juuonse me 2

Agreed!

agreed

Have u ever seen a pzzy

@@sosadagod6963 AHAHAHAA HAHAHA-HAA..!!!🤣

Thats uhh... you know theres a site for that stuff ;///

Waves.

😂If the Universe held even one secret, in the truest sense of the word, do you think anyone of us would be able to find it, that the Universe would even hand it over, not keep it a secret...my point is the Universe has no secrets.

Did the particles looked like small circulars lights?

@@TheYoli182 yes round but at the same time it look like small sparkles just crashing with each other.

It might have been white blood cells flowing past the retina.

I see them everytime. Just googled

I just thought I had bad eyes like when people see floaters. I wonder if floaters are subatomic particles

i can see them when i allow my eyes not to converge by looking watching the waves they are just like the video except more brilliant what does it mean?

@@Oakly1152 they're literally your veins and capillaries in your eyes. and the circles could be explained as cells?

Seen it too

You can also if you steady your eyes and body and look at pure white snow in the cold - particles 'appear' to pop in and shoot out like in this video

Hmm!

This is good

It's even simpler: Human beings experience something and their minds find a reason for or explanation for it from the things man already knows and/or the closest resembling idea or thing. In this case, as in many others like it if not all, of course the commonest one is God...or angels, or ufos, or demons, or fairies, or hallucination, drug effects, etc. etc. That's it. And perhaps they are right, but without an explanation at all, the human being's mind still subconsciously or on its own say, files the unknown into a known category. Makes sense as well, doesn't it? ☺

is that dust particles, a cool thing is ice particles

Dust

Really? How so?

@@josuepena8284 at shower water on the eyelashes look into the lamp and focus

@@RatChad those are definitely water drops bro... there are plenty of water molecules in them

They are! This is just lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (

Anyone who reads or sees this, just know: TROLL😂

urm water vapor?

Agreed, But god forbid if we challenge mainstream dogma..Op. I mean science

@@Bruvva_initiate Science by it's very nature has no dogma. Experiments are always being challenged and have to be replicated to become accepted by other scientists. Only then does it become mainstream.

@@soupbonep I can certainly see your point and I agree, my comment was rather narrow. Thank you sir

@@Bruvva_initiate You are very welcome!🙂

This is just lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (

It happens to everyone , they are not subatomic particles , they are called eye floaters , this happens when very small part of tissue or a rbc comes in front of our retina within our eye and we can see it when we get direct light in our eyes. At this point our eyes somewhat do act like microscope but they are no where as powerful as to see subatomic particles

If you want more information just search eye floaters on youtube

You can its not a floater

see a psychiatrist, wacko

I have seen them with the naked eye. I'll just say, yes it's possible, but rare...yet not worth much but a really cool experience, or a story to tell your friends. Eye floaters are black or greyish, whereas Light is rainbow-colored, just one difference fyi😊

You can buy Thorium online, although it's very expensive, and only in limited quantities as foil or wire.

Thoriated tungsten welding rod. Cheap, easily available commodity item.

And the experiment is nothing but lies!! What you see is their tracks. We will *never ever* be able to see the subatomic particles directly, sub-atomic particles are mental constructs obtained by physicists with thinking on the observations of their presence, what we see with our detection equipment are the effects of the presence of sub-atomic particles. With everything in the micro micro micro world of sub-atomic particles, it is seeing through their effect in the environment, we devise to in a way place the sub-atomic particles into, and we observe then their result i.e. effect supposedly caused by their presence in the environment. One theory states that the resolution required to "see" subatomic particles is very high (

Astigmatism? Cause I have server astigmatism and I also can see particles in the air when I’m not ignoring them.

@@heroicflows9691 the Buddha saw it. It's called kalapas.

@@heroicflows9691 mainstream loves to give you a sickness and subscribe to pills that destroy your inner temple

@@phenomsmithjr they are referring to chemistry and optics, not religion. Remember: It's not science if you involve religion into it.

@@sackofwetmice428 what? Truth is above all religion. I said nothing about religion. You aren't aware of who you're talking to and what I Know and have seen. Educate yourself.

Kunt Fart He already did but we are not ready for it yet

0:50

😂I can see causes.

jordana309 better shows the amount of energy released. I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying just suggesting why they may have took that route

Thanks for your suggestion. It is more impressive to see tons of energy released in seconds than over a year...good point. Still, the psychological impact is not wonderful. I'm a nuclear engineering student, and so I'm very sensitive to how such a perception of nuclear is killing off the most helpful energy innovation in the history of man (the reason I got into nuclear engineering).

jordana309 I'm not sure you can really call it green energy since the waste takes so long to decay to safe activity levels. I'm much more of a fan of wind power, however storage is obviously a big issue for it. Alternatively, fusion is pretty clean, once we get that working, and has probably got far more potential than fission does, I would argue. But granted, the bomb wasn't the most pleasant example that could have been given.

andymcl92, OneBagTravel First, if you look at the waste generated producing solar panels and wind turbines, the spent fuel that's thrown away in nuclear is pretty on par, or even better, yet we still call those "green". Wind and solar require a lot of exotic materials (rare earths, nearly 1000 pounds of neodymium magnets for one turbine) which are so toxic and harmful to refine that only one place on earth is willing to destroy their environment to do so. And solar panels? We have mountains of dead panels (they only last 10-20 years) just sitting around, leaching toxic elements into the water because nobody thought of an end game for them. Nuclear thought of an end game, and we have several really effective ones, but we aren't allowed to use them. For example, we can build reactors (called "fast" reactors) that use the water reactor's spent fuel as it's fuel, and the time to safe decay for the spent fuel from those reactors is around 300 years, with almost no transuranics. The spent fuel also produces a lot of heat, which can be used to generate power in other ways (like as an augmentation for thermal updraft towers). The fact that we waste an incredible amount of heat baffles me. Additionally, we can be using reactors to breed useful elements, like radioactive elements for medicine, food treatment, sanitation, sensing, etc, but we don't because people are so afraid of radiation that they turn to chemical solutions with unknown long-term effects or very expensive alternatives. In fact, we have a cure for many cancers called targeted alpha therapy that is the cancer cure stuff of dreams. But nobody is willing to build a reactor that can produce the needed isotopes, so we rely on chemotherapy and thousands needlessly suffer. Any problems in nuclear are not technical ones, you can trust me on that one. Fusion is a moonshot, and can't come close to competing with fission due to efficiency (energy in vs energy out). The problem is we've been obsessed with water-based reactors for too long. They are the absolute worst reactor technology we could have adopted for civilian power, and yet even so they are still the best thing for energy that exists in terms of power out to waste produced. But politics won't allow better alternatives to be built in the US. Now don't get me wrong--I'm not anti-solar or wind. But when you look at the entire life cycle, not just one aspect, nothing competes with nuclear. People often just focus on a single aspect--the generation capabilities of wind or solar, for example, with no regard for manufacture, disposal, or the nightmare of integrating them into the grid. Or of the spent fuel for nuclear, without any regard to the incredible amounts of steady, reliable, emissions-free power it produces. We need to consider the entire life cycle of the production method.

jordana309 I'm by no means an expert in any of these areas, and will happily bow to your superior knowledge on (especially) fission. However, here in Scotland we have wind pretty well embedded in the grid and I believe we were fairly recently running entirely on wind for a day or so. To my knowledge, the initial footprint isn't as terrible as you seem to suggest and the upkeep is relatively small, and it also leaves vast areas of land largely free for flora and fauna to flourish. [Try saying that 10times fast!] Whitelee Windfarm (near me) is a gigantic moor that can't be built upon for housing etc. and so the wildlife is protected. And at the moment, I know fusion isn't efficient enough, but it does have great potential, and I believe the Jet reactor is coming close to being efficient (though for tiny periods of time). Plus, a byproduct is Helium which also has the potential to be immensely useful in medicine, and is at present a finite resource.

Tell them to wait until CIA guy arrive, they are on the way

Coby Randal depends on the relative binding energy of the nuclei involved. Generally speaking.... not gonna work. Best option for future energy generation is fusion (search: ITER) - waste product is Helium

murk1e fusion reactors are not that clean, at least with our current technologies. I think the future is thorium, fairly abundant and chance of meltdown is nearly zero

maelgugi they are much, much cleaner than fission. Orders of magnitude cleaner - and like fission, no CO2 (For anyone not in the know, the reactor vessel is irradiated - much lower volume of material than for fission)

A couple days after you guys posted, this new article on Fusion came up. I thought you might like to see it: www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/12/the-future-of-energy-isnt-fossil-fuels-or-renewables-its-nuclear-fusion/#f27b7673beeb

British jerk wad

Bodell91 Congratulations! A member of the team will be along shortly with your prize.