Can the Effects of Gravity Be Canceled? by James Lee Hoover

This article is thoughtful, interesting and delightfully outside the box. Thank you for trying to inspire the world to think with an open mind, discovering new and exciting experiences along the way!

c³ not 2.sorry .

Jim;

Read with interest your speculations regarding the issue of whether the effects of gravity can be canceled.

The new finding of the Higgs Boson, that is associated with the Higgs Field and their interaction with gravitons may turn those and other speculations regarding the cancellation of gravity into a reality. Due to its very basic nature in the cosmos, the Higgs boson may indeed prove to be the God particle because it and its associated Higgs Field are reputed to be the basis for the existence of all mass in the universe. Since mass interacts with gravity, it is difficult to deny that gravity has no interactions with the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field. What and how these interactions occur and take place are a part of these speculations.

Further speculations are that there will be a multitude of theories that will be explored in search of the illusive relationships and interactions of gravitons with the Higgs Field and Boson.

At some point in time our civilization may be sufficiently advanced to manipulate the conditions that convert gravitons into antigravitons. Perhaps now that the Higgs Boson has been found, some enterprising scientist(s) may find a way to convert gravitons into antigravitons.

James

After your kind comments on my essay I'm very pleased to say I'm able to return the compliment. I find some send me to sleep, but certainly not yours. There is doubtless some way of 'countering' gravity so perhaps we should seriously be looking.

In fact there are a few I know. How useful they are is debatable but all evidence helps if only for elimination.

1. Levitating frogs. An EM effect (Google and U tube will find it if you're not familiar with them).

2. Lagrangian points. Gravity itself can cancel out the effects of gravity. As I just posted elsewhere, there are 5 such points we know of in space in the Earth/Sun?Moon system, where objects float at rest. (ESA are just about to send Gaia to one). Which inply more at the centre of the bodies themselves, not 'crushing' singularities. Centrepetal acceleration works just as well.

3. Jumping. i.e. Reducing inertial reduces gravitational potential, so accelerate towards the potential, i.e. by jumping off a cliff, and the effect of course reduces.

4. The Roswell ship from 'Independence Day'. They carelessly left it's anti-grav drive laying in the wreckage in the desert! Or was that just the movies?! Tricky to tell these days.

Now perhaps we just need to learn from those and package one up in a box. I quite like Frank's soliton as a start point for an em solution. I haven't read Jason's yet.

Best of luck.

Peter

Hi again Jim,

Thank you for an excellent essay which deals with the 'gravity problem' as much as mine does. I never did like the expression "gravity is a weak force" incidentally. I prefer to think of the overall effect of baryonic to baryonic gravity being weak, but only because of the configuration of the anisotropic basic matter giving an isotropic larger and longer lasting structural form of matter which we are familiar with.

I'm also a keen amateur UFO re-engineering enthusiast. I assume you are talking about the metallic saucer type of craft from another world though? My analysis is probably different to yours. I've concluded that most are caused by a living creature native to earth which is adept at remaining undetected. My final thoughts are of an bioluminescent 8-ribbed flying lizard-bird which can also walk bipedally, hence the chupacabra/swamp-creature encounters!

Cheers!

Alan

Got it thanks the Lqqk site sounds interesting and fun.

James,

Do you have a citation for this "Contemporary science does tend to scoff at efforts to counteract gravitation, even dampens efforts to discover gravity's force. First of all, the Standard Model has no place for gravity; reputedly, the gravitational force is too weak (10-43compared to 1 for the strong force) for the Planck scale; therefore, the graviton as a carrier force is not included in the Standard Model, not relevant beside the strong, the weak and the electromagnetic force."?

I ask because I was not aware that the strength of gravity had anything to do with inclusion into the standard model. I didn't think there was a "spot" for it, even if it was stronger.

Please see my essay for a different take on assumptions within General Relativity.

Regards,

Jeff Baugher

Hi James,

I personally do not believe that an anti-gravity or a negative mass particle can be created. 聽You rest you idea on on the apparent ongoing expansion of the universe, but who has proven that it expands? 聽Nobody is the answer, we only observe a redshift in the spectra which we interpret as movement. There may be other explanations.

Regards

Anton @ 聽( 聽/topic/1458 聽)

Dear James Lee Hoover!

I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

Very interesting read your article.

In my article, I show that negative mass(energy) provides an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Article : Negative mass and negative energy

Computer simulation on negative mass

If you read my essay, I will be very happy^^*

==============

~

For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(field eq. has a Lamda=0)

SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

peff = -Lamda/4piG

Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

==================

Have a Nice day!

--- Hyoyoung Choi

James Lee Hoover

The Effects of Gravity canceled at moment Big Crunch of the history of the Universe.

Big Bang; Present; Big Crunch

c=10^30; c=10^10; c=10^-10

G=10^12; G=10^-8; G=10^-28

h=10^-28; h=10^-28; h=10^-28

alfa =10^-3; 1/ 137; 1

e=0,1 ; e=e ; e=12

For details see my essay

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1413

Dear James,

You're quite right in pointing out that the gravitational interaction of antimatter with matter has not been established. Of course, if it were repulsive, this would violate Einstein's equivalence principle, but that's what experiments are for! I understand that there is an experiment set to run in 2015 that may resolve this. Take care,

Ben dribus

Dear Jim,

I read through your essay and here is the promised honest feedback.

First, a quick summary: as I understand, you propose that given a particle physics type formulation of gravity, it may be possible to give a theoretical underpinning for the possibility that the effects of gravity may be canceled, and furthermore that the recently discovered phenomenon dubbed 'dark energy' may be an indication that this is indeed happening at the largest scale. In the final parts of your paper you mention the possibility that some of the unexplained UFO sightings may already demonstrate that this can be exploited technologically.

The comments I am about to make and the criticism is meant to be in the spirit of helping you make it more likely to attain what I presume you want, namely that people in your target audience, the physics community, will listen to what you have to say and consider your views seriously.

1) You should be very careful in phrasing certain sentences that are common knowledge among physicists, so as not to make obviously inaccurate statements. For example, you said:" For Einstein, gravity was not a force at all, but a curvature in space-time, otherwise known as "the fourth dimension."

This sentence contains two inaccuracies, one minor, the other major. The minor one is that the curvature of spacetime is expressed via the Riemann Tensor, yet it is not the case that gravity *is* the Riemann Tensor. Rather, gravity is expressed in terms of another tensor which can derived from the Riemann Tensor as well as the metric tensor, sometimes called the Einstein Tensor. The major inaccuracy in your sentence is that spacetime is not the fourth dimension, time is.

Now, I know exactly what you meant, but a less sympathetic reader will use this to dismiss the rest of your paper, which I'm sure is not what you want.

2) You relied in your exposition of some physics popularizers such as Krauss and Kaku, most likely in part to gain more credibility for your views.

One of my professors told me an anecdote which shows that (unfortunately) those who spend a lot of time explaining physics to the public do not enjoy a high credibility among many influential scientists because they are thought not to spent enough time doing research. He said that when he organized a certain function and invited a certain physicist of high repute, that person nearly cancelled his appearance when he found out that Carl Sagan was also invited. The only way to get him to come was to arrange it so that there would be no picture in which both would appear together.

My point is, if not even Carl Sagan had a high credibility in certain circles (which bespeaks of unbelievable arrogance to me), then mentioning Krauss and especially Kaku is not going to help with the credibility of your argument. In fact, citing them gives more of an impression that you don't really know what you are talking about, since otherwise you could have just cited the original scientists who came up with these theories.

Again, this is not my view, but I am just trying to help you see your work more from the perspective of the community you are evidently trying to reach.

3) Your mentioning of UFO's is an absolute faux pas, and it seems to me that you already know this, as you stated:" Because our science says this is impossible and such reports

tend to invite ridicule, serious investigation is left to mostly non-scientific organizations which

investigate and monitor"

The only kind of person who can state something like this and still has a chance at being taken seriously is someone who has earned the respect of the scientific community, and even such a person would risk serious damage to his reputation. Certainly if a novice to the field says something like this, it is only taken as an indication that that person suffers from a certain type of delusions

Ok, I hope you found my criticism helpful, again it was not meant as an offense but rather as a way to help you see your paper through the lens of the people you presumably are trying to reach.

All the best,

Armin