The Secret To Surviving A Black Hole Is The Secret Of Gravity!

This thread can be summed up simply::

I just thought of a earth shattering invention...perpetual motion..we take magnets and put it in a circle, then more magnets on a flywheel inside..each magnet pushes the interior magnet of like poles and voila, endless perpetual motion...

and no, I will not read up on why it won't work...it works in my mind, therefore it will work.


Ya..this is one of those discussions. A failed understanding of physics

Originally posted by metalholic
reply to post by RSF77


all gravity really is...is inertia!

think about it why does the earth have gravity? because its rotation and the friction between it and the moon! causes the core to create a pull! our mass pushes us down along with the atomosphere and everything

so this pull and push is all inertia!

well syntrifical force is based off inertia and does the same thing it creates gravity!

so if we can do all that surely we can bend it?

"Syntrifical" force, huh??? I really hope you meant centrifugal force, because otherwise, I have made it through a Masters and PhD without learning about one of the forces. I mean, I can explain and mathematically quantify the ones I know about, but syntrifical is a new one. Since you mention it in relation to inertia, I,m pretty sure you are confused,not only about the name, but also the difference between centrifugal and centripetal forces, with centripetal being the force acting on a curving body which keeps it moving toward the center, like the force the seat of an aircraft in a level constant banked turn exerts on your butt. E.g., a 60 degree banked turn results in a force of 2 gs. This is a result of gravity being a term describing acceleration. And acceleration is simply a change in velocity. Velocity is a vector measurement, as opposed to speed, which is scalar. If you change direction you are changing velocity, and in fact a curved path is an accelerating path. So, no, gravity is not just another word for inertia. Inertia, or more properly momentum, is a function of mass and velocity, while gravity is a function of 2 masses, governed by the inverse square rule, which has no place in the analysis of inertia.
You started off in an interesting direction by talking about equivalence, but you picked the wrong thing to equate with gravity. Einstein started off toward General Relativity by recognizing an equivalence, but it was the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Gravity exerts the same force here on earth as an elevator accelerating upward at 9.81meters/sec/sec. So you started off in an interesting direction but then went off all Deepak Chopra on me.
No one is going to take you at all seriously until you learn to quantify your theories and have at least one replicatable experiment to show.

reply to post by metalholic


Personally, I think you will have no trouble at all in getting into an institution where you are surrounded by those in lab coats...scientists, if you will.

Of course, saying you have a secret, and not telling what it is...well, lets just say you likely asked for the flames that likely have and will come...

reply to post by metalholic

gravity is this in my mind and i say it with confidence!

Gravity has been a lot of things to me, in my mind, as well. They are often mutually exclusive ideas, and therefor only one (or none) can survive the attrition of discovery.

it is the magnetic pull between 2 componets we are stuck to the earth b/c our magnetic polar structure attracts to the earth and various other objects like the sun and what not..

Equating gravity and magnetism - or even relating the two - is going out on a limb. Gravity has no known polar structure - magnetism does. Magnetism also has different effects on different materials - water, for instance, 'avoids' magnetic fields while iron, nickel, and cobalt are drawn toward it.

Gravity does not appear to be, in any way, shape, or form, a polarized field. Two like magnetic fields will repel - it requires opposite fields to attract. Gravity is self-attracting - if it is indeed a force. This, combined with how weak of an influence it has - by comparison to other forces - makes it an enigma.

yes we all know gravity is weak..SO is a magnet!

Magnetism is quite strong, really. It is an extension of the electric force - which is what holds our molecules together, be them ionic or covalent bonds. The sun has a far more powerful electromagnetic field than it does a gravitational field. While I'm not a huge "electric universe" fan - I do believe macroscopic modeling of electrostatic and electromagnetic fields is one of the more critical oversights of our present model of cosmology and astrophysics.

if we took a saucer and changed its polar magnetism then we have made it impossible for the earth or the sun to pull on it! why b/c the we changed the way objects that create magnetism or gravity react to the saucer!

Except... gravity has no observed polarity. Never, once, has anyone observed a polar relationship to gravity.

The entire notion makes sense. An "anti-gravity" field that could be maintained as static would allow me to send water to the top of a mountain and let it fall back down under the influence of gravity. "Antigravity" simply prevents gravity from acting upon an object - or is repelled by the presence of gravity, under most descriptions of how alleged devices work. Here's the problem. I simply send water in an antigravity field up several hundred feet, and let it fall back down through a water wheel. This is a direct violation of the conservation of energy. It's a principle I'd like to, one day, learn to defeat - but I doubt it's going to be through any trickery amounting to a cleverly drawn "impossible structure."

The only way around this is to require the field to expend energy in order to repel gravity in a manner that balances the equation. This, however, is a completely different concept from "antigravity".

now if we have magnets inside the saucer spinning in 2 different directions or h/e it is u can create ur own gravity idk all the details but u do this inside the saucer now u have ur own artificial gravity INSIDE the saucer!

... I've spun plenty of magnets and never once had them zing off to some remote location or suck me into the works with an artificial gravity field.

About the best you could do is induce eddy-currents in nearby matter and cause it to repel ... I wouldn't want to be inside of a saucer like that... but, were I still alive, I could walk on the inside walls as though they were a floor and I was under the influence of gravity. ... I'd also be shooting sparks everywhere like Powder or the ultimate Super Saiyan cosplay...

while the earth does not pull on u the saucer does! so u have jus created ur own mobile space vehicle thats u r safe in for extended periods of time!

Well, presuming you created an "anti-gravity" field that, essentially, repelled mass.... it would repel the very object creating it (the saucer), and you. I suppose this could work in about the same fashion as my above example - you could walk on the interior of the walls as though they were the floor... but it would not really negate the inertia from acceleration - nor would a gravity field being used as part of an artificial gravity system. The only way you could negate acceleration would be through uniform manipulation of superposition or some means of imparting an equal force on every atom (discovering a way of doing one will likely lead to developing the means for the other, as well).

The artificial gravity would only work to counteract acceleration if you were using gravity as a means of accelerating - IE - 'holding a mini-black-hole in front of the ship like a carrot.' This is a great idea - except we have no known means of simulating gravity - and it would also be difficult to generate a non-local field away from a source. If you can't 'throw' the field in front of your craft, then you can only go as fast as whatever is producing the field of attraction.

now that earth or sun cannot pull on the saucer it is possible for it travel at the speed of light!

I'm not entirely convinced. Physically moving or approaching the speed of light runs into a few problems. EM is radiated from your craft and travels along at the speed of light. This creates a "bow shock" of electromagnetic radiation that, as you increase speed, will increase in energy density until it begins to reach Planck limits and any additional energy put into the system is immediately bled off in the form of particle-radiation. Since this is occurring along every atom in your structure, and some of the radiation includes anti-particles and exotic, never-before-seen particles... this is not good.

This would happen in any field where the speed of light was also not inherently increased as well.

it's all simple! jus need men with the will power...i will say this though the gov. already have these saucers!

It's not through lack of willpower. It could be a lack of capital resources - but there are hundreds of projects going on out there probing into the nature of gravity and that sort of thing. And, while it's remotely possible that some restricted access program has found something capable of doing what I've described here and previously (or some variation thereof) - it's not all that likely. In either case - it's more than likely not implemented in a "mobile" solution - such as the various craft(s) thrown about on these forums.

By all means - make a spinning magnet saucer-thing; if it works, it works. I'm just not seeing where anything you're presenting has any tangent contact with reality - or what's generally accepted as being reality.

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by RSF77

 

Dark matter has not been proven, it is purely a thoery that exists in the absence of anything, Going along the same theory That there can never be nothing. Therefore there must be something i.e Dark matter.

That first sentence is almost exactly what I said word for word not three posts up from yours, you are trying to correct me on something that I already stated. Many physicists have theorized that Dark Matter has negative mass, so it would not really be 'nothing', it would have the opposite effect of gravitational mass as we know it. The closest thing to a perfect vacuum we would seem to find in the area between clumps of matter and dark matter, unless you consider the existence of negative matter more of a vacuum than the sparsity of matter. Or, while we are speculating, outside of the universe (assuming its some sort of bubble).

Whereas anti-matter is like the donut hole of matter. When energy is used to slam particles together they create two opposites of each other (matter and antimatter) that when combined together again, produce energy from mass with a 100% efficiency. A nuclear explosion produces energy from mass at about 1% efficiency.

Originally posted by Aim64C
The only way you could negate acceleration would be through uniform manipulation of superposition or some means of imparting an equal force on every atom

Wow, imagine the sheer scale of computing power you would need to accomplish this accurately.

Minimum System Requirements:
Windows 7,000 Quantum Edition
20 ZHz Processor
Infinity BioRAM with Bose-Einstein Helium cooling system

reply to post by RSF77


But youve got to admit the pure existance of Anti-Nothing would blow us mere mortals minds

reply to post by TedHodgson


Yea, in a way we are made of anti-nothing. We are made of something after all.

Or maybe everything that doesn't exist is actually made of something, and we are really the anti-something and cannot see or comprehend the existence of our own nothingness.

reply to post by RSF77


Our mere existance in our minds could be defined as Anti-Nothing but it still exists, we know it we feel it, but we still can prove that we as indiviuals in our own mind sense exist, and nobody else seems to notice our mental existance either, only our physical.
----------------------------------------------------------
Sorry if you felt i contradicted you before, I was merely trying to work only the same lines, in the absence of reading your post

reply to post by TedHodgson


I tend to think that our mental existence is nothing more than a complex system of electrical impulses, for instance when a human gets knocked out, its actually the displacement of these electrical impulses that causes us to lose consciousness. That is another interesting topic all on its own though.

No problem, I didn't mean to sound like a #, lol.

reply to post by RSF77


But then again its never-the-less the most brillaint Arrangement of electrical impluses we can comprehend, If only science could explain why existance "is" Then we could become to understand ourselves and others better, But personally i think we as a human race are so far off realising this its barely worth thinking about, There will be wars, famine, oppression and a lifetime of irelevant religion before we realise what we ^Are*.
Its all very well and good saying i am "Me" but what are "you" to me, you are not "Me" therefore you are you and i dont know what "you" are yet ill still contradict your thinking on every battlefield in the absence of knowing That "Me" might as well be "You" for all sake of argument, but at the end of day "We" Are "We" and when "We" all understand this there will be peace.

If i didnt just blow "OUR" minds "We" might as well blow our own

reply to post by RSF77


i understand your point. That is something that i haven't quite figured out yet, but that is why its a theoretical device in my story. I do believe however that some UFOs in alot of footage have to be generating their own gravity in some way, especially the UFOs in the NASA space shuttle footage. David Sereda goes pretty in-depth with his theories in Evidence: The Case for NASA UFOs. You can find that on youtube and if you've seen it, he talks about how it would be a possibility since alot of UFOs in the Shuttle footage seem to do maneuvering that should, by current physics, not be possible. Turns so fast and sharp that it should technically destroy itself from the G forces of the turn. My hypothesis is that they have to be generating their own type of gravity.

reply to post by Lynexon


exactly and this sci-fi science that i present is prolly the answer! i mean even if i didnt succeed i'm sure my idea would spark someone who would discover it!

life i ssci-fi in itself anyway! so why not!

reply to post by metalholic


Getting back to my page 4 question......

The question is, have you really created gravity other than what any of us has? If so, describe what happened during your gravitational experiment that made you believe that you created a gravity that none of us has not created; if you would please.

reply to post by RussianScientists


i have created no such gravity outside of what has already been done!

reply to post by RSF77

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by metalholic

 

I am just a poor construction worker with dreams of science myself.

I come from a carpentry background and have a great deal of interest in the workings of the cosmos as well. I went to school to study aerospace and worked part time installing residential millwork. Somewhere along the way the part time job became a career and the schooling took second place. It was a good choice and has allowed the means over the years to still pursue the fun parts of aviation as a hobby.

Leonard Susskind was a plummer before going on to receive his doctorate from Cornell University and eventually besting Stephen Hawking as told in his book The Black Hole War: My battle with Stephen Hawking to make the world safe for quantum mechanics.

Albert Einstein was denied admittance to the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich after failing the entrance examination and was working as an assistant file clerk in a patent office when his first papers were published. ( interestingly, he was denied promotion in the patent office for mediocre performance as well)

Not all great minds are products of mainstream academics

Back on topic....

I thought you were doing a good job providing Metalholic with some articulate and easy to follow explanations on a very complex and often counterintuitive subject matter, however I believe there is some confusion or misunderstanding regarding your last two or three posts.

You seem sincere and I understand internet culture discourages some folks from admitting their mistakes but your response to TedHodgson was still incorrect.

Originally posted by TedHodgson
reply to post by RSF77

 

Dark matter has not been proven, it is purely a thoery that exists in the absence of anything, Going along the same theory That there can never be nothing. Therefore there must be something i.e Dark matter.

Originally posted by RSF77
That first sentence is almost exactly what I said word for word not three posts up from yours, you are trying to correct me on something that I already stated. Many physicists have theorized that Dark Matter has negative mass, so it would not really be 'nothing', it would have the opposite effect of gravitational mass as we know it. The closest thing to a perfect vacuum we would seem to find in the area between clumps of matter and dark matter, unless you consider the existence of negative matter more of a vacuum than the sparsity of matter. Or, while we are speculating, outside of the universe (assuming its some sort of bubble).

Originally posted by RSF77

Supposedly, dark matter has negative mass and therefore negative gravity, but it exists far away from any mass and is hard to get to even if you could travel at near the speed of light It is just a theory as well, its not proven to exist.

I can guarantee that your not going to find any theoretical physicist to buy off on the negative mass of dark matter. The only reason we know to look for it is due to its regular everyday mass creating regular everyday gravity. I beleive its possible you may be mistakenly interchanging some properties of dark matter with dark energy and current descriptions of antimatter.( I could swear somebody just warned me about that)

Dark matter and dark energy make up the vast majority of mass in the universe and are everywhere around us all the time. You don't have to travel at all, its already here.

According to the once discarded and newly revived theory of the Cosmological constant, dark energy is a product of vacuum energy derived from the Casimir effect (otherwise known as zero point energy?)


Dark matter

Anti matter is a different story with one of the great mysteries of physics being the apparent imbalance of matter and antimatter. All the rules imply equal amounts of particles and antiparticles should gave been created in the early universe subsequently annihilating one another until the universe was filled with nothing but radiation.

One possible explanation for the imbalance is that there are parts of the distant universe with greater density's of anti-matter which sounds a lot like what was suggested above in regards to your description of dark matter.

Originally posted by RSF77
reply to post by metalholic

 

The theory of dark matter is not to be confused with anti-matter though, they are two separate things.

Good advice. (sorry, couldn't resist)

Anti-matter can actually be produced in a particle accelerator, but in very very small quantities (several atoms). It then has to be captured in a penning trap, which is basically an electromagnetic container.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.pcmag.com...

I would add antiparticles are created and destroyed all the time everywhere there are high energy particle collisions in the universe. The Earths atmosphere is constantly struck by high energy cosmic rays which form antiparticles that are in turn immediately destroyed by contact with the surrounding matter.

We all agree that dark matter and dark energy are only theory but I would add that the preponderance of observational evidence is in agreement with scientific prediction.

Your inclusion of negative mass and negative gravity in describing the nature of dark matter is incorrect. Dark matter is "dark" because it doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum. The only observable interactions between dark matter and visible space are gravitational effects and background radiation.

While dark matter is very possibly made of particles yet unknown to the standard model , their mass is known since their existence was discovered as a result of their positive gravitational interaction with the visible universe.
Gravitational lensing, specific galactic orbital velocities and more importantly the formation of galactic structure in the early universe are all examples of the presence of dark matter.

Ironically, it is hypothesized that if negative mass were possible it would fall toward "normal" mass rather than away. "Normal" mass would itself be repelled from the negative mass making for interesting speculation as explained below.

There is a noteworthy exception found in the work of a British cosmologist named Sir Hermann Bondi who Both general relativity and Newtonian gravity appear to predict that negative mass would produce a repulsive gravitational field. In particular, Sir Hermann Bondi proposed in 1957 that negative gravitational mass, combined with negative inertial mass, would comply with the strong equivalence principle of general relativity theory and the Newtonian laws of conservation of linear momentum and energy...

...Bondi pointed out that a negative mass will fall toward (and not away from) "normal" matter, since although the gravitational force is repulsive, the negative mass (according to Newton's law, F=ma) responds by accelerating in the opposite of the direction of the force. Normal mass, on the other hand, will fall away from the negative matter. He noted that two identical masses, one positive and one negative, placed near each other will therefore self-accelerate in the direction of the line between them, with the negative mass chasing after the positive mass. Notice that because the negative mass acquires negative kinetic energy, the total energy of the accelerating masses remains at zero. Forward pointed out that the self-acceleration effect is due to the negative inertial mass, and could be seen induced without the gravitational forces between the particles

Negative Mass in General Relativity

negative mass propulsion

A hypothetical propulsion system based on the juxtaposition of ordinary positive mass and negative mass. In theory, such a system would be able to provide continuous thrust, without violating the principles of conservation of momentum or energy. It would require no input energy and no reaction mass. Workability of the scheme, however, hinges on the existence of negative mass and also on negative mass having negative inertia. The combined interactions of the two types of mass would then result in a sustained acceleration of both masses in the same direction. The concept of negative mass was first considered in depth by Herman Bondi in 1957 and revisited in the context of interstellar spaceflight by Winterberg and Robert Forward in the 1980s.

negative mass propulsion

In the standard model of big bang cosmology dark energy is believed to be responsible for the acceleration of the expanding universe.

The wiki description sums up the current understanding of dark energy as well as any other source...

Nature of dark energy
The nature of this dark energy is a matter of speculation. It is known to be very homogeneous, not very dense and is not known to interact through any of the fundamental forces other than gravity. Since it is not very dense — roughly 10−29 grams per cubic centimeter — it is hard to imagine experiments to detect it in the laboratory. Dark energy can only have such a profound impact on the universe, making up 74% of universal density, because it uniformly fills otherwise empty space. The two leading models are quintessence and the cosmological constant. Both models include the common characteristic that dark energy must have negative pressure.

Dark energy

As a general rule, anything referenced as negative mass, negative gravity, anti gravity should be viewed with some skepticism as nature seems to disagree with the idea.

There are a lot of claims floating about however the simple truth is that The Institute for Gravity Research of the Göde Scientific Foundation has offered for some time to pay a one million euro reward to anyone who can demonstrate an influence on gravity.

1. General description:

The "Göde reward for gravity research" is an innovative prize. The intent of this prize is to influence gravity with presently unknown methods. Applicants must successfully design, construct and complete an experiment with specified performance characteristics. A 20 gram heavy device or the assembly itself, is required to float freely at least 1 minute at a minimum distance of 10 cm from any surface.

Applicants must submit an operating assembly that is capable to prove that the experiment exclusively has direct influence on gravity.

Experiments, that deviate from the target setting, but reveal a clear effect regarding gravity (gravity impulse), can be submitted. The committee decides, if the experiment can participate unscheduled. Applicants cannot claim acceptance.

Levitation effects, based on traditional effects such as aerodynamic, magnetism or electricity are excluded. Experiments which fully and/or partly lead back to traditional standards are subject for selection by the committees decision. The proposed device will be reproduced and tested for performance and functionality by the Wissenschafts-Stiftung.

Göde reward for gravity research

To date, no one has claimed the prize but perhaps Metalholic will be the first.

It might be interesting to note that black holes emit gamma radiation and anti matter, it would seem they are slowly 'evaporating' the universe as it recycles itself, should this be correct. However it could be true that they slowly recycle it into the exact opposite of itself which then slowly recycles itself back, unless eventually all universes would become nothing but gamma radiation. I don't think we really know how this works yet, lol. I'm not sure, but I think the anti-matter annihilates itself immediately due to all the matter orbiting a black hole, this might be what creates the radiation, I will have to read up on it.

Other theories say the universe will continue expanding as well due to the presence of dark matter, and not recycle itself.

Black holes by definition don't emit anything much less antimatter particles? I think it is more accurate to say that gamma ray bursts ( the most energetic phenomena in the known universe) are associated with black whole formation and theorized as one possibility of the demise of some of the smaller primordial black holes.

I believe the interaction between the black holes gravitational tidal forces and whatever happens to be in its way can be energetic enough to form some types of anti particles to form as a result however if a mechanism exists I don't see anything about it on google?

My understanding is that "feeding" black holes can release huge amounts of X-ray energy but this is due to gravitational tidal force interaction with matter on the safe side of the event horizon?

Hawking radiation, if proven, is miniscule and only the smaller primordial black holes have the possibility of evaporating during the lifetime of the universe as any singularity with a mass equivalent to earths moon or larger will absorb more cosmic background energy than could be radiated away at any given time so even with Hawking Radiation evaporating the singularity will continue to grow.

I hope this helps, however anyone who knows the subject better please feel free to correct any fallacies.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Thanks for the informative post, I don't have time to look into all of the links you provided and make a detailed reply right now, but I will as soon as I can. It was interesting to read and of course I could have been wrong about some things, this is just my simple understanding.

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
I can guarantee that your not going to find any theoretical physicist to buy off on the negative mass of dark matter

I will say that this person did theorize that dark matter had negative mass, I am not sure of the credibility that mainstream science gave him. I have to admit though I am somewhat personally biased because I like the idea.

Edmond S. Miksch
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by RSF77


Take a peak when you get the time, I'm by no means fluent in the subject but I believe the information I posted to accurate ( I spent a couple of hours fact checking what I wrote and actually learned a few new things in the process)

These are amazing times of discovery to witness firsthand, its nice to talk with people who are genuinely interested in the subject as well.

I find the pursuit of gravity and its secrets fascinating. What a strange strange world we live in. I am constantly amused by the proclamation of current scientists stating that "We know NOW why this is" and the statement makes no more sense than the previous theory. Theories will evolve as baby steps, until I believe that one missing piece of the puzzle is found which will hopefully unify both ends of the spectrum. I do think that the government is involved in things that would solve this thread. I have witnessed a huge craft a short distance away just putting along real slowly. It was not a blimp, nor a conventional craft. It made no sound, therefore some form of manipulation was being accomplished of gravity.
Oh and metal, I used to entertain the same notions with Pink Floyd shaking the rafters as well. Fun Thread bro.