Not sure if this has been discussed or not thus far so here it goes:

Anti-Gravity, is it possible? Furthermore, what exactly creates gravity, is it the rotation of the Earth and the rotation of other bodies in the galaxy, or is it some other force?

I create my own gravity too but that's because I'm the size of a small planet!

I don't think that the force that holds us on Earth is gravity I just think the Earth sucks.

I've read that there are only about 6 people on Earth who really understand gravity. I don't know who is the arbiter of who understands it and who doesn't.

I think one of the ways gravity is described is that it's a wrinkle or a depression in the space-time continuum caused by the mass of an object.

I presume you mean at the equator. I hadn't realised it was that much. It's a long time since I did that centripetal acceleration stuff, F = -mω²r .

(2.π / 24 / 3600)² . 4000 . 5180 = the centripetal acceleration = .11

Compared to the gravitational constant (32) we get .11 / 32 * 100 = .34%

Yup - half a pound give or take a few shillings.

I'm sure you were, Shifty.

That's why doctor's scales work on a balance principle, these are not affected like a spring / pressure based system by rotation, spherical ablation and altitude.

And it is strange that the shortest distance between two points is not a straight line, but the path that light follows. Unless you define that as the shortest distance.

The conversation became a little tensor.

I found this article interesting

http://www.null-hypothesis.co.uk/science/strange-but-true/item/gravity_canada_geological_glacier_bizarre

Gravity is not the same the world over!

Posted By: nicaboker

Thanks for the answers guys, I'd like to delve into what Paulustrious is starting to go into, mostly for the sake of a slight change.

It's hard to get away from Udoboy's description without going into mathematics. We've all seen pictures of a rubber sheet with a heavy marble stretching the so-called space-time continuum. This is a two dimensional model seen from a three dimensional perspective. It is a valid perspective but the thing they all seem to miss is how the sheet perceives itself - or more precisely if you were a two dimensional observer living on the sheet. (As an aside there is an interesting book about flatland) You would have no idea and no way to understand the dimension(s) that are orthogonal to sheet on which you live. Suppose we drew a straight line on the flat sheet from A to B passing through X. If the sheet was distorted by a mass placed nesr the line and we drew a new straight line, it would not pass through X. From my god-like three dimesional perspective I can see the 'truth'. But the two-dimensional observer cannot jump out of his frame of reference. (ie off the sheet) The new A-B line IS straight to him and is the shortest distance between those two points. It is the path that a beam of light would follow. Hence we can say light is affected by mass. Actually, it is affected by the distortion created by the mass. This distortion is (well sort of) gravity. An object placed near the depression would make its own depression. On this frictionless sheet the two objects would want to move towards each other. The nearer they are, the more they are 'attracted' to each other. Light has no mass, makes no depression, and can never be stationary. It behaves differently to matter.

(Bits of the previous paragraph are simplified/pseudo-bollocks so I can understand what I am saying.)

We need to now to make a mind-jump and see ourselves as super-gods able to perceive three dimensional space (a sort of rubber universe) from a four-dimensional perspective. We see things simutaneously as they were and as they are. Our super-god can see the effects that masses have on our three dimensional space. We normal human would see an A-B straight line, and not really understand that it is not 'really' straight unless there are no masses around to distort it.

We could not see directly that a planet (or star or black hole) alters its local space. But we can observe the fact that our three dimensional A-B straight-line no longer passes through X when a large mass is moved close to that line.

I hope this confuses you as much as it confuses me. It is why Einstein was so brilliant. This all derived from a 'thought-experiment'. Although I think it was Minkovski who first described it mathematically in the early 1900's.

And from there we have to jump into tensor mathematics, to describe observers, events, horizons, Reimann spaces, manifolds ... and the other beautiful equation...

s² = c² . t² - r²

And that is way beyond me now.

As another aside, in high school we derived e=mc² from first principles. It is surprisingly easy. You just have to be a genius to do it first.

I am surprised that the fundamentals of the anti-gravity device have not been supplied here yet.

Premise 1: Universal Law dictates that buttered toast will always, based on countless observations, land buttered-side down when dropped.

Premise 2: Natural Law tells us that a dropped cat will always land on its feet.

Construction of the Anti-Gravity device. Lash a piece of buttered toast to the back of a cat with the butter-side facing up.

Raise the device to the desired elevation and release. The opposing forces will result in a zero rate of descent.

To achieve an increase in elevation, simply scape away a portion of the butter from the toast. Note: use great care in doing this so as to prevent explosive decompression of the device and also to ensure that the user is capable of retrieving the device.

To achieve a reduction in elevation, simply apply butter to the toast component of the device. Again note that care should be taken to avoid rapid changes that might result in damage to the landing gear of the device.

Then you should strap two cats back to back and buttered toast to the sides, front and butts of the cats. Viola... perpetual spinning everywhere!

This is the first time I've been in this thread, and I'm not even going to ask....

hehe....

Posted By: nyarfdude

hehe....

That avatar Nyarf.. its confusing!

Posted By: 5010

Udoboy,
If what I said implies what you suspected, then each guy who claims he hasn't has sex yet with a girl would be identified as 'gay' even though 72% are virgins and 25% are lying.

How many guys do you know who claim they haven't yet had sex with a girl?

They're all gay.

Or 3% are actually gay...

Feeling a little Evil today, teter? Maybe you should go to the Dr.