoved out an airlock either.

1: I did not compare myself to einstein.

2: I didn't say anything about people's heads exploding.

3: I didn't, on the other hand - know that there was Air in space.

What kind of air, btw?

lol @ 1:11.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

What kind of question is, "What kind of air"? How many different types do you think there are?

reply to post by TEMELUCHUS


Well, you tell me, mr. scientist - you're the one who said it in the first place.

Presumably there are more types of GAS than we currently know about.

p.s; were you trying to lure me into some sort of pseudo-intellectual trap btw?

Most impolite.

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]

reply to post by TEMELUCHUS


I think he ment "space is full of very diluted different gases", not air as air that we brieve. And space is not complete vacuum, but really close to it.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Correct me if i'm wrong, but if space was full of very small atomised gases, wouldn't this mean it was subject to atmospheric pressure?

edit; yay for 1984 ats points.



Why does that smiley look so evil to me?

[edit on 14-2-2008 by Throbber]