0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Infra red we can not see by eye, I am talking about the colours (light) we can observe by eye. The only light we really see.
My logic tells me that the sky undergoes doppler shift and this explains the colour.
surely a scattering of light would be similar to the dual slit experiment, surely any light that was scattered would be invisible?
Quote from: TheBoxInfra red we can not see by eye, I am talking about the colours (light) we can observe by eye. The only light we really see.When Protagoras said "Man is the measure of all things", it may have been reasonable as a sophist statement. But as a scientific statement, it is plain wrong.Humans are hopeless at measuring things.All of the millions of colors we can see can be created by the addition of just 3 wavelengths: red, green and blue*. - Some shrimp can distinguish 11 wavelengths, - Some early Earth observation satellites could distinguish a similar number of wavelengths, including infra-red to distinguish different types of growing crops.- The spectrometers used to detect extrasolar planets are capable of distinguishing over 100,000 wavelengthsDon't let the limitations of human vision limit your vision of science.*I am excluding the small number of tetrachromats among us.QuoteMy logic tells me that the sky undergoes doppler shift and this explains the colour. Back to the inadequacies of human vision:- Some shrimp, plus bees can distinguish polarization of light. Light in the sky is polarized by scattering; just get polarized sunglasses or a linear polarized camera filter, stare at the sky about 90 degrees from the Sun, and rotate the filter. You will see the sky go light and dark due to the polarized sky light. The Doppler effect does not alter polarization.We can easily exclude Doppler shift as the cause of sky colors:- It is true that at sunset, you are rotating away from the Sun at about 1,000 km/h. This will cause a tiny red shift, which is compatible with the idea that the sky is more reddish at sunset. Your new theory has a tiny snippet of truth here.- It is equally true that at dawn, you are rotating towards the Sun at the same speed, about 1,000 km/h. According to your theory, this will cause the light to be blue-shifted, and for the sky to appear blue.
But in fact, dawn is reddish, like sunset.
Don't let the limitations of human vision limit your vision of science.
There is no way a scattering could give blue in colour, a scattering would not allow the temporal wave compression to give blue in colour?QuoteI do not believe this question was addressed?
I do not believe this question was addressed?
To add scenario and proof to this , I would like you to consider yourself and look at yourself. I then want you to imagine that all the objects of substance around you are not there and you are just ''floating'' in space. Quite clearly there is now only you glowing in the dark.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/06/2017 17:10:15 To add scenario and proof to this , I would like you to consider yourself and look at yourself. I then want you to imagine that all the objects of substance around you are not there and you are just ''floating'' in space. Quite clearly there is now only you glowing in the dark. I couldn't afford the travel costs to go to space- so I went down into my cellar.It's dark down there.I had a look, and I didn't see myself glowing.Can you explain why you think it would be different if I was in space?(obviously, it's going to be less comfortable, but I don't "see" why I should glow.)There's this sort of thing, but I don't think it's what you mean.https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2009/jul/17/human-bioluminescence
Thebox;EM energy is transferred through space in discrete amounts labeled as photons. Sometimes referred to as 'messenger particles', when detected by the eye, the energy stimulates eye to brain image forming processes. The short story, the observer becomes aware of 'something over there'. Matter is invisible, thus we observe things indirectly. We do not see a thing, we see an image of a thing. The mind is an image oriented, image processing, and image creating organism. There should be a distinction made between radiating bodies, like a star, and reflecting bodies. Since human vision only responds to a small portion of the em spectrum, devices were invented that extend our range below and above that portion. Using night vision goggles, you can observe humans in the dark via thermal imaging, so yes, some things 'glow in the dark', and if radioactive, other things glow in the dark. I will side with evan_au, the sky is blue because those frequencies are scattered via the atmosphere. This introduces the difference between light colors and pigment colors. Blue paint absorbs the colors except blue, which it reflects. The sky and paint are two different processes. If photons were not objective, how could you darken the room by pulling down the shade?
we can prove an incident ray by adding a smoke medium, there will be no observable reflective ray from a wall
Quote from: TheBoxwe can prove an incident ray by adding a smoke medium, there will be no observable reflective ray from a wallThis is because:1. Most walls absorb a large fraction of the light.2. Most walls are very rough, when compared to light with wavelength around 0.001mm. This scatters the light in all directions, so the diffuse reflection doesn't light up as a beam in the smoke.To demonstrate this, don't shine the laser pointer on a brick wall in your basement; shine it on a mirror.You will see an incident light beam, and a reflected light beam.The angle of incidence = angle of reflection (as drilled into us at high school).
I do not believe our minds work with photos, I believe my observation is live , the only pictures in my brain are memories and thoughts , the observation feed is live, objects and colour can be measured to be in a different position relative to the person taking the measure. I can observe that an object has observable light, I can not observe it to be light of space. All the objects observed outside my head , are outside of my head, they are not a picture in my head,
In this diagram of your cellar , I have now re-added your wall and turned off the ''light'' source . I am now going to introduce a laser beam, we can now see the red dot on the cellar wall, we can measure the light and dot to be in its exact position on the wall just like my computer has positioned it on my screen. we can prove an incident ray by adding a smoke medium, there will be no observable reflective ray from a wall.
Quote from: Thebox on 26/06/2017 21:17:17In this diagram of your cellar , I have now re-added your wall and turned off the ''light'' source . I am now going to introduce a laser beam, we can now see the red dot on the cellar wall, we can measure the light and dot to be in its exact position on the wall just like my computer has positioned it on my screen. we can prove an incident ray by adding a smoke medium, there will be no observable reflective ray from a wall. If there is no reflective ray, how do you see the red dot?
supposing I told you that it is not dark down your cellar
Quote from: Thebox on 26/06/2017 20:43:22 supposing I told you that it is not dark down your cellar I'd point out that you are either hopelessly wrong, or pointlessly making up definitions that don't tally with the normal ones.That's a waste of time to argue about- because you can argue anything is tautologically true if you mess about with the definition.It's the sort of reason why people get banned from science fora.
So you would point out I was wrong even though I have showed this to be true? How would you show I was wrong? Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all. Are you one of these people who think it is dark between and beyond the distant stars? Are you denying the clarity of space?
Quote from: Thebox on 28/06/2017 20:54:50So you would point out I was wrong even though I have showed this to be true? How would you show I was wrong? Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all. Are you one of these people who think it is dark between and beyond the distant stars? Are you denying the clarity of space?" I have showed this to be true? "You have shown nothing. All you have done is make some plainly false claims."Let us stick to this very important simple fact, darkness does not exist at all."We can't stick to it because it's not a fact."Are you one of these people who think it is dark between and beyond the distant stars?"No I'm one of the people who thinks it's dark in my cellar- you know normal people, rather than trolls."Are you denying the clarity of space?"I'm the one who asserted it earlier so that's a daft question.Do you not remember that I said that there was nothing important between me and the sun and that, in the case of HALO there's nothing at all- it's space.
"Are you denying the clarity of space?"
I'm the one who asserted it earlier so that's a daft question.
added- You are incorrect , it is not dark down the cellar, but there is no way you would be willing to listen to any reason why you are wrong, you would not listen to the evidence, you are stuck in your ways and unwilling to discuss.