I got to thinking, while watching a UFO show no less, about the properties of gravity.  It is generated by matter and attracts matter.  Kind of like magnet except attracting the same 'pole'.\n\nIf you could generate a large enough block of anti-matter, would it generate an anti-gravity field strong enough to repulse matter?  If such was the case, the problem of matter/anti-matter interactions would be moot as they wouldn't be able to come into contact except by massive force.\n\nJust thoughts... discuss.
119616
If Anti- Gravity means repulsions between two gravitational masses;then the answer to this excellent question exists.\nFirst if we look how gravity affects atomic elementary particle we could understand anti-gravity.\nThere is a point lets say where the gravity field between the electron and proton intersects in such a way that a repulsion occurs.This shows that no two particle can actually come togheter and stick to each other.So particle integrity is maintained.The phenomena of anti gravity is real.This is in full agreement with experiments in qunatum mechanics, which have shown repulsion between particles.
331104
Gravity is a force of attraction here on earth that always pulls us toward the center of the planet.  Mass has a gravitational field.\n\nWhat I think that exterterrestrial life may have is some way of generating "anti" gravity such that the gravity here on earth would then repel an object.  It would be like having a "negative" mass.\n\nI think advanced propulsion systems would utilize such a drive, and who knows, some of these things that have been seen might just be the work of our government in secret.
421191
This is a tricky question, and I think the answers are mostly good even though they disagree.  Campbelp2 is right in that the force transmitted in magnetic field lines is not conveyed by a distortion of space-time akin to gravity.  AE and others worked quite a while to come up with this trick and unify the EM force with gravity (by building extra dimensions into the framework of GR), but eventually gave up.\n\nOn the other hand,  as Jose and Steve say, the magnetic field has an associated stress/energy with it which contributes to the gravitational force.  So in this sense, the magnetic field does contribute to the space-time curvature.  \n\nBut that is not how the magnetic force is expressed, so I would say the bottom-line answer is no.  The EM force is transmitted via photons which are the quanta of the EM field.  Gravity is believed to be conveyed by gravitons.  Different force carriers.
347098
assume that just for 1 second gravity goes off and comes back, what will happen??? is it possible??? no funky answers please. genuine replies are appreciated.
79060
The crucial question is whether the universe is dense enough to slow things down enough before everything expands away. Yes, gravity exists all through the universe (at least what we can see). In fact, it was Einstein's theory explaining gravity that first predicted the expansion of the universe (although Einstein legislated that solution away by adding in another term). But if the density is too small, the velocity of expansion is already above the escape velocity and so expansion continues forever.\n\nEven more important, we have recently found that the expansion is accelerating! This means that the term that Einstein put in actually exists, but not in the way he expected. Nobody really understands what is happening with this 'Dark energy'.
257214
All objects have gravity regardless of whether they are moving or not.\n\n  Moving and object faster has no effect on the strength of its gravitational field. You must be thinking along the lines of magnetism or something.\n\n  Gravity depends only on the mass of an object. a piece of paper sitting on a desk has a gravity field. But becuz the paper's mass is soo small, its gravity field is too weak to be noticed (even by a nearby ant).\n\n   To calculate the strength of an objects gravity field the equation is (M1*M2)/(d^(2))  where M1 = the mass of the object ur finding the gravity stregth for, M2= the mass of any reference object you are using to determine the relative strentgh and d^(2) is the distance between the 2 ojects squared.\n\nlooking at that equation you can see that speed and velocity and rotation does not matter.\n\ntherefore any object a person creates will have gravity, just not gravity thats as strong as a planet's. to do that you would have to make an object as massive as a planet!\n\nCelestial bodies rotate because of gravitational forces exerted on them, but the rotations have nothing to do with the strength of the gravity fields itself.
443821
If you are asking about anti-gravity cos you've seen an episode of star trek who's anti gravity engines run on anti matter then the answer is NO.\nI saw a program on the Sci-fi channel a few years back and an American guy had made a circular pad with about 1 metre radius which once turned on you could put any thing on it and it would just float in mid air, this guy just built it at his own leisure.\n\nThe question of moving at light speed is impossible for nearly anything except light, scientist now believe that it would be more feasible to bend space around an object so it would instantaneously leave one point in space and reappear in another
323917
Nobody has found any evidence for a form of gravity the repels instead of attracting, but that doesn't keep people from looking for it. It may yet be found. But such a force is not needed to explain orbital motion. In fact, it would disrupt orbits, causing the Earth to fly away from the Sun and never return.
154644
What is this gravity that you mention?  :P\n\nGood point tho, funny how it didn't exist until very recently in our history.  *hugs*
5971
This is actually a subtle question. Why is there only one "charge" for gravity? That fundamentally depends on the details of General Relativy and the nature of gravity waves and the graviton. The result, of course, is that there is only one "charge." There is no antimatter.\n\nIt's a little hard to figure out exactly what you mean in the rest of the question. No offense, but punctuation would help. But, suffice it to say that there is only one "charge" of gravity, so the details are moot.
504889
If it were posible for the neutronium to exist in a plane, then yes, I think so. However, neutronium is so dense that its own gravity will pull it into a sphere. If you got close enough to look at it, it would pull you in and you would be a (very thin) stain on the surface.\n\nNeutron stars are supposed to be made mostly of neutronium. If two collided or got close enough for their tides to pull one apart, then small pieces might be left. But neutronium is supposed to be very unstable. It is only its own gravity that binds the electrons and protons together so that they merge and lose their identities. \n\nFor very massive neutron stars (just short of being black holes, I guess) their inner layers are supposedly a quark-gluon soup. \n\nFor very small ones or pieces broken off, if that is possible, if there is not enough gravity to keep the particles together, the electrons and protons will regain their identities and the nuclear interctive forces will reassert themselves, and the mesons will begin to interact between the electrons and protons again,. What would happen is that the small piece of neutronium would erupt in a burst of energy and high energy particles. \n\nS/F writers like H. Beam Piper (in the 60's) postulated that we would learn to control nuclear forces like we learned to control electricity and have (what he called ) 'collapsium' plated spacecraft, where the outer shells of the electrons were in contact with the nuclei (what we would now call 'degenerate matter'.) Such a plating (a tiny fraction of an inch thick) would protect like several feet of lead shielding. It would also weigh more than many feet of lead shielding! (He also proposed that we would have antigravity by now.)\n\nTheoretically, a sphere of neutronium would be perfectly reflective, and the noted s/f author Larry Niven used that feature in his classic story There Is A Tide (1968, Galaxy magazine.)\n\n15 NOV 06, 1632 hrs, GMT.
654945
In fact, there is a great deal of evidence showing it is not. What little we know of the dark matter and energy is that they are not composed of baryons. But anti-protons *are* bosons. There are some candidates for the dark matter (axions are a good bet) but anti-matter in the usual sense is ruled out by observation.
252071
Gravity is not caused by magnets. It is caused by matter itself, but it only happens noticably when theres a LOT of matter together (the earth is a LOT of matter).\n\nWe dont really know why matter causes gravity. We cant even measure gravity waves, but we're trying.\n\nString theory is a mathematical system which tries to explain gravity. I dont understand any of it, but thats what people who want to understand gravity are studying.
94527
If gravitation was a repulsive force, there would probably be no planets for there to be tides...  Current theory states that the planets are held together primarily by their gravitation, along with electromagnetic forces, but gravity being the "big one." So, if it was a repulsive force, it would tend to dismantle the planets, stars and whatever else.\n\nDr. John Kenny did some work on the possibility of there being two different forms of matter (orthomatter and epimatter), one having reacting to gravitation by being attracted, the other (epimatter) by being repelled.  His final work is slowly being posted--posthumously--a chapter or two at a time by one of his daughters.  Book will be named "Chaosmos" (John was a great fan of James Joyce).  You might want to search for Chaosmos and John Kenny and see if the part on matter & epimatter is out.
484499
i'm not sure how you consider it mathematically unlikely - where's your working for that?\n\nThe theory is that yes, the matter in the universe can from the dense plasma that expanded from the singularity that began the big bang.  Howver, if dark matter theory is to be believed, there is a lot of matter unaccounted for - but it is still likely to have originated from the Big Bang
136295
The magnets create a magnetic field, in the same way that matter creates a gravitational field.  The magnetic field causes the magnets to be attracted to each other.  The energy for this is stored as potential energy within the magnetic field itself.  If you were to let go of the magnets then they would more towards each other and thus the potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy.  \n\nWhile you hold the magnets apart, they don't lose any energy.  However you do use up energy, as you stated.  So energy is being lost but only if you include yourself in the system.  To try and clarify this think of holding an object above the ground.  Energy was required to raise the object (e.g. a ball) and this is stored as gravitational potential energy that will be converted to kinetic energy if you drop the ball.  But while you hold it the ball does not lose energy, but obviously you do, as you are holding it.  However in physics questions we tend to ignore this energy loss because we could always imagine that the ball was raised and put on a table, and thus not being held by you.  \n\nThe same goes for the magnets, the physics does not change if instead we imagine that the magnets are on a table and being held apart by being stuck to the table (perhaps by blue tack).  So as a result we tend to say that energy is not being lost (i.e converted to some ofter form), as we are only intersted in the magnets.\n\nI hope this is of help to you.
598300
If all matter is over 90% empty space, then there should theoretically be small vacuums throughout the entire universe.  However, such a vacuum would be impossible to detect, contain, or sustain.\n\nPerhaps beyond the edge of the universe, a perfect vacuum exists.  All the matter/energy ever can only take up so much space.  However, there is no way to observe or reach that vacuum either.\n\nMmmm... uncertainty!