Anti-Gravity device. (serious question)

Seriously?
OK... Let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly is Gravity?
Does it fall within the spectrum of electromagnetism?
If so, what is its frequency or speed?
According to Albert Einstein "E=mc2" that is to say that energy and matter are one and the same at the speed of light squared. What happens when we apply this equation to gravity?

As for your question of stored energy. Yes, absolutely.
Think about the magnitude of each of the two WTC buildings collapsing and how much energy there was it that. Every bit of the energy that it took to build them, from the mining of the clay and iron ore, to the manufacturing of the bricks and beams, to the transportation of these, right down to the rising and setting in place of not just them but all of the components, and furniture, etc., etc., was released almost all at once but, in a since, it happened in slow motion. If that had happened at the speed of light squared it could very well have "rocked" our galaxy.
Would you believe that rust is an explosion of energy?

Gravity and anti-gravity.
What is Gravity? Seriously.

I really tried to stay out of this one... but I just can't help myself... this one's just so far out there.

I think the OP was asking if a boat would be considered an antigravity device.

I think Mr. Schmidt's point is that gravity is still a phenomenon that's not completely understood and that we should try to get a good theory of gravity worked out before we start thinking too much about anti-gravity (correct me if I've misinterpreted). I'm not sure what he's getting at with the WTC example, other then that if the mass of WTC was converted into pure energy it would be a (much) greater force then the free fall collapse of the building.

FD gives us the text book definition of gravity from physic's 101. I haven't had time to look it up, but I remember that there were four fundamental forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electro-magnetic force and gravitational attraction. I also remember that folks have had a lot of trouble getting electromagnetic theory to agree with gravitational theory- this leads me to think that the reason masses pull on each other is not electromagnetic energy (I don't have an explicit proof of this, just a hunch). I'm also fairly sure that motion is not the cause of gravity. Just looking at the Universal Law of Gravity there is no reference to change in position. I can picture two stationary (unmoving) partials that would still have an attractive force. The centripetal force of a rotating object is not the same as gravitational attraction. (If you spit your gum out while riding on the spinning ride at the amusement park it’s not gravity that causes it to fly back at your face).

Here's the way I picture gravity in my mind: I think of a piece of graph paper. I draw a strait line from point A to point B. Any partial traveling from A to B will travel in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force. I then take the piece of graph paper and wrap it around a basketball.  The strait line, AB is now a curved line. Gravity is like the basket ball and the piece of paper is like space. The gravitational force is not ‘pulling’ the partial- the particle is traveling through a straight line though bent space-time. In this scenario masses don’t exert forces on each other per se; they just bent the space-time surrounding each other. This is my armchair understanding of the General Theory of Relativity.

SOOOO…. If gravity is the bending in space-time caused by mass that would make antigravity a striating of space-time! The only thing I could think of that would cause such a straitening would be antimass. (Not to be confused with antimatter that has mass). This leads me to believe that if your boat has mass then it’s not an antigravity device. If your boat is made of antimass then perhaps it would be.

Although I don’t think they have a forum I’ve enjoyed reading from “How Stuff Works”

http://science.howstuffworks.com/

Eureka!

If you think of space as a fluid, mass moving very fast, then think of Bernoulli's equation. If a fluid moves fast between two objects, then there is a lower pressure there  causing the two objects to come together, making it look like an attractive force that some call gravity.

And there is the question again, what is gravity? 

Didn't the string theorists figure it out?

Isn't electro-mechanical the stronger localized force of gravity?

I do not believe the big bang displaced fluid theory re-filling the void(s) forcing me down on the Earth's surface since, the planet is spinning too fast.

Then there is this confusing analogy:
"Outerspace" (which has no particles in it) is like a "web" with bowling balls on it. 

Maybe the analogy is correct but, I don't think the web is the cause of gravity but a vision of a negligible side affect of what the "ether" looks like due to masses moving through it. 

Obviously outerspace particles, just like air, move when objects pass through it.

I think the electro-magnetic field is too geometrically large for us to detect and maybe so weak we can't detect it.

We've considered theoretical particles - maybe we already know them all and just haven't figured out all their capabilities.

In the meantime we at least have Einstein's and Newton's and Bernoulli's and Archimede's equations to use the natural forces in nature caused by ... .

Finally:  thank goodness someone is out there providing products to minimize our current impact on the environment - and why I joined this website.

P.S. (if someone discovers a strong localized magnetic field like the devil's triangle  harness it - I doubt the planet will stop rotating - unless your as big as Saturn)










 

"And there is the question again, what is gravity?"

In my studies of philosophy, for the most part, whenever you get deep into anything you end up asking yourself, "what is x anyhow?". I stopped worrying about finding 'necessary and sufficient' definitions, mostly cuz i couldn't find any, and started to think more pragmatically (a typical American story).   

"Didn't the string theorists figure it out?"

They might have! I read Feyman's QED and pretty much gave up after that.

"Maybe the analogy is correct but, I don't think the web is the cause of gravity but a vision of a negligible side affect of what the "ether" looks like due to masses moving through it."

This might be referring to the graph paper/basket ball analogy. I didn't mean this to imply that space/time was the  cause of gravity... it's more like the field that gravity is played on. And I'm no physicist! This is just the way I feel the universe to be from some stuff I've read. From my recollection, "ether" was a reference to an absolute space, where the photon's launched traveling on a train would move faster then the photons launched from a stationary position. I don't think general theory of relativity implies that space/time is the cause of gravity, mass still is. It's the basketball that is curving the paper.

"I think the electro-magnetic field is too geometrically large for us to detect and maybe so weak we can't detect it."

I know some people that have been hit with some seriously strong DC current that might have a contrary option.

"thank goodness someone is out there providing products to minimize our current impact on the environment - and why I joined this website."

I'm glad your here FD!

"How about this question. Are Gravity and molecular cohesion one and the same?"

As far as I know they are not, and that's been one of the big issues in physics for the last 100 years or so.

"It is this electromagnetic field bonding that creates the effect known as gravitational attraction."

Well I can sort of see this. If M1 has a mass of 1 and M2 has a mass of 2, and they are bonded via an electrical attraction, there combined mass would have a greater gravitational effect then if unbounded, but I don't see the causality- but I haven't studied the Hutchinson effect... maybe for tonights reading.

"It would seem possible that if a person could find a way to collect the frequency energy being produced by mass then transmit the gravitational energy, we would have an unlimited supply of energy potential to draw form."

Any particle that has mass has a gravitational force. If we  interpret the Heisenberg uncertainty principle literately, then the gravitational effect of an object changes as we observe it's velocity. If we can harness a very small amount of matter's gravitational energy, and manipulate its position via observation, then we can create energy via differing wave positions. Peek-a-boo energy.

"However, if resonance effect is not controlled the result would be a catastrophic breakdown of sub atomic and molecular cohesion starting a cascade chain reaction effect."

Hail Eris!

"What do we need with all of this energy anyway?"

I love my iphone.

But for real, we are in a fight against thermodynamics. Life seems to oppose disorder as much as it can. If we're on a fight for life, then were on a fight for energy. Living requires consumption of energy, and that is not a bad thing at all.









 

NO.  If it were an anti-gravity device it would float into space. 

Check out Jean Pierre Nadon on You Tube or just type in Lifter Propulsion or Anti-gravity propulsion.

I think we have the nature of gravity a bit confused. It seems to be electro-magnetic in nature.  How do UFOs hover?  Apparently it's a reversal of protons. 

But I am fascinated by anti-gravity propulsion and free energy.  It will be a great day indeed when these two technologies are made available. These two alone can solve most of our global problems.