Can anyone tell me about anti-gravity technoledgy (or something similar) or at least what is know about it?
449504
this is a good sight, maybe not totally trustworthy but with lots of reference links. good luck
840902
there's this nifty little thing called gravity? look it up
36927
Anti-gravity in the context of mainstream physics\nNewton's Law of Gravitation considered gravity to be a force between two objects, causing attraction in proportion to the objects' mass. Under this interpretation, an object with negative mass would repel ordinary matter, and could be used to produce an anti-gravity effect. Alternatively, depending on the mechanism assumed to underlie the gravitational force, it may seem reasonable to postulate a material that shields against gravity or otherwise interferes with the force. An example of such a material, cavorite, is a major deus ex machina of H. G. Wells' famous book, The First Men in the Moon, though it should be noted that Cavorite isn't consistent with even a Newtonian view of the universe (it causes violations of conservation laws). Neither negative-mass exotic matter nor a gravity-screening material have been observed experimentally. While the potential existence of exotic matter is still debated, general relativity presents persuasive arguments against the existence of screening materials. \nEinstein's theory of general relativity, published in 1915, supplanted Newton's model of gravity with an entirely different mechanism - one based entirely on the geometry of the universe. Gravity was no longer a force at all, but simply the consequence of the local slope of the universe in a direction the human eye cannot see: time. You stick to the floor not because gravity is pulling you down, but because that is the shortest distance between today and tomorrow. Under this model, gravity in a universe containing only matter with positive mass is purely attractive. No arrangement of ordinary matter can produce an anti-gravity effect. Spacetime geometries corresponding to true anti-gravity in general relativity require negative mass. \nSome models of anti-gravity claim to derive from general relativity.\n\nThe model of gravity proposed by the theory of general relativity breaks down under extreme conditions (too far inside a black hole, and in the very early life of the universe under the big bang model). In particular, most physicists believe that at extremely high energies, gravity and the other fundamental forces unify, which would allow gravity to be manipulated in ways that are not readily apparent now. Candidate models for this regime are theories of everything, which attempt to model all four forces (example: string theory), and theories of quantum gravity, which attempt to produce a model of gravity that is consistent with quantum mechanics, though not necessarily unified with the other forces. \nSome models of anti-gravity claim to be based on quantum gravity models, though the connection of these to mainstream quantum gravity models is often tenuous.\n\nConventional effects that look like anti-gravity\nMagnetic levitation suspends an object against gravity by use of electromagnetic effects. While visually impressive, this is not an anti-gravity effect. \nCritics of various alleged anti-gravity devices often suggest that unusual effects observed around them are due to electromagnetism.\n\nA tidal force causes objects to move along diverging paths near a massive body (such as a planet or star), producing effects that seem like repulsion or disruptive forces when observed locally. This is not anti-gravity. In Newtonian mechanics, the tidal force is the effect of the larger object's gravitational force being different at the differing locations of the diverging bodies. In Einsteinian gravity, the tidal force is the effect of the diverging bodies following different paths in the negatively curved spacetime around the larger body. \nLarge amounts of normal matter can be used to produce a gravitational field that compensates for the effects of another gravitational field, though the entire assembly will still be attracted to the source of the larger field. Physicist Robert L. Forward proposed using lumps of degenerate matter to locally compensate for th
1135511
Back in 1998 the idea of anti-gravity as a real phenomenon appeared to be possible - or is it?\n\nThe galaxies in the expanding universe appeared to be accelerating - was this some kind of anti-gravity force?  To account for this speed-up in expansion, most astronomers and astrophysicists favor bringing back Einstein's fudge factor. But keep in mind that no real evidence exists for reverse gravity; Einstein just made it up so that his equations would support the idea of a static universe. In a twist he could never have imagined, antigravity has returned to support the idea of a universe expanding forever at an increasing rate.\n\nThe fact that there MAY be an anti-gravity force implies there may be some way to take advantage of it, but if gravity is not actually a force but a distortion of space instead, the propulsion engine will have to find a way to distort space (we don't know how to do this).  When we understand the Higgs particle better, perhaps.\n\nCheck out the link below for an update on the subject of "anti-gravity"
198825
Sticking by the rules you specified;\n\nConstruct an inclined channel (ramp) where the 1 kg (2 lbs)weight (hopefully a metal ball) falls and accelerated by gravity. place the car that will catch and hold the ball at the end of the ramp. The falling ball's inertia will propel the car almost equal to its speed and may reach more than 1 meter on a flat even surface, design the car with low center of gravity, with less than half the weight of the propellant ball (weight) as a consideration.\n\n************* \n\nAh, New data acquired --- resolution: same application of inertial force using a rigid pendulum.\n\nConstruct a pendulum with the required height putting the fulcrum point at 10 cm directly above the floor of the car, giving you a swing radius of 10 cm from top to bottom, use a cardboard/plastic tube (shute) to carry the pill bottle but loose enough to set it free after a sudden stop once it reaches the bottom where the position of the pill bottle is parallel with the floor of the car. This configuration may not give you as much distance relying on gravity alone but may be able to get 1 meter if conditions are favorable, pertaining to weight of car and means of motion (wheel and shaft should be well oiled for free-wheeling), relevant to weight of falling object, unless you are allowed to spring load the fulcrum. You can put the fulcrum as part of the car (but it will add more weight/ but you wont need the shute, all components will be integrated), or as a separate launcher (which you will need the shute). make sure the center of gravity on the car is low for stability. when integration of all component is involved make the wheel base equally wide as 10 cm. If just for the pill bottle, just narrow enough to carry the bottle.\n\nmy idea: http://server4.pictiger.com/img/124010/other/1-kg-inertia-car.jpg\n\nInnovation is part application and part logical creativity. Isn't science great!\n~meow
618210
Not due to gravitational pull?!
257523
Lift, thrust, gravity, drag.
1100560
Antigravity on earth at least = negative G’s.  you can achieve this by jumping a dirt bike or even your car (not recommended).  \n\nThere is even a flight called the Vomit Comet.  NASA operates a KC-135 craft outfitted to perform parabolic arcs that give weightlessness or more properly freefall lasting 20-25 seconds. The plane is nicknamed "The Vomit Comet" because of the large number of researchers that become ill. Imagine a roller coaster thousands of feet high. Imagine going up and down that roller coaster repeatedly for a coupole of hours. Now you know why so many people get sick!
227550
If the question is: If there a machine that can create the sense of weightlessness.\n\nYes there is. That's the kind of machine the astronauts use to practice.
323244
This is conceivable, but only in a very low/no gravity environment.  Thanks for your thoughtful question.
761342
We did something like this in my physics lab with an Atwood machine.  It was a pully with weights hanging from it.  I can't exactly remember how it worked, but maybe this will inspire you.  We also did something with an air track and these two masses colliding and we'd see which one would go in which diretcion.  You need a nearly frictionless surface, like an air hockey table or ice slab.
690650
Some of Einstein's Ideas are already being rewritten. So, quoting him as an end-all to the question of anti-gravity really doesn't mean a whole lot. Newton's laws were rewritten after his time, as science learned more about itself. It's not unreasonable to assume that the same will occur in reguards to this taboo topic too. I remember seeing a video of a man who has come close, with a spinning top device. By itself, it weighs far too much to lift by hand. But, once it is set spinning, it could be lifted by a child. :)\n\nCurrent science is not an absolute. :) Don't give up hope!
688313
Are you sitting down? Yes? Good. You are experiencing a force which is opposing gravity. The Earth's gravity is pulling down on your mass (i.e., weight = mass * gravity) and the chair that you're sitting on is pushing up on your butt with a force equal in magnitude to the gravity pulling down on you and in the opposite direction. The sum of the forces acting upon you is 0. (You could also just look at the equation F = m*a and say, "Well, I'm not accelerating, and I know that my mass is non-zero. Therefore, the total force acting upon me is 0. If that is true, and I know that gravity is always pulling down on me, there must be an equal and opposite force(s) acting upon me.")\n\nIf it's anti-gravity that you're asking about on the other hand... it doesn't exist. Stop watching Star Trek and start reading real physics books.\n\nAs for the comments about "NASA" in the answer above... this is exactly wrong. By letting the plane drop, they make it so that the ONLY force acting upon the subjects is gravity. The only thing that has gone away is the floor of the plane beneath the subjects, allowing them to "free fall" inside the plane. The occupants only "appear" weightless with respect to the reference frame of the spacecraft when in orbit about a planet. Gravity is ALWAYS acting upon both the spacecraft and its occupants. What happens is that the spacecraft and its occupants are both falling at the same rate. Gravity is what keeps it in the orbit and keeps it from floating off into space. You would have to be infinitely far away from the planet in order for the force of gravity to be zero.
852481
I think you pose a very insightful and valid question. I've wondered this same thing myself and dreamed about the day we can created a structure like the one you describe.\n\nHowever, to create a rotating torus large enough to mimic earth's gravity would be unfeasable with the enormous cost right now to build in space. Plus, the way the space station is built puts almost no stress on the station. If the station were rotating it would have to constantly withstand the forces of "gravity".
64883
Up or away from the center of gravity.
922469
I found this very easily on the Internet.  You could have done the same thing.\n\nhttp://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/RADEC.HTML
739302
Probablly the most novel one that I've heard of is in the "lensman" series by EE doc smith, and it involves inertialessness. He had a device that would somehow remove the inertia of the object it was hooked to, thus making it unneccesary to accelerate. I thought this was cool; it had some really interesting ramifications. Good series, too!