Do you think man will ever find a way to create artificial gravity ?

Question

I think that if we plan on ever doing long space trips, we will need to have an artificial gravity.

Not using centrifugal forces of course...

Answer 1

Well, I hadn't thought about it, but it might be possible with a super-dense material to get an Earth gravity effect with something not quite as big, or even with the total mass, of the Earth. Let's say you're in New York. China is "pulling on you." But the force of the land in China pulling on you is diminished by the inverse square law. With a denser material, you might be able to get "pulled down" by the same amount without having a total mass exactly equivalent to Earth. Nonetheless it would be a pretty big mass and even if *not exactly* equivalent to Earth you wouldn't want this space ship anywhere in our neighborhood.

So, in other words, the only way to do this without centrifuge would be with some super-dense matter that currently we can't manipulate, but everything points to the fact that such super-dense material exists (such as neutron stars).

Another way to think about the problem is as follows. The question hinges on our understanding of gravity, but we know from current cosmological theory that our understanding of gravity is extremeley incomplete. That's why there is all this "dark matter" theory which is really just a way of making observations conform to theory by hypothesizing some kind of mass-like stuff that we can't see but which exerts gravity in ways that conform to our traditional way of looking at gravity.
So one could say that this takes everything off the table and that when we have a better understanding of gravity we'll be able to engineer artificial gravity.

But as a final point let's look at the question as an engineering question. There are two fundamentals.

First, it can take a long time for the *theoretical understanding* of a problem to the *engineering solution.* Newton and Leibnitz solved the theoretical problem of how to move a mass from the Earth to Mars, for example, and have it arrive exactly where you want it to when you want it to, and how much energy would be required. But the *engineering capability* did not catch up with the *theory* for three hundred years, although military applications, what we call "ballistics," proved all the main calculation issues to a very precise degree, well before we could send a satellite into space or to Mars.

Second, good engineering is always cost effective. A good engineer is always able to consider the solutions, the time to construct, the durability desired, and so on. So, for example, it is quite easy to say that we could dismantle the Golden Gate bridge--a supreme expression of design concepts that date to the nineteenth century--and have a fleet of heavy heavy helicopters carry platforms of cars across the water. We have the engineering capability to do that today and such a system could work and be pretty reliable, and it would not have been feasible in 1930.

But we don't do it today anywhere, because the cost is absurd. A good engineer would say you're nuts to do this. Maybe if you're fighting a war and need to cross a river once it makes sense. But not for every day use. A standard bridge design is cheaper, more durable, less noisy, works in bad weather, and so on. So, in reality, we have a situation where the bridge is used, and we keep a few helicopters around in case there's some kind of huge accident and we need to airlift stuff on or off the bridge, but the bridge is the technology of choice on every major design criterion.

Now let's get back to some kind of artificial gravity. Assuming that some day we have the *theory* to do it, and turn the *theory* into reality, that still does not mean that artificial gravity would be the *cost effective, simple, elegant engineering solution.* You might have a situation where a large asteroid is fitted out with a huge power supply and an artificial gravity generator is OK for the purposes of servicing a large fleet of ships, but the ships themselves would be using good old centrifugal force. That doesn't mean centrifugal force is primitive. After all, the Golden Gate Bridge is conceptually identical to cave men taking a dead tree and laying it across a stream so they can cross. The brilliance lies in the application and scale of the basic principle.

Take for example a Star Trek type TV show where we have the artificial gravity working and it seems to be the "neat thing you gotta have." But now think about it from the point of view of a real engineering problem. Let us say that artificial gravity exists but takes a LOT of energy to use. Now you're fighting the Klingons and you gotta get more power to the phasers. The Enterprise is a war ship. Why are they wasting energy on artificial gravity when they should be using it to blast the Klingons? A real engineer might say: in combat turn the artificial gravity off and use the energy for weapons. In TV they don't do that because there is no cheap way to make actors float and it would have been complicated to show some kind of centrifugal solution. They know the audience doesn't think like scientists or engineers so they gloss over the problem and no one notices. The centrifugal solution requires *no energy at all* because once you start it rolling it keeps rolling unless you use energy to stop it. So for TV we pretend that artificial gravity "has no energy penalty on the Enterprise" but in real engineering there almost surely would be. And you know, if your car doesn't want to start, turn the headlights off (if you can) and the AC off, it just might divert enough energy from the luxuries to get your weakened battery to do what you want it to do. The Enterprise had similar limiations, which is why Kirk was always saying "More power Scotty!". Well, Scotty probably should have turned off the gravity. And the engineers who designed the enterprise probably would have designed it to use artificial gravity in routine flight and a centrifugal option when it would be in combat, to save power to blast those #!%%#! Klingons back to wherever they came from. So the Enterprise probably isn't what you'd want a warship really to look like.

All told, if we concede the point that gravity will be theoretically understood and technical implementation developed, the final hurdle would be in simple design requirements that would include energy consumption, construction cost, reliability, simplicity of operation, and so on.

So I think your question is a good one for seriously discussing the different levels of knowhow: theoretical understanding, "proof of concept" engineering, and actual practical cost effective engineering. We can't know what will happen with gravity, of course, but it's a good idea to remember that no basic engineering technique is ever "forgotten," levers are used today just like 3,000 years ago, and so are wheels. If you look around you, you'll see that our whole world is constructed around tradeoffs between what the design goal is, reliability, cost, and many other factors. I don't think artificial gravity will be any different.

Answer 2

There is no such thing as "impossible." If it can be dreamed, it can be done.
Although, considering how many people have obviously NOT read your question properly (he already said "no centrifuge" what part of that don't you people understand?) we'll have to weed through a lot of stupidity before we get there.
It may be possible to create artificial gravity aboard a ship, although it will involve applications of science and technology that we still don't have yet.
In fact, it may be easier to generate a "nullifying" field, such as with a "Hoverboard" to create anti-gravity using some form of magnetic polarization or sound waves before we can create artificial gravity without using large centrifuges, as we do now. Or can do now.

Answer 3

You cannot create artificial gravity as such,
gravity is related to mass, the more mass, the more gravity this is why the sun has more gravity than the earth and the earth more than the moon etc etc..
the only way you could create gravity is to create more mass, or create a neutron star, but that is extremely dangerous and would almost definitely destroy the world.

however it is possible to create an 'Anti Gravity' using electromagnetic forces, by doing this you could 'repel' yourself off things with large gravitational fields.

Answer 4

No. Nor will be create "anti-gravity." Some things you can't mess with, like the speed of light.

Weights, bungee cords, and a variety of exercises will help man cope with the debilitating effects of zero-gravity. Perhaps, if the ship is large enough, we'll be able to employ some sort of centrifugal force, ala 2001 A Space Oddity.

Answer 5

We already have. We use something called centrifugal force. In space there is no gravity, but there is still inertia and centrifugal force and as such if we make a shape of a donut and spin it, the outside walls will all appear to have gravity.

Answer 6

We are not even sure at this point in time because there is no technology or even theory in science today that could break any physical law of the universe. But it doesn't mean that we cannot find a solution in the future.

In my opinion, We should think of defying the gravity prior to creating it.

Answer 7

Gravity is caused by high mass and density. Meaning the bigger and more dense the object is the more gravity it has. So this means Jupiter has the most gravity while the moons and Pluto have the least gravity. The question is whether man can construct something with a very very very very very high density and mass in order to produce gravity. This is impossible. Because mass and energy cannot be destroyed nor created. Where would we get the mass. We could get the mass from asteroids, but that is so difficult it is stupid.

Answer 8

creating artificial gravity and warping space-time are interrelated endeavors. i have a very limited understanding of new scientific theories but i know one where it argues that gravitational force is just space displaced by matter. if that is so, then creating artificial gravity also means displacing space, and in effect could be a stepping stone in bending time and space.

Answer 9

Man can use a small planet as a space ship and thus have gravity. Since it may not hold air with its low gravity, they need to use underground chambers and prevent the air leaking out.

Answer 10

Maybe, but not while we are alive. I know how to make artificial gravity in video games, so it can't be that hard to apply that to real life.