What Is Light? What Are Radio Waves? - Bruce Sherwood

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 98

  • @mikefixac
    @mikefixac 9 ปีที่แล้ว +23

    There was a lot I didn't understand about light and radio waves and this really helped. I plan on watching it a few more times. You can tell this man cares about knowledge and loves teaching. Thank you to this gentleman.

    • @fredbloggs2417
      @fredbloggs2417 7 ปีที่แล้ว

      radio is short waves , light is spectrum's all colours penetrate objects , some dont and reflect and thats the colour we see and not always true colour , its like dogs and insects snakes fish humans we have cone receptors in eyes , this man says it better , magic three .

  • @marchenderson488
    @marchenderson488 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Very well done. Broad coverage, clearly explained and ideally paced.

  • @guyappin0
    @guyappin0 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    I've seen lots of videos about light and radio waves... Somehow professor Bruce Sherwood was able to communicate complex information into a way that I could understand. That's a skill ladies and gentlemen -that most don't have.

  • @bettywilson966
    @bettywilson966 7 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Cleared up some questions I had, excellent job explaining radiation, electricity, magnetism, forces, fields, frequency, cycles, waves. I'll definitely need to watch it a couple times but the best easiest simplest video I've seen on some difficult to understand subjects.

  • @synakal
    @synakal 8 ปีที่แล้ว +4

    Great talk! I enjoyed every minute, even though it was over an hour long.

  • @baekjin200
    @baekjin200 8 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    I learned so much from this lecture. Thank you.

  • @nadmey9099
    @nadmey9099 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    Great lecture, described and explained in the simplest way possible.

  • @tomdchi12
    @tomdchi12 4 ปีที่แล้ว

    Fantastic! This answered a question I couldn't find clearly answered elsewhere! "Are radio waves photons?" If I understand around 44:30 correctly, the answer is that the full EM spectrum is photons in a sense, but because the wavelengths and energy levels at the radio end of the spectrum are so long and low-power (respectively) it's just more useful to think of them as waves, not particles. If I understand correctly, it's also the case that 1 watt of "radio photons" will be orders of magnitude more discrete photons than 1 watt of x-ray or gamma ray photons, so again, more useful to see radio as a flux of waves and at the other end of the spectrum a "bunch of bullets" of EM energy.

    • @atheistaetherist2747
      @atheistaetherist2747 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      Radio waves are made by antennas.
      Photons are made by atoms.
      Skoolkids are not told that radio waves (ie em waves) are a different animal to photons. A 10 mm radio wave is not the same animal as a 10 mm photon. Radio waves consist of my photaenos which are the radiating part of a photon. And, re the Hertzian rolling E by H nature of radiating emissions from photons, i like the work of Ionel Dinu who has analysed the Hertz experiment & he says that Hertz's interpretation of Hertz's waves was wrong, there is no rolling E by H emission. Likewise Ivor Catt says that there is no rolling E by H emission anywhere in nature, it is a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current, a TEM.
      The so-called flow of so-called electrons in an antenna or in any wire is a secondary effect. There is a slab of transverse E by H energy current flowing along the outside of the antenna/wire. As explained by Heaviside, Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop. There is no such thing as charge or voltage.
      Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
      The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
      The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
      The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
      Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
      Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
      Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
      Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
      Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
      Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
      In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
      In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
      Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
      Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
      An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
      Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
      Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
      A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
      Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
      Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
      Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
      I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
      Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.

  • @eldhoabraham1444
    @eldhoabraham1444 9 ปีที่แล้ว +3

    great video the best animations for the most intuitive explanation of em radiation so far

  • @freerehab2848
    @freerehab2848 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    This provided a ton of clarity to things I was getting very frustrated with.

  • @BlackWolf-uk2yb
    @BlackWolf-uk2yb 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Loved the vid. Thank you. Couldn't visualise how 'power' affects the em fields though (without affecting the wave length and frequency).

  • @robthefirefly
    @robthefirefly 9 ปีที่แล้ว

    Thank you for posting. A great refresher....

  • @salvadorfajardo4639
    @salvadorfajardo4639 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Muchas gracias, me explicó muchas cosas que no entendía. Saludos.

  • @billhowes4441
    @billhowes4441 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    We all know, The American school system does all it can to FEED our children's minds with important information that helps our children to better deal in "Life". Like, HOW to balance one's financial affairs. To ENCOURAGE >healthy, free thinking minds that are "FREE" to experiment and create a more adventurous "Life" for themselves and others around them. YES! I'm being ~HIGHLY~ Sarcastic! Anyway, Science Class is now in session. You're welcome to join. -Bill Howes.

  • @imlyingtoyou8547
    @imlyingtoyou8547 6 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    No mention of the Aether--what a shame..

  • @hamzaelmakhtari
    @hamzaelmakhtari 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Ty for u'r effort very visual and interesting vid

  • @melissasalazar2517
    @melissasalazar2517 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Great lecture!!!

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Friction is also involved
    In a cursor in a computer

  • @crashsitetube
    @crashsitetube 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    At about 1:09:00 he says that the reason we see the wall is because the "electromagnetic waves;" make the electrons in the wall move and "re-radiate" light. But, that "electromagnetic field" is also moving through the air....also made of atoms with electrons. So, why don't the electrons of the air re-radiate the light and make the air glow as the light from his projector passes through it? Are there spec;ial electrons in the wall that are different from the electrons in the air? Is Mr. Sherwood just wrong about how all this stuff works?

    • @ollieark
      @ollieark 8 ปีที่แล้ว

      Because the electrons in the wall are packed very tightly together?! (Just a guess, please correct me if I'm wrong)

    • @crashsitetube
      @crashsitetube 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

      There have been many theories put forward about how light works over the past few thousand years. None of them stand up very well...including the electromagnetic waves theory.
      The geniuses of physics can't even decide if it's particles or waves (the duality of light)...and, that's here in the 21st century. I believe that light (and thus, radio, microwave, heat, x-rays, gamma rays, etc.) are a more mechanical process.
      Molecules are always moving (air molecules, randomly, as a gas and wall molecules, but more orderly, as a solid). When anchored in a solid (or maybe a liquid) they can oscillate in place and that vibrating motion interacts with a propagating medium...similar to the way your vibrating vocal cords interact with the air.
      Air molecules and the propagating medium for light (the aether, which the physics geniuses can't even figure out if it exists) don't have the anchor and can't oscillate. A pendulum swings just fine if it's anchored at a pivot point but, wont swing if it's just moving around, unsuspended. So, the light can't make the air molecules oscillate but, it can make the molecules in solids (like the wall) oscillate.
      That brings up the mechanism for how the light actually makes the aether and atomic matter move. That's too detailed for this overview but, is also completely misunderstood by the geniuses of physics.
      As a side note, if air receives enough energy to ionize and the molecules are torn apart, the molecule or some component of the molecule can oscillate and we see a spark or a glow in the air (biting a sugar crystal can also do this in a solid as the 'famous' wintergreen Life Saver experiment shows).
      salaphysics 2016

    • @atheistaetherist2747
      @atheistaetherist2747 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@crashsitetube Radio waves are made by antennas.
      Photons are made by atoms.
      Skoolkids are not told that radio waves (ie em waves) are a different animal to photons. A 10 mm radio wave is not the same animal as a 10 mm photon. Radio waves consist of my photaenos which are the radiating part of a photon. And, re the Hertzian rolling E by H nature of radiating emissions from photons, i like the work of Ionel Dinu who has analysed the Hertz experiment & he says that Hertz's interpretation of Hertz's waves was wrong, there is no rolling E by H emission. Likewise Ivor Catt says that there is no rolling E by H emission anywhere in nature, it is a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current, a TEM.
      The so-called flow of so-called electrons in an antenna or in any wire is a secondary effect. There is a slab of transverse E by H energy current flowing along the outside of the antenna/wire. As explained by Heaviside, Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop. There is no such thing as charge or voltage.
      Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
      The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
      The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
      The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
      Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
      Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
      Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
      Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
      Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
      Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
      In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
      In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
      Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
      Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
      An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
      Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
      Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
      A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
      Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
      Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
      Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
      I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
      Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.

    • @crashsitetube
      @crashsitetube 3 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@atheistaetherist2747 - Hmmmmm...I've seen this "helix" idea touted on the internet but, it doesn't seem to relate to what can be observed or measured very well. The "helix people" seem very caught up in the whole centri-FUGAL and centri-PEDAL thing (as they stress the words)
      There are three major components to light (and all radiated phenomena). First is how it's generated and the nature of it. Second is how it propagates (ie:" gets from where it's generated to where it's detected). Third is how it's detected.
      I didn't see any attempt to explain any of those things in your dissertation. There are a lot of terms floated about and stuff (particles?) somehow doing something to...annihilate the aether (whatever that means or what it has to do with light.
      I will say that in the salaphysics model, ALL radiated phenomena seems to work the same basic way but, at different size scales.
      salaphysics 091321

  • @juliomiranda8296
    @juliomiranda8296 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Good vid

  • @morrison232
    @morrison232 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Excellent

  • @robertzahirsky5084
    @robertzahirsky5084 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    SPEAKING ABOUT LIGHT I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO HAVE SEEN OUR SPEAKER. MOST OF THE TIME HE WAS IN THE DARK AND THE AUDIENCE DID NOT BENEFIT FROM HIS BODY LANGUAGE WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT OF COMMUNICATION. A SMALL LIGHT ON THE SPEAKER WOULD HAVE MADE AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION EVEN BETTER. MANY THANKS FOR EXPLAINING THE NATURE OF LIGHT AND RADIATION, WELL DONE,

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How the shadow is seen of a particle graff

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The unseen wave is the
    Source of focus power

  • @benn1963
    @benn1963 11 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Thank you very interesting

  • @angelnicolas2949
    @angelnicolas2949 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    For every dot at the wall could be seen at all directions like half ball total view... For every dot. So one photon hitting one dot at the wall,, what direction exactly it has to go or divide to see one single dot at the wall at all directions... and what about the whole wall that seeing every part without interfering all photons to have a clear vision.

  • @hectorrubalcava
    @hectorrubalcava 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Gracias 😊

  • @emmanuelmathieubois
    @emmanuelmathieubois 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    His theory on Nocebo effect...

  • @angelnicolas2949
    @angelnicolas2949 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    What about a mirror...in each dot of the mirror you can see all parts of opposite image... dose it means that the photons of the opposite image bounce in the same dot at the same time to a half ball shape "all room direction" at the same time for every dot in the mirror.... can you imagine that ... so what exactly you see ....

  • @fredbloggs2417
    @fredbloggs2417 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    i am to the point in life where i talk to some body and they give me a blank look and ask me wtf i am talking about , so i watch videos of people like this to remind myself that i am still very dumb .... i never knew this subject was so complicated .

  • @sergeysergeev8678
    @sergeysergeev8678 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    интересно вот что,про разложение света призмой на спектр не знает только ленивый.и этот физический эффект мы пользуем.как и концентрацию линзой.но возьмём обычное оконное стекло.ведь как ни крути,а прошедший через оконное стекло свет субъективно "жарче" "открытого" света.но это стекло не призма.и не лупа.можно подумать что поверхность не идеальна,или что свет падая под углом преломляется как в призме.однако "повышение" "кпд" света в сторону ик излучения трудно объяснить неровностью стекла или преломлением света.ведь количество энергии остаётся "неизменным".думаю дело в другом.думаю что стекло преобразует часть спектра (уф итд) в "сторону" ик (меняет длинну волны,плюс дифракция,резонанс,испускание собственных колебаний возбуждёнными атомами стекла итд итп).что же это значит?а значит это что стекло это преобразователь солнечной энергии,кпд которого намного выше современных солнечных батарей.ведь используем мы мазер,где возбуждённые атомы вещества\газа,накачаные энергией вынужденно испускают эми.значит и твёрдые вещества потенциально могут производить "похожий" эффект.и судя по всему это "стёкла".а ведь это новый взгляд на использование солнечной энергии.где там солнечная электростанция с кучей зеркал?подозреваю что если "мишень" на которой сфокусирован свет от этих зеркал "окружить" стеклом,то кпд такой конструкции повысится в разы,благодаря преобразованию "бесполезной" энергии в полезную.стелс,с поглощением покрытием из металлического стекла эми,совместно с другими принципами.интересно принимает ли в этом участие эми меньшей частоты (радиоволны),магнитное поле (использование в космосе),итд итп.

  • @fredbloggs2417
    @fredbloggs2417 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    minerals / salts make electro current stable , so would be a transformer with out wires , not harmonics , but combined frequency's make it possible to increase power by piggy backing so would it be possible to stop a persons 7.83hz heart beat ?

  • @dr.mahnoorshahid2975
    @dr.mahnoorshahid2975 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Its helpful

  • @jlo13800
    @jlo13800 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Blue and up carries more longitudinal electric field strength as well. Just like tesla described.

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    A cursor is far more
    Advanced than the
    Field power it
    Radiates

  • @walterscott4048
    @walterscott4048 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Good.

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The ganglia of the eye ought to be concidered

  • @jessicamiranda9137
    @jessicamiranda9137 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    dis is very iusful

  • @treanamorris
    @treanamorris 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Are light and sound the same thing

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    The power is condescent

  • @JJAngleton
    @JJAngleton 8 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He completely ignored scalar waves and yes, they do affect human DNA and mitochondria. Measurable in the lab.

  • @angelnicolas2949
    @angelnicolas2949 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    It's all about the medium.

  • @2bestoned
    @2bestoned 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    i have heard,u can boil and burn water with radio waves,ideas?

    • @DaniBZone
      @DaniBZone 8 ปีที่แล้ว +3

      That's what microwaves do.

  • @alchemy1
    @alchemy1 6 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    How come nobody use electron to show the field. They all start out talking about electron then they use proton to show the field and of course the field pointing out. Maybe they don't like the fact that they then have to show electron's field as propagating in ; which would mean you won't see no light because the field and the radiation instead of out, it will be going in to the electron. What is this some kind of a joke? Do they even know what is going on?

  • @fredbloggs2417
    @fredbloggs2417 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    do you mean red and blue being combined to make pink thats does not exist , opposite ends of the spectrum ' invisible light ?

  • @atheistaetherist2747
    @atheistaetherist2747 3 ปีที่แล้ว

    Radio waves are made by antennas.
    Photons are made by atoms.
    Skoolkids are not told that radio waves (ie em waves) are a different animal to photons. A 10 mm radio wave is not the same animal as a 10 mm photon. Radio waves consist of my photaenos which are the radiating part of a photon. And, re the Hertzian rolling E by H nature of radiating emissions from photons, i like the work of Ionel Dinu who has analysed the Hertz experiment & he says that Hertz's interpretation of Hertz's waves was wrong, there is no rolling E by H emission. Likewise Ivor Catt says that there is no rolling E by H emission anywhere in nature, it is a Heaviside slab of E by H energy current, a TEM.
    The so-called flow of so-called electrons in an antenna or in any wire is a secondary effect. There is a slab of transverse E by H energy current flowing along the outside of the antenna/wire. As explained by Heaviside, Ivor Catt & Forrest Bishop. There is no such thing as charge or voltage.
    Photons have a central/internal part (the central helix) & an external part (the photaeno).
    The central helix has a front end & a rear end, & is (possibly) 1 wavelength long. The wavelength is simply one turn of the helix (there is no wave).
    The central helix is an annihilation of aether. Annihilation of aether gives gravitational mass & inertial mass.
    The track of the annihilation forms a helix. The helical annihilation moves axially throo the aether at the speed of light c, & along its helical track at more than c.
    Photaenos radiate out (to infinity) from the central helix.
    Photaenos annihilate aether, hence they have gravitational mass & inertial mass.
    Photaenos include a vibration (excitation) of the aether.
    Photaenos propagate outwards throo the aether at perhaps 5c in the near field (approx 2 m) & perhaps c in the far field (wolfgang g gasser).
    www.electronicspoint.com/forums/threads/experimental-evidence-for-v-c-in-case-of-coulomb-interaction.168813/
    Photaenos radiate from fixed locations in the aether, ie from fixed locations along the central helix.
    Photaenos do not have a sideways velocity in the aether, ie each photaeno is shed from the central helix as the rear end of the central helix passes.
    In a free photon every photaeno is initially attached to the central helix, & later it detaches.
    In a confined photon the central helix has formed a continuous loop, in which case the photaenos do not detach (the central helix has no rear end).
    Electrons & other elementary particle are confined photons.
    Photaenos give us charge fields & electromagnetic fields.
    An attached photaeno gives a high field strength, an unattached photaeno gives a weaker field.
    Hence a free photon has 3 parts, the central helix, the attached photaenos, & the unattached photaenos. A confined photon has 2 parts, it has no unattached photaenos.
    Man-made radio signals are carried by photaenos, they are not carried by photons.
    A photon with a (natural) 10 mm wavelength (the length of its central helix), is a different animal to a radio wave with a (forced) 10 mm wavelength (which has no central helix).
    Free photons are slowed by the nearness of mass (confined photons), as suggested/proven by Shapiro (Shapiro Delay).
    Shapiro Delay is due to the photaenos (from the free photon)(& from the confined photon) fighting for the limited use of the aether.
    Fighting/congestion slows the photaenos & this slowing feeds back to the central helix, slowing the central helix.
    I call this slowing "photaeno drag". It contributes to the bending of light. It gives us diffraction near an edge.
    Photaeno drag is very strong inside mass (air water glass). It gives us refraction, & reflexion.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      Ma! I found the great wall of bullshit on the internet! :-)

    • @atheistaetherist2747
      @atheistaetherist2747 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@schmetterling4477 Have u got a better model?

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@atheistaetherist2747 Yes. :-)

    • @atheistaetherist2747
      @atheistaetherist2747 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@schmetterling4477 Explain it & i will advise u of its shortcomings.

    • @schmetterling4477
      @schmetterling4477 2 ปีที่แล้ว

      @@atheistaetherist2747 I am sure you would. :-)

  • @angelnicolas2949
    @angelnicolas2949 7 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Light is invisible... we only see the effect of the light... we see lighted objects.

  • @MrKorrazonCold
    @MrKorrazonCold 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Tap the side of a round bucket of water. . ..Because as objects free fall into the future antimatter is just the opposite phase, or Vector Imploding Energy Compression +1=0 now -1 the constant outward momentum of the light forms the inward force called gravity.. . .

  • @fredbloggs2417
    @fredbloggs2417 7 ปีที่แล้ว

    again same picture as the pink Floyd dark side of the moon cover ? why triangle and not sphere ?

  • @stevenos100
    @stevenos100 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    3O2 = 2O3-1 from electrical ionizing radiation of lightning
    promoting = not teaching what EMR is .... SQR(cos+sin)^2 cos=I(x) sin=Q(y) F=v(z)
    yet a good video covering several subjects and studies
    m=SQR(h*c/G) Q=SQR(h*c/k) ion element or compound?

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Colulm light

  • @mfr58
    @mfr58 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Yeah, but what constitutes the field that the waves propagate through, in a pond the waves move through the water, in "space" electromagnetic waves move through what? The wave is a movement not a substance or particle. Oh, maybe we need the aether!! But they threw that out when they misinterpreted Michelson and Morley. Doh! What really happens is no waves or phtons are emitted, rather, the source of the light we see causes perturbations in the aether, like the ripples moving out from the beetle struggling in the pond, and we interact with the perturbation with our sensory organs. So light doesn't have a speed, but a rate of induction into the aether. Ask Eric Dollard and Ken Wheeler, read Tesla's work.

    • @ar4203
      @ar4203 ปีที่แล้ว

      " in "space" electromagnetic waves move through what" ... uh you just said it was "space" theyre moving through...

  • @coreyrogers2159
    @coreyrogers2159 5 ปีที่แล้ว

    I wrote this poised to push play and waiting to hear the bullshit and I am curious to see at what minute I am so perturbed I hit enter. Experiment ends due to excessive perturbation.

  • @Old-time-miner
    @Old-time-miner 10 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Over an hour saying the same thing over and over. Just say it once. 30 seconds would of been enough.

    • @Trec-u
      @Trec-u 10 ปีที่แล้ว +6

      no it was amazing, he explained everything that has something to do with waves

    • @samuelwalworth12
      @samuelwalworth12 9 ปีที่แล้ว

      +Chris Silvey Comment of the year, genius!

  • @jessicamiranda9137
    @jessicamiranda9137 10 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    wtf

  • @michaelgonzalez9058
    @michaelgonzalez9058 2 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    Friction

  • @Moronvideos1940
    @Moronvideos1940 9 ปีที่แล้ว +1

    He talks as if he is in excruciating pain and swallows his snots a lot ...irritating.

  • @darrenhenderson6921
    @darrenhenderson6921 6 ปีที่แล้ว

    Well that's not necessarily true. You have conflicting theories, one for field theory and one for relativity, then you had the flop known as the wave-particle duality, which is just preposterous on the face of it. Regardless no one knows or can prove what light is.

  • @brendanfrancisdelaney5249
    @brendanfrancisdelaney5249 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    Utter bullshit, if undisturbed nothing happens with anything in the universe, what moved for anything to happen ?

  • @catalinstoicescu
    @catalinstoicescu 8 ปีที่แล้ว

    Bullshit. We don't have receptors for EMF... And what are the mitochondria, Mr. Paid-to-teach-BS?