Author Options:

Anti-gravity Machine concept Answered

This is a concept I came up with for an idea of an anti-gravity machine.  Let me just state for the record... I do not think this will actually work.  However, while I am quite certain this idea should not work... based upon my limited knowledge of science... it would seem like it could work.  Unfortunately I know I am never going to spend the thousands if not millions of dollars to build this concept to find out.

The basic premise of the idea is the use of angular momentum to overcome the force of gravity.  Imagine if you will, a gyroscope spinning at such a high velocity that its outward force overcomes the downward force of gravity.  Naturally, one of the big obstacles is generating the speeds necessary to create the velocity such that angular momentum is greater than downward force.

What I essentially propose is a spinning ring that is propelled in the same way as a maglev train.  Using Electromagnetic propulsion or EMP to accelerate a ring in a vacuum by the utilization of a flowing electrical current and magnetic fields may in theory generate the speeds necessary for the force to overcome gravity.  Unfortunately, the power to run such a vehicle and the weight to power ratio are significant obstacles.

Two of these rings above one another I theorize can create tremendous propulsion if the angles of the rings were changed.  Using hydrolics to change the angle of alignment of these two rings may create incredible forward momentum.  Once more, such a vehicle would not be limited to operation within Earth's atmosphere unlike jet or other propulsion mechanisms.  In fact, it should operate at peak efficiency in a zero gravitational environment.

This is all theory... and I'd love to know if it is indeed as crazy as it sounds.


I was thinking about Einstein's theory of Relativity the other day and the effect of gravity on time, and I came up with a weird question that I couldn't answer. From what I understand of the theory of relativity, as an object approaches the speed of light, time slows down for that object relative to another object. If you were to take something like a gyroscope, and spin the wheel at the speed of light (assuming that was physically possible) and drop it to earth, would the rate at which it falls change (assuming object falling in a vacuum)? Since Distance=Rate * time, and the time for the rotating object would be different than the planet, would its Rate of descent be that of the Earth's time or that of the object rotating at the speed of light? In other words, would the speed of fall be the same as a non-rotating object?

Your first statement is correct -- in special relativity (SR), the ticking of a moving clock slows down as the velocity of the clock increases. This is as seen by an observer outside the moving clock (i.e., the clock is moving past you, and you'll see the hands turning more slowly than you expect).

When constructing relativity problems, don't think that "the speed of light" is special. In particular, don't construct a problem where some massive object is supposed to move "at the speed of light." That introduces some mathematical problems, and distracts from the real issue. Relativistic effects occur at any velocity -- they are just easier to see for velocities close to c.

You're asking whether a fast rotating object would move differently in general relativity (GR) than a non-rotating object. The answer is no. The fact that it's rotating is irrelevant to it's trajectory. The center of mass of the object will follow the appropriate geodesic, and fall or orbit at the same velocity as if it were not rotating.

However, the gyroscope will precess (its axis of rotation will move around) differently in GR than you would expect in Newtonian gravity.

I know I am years late but help me out here.

How can an object spinning at a relativistic rate Possibly look the same as any other falling object?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Such an object would most certainly not "look" the same, if you are talking about actually viewing it, with your eyes, or camera, or whatever. There will be definite distortions because of the high rotational velocity.

However, for small objects, its _motion_ under a static gravity field won't be affected its rotation. For small objects, the motion is governed by its center of mass, not by the distribution of that mass. This assumes the gravity field is changing (spatial gradient, not time-varying) slowly enough that tidal effects across the object are negligible. If tidal forces are not negligible, then the rotation will have an effect.

Thank you for your comment. I just thought it was an interesting question. I suspect you are right... though I would love to test it to see for myself.

It is an interesting question! If you want to see some of the weird stuff GR does, in particular for the case where the source (large mass, like the Earth, or a star) is rotating, look up "Lense-Thirring Effect."

Assuming it was physically possible, and that the gyroscope molecules could handle the shear force without flying apart! As far as I understand, the energy possessed by the gyroscope spinning at near light speed would be so incredibly high, that its total mass would be dramatically increased. If I am not mistaken, it would form a gravity well. The earth might be drawn to IT rather than it to earth LOL. As to whether it would fall slower, I think yes, Rather the earth and the gyroscope would draw toward each other at an increasingly slowing rate, as according to an observer in some spaceship far away, just watching this.

From the view of a person on earth's surface (standing directly under ground zero of gyroscope impact), I don't know.. I suspect it would seem slow at first and seem to increase speed as you get closer to it (thus get drawn into its gravity well).

Upon hitting the atmosphere it would light ablaze and become a swirling dragon ball Z style fireball, snowballing to huge proportions as it descends.

Upon hitting the surface of earth, it would most likely cause an Extinction Level Event that would usher in a new ice age, and perhaps roaches would ultimately take over the planet.

That is what i thought could happen... I would love to see someone model a simulation of what would happen.

Why so complicated and fast?
Just create a material that allows gravity to "flow around it" without actually being able to affect it.
If you can "shield" the mass completely a simple flatus from the pilot could get it going - if directed properly... ;)

something to note: motion is relative and directional.

So, while this theorhetical object is spinning at the speed of light, that motion isn't oriented in a direction that affects it's decent. ie: it probably falls like anything else.

That said, we don't know. Gravity is a force which we really haven't defined. hence why anti-gravity doesn't properly exist. We don't know enough about it to come up with an inverse for it.

something that might be more interesting, look into Mercury Vortex technology.

What exactly are you saying, here? Gravity is extremely well understood (tested to 1 part per billion) to be a tensor force, which is dependent on the scalar quantity mass (or technically, stress-energy). For any object with positive mass and a "normal" equation of state, gravity is attractive.

For an entity with a negative equation of state (in particular, "dark energy") gravity is repulsive.

I know I could create anti gravity machines if I simply had a mentor, a group of genius minds such as mine, and funding. I don't know if any of you would care about the future as I do but I literally find it more important than myself as proof here are my theory machines; An engine with perpetual motion, A humanoid robot without need of power source and with available military programming, Energy weapons, Orbiting space station with Anti-gravity and artificial gravity capabilities, unfortunately the world may not see such inventions because nobody believes a high school dropout can so much as write their name and my self-taught scientific/mechanical genius probably won't make it past this message.

Clever profile name -> Understand my words (dnatsrednu my sdrow). Much like your name, sometimes viewing things from a different perspective is the origin of the greatest ideas. I hope you find ways to pursue your visions, even if they seem impossible. Anyone can say something is impossible to do, but few have the courage to take on the impossible and make it possible. I doubt my design is anything more than fantasy and has no real practical application, but if its only purpose is to make one think such a thing is possible, than it has more than served it's purpose.

“There is no use trying; one can't believe impossible things." (Alice)

"I dare say you haven't had much practice. When I was your age, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Queen

Everyone please try to be respective in your comments. It is fine to disagree, particularly when giving evidence that a theorem is incorrect, but please do not insult other posters.

Um, that is an unfortunate comment, me thinks. Perhaps, a more encouraging responce should have been more appropriate and expected (much more from a teacher).

Myself, I suggest some reading, drawing a plan of the device, failing, more reading, back to the drawing board,... Hey, if its science, it has to be trial and error, no?

But let's not fool ourselves. Sometimes, reading just points out that our theories are wrong. We should be able to see this, for the benefit of new theories. Old and failed ones should be left in the drawer.


Er, did you read his ideas?

You can't even draw a sketch plan of them - the ideas are so bad, they "aren't even wrong". Even the very worst science fiction avoids these ideas for fear of ridicule.

If he's the genius he claims, let him prove me wrong.

As for my tone, I'm not a teacher "24/7", I have a life and opinions of my own. Nevertheless, that is pretty much word for word way I would say to a student of mine, and you know what? They respect my honesty and the fact that I don't humour them with false praise. If the author made even one of those suggestions in a real R&D meeting, they would still be laughing as they threw him bodily out of the door.

You're confusing knowing with believing.
What is with the slightly-cryptic username?


I think yours is an incredible idea. I believe little more research will give you the path to follow and with a good presentation you can easily attract investors. I am also working on theory to make anti-gravity bikes but I have yet not reached any specific solution.
Lastly all the best

hmm. i don't know if you noticed but it looks like the concept of a alien space craft. You know these cliché alien hovering disks.


I have to admit, I was thinking about how I would build a UFO if I were trying to build one when I came up with the idea.

I was imagining that the force of gravity was like the green cone in the illustration.  That what keeps the gyroscope level is angular momentum of force directed outward to this gravitational cone.  I think that if, for instance, you were to unbolt the tire from a car, turn the car sideways and hit the gas, a spinning wheel will fly off the car due to this force of angular momentum overcoming downward force.  However... I must admit... I really don't know if that is the case.

I figured that is the picture you had in your head, but it's not correct.

Conservation of angular momentum (or rather, "moment of inertia") means that a spinning object resists any change in the direction of it's spin.  That resistance is much greater than simply the deadweight mass of the object, and depends on the radius of the spinning mass and the angular velocity.

If you set up a gyroscope so that it is spinning with a horizontal axis (like a bicycle tire in its normal orientation, and press down, the spin axis will not tilt downward, but will instead "walk" to the side (left or right depends on which way the tire is spinning).

Since gravity always exerts a downward force, you can see this effect with a gyroscope on the edge of a desk, or at the tip of a stick (with just the end of the axis supported).  set the gyroscope there so it's spinning like a tire.  Gravity pulls down on the mass.  The moment of inertia resists the tilting, and the torque (spin cross force) make the who thing walk around in a circle about the support point.

The thing you have to realize is that if you want any kind of "forward motion", then you have to have an external force.  That can either be something outside pushing on you, or you can be pushing against something outside, or you can be throwing mass away from you (rocket exhaust).  In those cases, the external force will result in a change in momentum (i.e., motion).  If all the forces are pushing and pulling internally, the object might change shape, it might even appear to wobble around a central point, but it won't actually go anywhere.

This is just the law of conservation of momentum (also known as Newton's Third).

Thanks!  I figured that it could not be so simple.  It just seemed like something that might work.  Thank you so much for the explanation.  Well... guess I have to scrap my anti-gravity UFO and go back to working on my time machine LOL.

:-)  Now that's something that just might work.  All you need is a supply of exotic (negative pressure) energy to hold open the throat of a wormhole, and you're there.

Tachyon super laser will be a future instructable LOL Just as soon as finish my death ray. :)

sorry tachyon and super laser are seperate.i forgot to put a comma in between. oh and good luck on the death ray. damn patent for the arcemedes death ray.now how am i suppose to build one with the damn patent!!! screw you arcemedes!!

I found a way around the patent rules... am making my death ray also play the song "We wish you a Merry Christmas". Take that Archimedes ;) Plan to have it out by next Christmas just in time for the visiting relatives.


I can't miss all my shows; I don't have a TiVo!!

Hahahah I'm waiting for the future me to come back in time to give me the plans on how I made it.

Gyros are used in satellites. Try turning a gyro while floating in space you end up turning around not the gyro. One big thing is what I think the author is talking about and its in the realm of making a kind of gravity. The best thing I feel humans can only do is have a high speed gyro combined with a little thrust or movement. In a way a gyro speeds up when the hole thing is in motion. Add spin speed with movement speed to create a combine speed to avoid pull of gravity?

According to myth-busters this is busted.

I saw their anti-gravity machine concept show...they didn't try this concept/design. It was actually that show that first got me thinking about it. Also, they've busted a few ideas that I don't think were properly or adequately tested... so I wouldn't totally rule out something they call busted. It would be awesome though for them to bust my idea.

ever try a scale experiment? figure out a way to build a small model to get your proof of concept, at least that way you can say for certain that the idea is sound. obviously i make it sound a whole heck of a lot easier than it would be in reality. but thats always the first step to inventing. also, awesome design idea. sparks lots of questions in my brain.

I actually did have an idea for a very very simple experiment that could at least potentially confirm that my theory has potential, but I haven't gotten around to trying it. Basically, if you can spin a wheel on an axle, and the wheel lifts upwards off the axle, it would be proof that the concept is sound. I was thinking of making from Legos a simple gear thing that as I turned a crank, a wheel loosely fitted on an axle would spin very fast. If the wheel raises as the speed increased, as the wheel would not be causing lift due to air current, it must in fact be a gyroscopic effect of outward force overcoming downward gravity. For creating a scaled model of something more similar to my concept, I am afraid it is well beyond my skill and financial ability. The main issue is the speed of the spin of the inner ring has to be so incredibly fast, there may not be a method of actually generating such speeds and retaining the low weight ratio. My proposal suggest using the concept of that airforce flight decks use for launching planes, but in a circular fashion. Others have posted that my concept does not conform to current theories of physics... but don't let that stop you from trying it yourself! Let me know what you come up with and if I can be of any help!

the only issue with using the concept that airforce flight decks use for launching planes is that they use basically a slingshot. its a long cable they pull the planes with at very high speeds and let them loose. unless you already accounted for that and have worked it in to your idea, maybe i missed it. ill read over your plans some more and see if i cant come up with something to test for proof of concept. i do have a nice lego collection and have been itching to do something mechanically awesome with it haha

I'll have to check on the proper name for the system I am thinking of. I think it is only used on a few of the newest aircraft carriers and there has been some talk of using the system to sling-shot a space craft in orbit. It uses electromagnetic wave propulsion... but it is somewhat exotic so I am not familiar with the name. It might not be ideal for this particular concept, but it is the only thing I could imagine to obtain the necessary speed. Basically, imagine a super high speed train in a vacuum loop, one going one direction, one going in the opposite direction above one another in two enclosed rings. If the train, the track, and the enclosure were light enough, and the trains moved fast enough, would it obtain weightlessness or even enough force to overcome gravity? I tend to think it it is unlikely, but I must admit, I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't.

good idea! i did the same exact thing and it almost achieved weightlessness.

oh i wasnt aware of that aircraft launching system. ill have to look into it. i especially like the idea of the maglev train track type system, as it is deceptively simple. it seems like a sound theory to me, or at least a sound starting point. and with the maglev system there'd be next to zero friction, aside from possibly a small amout of air resistance, but as you previously stated this could be overcome with it being in a vacuum.

Movement is the best anti gravity solution. That is why we don't as a planet we don't head strait at the sun. Picture two planets just a few miles from each other but don't collide.They would have to stay in motion. I feel that gravity is space and time flowing into objects. There is an idea using mercury since its metallic and heavy combined with a gas(antifreeze) under high pressure and low temperature. Then spin it at 60,000RPM. That it would create a gravity machine. In theory you could create a time machine. From here the rabbit hole gets very deep. How about phase in and out of existence. Go though solid objects like earths crust and mine what ever or mess with living things with out knowing your around. LOL I do love the idea of two gyros and pushing them apart on one end to create thrust.

I actually had contemplated about the concept of using mercury. Instead of a solid mass moving via the magnets, the mercury would be forced in high speed rotation using the same electro-magnetic concept... but the danger of using mercury... especially in such large quantity would make building such a machine exceptionally difficult. I do believe that time and motion are inter-related in ways we do not fully comprehend. According to Zeno's Paradox, time and motion should simply not exist because every second is infinitely divisible. I'm not sure if anyone has attempted to experiment with using such high speed motion in a contained system, or if it is even possible without the forces ripping the machine to pieces. It still seems to me the idea is plausible even though everything people tell me seems to indicate it ought not work. I just wish I had the time or resources to build a functional model. Thanks for your comment!

Hi, DarkRubyMoon.  The basic, really simple physics objection is that you're dealing with a self-contained system here. 

Gyroscopes don't "push against" anything -- they don't have "an outward force to overcome gravity."  What happens with a spinning gyroscope (and which is counterintuitive), is that when you apply a force (e.g., push on the side), the responding motion is perpendicular to your push, rather than parallel to it (technically, the response is the cross product of the applied force vector and the spin axis).

So a gyroscope can remain "hanging" (but resting on a support!) with its spin axis horizontal because the downward force of gravity, instead of tipping the axis down, instead induces a horizontal precession.

With your electromagnetic system, the two halves will be pushing or pulling against each other, but you've tied them together with a gimbal at the center.  That means the whole closed system will just sit there and wobble, not take off into space.  Changing the angle of alignment won't produce any "forward momentum" because the forces involved are internal to the system.

Now, theoretically you "could" design a system that did work against the Earth's magnetic field (about 1 gauss), but you'll find that the forces involved are so small that you couldn't move any sensible payload.

I like to think that if something wobbles violently enough it will suddenly hurl itself in to space, like pennies spinning on a table...

Haven't you played Left 4 Dead 2? Occasionally zombie guts get so tangled up they shoot into space...