[annie123 (OP)]

I have seen movies of people trying out/training in no gravity spaces - airpplanes? How is this done? how can the force of gravity be removed?

[Halc]

I have seen movies of people trying out/training in no gravity spaces - airpplanes? How is this done? how can the force of gravity be removed?

Free fall is not lack of gravity.  The guys on the space station are in free fall and almost no more out of any gravitational field than we are.  So they train similarly: by something in free fall, which yes, can be an airplane.
Some training is also done underwater where buoyancy renders one effectively weightless.

[Kryptid]

I have seen movies of people trying out/training in no gravity spaces - airpplanes? How is this done? how can the force of gravity be removed?

Unfortunately, we don't know of any technology that can cancel out gravity. Like Halc says, airplanes are used to simulate weightlessness by going into a dive. One of the aircraft used for this purpose was nicknamed the "Vomit Comet": https://www.space.com/37942-vomit-comet.html

[yor_on]

A free fall is a transformation of 'gravity' into 'no gravity' locally defined, also called a geodesic. It's a path of no resistance (no forces acting upon it) ideally, the one Earth follows, and the solarsystem as a whole follows, as well as a book falling from the table. All of them geodesics.

[unntofas]

Thank you for this answer.

[Bored chemist]

The drop tower or drop tube is another way to experience "free fall" - or something close to it.
https://www.esa.int/Education/Microgravity_and_drop_towers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drop_tube

[guest47899]

ionize a hydrogen atom. too simple?  next, remove it's remaining magnetic polarity.

[guest47899]

ionize a hydrogen atom. too simple?  next, remove it's remaining magnetic polarity.

then drop it's temperate to absolute zero. you should see it vanish

[guest47899]

the higgs boson is an anti gravity particle. it has zero charge and zero spin, gravity cannot hold it.

[Bored chemist]

ionize a hydrogen atom. too simple? 

This (and your other posts) have nothing to do with gravity.

[guest47899]

ionize a hydrogen atom. too simple?

This (and your other posts) have nothing to do with gravity.

a particle occupies space. if that particle is not effected by gravity, then by all definitions it becomes a no gravity space.

yours truly
feckless

[Kryptid]

a particle occupies space. if that particle is not effected by gravity, then by all definitions it becomes a no gravity space.

Except that all known particles are affected by gravity.

[guest47899]

a particle occupies space. if that particle is not effected by gravity, then by all definitions it becomes a no gravity space.

Except that all known particles are affected by gravity.

doubt if that's true. the uncertainty principle states you can know the approx. location or the approx. velocity of a particle in relation to the speed of light. cern was able to screen the higgs boson for location but not for velocity.  it did not decay, it vanished, presumably at the speed of light or greater.  in a near non-existent gravity field, I doubt if your statement holds up. the lack of gravity in a near non-existent gravity field would more likely have a greater on a particle then the opposite.

[Bored chemist]

doubt if that's true.

Reality is unconcerned about your doubts.

[Kryptid]

doubt if that's true.

All known particles have energy. Relativity states that energy produces a gravitational field and thus responds to a gravitational field as well.

the uncertainty principle states you can know the approx. location or the approx. velocity of a particle in relation to the speed of light.

Which has nothing to do with gravity.

it did not decay, it vanished, presumably at the speed of light or greater.

If you are talking about the Higgs boson, that's wrong. The detection of the decay products is precisely how it was found in the first place. The photons released by the decay would have moved at the speed of light, yes, but the other more massive decay products would have moved more slowly.

in a near non-existent gravity field, I doubt if your statement holds up.

Near non-existent is not the same as completely non-existent.

the lack of gravity in a near non-existent gravity field

Is an oxymoron. If the field is only near non-existent then it is still there and you can't say there is a lack of gravity.

the lack of gravity in a near non-existent gravity field would more likely have a greater on a particle then the opposite.

A greater... what?