PDA

View Full Version : I think I discovered anti-gravity!



connor240287
2008-Oct-19, 11:57 PM
I May Only be 13, But I think I have a solid premise for a theory of natural anti-gravity. Since I am not scientist, I would like to pass my idea to those of you who might be able to develop it further.
First, consider that Einstein described space-time as 4-dimensional: 3 of space + time. Of the four, time appears to be the only dimension in which we can not control our navigation over, as it is always moving "forward". Einstein showed how gravity can have an effect over four dimensions.
Now, let me offer an imaginative situation. An object falls to the ground. Now, let's say you had the power to change the direction of your time to make time go backwards. That object that had just fallen is now flying off the ground. Therefore, gravity must have an opposite effect when time is moving backwards. Anti-gravity must then exist with the opposite movement of time.
Now, if you think this is a pretty crazy idea and that I can not possibly be onto something... That if somehow that I'm right that this would be seen in nature all over the Universe. Well, guess what? It is.
Black holes are the only objects in the Universe where its gravity it actually capable of stopping time for all those unfortunate to get pulled into one. At this timeless state, it may be possible to get "pushed" into a backwards time movement. These particles would appear to us as if the back hole were evaporating. Ala Hawking Evaporation. Hence, mixed in with the particles of Hawking evaporation are particles of future black hole food. This evaporation moves away from the back hole, rather than being sucked up back into it because of the antigravity these particles are affected by as a result of their reversed momentum through time.

Comments?

tony873004
2008-Oct-20, 12:18 AM
It makes a good question but not a good theory. If you're claiming that you've discovered anti-gravity, then your "theory" is considered ATM (against the mainstream).

Treating it as a question, my answer would be that the object that falls to the ground would not fly off the ground if time ran backwards. If you changed direction of time as it was falling, its velocity vector would reverse direction, and it would head up, but it would be slowed by gravity as it did, because gravity always pulls down, irregardless of time t reach its maximum height and fall back to the ground.

Try it with a video camera. Record yourself tossing a ball up and down, and play it backwards. It will be difficult to distinguish it from playing it forward.

Acceleration due to gravity is a = GM/r2, where a (acceleration) and r (distance from mass) are vectors. G is the gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the body, in your example, Earth. There's no t (time) in that formula, so tinkering with time doesn't change acceleration.

connor240287
2008-Oct-20, 12:24 AM
Makes a good question but not a good theory. If you're claiming that you've discovered anti-gravity.


**I think I discovered anti-gravity!**
hence the (I think) :P


And Thanks for your Answer.

ToSeek
2008-Oct-20, 01:24 AM
Please keep in mind the age of the OP when responding. As one member noted privately, we don't want to throw him to the wolves of ATM. ;)

novaderrik
2008-Oct-20, 03:33 AM
i might be wrong- and, in fact, probably am- but if you reverse time locally, time would still appear to be going forward from other vantage points.
so, even tho the particle in question is going "backwards" in time, we'd still only see it going forward.
you know- like that thing in the last episode of Star Trek:TNG that flowed backwards thru time and threatened to prevent humans from evolving if Picard didn't team up with his alternate universe selves and stop it in the future....

alainprice
2008-Oct-20, 03:59 AM
Take that same apple, throw it up, and catch it again. Now, play it backwards.

The exact same thing happens, the ball starts with an initial speed upwards, slows down, and then speeds back up as it falls DOWN. Not all situations even lead to anti-gravity in your model.

astromark
2008-Oct-20, 05:22 AM
Its great to see you at least thinking things through Conner.., and welcome.

I actually liked your idea, for its thought provoking... and then I decided that time can not be so manipulated. Even at the event horizon of a BH its a one way ticket.... and then its not time that stops. Just your perception of it.

thorkil2
2008-Oct-20, 05:50 AM
Keep it up Connor. I wasn't much younger when I started thinking about these things very seriously, and I've been at it all my life since. It's an interesting idea. Doesn't quite work, but you've put a lot of good thought into it. Keep studying relativity and the nature of motion and you will gain some great insights into the nature of the Universe. I can't think of a more exciting pursuit.

Neverfly
2008-Oct-20, 05:52 AM
Its great to see you at least thinking things through Conner.., and welcome.

I actually liked your idea, for its thought provoking... and then I decided that time can not be so manipulated. Even at the event horizon of a BH its a one way ticket.... and then its not time that stops. Just your perception of it.

Your perception watching an object go in... stops...

But if you're the one going in, time doesn't stop. You have front row seats to your own demise.

thorkil2
2008-Oct-20, 06:43 AM
Take that same apple, throw it up, and catch it again. Now, play it backwards.

The exact same thing happens, the ball starts with an initial speed upwards, slows down, and then speeds back up as it falls DOWN. Not all situations even lead to anti-gravity in your model.

Wasn't going to do this, as I don't want to hijack another thread, but can't let it go without comment. What you are observing (or demonstrating) is displacement symmetry, not time symmetry. But it will take a separate thread to discuss that further.

astromark
2008-Oct-20, 08:24 AM
Your perception watching an object go in... stops...

But if you're the one going in, time doesn't stop. You have front row seats to your own demise.

OK, ok. I did not write the whole book. I made a stupid assumption that we all knew what I was / we were, talking about. Silly me...:) The amusing thing is we said the same thing, just differently, humbly, mark.

Neverfly
2008-Oct-20, 08:30 AM
OK, ok. I did not write the whole book. I made a stupid assumption that we all knew what I was / we were, talking about. Silly me...:) The amusing thing is we said the same thing, just differently, humbly, mark.

I was just adding to what you had said because from the OP, I was not sure that Conner realized that.

What's even dumber in what I said is... We always have front row seats to our own demise:p

WaxRubiks
2008-Oct-20, 10:55 AM
I like this idea as an explanation for Hawking radiation...well it's enginuitive.

But I'm not sure, the particles once released from the event horizon, would travel forward in time; would that be because they can't go back?

CharlieMopps
2008-Oct-20, 02:16 PM
I think the flaws with your argument are philosophical, and not really technical.

The movement of time is simply a matter of human perception. Time is an aspect of geometry, that we experience moving in one direction. Time dilation is a function of this geometry. When you get close to the blackhole, an outside observer would see time slowing for you. But to you, the rest of the universe would be speeding up. True anti gravity would be something that repels mass through the normal flow of time.

Hawking radiation is rather simple, (at least my understanding of it is) There is a bubbling froth of matter/anti-matter particles in empty space. Normally these particles immediately destroy each other... but at the very edge of the black holes event horizon, the anti-particle falls in, while the opposite escapes. Hence the radiation.

John Mendenhall
2008-Oct-20, 02:24 PM
Please keep in mind the age of the OP when responding. As one member noted privately, we don't want to throw him to the wolves of ATM. ;)


Wolves in ATM? Nonsense!

woof woof woof

Ken G
2008-Oct-20, 02:55 PM
It has been said already by tony873004 and alainprice, but I'll put it another way. Reversing time does not reverse gravity, because gravity is an acceleration, so it is a rate of change of velocity. Reversing time does reverse velocity, but when we look at the rate of change of velocity from a backwards-time perspective, it reverses it back again to the usual gravitational acceleration.

Take an example: let's say in 1 second (running forward), the speed increases from 1 to 2 in the downward direction. That means the rate of change of the speed is that it increases 1 amount of speed downward in 1 second, so increases downward at rate 1/1 = 1. If we reverse time, then we would use different words to describe what happened there. We'd say that in -1 second (so running backward), the speed went from 1 to 2 in the upward direction. So the rate of change is upward 1 amount of speed in -1 second, which is the same as increasing downward -1 amount of speed in -1 second, or -1/-1 = 1 again. It's the same acceleration-- same gravity.

Yet another way to see that is the units we use for acceleration, which are meters/second2. The seconds are squared-- so reversing the sign of time is like taking -1 and squaring it-- there's no effect on the acceleration.

mugaliens
2008-Oct-20, 03:33 PM
You're definately thinking clearly, conner. Ken G and I have differed over whether gravity is actually an acceleration, or whether the falling apple is under no acceleration, being swept along by the spacetime current, and it's the apple still attached to the tree which is experiencing a 1G acceleration against the spacetime current.

"Current" is a poor term, as it implies velocity. I believe "potential" would be a better word, as it implies something behind a force. Thus, a voltage (charge) potential difference warps spacetime with respect to the behavior of other charged particles.

Getting back to your post, I DO agree with Ken G in that gravity doesn't work as a repulsive force with the time arrow reversed, and his example clearly shows why.

Ken G
2008-Oct-20, 07:30 PM
You're definately thinking clearly, conner. Ken G and I have differed over whether gravity is actually an acceleration, or whether the falling apple is under no acceleration, being swept along by the spacetime current, and it's the apple still attached to the tree which is experiencing a 1G acceleration against the spacetime current.Actually, you must be just imagining such a "difference", because I would simply call that the Newtonian versus Einsteinian picture, and under the low-gravity conditions implied in the OP, either is perfectly acceptable but one is a lot simpler.

mugaliens
2008-Oct-21, 08:51 PM
Actually, you must be just imagining such a "difference", because I would simply call that the Newtonian versus Einsteinian picture, and under the low-gravity conditions implied in the OP, either is perfectly acceptable but one is a lot simpler.

I'll gladly buy that!

:)

Ozzy
2008-Oct-22, 02:05 AM
Great question.

Good answers.

I am enlightened.

I wish BAUT existed when I was 13!

Ken G
2008-Oct-22, 05:11 AM
I wish BAUT existed when I was 13!

(I just wish I was 13...) :doh:

WaxRubiks
2008-Oct-22, 05:14 AM
I'd settle for 15 or even 28....

Ken G
2008-Oct-22, 06:25 AM
Yes, 28 would do nicely-- old enough to have a basic clue, young enough to still be able to do something about it. Those of you actually there-- take note!

Neverfly
2008-Oct-22, 06:32 AM
Yes, 28 would do nicely-- old enough to have a basic clue, young enough to still be able to do something about it. Those of you actually there-- take note!

Damn. Just passed.
But from what I remember of it- I didn't have much of a clue at 28.

Ken G
2008-Oct-22, 08:50 AM
True enough, but you probably thought you did at the time-- and that may be the best we can do.

astromark
2008-Oct-22, 09:56 AM
Yes ... my memory of me at 28 is better than it was...

Neverfly
2008-Oct-22, 12:20 PM
True enough, but you probably thought you did at the time-- and that may be the best we can do.

Actually, it gets more disturbing.
Looking back- I think I had more of a clue then than I do now:doh:

thorkil2
2008-Oct-22, 01:18 PM
Oh, no. Let me keep what I've got now and go back to 19. So much knowledge, so little time---now reverse that....:think:

jlhredshift
2008-Oct-22, 01:32 PM
Oh, no. Let me keep what I've got now and go back to 19. So much knowledge, so little time---now reverse that....:think:

That is the penultimate desire of our species, and just as improbable as anti-gravity in our time.

Years ago I had the opportunity to go to a major university library that had all the issues of Icarus in bound form. Gazing upon the ten foot by twenty foot steel shelves that held every issue of that publication I realized that I did not have enough time on this planet to read all of them, I know so little.

Neverfly
2008-Oct-22, 02:04 PM
That is the penultimate desire of our species, and just as improbable as anti-gravity in our time.

Years ago I had the opportunity to go to a major university library that had all the issues of Icarus in bound form. Gazing upon the ten foot by twenty foot steel shelves that held every issue of that publication I realized that I did not have enough time on this planet to read all of them, I know so little.

Yeah but you can get the gist of it.;)

John Mendenhall
2008-Oct-22, 04:53 PM
That is the penultimate desire of our species, and just as improbable as anti-gravity in our time.

Years ago I had the opportunity to go to a major university library that had all the issues of Icarus in bound form. Gazing upon the ten foot by twenty foot steel shelves that held every issue of that publication I realized that I did not have enough time on this planet to read all of them, I know so little.



This is an astronomy forum, but keep an eye on the medical folks. We probably won't make it, but our kids may have a thousand years or more to do research.

Or play video games.

*Sigh*

Regards, John M.

cosmocrazy
2008-Oct-22, 07:13 PM
Yes ... my memory of me at 28 is better than it was...

Me too!:lol:

I,m sure i still had a full head of hair back then! :(

and a six pack! :lol:

I,m sure i knew more when i was younger!! :lol:

Digix
2008-Oct-22, 07:29 PM
I May Only be 13, But I think I have a solid premise for a theory of natural anti-gravity. Since I am not scientist, I would like to pass my idea to those of you who might be able to develop it further.
First, consider that Einstein described space-time as 4-dimensional: 3 of space + time. Of the four, time appears to be the only dimension in which we can not control our navigation over, as it is always moving "forward". Einstein showed how gravity can have an effect over four dimensions.
Now, let me offer an imaginative situation. An object falls to the ground. Now, let's say you had the power to change the direction of your time to make time go backwards. That object that had just fallen is now flying off the ground. Therefore, gravity must have an opposite effect when time is moving backwards. Anti-gravity must then exist with the opposite movement of time.
Now, if you think this is a pretty crazy idea and that I can not possibly be onto something... That if somehow that I'm right that this would be seen in nature all over the Universe. Well, guess what? It is.
Black holes are the only objects in the Universe where its gravity it actually capable of stopping time for all those unfortunate to get pulled into one. At this timeless state, it may be possible to get "pushed" into a backwards time movement. These particles would appear to us as if the back hole were evaporating. Ala Hawking Evaporation. Hence, mixed in with the particles of Hawking evaporation are particles of future black hole food. This evaporation moves away from the back hole, rather than being sucked up back into it because of the antigravity these particles are affected by as a result of their reversed momentum through time.

Comments?

I think GR is more or less depleted, and you cant invent any new stuff from that.
QM and GR doesnt match well so it is quite pointless trying to use them both at once.

You made usual assumption "what if pigs can fly"
mathematically if we allow one wrong statement it can be used to prove any another wrong statement. So if you make assumption that you can reverse time you can prove anything you desire with no problems.
black holes only can stop time, but cant reverse it.
also Hawking radiation is not checked experimentally so it is to soon to rely on unproven theory.

WaxRubiks
2008-Oct-23, 07:18 AM
black holes only can stop time, but cant reverse it.
.

but if the time at the event horizon is the same time as 100years from now, then logically, isn't something that crosses the event horizon in 100years from now also crossing it now too?

astromark
2008-Oct-23, 08:11 AM
Do you understand the meaning of 'now' ?
The time at the event horizon does move forward as normal. Only your perception of it stops. All of which is entirely irrelevant as life at the event horizon is not possible... 100 years in the past or in the future is not now.
Digix... 'black holes only can stop time, but cant reverse it.'... end quote. Right.

A black hole is an area of massive density. They can not be used for anything other than making peanut butter.

WaxRubiks
2008-Oct-23, 09:00 AM
well as I've said before, I don't believe in the event horizon, so I suppose it's academic for me, but the theory goes that time stops at the event horizon, I don't quite under stand what you mean by "perception of it stops", as a distinction.

If you could measure the radioactive decay of plutonium at the event horizon, you would get zero decay....nothing appears to get there, for the distant observer, so there would be nothing to measure, oh well...........

Digix
2008-Oct-23, 02:28 PM
well as I've said before, I don't believe in the event horizon, so I suppose it's academic for me, but the theory goes that time stops at the event horizon, I don't quite under stand what you mean by "perception of it stops", as a distinction.

I see that most have quite wrong understanding about that horizon.
it is not some sharp line but just asymptote
real horizon it at the range of 150% of the EH if photon or particle falls below that 150% it wont escape anymore with no external or internal help. if it falls below EH then even if someone helps it cant escape anymore.

anyway, EH concept as I know is dependable on assumption that falling object has negligible effect on black hole.

I don't like all that relativistic terminology because it is hard to understand and you cant apply these time dilutions on quantum stuff.
we can do same with newtonian physic.
lets say we have 1kg of rest mass it falls, and gains kinetic energy, kinetic energy is also mass so energy gain is exponential. at some line your kinetic energy will be higher than your original mass. So even with 100% efficient engine there is no way to escape.
But lets leave that away now or it will make others unhappy.


If you could measure the radioactive decay of plutonium at the event horizon, you would get zero decay....nothing appears to get there, for the distant observer, so there would be nothing to measure, oh well........... decay will mostly happen at same rate if your Geiger meter is at same place as your reference piece of plutonium (because of same GR requirement of equivalence) however if you try to send data out signals will be severely red shifted and now everything depends on transfer protocol:

if you send beeps on each decay event, then you will notice that decay rate is slower.
but if you do complete measurement and just send result decays/second, it will be same as you get on reference system far away from black hole.

so methods of observation are vital here.

Digix
2008-Oct-23, 02:37 PM
but if the time at the event horizon is the same time as 100years from now, then logically, isn't something that crosses the event horizon in 100years from now also crossing it now too?

no, black hole dont affect time for external observers, so if some spaceship falls it will reach center in no time and will be converted into some particle butter.
from that time only quantum mechanic can take lead to tell what happens.

black hole will just affect communications with outside if you send signals they will redshift
if you are sending clock ticks each second they redshift 50% and external observer concludes: time inside goes 2 times slower than mine because clock was slowed down 50%.
if someone is already standing near black hole EH line and friends wants to send last last goodbye radio signal, then pilot will come to conclusion that some aliens are trying to kill him with some kind of X-ray laser :)

connor240287
2008-Nov-02, 01:33 AM
The snapsens are fireing ><

cjameshuff
2008-Nov-02, 03:49 AM
The snapsens are fireing ><

Snapsens...synapses?

hhEb09'1
2008-Nov-02, 03:58 AM
Snapsens...synapses?Whatever :)

Welcome back (http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/80267-connor-banned.html)

connor240287
2008-Nov-02, 10:16 AM
omg how could off i misspelled that><

Anyway thanks, good to be back.

hhEb09'1
2008-Nov-02, 11:45 AM
omg how could off i misspelled that><You're only 13 :)

Besides, it's "could've"


Anyway thanks, good to be back.YW, how'd the FAQ (http://www.bautforum.com/faq.php) checking go?

mugaliens
2008-Nov-02, 12:41 PM
A black hole is an area of massive density. They can not be used for anything other than making peanut butter.

:lol:

Good one! They make pretty good dart boards, too. Especially for beginners.

connor240287
2008-Nov-03, 03:14 PM
ye ><

Anyway thanks for correcting my grammar and spelling lol ><

hhEb09'1
2008-Nov-03, 03:16 PM
YW! I don't do that for everybody! :)

connor240287
2008-Nov-03, 04:02 PM
hehe