Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky

TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky

xxein: Who said gravity was a wave?

Mark my words. Gravity is a process by which energy is transferred
from an otherwise equilibrium-seeking process like expansion to areas
(processes) that use it up.

Tilted another way in our thinking, mass is an engine to sustain mass.
It sucks energy from the otherwise equilibrium.

That 'nature abhors a vacuum' is not the grandest of statements. It
simply means that there is no vacuum that we can contemplate to
correspond to a vacuum as such.

If you are thinking about Earth-moon, don't forget the Sun. There is
no non-moving point, nor a systematic point into which gravity cancels
out of consideration --- much like the arrow of time (you cannot unhit
your brother).

"TrekJunky" wrote in message
oups.com...
| Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
| gravity equivalent?
|
| TrekJunky

Insects crawl, so why can't giraffes?

TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

There's a difference between a wave and a central field. Active cancellation
of gravitational waves might indeed be possible, but given that we haven't
even detected gravitational waves yet, we're a long way from being able to
cancel them, nor is it clear why we'd want to. To cancel the central field
of a charge, you have to introduce an opposite charge, but there's no
negative gravitational charge. Or you can cancel the field in a small
region, where it's approximately linear, by introducing a (positive) charge
on the opposite side of the region. In other words, you can cancel the
earth's gravity in a limited region by suspending an extremely massive
object above the earth. But since the only reason to cancel the earth's
gravity is to make it easier to lift massive objects, this technique is useless.

-- Ben

TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky
-------------------------
a very interesting and original question!!!

good for you !
just ignore the Cynical responses

it is responses of parrots

thank you for your question !!!
i would say that if it was not asked before
you made an historic question.

IMHO the answer is Yes!!

but you would never notice it on our earth and not by our existing
tools !!

accoding to mysuggestion
Gravity is a result of unbalanced push forces
and if so
changing the balance by changing the intensity of it
at the 'proper location' will cause a change of the resulting force
even until a complete mutual canceling


ATB
Y.Porat
-----------------------------

"Ben Rudiak-Gould" schreef in bericht
...
TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

There's a difference between a wave and a central field. Active
cancellation of gravitational waves might indeed be possible, but given
that we haven't even detected gravitational waves yet, we're a long way
from being able to cancel them, nor is it clear why we'd want to. To
cancel the central field of a charge, you have to introduce an opposite
charge, but there's no negative gravitational charge. Or you can cancel
the field in a small region, where it's approximately linear, by
introducing a (positive) charge on the opposite side of the region. In
other words, you can cancel the earth's gravity in a limited region by
suspending an extremely massive object above the earth. But since the only
reason to cancel the earth's gravity is to make it easier to lift massive
objects, this technique is useless.

what he apparently means ,is, if there are gravitation waves,one, may be
,can send out other sort of gravi waves.to cancel out the 1e gravi
waves,and then ,there is no more gravity and we all float,
far fetched ? O yes,very.

-- Ben

TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky

There might be, but don't confuse this with static gravity. The
gravitational field of a body like the earth and a gravitational wave
are two different classes of solutions to Einstein's equations and are
not the same exact thing.

TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky

Principle of Operation: Fig 1b shows a more detailed look at
how an optical trap works. The basic principle behind optical
tweezers is the momentum transfer associated with bending light.
Light carries momentum that is proportional to its energy and in the
direction of propagation. Any change in the direction of light, by
reflection or refraction, will result in a change of the momentum of
the light. If an object bends the light, changing its momentum,
conservation of momentum requires that the object must undergo
an equal and opposite momentum change. This gives rise to a force
acting on the object.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blockl...troduction.htm

http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Sue...

Hello Sue,

For an object to have momentum (inertia), it would have to have mass. I
have an amature knowledge of light being a wave of energy and at the
same time have a measurable amount of mass. I don't understand the
prevoius phrase, but accept it as fact. And if it is true that light
has mass and intertia, it must exert a tiny bit of gravity. It's
gravity affects other mass so I agree with your statement below even
though the effect is minimal in the situation below. Thanks!!!!
TrekJunky


Sue... wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

TrekJunky

Principle of Operation: Fig 1b shows a more detailed look at
how an optical trap works. The basic principle behind optical
tweezers is the momentum transfer associated with bending light.
Light carries momentum that is proportional to its energy and in the
direction of propagation. Any change in the direction of light, by
reflection or refraction, will result in a change of the momentum of
the light. If an object bends the light, changing its momentum,
conservation of momentum requires that the object must undergo
an equal and opposite momentum change. This gives rise to a force
acting on the object.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blockl...troduction.htm

http://www.citebase.org/cgi-bin/cita...hysics/0107015
http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/Bizarre/GRAV.htm
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://www.research.ibm.com/grape/grape_ewald.htm

Sue...

Hello Ben,

Thanks for your input, but I would like to offer this thought which
will explain one possible reason to cancel gravity waves: We could
build a ship to hover or simply leave the gravity well of the Earth
thereby launching the ship into space with out chemical fuel possibly.
What do you think about that hypothetical situation?

Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
TrekJunky wrote:
Inverse sound waves cancel each other out, so why can't there be a
gravity equivalent?

There's a difference between a wave and a central field. Active cancellation
of gravitational waves might indeed be possible, but given that we haven't
even detected gravitational waves yet, we're a long way from being able to
cancel them, nor is it clear why we'd want to. To cancel the central field
of a charge, you have to introduce an opposite charge, but there's no
negative gravitational charge. Or you can cancel the field in a small
region, where it's approximately linear, by introducing a (positive) charge
on the opposite side of the region. In other words, you can cancel the
earth's gravity in a limited region by suspending an extremely massive
object above the earth. But since the only reason to cancel the earth's
gravity is to make it easier to lift massive objects, this technique is useless.

-- Ben