Physicist to Present New Exact Solution of Einstein's Gravitational Field Equation [Anti-Gravity!]

PhysOrg.com ^ | 11 February 2006 | Staff

[glorgau]

elber's research shows that any mass moving faster than 57.7 percent of the speed of light will gravitationally repel other masses lying within a narrow 'antigravity beam' in front of it. The closer a mass gets to the speed of light, the stronger its 'antigravity beam' becomes.

Cool, sounds like it also makes it harder to get into high speed collisions.

[longshadow]

way wait

[phantomworker]

This article was posted next year.

LOL!

Ah Dam Bubba now what ya gonna do with all them hoods?

From one of your threads the other day. It just cracks me up!!

[Brilliant]

Sure, they've got some proof. I think the idea of mass causing a curvature of spacetime is certainly something that has been observed, but Einstein did more than come up with that idea. He also came up with specific mathematical equations that he asserted represented the manner in which spacetime was curved. Those equations have not been fully tested, and that is why they sent up the sattelite. If those equations are off just slightly, then this guy's calculations might be useless.

[Noumenon]

Certainly no fun for anyone on the ground.

[InterceptPoint]

Assuming this guy is right there is still the time dilation problem. Time would move much faster on Earth than on the spacecraft buzzing along at near the speed of light. So we get to launch it but never get to see it return. That's no fun.

[NicknamedBob]

"You've already considered this, right? "

Of course, my dear.

An unmentioned complication appears to be finding these conveniently accelerated stars, and then getting in front of them.

It rather sounds like the setup line to an old Red Skelton Gertrude and 'Eathcliffe seagull joke.

"Say, Gertrude?"

"Yeth?" *Pause for laughter*

"Does it seem to you that we are traveling very, very fast?"

"If you thee that thteam locomotive coming up behind uth, you'll put on a burtht of thpeed too!" *cue laugh track*

[BlazingArizona]

You wonder why the Klingons have not paid us a visit, then.

Congratulations - you just rediscovered an important scientific question! It's called Fermi's Paradox.

[VadeRetro]

Thing is, I've heard of air brakes but not space brakes.

[PatrickHenry]

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.

Also, when particles are made to collide, they're definitely moving faster than the "Felber point," so if they were each putting out an anti-gravity beam, the results of their collision would be way different than what's predicted -- and routinely observed. Or ... maybe this accounts for what's observed, but in a totally different way. I can't handle that speculation.

[Centurion2000]

bump for later.

[Fatuncle]

"I don't wee any flying cars. Why?"

Because flying cars don't have any tires to wee on, dummy.

[bikepacker67]

Who's panicking?

I'm on my 3rd gargleblaster.

[M203M4]

He isn't a quack. His research interests have a huge span, but this work is in line with his formal training - his doctoral thesis was entitled, New Class of Exact Solutions of the Dirac Equation in Electromagnetic Fields - Scattering of Charged Klein Gordon and Dirac Wave Packets in a Plane-Background Geometry.

There are two related papers of his in the arXiv, http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505098 entitled Weak 'Antigravity' Fields in General Relativity and http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0505099, entitled Exact Relativistic 'Antigravity' Propulsion (both from mid-2005). The arXiv is free access (warning: the appearance on the arXivs does NOT mean an article has been peer reviewed).

[SauronOfMordor]

It can't work like that. As I understand it (at a primitive level) particle accelerators have to keep on chugging to move stuff up close to lightspeed. This effect, if real, should have been detected by now.

The gravitational effects of a subatomic particle are not of any measurable size. Doesn't matter if you're talking gravitational, or anti-gravitational. You need a planetary-size mass moving at close to the speed of light

[VadeRetro]

I don't see what's wrong with your point. Wonder what Felber would say?

[Straight Vermonter]

Ping

[grey_whiskers]

Sorry, should've given you a courtesy ping in Post 16...

:-( :-( :-(

I'm a bad kitty.

[Brilliant]

My point is slightly different from Fermi's. Fermi was trying to answer the question of whether there is life in other parts of the galaxy. He assumed that if there were, then they'd be able to get here. So where are they?

I assume there is life out there. It's not quite so clear to me, though, that they can get here. Even getting to the nearest star would take centuries with any conceivable advances in science that we might imagine. And certainly, there is no life in that solar system, since it's a double system.

If this guy is right, though, then clearly they could get here, so where are they?

[BlueOneGolf]

Pretty cool. But THIS is what I really want...