edit; The New and Exciting Thread Called Gravity propulsion?

WTF is happening on this thread people are showing much confusion. If you want to know more about these subjects just look them up online or read a book, or better still watch the BBC's Horizon documentary on gravity.

What gravity actually is has never been discovered. We feel its effects, it binds us and everything we see in the universe, but its source is elusive. The current theories are pointing at it affecting us from higher dimensions in space (m-theory) check out www.pbs.org...

As for the vacuum of space, there is never really a vacuum even in the vast voids of space between galaxies. Experiments show its filled with virtual particles and zero point energy, which has a "sticky property , see the Casimir effect.

Casimir effect could possibly be reversed through lensing on very tiny scales giving a repulsion force. www.sciencedaily.com...

reply to post by enddays


Well, that explains why i didn't find anything when i typed "Gravity Propulsion" into the search.

reply to post by Throbber


Hi Throbber,
I feel there are a number of things being confused here and while I applaud your enthusiasm, I must say that I think your approach to propulsion wouldn't work.

I would like to just straighten out a few seeming misconceptions. First, lets look at the definition of "vacuum" according to Webster's Online:

1: emptiness of space
2 a: a space absolutely devoid of matter b: a space partially exhausted (as to the highest degree possible) by artificial means (as an air pump) c: a degree of rarefaction below atmospheric pressure
3 a: a state or condition resembling a vacuum : void b: a state of isolation from outside influences
4: a device creating or utilizing a partial vacuum; especially : vacuum cleaner

Now, more practically speaking, there are often references to energy from the vacuum, zero point energy, or the Casimir force as implying that a vacuum really isn't a vacuum. So let's just agree on what a vacuum is for this discussion. The generally accepted definition in the scientific community is #2 above. In that sense, yes, space also generally consists of a "vacuum". That there may be parts of space where Hydrogen or other gases collect, sometimes due to electrical dispersion or often times gravitational forces, the vast majority of space is believed to be a vacuum in the sense that it contains very few atoms or molecules of matter per square meter and almost no atmospheric pressure.

Is space a vacuum? Yes.
1. You could not breath in space without a space suit (not claiming anyone said you could).
2. You would die if shoved out of an airlock without a suit and your face would likely puff up, not explode, as would other parts of your body, including your eyes and other tissues from internal pressure.
3. Yes, there is virtually zero atmospheric pressure in most of space. Atmosphere's are typically a by product of gravity pulling molecules of gas towards a celestial body.

OK. So the Casimir force, vacuum force, or quantum "vacuum" -
It was predicted and subsequently verified through experiments in trying to "freeze" Hydrogen that even at absolute zero, the temperature at which all molecular motion should stop, Hydrogen is a liquid. This shouldn't happen and can only be understood in the context of the "quantum vacuum" or aether. In fact, the only way to freeze hydrogen seems to be with a combination of zero heat and pressure. This is because of the fact that in a perfect atomic vacuum, there seems to be a constant energy pressure in space, theorized to be caused by pervasive electromagnetic energy.

When first discovered, there was also a value assigned to this vacuum energy pressure which implies quite a lot of quantum energy (and as Benjob points out, virtual particles) in every bit of space. That does not change the fact that space is still, technically a vacuum.

Richard Feynman, one of the most famous physicists of the 20th century, at one point said that if the quantum energy in one cupful of empty space could be released, it would be enough to boil all the worlds oceans. This is often referred to as ZPE or zero point energy. The problem is that since it seems to be equal everywhere, it cannot be "pulled" from one location to another and used as energy. So far, no one has provably and publicly determined any way to get energy from this source. Even Tesla's experiments in "free energy" don't claim to get it from the ZPF (zero point field or quantum vacuum), but some people confuse that as well. There are many hoaxes and snake oil salespeople saying they have or will achieve that breakthrough in exchange for your investment, but there are very few candidates for a working invention or system.

One interesting and accepted demonstration of the effect of ZPE is the Casimir force. This is a force that, even in a vacuum, will push two metal plates together that get within about 10 nanometers of each other. It is also what I theorize may be involved in the unexplained attraction of DNA strands to like DNA strands, but that is on another thread. The Casimir force is believed to be caused by the reduction of the strength of the ZPF in between the two plates, causing the external energy pressure to push them together. It actually gets quite strong, the closer the plates get to each other by an inverse of the distance to the 4th power. So far, while the Casimir force seems potentially useful at the nanoscale and certainly a problem that must be dealt with when building nanoscale devices, I am not aware of any published means of leveraging it to produce energy. I do believe it is likely possible and have some of my own theories of how that could be done. No, I'm not looking for investment. I'm pretty busy right now

Gravitic propulsion
In fact, there has been a lot of work in gravitic or inertia-based propulsion, anti-gravity, or propellantless propulsion that looks pretty promising. I once asked Steven Hawking what he thought of anti-gravity (this was years ago), and he suggested that it wasn't possible due to the fact that he didn't believe in time travel. Now that we're theoretically on the cusp of time travel and I believe he may have changed his opinion on the subject, I think there are reasons to believe that anti-gravity is also feasible. In my opinion, we've basically got it already, but I suspect it is referred to as "propellantless propulsion".

I've posted a number of links ATS in the past on this subject, but my posts generally get passed over on ATS and lost to the more recent issues of the day. In order to fit within the allotted character limit, I'll refer you to what, in my opinion is the most promising related inertial and gravitic propulsion technology, developed by James Woodward, a professor at Cal State Fullerton. If you really want to understand the basis for it as well as some basis for current theories on time travel, look up "Wheeler-Feynman Absorber Theory". Let me know if you find this useful or if you feel this is just a big wet blanket
www.woodwardeffect.org...


[edit on 15-2-2008 by lifestudent]

reply to post by lifestudent


You could call it that, i was waiting for someone to say "Positive, not bad" or "Negative, you're an idiot", but not in the way that dude put it with his damn sci-fi references.

One thing though; you stated that it would be impossible to use ZPE as a fuel source because it is essentially in nuetral - What if we removed some of it from it's environment for experimental purposes?

edit; That's what i was getting at with the sliding door mechanism, btw.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Throbber]

Originally posted by Throbber
One thing though; you stated that it would be impossible to use ZPE as a fuel source because it is essentially in nuetral - What if we removed some of it from it's environment for experimental purposes?

Actually, I didn't say it would be impossible to use ZPE energy. I don't actually believe that's necessarily true. I do think there are a LOT of hoaxers out there saying they've made breakthroughs that they haven't however, and I think the way to do it would be extremely unconventional.

The problem with manipulating ZPE, either removing it from an area or using it, is the scale of that energy and the fact that no one has published evidence of being able to affect it beyond the Casimir force. If, for example, you could make some material that reflected all ZPE energy from one side and either absorbed or was transparent to all ZPE energy from the other, that material whenever made in any but the smallest atomic quantities, would like immediately zip off at near the speed of light, leaving behind some kind of explosion, probably beyond nuclear. Of course, I also think such a material is pretty much an impossibility.

If you can find a way to manipulate ZPE beyond just a demonstration of the Casimir force in some controlled, scalable way, you probably have access to unlimited, free energy forever. Problem is that there are many people trying, and I'm not aware of any know success to date. There are also a lot of people trying to pass off other effects (conversion of magnetic potential energy to electricity, energy extraction from the environment, atomic battery phenomena, etc.) as ZPE energy.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by lifestudent]

reply to post by lifestudent


Thanks for the input lifestudent.

I think my rather naive theory needed some work before i presented it, but i was just testing the water to be perfectly honest to see what kind of reaction it would generate.

Perhaps this is an experiment that NASA should consider next time it sends out one of those deep-space probes.

reply to post by Throbber


Sure thing Throbber. BTW, you really might want to check out that link on the Woodward Effect, very interesting stuff. Inside the site, there's a very interesting powerpoint called "Stairsteps to the Stars". Lots of technical stuff, but you can zip through it and without too much study, you should enjoy what you see.

Perhaps you should just drop it, because "your" theory has and is already being worked on by people smarter than you

reply to post by Iseek


I apologise for formulating a theory myself and hope that you have a nice time studying other people's work but never coming up with anything yourself.

Hi Throbber.

Depending on your definition of vacuum, space "could" be a vacuum. It is not 100% void, it is very very sparse. The way our rockets work. We are shooting "something" into a "vacuum". Rockets exhaust is what propels them through space now. If I understood you right, you wanted to take a vacuum, and put a vacuum in a box, and hope it would move an object. True vacuums, no this would not work. Otherwise, it will work much like a jet engine (or even a giant fan) works now. (non-vacuum).

We currently have Ion drives. Two different types. I will focus on the 2nd one, the one still in testing, this is NOT a production device, and may never be put into production.

First, space itself is not a true vacuum, but it is enough of a vacuum for this to work. On the very basic level, strong magnets pull a particle from the front of the craft, then launch it out the back of the craft faster than it pulled it in. The concept behind it is very long duration flights outside of the solar system because once you pass a certain spot, it becomes very close to a true vacuum. It also saves allows for 'fuel' to be sparse. Even if miles go by before another particle can be used to "kick" the craft a bit more, it is enough. Understand that engine type is not for mobility, just to keep the craft going and slowly accerating. (there is another type of this engine which should launch to Jupiter in the next few years. Huge step for us.)

Also, on a side note. It is much easier to use gravity to speed up crafts as is, and we do use that to our advantage to launch to any other planet.

Looking at your post, I have to say, no. Your theory would not work. You would just have a box that floated in space. If your box had air (compressed would be better) and you let it exaust out a small hole, at least you would be propelled in the opposite direction. But then, your box and space would reach an equilibrium. Once you reach that point nothing happens. You need to keep "refilling" your box with something to exhaust out. Since space is a "vacuum" in this case, it would not work.

There is a very unique engine being designed now that uses solar wind to actually power the engine to allow for an Ion drive to propel it. Looks like an odd windmill powered donut. It's only a one way trip though (away from the Sun).

I hope I helped, if not let me know and I will be glad to try to clear it up.

Excuse me for barging in, guys. But I find the discussion going on really fascinating!

I'm a lay-person to the N'th degree but I do try to understand our universe. So bear with me if you will...K?

In one Of Nikoli Tesla's diagrams he shows a concentric ring enclosing the earth with said "ring" being supported (hypothetically so) in equal increments around the globe.

If I remember correctly the hypotheses goes that if all supports were removed from 'neath suspended ring---at the same moment...the ring would remain suspended?

I've had one engineer tell me that the pull of gravity, not being equal at all points on the earth, would make this a false claim.

What do you guys with the brains think of this idea? Myself I was fascinated with the idea of a suspended ring until I thought about the effects of gravity not being equal globally....if indeed this is a correct statement.

reply to post by deenamarie53


Your friend is right. Earth's gravity is not equal, so it would fail. But, if Earth's gravity was 100% equal, then yes it would work (in theory)

Thanks a bunch, shadowlord!

After perusing this thread and its revolutionary ideas I decided to make a trip to the local hardware store.

I purchased a leaf blower, a wet/dry vacuum and a riding lawn mower (the blade acts as a gyroscope).

I spun copper wiring around the base of my 'ship' and attached magnets at opposite ends of the ship's gyro-wind blade.

The electromagnetic field from the spinning magnets along the circle of copper wire combined with the endless whirlpool of the Suckblowtron (I took the liberty of naming the inverse vacuum device) created a pocket of alternate reality allowing for time/space travel.

Don't forget to hook the energy output of the Suckblowtron to the vehicles engine to provide a continuous cycle of energy.

Ladies and gentlemen, the future is here.

Spoodily, are you spoofing us of lesser gray matter?

It wouldn't be the first time for me

reply to post by lifestudent


Never feel your contribution is unwanted or overlooked . This board needs more people like yourself who actually know what there talking about.

Thanks for your post. most interesting.

reply to post by tombangelta


Thanks Tom,
I appreciate knowing that. I have considered just not posting after a number that I put a lot of thought into just dropped off the recent posts page (seems to often mean they won't come back). ATS has actually gotten me to put down my thoughts more than any other medium, partially due to the anonymity, and that is good for me as well. I wish there was some way to actually find all the posts someone has made. I've recently wanted to refer to some without typing again, but simply couldn't find them.

Originally posted by Shadow_Lord
If I understood you right, you wanted to take a vacuum, and put a vacuum in a box, and hope it would move an object. True vacuums, no this would not work. Otherwise, it will work much like a jet engine (or even a giant fan) works now. (non-vacuum).

Almost, but i was actually talking about a method of experimentation.

the vacuum inside the box would be surrounded by another vacuum.

You could perhaps compare it as if i were to put a 'bubble' of vacuum inside another bubble, which not only contains the original bubble but vacuum as well.

I've realised now that the only place where this can really be experimented on is in space, which is why i'm wondering whether or not NASA have anything planned in this regard.

[edit on 15-2-2008 by Throbber]

reply to post by Throbber


Just trying to help cause you're wasting your time

reply to post by Iseek


Trying to help by attempting to revive a thread by insinuating that i don't know when it's over.

I just feel that there are posters in the thread thinking about how to expose me for being a nutcase instead of thinking about how it doesn't work.

We've established that there are facts concerning the nature of vacuum, but i was just wondering why it was so nessecary to deny that space is - to all intents and purposes - vacuum in the first place.

[edit on 16-2-2008 by Throbber]