It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: ImaFungi
There was nothing wrong with the example GallopingFish already gave of the runner running around cones in a squiggly path. You're just restating different versions of that.
But none of those apply to electromagnetic propagation, as there is nothing following a squiggly line in EM propagation.
a reply to: GallopingFish
Yes I already understood your runner example, but do you understand now why that doesn't apply to EM radiation? There are no squiggly paths in EM radiation. There are varying field strengths.
No the circle I referred to was if you drop a pebble in a pond and look down, you see circular ripples in the water going out from where the pebble hit, and you can call those waves. So let's start with those water waves since they are easy to visualize.
originally posted by: GallopingFish
Ok i am beginning to understand now, but my mind works in more of a visual manner.
EM radiation described as waves is a misleading description for a visualizer, What you are saying is that the construct if i can call it that is not a wave. If i looked at the EM radiation coming strait at me and could see it it would look like a circle.
Yes, or refer to one of the EM spectrum summary charts. I like this one, because it shows both frequency and wavelength. The red squiggly line is obviously not to scale though because it covers 16 orders of magnitude and only shows one, because showing 16 would be impractical or impossible.
originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Doesn't work like that. Gamma and radio refer to different specific frequency ranges of the EM spectrum.
Read through these lessons www.physicsclassroom.com... I think they will help tremendously.