| |
| The sky |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| EV33 |
 Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: The sky |
 |
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: Washington State
|
I have a few question regarding light and the sky.
My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Sun Apr 27, 2008 7:22 pm Post subject: Re: The sky |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 828
|
| EV33 wrote: |
I have a few question regarding light and the sky.
My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red? |
Violet light makes up most of the spectrum contained in white light when divided by prism.
When you put white light through a prism, you will see that the violet is created by the thicker part of the prism.
It used to be because the prism accelerates light. The thicker the part of the prism the more violet, the thinner the part of the prism the more red.
But remember a prism is solid and accelerates light/electrons.
This same reasoning holds true with light being stopped by very thin sheets of gold, that are believed to be 90 percent space or were believed to be 90 percent space. The light that hits the gold accelerates, so that it is no longer in the light band, when it exits.
Why is the sky red at sunset? Probably because the amount of atmosphere you are looking through is deep enough and hot enough, to create red light effects. It is able to slow the light down to red light speeds.
You probably will not get those effects in winter. The light from the sun is slowed in the summer, and this causes the red color. Atmosphere/gas slows things down. Because it is dielectric. Unlike the surface of the moon. One of the reasons the stars are not visible on camera.
A good telescope uses Argon I believe as a dielectric to slow down rays that are moving faster then light, to light speed so we can see them.
Your eyes are just the most outrageous electrical sensors there are.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 1905
Location: South Africa
|
Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Janus |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:17 am Post subject: Re: The sky |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 192
|
| EV33 wrote: |
I have a few question regarding light and the sky.
My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies?
|
The atmosphere doesn't absorb the higher frequencies better, it scatters it better. Scattering means that it changes the direction it travels. The sky is blue because this frequency of light is "bounced around" by the atmosphere so much that it is spread out over the whole sky.
| Quote: |
Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red? |
If more of the higher frequencies are scattered out, that only leaves the lower frequenices to be coming from the direction of the Sun, so you see these colors predominately when you look in the direction of Sunset or Sunrise.
_________________
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone
Edit/Delete Message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| sunshinewarrior |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: The sky |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Posts: 940
Location: London
|
Evie
Whilst William McCormick has 'interesting' ideas, they're not scienitific mainstream (and not, according to most here, even coherent). So if you're looking for good answers with which to explain textbook statements, be wary of William's.
| EV33 wrote: |
I have a few question regarding light and the sky.
My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies? |
Scattering is because of refraction, not absorption (in general). As it happens, in the spectrum visible to humans, the atmosphere behaves in that particular manner - refracting the violet end of the spectrum more than the red end (with a relatively smooth gradient in between).
I cannot explain the quantum mechanical interactions of permittivity and so on (primarily through not knowing a thing about it myself), but you can understand these issues without recourse to that, by merely thinking of school level refraction and internal reflection experiments: the violet component of white light bends more as it goes through a prism than the red component, whih is why we can use prisms to create a spectrum. (If I'm talking about something you haven't done/don't understand, I apologise. Tell me and I'll start again from even more basic ideas - but for now I'm assuming you understand and have seen how a prism works.)
Now the scattering comes about because of repeated refraction and some internal reflection of the light as it passes through our atmosphere - all the layers of varying density and the atended water vapour, often in suspended drops of water. Since the blue is affected more strongly, it is what the atmosphere is most able to divert in all directions - the reds and other components being likelier to go in straight lines until they hit something opaque and are absorbed.
That's basically it, as I understand it - though someone more knowledgeable will no doubt be able to explain it better, or even tell me that I'm entirely wrong!
| EV33 wrote: |
| Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red? |
I always interpret sunsets as simply meaning that from that angle the bluer portions are refracted/scattered so much they do not even get to us, whereas the straighter lines of the red component of sunlight are less bent by the greater thickness of atmosphere between us and the horizon (like looking through a lens sideways inside of from fornt to back) so we get to see them.
Again, someone more knowledgeable could correct me if I'm badly wrong... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| EV33 |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Freshman
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Posts: 58
Location: Washington State
|
| Thank you for the help that answers all my questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 828
|
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma. |
What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
I am telling you that a whole civilization existed in America, and built the things you can no longer build. With velocity as the basis of understanding. Velocity isolated the elements. And did the work to create the periodic table up to element 86.
Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.
That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.
Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.
That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.
What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.
In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.
We could use equipment here on earth and foretell the coming of such an event as a newly created star in another solar system immediately.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: The sky |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 828
|
| sunshinewarrior wrote: |
Evie
Whilst William McCormick has 'interesting' ideas, they're not scienitific mainstream (and not, according to most here, even coherent). So if you're looking for good answers with which to explain textbook statements, be wary of William's.
| EV33 wrote: |
I have a few question regarding light and the sky.
My text book tells me that violet light is scattered the most, followed by blue, green, yellow, orange, and red in that order. Now is this because most of the particles and molecules in the earths atmosphere absorb the higher frequencies better, or is it because there is more of the higher frequencies? |
Scattering is because of refraction, not absorption (in general). As it happens, in the spectrum visible to humans, the atmosphere behaves in that particular manner - refracting the violet end of the spectrum more than the red end (with a relatively smooth gradient in between).
I cannot explain the quantum mechanical interactions of permittivity and so on (primarily through not knowing a thing about it myself), but you can understand these issues without recourse to that, by merely thinking of school level refraction and internal reflection experiments: the violet component of white light bends more as it goes through a prism than the red component, whih is why we can use prisms to create a spectrum. (If I'm talking about something you haven't done/don't understand, I apologise. Tell me and I'll start again from even more basic ideas - but for now I'm assuming you understand and have seen how a prism works.)
Now the scattering comes about because of repeated refraction and some internal reflection of the light as it passes through our atmosphere - all the layers of varying density and the atended water vapour, often in suspended drops of water. Since the blue is affected more strongly, it is what the atmosphere is most able to divert in all directions - the reds and other components being likelier to go in straight lines until they hit something opaque and are absorbed.
That's basically it, as I understand it - though someone more knowledgeable will no doubt be able to explain it better, or even tell me that I'm entirely wrong!
| EV33 wrote: |
| Then later in my book it talks about why the sky turns red at sunset. From my book I get the impression that we see what is scattered. So if more of the high frequency light is scattered because it travels a further distance, then why would the sky begin to turn red? |
I always interpret sunsets as simply meaning that from that angle the bluer portions are refracted/scattered so much they do not even get to us, whereas the straighter lines of the red component of sunlight are less bent by the greater thickness of atmosphere between us and the horizon (like looking through a lens sideways inside of from fornt to back) so we get to see them.
Again, someone more knowledgeable could correct me if I'm badly wrong... |
Have you ever seen a blue laser beam? It appears to disperse less then a red laser. Look at stars they are a white blue light. They travel in a tight path to us for observation. I don't see to many red stars, do you?
Red disperses more easily because the beam that creates it is of a low velocity. Much of the power from other solar systems suns. Comes to us as rays traveling faster then light. However in our atmosphere, they are slowed to give us a fresh picture of the star in another solar system.
Thick/deep atmosphere that is hot or excited will slow rays from the sun. As you do that, the color of the sky could easily go from the blue to yellow/orange or red.
The sun is white if viewed from outer space, without an atmosphere to slow it.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| JaneBennet |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Masters Degree
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 594
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma. |
What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach? |
Here you go again. Look. Light is a form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. EM radiation comes in different forms, but all have the same speed of propagation. The different forms of EM radiation differ not in their speed but in their frequency, and in their wavelength (which is inversely proportional to frequency). Thus, red light has a lower frequency (higher wavelength) than blue light.
You do have a great imagination (that’s what impresses me). There is a lot of technical stuff in physics and maths you don’t understand – but such is your great imagination that you can “explain” everything with your imaginative (but often wild) theories. You should try writing a science-fiction novel. I’m sure if you wrote one, it would be a bestseller.  (I’m not joking, I’m serious. I honestly believe that the sci-fi world would greatly benefit from your input – that you could really make a great contribution there.  )
_________________
“A problem worthy of attack
Proves its worth by fighting back.”
– Piet Hein
Did You Know?
Fact of the day: Ferdinand von Lindemann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
| William McCormick wrote: |
That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.
Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point. |
Why do "simultaneous", for lack of a better term, light rays have to reach the focal point at the same time? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Janus |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 192
|
[quote="William McCormick"]
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma. |
What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
[quote/]It is demonstrated every time we examine the spectrum of a distant supernova. If light of different frequencies traveled at different speeds then the different colors of the spectrum would brighten and dim at different times. They do not, they brighten and dim together.
| Quote: |
Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.
That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.
Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.
That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.
|
I seen veryt few lenses which had a focal length half that of the lens radius, but even so: Assume that you have a lens with a 6 cm radius and a 3 cm focal length. Light travels at 30,000,000,000 cm/sec meaning it would take the light only 0.0000000001 of a second longer to travel from the edge to focal point than from the center to the focal point. So what? This isn't anything that is cause any noticable difference in the image. Imperfections in the lens itself would cause more problems.
| Quote: |
What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.
In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.
Sincerely,
William McCormick |
Stuff and nonsense. If this were true then we would never see the brightening of the Supernovae I mentioned above at all. The light would take longer to "energize a path to us" than the event lasts. The super nova would fade out before we ever saw it.
Also, certain radar systems would not work if what you claimed were correct.
These radar sets work by transmitting a radio pulse and then timing how long it takes for the pulse to bounce off an object and return. They have both a transmitter and a receiver. But they are not on at the same time. The transmitter sends the pulse then shuts off, then the receiver turns on to wait for the pulse to return. Since the transmitter has quit transmitting before the receiver is even turned on, according to your view, the receiver would never sense the pulse, and this radar set wouldn't work. But radar sets of this design do work and work just as they are expected to with the present understanding of light transmission and speed.
_________________
"Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone
Edit/Delete Message |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| serpicojr |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 17 Jul 2007
Posts: 1128
Location: JRZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 828
|
| JaneBennet wrote: |
| William McCormick wrote: |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma. |
What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach? |
Here you go again. Look. Light is a form of electromagnetic (EM) radiation. EM radiation comes in different forms, but all have the same speed of propagation. The different forms of EM radiation differ not in their speed but in their frequency, and in their wavelength (which is inversely proportional to frequency). Thus, red light has a lower frequency (higher wavelength) than blue light.
You do have a great imagination (that’s what impresses me). There is a lot of technical stuff in physics and maths you don’t understand – but such is your great imagination that you can “explain” everything with your imaginative (but often wild) theories. You should try writing a science-fiction novel. I’m sure if you wrote one, it would be a bestseller. (I’m not joking, I’m serious. I honestly believe that the sci-fi world would greatly benefit from your input – that you could really make a great contribution there. ) |
Click on the image to view it at its original size
Electromagnetic energy is set by the source. There is certainly a velocity involved. An oscilloscope will record a time difference in high and low voltage sources connected to a common terminal. Meaning that the higher voltage not only gets there but gets there more quickly.
Both sources of power, start at the exact moment. However the high voltage source, delivers more pressure further in the same amount of time.
Or in the same length wire, it will deliver more pressure in the same amount of time.
Most electronics are blind to this. And just pump out a frequency. That will be deciphered properly when it gets there and the equipment syncs with the communication.
Violet delivers the same energy as red in a much shorter time period. The reason is that Violet allows a lot of power to dissipate in the object vibrating at such a high frequency, nearing that of darkness.
The object is becoming more dense and less abundant with electrons, when violet is visible. That means that ambient radiation is beginning to rocket through the object. Rather then just sit in the object banging around, expanding it, repelling more ambient radiation.
Violet and its frequency is just the effect of ambient radiation racing through the object more quickly then say red. As the ambient radiation only glances and accelerates off the atoms in the object. The incident of collision is great. Small tiny taps on each atom as ambient radiation passes through.
With slower colors like red, the ambient radiation rattles back and forth within the object, it takes time to reverse direction in a zigzag pattern or travel.
That is why high temperature heating coils and elements are so finicky. To remain red, orange or yellow can put a lot of strain on the element. Having ambient radiation continuously, banging around inside of the element, and nearly blowing it apart. It often only takes a slight increase in voltage or a little tap to destroy a hot element, often with explosive force. The reason is that it is super abundant with high repellent ambient radiation electrons.
I guess my point is that the vibrations of matter are caused by something. It is not the substance. Because we can make almost any substance emit almost any frequency. Baring it does not cause its destruction. It is the ambient radiation that causes the vibrations.
Jane did you know that women tend to speak at a higher frequency then men? And that higher frequency communication is often ignored or not heard? By actual experimentation. Good thing you type like a man. Ha-ha.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| KALSTER |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 08 Sep 2007
Posts: 1905
Location: South Africa
|
I am simply astounded by the sheer volume of nonsense you can come up with. You sure love to ascribe a lot of phenomena to ambient radiation, huh? You appear completely oblivious to just how insane your theories are and how blatantly obviously they are wrong. I am also rather sure that no amount of explanation would ever get through to you. You keep on taking over threads and killing them off with your ramblings. I am waiting to see how long it is before you are banned as an indicator of the efficiency of this forum.
_________________
"Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| William McCormick |
| Posted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Ph.D.
Joined: 03 Apr 2008
Posts: 828
|
[quote="Janus"]
| William McCormick wrote: |
| KALSTER wrote: |
| Not again! William McCormick, ALL light travels at the same speed. Everything from low infra red to gamma. |
What scientist proved this? What scientist is above reproach?
[quote/]It is demonstrated every time we examine the spectrum of a distant supernova. If light of different frequencies traveled at different speeds then the different colors of the spectrum would brighten and dim at different times. They do not, they brighten and dim together.
| Quote: |
Look at some convex lenses. The distance from the focal point and the lens, to the center of the lens may be as much as half the distance, from the focal point to the outer perimeter of the lens.
That would create a time distortion, at the current, believed speed of light. Because one set of rays would have to travel at twice the speed of light to bring a current image.
Because one set of rays the ones from the perimeter, would have to travel twice the distance, to keep a single image sending a current image to the focus point.
That is just one simple way that you can prove that the speed of light is much faster, then what is claimed.
|
I seen veryt few lenses which had a focal length half that of the lens radius, but even so: Assume that you have a lens with a 6 cm radius and a 3 cm focal length. Light travels at 30,000,000,000 cm/sec meaning it would take the light only 0.0000000001 of a second longer to travel from the edge to focal point than from the center to the focal point. So what? This isn't anything that is cause any noticable difference in the image. Imperfections in the lens itself would cause more problems.
| Quote: |
What they have been measuring is the amount of time it takes to energize a beam of light. However that is not related to the speed of what actually creates it.
In other words we would not see a new sun created in another solar system for a long while, as a beam of light energized a path to us. However once lit, if the distant sun went out, we could see that it went out, as it went out.
Sincerely,
William McCormick |
Stuff and nonsense. If this were true then we would never see the brightening of the Supernovae I mentioned above at all. The light would take longer to "energize a path to us" than the event lasts. The super nova would fade out before we ever saw it.
Also, certain radar systems would not work if what you claimed were correct.
These radar sets work by transmitting a radio pulse and then timing how long it takes for the pulse to bounce off an object and return. They have both a transmitter and a receiver. But they are not on at the same time. The transmitter sends the pulse then shuts off, then the receiver turns on to wait for the pulse to return. Since the transmitter has quit transmitting before the receiver is even turned on, according to your view, the receiver would never sense the pulse, and this radar set wouldn't work. But radar sets of this design do work and work just as they are expected to with the present understanding of light transmission and speed. |
Look at the formula for figuring frequency and wave length. It does not need to know how fast the wave or radiation is traveling. It just needs to know, how quickly it can send a transmission and still have the capacitor (receiving antenna), or target aircraft polarize and un- polarize before the next signal.
Regardless of how quickly it is getting there.
You could base your radar on power of signal as well. The power that is returned would also tell the story of how far off the plane is. In fact if you did not know, you could do this. You might perceive the time it takes to charge a capacitor that records distance, as the time it took the wave to travel. Rather then the amount of power that is reaching the capacitor or receiving antenna.
I have built radios before. You can build an am radio with one triac, an antenna and a tuner.
As far as the color of the super nova, it is not far enough away to cause a problem with the speed of ambient radiation delivering color to you. That is how fast ambient radiation is. What takes place across the Universe, can be detected here almost instantly. Using certain types of sensing equipment.
Also at those distances light is not what is being sent. A faster velocity communication is being converted over distance, or slowed to near light speed. When you record it. Your apparatus is just receiving what ever it decides is or was the light from the object you are viewing. Much like night vision glasses.
There is only a slight difference in the velocity of different color particles. I mean a very small difference. That is why it goes undetected by all but the best scientists.
Once a beam is initiated, it does not take anytime to lower or raise the power or color of light. The channel is open. Just like the carrier wave of a radio, opens the gate on a receiving radio, to power the speaker. At that point, different voltage signals contained in the time frame or cycle or frequency, can be heard as different sounds from the speaker.
You can do the same thing with light as well. Use it as a radio wave. I believe it was first done in the eighteen hundreds.
Click on the image to view it at its original size
This is from a book with a copyright of 1878.
They cannot even detect the rays pushing us to earth yet, Gravity. They are electrons, ambient radiation, electricity.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
_________________
http://www.Rockwelder.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
Page 1 of 4 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
