Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About Spazzy-kins

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/14/1986

Profile Information

  • Location
    UT, USA
  • Interests
    Uhmm... Soccer + Track
  • College Major/Degree
    LDS Business College
  • Favorite Area of Science
  • Biography
  • Occupation
    Unemployed *Tear*
  1. Nope. Never mind about the last post. Still works fine so far. Let the experimenting begin! (that is as soon as I can get some spare money in... oh... a few years or so) meh.
  2. Ok. I think I've just accomplished what you were trying to do. I'm not so sure it would stand the test of a black hole. I suppose I'll have to think about it, do some research and see where it takes me. Thanks for the input though; more is always welcome.
  3. Well then. Without getting to far swept away, let me respond a little. First the pleasantries. Sorry Jakira. I guess I'm not quite sure how this forum works so I don't know if it's dogmatic. But, if the week or so I've been here says anything... Anyway, I'm glad to see that you aren't set on string theory. I'm actualy glad you don't accept my views without proof either, but my idea is a possibility. As for string theory being more than a guess: Yes it explains things. So does my idea. I don't expect you (any of you) to accept my idea as anything more than that: an idea. But for having a non-dogmatic point of view you sure haven't given it much contemplation. None of you have given any science to go off of. And yet, you claim science as your only support. I don't mind adopting a better idea, but show me that it's better first. Well, Merry post-Christmas!
  4. This is interesting. I think you've just given me a way of looking at gravitons that I can live with. I still perfer to think gravity is purely a force that pushes (one object sheilds the other from some of this force, thus net force changes), but your idea of gravitons makes sense too. Very thought-provoking.
  5. Oh, and couldn't "gravitons" be pushing instead of pulling? ie. energy particle=graviton?
  6. Yeah, but why does the electron spin exsist? What makes magnetic material more suseptible to this electron spin than other materials?
  7. Conjecture... Ok, that works. I have a conjecture. *cough* String Theory *cough* Sooo... These "gravitons"... What are they? What exactly do they do? And why does this cause gravity? So much for your conjecture, eh? The biggest difference is that your beloved scientists whom you revere so much thought of gravitons before energy particles. They aren't prophets you know. These scientists that you regard so highly are bright men to be sure, but they are guessing just as sure as any of us. Only those who don't know what they're talking about aren't questioning. Some focus on one conjecture rather than another, but they don't know if it's right.
  8. What is it about magnets exactly that makes the difference though? Is it the molecular structuring of the thing or what?
  9. To: Mak10 You want a simple answer to a reletively simple question, yes? Well, here you go. Step one: Scientists don't know. This is why they speak of things such as "gravitons" (some unknown object that does some unknown act to produce a well-known result). Step two: I'm not sure either. I've got a theory (a simple one that fits everything I think), but I don't really know. Keep searching and find experiments to test your theories. This will be the next step in understanding the physics involved in the world around us. Now we begin. My personal theory involves what I like to call "energy particles" (much similar to light waves -- I think the only difference would be frequency). Assuming my theory to be correct, there are millions upon billions (rough guestimate) of these particles traveling through space at intense speeds. Presumably, they travel at light-speed. They are smaller than atoms (probably much smaller), and numerous to fill the emensity of space (for all intents and purposes). These energy particles collide with atoms constantly. Due to the weak force each particle exerts on the objects and the overwhelming abundance of them, net force can be taken to be 0 for each object. When two objects are put near each other, they shield each other from some of the energy particles. this causes a change in the net force. Thus Gravity. I can't prove it, but I can't disprove it either. And it makes sense. Also, if you'd like proof of the exsistance of these "energy particles" check out "crystal radios." Go ahead and build one yourself; get it working, etc. Now, turn from your favorite station. Pass the country stations. That's right, keep going... Stop! There it is: static. Not enough, eh? Take out the speaker, and plug in a voltometer. Now you've got it: enough energy to light a tiny bulb. Not enough for practical use, but it's there. Not a broadcast; it just exsists. I'm not sure where it comes from, but it's out there. Hope it helps. Oh, and remember... "look for what is... not what you think should be." -direct quote from an inquisitive mind. enjoy.
  10. Yes, mass effects gravity in that F(g)=GMm/d^2. It may effect massless particles as well, but mass does effect gravity. That being said, the truth is that none of these guys know much about what they're saying. Those that are smartest will be willing to admit this readily. Even the experts don't know the answer to your questions. They can explain what magnetism is (in terms of what it does to its environment). They cannot, however, tell you Why. They can't tell you how either, but don't ask that one or they'll start explaining what it is. I would love to talk about this in more depth with you and others who really want to know what's going on (to the point of not accepting the whole "Gravity just is; kind of like force or speed."). This one really gets me. Gravity is a force; it doesn't just exsist! Force=definition. Gravity=action to be defined. Ok. I'm done now.
  11. So let me get this strait. This guy measures the bend in light and/or radio waves and determines the speed of gravity by this? How? I think I must be missing something, because if I'm not, Kopeiken has made a gross error in his interpretation of the data. I don't see how any of this would show a change in the gravitational force created by Jupiter. Don't get me wrong. It makes sense to me that gravity's force travels at ~c. I just don't see how Kopeiken proved it. To me it's still an unknown.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.