Possibility of Pushing Against Graventation Pull?

Not according to this.

Actually you can in a very limited volume use a very strong magnet to negate gravity. I can't say when pigs fly, but maybe when frogs fly...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E

You might start with a spell checker ...

Yes the magnets can only be produced by your perpetual motion machine!

Thanks to all that proposed an honest answer to my question! To those of you who presented stupid answers, well, you know who you are,,,may the eagle of paradise fly up your nose. i refuse to ask more of you. I was hoping to find an intelligent life form here. I could have found better answers on Facebook or Twitter.

Unfortunately, the type of question you posted tends to attract the most base of our group. Folks whos goal seems to be to post the best wise a$$ comment in the hopes of earning Good Answers from their fellow wise a$$es.

These types of answers tend to be "cute" and not very well thought out.

There are, however, some insightful and intelligent answers above. I hope at least some of them were more helpful than you could have found on twitter.

I am sorry you had to wade through so much CR4P to get to them.

-A-

Thank you.

Aside from stroking your own ego, this completly pointless post adds what to the conversation?

I am, hopefully, providing a counter point. Lyn, you are obviously well liked in this community. You have a gift for being entertaining and clever in your own way. I do not.

Fredski, you are correct in saying the question did not imply a fundamental understanding of basic principles of physics. He may as well have said, "why don't we turn UP into DOWN and just fall off the Earth?"

Still, whenever someone stumbles in here from the WWW, there are quite a few of us who dance around the poster and poke him or her with sticks. Hardly what I would expect from Engineers.

This is a very long thread, and as I scroll up, I see only about 25% of the information above contains what I would consider thoughtful or helpful information. As an example, the following statement contains silly, pointless, witticisms and not a single fact, yet still received a GA from the CR4 Bully Club:

"Magnetism and gravity are not the force.

Gravity attracts everything, magnetism only attracts certain materials, mostly metals, but not all metals, just the magnettable ones."

It is not my intention to insult you or attack you. I am only trying to hold up a mirror and point out who we have become as a community. Honestly, it doesn't hurt my feelings. I am not emotionally invested in this argument. I do think, however, that those coming from the outside would expect more of us.

-A-

OK,

Let's just move forward. I should have just kept to myself and not hacked back at you.

But, levity is a part of what attracts some people here, as well as the mountains of knowledge and experience that hangs out here. You included.

Cheers.

Represent! (Facetiously) You never cease to amuse yourself Lyn -not wanting to expound on my half wit gravitational theories at the moment except to say sorry, The honest answer is no.

nice grammar. and I disagree with the spirit of your reply. it wasn't a well researched or well thought out question. these type of questions will always draw rhetorical comments and I for one will not apologize for my levity. we're a family of sorts here and sharing a laugh makes the day that much better.

GA from me.

As for the OP's question, YES it is Possible. Don't know how yet, but it is possible.

Case in point is the "dark matter" expansion observed in many parts of the universe by astronomers. There is acceleration and expansion in some areas of the universe while in other areas there is gravitational contraction. So, from this observation alone I would say there is a definite possibility and not just a wild speculation of possibility.

I would like to add that gravity has not yet been integrated into unified field theory and that magnetism is only understood so far in relation to electric field theory. So there is still much room left for new discovery, and, when gravity, magnetism and electricity are unified, then there will also be a means of conversion and interaction.

Unification, if it it is done, implies a means of interaction between each form of E, whether it be electro-gravitic, magneto-gravitic or other wise.

'....post the best wise a$$ comment in the hopes of earning Good Answers from their fellow wise a$$es.

These types of answers tend to be "cute" and not very well thought out.

......

I am sorry you had to wade through so much CR4P to get to them.

-A-....'

.

Ah! 'CR4P' very "cute". I'd say that makes you look pretty wise, -A-.

.

You get a Good Answer from this fellow.

As was pointed out, magnetism and gravity are not the same force. Some argue that gravity is not a force at all. Einstein's theories seem to indicate that. I think what you are really asking is "Can an anti-gravitational force be created to cancel gravity?" The answer is unknown at this time. Stephen Hawking doesn't know everything. We will have to wait and see.

I would like to add my note #20 Space Elevator to the serious list. The physics was worked out some 50 years ago. NASA holds embryonic contests along the line.

What I left out, that the material of sufficient strength has yet to be invented. Material science is advancing apace. Take your time.

I believe they intend to use carbon nano-tubules.

They want to be able to stretch them to about 10ft long to interweave them.

Last I heard they could only stretch them to about 1.5 inches long before they broke.

Couldnt they just roll up a big sheet of graphene to make an equivalent material?

Perhaps the seam would make it not nearly as capable?

What I dont quite understand is what keeps the elevator up in space? Anchor to the moon, LOL.

Is it simply centrifugal force keeping it up there? If that is enough why do satelites not perpetually spin around in orbit? They decay and need to be boosted back to their proper orbits.

Sorry for going off topic guys. I just really like this forum and the minds in here.

At some radius out there the gravity will be equal to the centrifugal force. Depending on their speed, that is where satellites run around.

The Space Elevator needs tension on the cable. It ends quite a way out of the satellites equilibrium. Putting a mass out there tensions it.

The slingshots are simpler.

Low orbit satellites have orbits that decay. This is because they drag through the outermost layers of our atmosphere. Dang thin stuff, but over time it has a cumulative affect.

Even high orbit satellites decay over time, at a much slower rate, because there is always something in space. Even the interstellar medium is not empty.

This considered, a geostationary satellite, when low on fuel, is typically moved to a "graveyard" orbit and forgotten about. (Sort of.)

Now, a geostationary satellite that had to carry the weight of a tether that hung all the way back to Earth (22,236 mi), that would have to fly higher and faster to compensate for the extra weight. The heavier the tether, the faster the required angular velocity, the further away it would need to fly, the more tether required, and therefore more weight.

Further complicating matters, the bottom few miles of the tether are subject to atmospheric wind. This translates to downward tugging on the satellite. Now our little satellite needs even more distance to create an upward pull on the tether. This requires the tether to be strong AND light.

All this before we start using it as an elevator. Presumably, we would use it to transport very small things. Maybe small packets of plastic pellets to feed a digital printer up on the satellite.

This could be the most expensive way conceivable to get rubber duckies into space cheaply.

-A-

"Even high orbit satellites decay over time, at a much slower rate, because there is always something in space."

Or could it be called "electrodynamic braking"; and be unrelated to the ballistic coefficient?

The wording of your question is a little off but I get what you imply.

You ask can magnets be used to pick things off the ground, or perhaps even into space from Earth. Of course the answer is yes. Thats kinda what magnets do.

Consider the Earth's core being a huge dynamo, how could anyone not think the forces it creates can not be countered and manipulated?

We need to step back, or step forward and the answers will be ours to observe, just need to clear of heads of the expectations of the past.

We know science does not have all the answers today, we know science has been wrong many, many times in the past. Using the wrong information is like a spiral effecting and limiting future discoveries and explanations.

Preconceived notions are used by the mind to explain what we see. How much of vision is actually interpretation of what we think we see, or have seen before.

Why do i like purple and you like red? perhaps they are the same color but our eyes/brains interpret them differently?

All these responses and a quick scan finds no references to the elusive "graviton." Higgs-Boson has been found - can the discovery of the graviton be far behind?

If it doesn't exist, then yes....

Yes and if the Higs field is responsible for mass, perhaps gravity is simply a function of cohesion/adhesion?

Look up "diamagnetic levitation". Many common materials are very weakly repelled by a strong magnetic field.

I change my original answer from no to yes. The only hitch is that you need to build your vehicle several time larger in mass than whatever planet you want to use this over.

1. Please!? (map) make a check list of what you DO KNOW about the subject
2. pin point the area you need the consultuncy for

it is really hard to grasp what you're on about

1. e.g. is the F_G B vectors bounded e.g. we can build EM magnet to gain antigravity
2. or is the F_G having an B type analog field e.g. it'd make sense to call the (not yet specified) design a "magnet"

i found SUCH in my bookmarks (donno ifits2thetopic)

Its good to see people questioning what some would consider "Scientific law"

Thanks for that post I enjoyed it.

The magnetic field generated by the Geo-dynamo has been used in satellite attitude determination and control since the 1960's.

The use of Sol and Planetary Magnetic Fields as reaction fields in simple magnetic repulsion and attraction propulsion may not be that far fetched. The use of Sol and Planetary Magnetic Fields as excitation sources for Electrodynamic Braking may also be within the realm of possibility.

I attempt to explain both cases here -

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/11752/Propellantless-Electromagnetic-Propulsion-In-Space-Applications

Gavilan

████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
DOESNOT THE ANTIMATTER HAVE SUCH EFFECT
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████
████████████████████████████████████

HIGGHER DEF TIMES MORE FREEDOM "MORE "MAGIC""

(6D) +1® null - contemporary shell = // our world was made from inside itself
____________________________________________________

(4/5D) -1® i donno whitch way it is ?+ ?- // from here
____________________________________________________

±i ±1 our physics // it fast disenergized fell of definition layer 1 of these 4 doesnot exist here

LOWWER DEF TIMES MORE CASUALITY "MORE MECHANICS"

Dear Mr. darbyogill,

About 15 years back, I have studied in a book written by a Russian Author, named as "PARADOXES IN SCIENCE" where a scheme has been explained that a train can be run between 2 points In the RUSSIA near north pole, name of the places , I do not remember, and the distance between the 2 places is about 300 KM. with out Engine.

The principle appears to be good/possible but not put in to practise. If this comes in to vogue, then THE VALIDITY of the "LAW OF CONSERVATION of ENERGY" IS QUESTIONED/DISPUTABLE.

Indeed, in the SCEINCE, the theory postulated earlier proved to be wrong later, or confirmed or understood after decades and declared CORRECT. One example is the MATHEMATICS THEORY FORMULATED BY the GREAT MATHEMATICIAN RAMANUJAN (from India) was CONFIRMED/AGREED AFTER 100 YEARS, and this was published last month, at LONDON MEETING.

I will try to locate the Book and post the Information. Other CR4 members - especially from Russia can post details about this - TRAN WITH OUT ENGINE.

DHAYANANDHAN.S

'Train without an engine' appears to be a very popular theme/metaphor in India. Most of the Google search hits seem to originate in India.

.

However I can't find any mention of a Russian train working completely without an engine.

Whether such a rumor 'comes into vogue' or not; finding reasonable support for your claim that the law of conservation of mass/energy has been violated is almost certain to be equally elusive.

Even if you do find the source, it is likely to be hogwash. One giveaway is the irrelevant guff about being near the north pole.

However, except for rolling friction and air resistance, a train could start by coasting downhill, and then stop by coasting uphill. The ideal curve for this is a hypocycloid, perhaps in a tunnel. Even with the frictional losses, it could be propelled by a fan, with no need for an onboard engine.

You really got 'em goin' this time Darby!

I think what you were looking for is this...

A physics professor of mine once suggested that the force of gravity is not an attraction but a pressure. He suggested that the DARK force which is expanding the universe is pressing in all directions, and that objects of varying mass are proportionally affected by the pressure on them. Where a mass exists in relative solitude the pressures surrounding it balance out and the mass will not move in any particular direction. However the mass will cast a sort of shadow of its absorption of the "pressure" and if there were another mass nearby, the coincidence of their shadows would create a net difference, and they would begin moving towards each other - since in their "shadows" there is less "pressure" between them than if they were isolated. It's similar to Xray where the shadow is produced by absorption of the ray in the object that it passes through, not by an attraction of the ray to the film. Therefore the denser the object, the stronger its shadow and the more other objects are pushed towards it. It's an inverted theory from gravity, but l have always liked it, and since we have yet to quantify and fully understand DARK energy and DARK matter, I feel that it might just be possible that that is where the answers may lie.

An interesting concept, that objects are being pushed towards each other as opposed to being attracted to each other. Perhaps all these years we have been looking at "gravity" wrong ?

Your professor's theory was proposed back in the sixties and it explains very nicely the reason the tides are on both sides of the earth and not just the side facing the moon or the sun. Only a push gravity could create tides on both sides at once. A pull gravity can only create a single high and low tide on opposite sides of the Earth.

'...Only a push gravity could create tides on both sides at once. A pull gravity can only create a single high and low tide on opposite sides of the Earth.....'

.

That idea originates typically from failing to understand that tidal force is not the same thing as gravitational force.

.

Tidal force at a point is essentially the difference in force at that point compared to the force at the center of mass.

.

Another way of looking at it is to remember that gravity doesn't just act on the sea water, but also on the rock underneath the sea water....so there is going to be a lump on the far side, because the rock underneath the sea water on the far side is pulled more strongly towards the moon than the water above it (being farther from the moon).

.

The pull of gravity has no problems explaining the far side high tide.

So now it is crustal distortion that raises the water level? I think you fail to understand earthquakes!

Truth... got it right. Here is an even simpler version:

The water on the moon side is closer to the moon than the whole earth is; thus the moon's gravity pulls on it harder.
The water on the opposite side is farther from the moon than the whole earth is; thus the moon's gravity pulls on it less.

No pushing is involved, only pulling more versus less.

Actually tidal forces are sufficient to cause some regular deformation of the crust, but it is on the order of fractions of an inch.

.

So while technically that does contribute to changes in water level, it is not the dominant mechanism. It is also isn't what is typically considered to be an 'earthquake'.

And, to just add a slight addition to your excellent answer, the "tidal force" is combination of several componants, not the least of which is, that while the 'pull' of the moon on the water is constant and immediate, the water must still flow around the continants to obey its call; however, the earth is also constantly moving, and the moon has moved (relative to the earth), almost 1/2 away around the globe before all of the water has made the move. The tide is really just two big waves, with two troughs and two peeks. The lesser peak is just constantly lagging behind.