Notices
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 101 to 172 of 172

Thread: Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour?

  1. #101  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by c186282
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Another possible objection to your above calculations is that the eye is slightly more sensitive to blue than violet anyway when you see it reproduced on the screen.

    To mathematically increase the amount of blue because it is slightly brighter than violet may be entirely unnecessary therefore if if looks brighter on the screen anyway.

    It's like mixing equal amounts of yellow and red to produce orange and then saying because yellow is 3 or 4 times brighter than red you really should be adding 3 or 4 times as much yellow to make it look more realistic............... But this isn't really necessary. The yellow looks brighter anyway.

    Do you see where I am coming from?
    Quit talking and do the math!
    I don't believe you have done any maths yourself. You are just trying to create a big impression.

    All you have done is to wave your mathematical magic wand to make all the violet light disappear.

    This isn't real at all.

    You don't have answers to any of the questions I raise about your calculations. Why is this?

    Please explain why the violet light disappears from your final colour strip
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I don't believe you have done any maths yourself. You are just trying to create a big impression.
    I'm a PhD physicists I do math in my sleep. But that does not help you. You have to do your own math.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    All you have done is to wave your mathematical magic wand to make all the violet light disappear.
    Yes and if you learned how to do math you to can play with the "magic" of real logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    This isn't real at all.
    You don't have answers to any of the questions I raise about your calculations. Why is this?
    Please explain why the violet light disappears from your final colour strip
    I have given you everything you need to play with the math yourself. There is nothing more I can do. You have to start doing your own thinking and calculations.

    Here are some links
    color science
    Spectra data

    Here are some links to some open source computer software to help you do the calculations:
    Sage Computer algebra (I have not used this I use Mathematica)
    R This is statistics based software. (like S but free.)
    pythonxy If you were to spend the time to learn just one I would suggest this one.
    octave If you know Matlab but do not what to pay for Matlab try Octave.

    If you have math Anxiety try this: The Causes and Prevention of Math Anxiety

    And finally if you what to remain stupid you may enjoy this: Flat Earth Society (sorry galexander but you pushed me over the edge)

    However, If you do sincerely what to do one of these calculations yourself I will help.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by c186282
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I don't believe you have done any maths yourself. You are just trying to create a big impression.
    I'm a PhD physicists I do math in my sleep. But that does not help you. You have to do your own math.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    All you have done is to wave your mathematical magic wand to make all the violet light disappear.
    Yes and if you learned how to do math you to can play with the "magic" of real logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    This isn't real at all.
    You don't have answers to any of the questions I raise about your calculations. Why is this?
    Please explain why the violet light disappears from your final colour strip
    I have given you everything you need to play with the math yourself. There is nothing more I can do. You have to start doing your own thinking and calculations.

    Here are some links
    color science
    Spectra data

    Here are some links to some open source computer software to help you do the calculations:
    Sage Computer algebra (I have not used this I use Mathematica)
    R This is statistics based software. (like S but free.)
    pythonxy If you were to spend the time to learn just one I would suggest this one.
    octave If you know Matlab but do not what to pay for Matlab try Octave.

    If you have math Anxiety try this: The Causes and Prevention of Math Anxiety

    And finally if you what to remain stupid you may enjoy this: Flat Earth Society (sorry galexander but you pushed me over the edge)

    However, If you do sincerely what to do one of these calculations yourself I will help.
    I insist c186282, you are deliberately trying to blind us all with science. This is a classic ploy.

    You consistently refuse to answer even the simplest of questions and instead refer us 'higher algebraic equations' and 'esoteric data' that most of us haven't the time or the inclination to wade through.

    You claim to have done all the calculations and insist that violet light does not exist in the final colour strip and fail to see that you have not convinced.

    And by the way I could equally have referred yourself to the Flat Earth Society....... ..........but perhaps you haven't heard about it yet! Have you seen some of my other threads on physics. You may be in for a shock!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I insist c186282, you are deliberately trying to blind us all with science. This is a classic ploy.
    I would say "enlighten" instead of blind. And yes this is the classic ploy of scientific progress.

    Hey it has been fun. In playing with this stuff I have downloaded a large spectra library from the USGS and have written many color functions in Mathematica. But I have to get back to some real work.

    So enjoy your strange little world with the purple sky, I have done all I can. :
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I insist c186282, you are deliberately trying to blind us all with science. This is a classic ploy. You consistently refuse to answer even the simplest of questions and instead refer us 'higher algebraic equations' and 'esoteric data' that most of us haven't the time or the inclination to wade through.
    Esoteric data my ass. This response of yours clearly demonstrates your desire to remain ignorant and stew in your own juices. You clearly have some mental deficiency that causes you to think you somehow instinctively can know better about extensively tested knowledge without actually understanding much of what is going on. I fully expect a "I know you are, but what am I" type response, incapable of admitting that your questions have been answered, but you are just too lazy to learn enough to be able to understand it. Have a nice time in your Lala land of self delusion. Hopefully reality will someday smack you in the face so you can then finally move forward towards really learning about your surroundings. The bad thing will be realizing just how much time you have been wasting acting like an obstinate and indignant teenager.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by c186282
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    I insist c186282, you are deliberately trying to blind us all with science. This is a classic ploy.
    I would say "enlighten" instead of blind. And yes this is the classic ploy of scientific progress.

    Hey it has been fun. In playing with this stuff I have downloaded a large spectra library from the USGS and have written many color functions in Mathematica. But I have to get back to some real work.

    So enjoy your strange little world with the purple sky, I have done all I can. :
    You didn't answer the simple questions I put to you.

    You were stonewalling.

    If you are not prepared to properly debate the subject and are constantly on the defensive it is only because you know you are wrong.

    End of story.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    I insist c186282, you are deliberately trying to blind us all with science. This is a classic ploy. You consistently refuse to answer even the simplest of questions and instead refer us 'higher algebraic equations' and 'esoteric data' that most of us haven't the time or the inclination to wade through.
    Esoteric data my ass. This response of yours clearly demonstrates your desire to remain ignorant and stew in your own juices. You clearly have some mental deficiency that causes you to think you somehow instinctively can know better about extensively tested knowledge without actually understanding much of what is going on. I fully expect a "I know you are, but what am I" type response, incapable of admitting that your questions have been answered, but you are just too lazy to learn enough to be able to understand it. Have a nice time in your Lala land of self delusion. Hopefully reality will someday smack you in the face so you can then finally move forward towards really learning about your surroundings. The bad thing will be realizing just how much time you have been wasting acting like an obstinate and indignant teenager.
    All you can do KALSTER is throw personal criticism at me.

    This is because your physics is so redundant you also cannot answer the simple questions I have put to c186282.

    You are not prepared to debate the subject in a reasoned and decent manner because you know you are wrong and refuse to admit the fact.

    I am not going to pay any attention at all to your silly, vindictive comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Ok, we are all wrong and you are right. Will you leave us alone now?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Bachelors Degree x(x-y)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    462
    Galexander:

    If you insist so much that Rayleigh Scattering is not the correct explanation for why the sky is blue, do you have a better explanation to put forward?
    "Nature doesn't care what we call it, she just does it anyway" - R. Feynman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by x(x-y)
    Galexander:

    If you insist so much that Rayleigh Scattering is not the correct explanation for why the sky is blue, do you have a better explanation to put forward?
    I have already put across a few tentative suggestions but I feel such explanations would have to be based upon experimental observations in the first instance rather than theory.

    I have already suggested that perhaps Argon, of which there is 1% in the atmosphere, can sometimes produce an electric blue in the presence of UV light.

    I have also suggested that perhaps the Earth's ionosphere was scattering light. The suggestion being that the charged particles interact with and scatter the electro-magnetic waves comprising light. The ionosphere has a peak density of only 10exp6 charged particles per cm3 but then again it is over 100km thick
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111 Why is the sky blue? 
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Good day!
    I would like to bring to your attention an article on somewhat different from the conventional view on the cause of the blueness of the sky.

    WHY IS THE SKY BLUE?


    "Blueness" of the sky in physics textbooks explain by Rayleigh scattering of light rays - that is, increase scattering in the blue part of the spectrum and decrease - in the red.

    Here he writes about the scattering of light Pasachoff, Jay M, in his book «Completed idiot's guide to the sun»: "When light bounces off tiny particles, we say that it is «scattered». Its direction changes, and it can bounce around. But the shorter the wavelength, the more effectively light is scattered. So blue light scatters more effectively than red light. ... When the scattering particles get bigger compared to the wavelength of light, don’t cause Rayleigh scattering any more. Then they scatter evenly across the spectrum. So though the particles that make the sky blue are small, larger particles merely spread out the sunlight in various directions. The larger molecules of water vapor that make up clouds spread out the sunlight evenly/ That is why clouds are white. ... As the sunlight travels through the air, it undergoes Rayleigh scattering. At sunset, that makes the sky blue for the people on the Earth between you and the setting Sun. Their blue skies subtract so much sunlight that is left appears reddish".

    We have to understand, that is a scattering of streams of elementary particles. Scattering - this is the same as the refraction - that is, deviation of the trajectories of elementary particles under the influence of Gravity Fields (Pulling Fields) of chemical elements. Indeed, to the violet end of the spectrum (but not to blue), the scattering of particles increases, and red - is reduced. But if we agree with scholars and find the cause of blue sky more scattering of blue light rays, then it would be logical to assume that the atmosphere should not be painted in blue, and purple, as the scattering of violet rays, even more than blue.

    Why do not we abandon this point of view and simply assume that the blue color of the atmosphere due to the presence in it of some substance with that color. Let us turn to the qualitative and quantitative composition of the air. "The air, a mixture of gases that make up the Earth's atmosphere: nitrogen (78.08%), oxygen (20.95%), inert gases (0,94%), carbon dioxide (0,03) ... liquid air - a bluish liquid "(Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary, edited by Prokhorov A. M., the article" Air ").

    Nitrogen, oxygen, inert gases and carbon dioxide - the optically transparent material with no color. But this liquid air - a bluish liquid, i.e. has the same color as the sky above us. In addition, the liquid oxygen - a light blue liquid. Is not there connection? Connection is. Obviously,.blueness of the atmosphere gives the ozone. In general, chemists know two main types of oxygen - normal, which usually surrounds us and which we breathe, and ozone, which is part of the ozone shield and is formed during thunderstorms.
    What is the difference between them?

    Oxygen - a very active oxidizing agent. The element oxygen has a light nucleus. In addition, a characteristic of the elements oxygen, combines it with other elements of the second group of the periodic table - is the presence in its superficial layers of the large percentage of the IR and radio photons of red (with, as you know, Repulsion Fields) as well as visible photons blue (with Gravity Field). Light nucleus, as well as great content in the surface layers of particles with Repulsion Fields (Antigravity Fields) is the reason that oxygen under standard conditions gas – i.e., manifests as a whole outside the total field of repulsion. However, the visible photons are blue (with Gravity Fields) are the reason for the existence on its surface zones, where the element manifests its Gravity Field. It is in these areas there is an accumulation by element free elementary particles (mainly of solar origin). But in areas where are located the particles with the Repulsion Fields, free particles do not accumulate.

    Ozone - it's the oxygen lost from the periphery partially or fully accumulated by it elementary particles. In a narrow sense, ozone is the only free oxygen lost free particles. And in a broadest sense, any element of oxygen lost from the periphery of free particles is in a state of ozone. It is in this "ozone" condition there is the oxygen in the composition of chemical compounds. This means that and in the water, and in the carbon dioxide the oxygen is in the state of the ozone.

    Chemically, ozone is more active than normal oxygen - that is, easily enter into chemical compounds. This feature is precisely due to the loss from the periphery of the accumulated free particles. The accumulation of particles increased the distance to the center of a chemical element, which reduced the Gravity Force directed to the center of this element. And also this element with less Force (Gravitation) are attracting by other elements. Exemption from the accumulated free particles led to the fact that the pursuit of this element to connect with other elements increases. For this reason, oxygen in the ozone state, is better gravitated to other elements and form with them chemical bonds.

    The presence of free particles in usual oxygen and the absence of these particles in ozone is the reason of differences in their coloring. Usual oxygen is colorless, and ozone – blue or light blue (this color - a light shade of blue, and not a self-color). Colorlessness of usual oxygen is explained by the predominance in its peripheral layers of IR and radio photons of red color. Their emission in response to a drop of sunlight does not cause us color sensation.

    That's why usual oxygen, whose peripheral layers are closed by accumulated particles, is colorless. But here at the oxygen in the ozone state the peripheral layers are open. Therefore, in the fall of the elementary particles into elements of ozone, is ejection visible photons, the inherent oxygen. And those elements of oxygen, which dominate the composition of the Earth, in the periphery of most are visible photons pure blue (i.e., not those that in the green or purple). These visible photons are among the blue visible photons have medium-sized Gravitational Fields. Hence the blue color of the oxygen in the ozone state.




    And now, some more of scientific facts in favor that the ozone is the cause of the blue color of the sky.

    "Those present in the Earth's atmosphere, vapors of water, carbon dioxide, ozone and other chemical compounds are intensely absorb infrared radiation (" Space Physics ", Ch. Editor Pikel'ner, the article " Infrared ").

    Infrared radiation - is the elementary particles of higher levels of Physical Plan, compared to optical photons. I.e. Gravitational Fields of these particles have a smaller magnitude, and Repulsion Fields greater than those of visible photons.

    The concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is too small to the cold oxygen can paint the air in blue color. However, the blueness of the depth water, and the bluish color of rain clouds, we can observe due to the large concentration of water molecules. In addition, the oxygen dissolve in the water additionally. The more oxygen dissolved in water, the more blue it is. Many would agree that in cold weather and in cold climates water is painted in a bright blue color. This is due to the fact that the lower the temperature of the atmosphere, the greater the concentration of oxygen near the surface of the earth (and water), and the easier it combines with hydrogen of water due to a strong gravitational fields of both elements - air oxygen and water hydrogen - in due to their low temperature.

    Rain clouds are blue again because of the fact that the constituent elements of water (hydrogen and oxygen) have lost a lot of accumulated of free particles, because of which become bare their peripheral particles with the Gravitational Fields, resulting in a Centripetal Gravitational Fields elements begin to be more pronounced outside. The result - the relationship between the water molecules become stronger, drops become larger. Clouds ready to shed the rain. Here we should note that chilled the chemical elements the planet's surface and ambient air take away particles accumulating by the elements of hydrogen and oxygen of water. That's why the rain begins to flow when the air temperature and surface decreases.

    "Ozone shield " - is nothing like a cold oxygen in the air in the stratosphere and the lower mesosphere at altitudes of 15-50 km. Most of all cold-oxygen (ozone) at an altitude of 15 km. The reason is that the air temperature at this altitude ranging from -45 to -75 degrees Celsius. Because the oxygen is there in the cold state - in the form of ozone.

    Color of the ozone shield - this is the color of the sky. In hot weather and in warm climates, the sky is called "above". The reason is that the higher the temperature of the atmosphere, the higher the concentration of oxygen in the upper atmosphere, and less than - the Earth's surface. Occurs a kind of intensification of the "ozone shield" - it gets more oxygen, which rises from the surface upwards.

    Therefore, from winter to summer in the Northern Hemisphere there is a gradual "rising of heaven." Ie visually perceiving by us "blueness" of sky as if is distanced (which corresponds to reality). It can also explain why the cold weather and in cold climates, "the sky falls." From summer to winter oxygen gradually approaches the surface. "Blueness" like coming down to the surface, and we can see in clear weather, sort of blueness of the surrounding air. The concentration of oxygen in the Earth's surface increases, while at the height of "ozone shield" falls.

    Namely the ozone "shield" and water vapors, dispersed in the atmosphere, give the Earth as seen from space, the blue color.

    There is another place where we can see the blue color of cold oxygen. This is the blood of animals and humans. More specifically, the venous blood.

    Loss from the periphery of the particles with the Repulsion Fields means that a chemical element is deprived of his "ether suppliers". Indeed, precisely because of the predominance in its structure of particles with Repulsion Fields usual oxygen manifests outside the total Repulsion Field. Thus, ozone has a weak Gravitational Field. As you know, elements with Gravitational Fields have the ability to dissipate the elementary particles. Ie they attract in its direction moving elementary particles, supporting, thus, their inertial motion and accelerating. As a result, solar elementary particles moving in the environment of the elements of ozone, bump into these elements more frequently and at higher speeds, as compared with the medium of the usual elements of oxygen. This fact and the fact that the periphery of the elements of ozone is devoid of particles with fields Repulsion and blue visible photons are therefore more exposed, leads to the fact that a greater number of blue visible photons emitted in response to a drop on them solar particle compared to a conventional oxygen . Hence the blue color of ozone and the bluish color of the compounds where oxygen is in a state of the ozone. In the carbon dioxide the ozone state of oxygen less pronounced compared to water, because carbon exhibits less strong metallic properties in comparison with hydrogen, and therefore in the formation of compounds with oxygen takes off from him less the particles from the periphery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    This should be merged into the existing Pseudoscience thread, IMHO.

    It has as much value.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    MeteorWayne wrote: This should be merged into the existing Pseudoscience thread, IMHO.

    It has as much value.


    Official science says that the sky is blue because the blue rays are scattered most. But violet are scattered even more - means. the sky is unusual and should be purple. But it is not, is not it?

    And what do you think is Pseudoscience?
    Unscientific research? If this study aimed to review the results and explanations of experiments, experiments and theories presented and received formal scientific school, then I for such "unscientific" research, because one should not assume if everything is explained correctly.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114 Re: Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour? 
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    galexander wrote: The official explanation for the sky’s blue colour is that it is caused by the Rayleigh scattering of light off gas molecules within the Earth’s atmosphere.
    But why is the sky not violet though? Violet light has a shorter wavelength than blue and if you look at the spectrum of white light, violet is also far more extensive than blue.


    Galexander, you and I think in one direction. I also excites the idea, why the sky is not purple, if violet rays are refracted once more. Before last year I wrote an article on this topic, but here you have it post it yesterday. It's called - "Why is the sky blue?" I look - and here is your theme on the same topic, and the same conclusions. This means that the normal sanity wins.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    MagiMaster wrote: I can't give a full answer, but there are two things I can think of here.
    One, the atmosphere, besides scattering light, also absorbs light, especially the UV (and probably some violet) spectrum, so the sky turns blue instead of violet.


    Yes, but are absorbed and the blue rays. And green, and yellow. Why then such a preponderance in the direction of the blue?
    In my opinion - it's all ozone. The blue color of the sky - the color of ozone, "cold" oxygen that has lost its surface infrared and radio photons of solar origin, which made him a colorless, when he was an ordinary oxygen.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,270
    I agree with MeteorWayne, this is very similar to the preexisting thread.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    And I agree with galexander, that in the topic "Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour?", also questioned the official version of the blue sky.
    Will have the desire, check this topic out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    The problem with a theory that says the lower frequency light is being absorbed by free atoms is that the Sun itself still looks yellow. The Sun is where the light is coming from, so if absorption were the cause for the blue sky, then it would be blue also.


    If there were no Raleigh scattering, the sky would not be blue, pink, orange, violet or any other color. It would simply be transparent. You'd be looking straight out into outer space. If anything it would be black just like how outer space is black. Even at noon you'd be able to see the stars.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Another argument in favor of the blue of Earth's atmosphere - it's just the color of one of the gases in its composition, namely, ozone.
    Take a look at Jupiter. Its atmosphere is reddish-orange color. So what? And here is guilty Rayleigh scattering, only in reverse? It turns out funny. All this conjecture is the blue sky of the Earth due to the greater scattering of blue light very far-fetched.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    So your theory is that the particles in the upper atmosphere reflect the light instead of refracting it?
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Rayleigh scattering - it is nothing like real attraction, through which the moving elementary particles (in this case, photons), one chastts more than others. Ie in photons, forming purple color, the attractive force with respect to the substance turns out to be the greatest, but the Reds - the lowest. That is why purple rejected (attract) the most and red - least of all.
    Do not forget that the main objects to which a law of gravity, are elementary particles such as photons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    kojax wrote: So your theory is that the particles in the upper atmosphere reflect the light instead of refracting it?

    But no, like, my theory is not about that.
    Substance in the atmosphere - that's the reason for its blue color. For example, if we release into the atmosphere of chlorine gas. It have a yellowish-greenish color. So, the air, where a high concentration of this gas will have a yellowish-greenish color. And it's no surprise. No one attributes this scattering. Everyone understands - is due to the presence of chlorine.
    So what is there we fuss? Liquid oxygen is blue. Is not it logical to assume that this is the color the atmosphere of oxygen, more precisely, the ozone?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    MagiMaster wrote: I can't give a full answer, but there are two things I can think of here.
    One, the atmosphere, besides scattering light, also absorbs light, especially the UV (and probably some violet) spectrum, so the sky turns blue instead of violet.


    Yes, but are absorbed and the blue rays. And green, and yellow. Why then such a preponderance in the direction of the blue?
    In my opinion - it's all ozone. The blue color of the sky - the color of ozone, "cold" oxygen that has lost its surface infrared and radio photons of solar origin, which made him a colorless, when he was an ordinary oxygen.
    Your opinion is scientifically ignorant, hence worthless. Science is not based on opinion, but physics and mathematics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Ozone is a minor percentage of the troposphere. Did you learn a new word and are trying to impress us? We are not amused.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    MeteorWayne:

    Your opinion is scientifically ignorant, hence worthless. Science is not based on opinion, but physics and mathematics.

    Once you are angry, then something in my arguments, you hurt.
    My opinion backed up by logical arguments. But your thesis is logically sound, I did not hear any conversation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    MeteorWayne:
    Ozone is a minor percentage of the troposphere. Did you learn a new word and are trying to impress us? We are not amused.

    Other gases are generally colorless. So that this small percentage is more than enough to make atmosphere bluish.
    Well, will continue to argue? Forward.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Quote Originally Posted by danina

    But no, like, my theory is not about that.
    Substance in the atmosphere - that's the reason for its blue color. For example, if we release into the atmosphere of chlorine gas. It have a yellowish-greenish color. So, the air, where a high concentration of this gas will have a yellowish-greenish color. And it's no surprise. No one attributes this scattering. Everyone understands - is due to the presence of chlorine.
    So what is there we fuss? Liquid oxygen is blue. Is not it logical to assume that this is the color the atmosphere of oxygen, more precisely, the ozone?
    I guess that makes sense. You can test this by experiment. Fill a glass jar with Ozone, situate it in a dark room, and then shine a flashlight on it.

    It's possible that the mechanism you are proposing could work. However that doesn't prove that it is the mechanism that is doing it. It's like if a person has the option to walk to work or take a train. Seeing them at work doesn't prove they took the train.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax
    Fill a glass jar with Ozone, situate it in a dark room, and then shine a flashlight on it.
    Why do I need to put a glass of ozone in the dark? Ozone - it's just gas. It will have a bluish color and without standing in the dark.
    But generally, I think that the color of ozone is not very pronounced, and therefore the cup of ozone is not enough to notice it a bluish tint.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    A more pressing issue with this theory, as previously stated, is that without refraction in the atmosphere we would only see colour in the sky when we look directly at the sun, as this is the source of the overwhelming majority of the light.

    Unless the light is refracted, the rest of the sky would not be lit up at all. We therefore know that light is refracted, and given this, it is reasonable to assume that Raleigh Scattering occurs.



    With regards to your theory: there is a hole in the ozone layer above the antarctic, and yet the sky is still blue. This suggests that ozone, if indeed it does absorb orange/red light, is not a major contributor to the blue colour of the sky.

    (Interestingly, according to a quick bit of research I did, ozone does absorb in the yellow/green and yellow/orange regions, which would give it a purplish colour... But it absorbs only very weakly.)
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    MagiMaster wrote: I can't give a full answer, but there are two things I can think of here.
    One, the atmosphere, besides scattering light, also absorbs light, especially the UV (and probably some violet) spectrum, so the sky turns blue instead of violet.


    Yes, but are absorbed and the blue rays. And green, and yellow. Why then such a preponderance in the direction of the blue?
    In my opinion - it's all ozone. The blue color of the sky - the color of ozone, "cold" oxygen that has lost its surface infrared and radio photons of solar origin, which made him a colorless, when he was an ordinary oxygen.
    Thanks for your educated opinion. It is nice to know I am not entirely alone.

    On the subject of the colour of ozone, Answers.com has the following to say:

    Ozone has an absorption / emission band in the range of "blue", so that is how we'd see it with our eyes... were it thick enough to more than add a hint of blue to our sky.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color...#ixzz1KqI3Na57
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Thanks for your educated opinion. It is nice to know I am not entirely alone.
    An unfortunate truth. The asylums are packed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    We already have a thread on this topic. Danina, please don't start new threads when it makes more sense to post in an existing one.

    Merging.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    With regards to your theory: there is a hole in the ozone layer above the antarctic, and yet the sky is still blue. This suggests that ozone, if indeed it does absorb orange/red light, is not a major contributor to the blue colour of the sky.
    The thing is that you're probably a little misunderstood what I was trying to say. Blue is not only pure ozone - that is, "Cold" oxygen in the free state. Oxygen in the composition of chemical compounds with the elements of metals (with a pronounced metallic properties) already assumes its "oznovoe" state, since staying in the composition of chemical compounds with the elements - metals can not be without this element of metal is not pulled over the elementary particles accumulate on the surface of the neighboring element (in this case, with oxygen). Hydrogen, for example, is the lightest known metals. It is he who makes water sparkle. So, the water - is a chemical compound. in which oxygen is also in the ozone state. That is why water is dissipated in the atmosphere - this is also the reason for the blue sky. Therefore, the ozone hole, though there are, but the water in the atmosphere too. Therefore, the blue skies over the poles.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    We already have a thread on this topic. Danina, please don't start new threads when it makes more sense to post in an existing one.

    Merging.
    I'm sorry, I did not saw a similar theme.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    It is nice to know I am not entirely alone.

    On the subject of the colour of ozone, Answers.com has the following to say:

    Ozone has an absorption / emission band in the range of "blue", so that is how we'd see it with our eyes... were it thick enough to more than add a hint of blue to our sky.

    Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_color...#ixzz1KqI3Na57
    I'm also glad that is not alone in seeking to reach the heads of conservatives to get them to wake up. Unfortunately, like you, sleepless, yet little in this world.
    Regarding your quote about the ozone band, this valuable information. Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Yeah, having galexander on your side really helps your credibility
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Yeah, having galexander on your side really helps your credibility
    To be honest, I do not like all these squabbles. I have enough awareness that some of my theories explain to me more than the officially recognized. I love the pure science, just observation and explanation of natural processes and phenomena.
    galeksandr time was now in solidarity with me, and I with him, it does not mean that we (You and me) are unable to agree on anything. But we certainly will not now seek common ground. If it be of God's will, they will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    It is clear that you know nothing at all about science.

    Squabble that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    It is clear that you know nothing at all about science.

    Squabble that.
    My knowledge is enough to understand what kind of person in front of me - a lot of skepticism, tediousness and moralistic, and few fresh ideas. I like creators and innovators and you for their number, to my deep regret, do not take. Learn from galeksandr to which you have a biased attitude.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    With regards to your theory: there is a hole in the ozone layer above the antarctic, and yet the sky is still blue. This suggests that ozone, if indeed it does absorb orange/red light, is not a major contributor to the blue colour of the sky.
    The thing is that you're probably a little misunderstood what I was trying to say. Blue is not only pure ozone - that is, "Cold" oxygen in the free state. Oxygen in the composition of chemical compounds with the elements of metals (with a pronounced metallic properties) already assumes its "oznovoe" state, since staying in the composition of chemical compounds with the elements - metals can not be without this element of metal is not pulled over the elementary particles accumulate on the surface of the neighboring element (in this case, with oxygen). Hydrogen, for example, is the lightest known metals. It is he who makes water sparkle. So, the water - is a chemical compound. in which oxygen is also in the ozone state. That is why water is dissipated in the atmosphere - this is also the reason for the blue sky. Therefore, the ozone hole, though there are, but the water in the atmosphere too. Therefore, the blue skies over the poles.
    Are you trying to say that water vapour (which is actually slightly blue) causes the blue colour of the atmosphere?

    Fine, a fair enough theory - except that you haven't addressed the other point I made; why is the whole sky blue, and not just the bit directly between my eyes and the sun?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Are you trying to say that water vapour (which is actually slightly blue) causes the blue colour of the atmosphere?

    why is the whole sky blue, and not just the bit directly between my eyes and the sun?
    Yes, I'm trying to say that the oxygen in the water s in the "ozone" condition and, therefore, water vapor also serve the cause of the blue sky.

    I did not understand, you are asking why the sky is blue everywhere, not just between the eye and the sun? Or what? I generally perceive atmospere just like a huge body. For example, if between us and the light source is a giant cube of colored glass, then I'm sure we would just realize that this cube has the color and everything. And we would not even occurred to associate it with color refraction. Another thing is that in modern science, color theory has never worked. Hence, all the difficulties.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    It is clear that you know nothing at all about science.

    Squabble that.
    My knowledge is enough to understand what kind of person in front of me - a lot of skepticism, tediousness and moralistic, and few fresh ideas. I like creators and innovators and you for their number, to my deep regret, do not take. Learn from galeksandr to which you have a biased attitude.
    No, your knowledge of science is profoundly deficient.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    No, your knowledge of science is profoundly deficient.
    You want me to examine? Where are the tickets?
    I went to bed, we have already 10 pm.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    I did not understand, you are asking why the sky is blue everywhere, not just between the eye and the sun? Or what? I generally perceive atmospere just like a huge body. For example, if between us and the light source is a giant cube of colored glass, then I'm sure we would just realize that this cube has the color and everything. And we would not even occurred to associate it with color refraction.
    Light travels in straight lines, yes? We would not see light coming from the sky at all if there were no refraction/scattering, we would see the sun in a black sky. Also, if your ideas were right, we would see the sun as blue.


    Looking out of my window right now, I see the sun, low above the horizon, surrounded by yellow sky, which turns increasingly blue away from the sun. How does this fit in with your ideas? What causes the sky to turn yellow?


    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    I'm trying to say that the oxygen in the water s in the "ozone" condition
    No, it's not. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, with two single bonds and two delocalised electrons. Oxygen in water is present as individual atoms fo oxygen, bonded with two hydrogen atoms.

    I'm not saying water isn't faintly blue, because it is. But this has precisely nothing to do with ozone.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    Light travels in straight lines, yes? We would not see light coming from the sky at all if there were no refraction/scattering, we would see the sun in a black sky. Also, if your ideas were right, we would see the sun as blue.
    Looking out of my window right now, I see the sun, low above the horizon, surrounded by yellow sky, which turns increasingly blue away from the sun. How does this fit in with your ideas? What causes the sky to turn yellow?
    In my opinion, only the large thickness of the atmosphere gives us the ability to perceive it blue. After all, when we throw a look around, nothing seems blue. powerful light source, which, undoubtedly, is the sun, easily scoring the color of the atmosphere by photons own color - in fact among the visible photons Sun prebladayut yellow. However, I think that the contribution of water vapor and ozone in the color of sunlight certainly is. And if it was not in the way of sunlight atmofery, perhaps, the blue lines in the spectrum would be weaker than they are now.

    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle

    No, it's not. Ozone is triatomic oxygen, with two single bonds and two delocalised electrons. Oxygen in water is present as individual atoms fo oxygen, bonded with two hydrogen atoms.

    I'm not saying water isn't faintly blue, because it is. But this has precisely nothing to do with ozone.
    With regard to ozone, then I do not consider as a molecule. In my opinion, all simple gases are in atomic - free state - oxygen, ozone, fluorine, chlorine, nitrogen, etc.

    A small digression explaining my point of view.

    We are all inhabitants of the planet. Planet - part of the solar system. All material on any planet periodically bombarded by solar radiation. Solar radiation - are elementary particles emitted by the sun.

    So, we never for a moment forget about it and remember that the sun's elementary particles are deposited on the surface of most types of chemical elements. Some types of items - for example, clearly expressed metals - remarkably accumulate on its surface free particles. But the elements that form of matter-gases - badly. Inert gases, for example, do not accumulate at all.
    Any chemical bond - is the gravitational coupling, ie due to the action of the fields of Attraction elements. But as was just said, accumulate on the surface of solar particles, which prevent the appearance of Gravity Fields of elements. In order for two elements react and connected, you must remove these elementary particles. Elements, Metals wonderful remove loose particles from other elements, especially those with metallic properties are less pronounced. But non-metals is much better to give the particles (electrons, in a scientific way) compared with metals. This is perfectly illustrated in a number of electronegativity. However, the element element strife, and nonmetal nonmetal strife. For example, halogens, and elements of the 6 groups, where oxygen is characterized by the fact that their surface is the area where the element exhibits outside the field of attraction. However, the value of this field is small. While most of the surface manifests outwardly Repulsive Field. As a result, for example, halogens, and oxygen easily give elements of metal loose particles from those areas on its surface, which shows the Gravity Field (and which just accumulate free particles). Just this mechanism our body uses - heme iron removes loose particles with oxygen. Giving free particles, the element exhibits a property of the oxidizer. And picking up - reducing property.

    In order to under normal conditions, there was a molecule with at least one of the reacting components must be outside the Gravity Field - to show metallic properties. And another of the elements must be non - ie not be Gravity Field in general, or have a partial and weak. Otherwise, under normal conditions, the reaction will not go - the heating is required, catalysts, pressure.


    In oxygen - normal and ozone - a Repulsive Field, and a little band with Gravity Field, but there it is weak. Ie elements of oxygen (and ozone) from each other poorly selected free particles. And those areas where manifests a Repulsive Field and at all interfering elements react. That's why I think that any normal oxygen or ozone molecules with each other do not form, and are in the atomic state.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Wow, how crap are online translators!
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Freshman danina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Russia, Michurinsk
    Posts
    37
    And you, to give crap and do not need a translator.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    With regard to ozone, then I do not consider as a molecule..
    This demonstrates clearly that you don't know the first thing about science, so any further discussion is pointless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    In my opinion, only the large thickness of the atmosphere gives us the ability to perceive it blue. After all, when we throw a look around, nothing seems blue. powerful light source, which, undoubtedly, is the sun, easily scoring the color of the atmosphere by photons own color - in fact among the visible photons Sun prebladayut yellow. However, I think that the contribution of water vapor and ozone in the color of sunlight certainly is. And if it was not in the way of sunlight atmofery, perhaps, the blue lines in the spectrum would be weaker than they are now.
    So, just to summarise:

    1) Sunlight is not scattered by the atmosphere, meaning the entire sky should be black, with stars visible in the daytime (except when obstructed by clouds)

    2) The sky is blue because the light passing through it, which according to point (1) shouldn't exist, is absorbed in the yellow and orange regions by ozone and water.

    3) For no good reason, light coming directly from the sun - which in accordance with point (1) should be the only light, is not affected by this, and remains yellow-white.



    Can you not see the inconsistencies in your ideas?


    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    With regard to ozone, then I do not consider as a molecule. In my opinion, all simple gases are in atomic - free state - oxygen, ozone, fluorine, chlorine, nitrogen, etc.
    Simply and demonstrably not true. The only elements stable as individual atoms are the noble gases.

    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    We are all inhabitants of the planet. Planet - part of the solar system. All material on any planet periodically bombarded by solar radiation. Solar radiation - are elementary particles emitted by the sun.
    Solar radiation as in 'light'? Or solar radiation as in subatomic particles and ions which are absorbed in the ionosphere?

    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    So, we never for a moment forget about it and remember that the sun's elementary particles are deposited on the surface of most types of chemical elements. Some types of items - for example, clearly expressed metals - remarkably accumulate on its surface free particles. But the elements that form of matter-gases - badly. Inert gases, for example, do not accumulate at all.
    Not exactly. The overwhelming majority of the Earth dates back to accretion, when the sun first formed.


    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    Any chemical bond - is the gravitational coupling
    Nope. Chemical bonds are many orders of magnitude stronger than can be explained using gravity. They are in fact governed by electric fields and forces.

    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    In oxygen - normal and ozone - a Repulsive Field, and a little band with Gravity Field, but there it is weak. Ie elements of oxygen (and ozone) from each other poorly selected free particles. And those areas where manifests a Repulsive Field and at all interfering elements react. That's why I think that any normal oxygen or ozone molecules with each other do not form, and are in the atomic state.
    ??

    Ozone is a molecules, as is 'normal' oxygen.



    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,035
    Danina made a decent counterpoint to the question of how a blue sky might exist without scattering. I'm sure it leaves a lot of things unaccounted for, but it articulates her theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by danina
    kojax wrote: So your theory is that the particles in the upper atmosphere reflect the light instead of refracting it?

    But no, like, my theory is not about that.
    Substance in the atmosphere - that's the reason for its blue color. For example, if we release into the atmosphere of chlorine gas. It have a yellowish-greenish color. So, the air, where a high concentration of this gas will have a yellowish-greenish color. And it's no surprise. No one attributes this scattering. Everyone understands - is due to the presence of chlorine.
    So what is there we fuss? Liquid oxygen is blue. Is not it logical to assume that this is the color the atmosphere of oxygen, more precisely, the ozone?
    So if I understand this right, her idea is that the cause of the blue sky is the same as if I pass smoke in front of a laser beam. Apparently she believes that reflection is the cause rather than refraction.

    My answer to it now is that reflection and refraction often behave in similar ways, so it's an easy mistake to make, but apparently physicists have added up all the traits of the atmosphere and found that there are not enough substances that reflect blue light for that theory to work. As you pointed out, Drowsy: water is blue, but clouds are white, so..... it can't be water vapor.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Why can't we just get to the bottom line here?

    Lord Rayleigh's equation regarding the blue colour of the sky is old hat and should be replaced by something more competent.

    Wasn't it Lord Rayleigh who was behind the Rayleigh-Jeans equation that lead to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and which was replaced by Planck's law?

    No-one cried too much about about the ditching the Rayleigh-Jeans equation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    There are many many missed ideas here.

    The ideas of scattering, reflection, and refraction can all be thought of as examples of the radiation of dipoles. In all cases there is a source field that induce an oscillation in a group of dipoles. Depending on the distribution and coherence properties one observes a verity of effects.

    Reflection and refraction are two sides of the same phenomena. When an EM wave is incident on a boundary a refection takes place on the side of the incident wave and refraction takes place on the other side of the boundary inside the medium. We can think of this process as the result of boundary conditions with different index-of-refraction or as a set of coherent dipoles re-radiating as the reflection and refraction waves.

    Scattering is only different because it deals with a spatially random distribution of dipole radiators. Like gases or dust in the air. The main driver for the difference between different scattering phenomena is simply particle size.

    Blue sky -> small particle size relative to the wavelength of light
    white clouds-> particle size similar or bigger than the wavelength of light.

    But do not believe me go learn scattering theory yourself!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Junior c186282's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Lord Rayleigh's equation regarding the blue colour of the sky is old hat and should be replaced by something more competent.
    There is no need to replace what works.

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Wasn't it Lord Rayleigh who was behind the Rayleigh-Jeans equation that lead to the "ultraviolet catastrophe" and which was replaced by Planck's law?
    Just because Rayleigh missed the big idea for the "ultraviolet catastrophe" does not mean that his scattering work is wrong.

    Also there is a more complete theory or set of equations for scatting. This is called Mie scattering. It just happens that Mie scattering simplifies to the simple case of Rayleigh scattering when the particle size is small compared to the wavelength of light.

    (Often the words "Mie scattering" is used for where particle size is on the same scale as the wavelength of light but really Mie scattering is more general than Rayleigh scattering and works in both regimes.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by c186282
    There are many many missed ideas here.

    The ideas of scattering, reflection, and refraction can all be thought of as examples of the radiation of dipoles. In all cases there is a source field that induce an oscillation in a group of dipoles. Depending on the distribution and coherence properties one observes a verity of effects.

    Reflection and refraction are two sides of the same phenomena. When an EM wave is incident on a boundary a refection takes place on the side of the incident wave and refraction takes place on the other side of the boundary inside the medium. We can think of this process as the result of boundary conditions with different index-of-refraction or as a set of coherent dipoles re-radiating as the reflection and refraction waves.

    Scattering is only different because it deals with a spatially random distribution of dipole radiators. Like gases or dust in the air. The main driver for the difference between different scattering phenomena is simply particle size.

    Blue sky -> small particle size relative to the wavelength of light
    white clouds-> particle size similar or bigger than the wavelength of light.

    But do not believe me go learn scattering theory yourself!
    But would these considerations not imply that it was the Earth's IONOSPHERE that was scattering the "white" portion of the sky's glow (if not the blue)?

    There is some evidence that the sky's glow is altitude specific as you do not see this blue glow at ground level.

    A fact you have still not sufficiently explained.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    But would these considerations not imply that it was the Earth's IONOSPHERE that was scattering the "white" portion of the sky's glow (if not the blue)?

    There is some evidence that the sky's glow is altitude specific as you do not see this blue glow at ground level.

    A fact you have still not sufficiently explained.
    Are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?

    When I look at a tree, I am seeing light reflected off it from the sun (white light). If any scattering of this reflected light occurs before it reaches my eyes, essentially a small portion of the blue light would be scattered away - if anything making the tree look slightly less blue than it should. Except, this light will most likely be replaced by blue light scattered away from light travelling in other directions.


    The light "adds up" to white light, and all the light has to end up somewhere.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    But would these considerations not imply that it was the Earth's IONOSPHERE that was scattering the "white" portion of the sky's glow (if not the blue)?

    There is some evidence that the sky's glow is altitude specific as you do not see this blue glow at ground level.

    A fact you have still not sufficiently explained.
    Are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?

    When I look at a tree, I am seeing light reflected off it from the sun (white light). If any scattering of this reflected light occurs before it reaches my eyes, essentially a small portion of the blue light would be scattered away - if anything making the tree look slightly less blue than it should. Except, this light will most likely be replaced by blue light scattered away from light travelling in other directions.


    The light "adds up" to white light, and all the light has to end up somewhere.
    You missed the point by about a mile drowsy turtle as per usual.

    Come on, pay attention!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    I asked you to clarify your point. Would you care to do so?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    I asked you to clarify your point. Would you care to do so?
    After you have clarified your question.

    I can't follow what you are on about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?
    That would have been an incredibly stupid question considering.

    The sky does have a blue colour!

    Are you trying to catch me out or are you really drowsy, drowsy turtle?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Why is even asking you a simple question like pulling teeth?

    Fine, let's try again:

    Were you asking why the air at ground level doesn't have a blue colour?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Trolls are like that...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?
    That would have been an incredibly stupid question considering.

    The sky does have a blue colour!

    Are you trying to catch me out or are you really drowsy, drowsy turtle?
    For once stop being such a frigging idiot. Stating that the sky has a blue colour still doesn't answer this question: are you asking why the air doesn't have a blue colour?

    Is that too complex for you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why is even asking you a simple question like pulling teeth?

    Fine, let's try again:

    Were you asking why the air at ground level doesn't have a blue colour?
    drowsy turtle is being the fool here!

    I posed that question in my initial post on this thread: "Why does the air at ground level not look a blue colour?"

    drowsy turtle is being deliberately petty in order to act as some form of distraction. :x
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why is even asking you a simple question like pulling teeth?

    Fine, let's try again:

    Were you asking why the air at ground level doesn't have a blue colour?
    drowsy turtle is being the fool here!

    I posed that question in my initial post on this thread: "Why does the air at ground level not look a blue colour?"

    drowsy turtle is being deliberately petty in order to act as some form of distraction. :x
    I asked you to clarify if that was what you were asking, and then the rest of my post I wrote assuming you were. You may now feel free to read my post and reply to it accordingly.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Incidentally;

    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    are you really drowsy, drowsy turtle?
    My username originates from the fact that I was regularly in my room, alone, on the internet during the early hours of the morning (as an insomniac). I am generally tired when I'm posting but unable to sleep, and the turtle part comes from someone making a joke about me coming out of my shell, or something along those lines.

    Short answer: yes.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Quote Originally Posted by galexander
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Why is even asking you a simple question like pulling teeth?

    Fine, let's try again:

    Were you asking why the air at ground level doesn't have a blue colour?
    drowsy turtle is being the fool here!

    I posed that question in my initial post on this thread: "Why does the air at ground level not look a blue colour?"

    drowsy turtle is being deliberately petty in order to act as some form of distraction. :x
    I asked you to clarify if that was what you were asking, and then the rest of my post I wrote assuming you were. You may now feel free to read my post and reply to it accordingly.
    I did and it was nonsense!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    Which part, specifically? What are your main objections?
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by drowsy turtle
    Which part, specifically? What are your main objections?
    The whole thing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Reptile Dysfunction drowsy turtle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,255
    OK. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
    "The major difference between a thing that might go wrong and a thing that cannot possibly go wrong is that when a thing that cannot possibly go wrong goes wrong it usually turns out to be impossible to get at or repair." ~ Douglas Adams
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Galexander, I think this thread has wound itself down. Unless there are some more substantial posts rather than this silly evasive crap you're now pulling then I think I'll be locking it. You get to make that decision with your next post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    627
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Galexander, I think this thread has wound itself down. Unless there are some more substantial posts rather than this silly evasive crap you're now pulling then I think I'll be locking it. You get to make that decision with your next post.
    I claim it is the other participants who are being evasive, they can't answer the two other objections I have raised against Rayleigh scattering.

    Why are you so biased against me TheBiologista?

    I'm done here myself but there may be others willing to contribute to the discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •