Anti-Gravity
I’m a hack at a lot of subjects, but one of my fondest (fueled by too much star trek, why didn’t they just go warp 9 everywhere?) is when science meets science fiction. One thing I’ve been curious about for awhile is anti-gravity. A misnomer to be sure, but something similar to anti-gravity should be possible. Science has been able to decrease the effect of gravity to some degree, Space Probe B up in space is currently trying to measure the curve in space-time due to gravity (lots of neat artist conceptions of a ’swirl’ of gravity being twisted in on the earth), not quite floating cities-but it is a start.
One premise of mine is that if a object was to increase in mass faster than the larger gravitational body, it would ‘float’. There are several assumptions on the table with that idea. The first is that it takes some ‘time’ for a gravitational attraction to occur. If it were possible to construct some form of a worm hole, so that it opened several hundred feet above the ground, the idea is that the object would ‘hang’ at that exact spot for a period of time before it would be ‘pulled’ down towards the earth. Second, I presume that there is a limit to how many gravitational fields can exist in one space at one time-which is implying a limit on relativity. Most of the time I hear gravity explained this way, that my computer mouse has an infinite gravitational field extending out from it, but it also becomes infinitely diffuse the further away it travels in space time. Einstein believed in a form of a limit to gravity, in that if the sun were to suddenly explode, it would take the time light travels outward to the planets before the planets would be effected by the sudden change in the solar systems mass. I disagree with the first belief that gravitational fields extend infinitely and I’m not sure if gravity is limited by the speed of light-but I believe it does take ’some’ time. If gravitational fields were limitless, then I could crush the universe down into an infinitely small space and maintain seperate masses-then increasing mass faster than the parent body can account for it would be meaningless for two reasons. 1.) the gravitational effect of surrounding space outside of the parent body would still play a role in curving space-time, 2.) the amount I would have to increase the mass each moment would have to approach infinity to have a noticable impact. Ideally the amount of mass increase could be very slight, just occur at a very fast rate.
A third concept I would like to put into play, is that there is a built in physical law to the universe that prevents objects from running into themselves. Compress space down far enough and quantum tunneling [description of how particles travel through space, you cannot draw a line between point A and point B on a particles trajectory and pick a random point and say the particle has crossed it. Taken into smaller and smaller bits the particle 'tunnels' through space time rather than crossing every single point] would allow different particles to try to exist in the same space at the same time. I believe that a critical role, especially when approaching the speed of light, is an object interacting with itself moreso than surrounding space. Something creates dimension to this universe, gives us ’space’ to move through. We move relativistically to the plane of probably the majority of mass to the universe. A straight line would have no meaning if there was no dimension, no relativity. If self-relativity does exist, that the physical rules of the universe are made such that an object could potentially run ‘into’ itself, and my first premise that it takes ‘time’ for relativity to occur is correct, then perhaps that is exactly what is occuring at higher velocities. If it takes time for relativity to occur, than it takes time for space to curve inward to give direction to the mass of an object. To step a bit further along this thinking, if an object were to move to fast for the ‘universe’ to account for its mass, the object would begin to move more relative to itself than to surrounding space. In effect, it would begin to orbit its last position in space time because that location appears to be closer to it than surrounding space. Surrounding space would seem to become further and further away. An example of this I use often is if you were driving down the road at any speed, say 20 mph and along the side of the road were an increasing series of letters marking each point along the road. If you are just passing point C what point are you closest too? As a matter in terms of the energy required to get to point C, the next point down the road is actually closer because you are a body in motion, as is the universe. Time is not a fixed point, to the universe, point D .. or point E is closer than where you are now because it is the least energy dependent point to reach. However if you are moving faster than the universe can account for most of your mass, then the point you are now at becomes closer and the rest of the points fall further and further away. To the universe it would begin to functionally appear that there were several objects orbiting a point in space time rather than just one.
If the previous paragraph adds up, then the idea of self relativity holds a bit more merit. If self relativity exists, than with an increase in mass an object should become more attracted to itself than surrounding space. If there is also a limit to relativity as I attempt to establish, at least partially, earlier on, then with the increase in mass the object should be pulled more towards it’s last position in space time then towards the parent body. What should occur would be that it would appear to float, because however much pull the earth exerts on the object it would never be as much pull as the object exerts on itself.
Not sure if much of that made sense, I have a lot more to try to say on the subject but it is difficult for me to put into words-plus I don’t have much of a formal science background unless bad sci-fi and high school physics count.
