US Has Heavily Researched Anti-Gravity, Book Says

Reuters ^ | Friday September 7 12:15 PM ET | By Bradley Perrett

[XBob]

a barrier is supposed to stop 'everything', an insulator merely stops 'some' things - eg a bullet proof vest is a 'barrier' and an 'insulator', a jacket is an 'inulaotor' but not a 'barrier'.

but in fact, really, nothing is a total barrier or a total insulaor. hydrogen goes through just about anything we use to contain it, eventually leaking out - just measure outside a hydrogen container or special hydrogen hose. cosmic rays go through anything (I think).

[XBob]

140 - how about putting that in non-physicist terms, like snudge just did.

[Physicist]

A "gravity particle" is an anti-"gravity particle", just as a "light particle" is an anti-"light particle" (a photon and an anti-photon are the same thing).

[Physicist]

a barrier is supposed to stop 'everything', an insulator merely stops 'some' things

But a brick wall only stops some things. Neutrinos will pass through it. Radio waves will pass through it. Neutrons will probably pass through it. Even gamma rays will pass through it with some probability. Muons will pass through it. Neutral K mesons will pass through it.

For the most part, a brick wall will stop significantly massive objects, and little else. (If you don't like the fact that it stops some frequencies of light, then we'll use a clear material.) What else do you want a "gravity insulator" to do?

[_Jim]

You know, if you *truly* require that a magnetic field be diverted, removed, or otherwise minimized to the nth degree from affecting a circuit or other device, there is a 100% solution ...

[Psalm 73]

Just read through this whole thread before commenting, (I don't like to just burst in).
When you touched on the topic of "light" (it's a particle, it's a wave, it's, it's...)
I remembered a great quote by Goethe (who is so much more than just the author of Faust) on the topic of optics/light: "There is no such thing as optical illusion - it is all optical reality".
I think he had a great grasp of the philosophy of what "is" is.

[Republic of Texas]

It works like all sarcasm.

[XBob]

"What else do you want a "gravity insulator" to do?"

As measurable gravity appears to emanate from or is present basically in the vicinity of large masses, eg the earth, I would expect a 'gravity insulator' to block/lessen the effects of 'gravity' from what ever it surrounds, not counteract them, as a rocket does.

[XBob]

143 - "A "gravity particle" is an anti-"gravity particle", just as a "light particle" is an anti-"light particle" (a photon and an anti-photon are the same thing)."

Sorry, still don't understand. How about explain in in physics for dummies terms. Never heard of an anti-photon.

[BabylonXXX]

We are in fact slidding down a slope created by the gravity of the center of the earth.

The old 'curved-spave' analogy is useful.

But what force is making us "slide down" these four-dimensional curves?

[XBob]

145 - "You know, if you *truly* require that a magnetic field be diverted, removed, or otherwise minimized to the nth degree from affecting a circuit or other device, there is a 100% solution ..."

I'm waiting ......

[Physicist]

I'm waiting ......

Encase the thing in a superconducting box. The Meissner effect will do the job.

[Physicist]

As measurable gravity appears to emanate from or is present basically in the vicinity of large masses, eg the earth, I would expect a 'gravity insulator' to block/lessen the effects of 'gravity' from what ever it surrounds, not counteract them, as a rocket does.

You seem to be confusing fields with currents. An electrical insulator doesn't block electric fields, it blocks electric currents. In the case of gravity, you want your "insulator" to block the field, not the current. (The fact that there is no such thing, owing to the nonexistence of gravitational dipoles, is another question.)

[_Jim]

... if you *really* need superior magnetic shielding beyond that which mu metal would yield, then your recourse might lie in the use of a super-conducting material ...

To quote Richard Barrans Jr., Ph.D.: http://newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99x89.htm

"Superconductors exclude a magnetic field entirely. That is the physical basis for "magnetic levitation": magnetic fields actually repel superconductors."

[Physicist]

How about explain in in physics for dummies terms. Never heard of an anti-photon.

You seemed to have no trouble understanding snudge's notion of an "anti gravity particle"; in fact you chided me for not being so clear. Why is the notion of an "anti electromagnetism particle" harder to grasp?

My point is that we don't need to talk about "antiphotons" because they are, by symmetry, the same thing as photons. So, too with "gravity particles" (i.e. gravitons).

[slouper]

Hey, you should see David Blaines Street Magic, he's solved the gravity mystery, I saw him levitate himself on TV with my own two eyes!

[aculeus]

There is no gravity.

But ...

Earth sucks.

[longshadow]

Sorry, still don't understand. How about explain in in physics for dummies terms. Never heard of an anti-photon.

Allow me to give it a shot. "Physicist" is saying that there is no particle to "cancel out" a gravity particle's effects, just as there is no particle to cancel out the effect of a photon. The reason there is no such particle is because the particle IS it's own "anti-particle" (self-conjugate, as "Physicist" characterized it).

A crude analogy is that "0" is it's own additive inverse. There is no number you can add to zero to get zero (except for zero itself!) Similarly, a gravity particle is ALSO it's own "anti-particle" (same for photons), which excludes the possibility of some OTHER particle possessing anti-gravity properties from being the gravity particle's "anti-particle."

[XBob]

Thanks guys. Though way out of my area, this stuff is fascinating. Never took a course in physics - lots of biology/chemistry - but this is also quite fascinating.

"Encase the thing in a superconducting box. The Meissner effect will do the job."

[XBob]

are you trying to tell me that one photon of light will cancel out another photon of light?

I always thought that you either had light or no light (eg darkness). So - it is either/or 0 or 1. Nothing or something.

a solid wall, which blocks light, would to me be an "anti-photon", or a light blocker, or a light insulator.

To me, light is definitely something, therefore not a zero. And therefore, as a '1', 1+1=2 light photons.

You mention 'gravity particles'. Are there such things?