From Ancient Greece to the present day, scientists have been studying light to try to penetrate the mysteries of its composition and how to measure it...
How to determine the optimum length of Dipole Antenna: Divide Metres Electromagnetic Energy travels in 1 Second (C) by Ocillations per second (Mhz). Example: 300,000,000 m / s ÷ 100Mhz = 3 Meters We've quickly established we need a 3 Meter Dipole Antenna for excellent reception of our 100mhz hi-fi Radio Such accurate calculations, with household measurement answer, seem to elude fans of Photon algebra answers Alternating current in a coil around an Iorn core of a Transformer causes an Alternating Magnetic Field which induces a current in the Output Coil. Thinking about this makes it easier to visualise that by using capacitors, our radio transmitter generated mHz alternating current in our Dipole Antenna causing Oscillations in the MAGNETIC FIELD. No Photon Theory necessary for our transmission! We were taught that our radio receiver worked by alternating at the frequency to be received. Mhz Oscillations in Magnetic Field causing ALTERNATING CURRENT in our wavelength Antenna. Because the Frequency was Modulated information could carried on that wave. Note AM radio uses Amplitude Modulation which I notice does not fit with the calculations necessary to work out what is a photon? We were taught that at frequencies below 2 MHz radio waves follow the curvature of the Earth DUE TO EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD Not a bulky yet massless photon particle attracted by Gravity Einstein made a major mistake believing light was diffracted (bent) by Gravity when one star passed behind another. Then bending time in equations to make it fit! The Stars immense Magnetic Field is causing diffraction etc. Light becomes more intense when travelling through such a magnetic field. Ocean waves larger in great depth ocean Sound travels better through water. Oscillating Magnetic Field = Electromagnetic Energy. Makes TV and radio transmission & reception possible but if Balls called Photons were leaving our Antenna? Transfer kinetic energy into waves in water by putting a stone in a pond and causing a wave which spreadse out equally to all banks of Pond. Now release a large number of balls at the point the stone hit the water what happens? The Balls spread out leaving big GAPS. Radio and TV signal could not work this way. Photon Theory disproved. Just a mathematical FALLACY! PHOTOSYNTHESIS uses Electromagnetic Energy 430 THz < Red and Blue light >770 THz to split water into Hydrogen +ions & Oxygen -ions Hydrogen ions Bond electronically with Oxygen on Carbon dioxide molecules to produce Glucose. This stores Energy in a form at plants can use for Life Processes 24 hrs a day & is the beginning of the food chain. Proteins are formed by adding nitrogen to the glucose. What infuriates me is that a lot of kids today are being led to believe that plants absorb coloured balls called photons which become food! See UA-cam In reality Photosynthesis works by transferring Energy, like a Transformer charging a battery by making a Chemical Change. Not by absorbing particles from theoretical mathematical particles The Chemicals in a Battery are the Particles and the Chemicals in used Photosynthesis are the Particles. Energy is stored in the Chemical Bond. MAGNETISM is necessary to Generate Electricity to charge your battery and a MAGNETIC FIELD is necessary for Electromagnetic Oscillations to charge Photosynthesis! We know that Magnetism is caused by Electrons spinning around their nucleus in the same direction in elements such as Iron. We know that Protons need Neutrons in the nucleus to be kept together by what is presently called the “Strong Force”. That is the source of GRAVITY!
Could light and matter in the form of electrons be waves over a ‘period of time’ and have particle characteristics relative to the atoms of the Periodic Table when we have the absorption and emission of light? Is the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future unfolds?
Q: Lightspeed is constant in water and in glass and in vacuum, so why not also in Earth’s atmosphere? And: As lightspeed in Earth atmosphere is constant also when the lightsource is at different velocities, that should be different when observers at different velocities would measure the light-speed? Or not?
Speed of light is highest in vaccum and almost the same in air. It only slows down or becomes faster while traveling from one medium to another. In the case of refraction, the source of light more precisely the wavelength becomes a deciding factor when we take the change in speed and direction into account. When a light from a particular source is made incident on an interface seperating two media and then passes through the second medium, it has been found out that the ratio of sine angle of incidence and refraction is always equivalent to a constant known as refractive index of medium two with respect to medium one provided that the source of light and the media don't change. So it doesn't matter if you make rays of light incident on a surface at different velocities or angles if they conditions mentioned above are kept the same, the constant will not get altered meaning to say that the velocity of light will differ but in the same trend and the constant will always come out to be the same.
Also Tesla ! It most important person for this subject. Everything is created from light. Not (materialism) from bottom to top. It is from top to bottom.
The unaided eye can see may be up to 5000 stars (but not from a single Northern latitude, of course). Galileo's telescope would have allowed him to see tens of thousands more, far more than a single human being with such a primitive instrument could have recorded in star charts, so the question is how many he made records of. I don't know the answer to that, but 750 might be a good estimate.
@@mikev4621 It is an interesting question. There is a star map by Galileo in Sidereus Nuncius, his treatise which contains his initial discoveries with his telescope. Galileo's telescope design suffers from a very small field of view, which would have made it very hard to draw star maps by hand. One has to move it around all the time to see extended areas. That's hard enough with a modern instrument that gives 60 degrees FOV or more to the observer (divided by the magnification, of course, if we are talking about the actual FOV of the sky). Somebody wrote on the internet that his telescope didn't even allow him to see all of the Pleiades all at once, which is not a problem even in a toy telescope or with a $25 pair of binoculars. Add to that the lack of a stable mount and using his telescope would have been a real pain in the neck, quite literally and especially for a man of his age (he was 46 at the time, I believe). So, yeah, if he really managed to identify 750 stars reliably, more power to him. Do you have a reference for that? Just curious.
Fire is not an artificial light source. It might be the only natural light source. You should have called the camp fire a controlled natural light source. Also a light bulb doesnt shine as bright as daylight. IIRC light intensity is measured in the unit Lux. When you compare the light of light bulbs to daylight while looking at how many lux each has you should see that daylight ös way more powerful than that from artificial sources.
What a comprehensive discussion on the nature of light!! With amazing historical perspective. So helpful
Absolutely ! Simple and precise. We are not all scientists or engineers ...thanks!
Thanks! if you're interested in making it more visual let us know.
Hey can someone tell me what that graph with the triangle is next to Maxwell. It looks cool.
Great video
thanks for posting, clear, concise and straight to the point.
Can agree, it was very educating, thank you
How to determine the optimum length of Dipole Antenna:
Divide Metres Electromagnetic Energy travels in 1 Second (C) by Ocillations per second (Mhz).
Example: 300,000,000 m / s ÷ 100Mhz = 3 Meters
We've quickly established we need a 3 Meter Dipole Antenna for excellent reception of our 100mhz hi-fi Radio
Such accurate calculations, with household measurement answer, seem to elude fans of Photon algebra answers
Alternating current in a coil around an Iorn core of a Transformer causes an Alternating Magnetic Field which induces a current in the Output Coil.
Thinking about this makes it easier to visualise that by using capacitors, our radio transmitter generated mHz alternating current in our Dipole Antenna causing Oscillations in the MAGNETIC FIELD.
No Photon Theory necessary for our transmission!
We were taught that our radio receiver worked by alternating at the frequency to be received.
Mhz Oscillations in Magnetic Field causing ALTERNATING CURRENT in our wavelength Antenna.
Because the Frequency was Modulated information could carried on that wave.
Note AM radio uses Amplitude Modulation which I notice does not fit with the calculations necessary to work out what is a photon?
We were taught that at frequencies below 2 MHz radio waves follow the curvature of the Earth DUE TO EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD
Not a bulky yet massless photon particle attracted by Gravity
Einstein made a major mistake believing light was diffracted (bent) by Gravity when one star passed behind another. Then bending time in equations to make it fit!
The Stars immense Magnetic Field is causing diffraction etc. Light becomes more intense when travelling through such a magnetic field.
Ocean waves larger in great depth ocean
Sound travels better through water.
Oscillating Magnetic Field = Electromagnetic Energy. Makes TV and radio transmission & reception possible but if Balls called Photons were leaving our Antenna?
Transfer kinetic energy into waves in water by putting a stone in a pond and causing a wave which spreadse out equally to all banks of Pond. Now release a large number of balls at the point the stone hit the water what happens? The Balls spread out leaving big GAPS. Radio and TV signal could not work this way. Photon Theory disproved. Just a mathematical FALLACY!
PHOTOSYNTHESIS uses Electromagnetic Energy 430 THz < Red and Blue light >770 THz to split water into Hydrogen +ions & Oxygen -ions
Hydrogen ions Bond electronically with Oxygen on Carbon dioxide molecules to produce Glucose.
This stores Energy in a form at plants can use for Life Processes 24 hrs a day & is the beginning of the food chain. Proteins are formed by adding nitrogen to the glucose.
What infuriates me is that a lot of kids today are being led to believe that plants absorb coloured balls called photons which become food! See UA-cam
In reality Photosynthesis works by transferring Energy, like a Transformer charging a battery by making a Chemical Change.
Not by absorbing particles from theoretical mathematical particles
The Chemicals in a Battery are the Particles and the Chemicals in used Photosynthesis are the Particles. Energy is stored in the Chemical Bond.
MAGNETISM is necessary to Generate Electricity to charge your battery and a MAGNETIC FIELD is necessary for Electromagnetic Oscillations to charge Photosynthesis!
We know that Magnetism is caused by Electrons spinning around their nucleus in the same direction in elements such as Iron.
We know that Protons need Neutrons in the nucleus to be kept together by what is presently called the “Strong Force”. That is the source of GRAVITY!
Great video on history of science
Could light and matter in the form of electrons be waves over a ‘period of time’ and have particle characteristics relative to the atoms of the Periodic Table when we have the absorption and emission of light?
Is the exchange of light photon ∆E=hf energy continuously transforming potential energy into the kinetic Eₖ=½mv² energy of matter, in the form of electrons, as an uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π probabilistic future unfolds?
I need more of stuff like this
Q: Lightspeed is constant in water and in glass and in vacuum, so why not also in Earth’s atmosphere?
And: As lightspeed in Earth atmosphere is constant also when the lightsource is at different velocities,
that should be different when observers at different velocities would measure the light-speed?
Or not?
Speed of light is highest in vaccum and almost the same in air. It only slows down or becomes faster while traveling from one medium to another. In the case of refraction, the source of light more precisely the wavelength becomes a deciding factor when we take the change in speed and direction into account. When a light from a particular source is made incident on an interface seperating two media and then passes through the second medium, it has been found out that the ratio of sine angle of incidence and refraction is always equivalent to a constant known as refractive index of medium two with respect to medium one provided that the source of light and the media don't change. So it doesn't matter if you make rays of light incident on a surface at different velocities or angles if they conditions mentioned above are kept the same, the constant will not get altered meaning to say that the velocity of light will differ but in the same trend and the constant will always come out to be the same.
thank you
So in other words we still are not 100% sure what is light made of?
absolutely right... there are no dualities in nature, only the illusion of misconceived understanding.
Yes, we are, but for that you will have to read a book on quantum electrodynamics. My guess is that it won't do you much good. :-)
Brilliant video.
good 1
wow!
Such a beautiful video!!
720p at least ples
Nice Video....
thanks
You missed milestone Lord Bell.
Also Tesla ! It most important person for this subject. Everything is created from light. Not (materialism) from bottom to top. It is from top to bottom.
λολ
the first ppl to create light is none of these
Idk optics but bro its funny
Great video! But in the beginning what he tells about cow?
the earrape e-music at the start bro it sounds like it came from a failed dj that lives in his moms basement
this was gucci
Dis Galileo discover " thousands " of stars? I heard it was only 750
The unaided eye can see may be up to 5000 stars (but not from a single Northern latitude, of course). Galileo's telescope would have allowed him to see tens of thousands more, far more than a single human being with such a primitive instrument could have recorded in star charts, so the question is how many he made records of. I don't know the answer to that, but 750 might be a good estimate.
@@schmetterling4477 Phew! I thought I was going to get blasted out of the water : )
@@mikev4621 It is an interesting question. There is a star map by Galileo in Sidereus Nuncius, his treatise which contains his initial discoveries with his telescope. Galileo's telescope design suffers from a very small field of view, which would have made it very hard to draw star maps by hand. One has to move it around all the time to see extended areas. That's hard enough with a modern instrument that gives 60 degrees FOV or more to the observer (divided by the magnification, of course, if we are talking about the actual FOV of the sky). Somebody wrote on the internet that his telescope didn't even allow him to see all of the Pleiades all at once, which is not a problem even in a toy telescope or with a $25 pair of binoculars.
Add to that the lack of a stable mount and using his telescope would have been a real pain in the neck, quite literally and especially for a man of his age (he was 46 at the time, I believe). So, yeah, if he really managed to identify 750 stars reliably, more power to him. Do you have a reference for that? Just curious.
@@schmetterling4477 Can't recall where I saw it , but will post if I do
@@schmetterling4477 I think it is here at 17 min 40 approx. ua-cam.com/video/rTdduAErWwQ/v-deo.html
Although looking at it now I may have got it wrong
You forgot to mention light bulbs need to be replaced
first proper comment
A←B→A
#skynet
Przesył informacji
Fire is not an artificial light source. It might be the only natural light source. You should have called the camp fire a controlled natural light source.
Also a light bulb doesnt shine as bright as daylight. IIRC light intensity is measured in the unit Lux. When you compare the light of light bulbs to daylight while looking at how many lux each has you should see that daylight ös way more powerful than that from artificial sources.
Isaacs newton
Physicists not physicians... though most of those physicists were doctors too :)
The Greeks were not the first people to study light. The knowledge of the the Greeks came from the Egyptians. This video is propaganda.
Propaganda has political gain. But hey, invent a time machine and find out for yourself.
very very bad
Why "bad."
This video describes the commonly accepted theories rather well..,
lies