Bpl Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 um...yeah i just wanna know if there are any kind of metal alloys that can naturally resist the earth's gravitational pull?
thedarkshade Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 um...yeah i just wanna know if there are any kind of metal alloys that can naturally resist the earth's gravitational pull? Absolutely not! NOTHING can naturally or artificially resist gravitational pull!
iNow Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 Absolutely not! NOTHING can naturally or artificially resist gravitational pull! So how do all of our rockets and planes work, and what is that birds do then? Bpl - It sounds like you are asking if there are any metals that "repel" gravitationally, and the answer to that is no. Gravity is not like magnetism. We don't fully understand it yet, but as far as we know there are no materials that are "anti" gravity (which is what I think thedarkshade was trying to share above).
thedarkshade Posted November 15, 2007 Posted November 15, 2007 So how do all of our rockets and planes work, and what is that birds do then? . The guy was asking about alloys, and there are no such that resist gravity! For more, molten metals in the center of earth serve as the source of gravitational pull! Bird and rockets use something else to resist gravity. Something called energy! Using that it's understood that one can resist gravity! Think of picking a stone from the ground! It's that simple resisting gravity, bur the stone itself can't resist, can it?
MrMongoose Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 "Gravity" is a force, not the effect of the force, so you can't resist it. No matter how much thrust you get upwards from a rocket engine, the gravity acting on you is still the same.
thedarkshade Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 "Gravity" is a force, not the effect of the force, so you can't resist it. No matter how much thrust you get upwards from a rocket engine, the gravity acting on you is still the same. Well according to Newton's universal law of gravity, the force of gravity depends also on the distance, so it matters. F=G m1*m1/r^2
MrMongoose Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Well the distance isn't generally related to the thrust, but if you want to be pedantic, shouldnt those two masses be different?
thedarkshade Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Well the distance isn't generally related to the thrust, but if you want to be pedantic, shouldnt those two masses be different? Not necessarily! Any two materials (same or different materials) with any mass (same or different) at any distance have this attraction force between them. And that force is measured with the formula above!
Mr Skeptic Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 um...yeah i just wanna know if there are any kind of metal alloys that can naturally resist the earth's gravitational pull? No. Electrons, protons, and neutrons (and positrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons) are all attracted by gravity. Since all atoms (and anti-atoms) are composed of these, you shouldn't expect any to repel gravity. In fact, nothing has been found that can repel gravity.
MrMongoose Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 But you were quoting Newtons Univeral Law of Gravitation, not Thedarkshades Special Case of Gravitation
thedarkshade Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 No. Electrons, protons, and neutrons (and positrons, antiprotons, and antineutrons) are all attracted by gravity. Since all atoms (and anti-atoms) are composed of these, you shouldn't expect any to repel gravity. In fact, nothing has been found that can repel gravity. Precisely!
swansont Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 Not necessarily! Any two materials (same or different materials) with any mass (same or different) at any distance have this attraction force between them. And that force is measured with the formula above! I think the reference was to the fact that you had m1*m1 in your formula, making the two masses always identical.
MrMongoose Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 I think he knew and he was trying to defend it with "same or different".
thedarkshade Posted November 16, 2007 Posted November 16, 2007 I think the reference was to the fact that you had m1*m1 in your formula, making the two masses always identical. Oh damn! You're right swansont, it slip me it should be: F=G m1*m2/r^2 Sorry guys!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now