Tenebrae Posted January 20, 2007 Author Share Posted January 20, 2007 Well, unless you're going to buy into that whole conspiracy theory "electromagnetism gives us anti-gravity" thing... with GERMANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18925331.200.html "Claims of the possibility of "gravity reduction" or "anti-gravity" induced by magnetic fields have been investigated by NASA before (New Scientist, 12 January 2002, p 24). But this one, Dröscher insists, is different. "Our theory is not about anti-gravity. It's about completely new fields with new properties," he says. And he and Häuser have suggested an experiment to prove it." DA GERMANS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GorunNova Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Electromagnetic fields could be very useful for propulsion, actually... but it's more suited to launching things than being a contained form of propulsion (i.e. rail guns and ionized gas jets). I agree with Wahaha about using 'em to shoot things into space cleanly and quickly, but that would be rough on the payloads. On the other hand, I totally and utterly disagree with Wahaha about using magnetic sensors to tune into "the magnetic property of some point in the galaxy" thing... magnetism doesn't work that way. Sure, the magnetic field of a star 1000 light years away IS acting on us... but the amount of actual force involved is a 0, followed by a decimal point and an incredibly huge number of zeroes before ever actually reaching anything approaching a non-zero digit, and definitely an incredibly huge number of zeroes weaker than a field strength that could ever be detected by anything.* On top of it all, even if that miniscule field could somehow be detected by some weird amazing detector that could somehow ignore the sea of billions of other stronger fields, it wouldn't be from the destination as it is -now-, but from it's location 1000 years ago... so you wouldn't even be heading to the right place. It'd be a lot easier and more accurate to just watch it's emitted light (which involves a nice and handy telescope instead of some impossibly complicated device that detects effectively nonexistent magnetic fields) for a while to figure out how fast and in what direction it's travelling, calculate it's new position after the travel time, and just go to that position. A computer could do that automatically with modern technology, much less the technology an advanced alien race would have. UFOs, if they exist, probably use exotic matter or antienergy (i.e. negative charge energy, which has nothing to do with polarity) to create antigravity. After all, if they've managed to travel the distance between solar systems in such small vehicles (as opposed to generation ships, which would be slow and easy for us to spot), they've probably mastered gravity. Imagine the maneuverability of a vehicle that is effectively weightless (i.e. has NO inertia), always travels in a vacuum thanks to a repulsive gravity field (which affects all materials, not just those sensitive to electromagnetic forces), and is propelled by tweaking gravity to make it -fall- in the appropriate direction using effectively arbitrary acceleration. Also, such propulsion systems don't involve jets emitting streams of used fuel or whatnot. Interestingly enough, UFOs are described as being incredibly fast, turn or stop on a dime as if inertia didn't exist, and don't leave trails of spent fuel... all pointing to the ability to create gravity and antigravity fields (assuming they actually exist as the observers claim... which I don't believe.) * I'd calculate an example using the known magnetic field of a distant star in our galaxy to come up with the numbers, but I'm way too tired and lazy. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wahaha Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Not that I know what the pull of gravity would be, but it doesn't have to be from a distant star. It can use a slingshot effect. Get started by being pulled or pushed to a nearer magnetic force and or gravity well or whatever and continue on like climbing a ladder. You don't just rip your arm out of its socket to try and grab the top rung on the ladder, because it's not long enough. Maybe the majority of scientists don't know how to read that guys work or aren't smart enough. Just spend the damn money and make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TetsuoShima Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Seems interesting, though the article itself remains quite vague as far as any actual science is concerned. So I'm not sure what to make of it. Anyway, after reading that article I'm sure understanding the theory would be above my abilities. :) I'd love to see the test though, if it works out okay, that would be great! Of course, since it's all still theoretical and still a long way of from being practical, it's unlikely there will be spend a lot of money on this research in the near future (and hence not much result), there's no immediate return money in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 21, 2007 Author Share Posted January 21, 2007 Actually, Arthur C. Clarke hits upon the inherent problem of - even sublight - interstellar travel in Rama. That of the Newton's Third, he basically has the characters go on about the problems of reaction drives and such and they conclude that anything other than that would be a "space drive" which Rama subsequently proves to have. Personally, I liked that project where they were going to use nukes to propel a ship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I read Rendezvous with Rama ages ago (one of the first sci-fi books I ever read 20+ years ago), but don't remember more than the some of the main story and that it was a true sci-fi novel heavy on real science. Didn't Rama skim the sun/corona to 'harvest fuel' for it's "newtonian" engines and that "hibernation" was essential cause of the time it takes to travel between stars? ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 I forget been near enough 10 years since I read it - although it's about 2m away and I could go flick through it, if needs be... ACC was usually pretty heavy on hard sci-fi and injecting religion into his stories... but he'd often just forget fact and go "oh and then there was a space warp"... like in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilander72 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Come to think of it, it's been >20 years since I read many of the classics. Might be a good idea to re-read some of them and see if ones perspective has changed over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenebrae Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 My problem with Arthur C. Clarke is that he couldn't keep his story straight for his Odyssey series - each book in its own continuity, indeed. And of course, crucially he has the whole thing about the monoliths not being able to go FTL when they obviously can... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest c4evap Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 For my money...Robert A. Heinlein is a much better read. c4 B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now