Anti-gravity hatred

>>8754963
It's a fantasy theory like the EM drive. It has no basis in reality.

>>8754970
duh were at the center of the universe

the sun? why the hell would the sun be the center? just cause its bright? that has no basis in reality!

>>8754970
Hasn't NASA shown that they also get the anomalous results the original paper authors got?

>>8754963

Because gravity has no "anti", it's ALWAYS attractive. This is quite unlike the electromagnetic force but it happens to be a fact, "anti" gravity is impossible even in theory.

>>8754974
>the sun? why the hell would the sun be the center?

Gravity.

> just cause its bright?

No, because gravity.

>that has no basis in reality!

GRAVITY, you fucking retard.

>>8754988
You're telling me theres absolutely no theories about antigravity that coincide with GR/quantum gravity?

>>8755012

I'm telling you that "antigravity" doesn't make sense as a concept. Gravity is not like electromagnetism, there is no "positive and negative gravity", there's just gravity.

>>8755047
there's antimatter
antimatter might exert antigravity on matter

>>8755047
I'm not saying you magically turn on some switch and its reversed, is there no geometry that we could use to create a linear push with gravity?

>>8755063
aside from time being reversed?

>>8754993
He is trying to convey that things might work a little bit differently than they appear at first glance and that a lot of understanding of reality is being missed because we don't even bother to look for the unexpected

>>8755063
>spaceship enters tube
>accelerates down tube due to gravity
>tube is made of panels attached by springs to nearby planets
>springs retract, quickly pulling panels far away where pull on spaceship is negligible
>spaceship has been given a linear push with gravity

Obviously the only 'practical' purpose of this setup is to answer your question.

>>8755071
Which is an incredibly lazy way of handwaving shit you can't justify

>dude, what if homeopathy works
>I mean science says it doesn't, but maybe our understanding of reality is wrong because we don't look for the unexpected
>dude remember when we thought Earth was at the centre of the universe? really makes u think

Brainlet here.
If every force has an equal and opposite reaction, what is gravity's in a vacuum and you're not touching the object?

>>8755012
There are some fringe theories that interpret dark matter/energy as "negative gravity." Not sure to what extent they agree with GR/QG though.

>>8754963
Because gravity scientists don't appreciate their hard work being opposed.

>>8755386
If every force had an equal and opposite reaction, nothing would ever move.

>>8755055
What, how do particles with opposite quantum numbers to their normal counterparts impart "antigravity"? They are just fucking particles

>>8755452
So that law is a dank meme like taste bud regions?

>>8755386
If the Earth attracts you through gravity, you attract Earth equally which is the reaction.
However a few hundreds of newtons is near nothing for Earth's mass.
Now let's catch some bait, >>8755452 no one said Newtonian action and reaction affect the same objects (they don't).

>>8755386

Gravity isn't really a force. But In Newtonian mechanics gravity is treated as an attractive force between two (or more) objects/masses. For instance the Moon and the Earth exert a force on one another that is equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.

So whenever you draw a free body diagram involving gravity between two objects you'll always have two force vectors. One stemming from object 1 towards the center mass of object 2, and one stemming from object 2 towards the center mass of object 1.

You typically learn this in physics 1.

>>8755472
No, he's meming. The force of gravity is always equal and opposite on the two masses attracting each other.

As to OP's question, no there is no antigravity. If it makes you feel better just think of matter and energy itself as antigravity.

>>8755472
No, recall that the force of gravity is dependent on BOTH masses. A particle of mass m will be attracted to another particle with mass M, where m<<M. From an outside viewer, one can clearly see mass m accelerate towards M but M also will accelerate towards m, albeit much much much less so. In other words, newton's law still holds because both masses are attracted towards each other, "opposite" in what you said is only a term do define direction.

>>8754963
The scientific community are a bunch of jackasses though. For instance the whole consensus mocked AC transmission, Relativity, and Rocketry.

It's just anything new that they don't understand the principles behind, they hate. Most scientists are very mediocre, and like all mediocre people they regard anything they don't understand as a threat.

Isn't pressure kinda like anti-gravity as it takes work to compress stuff and doesn't need anything to expand it?

>>8755631
While compressing, you work for pressure.
While decompressing, pressure works for you.
exactly the opposite in soviet russia

>>8755793
So what you're saying is that we should recreate the soviet union, but with almost fractal borders and the worlds most efficient heat engine ever built around it?

>>8755467
it was my understanding that a mole of anti-hydrogen weighs -1 grams

>>8755926
So far it's unknown whether or not anti-particles have negative mass.

>>8754963
>do a handstand
>gravity reverses

Bam, antigravity