Hello, I was wonding what the mathematical formula to calculate the energy output of an antygravity machine.
So I can caulculate how much energy will be required to counteract the effects of a blackhole.

G'day Creaform and all,

No anti gravity device will ever counteract the effects of a black hole, even if it can be built. A black hole by definition "sucks" matter into itself by virtue of the enormous gravitic forces that are characteristic for this type of phenomenon. This creates a particle stream in the direction of the black hole of almost unbelievable velocity. Your imaginary spacecraft would still be bombarded by this particle stream. An anti gravity device on board would not negate that stream, nor impede it. The only way to avoid a collision would be to proceed in the direction of the black hole with the same velocity. You might as well let gravity do the job :-)

Hans von Lieven

G'day Creaform,

Why don't you build your anti gravity ship, fly to the stars and leave venturing into the proximity of black holes for a time when you understand the capabilities of your craft better.

Considering even travelling at light speed, it would take more than your life time to reach a black hole. So it is rather academic, isn't it?

Hans von Lieven

Wormholes rely on the idea of time being an editable dimension but time is not a dimension, time is a name given to the rate at which atoms react with eachother, hence there bieng only 3 dimensions, and wormhoels and paralel universes disapear in a puff of logic.

Now all i came here for is a formulae on antygravity.

and as for reaching the starts. Faster than lgiht travel is not easy without a massive power source. A powersource like say.... somrtihng with the destructive capabilies to destroy a galaxy?
All I need is a figure for my uni paper.

@Creaform

Something tells me in order to do what you wish you'll have to employ the use of a naked singularity. When you build the thing please do us all a big favor.

Don't flip the switch until you are not only off-world but out-of-galaxy.

Good Luck!

Hmmm, Id stop where you are buddy. I?m not trying to shut down your ideas or anything, but I realized a lot when I started to look at the fundamentals of what we call physics. This is what led me to the OU community.

Only 3 dimensions? Time does not count? I could definitely argue differently!

In fact, one could argue that time is the only dimension! In fact, it has been proven that a finite measurement like length is not finite at all. In fact the length of an object according to relativity is directly tied to the speed with which it hurdles through the other 3 dimensions. As you speed through the physical dimensions, you slow down in the time domain. The connection is there.

Now to really throw you through a loop think about this. Relativity teaches the student that we cannot know for sure if any one object is ?moving? at all. In fact movement itself is relative the viewpoint of the observer. So if you watch an Olympian throw a javelin, you may notice that it gets shorter due to its increased speed. But maybe the javelin is not moving. Perhaps the entire universe just moved around the javelin.

Maybe just by watching the man throw the long rod, you have yourself become shorter. This is why I cannot watch NASCAR, all those fast moving cars makes me relatively ill. I cant stand turning on the tv and start to instantly move 200+ miles an hour.

In fact since the meter is a fractional measurement of the distance between the north pole and the equator (1⁄10 000 000 the distance) and since the earth is hurdling through space at a constantly variable speed (which can be determined by the fact that our earth does not limit itself to a perfect orbit year after year,) one could argue that there is no such thing as an si unit of distance. Where are your three dimensions now?

Gone in a puff of logic.

Before you say im wrong consider this, Yo usay time is a dimension, you offer no evidence to support your claim. "In fact, one could argue that time is the only dimension" That was it. I see no logic.

Here is food for thought, take your basic si measurements.


Mass
Temperature
Distance
Time


Mass is a property of matter. There are two important physical properties which are referred to as a mass. The first is called gravitational mass or gravitational charge. That property shows the strength of gravitational interaction between two objects which have gravitational masses. If gravitational mass is zero, there will be no gravitational interaction. Currently there are no known objects with negative mass, although it is not proven that mass must be positive or zero. The second property is called inertial mass. That property shows how well the object changes its velocity if it interacts with another object. The easier (e.g. faster) the object changes its velocity the smaller the mass is.     

Right off the bat we have two definitions of mass require both time and distance to be measured!
So lets look at distance,

Distance is a numerical description of how far apart objects are at any given moment in time. In physics or everyday discussion, distance may refer to a physical length, a period of time, or an estimation based on other criteria

Here again time is mentioned in the very definition of a fundamental unit. I have already discussed why a unit of distance is not absolute, as you cannot prove how fast it is moving.

Temperature falls into the same problem. Temp, or the excitation of molecular structure requires the time domain for meaning. Without it it cannot exist.  How about a deffinition of temp???

?On the microscopic scale, temperature is defined as simply the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom?

Now we have defined temperature with the SI unit of distance (the derivative of motion) upon which mass is also based, where mass in turn has a definition based off of the time dimension.

It all leads back to time. Since it is measurable, variable, controllable, how is it not a dimension?