0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
why is the atmosphere not blue at ground level where the atmosphere is more dense?
I believe this has been quite adequately explained to you previously in threads in "New Theories".Quote from: TheBoxwhy is the atmosphere not blue at ground level where the atmosphere is more dense?It is.Stand at ground level on a clear day, and look up. The sky is blue, due to scattering by dust in the atmosphere.Now fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the clouds (and, indeed, above most of the atmosphere). The sky is almost black above you, as there is little scattering of light by dust particles. The sky is blue around and below you, as there is enough dust in the atmosphere as you look through a great depth of it.Now fly in the International Space Station. You don't need to wait for a clear day, since you are now above the atmosphere. The sky is black, as there is no atmospheric dust particles* to scatter the light. You can see a band of blue light around the Earth, where the atmosphere scatters sunlight.See: https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_1529.html* There is also some faint Zodiacal Light, from dust which is in orbit around the Sun, and outside Earth's atmosphere. This light is so faint that human eyes can't really pick up any color in it.
Worth looking up Rayleigh scattering. Wikipedia has an excellent article on the subject. Fact is1. It's not dust but elastic scattering of photons from air molecules. 2. You can detect Rayleigh scattering from small volumes of gas but you need a very long path length before the effect is visible. It is difficult to do the experiment at ground level because the planet gets in the way and over any reasonable distance there will be a considerable amount of dust, fog, etc. Your best bet is to set up a white arc light about 200 ft above a frozen lake and observe it on a dark night from around 15 miles distance. The light will appear yellow, with a blue haze around it, just like the sun and sky. I'm pretty sure you could find a suitable spot in Canada somewhere.
Now fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet.
Quote from: evan_auNow fly in a U2 spyplane above 70,000 feet.Since none of us are likely to ride a U2 (especially since they made very few dual-seat versions), I tried the experiment today using the tail camera on an Airbus A380.At 39,000 Feet AltitudeYou are above most of the atmosphere. The air looks blue as you look towards the horizon, but as you look higher, it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light) blue.jpg (21.59 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5474 times)At 15,000 Feet AltitudeThe air looks slightly blue as you look towards the top of the picture (more air molecules to scatter the light) [ Invalid Attachment ] At a Lower AltitudeI wasn't able to determine the actual altitude, but you are low enough to make out factory buildings on the ground.The air is fairly uniformly blue above the clouds and higher. [ Invalid Attachment ]
At 39,000 Feet AltitudeYou are above most of the atmosphere. The air looks blue as you look towards the horizon, but as you look higher, it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)
it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)
Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:40:11 it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)It is not darker, it just looks darker, it is light in space remember, it is not looking darker it looks clearer. The visible spectrum is ''opaque'' relative to the transparency of space.added- I have drew your observation to objective reality of the observation. correct observation.jpg (39.3 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5673 times)
Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:46:14Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:40:11 it is darker (fewer molecules to scatter the light)It is not darker, it just looks darker, it is light in space remember, it is not looking darker it looks clearer. The visible spectrum is ''opaque'' relative to the transparency of space.added- I have drew your observation to objective reality of the observation. correct observation.jpg (39.3 kB . 898x572 - viewed 5673 times)Only according to your own definitions of the words 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', 'transparency'.
Actually nothing to do with me, I do did not create the Universe and made it that way. It is observational facts not a belief system.
Quote from: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:59:39Actually nothing to do with me, I do did not create the Universe and made it that way. It is observational facts not a belief system. Well, I'm glad you accept you didn't create the universe.Can you explain why you feel empowered to create new meanings for words like 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency'?Certainly, the way you are using them has nothing much to do with their usual meanings.
semanticssɪˈmantɪks/Submitnounthe branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. The two main areas are logical semantics, concerned with matters such as sense and reference and presupposition and implication, and lexical semantics, concerned with the analysis of word meanings and relations between them.the meaning of a word, phrase, or text.
Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...
Quote from: Thebox on 08/10/2017 19:43:01Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...OK, that's a start.Now tell us what those words mean.They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 00:41:57Quote from: Thebox on 08/10/2017 19:43:01Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...OK, that's a start.Now tell us what those words mean.They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.Some people are just not that intelligent. The whole point is your semantics and description of darkness, what it means is wrong. It would still be called darkness, but darkness would be a property of the object rather than the absence of light.
Quote from: Thebox on 09/10/2017 01:56:16Quote from: Bored chemist on 09/10/2017 00:41:57Quote from: Thebox on 08/10/2017 19:43:01Ok, I will call it gogi, poki, nanaphal, if it makes you happy. I am not changing the definitions ...OK, that's a start.Now tell us what those words mean.They do not seem to mean what 'darker', 'light', 'space', 'clearer', 'visible', 'opaque', and 'transparency' mean.Some people are just not that intelligent. The whole point is your semantics and description of darkness, what it means is wrong. It would still be called darkness, but darkness would be a property of the object rather than the absence of light. If you want to coin separate words for "having the property of absorbing all or nearly all of the em radiation in the range about 400 to 700 nm wavelength" and "unillluminated, that's fine by me. However in English, the word "dark" means both of those, and the word, "darkness" is construed accordingly.Some people are, it seems not intelligent enough to realise that a word can have two meanings, depending on context.They then rigidly try to stick to just one of those meanings even when it's not appropriate.For example, it is dark in my cellar at the moment. Darkness reigns there.If I go down there and turn the lights on, it will no longer be dark. The darkness will be expelled.There are two wooden cupboards there one is made from ebony and the other from birch.The first is dark, the second is light.That remains true even if I turn the lights back off again.
You however still do not understand why it is not dark in your cellar.
However when it is dark...