Ramifications of Gravtech

[Rye]

Let's say in the near future, we find a means of generating gravity in much the same way as we can generate magnetism, a similar amount of electrical energy goes into a "gravnet" or whatever you want to call it, and similar amounts of attractive and repulsive force are created.

What impacts would this discovery have on society? It struck me while thinking about watching Event Horizon ages ago, and I was reminded of it after watching it tonight. Most sci fi has gravity on a ship-wise "downward" direction but don't really go into all the potential for innovation and exploitation that would be associated with such a potentially useful technology.

[Molyneux]

Well, to start with, it'd make space travel immensely easier (both getting up there, and the physical effects on space-travellers)...it could very well revolutionise warfare, if we were capable of generating and transmitting gravitational force at a distance - Schlock Mercenary has the aptly-named "Gravygun" as an example of what happens when a force roughly comparable to 1000 Gs is exerted on a living body, for instance.

As for other uses...flying cars, perhaps...?

[dragon]

You would also see large benefits in construction and the transportation business. Even though I would rather see the space aspects.

[Ariphaos]

It really depends on how it works.

Just a plain antigrav or artificial gravity device described in most settings could be used for a perpetual motion device. Activate the pad in one spot, and have a dynamo partway cover the region of heavier gravity, and you're set.

Having some mechanism that eliminates the above possibility really restricts what you can do with it. Cheap launching of ships into space isn't any more feasibly than the space elevator (or no doubt, by such a point, a Clarke ring).

[darthdavid]

Not seeing the perpetual motion device. You couldn't make a perpetual motion device with it any more than you could make a motor with wall the magents permanent.

Anyway, lots of uses. It would allow for there to be floors arrayed in a notraditional manner, especially on a spaceship, 'cause for an earth building you'd also have to have a second generator to counteract the pull of the earth's gravity, otherwise it'd be like the room was sloped on the vector of the two forces. This, atleast the ship part, is also touched upon in Schlock (great webcomic).

[Winston Blake]

Not seeing the perpetual motion device. You couldn't make a perpetual motion device with it any more than you could make a motor with wall the magents permanent.

Most antigravity crap talks about 'shielding' against gravity or producing a pushing force out of nothing. So just get some weights on a wheel and shield the side that spins upwards, then gravity will just keep pulling the weights on the other side down without any cost in lifting them again. Connect a generator and voila.

If you contrive an artifical gravity magic-tech such that it doesn't violate CoE/M, then as Xeriar mentioned, you can't do all sorts of common scifi stuff like reactionless propulsion. This appears to be what Rye is talking about.

As for the OP, something so revolutionary would have countless applications in all areas of manufacturing. In fact, it would expand the design constraints on just about everything. It would be another industrial revolution, perhaps not quite as revolutionary as electromagnetism though, since we already use force fields in so much already.

[Ender]

Let's say in the near future,

Been meaning to post this

http://www.drrobertbaker.com/pc.htm
http://www.gravwave.com/index_2.htm

Quick googling turns up that the credentials are respectable, and that it references sone validated and some theoretical work by other scientists with good credentials. Still falls under the "extraordinary claims need extraordianry proof" bit, so I reserve final judgement.

Still HFGW offer some exciting possibilities. Telecommunication will change, as now you have a medium suitiable for high bandwidth applications that is not restricted by the earth being in the way - build grond sites and you you just shoot throught he earth. Same for GPS.

Also, you get a disnjunction drive, but I'm not sure if it would be any better then a photon drive.

[Winston Blake]

Quick googling turns up that the credentials are respectable, and that it references sone validated and some theoretical work by other scientists with good credentials. Still falls under the "extraordinary claims need extraordianry proof" bit, so I reserve final judgement.

Actually, I think he's a bit iffy. He should be 76 years old by now, and while I think the credentials of his earlier life are ok, he may have gone a bit wonky later on. For example, I can't find anything on the 'first International HFGW Conference', or 'Academic Review Committee on Gravitational Research' (that don't simply lead back to his copies of his CV). As for being the Head of Committee on High-Frequency Gravitational Waves of the Oakland Institute for Gravitational Wave Research, it's a really crappy defunct website complete with flashing banners and 'join the Institute for free by email!'.

Frankly, if it were this easy to make and detect gravitational waves, I don't see why we'd bother with multimillion dollar installations just to get some direct evidence of whether or not the finicky things exist.

[Admiral Valdemar]

To be honest, after seeing the vast sums of money BAE Systems and NASA have dumped into Dr. Podkletnov's work, for instance, I have a hard time imagining anti-gravity or graviton controls would be feasible. A lot of the stuff seems to break the conservation of energy or some other form of thermodynamics, or simply relies on exotic matter which we'd likely never get a hold of.

[drachefly]

I didn't see him saying it was easy with present tech. The applications imply he means that it is in fact easy with unspecified but reasonable future tech.

Cheap launching of ships into space isn't any more feasibly than the space elevator...

All you need to make space launching cheap is some way to avoid having to bring so much reaction mass with you at the beginning.
Just using a scramjet to get to the upper atmosphere would reduce the reaction mass requirement enough that it would be cheap; if the ship is using antigrav tech to simply convert energy in the gas tank into gravitational potential energy, then it has the same cost as a space elevator would.

(or no doubt, by such a point, a Clarke ring)

The OP said near future, not when we can afford to put up something that elaborate. Space elevator is much cheaper than clarke ring, especially if the clarke ring includes several space elevators...

[Admiral Valdemar]

With money, you can get cheaper LEO launches today if willing. You simply use a combo of a mass accelerator track that curves up to a 90 degree angle after a good run up and combine it with a SABRE engine system. You then get a nice velocity without any mass burn, then when you are released, you use the air breathing function until a good few klicks up, then switch to pure rocket propulsion.

A space elevator would be a good idea too, but there are more than just technological problems with the concept right now.

[Darth Wong]

Not seeing the perpetual motion device. You couldn't make a perpetual motion device with it any more than you could make a motor with wall the magents permanent.

Most antigravity crap talks about 'shielding' against gravity or producing a pushing force out of nothing. So just get some weights on a wheel and shield the side that spins upwards, then gravity will just keep pulling the weights on the other side down without any cost in lifting them again. Connect a generator and voila.

This assumes that the energy cost of the antigravity device is zero.

As for the OP, something so revolutionary would have countless applications in all areas of manufacturing. In fact, it would expand the design constraints on just about everything. It would be another industrial revolution, perhaps not quite as revolutionary as electromagnetism though, since we already use force fields in so much already.

It wouldn't make much difference at all. If it works just like an electromagnet but is effective on non-ferrous objects, it would only allow us to do what we currently do with magnets and iron, and that is nowhere near as revolutionary as what some of the wankers in this thread are proposing.

The most obvious use I could see for it is as the ultimate passive restraint system for automobiles, and I'm sure there'd be many more, but this talk of cheap space travel and superweapons and revolutionized manufacturing is bullshit.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Jet/rocket backpacks may become much more practical. There's only so much reaction mass you can stick into a backpack, which puts a strong, short limit on how long the engine can produce thrust. With antigrav, the engine shouldn't have to do nearly as much work, or use as much fuel. You'll still need to use mass to maneuver, but it will last much longer. For low speeds air jets would work.

The key question is how much more energy efficient antigrav is than a rocket; one assumes that it takes energy to run, unless it's possible to make the gravitic equivalent of a permanent magnet. Even then, you could use a power cable for purposes that don't require long distance travel, although that would take a lot of the fun out of it.

Science, and ( probably the military/industry ) will find all sorts of uses for a neutral particle accelerator.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Jet/rocket backpacks may become much more practical. There's only so much reaction mass you can stick into a backpack, which puts a strong, short limit on how long the engine can produce thrust. With antigrav, the engine shouldn't have to do nearly as much work, or use as much fuel. You'll still need to use mass to maneuver, but it will last much longer. For low speeds air jets would work.

You seem to be talking about an inertial shield more than gravitational shield. If you have an AG drive, you're still going to use the same amount of mass and fuel to move in space. Only in a gravity well would it be effective.

The key question is how much more energy efficient antigrav is than a rocket; one assumes that it takes energy to run, unless it's possible to make the gravitic equivalent of a permanent magnet. Even then, you could use a power cable for purposes that don't require long distance travel, although that would take a lot of the fun out of it.

Science, and ( probably the military/industry ) will find all sorts of uses for a neutral particle accelerator.

If there was a way to reduce the effect of gravity on a craft that also didn't require a nuke to run, then you can expect it'd supplement current aircraft. The cost of fuel would help them weigh up whether this system would be more efficient than just better engines for take-off and cruising. For delivery of payloads into space, it'd be the same story.

A way to reduce inertial properties would be better though (not an inertialess drive, which simply isn't doable without turning all matter to photons) since you could reduce the mass of a rocket by such an amount as to enable current engines to power Saturn V heavy lifters with ease.

[Ariphaos]

This assumes that the energy cost of the antigravity device is zero.

Less than the cost of the free energy you're making, anyway. If it's fixed in some way, and not related to the weight of what's above it, there is the possibility that you will end up allowing a perpetual motion device. If it does depend on the weight, you're fine, but then setting up a system to actually launch a ship is going to be insanely elaborate.

Actually I need to take a part of my statement back. If the antigravity in question is a two-step process, where one part has to be on the ship to be lifted, you can have cheap spacelifts without ripping out a part of the atmosphere in the process.

The most obvious use I could see for it is as the ultimate passive restraint system for automobiles, and I'm sure there'd be many more, but this talk of cheap space travel and superweapons and revolutionized manufacturing is bullshit.

Any sort of full enclosure in which gravity adjustment is desireable. I'd bet the porn industry would have all sorts of fun with it.

[Ariphaos]

Oooh, another thing that sticks out in my mind - you could create regions that are nearly frozen in time, by applying multiple gravity wells (assuming the swartzchild metric still applies). Screw cryogenics.

If cheap and flexible enough, you could also make a pretty good battery out of it.

[Darth Wong]

Less than the cost of the free energy you're making, anyway.

Why on Earth would that follow from the fact that we can now produce a forcefield that affects electrically neutral objects? When people first came up with the magnet, did anybody think that would be free energy? Lift up an object with the magnet, and then drop it to get free GPE?

Oooh, another thing that sticks out in my mind - you could create regions that are nearly frozen in time, by applying multiple gravity wells (assuming the swartzchild metric still applies). Screw cryogenics.

You're assuming that this gravity is actually real gravity rather than a new kind of forcefield which affects electrically neutral objects. It can't be real gravity because the requisite mass isn't there.

[Ariphaos]

Why on Earth would that follow from the fact that we can now produce a forcefield that affects electrically neutral objects? When people first came up with the magnet, did anybody think that would be free energy? Lift up an object with the magnet, and then drop it to get free GPE?

It's a staple of some sci-fi. The season finale of Dr. Who a few months back comes to mind.

You're assuming that this gravity is actually real gravity rather than a new kind of forcefield which affects electrically neutral objects. It can't be real gravity because the requisite mass isn't there.

True, but both pseudogravity and real gravity produce dilation, so there is still reason to believe that a third method might cause it. Notice I said: Assuming the Schwartzchild metric still applies. Or some other metric unqiue to artificial gravity.

[Admiral Valdemar]

The best way to produce a real stasis field would be to use whatever technology you can create to mess with inertia. Since inertia is, according to some recent papers, related to the vacuum fluctuations of ZPE, then it is possible to alter inertia as a property by fields. If you can lower it, then there's no reason to say you couldn't increase it to the point that nothing moves. Nothing moving is as good as absolute zero, ergo, stasis.

We're a bit behind tech-wise if you want NASA to make something like that now, since a lot of people still think inertia is an innate property of matter and couldn't care less about researching into it more.

[drachefly]

A way to reduce inertial properties would be better though (not an inertialess drive, which simply isn't doable without turning all matter to photons)...

Yeah, once you've managed to fuck up three of the fundamental symmetries of nature, why not all the others?

[Molyneux]

The best way to produce a real stasis field would be to use whatever technology you can create to mess with inertia. Since inertia is, according to some recent papers, related to the vacuum fluctuations of ZPE, then it is possible to alter inertia as a property by fields. If you can lower it, then there's no reason to say you couldn't increase it to the point that nothing moves. Nothing moving is as good as absolute zero, ergo, stasis.

We're a bit behind tech-wise if you want NASA to make something like that now, since a lot of people still think inertia is an innate property of matter and couldn't care less about researching into it more.

Wait, what?
Please, please link me to the relevant data? I want to read this for myself...

[Junghalli]

It really depends on how it works.
Just a plain antigrav or artificial gravity device described in most settings could be used for a perpetual motion device. Activate the pad in one spot, and have a dynamo partway cover the region of heavier gravity, and you're set.

The problem with that is the device is going to need energy to create the psuedogravity field. So you're not actually generating energy at all that way, you're just recycling a small portion of the device's energy output. If you tried to make a power plant like that you'd probably end up putting hundreds of times more energy into the base pad than you'd get out of the dynamo.

Sorry, physics may be bent, but it can't be broken.

[Junghalli]

Ghetto edit: that's assuming we aren't talking about some kind of passive system like a magnet, in which case, see what DW said.

[Ariphaos]

The problem with that is the device is going to need energy to create the psuedogravity field. So you're not actually generating energy at all that way, you're just recycling a small portion of the device's energy output. If you tried to make a power plant like that you'd probably end up putting hundreds of times more energy into the base pad than you'd get out of the dynamo.

Sorry, physics may be bent, but it can't be broken.

What part of "As described in most settings" was missed? O_o

[Lord of the Abyss]

Why on Earth would that follow from the fact that we can now produce a forcefield that affects electrically neutral objects? When people first came up with the magnet, did anybody think that would be free energy? Lift up an object with the magnet, and then drop it to get free GPE?

Actually yes. Quite a few attempts were made to design and build magnet based perpetual motion machines.