If we know the mathematical equation to which keeps us on this earth why could we not reverse this equation to create a anti. In lemans terms we know that gravity is due to the force and preassure of space surrounding us also due to the rotation of the earth and the moons orbit, and, and, and, why can we not reverse this cycle and condence it. is it a measurement, a math equation, a dream, or all three
2007-06-13 07:30:33 · 9 answers · asked by Perry M 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Oh my god, you're right! We'll just flip the equation and just all float away. It's like the matrix, mind over matter and all that. (Or maybe the midichlorians will help).
2007-06-13 07:34:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
We can map a formula to show the opposite effect of gravity, but that doesn't mean we have a means to reverse it. The first thing to understand is that gravity is the attraction between 2 objects, not the effect of one. This means that not only is earth pulling on you, you pull back, just not as much. Even then, it's an exponential effect. Gravity pulls harder the closer two objects are to each other. If you found the formula for the converse, all you'd have is the needed force, not the method to do so.
2007-06-13 14:40:15 · answer #2 · answered by noxcucurari 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The force due to gravity is calculated based on the mass of the two objects being attracted to each other. In order for the result of this calculation to come out negative (an anti-gravity), one of the objects would need to have a negative mass. Since it is impossible (as far as we know today) to have a negative mass, this doesn't work.
Another possibility for sort of anti-gravity would be some sort of material or field that would block the gravitational force. This would allow you to push off from the surface of the Earth, for example, and keep moving in that direction without being pulled back to Earth by its gravity. However, in our current understanding of physics we do not know of any material or force capable of doing this (and it seems unlikely that we ever will).
2007-06-13 15:10:13 · answer #3 · answered by Jack 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Annalen der Physik 4 XLIX 769-822 (1916)
Gravitation is then uniformly attractive. If you like it quantized rather than classical, the propagator graviton is a massless spin-2 tensor boson. Gravitation is then uniformly attractive.
Newton was wrong. Newton is an approximation with c=infinity (lightspeed), G=G, and h=0 (Planck's constant). General Relativity has c=c, G=G, and h=0. That is better.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
2007-06-13 14:42:32 · answer #4 · answered by Uncle Al 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The equation is not the actual force of nature causing gravity. Reversing the equation is like simply saying book backwards. Koob means nothing.
2007-06-13 14:34:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The pressure of space surrounding us?! Are you serious? How old are you?
Humanity does not yet understand gravity, period. Maybe someday, but we're hardly even close yet.
Relativity is a wash. So much of theoretical physics and astronomy is based on nothing - just guesses somebody decided to treat as fact so they could get their mathematics to work. Then someone else will take that math and do the same thing with it.
Sad, but true. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings, whoever you are.
2007-06-13 14:35:24 · answer #6 · answered by Alowishus B 4 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Hi. The particle which transfers gravitational force is it's own anti-particle, so reversing it make no difference. It still is attractive.
2007-06-13 14:39:19 · answer #7 · answered by Cirric 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
bla-bla-bla...and you know the funniest part is that you even can make people to think about that...
2007-06-13 14:42:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
We use both +9.8m/s as well as -9.8m/s....
2007-06-13 14:34:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋