NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.users.on.net/killerkoala/skambass.JPG
Lady Jade Purrlinda
Ambassador to NS Earth
The Star Kingdom of Slagkattungerhttp://www.nationstates.net/images/un_member.gif
Politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.
Email:- Slagkattunger@hotmail.com
My Nations GDP (http://www.pipian.com/stuffforchat/gdpcalc.php?nation=Slagkattunger)


The Star Kingdom of Slagkattunger has in this quite period for our nation just recently developed Anti-gravity, this will allow for the development of surface to space space-vessels at reduce costs (no need for a large chemical fuel boosters). Also a reverse of this process has been developed called Artifical Gravity Generator was devoped as a result of the previous development. This will allow indeffinate stay in space without deteriation without the need for rotation rings to simulate gravity.

OOC:- Please don't ask how it works as Its a secret
I'm not a scientist so I could even explain how I would try to do it.
Don't say it is impossible as the following were considered impossible until man achieved it[list:ed9102ca81]
Powered Flight
Breaking the speed of sound
Man in space
Man on the moon[/list:o:ed9102ca81]

I appologise for the lack of roleplay in developing this system.....but time is limited today & I want to get around to making the spaceship for my people this year :?

Also I wish to reduce the amount of time on this topic to advoid harassment from people constantly asking how it works & those who say it's simply not possible fully ignoring the fact this is fiction & not real life.

Can anyone explain to me how gravity works in simple english I would appriciate it (and by simple I mean dumbed down to hommer simpson level :P ).

I see the Anti-grav as countering the "pulling" effect of gravity by exerting a repulsing field/ negating field. Off course this field can be altered to totally counter a planets gravity field down to allowing a person to lift a heavy object as a lighter object (1/3 normal G etc).

>>>Transmission to:Slagkattunger DataNetwork, Public data redundencies<<<
||From: Administration One, Diplomatic Juncture C/o WorldDisc Transmission Redundencies||
||Re: Anti-gravitic technology ||



The Serene^Union of Kaenei hereby offers its congratulations to the nation of Slagkattunger on the attainment of powered anti-gravitic flight. Your people have broken a milestone on a par with the first manned flight, the first manned space mission and the first steps on a foreign world. All of those represent times when your society opened a new avenue from whereapon science and culture could leap and bound to a new plane.

Soon you shall find that resisting one of nature's most integral law is more than a parlour trick or mockery. Such abilities now bring with it the promise of superior transport, advanced defensive craft, and a host of related technologies.

We wish you peace and prosperity, may your new found technology do for yourselves as it has for us, and bring you calm and serenity.

Minister Killthanus.
Intelligence Administorium Aengelum.

Most Serene Union of Kaenei

Gravity is based on a objects volume. The more volume an object has the stronger its graviational pull is. Of course the stronger graviational pull will win out in the long run. Thats why you dont see little moons floating around extremely large people. When something is in orbit it is basically a controlled fall around a planet.

And about tractor beams it basically becomes a fight with the ship and the planet. So you will A. either rip whatever u are trying to pull up apart. B. be able to move it but very slowy. C. Have ur shipped pulled closed to the Earth.

Explain you heathen! Confess! Repent! erm........where was I going with this again? :P

I always assumed that if you could "create" gravity (by means other than simply using a large mass), the next logical step (after mastering grativic manipulation of course) would be to realize the concept of "anti-gravity". That would have been my explanation anyways.

well if you can somehot generate fake inertia then u could create gravity, but you wouldnt want to use that in the atmosphere because it would take up a massive amount of power to fight the planet off.

Well theres no such thing as anti gravity occuring naturally.

Can anyone explain to me how gravity works in simple english I would appriciate it (and by simple I mean dumbed down to hommer simpson level :P ).
To my knowledge there is no exact way to explain how gravity works. There are countless of theories, non have been proven so far if I recal correctly. A famous one is of course the graviton theory, I suggest you look in to that.

Gravity is based on a objects volume. The more volume an object has the stronger its graviational pull is. Of course the stronger graviational pull will win out in the long run. Thats why you dont see little moons floating around extremely large people. When something is in orbit it is basically a controlled fall around a planet.

And about tractor beams it basically becomes a fight with the ship and the planet. So you will A. either rip whatever u are trying to pull up apart. B. be able to move it but very slowy. C. Have ur shipped pulled closed to the Earth.

I think you mean "an object's mass".

You know what Anti-gravity engines mean?

F-ZERO BECOMES TRUE!!!

I bagsy Octo-dude!

I'm SO going to beat you on Silence, F-Zero X Era.

I know about mass gravity..but how do we (humans & other stuff) walk around on the earth surface without being flung off my the earth rotation? I had heard it was the Earth magnetic pull that kept us on.if that is so wouldn't a device generating an opposite field push away from the earth as you up it's level until it matched or exceeded the earth pull?

You know what Anti-gravity engines mean?

F-ZERO BECOMES TRUE!!!

I bagsy Octo-dude!

I'm SO going to beat you on Silence, F-Zero X Era.

:shock: :? huh :?:

I know about mass gravity..but how do we (humans & other stuff) walk around on the earth surface without being flung off my the earth rotation? I had heard it was the Earth magnetic pull that kept us on.if that is so wouldn't a device generating an opposite field push away from the earth as you up it's level until it matched or exceeded the earth pull?

ok when u are walking the earth is trying to pull you into orbit but the ground stops you. When you throw a ball you knotice the arc it makes? Thats the same arc something in orbit would make but it has enough velocity to stay in orbit and not get pulled into the earth.

I know about mass gravity..but how do we (humans & other stuff) walk around on the earth surface without being flung off my the earth rotation? I had heard it was the Earth magnetic pull that kept us on.if that is so wouldn't a device generating an opposite field push away from the earth as you up it's level until it matched or exceeded the earth pull?

Uhhhh, that mysterious force that keeps you on the ground is called gravity, the exact concept that you have "mastered" ICly. Although, if you can't even get the basics down, I don't think you should be RPing it, IM(not so)HO. I really hope you were feigning ignorance with that post Slagkattunger :?

OOC: Homer Simpson level, eh? Simple! Bed goes up! Bed goes down! Bed goes up! Bed goes down!

Artificial gravity is commonly generated through centrifugal force. IE Spin tech. Some theorize that, should there be some way to seal an area or object from a planetary gravity influence, then anti-gravity could be the effect. How that can be done is not yet clear.

Gravity is based on a objects volume.
Arg! Eyes... melting... out.... Higher volume==equivalent absolute gravity==lower surface gravity. More mass==higher absolute gravity==higher surface gravity.

Some theorize that, should there be some way to seal an area or object from a planetary gravity influence, then anti-gravity could be the effect. How that can be done is not yet clear.
Google "Podkletnov".

Homer Simpson Explanation:
Gravity has that whole p/w duality thing which requires a bunch of boring quantum stuff to explain. In short, the planet sends a wave through spacetime, it hits you, and you react by moving towards the planet. Antigravity requires either 1. reflecting/blocking the wave 2. cancelling the wave by (non-homer bit coming up) generating a second wave exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first similar to audio noise cancelling or 3. getting together a huge amount of negative-density matter that exerts a repulsive gravitational field (warps space in the opposite direction from regular matter).

Gravity is based on a objects volume.
Arg! Eyes... melting... out.... Higher volume==equivalent absolute gravity==lower surface gravity. More mass==higher absolute gravity==higher surface gravity.

Some theorize that, should there be some way to seal an area or object from a planetary gravity influence, then anti-gravity could be the effect. How that can be done is not yet clear.
Google "Podkletnov".

Homer Simpson Explanation:
Gravity has that whole p/w duality thing which requires a bunch of boring quantum stuff to explain. In short, the planet sends a wave through spacetime, it hits you, and you react by moving towards the planet. Antigravity requires either 1. reflecting/blocking the wave 2. cancelling the wave by (non-homer bit coming up) generating a second wave exactly 180 degrees out of phase with the first similar to audio noise cancelling or 3. getting together a huge amount of negative-density matter that exerts a repulsive gravitational field (warps space in the opposite direction from regular matter).
And no, anti-matter doesn't produce anti-gravity. So don't ask.

Alright. Here's gravity as dumbed down as I can feel I can make it.

Step 1: Gravity (on earth, or for any tiny bug of a biological being on a big fat planet) is acceleration. On earth that's 9.81 m/s2, meaning that if something fell (sufficently close to earth) it would accelerate at 9/81 m/s2

What governs how fast a small object falls onto a large on is it's mass, which brings us to

Step 2: Gravity is an interaction between two masses. Now, be aware with planets, suns and such things, they are ALREADY MOVING. Gravity simply strings them together. If you took a ball, tied a string around it and swung it around your head, the string is gravity, and is the simpliest explanation of Classical Equasion of Gravity.

In this case, gravity is what's providing the string, or the tension that prevents the two objects from flying apart.

Now, because i'm not a university professor and am too much of a Lazy and Silly Cat to go rooting around in my textbooks, we'll skip ahead to

Step 3: Gravity is the interaction between masses and the 'fabric of space.' This is how Einstien explains gravity, and is partly responsible for the current buzzword Special or General Realitivity. Essentially, a mass acts on the fabric of space to create a gravity well; Any object that moves into the domain of this has it's course curved because reality itself has becomed curved. To try to be a little clearer, it's no longer a string between two objects that is gravity, but a cloth under the two objects, each object making an indent in the cloth.

Once one is sufficently acquainted with the rules these theories present, it becomes increasingly blantant that the technologies of anti gravity and faster than light travel are impossible, at least with the universe we currently understand.

For making fiction however, this is not to say that there isn't anything against anti gravity in the form of negative mass; anti-mass is an area I have not sufficiently explored to understand completely, though most of my more knowledgable teachers have stated this to be implausable. However, with sufficient research this looks to be a promising area for 'hard' science fiction. Again, the physists have no buggering clue as to what exactly it would be if it existed and how it would react with the rest of the universe if it did, but so long as the math works its fair game to me :3

One might try to look for current theory on what exactly the 'fabric of space' consists of and manipulate that for anti gravity and FTL transport. I suppose one could become inventive in this area as well, if one were of the fantasy genre. From what i'm looking at right now, the current bunch is somewhere inbetween 'it dosen't exist without matter' and 'we don't have a clue' so I suppose all's fair in this domain :3

Conversion to energy works as well, as there are FTL theoretical particals known as tachyons in Special Realitivity that are assigned imaginary negative masses. Getting a subluminal speed partical to a superluminal speed partical is currently beyond our math, however.

To sum up, this is a mouthful. If you're unwilling to get your brain dirty and start digging around, it's best to avoid this sub-subgenre of science fiction, as it's very difficult to do convincingly.

Edit: Ok, physists not having clues is a bit harsh. It's just the clues they do have are vague vapourish things that we can't work with yet.

I've seen enough in-depth anti-grav stuff on this forum (everything from gravity spikes to hovering aluminum foil) to know that anyone with half a brain could just rip off one of those and say that they invented anti-grav. At least you have the courage to say that yo're truly ignorant on the issue. :)

Besides, with the number of nations using anti-grav tech now, you don't really need to explain it because it isn't really all that revolutionary. I mean, Melkor and Siri have used it for how long now? Surely some of their people could have defected to one nation or another and shared the secrets of anti-grav, or people could've figured it out by observing the vessels in action. Either way, anti-grav is really an open technology by now.

Eh....figuring how some advanced tech works from just "watching it in action" Resi? I think not.........I'd like you to tell me if someone would be able to see how a computer works just by watching it turn on. Or maybe how a satellite works as it floats through space :? Its rather easy to be completely ignorant on the issue of "gravtech"....considering that it isn't real. Until I see a working floating disc thingie or whatever, anyone that claims to understand all the technobabble surrounding gravtech is a full of themselves, in my not-so-humble opinion.

In my not entirely humble opinion antigrav and for that matter any other reactionless drive is bullsh*t.

But they do make for nice-looking spaceships, so I don't mind them in a NS context. When straying from realism into the realm of BS, it does behoove the writer to keep an eye on credibility and game balance, though.

Eh....figuring how some advanced tech works from just "watching it in action" Resi? I think not.........I'd like you to tell me if someone would be able to see how a computer works just by watching it turn on. Or maybe how a satellite works as it floats through space :? Its rather easy to be completely ignorant on the issue of "gravtech"....considering that it isn't real. Until I see a working floating disc thingie or whatever, anyone that claims to understand all the technobabble surrounding gravtech is a full of themselves, in my not-so-humble opinion.Well, in my equally not-so-humble opinion, gravtech is already a part of NS that is accepted by most and used by larger nations than Kat here, so it's really pointless to ignore it. And as for my "seeing it in action" comment, I really ment "having your capital invaded by 100 of those bastard starships and maybe downing one or two of them", but "seeing it in action" is so much easier to write.

...

...

:? your point is :?:

In my not entirely humble opinion antigrav and for that matter any other reactionless drive is bullsh*t.

But they do make for nice-looking spaceships, so I don't mind them in a NS context. When straying from realism into the realm of BS, it does behoove the writer to keep an eye on credibility and game balance, though.

Actually, take this situation:

Let's say for a very imaginative moment, we can create a gravity well without having to place a mass there. We'll skip the how, because the answer is BS, but think about this for a minute.

Now, place such a projector on the nose of a ship, and then have it make a large gravity well a short distance ahead of the ship. The ship, of course, will accelerate towards the well. We can then either pretend our device always projects at a set distance ahead (and so long as we keep it on, we'll keep accelerating) or we can turn it off and stop accelerating, keeping the velocity we've atained. Movement without chucking stuff out the rear hatch, in theory at least.

As for antigravity as in reducing an object's mass, negative mass would be a theoritical solution, though how you'd get it such that the mass you were lifting was the net product of these masses will require some creative licence. (getting the negmass to stay still will require creative licence :3)

As for floating disks, we can do that already with magnetics. :3

Good writing to you,

Holocat.

...

:? your point is :?:
Just my bookmark/tag

Some Bob Lazar stuff from the 'net:

On several local Las Vegas radio shows and on Chuck Harder's national For the People radio show, Lazar has answered questions on the propulsion system of flying saucers, or "discs" as our government calls them. According to documents Lazar read at S4, discs fly by amplifying gravitational waves. Gravity is actually two waves, identified as gravity A and gravity B. Gravity A is at the atomic level. That is, the wave does not extend beyond the molecular bond except in Element 115 (super-heavy trans-Uranic element with 115 protons). This slight extension allows the wave to be accessed and amplified. Gravity A is currently called the strong nuclear force. The propulsion system is an antimatter reactor. In the disc Lazar crawled inside, the reactor was a sphere, about the size of a medicine ball. The top half of it was visible in the middle of the floor. Fuel for the reactor is Element 115, UnUnPentium. On a Periodic Table, UnUnPentium, a super-heavy metal, would be listed as UUP. It has a melting point of 1,740 degrees Celsius. When it is bombarded with protons, it becomes Element 116, an element that gives off anti-matter. In the reactor, there is an annihilation reaction between matter and anti-matter.

<Editor's>NOTE:
My "Nuclear Gravitation Field Theory" demonstrates the Nuclear Attraction Force that holds the protons and neutrons together in the nucleus is the same as the Gravitational Force that holds each of us on the Earth as it spins on its axis and holds the Earth in orbit around the Sun. Robert Lazar mentions in his press release that there are two types of Gravity Waves, "Gravity Wave A" which is the same as the "Strong Nuclear Attraction Force" and originates from the atom. "Gravity Wave B" is the gravity associated with the Earth, Moon, planets, Sun, and stars. Robert Lazar observed that the UFO propulsion system amplifies Gravity Waves coming from the nucleus of a "super-heavy" element, Element 115. I agree with the observation that Gravity Waves originate from the nucleus of the atom. I disagree that the nuclear force and the gravity that holds us on the Earth are two separate forces. In accordance with Isaac Newton, the force of gravity is a function of mass and distance from that mass. The electrons have a mass of 1/1840 of the mass of either a proton or a neutron, therefore, the majority of the mass is located in the nucleus. The gravitational attraction that holds each one of us on the Earth is the integration of all the atom masses that make up the Earth. Each nucleus has a very small residual gravitational field with it that goes beyond the atom. In most cases, that field is so small it is not detectable unless one integrates the residual force over all the atoms that make up a mass of interest ... in this case the very Earth we live on. The reason for the Strong Nuclear Force leaving Element 115 with a much greater intensity outside the atom than for other known atoms is the fact that the one lone proton in the eighth proton energy level for Element 115 results in a lower intensity quantized nuclear gravitation field next to the nucleus than for other atoms. With a lower initial intensity of the quantized gravitational field next to the nucleus, the amount of "Space-Time Compression" occurring near the nucleus is reduced. The intensity of the Strong Nuclear Force drops off more gradually resulting in a greater intensity of the Strong Nuclear Force outside the atom. This "Space-Time Compression" effect takes place between the nucleus and the electron cloud, therefore has no effect on the overall diameter of the atom. This discussion is not intended to discredit Robert Lazar's testimony. Be aware that Robert Lazar was reporting what he observed. Since the current Physics paradigm states that the Strong Nuclear Force has nothing to do with Gravity, it would not have been obvious to any scientist that the forces were actually the same.

Make of it what you will...

<post providing examples of nicely-written bullshit. :D>



Ayup, by presupposing the ability to project gravity wells or to produce and contain negative matter or something equally silly we can build reactionless drives. And in NS it's fun. Let's just avoid claiming it's realistic.

Can anyone explain to me how gravity works in simple english I would appriciate it (and by simple I mean dumbed down to hommer simpson level :P ).

I see the Anti-grav as countering the "pulling" effect of gravity by exerting a repulsing field/ negating field. Off course this field can be altered to totally counter a planets gravity field down to allowing a person to lift a heavy object as a lighter object (1/3 normal G etc).

:?: If a big enough one were built could it not be used as a weapon? Imagine countering or for that matter trebling or quadrupling the gravity of an entire planet. :?:

What's harder to explain, anti-grav or faster-than-light?

:?: If a big enough one were built could it not be used as a weapon? Imagine countering or for that matter trebling or quadrupling the gravity of an entire planet. :?:
See here. (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=109996)

What's harder to explain, anti-grav or faster-than-light?

Lipstick on the collar.

Alright, so gravity without mass and negative matter that dosen't fly off at greater than the speed of light is BS in practice. What matters to me is the theoritical plausablity of such an action; For instance, since magnetic force is much greater than gravitational force holding a piece of negative mass together atomically is possible for the smaller elements (the probable absence of neutrons is significant though). How you'd get the particle to stay in a confined area is something I have no clue about.

In my defence however, our science may one day show something like this is possible, or perhaps an even more elegant solution than my musings. For instance, teleportation has made recent leaps; It has been proven possible with energy, making information that much faster. Even though it hasn't been competely proven to work with atomic particles yet, most scientists are saying that there's nothing other than complexity stopping teleportation from becoming a reality now.

A few years ago, teleportation would be called BS, and rightly so; But now? Now, i'm not so sure of myself, since so many people that know so much more than I are now saying it's much more than possible.

I won't go right out and say they're realistic, Territory, but then again, i'll probably not entirely call them BS anymore. Who knows? In five years a scientist can do a lot of math, if they stick to it.

City, FTL and anti gravity are closely interrealated, but in my opinion FTL is easier to fake than antigravity. At least there are tachyons for that.

Holocat.

For instance, teleportation has made recent leaps; It has been proven possible with energy, making information that much faster.
Faster than what? Information still only travels at light speed.
That light beam they teleported in Australia? Its data stream had to be transmitted at sublight speeds to the reconstruction point.
The experiment that proved a light beam could exit a chamber before it entered? That only proved that you could know it was coming, not that any information the beam carried could be derived from such knowledge.

Even though it hasn't been competely proven to work with atomic particles yet, most scientists are saying that there's nothing other than complexity stopping teleportation from becoming a reality now.

A few years ago, teleportation would be called BS, and rightly so; But now? Now, i'm not so sure of myself, since so many people that know so much more than I are now saying it's much more than possible.
Teleportation of atoms, yes- but there is not one physicist in world today that will seriously tell you that human-scale teleportation is a viable technology.

Even though apples and oranges have been proven to be quite similar, i'll use the old adage and state that we're talking about different things, where the speed of information is concerned.

Teleportation Viable? No. Possible? Possibly. I would remind you that after the first test of the use of aircraft against surface naval vessels, most of the admiralty said much the same thing.

Is it so much more work than it seems from my perspective to just keep an open mind? Sadly, it seems these days that when a physicist says "I don't know," half the people aren't listening and the other half only pick up on 'no.'

Holocat.

For instance, teleportation has made recent leaps; It has been proven possible with energy, making information that much faster.
Faster than what? Information still only travels at light speed.
That light beam they teleported in Australia? Its data stream had to be transmitted at sublight speeds to the reconstruction point.
The experiment that proved a light beam could exit a chamber before it entered? That only proved that you could know it was coming, not that any information the beam carried could be derived from such knowledge.

Even though it hasn't been competely proven to work with atomic particles yet, most scientists are saying that there's nothing other than complexity stopping teleportation from becoming a reality now.

A few years ago, teleportation would be called BS, and rightly so; But now? Now, i'm not so sure of myself, since so many people that know so much more than I are now saying it's much more than possible.
Teleportation of atoms, yes- but there is not one physicist in world today that will seriously tell you that human-scale teleportation is a viable technology.

I might be wrong on this but the teleportation experiments with those atoms technically didn't teleport the atom didn't it just create a temporary clone of it someplace else which ceased to exist once the machine was turned off.