Antigravity Experiments?

NaturalPhilosopher said:
then it violates conservation of energy

why don't we wizz satellites in the solar system. Make them slingshot around the planets to speed up then turn back to earth to slam into it to make a giant explosion. Whee...free energy.

remember, gravity is constantly accelerates things.
Click to expand...
Yes, just like I said before – gravity makes things accelerate towards each other, they never repel.

As for the “free energy” scenario you mentioned, it is not that “free” as we would expect. I estimate that the energy that is charged into a vehicle (satellite) to send it to such a journey, is greater than the energy of the explosion it would cause when returning and hitting the earth.
 
start at edge said:
Yes, just like I said before – gravity makes things accelerate towards each other, they never repel.

As for the “free energy” scenario you mentioned, it is not that “free” as we would expect. I estimate that the energy that is charged into a vehicle (satellite) to send it to such a journey, is greater than the energy of the explosion it would cause when returning and hitting the earth.
Click to expand...
what ya talking about? the slingshot effect has no limitation to how fast it can make things go can just circulate the whole solar system for a 1000yrs gaining more and more energy. Like omumua that weird astroid...flew through our solar system in a week. consider how long it took for an earth satellite to reach pluto..like 15yrs or more i think. Or how long it took voyager to leave the solar system.
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
well anyways, just trying to show ya that gravity and inertia of the moon stays the same no matter how millions of times it tugs on the oceans. Moon is 2000 miles across, Earth is 8000 miles. Think it would've lost all it's mass by now 'eh?
Click to expand...
It is just as I mentioned before – the moon still has the same gravitational pull because it did not decrease in mass. Only a change of mass could make the moon (or any other object) have a different gravitational pull. The moon had no reason to decrease in mass. The only way that could happen is for it to constantly have sand, rocks and other particles brushed away from its surface (which does not happen).
 
ok then, so gravity does violate conservation then. Woo...
accepts noble prize

hope my argument made sense.

remember, fast moving objects gain mass. So gravity generates mass from nothin'.
 
Last edited:
NaturalPhilosopher said:
what ya talking about? the slingshot effect has no limitation to how fast it can make things go can just circulate the whole solar system for a 1000yrs gaining more and more energy. Like omumua that weird astroid...flew through our solar system in a week. consider how long it took for an earth satellite to reach pluto..like 15yrs or more i think. Or how long it took voyager to leave the solar system.
Click to expand...
A mass that remains constant, does not need to regenerate it’s gravity, the gravity is always the same as long as the mass stays the same.
When a satellite passes by a planet on a precise trajectory, gaining speed in this slingshot effect, it also determines that planet to slightly change it’s orbit. But since the mass difference between those two is so huge, the deviation is barely noticeable.
 
inertia exchange thereby a special relativity mass exchange.
one slows, loses mass, one speeds up gains mass...correct?

we're not witnessing this with the moon and tides.
plus if less mass...should be less gravitational force.
also not observed.

the special relativity mass is slight even for large planetary objects.
it's why when scientists cool down an object to a billionth of a degree above absolute zero...they can't even measure the mass lost(heated stuff are atoms in motion) cuz it's so slight.

Something else is going on.
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
ok then, so gravity does violate conservation then. Woo...
accepts noble prize

hope my argument made sense.

remember, fast moving objects gain mass. So gravity generates mass from nothin'.
Click to expand...
Fast moving objects have kinetic energy – that can be associated to mass in some calculation cases. Just the same as the kinetic energy of a moving object implies not only it’s speed but also it’s mass (in direct proportion with both of them). For example, an electron has a mass only in motion. There is no electron that stands still. Once it decreases it’s speed, it becomes something else, mainly it transforms into a form of energy.
It is not gravity that generates mass increase in a moving object, it is the acceleration that brought that object to that high speed.
 
NaturalPhilosopher said:
inertia exchange thereby a special relativity mass exchange.
one slows, loses mass, one speeds up gains mass...correct?

we're not witnessing this with the moon and tides.
plus if less mass...should be less gravitational force.
also not observed.

the special relativity mass is slight even for large planetary objects.
it's why when scientists cool down an object to a billionth of a degree above absolute zero...they can't even measure the mass lost(heated stuff are atoms in motion) cuz it's so slight.

Something else is going on.
Click to expand...
Yes, something else is going on indeed. I very much suspect that time has something to do with all this.
Gaining or losing mass happens within a narrow range at “conventional” speeds. It is not a linear function, so to say – otherwise an object that would get to a complete stop would become zero mass.
 

Top