What is Light?

Main Page | Report this Page

Science Forum Index » Astronomy Forum » What is Light?

Page 2 of 18 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 16, 17, 18 Next

Author

Message

Sir Frederick

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:06 pm

Guest

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:19:44 -0700 (PDT), Sanny <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

There are alternative explanations for the

presence of EM waves or particles as observed in our
situation. I do not know any particulars
or sources. The gist is that what we observe is a
projections from stresses in putative higher dimensions
(a fifth or sixth dimension?). These stresses (similar to
space-time stresses producing 'gravity) manifest
in space-time as EM waves. I would
imagine the Maxwell equations derivable from this
putative scenario. I know nothing more other than
the mention did come from a respectable source.
Don't remember the source, might have been from string
theory literature.

NoEinstein

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 3:26 pm

Guest

On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Dear Sanny: Light is basically a small cluster of ether—the stuff from
which everything in the Universe is composed. Those clusters are
'like' photons. Because ether is polar, or has plus and minus 'ends',
it is attracted to the high charges concentrated near any mass. Light
passing close to, say, a knife edge gets deflected by the charges of
the atoms in the knife. The closer the photons come to the knife
edge, the greater is the angle such will be bent.
The above bending seemed to say that light is a wave (sic)
because water (or sound waves) can pass around objects and be detected
off of the line of sight of the source from the observer. An early
experiment with interference patterns used precisely spaced vertical
slits. A paper target was set parallel to the foil having the slits.
Because the edges of those slits bent the light off of the line of
sight, the light from adjoining slits, also bent, interfered with the
light from adjoining slits. The interference pattern appears similar
to the ripples of crossing waves in water. So, erroneously, light was
assumed to be passing through some water-like medium… Note: They were
RIGHT about the ‘medium’, but WRONG about the effect the medium was
having on the photons.
But the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... Einstein got around ‘that’ dilemma by supposing that light
could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
—and that was actually a no-brainer.)
Because ether and light are related, light gets re energized
(nurtured) from the ether through which it passes. That's why light
over vast distances 'usually' travels at velocity 'c'. You could
think of such velocity as the tangential velocity of the smallest
ether unit—that I call: IOTA. Light can travel any velocity above
'c', but such velocity will be slowed back to velocity 'c' over as yet
indeterminate distances. Uniquely, light traveling faster than 'c'
can keep doing so indefinitely, if the rays are confined to fixed
directions and with high enough energy. In that case the photons will
tunnel through the ether. If mankind wishes to locate intelligent
beings, the best place to look is in the very high energy ranges of
the spectrum. Huge amounts of data could be compressed to cross the
Milky Way quickly. What we may think are gamma ray bursts could be
high energy communications. The ‘detectors’ for such would need to be
traveling beyond velocity 'c' so the data could be ‘caught’. And both
sender and receiver would need to know precisely where the other was,
and when, and how fast they were traveling... "relatively". Note:
That is NOT a reference to any twin paradoxes, or time travel—as there
are no such things!
Hope this lets you think beyond the textbooks! — NoEinstein —

Guest

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 4:32 pm

On Apr 18, 10:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

Light is a force. IT is EM. It is electric and magnetic. Call it a
Dual Force wave of energy.

Mitch Reamsch - Falling light changes colour

Huang

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:09 pm

Guest

Light can be a wave or a particle, but not both at the same time.

This is because physical length can be either continuous or discrete,
but not both at the same time.

And this is because a random length may be regarded as being
indeterminately continuous or discrete.

And to understand this you must understand existential indeterminacy.
That points may be regarded as being existentially indeterminate, but
there is another equally valid approach which does NOT consider points
to be existentially indeterminate, and that BOTH cases are equally
valid.

You should now know exactly what a photon is, what gravity is, dark
matter, and everything else.

zzbunker@netscape.net

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 6:18 pm

Guest

On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

Well, that's mostly because schools are always experimenting
wanks.
Since there's a big difference between saying light is a wave,
and light ravels like a wave.

Quote:

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

If lens could prove anything, we have given the astronomy idiots
even bigger telescopes than they have now, rather than
microprocessors
and lasers.

Quote:

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Well, they always do that. Since light is an E-M wave,
just like light's a flame thrower.. Idiots in Washingtoon
will buy anything as the saying goes.

Quote:

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Well, the science cranks just do that to sell polorizers.
Since the only thing travelling is wanks, and the only thing
at 90' is pure covariant wanks.

Quote:

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

But, since atoms have photons too, that's just the same
thing as saying: if you wish hard enough, atoms will turn
into light.

Quote:

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Mark Earnest

Posted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:27 pm

Guest

Light is spirit, and only its outward renditions affect the retina.

"Sanny" <softtanks@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1a120f99-9b32-4812-a8c4-14dd7753c55b@f24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

Paul Mays

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:14 am

Guest

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0267adb-191a-4f15-a40f-81840e19c72c@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

Quote:

On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a10db786-5f6a-4566-b4b8-2cb8c095450d@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Depends on whos Bias you follow..

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Paul Mays

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 3:51 am

Guest

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:GRhOj.4470$wL5.2494@fe101.usenetserver.com...

Quote:

"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0267adb-191a-4f15-a40f-81840e19c72c@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a10db786-5f6a-4566-b4b8-2cb8c095450d@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. - Brad Guth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. - Brad Guth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased
observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Jeffâ–²Relf

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 4:42 am

Guest

I wrote:
â€œ Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we â€˜ know â€™ the cosmos is fully causal. â€.

And you replied:
â€œ Randomness is not ignorance.
It is the foundation of probability theory.
Do you argue that probability theory is ignorance as well ? â€.

Statistics is merely semi-random, not fully random.
Examples are easy to come by:
A. A roll of the dice. B. Where I might be 24 hours from now.
C. Brownian motion and D. Bose-Einstein condensates

Igor

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:17 am

Guest

On Apr 18, 3:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 18, 12:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

See, there's your problem. Passing out. Maybe if you'd have just
stayed awake, you would know.

Explain how photons can even exist/coexist w/o the strong force or
perhaps the dark force gravitons (aka matter).
. - Brad Guth
. - Brad Guth-

Perhaps it's the same reason you continue to post with nary a notion
about physics in particular and science in general.

Tom Potter

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 5:42 am

Guest

Quote:

"NoEinstein" <noeinstein@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:0e5c4ad0-f77a-488b-82bb-6b49a7026174@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

the botched-up 1887 M-M experiment seemed to rule out
ether... Einstein got around 'that' dilemma by supposing that light
could be either a wave or photons. But as with nearly everything
Einstein supposed, he was wrong. (Brownian Motion is the lone exception
-and that was actually a no-brainer.)

I am surprised to see that "NoEinstein"
like most people,
has been conditioned by the mass media,
and the Einstein Cult
to give Einstein credit/debit for the work of other folks.

The credit/debit for wave-particle duality
belongs to de Broglie, not to Einstein.

wave length = unit of action / momentum

Although the Einstein Cult tries to
credit Einstein for de Broglie's theory,
and claim that he promoted de Broglie and the idea,
the fact of the matter is that Einstein did not
comprehend nor appreciate the enormous impact
that de Broglie's work would have on physics,
as Bohr and his associates, most physicists,
and the Nobel Prize committee did.

Note that de Broglie's theory was presented
in his 1924 doctoral thesis,
and he received the Nobel Prize in Physics
for it in 1929, the shortest time in history.

In other words,
Bohr, most of the leading physicists,
and the Nobel Prize Committee,
**immediately** recognized the importance of
de Broglie's theory, while Einstein and a few cultists
persisted in fighting it, and the Quantum Mechanics"
that it inspired, for many years.
( Google EPR experiment)

It is also interesting to see that the Einstein Cult
worked hard "Revising" history and physics,
and conditioning the masses to think
that the wave-particle duality theory of matter
was based on Einstein's corruption of
Planck's quantum of action work of 1901,
for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1918.

Note that although Einstein corrupted Planck's quantum of action,
and has sent physics into a one hundred year cul de sac,
the Einstein Cult has managed to con most people
into thinking that energy, rather than action is quanta.

It does not take a system engineer to comprehend
that measured energy is affect by relative velocity,
whereas quanta of action is NOT.

As can be seen Planck clearly pointed out
in his Nobel Prize lecture that ACTION was quanta.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1918/planck-lecture.html

"When I look back to the time, already twenty years ago,
when the concept and magnitude of the physical quantum of action began,
for the first time, to unfold from the mass of experimental facts.."

"The explanation of the second universal constant of the radiation law was
not so easy.
Because it represents the product of energy and time
(according to the first calculation it was 6.55 x 10-27 erg sec),
I described it as the elementary quantum of action."

( I might point out that the real unit of quanta is actually
neither energy, nor action, but is the "First Radiation Constant",
Action (The "Second Radiation Constant"),
does not take the Hubble Effect into account.)

To answer Sanny question:
"What is light?"

The universe is a sea of standing waves,
and matter are antinodes in that sea.

A so-called photon is simply
an electron event that involves
one quantum of action.

A cause event is a rotary (Spin) event
that occurs at some anti-node
in the sea of standing waves,
and propagated much like
gear motion is propagated
until it finds a standing wave
that has an impedance of 377 ohms,
at which point it becomes an effect and terminates.

To make my point,
consider that the maximum amount of action (Hence Power/energy)
is transferred when the source (Cause) impedance
equals the load (Effect) impedance.

At the one quantum unit level,
the maximum amount of action
equals the minimum amount of action,
ONE unit of Planck's Constant.

Thus to transfer ONE unit of action
from a cause anti-node
to an effect anti-node,
there must be a 377 ohm path between them.
Otherwise you get a reflection,
and no cause and no effect occurs.

"Light" is the statistical expression
for sets of quanta of action that
can be detected by human eyes.

--
Tom Potter

http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

BradGuth

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:21 am

Guest

On Apr 19, 1:51 am, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:

Quote:

"Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote in message

news:GRhOj.4470$wL5.2494@fe101.usenetserver.com...

"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d0267adb-191a-4f15-a40f-81840e19c72c@w8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 12:52 pm, "Paul Mays" <Pa...@Mays.com> wrote:
"BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:a10db786-5f6a-4566-b4b8-2cb8c095450d@p25g2000pri.googlegroups.com...

On Apr 18, 11:19 am, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a
wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field?
How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know
whats
the correct description of light.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at:http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Perhaps you'll become the first to know the answer, because Einstein
didn't have a clue.

I might care to rethink of those photons we see and of all those
photons we can't see as simply slow moving gravitons, or perhaps as
somewhat quantum string like items. Of course, this still doesn't
tell us specifically as to "what is light".

Is there even any such thing as an original photon, or is each and
every available photon merely a secondary/recoil result of gravitons
interacting with other gravitons, or of gravitons interacting with
mass?

Pure energy seems to create photons, but without available gravitons
it doesn't hardly matter, does it.
. -BradGuth

I gota definition I like too...

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

I like your interpretation as much as that one provided by '"dlzc".

However, if gravity/gravitons didn't exist, neither would the quantum
string like photon. In other words, without the spin of atoms, we got
nothing.
. -BradGuth

Well my interpretation Explains why there no need for gravitons to
denote the Causation of Gravity, What specifically light is and why its
detectable as a Wave or Little ball of stuff (Photon), Why its velocity
will always be independent of source or target, and seemingly a constant..

Yet allows all existing physical rules to remain valid to a Intrinsically
Biased observer.

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

Is this "intrinsically biased observer" ever allowed to use good old
deductive formulated logic?

How about allowing for an intrinsic biased form of observationology,
meaning the deductive interpreting of pixels as being those patterns
of whatever's perfectly natural as opposed to what's artificial/
intelligent looking.
.. - Brad Guth

Jeffâ–²Relf

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:31 am

Guest

Louis de Broglie says
the wavelength of my human body is less than 10^-35 meters;
but that's a metaphysical ( i.e. unmeasurable / unusable ) length.

Detecting light as a particle or a wave
depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.

For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
in the famous double-slit experiment:

A. The frequency ( and energy ) is fully predictable;
i.e. it's Fully a wave.

B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
which of the two slits it might've passed through;
i.e. it's Not a particle.

Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.

Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we â€œ know â€ the cosmos is fully causal.

Statistics is merely semi-random, not fully random; For example:
A. A roll of the dice. B. Where I might be 24 hours from now.
C. Brownian motion and D. Bose-Einstein condensates.

Huang

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:55 am

Guest

On Apr 19, 11:31Â am, Jeffâ–²Relf<âœ—@âœ—.Invalid> wrote:

Quote:

Louis de Broglie says
the wavelength of my human body is less than 10^-35 meters;
but that's a metaphysical ( i.e. unmeasurable / unusable ) length.

Detecting light as a particle or a wave
depends on how coherent ( i.e. how predictable ) it is.

For example, given an ideal laser showing a diffraction pattern
in the famous double-slit experiment:

A. The frequency ( and energy ) is fully predictable;
Â Â i.e. it's Â Fully Â a wave.

B. You can't detect ( not even in theory )
Â Â which of the two slits it might've passed through;
Â Â i.e. it's Â Not Â a particle.

Semi-coherent ( i.e. semi-predictable ) light
is detectable as a semi-particle, semi-wave.

Randomness is ignorance; it exists only in the mind.
No matter what else is or isn't known,
metaphysically, we â€œ know â€ the cosmos is fully causal.

Statistics is merely semi-random, not fully random; For example:
A. A roll of the dice. Â B. Â Where I might be 24 hours from now.
C. Brownian motion and Â D. Bose-Einstein condensates.

That's very interesting, because some physicists are saying that
physical things are "caused" to exist when they are observed into
existence by an observer.

If one "observes" randomness, or behaviour which satisfies the various
assumptions of probability theory, then can we not also say that this
"randomness" was _likewise_ "observed into existence" ? And not merely
an artifact of the imagination ???

Perhaps you can explain why it should be confined to the mind and not
the physical world.

BradGuth

Posted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 6:56 am

Guest

On Apr 19, 8:17 am, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

Quote:

On Apr 18, 3:46 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Apr 18, 12:28 pm, Igor <thoov...@excite.com> wrote:

On Apr 18, 2:19 pm, Sanny <softta...@hotmail.com> wrote:

When in School I learnt 2 things about Light

1. Light is a Wave

I was shown Lenses and other Experiments to proove Light is a wave.

2. When I grew up I was told Light is Electro Magnetic Wave.

Later I was Told
3. Magnetic and Electric Field in a light travel at 90`

Can we Change the angle of movement of Electric & Magnetic Field? How
can we say they are perpendicular.

Later I was told Light has photons and its energy is = h*u

So light is a Particle moving at light Speed.

Then I was told Light is both Particle and Wave

Dont you feel things are getting Complex and Absurd.

After 12 years of my passing out of school I still want to know whats
the correct description of light.

See, there's your problem. Passing out. Maybe if you'd have just
stayed awake, you would know.

Explain how photons can even exist/coexist w/o the strong force or
perhaps the dark force gravitons (aka matter).
. -BradGuth

Perhaps it's the same reason you continue to post with nary a notion
about physics in particular and science in general.

So, you not only do not have an honest clue, but you obviously think
little of those of us asking questions. I should have known that Igor
wasn't here to constructive educate, or to otherwise share upon
anything that's the least bit outside of your terrestrial comfort
zone.

Photons can be created and coexist, but the energy of gravitons can't
possibly matter: is that it?
.. - Brad Guth

Page 2 of 18 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, ... 16, 17, 18 Next All times are GMT - 5 Hours The time now is Sun Sep 07, 2008 5:29 pm Science Forum Index