Anti-Gravity device. (serious question)

Seriously?
OK... Let me ask you a serious question.
What exactly is Gravity?
Does it fall within the spectrum of electromagnetism?
If so, what is its frequency or speed?
According to Albert Einstein "E=mc2" that is to say that energy and matter are one and the same at the speed of light squared. What happens when we apply this equation to gravity?

As for your question of stored energy. Yes, absolutely.
Think about the magnitude of each of the two WTC buildings collapsing and how much energy there was it that. Every bit of the energy that it took to build them, from the mining of the clay and iron ore, to the manufacturing of the bricks and beams, to the transportation of these, right down to the rising and setting in place of not just them but all of the components, and furniture, etc., etc., was released almost all at once but, in a since, it happened in slow motion. If that had happened at the speed of light squared it could very well have "rocked" our galaxy.
Would you believe that rust is an explosion of energy?

Gravity and anti-gravity.
What is Gravity? Seriously.

I really tried to stay out of this one... but I just can't help myself... this one's just so far out there.

I think the OP was asking if a boat would be considered an antigravity device.

I think Mr. Schmidt's point is that gravity is still a phenomenon that's not completely understood and that we should try to get a good theory of gravity worked out before we start thinking too much about anti-gravity (correct me if I've misinterpreted). I'm not sure what he's getting at with the WTC example, other then that if the mass of WTC was converted into pure energy it would be a (much) greater force then the free fall collapse of the building.

FD gives us the text book definition of gravity from physic's 101. I haven't had time to look it up, but I remember that there were four fundamental forces: the strong and weak nuclear forces, the electro-magnetic force and gravitational attraction. I also remember that folks have had a lot of trouble getting electromagnetic theory to agree with gravitational theory- this leads me to think that the reason masses pull on each other is not electromagnetic energy (I don't have an explicit proof of this, just a hunch). I'm also fairly sure that motion is not the cause of gravity. Just looking at the Universal Law of Gravity there is no reference to change in position. I can picture two stationary (unmoving) partials that would still have an attractive force. The centripetal force of a rotating object is not the same as gravitational attraction. (If you spit your gum out while riding on the spinning ride at the amusement park it’s not gravity that causes it to fly back at your face).

Here's the way I picture gravity in my mind: I think of a piece of graph paper. I draw a strait line from point A to point B. Any partial traveling from A to B will travel in a straight line, unless acted upon by an outside force. I then take the piece of graph paper and wrap it around a basketball.  The strait line, AB is now a curved line. Gravity is like the basket ball and the piece of paper is like space. The gravitational force is not ‘pulling’ the partial- the particle is traveling through a straight line though bent space-time. In this scenario masses don’t exert forces on each other per se; they just bent the space-time surrounding each other. This is my armchair understanding of the General Theory of Relativity.

SOOOO…. If gravity is the bending in space-time caused by mass that would make antigravity a striating of space-time! The only thing I could think of that would cause such a straitening would be antimass. (Not to be confused with antimatter that has mass). This leads me to believe that if your boat has mass then it’s not an antigravity device. If your boat is made of antimass then perhaps it would be.

Although I don’t think they have a forum I’ve enjoyed reading from “How Stuff Works”

http://science.howstuffworks.com/