Do you understand this first hint about anty-gravitation?(written below)?

Question

Anty-gravitation is not about propelling unit but is about making it weightless in first place and not affected by gravitation... Focus - not propelled...

Nope, its not propulusion... its diffrent foce making it like that... already avaiable and even tested by NASA as I heard... but... they still test only hints...

and Rscaner you are totaly wright that making object weightless gives such advantage... but i would use something diffrent to propell... rockets are very not efficient in comparation to something I know...

hey Bustup I am happy you are laughing :)... now go think about something you are good at and dont bother about what I just said :p... or show me you are wiser than me... I need such friends if you want to know...

Scot P, the “eggster”, eyeonthescreen you are on my list of geniuses... but… I am afraid you don’t know yet what I am talking about… I wish I knew as much as you about Physics science and would be able to free this secret from my head for a little more peace in my soul in so easy way as you do… but my life went on different track… Anyway… I will work on it to give you whole explanation… All I have in head… I am going to do that (no rush)… I hope I will not change my mind… Btw… I think negative mass is just lack of mass (Affected object>x>=0) or change in space caused by gravitation calapse like black holes (affected object>0>x)… Universe is full of mystery… I feel I am mostly only guessing… AND EYEONTHESCREEN you aim well cos its based on centrifugal foce… but… haha… I will tell you later :)... patience... and pray I will not change from world evil... :(

Answer 1

Yes! There are two conditions of this that I'm aware of; the assumed position of complete stabilization (which is impossible due to that motions and time are parallel, as proven by Albert Einstein and other Physicists); and the real position of hesitation between the time periods from forward to backward flows of motions, also called action/reaction (these moments were proven by the Physicist Isaac Newton and confirmed by other Physicists). An interesting read on this is within Newton's Third Laws of Motions, on the subject of Momentum Equilibrium and Conservation. Hope this helps; the eggster.

Answer 2

I understand it is full of ambiguous or misleading physics. There is always weight where there is mass...period. Weight is simply the force of gravity acting on mass, W = mg; where m is mass and g is acceleration due to gravity. g = GM/R^2; where M is a second mass, G is a constant of proportionality, and R is the distance between the centers of mass for M and m, the body acted on to give it weight W = mg.

We can neutralize weight by a counteracting force, F; so that the net or effective weight is w = W - F. Thus, if F = W, the effective weight is w = W - F = 0. And when that happens, the mass no longer accelerates, which is from f = ma = w = 0. Or, rewritten, w/m = a = 0; where the net weight is a net force f.

Note that w = ma = W - F has value, not zero, if and only if there is acceleration a <> 0. In your words, the object (mass) is in fact "propelled" at an ever increasing/decreasing rate.

It is weightless (actually effective weightless) when a = 0; so the object might still be moving, but at a constant velocity v = constant, or it might be standing still, v = 0 which just is a special case of constant velocity.

Centrifugal force is one method to counteract weight. Centrifugal force is that force you feel tug on you when you go over the top of a roller coaster ride. You feel lighter at that point because F, the centrifugal force, is counteracting your weight (W) in w = W - F. And, I'm sure you'll agree, that roller coaster is certainly propelled.

Answer 3

When you are in the water, you notice a bubble of air rises. If you lived in a medium, such as water instead of a vacuum, then relative to you, you would have positive and negative mass. Negative mass pushes itself away from all mass, just as positive mass pulls itself towards all mass. So, in my opinion, for example, two large spheres of lexan in a mercury filled space would repel one another, gravitationally. The most interesting case would be where you have one positive mass and one negative. The positive mass pulls itself towards the negative mass which pushes itself away from the positive mass. What you have then is the positive mass follows the negative; one chasing the other, and gives you motion. Makes one wonder if this is what a photon is. Makes one wonder if this mechanism is what gives rise to all motion. Perhaps negative mass does exist, but is not itself observable, but is what makes mass move. If true, this would mean that negative mass has always been all around us, giving motion to things, but we just have not looked at it that way.

Answer 4

Fly me to the stars...

yeh, I'm proud to be a lightweight... I am centered
i.e. balanced, and I feel attracted... to... your energy...

Com'on - if you're highly qualified - give of this decent, peace-loving guy
(the one who asked the question)
something better than AB squared x WYZ =
no quantam leaps...

"Logic will get you from A to B - imagination will take you anywhere."

Answer 5

If you can make an object massless then you can use a very small rocket to move it very fast. Even better all the fuel you care would be massless until you feed it into the rocket. This would be very handy.

Answer 6

Yes but it amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?

Also what about Mach's principle?

Answer 7

Hey man, your like me, man.

physics stuff

WOW

like when I look at my hand, I can like, move it without touching it.

Ha Ha, far out.