Artifical gravity for space travel

[vincent]

Are we far from developing this technology for space travel? What are some of the proposed ideas and technologies being used to make this a reality?

[Whiffle]

Well, we can't make *real* gravity due to the requirement of very very very large amounts of mass...but we can simulate it by making circular spacecraft or two spacecraft connected by a tether that spin at a rate that would cause the centripital force to approximate that of gravity. Other than that, there really isn't much. Besides, floating around is fun!

[j.nudd]

I just read an article in Popular Science about Buzz Aldrin and his plan to send man to Mars. His plan calls for artificial gravity because if an astronaut is in a non-gravitational environment, his muscles start to develop atrophy and whatnot, so it is really important to create artificial gravity if we have any hopes of traveling around our solar system.

[Hum]

:laugh: A better question might be, what is Science going to do about space radiation. I think the problems of both gravity and radiation will have the same solution.

"[Radiation] may impair astronauts ability to function, and may also continue to affect them once they come back home, said James Joseph, lead scientist for the Neuroscience Laboratory at the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts."

"Space radiation also has very different effects on human DNA,

cells and tissues. This is due largely to the increased ionization

that takes place near the track a particle of space radiation takes

through a material. Ionizing radiation has so much energy it can

literally knock the electrons out of any atom it strikes ? ionizing

the atom. This effect can damage the atoms in human cells,

leading to future health problems such as cataracts, cancer

and damage to the central nervous system."

"It is very difficult to predict the long-term effects of space radiation

on the human body, especially on our astronauts, who may spend

many months in space. Because of this uncertainty, NASA is funding

research to determine how much radiation is in space and how

much damage it may cause ? research that will help us to understand

the risks astronauts face when they spend long periods of

time in space, as well as to develop methods to mitigate those risks."

[j.nudd]

:laugh: A better question might be, what is Science going to do about space radiation.  I think the problems of both gravity and radiation will have the same solution.

"[Radiation] may impair astronauts ability to function, and may also continue to affect them once they come back home, said James Joseph, lead scientist for the Neuroscience Laboratory at the Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts."

"Space radiation also has very different effects on human DNA,

cells and tissues. This is due largely to the increased ionization

that takes place near the track a particle of space radiation takes

through a material. Ionizing radiation has so much energy it can

literally knock the electrons out of any atom it strikes ? ionizing

the atom. This effect can damage the atoms in human cells,

leading to future health problems such as cataracts, cancer

and damage to the central nervous system."

"It is very difficult to predict the long-term effects of space radiation

on the human body, especially on our astronauts, who may spend

many months in space. Because of this uncertainty, NASA is funding

research to determine how much radiation is in space and how

much damage it may cause ? research that will help us to understand

the risks astronauts face when they spend long periods of

time in space, as well as to develop methods to mitigate those risks."

586781234[/snapback]

In the same article I read, Buzz Aldrin had some plan for a magnetic shield, although i think it is a bit far-fetched as of now.

[ev0|]

Space Travel by 2700, barring Armageddon.

InterGalactic Space Travel ? Now that's harder... 10,000 ???

[Beastage]

I'm pretty sure we are following the Star Trek time line in general speaking... and even a bit ahead of it

Generating artificial gravity by centrifugial (sp) force is a basic thing to do... but it needs a big spaceship that can only be built in space, I got no idea how they can generate true artifical gravity.

[StudentR]

Space travel may be but only in solar system...

[Sharque]

All you need to know about AG

Artificial Gravity

Unfortunately, long-term exposure to weightlessness leads to a chain-reaction of undesirable physiological adaptations. Countermeasures such as diet and exercise have been only partially effective in preserving health, even for well-trained highly-motivated crews. Use of therapeutic equipment is expensive in time and volume and may be unworkable with a large diverse population.

There is both theoretical and experimental evidence that artificial gravity can substitute for natural gravity to maintain health in orbit. In the early days of space flight, experts assumed that space stations would incorporate artificial gravity. Romantic images of life in orbit have often envisioned space habitats as graceful rotating structures. The novelty of artificial gravity may be one of the features, along with easy access to weightlessness.

[megamanXplosion]

We do not need artificial gravity, we already have the technology. Maxwell wrote a unified field theory that combined electromagnetics with gravity. Most science text books teach the equations using scalar values, but that is actually the disasterous result of trying to simply the original equations using quaternian values. This "simplification" actually erased gravity from the equations! Thus, they also erased our ability to control gravity! Anyone interested in the development of anti-gravity technology must read about the original equations and read of the experiments that have verified them: Biefeld-Brown effect, the variants of the "two-plate condensor," etc. If you do a search for "Force on An Asymmetric Capacitor" you will be able to find official research carried out by the U.S. Army about anti-gravity where they were actually capable of reproducing the effect in 4 different ways.

Each astronaut could have their own local gravity field using electrogravitational devices embedded in their space suits. The interesting thing about controlling gravity is that it would enable astronauts to remain pulled toward the direction of their feet rather than simply being pulled down. This is important to note because they would be capable of walking on walls or on the ceiling and occassionally switching between having gravity and not having gravity so they can manuever easily. Outside the craft they would still have this ability, which would enable much better investigation of the planets. The bottoms of the deepest canyons in the universe could be explored easily because gravity could push them down near the bottom then they reduce the polarity as they reach the bottom to slow their descent and once they're done exploring they could increase the polarity in the opposite direction so gravity will push them back to the surface.

The very same technology could be used for the space craft as well. With each side (top, bottom, left, right, front, and back) having electrogravitational propulsion it is possible to reach speeds near the generally assumed "constant" velocity of light (according to experiments light does not travel at a constant speed in a vacuum.) The polarity of the devices create a small vacuum in front of the object so there is nothing to impede the speed of the craft. In essense, instead of pushing through its environment it "slides" through it. One must also remember that the craft, and its occupants, are subject to the gravity changes so there is no G-force applied to the occupants. Objects could travel at 20,000 mph and make a right-angle turn without slowing down while the occupants feel no sense of movement at all. Because gravity can be locally controlled, this also means the craft would experience weightlessness, or near weightlessness, instead of infinite heaviness as it approaches the speed of light so it may even be possible to surpass the speed of light.

Another great thing about this technology is that it will save the human race from extinction in several ways. Attempting to change the direction of an asteroid using nuclear weapons is asking for trouble, even if it's a stand-off blast from a supposedly safe distance (do we truly know how dense or strong these asteroids are?) Massive electrogravitational devices could be attached to space craft that would land on the asteroid and change the gravitational pull so the asteroid is launched directly out of the solar system -- there is no chance of fragmenting the asteroid and the space craft could safely return home after its job is completed. In the event that a rogue planet or extremely large asteroid were to come to Earth and not enough electricity could be supplied to alter the direction of these bodies, it would be possible to migrate people, and even their homes, to another planet very quickly. This technology also has no moving parts and requires no petroleum products (oil and gas, specifically) which would represent a major advancement in protecting our environment because there would be no pollution created, the drilling for oil could be stopped, marshlands can be conserved, etc. This technology could also deflect hurricanes and tornadoes and repel tidal waves.

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, this information is not being released all at once by the government. It is of utmost importance that it is released slowly so that people do not get the idea that UFOs actually have existed for a long time (I'm not speaking of extraterrestrial beings, just the technology,) oil companies would go out of business, gas companies would go out of business, drilling companies would go out of business, and that would represent a massive reduction in funding going toward the government (the taxes produced by those jobs and the stock of those companies that the government owns -- which is why gas is cheap in America compared to other countries -- would turn in an economically disasterous direction.) The government really has no choice but to keep a tight grip on anti-gravity technology (U.S. Secrecy Order (Title 35, United States Code (1952), Sections 181-188).) We must only wait for this technology to be introduced by the public -- but we should also encourage the release of this information because the more it is concealed the more lies must be told, and the more lies that have been told are more reasons to keep it concealed.

[raid517]

Well there you are, you have succeeded in turning all of modern science on it's head in one forum post. Bravo!

Either that or you have succeeded in taking the top 50 most misused junk science stories commonly misquoted on the web and moulded them into one inconsistent, incomprehensible and entirely impenetrable mess.

Take your pick which of these you feel I believe to be true.

If I were a mod, I'm sure I know where I would move this post.

GJ

Edited December 23, 2005 by raid517

[megamanXplosion]

I did not drop science on its head. Many scientists have demonstrably dropped it on its head though. I simply spoke of those experiments and how the dropping-on-the-head of modern science would affect humanity. It seems that your either-or scenario above is completely inadequate because it misses the option that is correct: I did not do either of the other scenarios!

Here's a quote from the book "Ether-Technology: A Rational Approach to Gravity Control" that, I think, shows the massive discrepancies in modern science and verifies that Maxwell's original equations were on-the-mark, so to speak...

The nuclear scientist Dr. Edward Teller has a favorite story he likes to tell: "When Columbus took off, the purpose of the exercise was to improve relations with China. Now, that problem has not been solved to this very day, but look at the by-products!"

A close reexamination of the historical growth of today's scientific dogmas or commonly accepted 'fundamental concepts reveals likewise some surprising facts, surfacing as the by-products of such a historical review. Starting with the velocity of light, we will find for instance the following facts, revealing some glaring discrepancies in comparison to the claims of contemporary textbooks.

THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Claim:— Nothing can exceed the speed of light in vacuum, which is a constant 186,000 miles per second (Or 299,792 km/sec.)

Facts:—The Danish astronomer Olaf Roemer announced the calculation of the speed of light to the Academy of Sciences in Paris in 1676. He had calculated the velocity as 227,000 km/sec, or 141,000 miles per second. In 1926, Prof. A.A. Michelson flashed light between mirrors on mountain peaks 22 miles apart and clocked the speed at 182,284 miles per second. To obtain a more accurate figure, he directed the construction of a tube a mile long at Pasadena, California so that the speed of light could be measured in a vacuum. After his death in May 1931, the task was carried on by two other scientists. In 1932, the light measurements showed such marked discrepancies with previous results as to occasion a distress call to the U.S. Coast & Geodetic Survey, whose surveyors repeatedly remeasured the length of the tube and found no error. Variations of 12 miles per second and more were recorded. The speed seems to vary with the season and also in a shorter cycle lasting about two weeks.* Finally, the scientists ended by taking an average of all the readings, which was announced in 1934 as 186,271 miles per second.

The Special Theory of Relativity began by assuming the velocity of light in a vacuum to be a fundamental and unvarying constant. (Einstein in 1905) The same theory postulates that the velocity of light is the ultimate speed limit. At that speed, mass would become infinite.

Not so, claims Dr. J.H. Sutton of NASA, who is concerned with finding clues toward a better understanding of gravity. Einstein's equations only make it impossible to find enough energy to accelerate a particle of finite mass to a speed greater than that of light. A particle "born" with a speed in excess of c (speed of light) is not prevented by relativity from continuing on its way!

The discovery of new particles in nuclear physics challenges Einstein's theories. In 1967, Prof. Gerald Feinberg, a theoretical physicist at Columbia University, New York, published his new theory concerning tachyons, a word derived from the Greek "Tachyos" = fast. Feinberg supplied mathematical proof that these particles move infinitely fast, but become slower as they approach the speed of light. (Published in PHYSICAL REVIEW, 1967).

On August 28, 1970, two British scientists, John Allen and Geoffrey Endean announced their discovery of an E/M field in which particles move at a speed of about twice that of light. According to these scientists, the characteristics of this particular E/M field alone "would prove erroneous Einstein's theory."

In 1974, Dr. Marcel Pages, doctor of nuclear engineering and medicine in France; a founder-member of C.I.R.G., an international research center for gravitation; created in Rome, Italy, in 1961, published his important book, "Le D?fi de L'anti-gravitation" (The Challenge of Antigravitation) which statescalculated fields with speeds superior to the speed of light are possible.> Some of Dr. Pages' scientific articles in "Revue Fran?aise D'Astronautique" have been translated by the NASA translation service for the benefit of

NASA researchers.

The Gravitational Constant

Claim:— The acceleration of gravity, G, is constant, at any location. For instance the weight of one kg. near the surface of the earth where the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/sec. every second, is 9.8 Newtons.

Remark:—If the gravitational constant holds true, then the weight of an object is proportional to its mass. However, while weight and mass are proportional to one another, it should be noted that they are different entities. Weight is the vertical force of gravity, mass is an inertial property. The mass of an object referred to in the law of gravitation is called gravitational mass, in contrast to inertial mass. Einstein used the seeming equality of the inertial and gravitational mass as a basis for the general theory of relativity.

Facts:— Dr. Erwin J. Saxl, a one-time student of Albert Einstein, proved in his experiments that the assumption of gravitational constant is incorrect and obsolete (See Sec. No. 5: "The Gravitational Constant is not constant at all")Dr. Saxl was able to verify that gravity and electricity do in fact interact under dynamic conditions.b> In 1968, Dr. Saxl's claims were unexpectedly confirmed from another corner of the world by a dissertation from the Karl Marx University in Leipzig. Titled (translated) "About the influence of electrostatic fields on the periods of gravitational pendulae," this thesis by one Harald Fischer from Taucha DDR, (German Democratic Republic) is available at the university library in Mainz, West Germany.

Like a chain reaction, the fundamental definition for inertia enters the changing picture when we hear about the late French Nobel Prize winner in physics, Gabriel Lippmann (1908) and his assertion that an ordinary atom in the normal state has inertia only because it has certain electrical properties, more precisely a net positive charge effect; small as it may be. He too demonstrated the validity of the principle when he found that bodies in the charged state offered a greater resistance to acceleration than when they were uncharged, thus altering the inertial properties of these bodies. His experiments were quickly and conveniently "forgotten" since they undermined the established scientific "laws" involving mass and inertia. Prof. Hermann Oberth, the teacher of space scientisDr. Wernher von Braun, stated in a private letter of Nov. 5, 1970 to this author: "I am inclined to believe, more and more, that inertia, gravity and energy represent merely different sides of one and the same thing.b> Similar to the fact that one cannot very well dissect my person and then claim:

This is the Professor,

this is the Hermann, and

this is the Oberth."

Returning again to Dr. Saxl's work, this short excursion into strange territory could be concluded by repeating that the gravitational constant can apparently be altered and modified by electrical forces. Or to put it more bluntlyit appears now certain that the force of gravity can be altered, influenced and even reversed by electrical forces.b>

[Nand]

we could just wear magnetic clothing :p :p :p :blink: :blink: :blink: :D :D :D :D :D :whistle: :whistle: :whistle: :whistle:

[raid517]

I did not drop science on its head. Many scientists have demonstrably dropped it on its head though. I simply spoke of those experiments and how the dropping-on-the-head of modern science would affect humanity. It seems that your either-or scenario above is completely inadequate because it misses the option that is correct: I did not do either of the other scenarios!

Here's a quote from the book "Ether-Technology: A Rational Approach to Gravity Control" that, I think, shows the massive discrepancies in modern science and verifies that Maxwell's original equations were on-the-mark, so to speak...

Hogwash.

There is decent work referenced in your post. But as is typical in such instances it is being misquoted here to infer something that the original researchers had no intention of inferring.

Much of the work you refer to is unconnected - and is certainly by no means intended to contradict any of the work done by Einstein. It is a typical body of mangled and unrelated facts intended to bamboozle the uninitiated into believing that what is being inferred actually has any real meaning.

The truth however is simply that it does not.

GJ

Edited December 29, 2005 by raid517

[LaNcom]

IMHO, it's impossible to _create_ gravity out of nowhere. It's possible to create an aritficial, gravity-like downforce using rotation, which might be usable, or you can 'fake' gravity using magnetism, but that's nowhere near real gravity. Mass-atraction (or whatever it's called in English) might or might not be real gravity, but it's definitely unsuited for space travel. One of the main problems is that nobody really knows how _gravity_ works: Do gravitons exist? How fast is gravity? As fast as light? Slower? Faster? If it's faster, shouldn't the mass of a graviton (if such things exist) be infinite?

[Beastage]

IMHO, it's impossible to _create_ gravity out of nowhere. It's possible to create an aritficial, gravity-like downforce using rotation, which might be usable, or you can 'fake' gravity using magnetism, but that's nowhere near real gravity. Mass-atraction (or whatever it's called in English) might or might not be real gravity, but it's definitely unsuited for space travel. One of the main problems is that nobody really knows how _gravity_ works: Do gravitons exist? How fast is gravity? As fast as light? Slower? Faster? If it's faster, shouldn't the mass of a graviton (if such things exist) be infinite?

Never say impossible, if the earth's magnetic force can hold us on the ground then one day (in the future) we'll be able to replicate it.

[Mr. Golden Deal]

Umm... last time I checked, gravity kept us on terra firma, not magnetic force.