NASA is working on laser-based propulsion

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You put some gravity (mass) on the other side of it. This is actually one of the long-term methods I mentioned.

Harte

Yes, but gravity is still not pushing, so my question to Shiloh17 still stands.

[Harte]

Pushmi-pullyu

Harte

[Shiloh17]

No, it's not the same principle, particularly as no one has ever produced a "focused beam of gravity".

Edited to add:

And just as Noteverythingisaconspiracy is curious to know how you pull something with a laser I'm curious to know how you push something with gravity.

Same principle in theory I should say. Use gravity like a tractor beam to pull you towards an object and as you pass the object, reverse gravity to push you away from the mass using a beam of gravity, like a laser beam, etc... It's like using one end of a magnet to pull you towards an object, then as you pass it, reverse the magnet to push you away from it. Again it is just a theory that isn't impossible, just unattainable now as we haven't harnessed gravity.

I'm not sure how you can "pull" something with a laser beam, I stated half of that was reality. They are pushing something with a laser beam. The other half remains to be seen maybe far in the future.

Edit:

Here's a few articles I found of particles pushed and pulled by light: http://www.opfocus.o...=story&v=15&s=5

And pushed and pulled by laser: http://www.geek.com/...-light-1607508/

And one from NASA: http://www.popsci.co...particles-light

And a gravity beam: http://www.americanantigravity.com/news/space/eugene-podkletnovs-gravity-beam-generator.html

Edited March 3, 2016 by Shiloh17

[Harte]

Here's a few articles I found of particles pushed and pulled by light: http://www.opfocus.o...=story&v=15&s=5

Theoretical, and would only work on particles comparable in size to the wavelength of the light used in any case. On the order of nanometers, IOW.

And pushed and pulled by laser: http://www.geek.com/...-light-1607508/

Only works in an atmosphere, and hardly works even then.

And one from NASA: http://www.popsci.co...particles-light

This story is based on the previous one.

And a gravity beam: http://www.americana...-generator.html

Never worked and the inventor, a ceramics expert, made some false claims about another scientist supposedly involved with him - who wasn't involved and disavowed it.

The difference between your post and the other posts in this thread - yours is science fiction, the rest are possible with existing technology.

You mention that a gravity beam is the "same principle" as a laser beam. This suggests that you need to read up a little on what a laser is.

Harte

[Waspie_Dwarf]

You beat me to it Harte, that is pretty much, word for word, what I was going to say.

[Shiloh17]

Theoretical, and would only work on particles comparable in size to the wavelength of the light used in any case. On the order of nanometers, IOW.

Only works in an atmosphere, and hardly works even then.

This story is based on the previous one.

Never worked and the inventor, a ceramics expert, made some false claims about another scientist supposedly involved with him - who wasn't involved and disavowed it.

The difference between your post and the other posts in this thread - yours is science fiction, the rest are possible with existing technology.

You mention that a gravity beam is the "same principle" as a laser beam. This suggests that you need to read up a little on what a laser is.

Harte

I said focused beams of energy, working like a laser. Same principal. What I mean is a focused beam - like a laser - and not like a flashlight that illuminates the entire wall. a focused beam And I know it is science fiction, and I should have expected to be chastised for merely thinking to the future. And those links might be Orville and Wilbur Wright, but whose to say what will be 100 years from now?

[Waspie_Dwarf]

I said focused beams of energy, working like a laser.

No you didn't say that, you said:

Focused beams of gravity to pull and push, working like a laser. Same principal.

This was not a simple slip on your part as you repeated the same claim:

Use gravity like a tractor beam to pull you towards an object and as you pass the object, reverse gravity to push you away from the mass using a beam of gravity, like a laser beam, etc...

And those links might be Orville and Wilbur Wright, but whose to say what will be 100 years from now?

The Wright brothers worked within known scientific and engineering principles, building on what was already understood, they did not just make things up. Your posts show a lack of understanding of what a laser is (it is NOT just a highly focused beam of light), what gravity is and, despite your protestations to the contrary, what the difference is between science fact and science fiction.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

The Wright brothers worked within known scientific and engineering principles, building on what was already understood, they did not just make things up. Your posts show a lack of understanding of what a laser is (it is NOT just a highly focused beam of light), what gravity is and, despite your protestations to the contrary, what the difference is between science fact and science fiction.

It is indeed a myth that people thought that heavier than air flight was impossible before the Wright brothers. There was something that proved the possibility of heavier than air flight for as long as there have been people to ponder it: Birds.

Apart from the Wright brothers there was a lot of people working on it at the time. The problem earlier wasn't that people didn't think it was possible, but that there wasn't a sufficiently compact and powerfull propulsion system. Once the internal combustion engine had been perfected it was only a matter of time before heavier than air flight became possible.

Sure there are bound to have been a few people who thought it was impossible, but that have allways been the case with new technologies and probably allways will.

[Shiloh17]

No you didn't say that, you said:

This was not a simple slip on your part as you repeated the same claim:

The Wright brothers worked within known scientific and engineering principles, building on what was already understood, they did not just make things up. Your posts show a lack of understanding of what a laser is (it is NOT just a highly focused beam of light), what gravity is and, despite your protestations to the contrary, what the difference is between science fact and science fiction.

Maybe I should have left the "laser" part out. I simply meant the beam part. Something focused and contained. And I know it is not just a highly focused beam of light, that is why I was using a laser as an example. So the beam could lock on to a target within a focused area and not spread all over the galaxy. And from my earlier post: "using a beam of gravity, like a laser beam, etc..." The etc part meant a beam, like or a laser or something else that creates a beam. And above you can read this in post #56 in no way protesting to the contrary: "And I know it is science fiction"

Edited March 3, 2016 by Shiloh17

[Harte]

Stop for a minute and try to imagine what could possibly "focus" gravity into a beam.

Lasers aren't focused like a maglite is. Lasers are photons of light emitted in perfect coherence, oriented in in the same direction.

To focus ordinary light, the light must be bent. Think of how you could bend gravity.

I seriously doubt that such a thing is in anybody's future.

Harte

[Shiloh17]

Stop for a minute and try to imagine what could possibly "focus" gravity into a beam.

Lasers aren't focused like a maglite is. Lasers are photons of light emitted in perfect coherence, oriented in in the same direction.

To focus ordinary light, the light must be bent. Think of how you could bend gravity.

I seriously doubt that such a thing is in anybody's future.

Harte

You know, I thought about it all day and couldn't understand why no one could understand what I was saying. I misused the word "focused" when using it with "laser." I understand lasers aren't focused in. I was merely talking the beam diameter from a laser. I should have used "concentrated" beam (for lack of a better word) instead of focused. When shot out of a 1" wide laser after traveling a long distance it is still much smaller in diameter than conventional light from a source of comparable diameter. Hence why I used "focused" wrongly with laser, merely speaking of a narrower beam. And I apologize to all for the confusion.

[Derek Willis]

It is indeed a myth that people thought that heavier than air flight was impossible before the Wright brothers. There was something that proved the possibility of heavier than air flight for as long as there have been people to ponder it: Birds.

It's not entirely a myth. Scientists knew heavier than air flight was possible, and birds and insects provided the proof. What scientists such as Lord kelvin doubted was that humans could build heavier than air flying machines. Of course, many scientists did not share Kelvin's view. Kelvin is often misquoted, but NASA accept that he did make the claim, so that is good enough for me.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/speeches/fg_kitty_hawk_12.17.03_prt.htm

[Derek Willis]

Stop for a minute and try to imagine what could possibly "focus" gravity into a beam.

Think of how you could bend gravity.

Gravitational lenses that bend gravity are believed to exist. But for Shiloh17's edification, I should point out that these are the size of galaxies, so we won't be using them any time soon. And even if we did, I still can't see how they could be applied to spacecraft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

[Derek Willis]

I am very curious too about how you pull something with a laser ?

Here's something that I still don't get so perhaps someone can edify me. I can understand the principle of virtual photons acting as exchange particles where repulsive forces are concerned. The usual analogy is that, say, two protons are represented by two ice skaters. The ice skaters throw basket balls at each other. Because of Newton's third law the ice skaters move away from each other when they throw the basket balls, and because of Newton's second law they move even further away when they catch the basket balls. But for the attractive force between an electron and a proton, the usual analogy is that the ice skaters hand the balls to each other and this somehow makes them move closer to one another. If the momentum of the virtual photons is positive, I still don't see how that creates an attractive force.

[Harte]

Gravitational lenses that bend gravity are believed to exist. But for Shiloh17's edification, I should point out that these are the size of galaxies, so we won't be using them any time soon. And even if we did, I still can't see how they could be applied to spacecraft.

https://en.wikipedia...vitational_lens

Gravitational lenses haven't been observed to bend gravity. They bend light.

They are gravity.

Harte

[Derek Willis]

Gravitational lenses haven't been observed to bend gravity. They bend light.

They are gravity.

Harte

You are completely right! I don't know what the hell I was thinking there!!

[Derek Willis]

Gravitational lenses haven't been observed to bend gravity. They bend light.

They are gravity.

Harte

Here's a thought - and a vain attempt to dig myself out my earlier brainstorm - do gravitational waves (which we now know exist) follow the curved geodesics of a very heavy body in the same way as light does?

[Harte]

Here's a thought - and a vain attempt to dig myself out my earlier brainstorm - do gravitational waves (which we now know exist) follow the curved geodesics of a very heavy body in the same way as light does?

Not sure, but it seems like they should.

I mean, gravity curves the fabric of space itself. Gravitational waves are jiggles in spacetime.

Harte

[Derek Willis]

Not sure, but it seems like they should.

I mean, gravity curves the fabric of space itself. Gravitational waves are jiggles in spacetime.

Harte

I have come across a few references saying that gravitational waves will propagate along null geodesics in the same way as electromagnetic waves do, so on that basis they would be bent by gravity. But that is not the same as my silly statement that gravity is bent by gravity. It is an interesting situation, however.

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/52167/since-there-are-gravitational-lenses-are-there-gravitational-mirrors

The reference is physics-stack-exchange and those guys normally know what they are talking about.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

It is indeed a myth that people thought that heavier than air flight was impossible before the Wright brothers. There was something that proved the possibility of heavier than air flight for as long as there have been people to ponder it: Birds.

It's not entirely a myth. Scientists knew heavier than air flight was possible, and birds and insects provided the proof. What scientists such as Lord kelvin doubted was that humans could build heavier than air flying machines. Of course, many scientists did not share Kelvin's view. Kelvin is often misquoted, but NASA accept that he did make the claim, so that is good enough for me.

http://www.nasa.gov/...2.17.03_prt.htm

Hence why my full post was like this.

It is indeed a myth that people thought that heavier than air flight was impossible before the Wright brothers. There was something that proved the possibility of heavier than air flight for as long as there have been people to ponder it: Birds.

Apart from the Wright brothers there was a lot of people working on it at the time. The problem earlier wasn't that people didn't think it was possible, but that there wasn't a sufficiently compact and powerfull propulsion system. Once the internal combustion engine had been perfected it was only a matter of time before heavier than air flight became possible.

Sure there are bound to have been a few people who thought it was impossible, but that have allways been the case with new technologies and probably allways will.

I am not entirely sure why you left out that part when you quoted me ?

Edited March 5, 2016 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[Derek Willis]

Hence why my full post was like this.

I am not entirely sure why you left out that part when you quoted me ?

I don't know what the hell was going on with my brain yesterday. I made a stupid posting about gravity bending gravity and then didn't take the trouble to read your post properly. I can't even blame it on having had a drink as I wrote the posts in the morning. My double bad, as they say.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

I don't know what the hell was going on with my brain yesterday. I made a stupid posting about gravity bending gravity and then didn't take the trouble to read your post properly. I can't even blame it on having had a drink as I wrote the posts in the morning. My double bad, as they say.

No problem. *hit happens.

[Harte]

I don't know what the hell was going on with my brain yesterday. I made a stupid posting about gravity bending gravity and then didn't take the trouble to read your post properly. I can't even blame it on having had a drink as I wrote the posts in the morning. My double bad, as they say.

Perhaps you should drink in the morning, then.

I mean, the Universe is telling you to put some brandy in your coffee.

Harte

[Derek Willis]

Perhaps you should drink in the morning, then.

I mean, the Universe is telling you to put some brandy in your coffee.

Harte

That sounds like a good idea! I am sure it will also make sitting through interminable meetings at work far more tolerable!

[bmk1245]

Bit more details (math) can be found in P.Lubin's paper.