Its like this folks - the aliens

>>18846756
If we live in a black hole, what are the black holes in our current space?
Super Black holes?
Midget Black Holes?

Gravity well =/= blackhole.

God I love coming here and seeing this shit.

>hurr durr I watched some videos on quantum theory

>>18846756
the biggest problem we have here is complexity in science. A great disservice has been done to the general public in an foolish attempt by scientists and science communicators to explain their theories as natural fact in order to elevate themselves to the level of their predecessors who discovered flight, electricity and magnetism and the various fundamental laws of chemistry, physics and biology which helped build our modern world.

In the process of patting themselves on the back they have overlysimplified their own theories to conceptual models.

Black holes are a conceptual and mathematical model of a region of space which could exist if you played around with variables until you hit universal limits. Supermassive black holes help explain some of the rotational velocity of observable galaxies, and this is a far neater explanation than "we don't know". It leads to the problem of what came first, the supermassive black holes at the centre of galaxies or the galaxies, how is the formation process modelled, has it been observed and so on.

So black holes might exist. You can be a black hole agnostic, because they are not the same thing as stars, which we do know exist since one powers the natural life on this planet and further we can observe many others every night in the sky.

Science is not about theory. It's about experimental design, attempting to build new things, and always being wrong but learning something new from the discovery.

Your ideas are not scientific, they are fictional with a veneer of modern science theoretical jargon, which you probably do not grasp the mathematics of, not to your detriment, but because you need 5-6 years of careful guided study to get from Euclid to Einstein, and most people simply don't have the guidance, patience or interest in developing this base of conceptual and mathematical knowledge.

>>18846810
For the last part of your post, you are spot on.
The idea/vision of this theory just came to me from nowhere when i was at work. And to me it made so much more sense.

I want to plant a seed here. To see if anyone comes up with some more ideas on this...

>>18846810
(cont'd)

Gravity is a field that surrounds us. To escape the Earth's effect on this field is quite simple theoretically. You need a device which can generate a stronger (temporary and variable are optional) gravitational field. You would then mount this onto a craft and begin to gravity skip in the desired direction of travel.

You can think of it as digging an invisible hole through space and the falling in that direction. The breakthrough research at large particle accelerators like the LHC will no doubt help towards eventual applications for this new method of transportation.

>1800 George Cayley investigates the physics of fixed-wing flight
>1902 Wright Brothers model 3 (first powered glider)
>1942 Messerschmitt Me 262 (first jet fighter)
>1972 McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle (MACH 2.5+)
>1995 General Atomics MQ-1 Predator (remotely piloted aircraft)
>2001 General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper (autonomous flight vehicle)
>20?? SR-72 (MACH 6+ space plane)

As you can see it took about 100 years from the understanding of the theory involved to the application in terms of a prototype. The ball got rolling relatively quickly over the next 100 years. We are reaching bottlenecks with the current technology paradigm. The SR-72's airframe will be made out of ceramic composites as metals will melt due to air friction at MACH 6.

so assuming the same type of timeline:

>20?? theory of gravity generation, levitation, movement
>2100 working prototypes
>2200 anti-gravity for everyone


The scary part is obviously if someone figured a working prototype. Because with enough resources they could easily take over the planet. The fight between anti-gravity powered aircraft and 20th century human aircraft would look like an F-15 fighting 19th century zepplins. But that would require trillions of dollars in resources to fund the development and production of anti-gravity vehicles to such a scale that they could threaten the military superpowers of Russia, China and USA.

>>18846850
If you plant a shit seed, you're gonna get a shit tree that fruits nothing but big steaming piles of shit to fall on any bastard stupid or unlucky enough to seek it's shade.

In other words, fuck off.

>>18846874
>Gravity is a field that surrounds us. To escape the Earth's effect on this field is quite simple theoretically. You need a device which can generate a stronger (temporary and variable are optional) gravitational field. You would then mount this onto a craft and begin to gravity skip in the desired direction of travel.

It is so entertaining to me to read someone's long ass post about how people misunderstand science, only to post nonsense drivel like above afterwards.

>Gravity is a field that surrounds us.
No, gravity is a result of curved spacetime.
>Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915) which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass/energy.
Looks like you need another 5-6 years in your trip from Euclid to Einstein.

>To escape the Earth's effect on this field
As we're still talking about Newtonian Physics and gravitational fields, this makes no sense. Doesn't make sense in General Relativity either, but moving on. Earth is CAUSING the field, not affecting it. To get rid of "Earth's effect on the field" would require you to remove the mass. In other words, you'd have to get rid of the Earth.

>You need a device which can generate a stronger (temporary and variable are optional) gravitational field.
Any mass with a strong enough gravitational field to move a human standing on Earth is going to crash into Earth due to the insanely strong gravitational pull between it and the Earth.

>you probably do not grasp the mathematics of, not to your detriment, but because you need 5-6 years of careful guided study to get from Euclid to Einstein, and most people simply don't have the guidance, patience or interest in developing this base of conceptual and mathematical knowledge.

>>18846756
OP is a nigger. If we're living in a blackhole, from which even light can't escape, how come my favourite colour is yellow? Oh yeah! Because OP is a rudypoo.

>>18846756
take this shit to /sci/ if you're willing to provide evidence

>>18847530
>no

>In physics, a gravitational field is a model used to explain the influence that a massive body extends into the space around itself, producing a force on another massive body.[1] Thus, a gravitational field is used to explain gravitational phenomena, and is measured in newtons per kilogram (N/kg). In its original concept, gravity was a force between point masses. Following Newton, Laplace attempted to model gravity as some kind of radiation field or fluid, and since the 19th century explanations for gravity have usually been taught in terms of a field model, rather than a point attraction.
In a field model, rather than two particles attracting each other, the particles distort spacetime via their mass, and this distortion is what is perceived and measured as a "force". In such a model one states that matter moves in certain ways in response to the curvature of spacetime,[2] and that there is either no gravitational force,[3] or that gravity is a fictitious force.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_field

Very basic, not sure what you are disagreeing with.

Earth is not causing the field, it is distorting it, a larger localized distortion (or curvature if you prefer) would act like a bungee cord.

>Any mass
Assuming mass is the only way to curve the spacetime
gravitational field.

Everything is considered as fields in modern physics, with the long term goal of describing:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory


You sound confused? Perhaps you're an undergraduate still? Once you reach graduate level physics they reveal to you that a lot of the conventions previously taught were done so for ease of calculation, and that yes, we now believe everything is fields.

>>18846874
>Gravity is a field that surrounds us.
yes and no, in a given frame of measurement appears as a torus(field), but is in fact a subsequent force of a field of EMR present around every body of mass
see coulombs law:: F=kq1q2/r2

vs gravitation force: F = Gm1m2/r2

>>18846799
What are you, a physicist?

File: troll science.jpg (19KB, 320x278px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 320x278px

>>18849077
>Very basic, not sure what you are disagreeing with.

>Gravity is a field that surrounds us.
This says to me that you consider gravity to be a field affecting mass, rather than an effect of mass.

>To escape the Earth's effect on this field
In either system of physics, the only way to do this would be to "get rid" of Earth's mass - either literally or information-wise in regards to the rest of spacetime around it.

>You need a device which can generate a stronger (temporary and variable are optional) gravitational field. You would then mount this onto a craft and begin to gravity skip in the desired direction of travel.
So you're going to create a device with the gravity of - say - a star. You'll put it on the front of your ship. Then you'll let the gravity of this star-mass-device pull your ship.

That's the main points I'm disagreeing with. The field model works fine, for Newtonian physics.

>Everything is considered as fields in modern physics, with the long term goal of describing:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_field_theory
Hey, you know the number one, fundamental problem that's holding back the UFT? Gravity.

>>18849268
i consider that there exists a field everywhere in space, and mass affects it. we call this interaction gravity. i called it a gravity field, what would you call it? you need to cancel the effect of the Earth's mass on your craft, not the entire planetary effect, which is why i used the tunnel/hole analogy, you create a tunnel in front of yourself which you "fall" into.

>create a device with the gravity of

it would just be a graviton gun. they don't need the mass-energy information of a star, just something more massive than Earth to overcome 9.8ms^-2. We don't generate electricity by having giant thunder-making machines, why would we generate antigravity by having earth sized objects attached to the front of our ships? There is the natural world and observable effects, and then there is human technology exploiting these effects and rejigging them into useful devices. We make lots of things that don't occur naturally, that's sort of the point of civilisation.

A star-mass graviton gun would accelerate you at 263ms^-2 ~27g (our sun - earth) you hit the human powered aircraft speed record at mach 6.72 in 10 seconds, in 31 hours you are at 0.1c, in 13 days you hit the speed of light. So no, that's a little too extreme, no material I can imagine would survive such extreme acceleration and not fly apart or incinerate under air friction taking off.

Look this is just a hypothetical thing, but the guy wanted to know what antigravity would look like, in principle it's sound. You don't need a star to generate fusion, you don't need massive objects to generate massive gravity (probably).


>>18849169
>electric universe pls go :(
all fields decay as r^-2 in 3 dimensions, that appears to be a general property of our universe.

>>18846756
Thanks for the quick gestalt!

>>18849441
>>electric universe pls go :(
its not electric, its dynamic. science can only explain frames of observation, which is why, for the longest time scientists were sure we lived in a physical universe(particles exist) but this is just not true, particles are but a frame of the flow of a waveform. physical properties come about when certain waveforms have similar or opposing wavelengths allowing them to collide and not pass through one another.

also you can create gravitation's in a desired, if you can create electromagnetic radiation of a proportional intensity(yes that is to say a powerful enough LASER or any led or globe would work as a gravity gun, but that would be the least efficient way in the universe to go about it) instead of trying to project gravity it would be far more efficient to "ride" it. the trick is you need a field high enough potential and a frequency to match the EMR you intend to "ride". due to the way a field propagates(torus) matching the wavelength and polarity of a 'wave of EMR' will propel along it, or to at least be propelled in the direction of the wave proportional to the difference in frequency of the field and the wave.

>>18849441
>what would you call it?
Spacetime.

>you need to cancel the effect of the Earth's mass on your craft, not the entire planetary effect
So on this you're talking about net forces? The way we currently use a rocket to "cancel" the effect of Earth's mass. I think we can move beyond this then.

>just something more massive than Earth to overcome 9.8ms^-2.
We'd still need something at more massive than Earth. I'll allow waving a "tech advance" hand at the problems of sheer forces and torque from having such mass in such a localized volume. But the fundamental problem of my pic still stands. Why wouldn't the sudden increase in mass at the front of my ship just crash me into Earth? Or the graviton emitter itself be attracted to Earth? Or why would the ship not just squeeze itself? What is actually propelling the ship forward?

Remember - you aren't "falling" at all. You are moving toward the mass-source of the gravity. Switching the magnets on the car with "gravity gun" doesn't suddenly make this work.

>>18849560
Here an image of my problem:

You're out in deep space, got your sturdy ship and your mass effect drive all ready to go. Flip on your graviton gun, project the artificial-gravity field in front of you...and nothing happens. Or perhaps the ship will lurch forward and then bounce back a bit as the emitted field compresses against the ship. Because instead of going anywhere - the ship and artificial gravity well are just pulling at each other. Even worse, if the ship wobbles (like repelling magnets pushed too close together) the parts furthest from the f-gravity well would rapidly develop angular velocities (after all, this is Earth-mass compressed into a small effective volume) and go into orbit around the field.

File: space digger.jpg (25KB, 357x298px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 357x298px

>>18849560
>>18849586
>Flip on your graviton gun

then you flip it off, then on then off then on.

you are projecting the field faster than the motion of your ship since the graviton is moving out from you at superluminal speeds. So before your ship reaches the localized area of space it is being pulled towards you turn off your generating device.

Once you pick up sufficient velocity you're good to go, you don't need to constantly use it to move since in space an object in motion will continue it's motion, it's a friction less vacuum. think throwing a grappling hook out, pulling yourself in and repeating.

The motion would look elastic or rubbery taking off, a wonky or jerky movement until sufficient speed is built up. Here I modified your picture so you can understand it visually. When you turn off your machine the deformation in spacetime you made refills itself, you can keep making deformations in front of you and strobing your machine so that it's frequency matches your desired forward motion.

Tengri137

Pff bro, you're trying to be scary with a fictional bullshit version of the universe, but our actual universe is way scarier.

https://youtu.be/ijFm6DxNVyI

Everything might just be wiped from existence at any second