Skip to comments.
Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation [Anti-Gravity!]
PhysOrg.com ^
| 11 February 2006
| Staff
Posted on 02/11/2006 4:31:06 PM PST by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-223 next last
To: PatrickHenry
I should have read more carefully. Your payload has to flit from star to star for its acceleration, repelled by their antigravity.
Beats me.
41
posted on
02/11/2006 5:06:51 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: VadeRetro
Your payload has to flit from star to star for its acceleration, repelled by their antigravity. If that's the downside, well I guess I could live with it.
42
posted on
02/11/2006 5:08:26 PM PST
by
Coyoteman
(I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
To: RightWhale
"Einstein rejected a 5-dimensional solution because it didn't feel right..."
Let's not forget, Einstein also rejected the cosmological constant and the expansion of the universe...I think he felt it didn't feel right either.
Later he claimed it was his biggest mistake...
43
posted on
02/11/2006 5:08:31 PM PST
by
AMHN
To: VadeRetro
At 57.7% of lightspeed, the relativistic effects aren't very great. Mass is only about 1.35 times your rest mass, and time has slowed only down to about 74% of your clock rate back on earth. You gotta really get going faster to get crazy effects.
44
posted on
02/11/2006 5:08:47 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: REDWOOD99
This article was posted next year. Dang! I was hoping to hear of the solution this year!
45
posted on
02/11/2006 5:09:47 PM PST
by
burzum
(A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.--Prov 17:10)
To: jwalsh07
See my post #21 in this thread :-)
Cheers!
46
posted on
02/11/2006 5:09:52 PM PST
by
grey_whiskers
(The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
To: grey_whiskers
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
It's not just a good idea...
It's ze Law!
47
posted on
02/11/2006 5:11:24 PM PST
by
mikrofon
(Celeritas)
To: PatrickHenry
And yet the Felber effect kicks in there.
48
posted on
02/11/2006 5:12:09 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: martin_fierro
Weeing flying cars would be horrifically painful, I'm sure.
L
49
posted on
02/11/2006 5:12:22 PM PST
by
Lurker
(In God I trust. Everybody else shows me their hands.)
To: ModelBreaker
So how do you slow down? Rotate the narrow-angle tractor beam to the rear so it exerts braking force.
50
posted on
02/11/2006 5:12:47 PM PST
by
steve86
(@)
To: PatrickHenry; RadioAstronomer; Physicist
. I still don't know what to make of this. Here's hint: notice the style of the writing. This reads more like somebody trying to sell you a new car with a fancy new transmission technology than it does a serious science discovery.
That alone pegs my bullshit detector.
Additionally, as you've already pointed out, particle accelerators routinely accelerate particles well past 0.577c, so this effect should have already been seen in the lab for years if it were true.
And lastly, didn't "Physicist" post something a while back that basically showed that if you could "counter" the effect of gravity, then in principle you can build a perpetual motion machine to do useful work for free, which is to say it violates energy conservation.
But that's just my layman's take; I'll way for the big guns to weigh in on this.
51
posted on
02/11/2006 5:13:20 PM PST
by
longshadow
(FReeper #405, entering his ninth year of ignoring nitwits, nutcases, and recycled newbies)
To: VadeRetro
So if you get to .57 the rest is free? How do you slow down?Why, you simply have to put on the brakes, to slow down from Ludicrous Speed.
52
posted on
02/11/2006 5:14:10 PM PST
by
JRios1968
("Cogito, ergo FReep": I think, therefore I FReep.)
To: Coyoteman
If that's the downside, well I guess I could live with it. It's a narrow beam projecting in front of you. So, to get the star in the beam, you essentially have to tell your spaceship to fly right through the star, or something close to that.
53
posted on
02/11/2006 5:14:20 PM PST
by
VadeRetro
(Liberalism is a cancer on society. Creationism is a cancer on conservatism.)
To: PatrickHenry
Felber me up Franklin just doesn't have that ring...yet.
mc
54
posted on
02/11/2006 5:14:43 PM PST
by
mcshot
(Rusty but trusty or vice versa.)
To: Lurker
To: Drammach
" We're approaching Felber Speed, Sir ! " Captain: 'Full Felber ahead, Mate!'
Mate: 'Aye, Captain...but she cawn't take much more. She's gonna blow!!'
56
posted on
02/11/2006 5:15:39 PM PST
by
O Neill
(Aye, Katie Scarlett, the ONLY thing that lasts is the land...)
To: longshadow
Here's hint: notice the style of the writing It's a press release, and apparently it's from Felber himself. I hope he's not jumping the gun and doing a "cold fusion" act. We shall see.
57
posted on
02/11/2006 5:17:19 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: Brilliant
The jury is still out on whether Einstein's equations on general relativity were right, though. That's why they sent up a sattelite last year to test them. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that. There have been confirmation experiments since 1919 that have validated general relativity. The modern confirmation experiments tend to be more on the order of determining if general relativity is still accurate to some insane number of decimal places (similar to the experiments with QED). Physicists generally hope that there is a bump or an error in their measurements because it means that the theory is not completely refined, therefore giving them something to do! It may come to be that there is a certain range of velocities or masses at which GR does not follow observations (and physicists certainly hope this is the case!), but then it will be put in a similar place as Newtonian mechanics--valid over only a certain range.
58
posted on
02/11/2006 5:19:14 PM PST
by
burzum
(A single reprimand does more for a man of intelligence than a hundred lashes for a fool.--Prov 17:10)
To: The_Victor; GreatOne
59
posted on
02/11/2006 5:20:27 PM PST
by
PatrickHenry
(Virtual Ignore for trolls, lunatics, dotards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: PatrickHenry
New antigravity solution will enable space travel near speed of light by the end of this century, he predicts. This is simply unacceptable. I want my anti-gravity NOW. No excuses.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 221-223 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson