Naked Science Forum

On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 03:01:44

Title: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 03:01:44
What is the difference between atoms of air and the atoms of a wall?

Answer :  I can see through air it is transparent!

So why should the atoms of the wall be any different to the atoms of the air?   

Density = > = λ?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2017 05:35:24
Individual atoms are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. That does indeed make individual atoms invisible. However, the optical properties of materials change depending on how their atoms interact with each other. This is affected by the number and kind of chemical bonds present, the arrangement of the atoms and even the size of the groups of atoms (colloidal gold, for example, can be red, purple or blue depending on the size of the gold nanoparticles present). Most gases are transparent because the molecules are usually small and widely separated from each other. However, some gases do have a bit of color (such as chlorine being a faint yellow-green or nitrogen dioxide being reddish-brown).
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 14:11:11
Individual atoms are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. That does indeed make individual atoms invisible

A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 15:48:53
Individual atoms are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. That does indeed make individual atoms invisible

A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.
No it would not because it is see through and invisible.  It does not have the density of a molecule.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2017 16:02:29
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 23/09/2017 20:13:10
I possibly believe if the light is bright enough it would scatter through the wall.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 20:15:10
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Why would it not be visible?
It would scatter light towards your eye.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2017 20:17:36
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Why would it not be visible?
It would scatter light towards your eye.

Would this be true of all visible wavelengths or only particular ones? Would some be more strongly reflected than others? Could even a single proton be visible this way?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 20:21:52
Individual atoms are much smaller than the wavelength of visible light. That does indeed make individual atoms invisible

A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.
No it would not because it is see through and invisible.  It does not have the density of a molecule.
Sodium vapour is composed of atoms, and is blue.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 20:24:27
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Why would it not be visible?
It would scatter light towards your eye.

Would this be true of all visible wavelengths or only particular ones? Would some be more strongly reflected than others? Could even a single proton be visible this way?
Scattering is strongly wavelength dependent; it's why the sky is blue.
In principle, yes a single proton should be visible.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: evan_au on 23/09/2017 20:41:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 20:58:26
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Why would it not be visible?
It would scatter light towards your eye.

Would this be true of all visible wavelengths or only particular ones? Would some be more strongly reflected than others? Could even a single proton be visible this way?
Scattering is strongly wavelength dependent; it's why the sky is blue.
In principle, yes a single proton should be visible.
Well interestingly enough that still does not answer why we cant see air and can see right through air .   Obviously in the air there is lots of protons but strangely enough we do not see any visible light off them. Neither does a detector , detect visible light from air.
So either air is not made of atoms or the ground is actually transparent and see through but the density of molecules captures  radiation to be observed as visible light?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:00:15
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2017 21:07:18
Well interestingly enough that still does not answer why we cant see air and can see right through air .   Obviously in the air there is lots of protons but strangely enough we do not see any visible light off them. Neither does a detector , detect visible light from air.
So either air is not made of atoms or the ground is actually transparent and see through but the density of molecules captures  radiation to be observed as visible light?

It's all down to wavelengths. Different materials refract and absorb different wavelengths. That's already been said.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:15:26
Well interestingly enough that still does not answer why we cant see air and can see right through air .   Obviously in the air there is lots of protons but strangely enough we do not see any visible light off them. Neither does a detector , detect visible light from air.
So either air is not made of atoms or the ground is actually transparent and see through but the density of molecules captures  radiation to be observed as visible light?

It's all down to wavelengths. Different materials refract and absorb different wavelengths. That's already been said.

You can't have a visible wave-length unless there is enough magnitude of permeability of the mass, i.e density to create the interaction and ''stopping power'' to cause the linearity of light to compress to a wave-length between 400-700nm.

Air has practically 0 permeability because it is not dense.

The blue sky is not caused by a scattering at all, a scattering can not produce a compressed wave of 400nm.  The mechanics do not work of a blue sky.
The blue sky like I have explained before is gravitational pressure where the Earth is being forced towards the Sun. The Earths Field being pressured and the radiation oncoming being pressured back to cause the linearity compression.



Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 21:18:16
Well interestingly enough that still does not answer why we cant see air and can see right through air .
The sky is blue; the sunset is red, and you are wrong.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 21:19:30

I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
No.
The sky is blue.
We also see lightning and the polar lights.
How could you think we don't detect light from the air?

Anyway the air is mainly made from molecules, so it's about 99% irrelevant to the topic.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:20:47
Well interestingly enough that still does not answer why we cant see air and can see right through air .
The sky is blue; the sunset is red, and you are wrong.
OMG, the sky is blue and some sunsets are red because of Q.F.F  (Quantum field fluctuations). 
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:21:44
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
No.
The sky is blue.
The blue sky is to do with the earths  fields not the air. Air has no permeability.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:24:41
Strangely enough the sky is not even blue, the observer , observes the doppler shift.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 21:46:42
Quantum field fluctuations
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
No.
The sky is blue.
The blue sky is to do with the earths  fields not the air. Air has no permeability.
Strangely enough the sky is not even blue, the observer , observes the doppler shift.


Got any evidence for any of that?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 21:52:25
Quantum field fluctuations
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
No.
The sky is blue.
The blue sky is to do with the earths  fields not the air. Air has no permeability.
Strangely enough the sky is not even blue, the observer , observes the doppler shift.


Got any evidence for any of that?

It is more logical than the present version, more evidential,,
Quantum field fluctuations
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 14:11:11
A single atom would be visible if it was lit well enough.

Really? Interesting. What is the reasoning?
Some of the most accurate clocks built by humans have been based on light emitted by a single atom/ion (mercury and aluminium have been tested).
Of course, the light is measured by instruments rather than by the human eye - especially since the light is ultraviolet.

See: https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/02/nists-second-quantum-logic-clock-based-aluminum-ion-now-worlds-most-precise
I am right in thinking we do not detect any light from air?
No.
The sky is blue.
The blue sky is to do with the earths  fields not the air. Air has no permeability.
Strangely enough the sky is not even blue, the observer , observes the doppler shift.


Got any evidence for any of that?
Are you suggesting that the Suns magnetic field and the Earths magnetic field do not apply a pressure on each other because of their gravitational attraction?

That is the evidence.   G.F.P gravitational field pressure.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 22:09:16
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2017 22:21:26
That makes no sense.
It is not evidence.
Do you understand what evidence is?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 23/09/2017 22:38:36
That makes no sense.
It is not evidence.
Do you understand what evidence is?

I understand what evidence is, that is why I said the Doppler shift, bringing that into evidence as exhibit (A).

When an object is travelling  into the light , this causes the light to blue shift, by the velocity of the object causing radiation pressure of the incident radiation. Pressure is pressure regardless of velocity.   If the Earth is being pulled towards the Sun, the Earths magnetic field being likewise to the suns magnetic field will apply a pressure on the suns electromagnetic field which is also the gravitational field. Simply push two rubber balls together and observe the pressure between the two bodies.

Either way the astronaut will tell you they do not observer the blue shift because to them the light is travelling away from them.

Exhibit (B)

The air is thinner up there so it would be blue down ere also if it was scattering.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2017 23:19:45
The running theme of your posts on here seems to be to tear down most of known scientific knowledge and replace it with nonsense that only makes sense to you. Just because something seems logical to you doesn't make it evidence. In the court of science, evidence is something observable, testable and repeatable. "I think it works so it does" is not evidence as far as science is concerned. If you had done the proper prerequisite research, you would understand how Raleigh scattering works and that the Earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with it.

Raleigh scattering can and has been measured in the lab: http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/volkamer/publications/group-pubs/thalman-2014-rscsNArO2air-accepted.pdf (http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/volkamer/publications/group-pubs/thalman-2014-rscsNArO2air-accepted.pdf)
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/09/2017 09:47:18
Either way the astronaut will tell you they do not observer the blue shift because to them the light is travelling away from them.
I wonder just how dim it is possible for someone to be.
Here's a cropped bit of the image you posted earlier. It's taken from space and it's what an astronaut would see. I have pointed out the fuzzy blue bit which is the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 24/09/2017 16:27:49
The running theme of your posts on here seems to be to tear down most of known scientific knowledge and replace it with nonsense that only makes sense to you. Just because something seems logical to you doesn't make it evidence. In the court of science, evidence is something observable, testable and repeatable. "I think it works so it does" is not evidence as far as science is concerned. If you had done the proper prerequisite research, you would understand how Raleigh scattering works and that the Earth's magnetic field has nothing to do with it.

Raleigh scattering can and has been measured in the lab: http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/volkamer/publications/group-pubs/thalman-2014-rscsNArO2air-accepted.pdf (http://www.colorado.edu/chemistry/volkamer/publications/group-pubs/thalman-2014-rscsNArO2air-accepted.pdf)
see my other post on other thread.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 24/09/2017 16:29:32
Either way the astronaut will tell you they do not observer the blue shift because to them the light is travelling away from them.
I wonder just how dim it is possible for someone to be.
Here's a cropped bit of the image you posted earlier. It's taken from space and it's what an astronaut would see. I have pointed out the fuzzy blue bit which is the atmosphere.

And by the angle of that shot I conclude the Earth is spinning towards the astronaut , he also observes the doppler blue shift in the distance. Or the astronaut is travelling towards that direction because who knows who is moving.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 17:35:09
Either way the astronaut will tell you they do not observer the blue shift because to them the light is travelling away from them.
I wonder just how dim it is possible for someone to be.
Here's a cropped bit of the image you posted earlier. It's taken from space and it's what an astronaut would see. I have pointed out the fuzzy blue bit which is the atmosphere.

And by the angle of that shot I conclude the Earth is spinning towards the astronaut , he also observes the doppler blue shift in the distance. Or the astronaut is travelling towards that direction because who knows who is moving.
Why do you persist in disputing the obvious?
There are pics of the whole Earth taken from the moon. All the rim is blue.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 25/09/2017 18:20:15
Either way the astronaut will tell you they do not observer the blue shift because to them the light is travelling away from them.
I wonder just how dim it is possible for someone to be.
Here's a cropped bit of the image you posted earlier. It's taken from space and it's what an astronaut would see. I have pointed out the fuzzy blue bit which is the atmosphere.

And by the angle of that shot I conclude the Earth is spinning towards the astronaut , he also observes the doppler blue shift in the distance. Or the astronaut is travelling towards that direction because who knows who is moving.
Why do you persist in disputing the obvious?
There are pics of the whole Earth taken from the moon. All the rim is blue.
The Rim?  What about a direct line instead of angled like my provided picture of observation shows no blue sky?

One view shows blue one doesn't.  So which view is correct?  I believe it is the Doppler as the logic on scattering does not have the correct mechanics to produce blue in visible wave length. A scattering would explain a red sky at night in accordance to the inverse square law.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 25/09/2017 18:24:52
Compression is blue where scattering is red

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/09/2017 20:37:19
see my other post on other thread.

You have a lot of posts on here, so it would be helpful if you linked me to the specific one.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 20:44:43
see my other post on other thread.

You have a lot of posts on here, so it would be helpful if you linked me to the specific one.
I'm willing to bet it wouldn't.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 20:45:49
Compression is blue where scattering is red


* scat.jpg (14.56 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1403 times)


Wins the prize for most accurately labelled picture.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 20:49:19
The Rim?  What about a direct line instead of angled like my provided picture of observation shows no blue sky?
You have provided just 1 picture of an observation- the rest are meaningless sketches of yours.
The observation is the picture I took a clip from, and it shows that the rim- i.e. the sky- is blue.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 25/09/2017 20:54:05
The Rim?  What about a direct line instead of angled like my provided picture of observation shows no blue sky?
You have provided just 1 picture of an observation- the rest are meaningless sketches of yours.
The observation is the picture I took a clip from, and it shows that the rim- i.e. the sky- is blue.
Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/09/2017 22:30:51

Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.
OK, find someone else who thinks they have meaning.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 26/09/2017 13:09:30

Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.
OK, find someone else who thinks they have meaning.

Anybody with half of brain cell knows when light stretches it becomes red in wave length and the vice versus blue when compressed.  The drawings are simple child like drawings that show this.   It is not my fault you personally cannot understand them .
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 26/09/2017 15:18:49
If individual particles are scattered the length between each particle expands.  There is no way physically to have the wave-length that is blue in this manner.

Opposite for scatter:

"collect, gather"

So tell me Mr Chemist, how can you get blue from the completely opposite mechanics for blue?

Answer;  You can't

By saying the blue sky is because of scattering is the same as saying 700 nm is blue.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 17:28:16

Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.
OK, find someone else who thinks they have meaning.

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/09/2017 17:30:13
By saying the blue sky is because of scattering is the same as saying 700 nm is blue.
In what way?
After all, nobody else seems to think so, do they?
All the books say it's due to scattering.
The measurements of scattering cross section say so to.
And the lab scale demos show it.

So why is absolutely everything wrong except you?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 27/09/2017 14:04:25
By saying the blue sky is because of scattering is the same as saying 700 nm is blue.
In what way?
After all, nobody else seems to think so, do they?
All the books say it's due to scattering.
The measurements of scattering cross section say so to.
And the lab scale demos show it.

So why is absolutely everything wrong except you?
I will answer this because it reads normal conversation to me. (I am not your enemy).

Absolutely everything isn't wrong and I never said it was.  Somethings I deem wrong which I am trying to discuss.  So why do you keep saying I am wrong without really discussing?

Keep saying I am wrong by posting the thing I deem is wrong does not make it right .

You say scattering.

I say how can that be so?

You say light redirected by air and scattered.

I say air is transparent, thin up top and has no permeability, The light can pass through the air without deviation of a straight line.
I also say a scattering would spread the light, make it essentially ''thinner''' a longer wave-length which would be red.

Physics science forums have learnt me.

So in one last effort of discussion with yourself, are you willing to discuss or continue posting the subject that is being questioned? (which does not explain what I am pointing out).


Lets start here:

In scattering anything, the anything is spread out?


Quote
Rayleigh scattering refers to the scattering of light off of the molecules of the air, and can be extended to scattering from particles up to about a tenth of the wavelength of the light. It is Rayleigh scattering off the molecules of the air which gives us the blue sky.

Air is thinner up high but yet where at its most dense nearer to the surface , the space is not observed to be blue.
So you want me to believe that at ground level the process is different although the air is denser?
According to you I shouldn't be able to see objects because there would be a blue ''haze'' anywhere there is air.

Because you was told to remember the scattering and you would pass your education, you can't think past it and automatically stereo-typically accept this as the truth instead of thinking for yourself.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 19:58:46
Somethings I deem wrong
You are not God.
It is not in your power to deem something right or wrong.
why do you keep saying I am wrong without really discussing?
Because that's what the evidence shows- and has done so for over 100 years.
I say how can that be so?
Again, because that's what the evidence says.
You say light redirected by air and scattered.
And again. It's not just me. An experiment with a decent laser pen will prove the point.
I say air is transparent, thin up top and has no permeability,
Look up either the common, or scientific uses of the word permeability, and you will see that you are wrong.
Things permeate through air- outside my window the rain is permeating downward through the air and is hitting the window. It stops there because the window is impermeable to rain.

The scientific use of the word is more complex, but not  at odds with the usual meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
Air has a permeability of about 1.3H/metre.
I realise you won't understand that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.


Physics science forums have learnt me.
The word is taught; and they clearly have not.
In scattering anything, the anything is spread out?

Yes. specifically the light travelling in a line gets forced to deviate from that line.
According to you I shouldn't be able to see objects because there would be a blue ''haze'' anywhere there is air.
Nonsense.
There is a blue haze- and you can sometimes see it- especially if the air is foggy.
But the effect is small.
So most of the light gets straight through- some small faction- perhaps 1 part in a million- is scattered off to one side on passing through each metre of air.
But, as the layer of air  you look through gets thicker- for example that air between you, and the sun at the sunset, the effect becomes more obvious.
Because you was told to remember the scattering and you would pass your education, you can't think past it and automatically stereo-typically accept this as the truth instead of thinking for yourself.
No, because I have seen scattered light- because I play with lasers, and because I understand the physics, and because I have done Raman scattering experiments, I know that it is true. Light gets scattered.

And you just look stupid when you try to second-guess why I believe things.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 27/09/2017 20:55:55
Somethings I deem wrong
You are not God.
It is not in your power to deem something right or wrong.
why do you keep saying I am wrong without really discussing?
Because that's what the evidence shows- and has done so for over 100 years.
I say how can that be so?
Again, because that's what the evidence says.
You say light redirected by air and scattered.
And again. It's not just me. An experiment with a decent laser pen will prove the point.
I say air is transparent, thin up top and has no permeability,
Look up either the common, or scientific uses of the word permeability, and you will see that you are wrong.
Things permeate through air- outside my window the rain is permeating downward through the air and is hitting the window. It stops there because the window is impermeable to rain.

The scientific use of the word is more complex, but not  at odds with the usual meaning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permeability_(electromagnetism)
Air has a permeability of about 1.3H/metre.
I realise you won't understand that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.


Physics science forums have learnt me.
The word is taught; and they clearly have not.
In scattering anything, the anything is spread out?

Yes. specifically the light travelling in a line gets forced to deviate from that line.
According to you I shouldn't be able to see objects because there would be a blue ''haze'' anywhere there is air.
Nonsense.
There is a blue haze- and you can sometimes see it- especially if the air is foggy.
But the effect is small.
So most of the light gets straight through- some small faction- perhaps 1 part in a million- is scattered off to one side on passing through each metre of air.
But, as the layer of air  you look through gets thicker- for example that air between you, and the sun at the sunset, the effect becomes more obvious.
Because you was told to remember the scattering and you would pass your education, you can't think past it and automatically stereo-typically accept this as the truth instead of thinking for yourself.
No, because I have seen scattered light- because I play with lasers, and because I understand the physics, and because I have done Raman scattering experiments, I know that it is true. Light gets scattered.

And you just look stupid when you try to second-guess why I believe things.

That's a good reply .   

Do you understand or can you understand that I do not easily accept things to be true?  I am not one for being naive so I am very extensive when it comes to the truth's.
Let's for now say that I will accept your view of why the sky is blue and return to the original subject of are atoms transparent as individual atoms?

Now quite clearly if atoms were not transparent we should see some opaqueness of air .  Unfortunately we do not no matter how dense the air is.

You as somebody who has the luck to be in a position where you can experiment with lasers, have you ever beamed a laser through some compressed denser air to see if the air can produce any spectral content by it having a greater permeability by density?

If not, why not?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 22:30:55
Do you understand or can you understand that I do not easily accept things to be true? 
No
I don't understand why you don't accept obvious truth that has been demonstrated countless times in a multitude of ways, and  in spite of people explaining it to you.

Why are you unable to face facts?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 22:35:54
Now quite clearly if atoms were not transparent we should see some opaqueness of air .  Unfortunately we do not no matter how dense the air is.
We do- with every sunrise and sunset.
But you can't understand it.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: paulggriffiths on 27/09/2017 22:55:03
Now quite clearly if atoms were not transparent we should see some opaqueness of air .  Unfortunately we do not no matter how dense the air is.
We do- with every sunrise and sunset.
But you can't understand it.
Never stop picking on computer screens do you?
The truth is you're the only one here.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/09/2017 23:08:39
Now quite clearly if atoms were not transparent we should see some opaqueness of air .  Unfortunately we do not no matter how dense the air is.
We do- with every sunrise and sunset.
But you can't understand it.
Never stop picking on computer screens do you?
The truth is you're the only one here.
So, you are a figment of your imagination too.
Or, are you here, but too confused to realise?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 14:44:04
Do you understand or can you understand that I do not easily accept things to be true?
No
I don't understand why you don't accept obvious truth that has been demonstrated countless times in a multitude of ways, and  in spite of people explaining it to you.

Why are you unable to face facts?
I do not believe you have shown to many if any obvious truths.  What you provide anybody can look up on Wiki.   The stuff on wiki is what I am questioning the integrity of.
I am asking ''questions'' in regards to this stuff and about this stuff.   Replying with the original stuff does not answer any new queries on the stuff.
I do not understand why you can't answer simple questions that need answers from yourself and not wiki.
Do you even understand what the word new means? I can tell you it does not mean old information so why do you feel it is acceptable to keep pushing what I call a ''God'' defence?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 19:25:20
The stuff on wiki is what I am questioning the integrity of.
Essentially, you don't believe  the millions of man-years of  effort that has gone into refining the body of self consistent knowledge we call science.

What could anyone hope to do to change that?
 Replying with the original stuff does not answer any new queries on the stuff.
You haven't asked any queries  about it. You have just said you don't like it, and refuse to accept it.
You certainly haven't said anything that shows it to be in any way wrong.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 20:41:16

Essentially, you don't believe 


Wow! Mr Chemist here seems to think he can tap into human minds and know all about what a person thinks or doesn't think.  Speculation Mr Chemist.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 20:43:57

 You have just said you don't like it, and refuse to accept it.



Like as nothing to do with anything, facts does not fiction.   I have asked several queries on several subjects which all have failed to answer.


Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 20:44:51
If you believed it was true you wouldn't be questioning the integrity of wiki etc.
It's not mind reading; it's reading what you posted.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 20:48:33

 You have just said you don't like it, and refuse to accept it.


I have asked several queries on several subjects which all have failed to answer.
You ahev recieved, but not accepted answers.
For example the title of this thread is one question you asked
"Are all atoms transparent?"
And you got an answer
Sodium vapour is composed of atoms, and is blue.
which tells you that sodium atoms are not transparent to yellow light.

Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 20:49:15
If you believed it was true you wouldn't be questioning the integrity of wiki etc.
It's not mind reading; it's reading what you posted.
Well....


* orbital-view-of-the-grand-canyon.jpg (205.31 kB . 1000x650 - viewed 1297 times)

Quite clearly in this shot of the grand canyon from space there is no blue sky.  Quite clearly an observer on the ground will say there is a blue sky.. So quite clearly there simply a paradox . Unless you can explain why the sky is not blue in the shot?

added- Now the only possible answer I could give using conventional science, is that it is because the light is travelling away from the space shot. Where on the ground the light is travelling towards you.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 21:03:06


Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 21:12:55


Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?
Most air isn't made of atoms, it's made of molecules
I already pointed this out.
Anyway the air is mainly made from molecules, so it's about 99% irrelevant to the topic.
So, once again, you got the answer, but didn't accept it.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 21:15:59
So quite clearly there simply a paradox .
No there isn't.
That's a picture of the ground, not the sky.
It's like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying it's a paradox that you can't see the ocean.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 21:16:43


Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?
Most air isn't made of atoms, it's made of molecules
I already pointed this out.
Anyway the air is mainly made from molecules, so it's about 99% irrelevant to the topic.
So, once again, you got the answer, but didn't accept it.

Do you not know what a molecule is?  A molecule is a ''cluster'' of atoms held together by the chemical bond between atoms.  Air molecules are more dense than an individual atom. Yet they are still transparent .
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 21:20:42
So quite clearly there simply a paradox .
No there isn't.
That's a picture of the ground, not the sky.
It's like looking at the Mona Lisa and saying it's a paradox that you can't see the ocean.
That is a picture from space of the ground, notice there is no sky in the shot. The sky should be between the space and the ground but its not there in this shot. So why?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 21:29:30


Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?
Most air isn't made of atoms, it's made of molecules
I already pointed this out.
Anyway the air is mainly made from molecules, so it's about 99% irrelevant to the topic.
So, once again, you got the answer, but didn't accept it.

Do you not know what a molecule is?  A molecule is a ''cluster'' of atoms held together by the chemical bond between atoms.  Air molecules are more dense than an individual atom. Yet they are still transparent .
Why do you think density has anything to do with it?
Lutetium tungstate is nearly 10 times dense than water- almost as dense as lead- but it is transparent.
Lithium is opaque but is about half as dense as water.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 21:44:01


Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?
Most air isn't made of atoms, it's made of molecules
I already pointed this out.
Anyway the air is mainly made from molecules, so it's about 99% irrelevant to the topic.
So, once again, you got the answer, but didn't accept it.

Do you not know what a molecule is?  A molecule is a ''cluster'' of atoms held together by the chemical bond between atoms.  Air molecules are more dense than an individual atom. Yet they are still transparent .
Why do you think density has anything to do with it?
Lutetium tungstate is nearly 10 times dense than water- almost as dense as lead- but it is transparent.
Lithium is opaque but is about half as dense as water.
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 22:01:45
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 22:06:56
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?
Then perhaps field density has nothing to do with it and I need to go down a different path of thinking and research.

I would of thought the denser the medium , the more difficult it is for light to permeate through.  You have a point glass is denser than air, back to the drawing board on my energy research.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 22:15:05
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?
Then perhaps field density has nothing to do with it and I need to go down a different path of thinking and research.

I would of thought the denser the medium , the more difficult it is for light to permeate through.  You have a point glass is denser than air, back to the drawing board on my energy research.
Why not base your research on actually learning what people have already found out.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 22:18:15
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?
Then perhaps field density has nothing to do with it and I need to go down a different path of thinking and research.

I would of thought the denser the medium , the more difficult it is for light to permeate through.  You have a point glass is denser than air, back to the drawing board on my energy research.
Why not base your research on actually learning what people have already found out.
What else do you think I do?  I research, learn something.  If that something as questions I need to ask about it, then I ask.  Like with the blue sky.   I 'see' no reason why the blue sky is blue ''your'' way.  To me a scattering means ''spread'' out?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 28/09/2017 22:43:43
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.
I am looking at field strength density, not material density.
The electrostatic field in Lutetium tungstate is also very high- especially near the tungsten ion.,
 or were you referring to some "magic" made-up field you have invented?
Then perhaps field density has nothing to do with it and I need to go down a different path of thinking and research.

I would of thought the denser the medium , the more difficult it is for light to permeate through.  You have a point glass is denser than air, back to the drawing board on my energy research.
Why not base your research on actually learning what people have already found out.
What else do you think I do?  I research, learn something.  If that something as questions I need to ask about it, then I ask.  Like with the blue sky.   I 'see' no reason why the blue sky is blue ''your'' way.  To me a scattering means ''spread'' out?
No you dismiss all research, all knowledge as 'book learning'. This is not research - quite the opposite. You then tell people who have vastly more knowledge than you that they are wrong, without even having learned the basics of a subject. Research is defined as 'The systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.'. You merely engage in sloppy thinking and misplaced speculation.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/09/2017 22:46:47
What else do you think I do?
Make up dross.
I know you do- I have seen lots of it.
Like with the blue sky.   I 'see' no reason why the blue sky is blue ''your'' way.
Then you clearly have not tried learning it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

To me a scattering means ''spread'' out?
That's exactly what it means in this context too.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 28/09/2017 22:53:42
What else do you think I do?
Make up dross.
I know you do- I have seen lots of it.
Like with the blue sky.   I 'see' no reason why the blue sky is blue ''your'' way.
Then you clearly have not tried learning it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/BlueSky/blue_sky.html

To me a scattering means ''spread'' out?
That's exactly what it means in this context too.

Then answer this, what happens to light according to present information when it spreads out more?

You can either consider the inverse square law or a longer wavelength.

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/09/2017 19:16:15
Then answer this, what happens to light according to present information when it spreads out more?

You can either consider the inverse square law or a longer wavelength.

Given that scattering doesn't follow the inverse square law, nor generally lead to a longer wavelength, why would I consider those?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: chiralSPO on 29/09/2017 20:00:24
If air doesn't interact with light then how does the air look funny above a hot fire or over the road ahead on a hot day? (see attached pix if you don't know what I'm talking about) [ Invalid Attachment ]  [ Invalid Attachment ]

And in the picture, you shared of the Earth from space: I clearly see a fuzzy blue layer at the edge of the horizon (as pointed out by others, this IS the atmosphere), and also the "sky" above is black, even though it is clearly "daytime" whereas "daytime" without clouds means blue sky on Earth...
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 20:38:25
If air doesn't interact with light then how does the air look funny above a hot fire or over the road ahead on a hot day? (see attached pix if you don't know what I'm talking about)
* wavey fire.jpg (8.52 kB . 275x183 - viewed 1940 times)
* wavey road.jpg (6.26 kB . 320x157 - viewed 1936 times)

And in the picture, you shared of the Earth from space: I clearly see a fuzzy blue layer at the edge of the horizon (as pointed out by others, this IS the atmosphere), and also the "sky" above is black, even though it is clearly "daytime" whereas "daytime" without clouds means blue sky on Earth...

Not to mention that the sky at night is often not jet black, but bluish-black instead. If Thebox's idea of the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth pressing up against each other is to be believed, then it cannot explain a bluish-black sky at night because the night side of the planet is always facing away from the Sun. There would be no compression of the Earth's magnetic field by the Sun's field on the night side of the planet (indeed, the Earth's magnetosphere is stretched out on the night side of the planet due to solar wind).
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 29/09/2017 21:37:14
Then answer this, what happens to light according to present information when it spreads out more?

You can either consider the inverse square law or a longer wavelength.

Given that scattering doesn't follow the inverse square law, nor generally lead to a longer wavelength, why would I consider those?

Because the word scattering would be quite the opposite of compress.  For something to scatter, the distance expands between particles.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 29/09/2017 21:40:27
If air doesn't interact with light
I have not said that air does not interact with light.   I said air is transparent allows light to pass through it.   So why would air scatter light when the light passes through it?

I also question the word scattering which seems very opposite to a ''blue'' spectral wave-length which is a more compressed wave-length  ?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 29/09/2017 21:42:53
(indeed, the Earth's magnetosphere is stretched out on the night side of the planet due to solar wind).

or because there is no opposing pressure on the field?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 29/09/2017 21:45:44
If Thebox's idea of the magnetic fields of the Sun and Earth pressing up against each other is to be believed

It is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of Physics.  If you accept  your own Physics which I use in my notion, then you must also accept the notion.

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 29/09/2017 21:53:50
then it cannot explain a bluish-black sky at night because the night side of the planet is always facing away from the Sun.
I wouldn't be too sure on that if I was you.  There is distance stars at night that if were closer, the sky would be a lot bluer at night. In fact it wouldn't even be ''dark''.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/09/2017 22:30:08
It is not a matter of belief

 ::)
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: chiralSPO on 03/10/2017 18:30:27
If air doesn't interact with light
I have not said that air does not interact with light.   I said air is transparent allows light to pass through it.   So why would air scatter light when the light passes through it?

I also question the word scattering which seems very opposite to a ''blue'' spectral wave-length which is a more compressed wave-length  ?



In this context, we use the word "scatter" to mean "change the direction of in random ways". It turns out (based on experimental observations, from which the theory was eventually derived) that blue light is more easily scattered than red light. So if you have a beam of light that is moving in a certain direction, after interaction with matter (of any kind) some of the light will be "scattered" such that it is no longer traveling in the same direction. The strength of this scattering effect depends on the wavelength of the light and many properties of the matter that is causing the scattering.

This effect is very hard to see by experimenting with just pure air (you need a whole atmosphere's worth!)

But it can be very effectively seen with smoke. If you happen to be a smoker or if you camp or BBQ often you may already have noticed this at some point, but smoke often appears to be kind of blueish (this is best observed when the sun is behind you and the smoke is in front of you, so you are seeing the light that scatters back at you). But when thick smoke is between you and the sun, it often takes on a red or brown sort of look to it. It's hard to show in pictures, but these might sorta work (both pictures show that the sunlight coming through the smoke looks red, and the surrounding smoke is blue/grey). It's best to check it out in person.

* red smoke.jpg (4.36 kB . 259x194 - viewed 1920 times)
* smoke-filtered sun.jpg (3.27 kB . 275x183 - viewed 1900 times)
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 03/10/2017 18:50:30
If air doesn't interact with light
I have not said that air does not interact with light.   I said air is transparent allows light to pass through it.   So why would air scatter light when the light passes through it?

I also question the word scattering which seems very opposite to a ''blue'' spectral wave-length which is a more compressed wave-length  ?



In this context, we use the word "scatter" to mean "change the direction of in random ways". It turns out (based on experimental observations, from which the theory was eventually derived) that blue light is more easily scattered than red light. So if you have a beam of light that is moving in a certain direction, after interaction with matter (of any kind) some of the light will be "scattered" such that it is no longer traveling in the same direction. The strength of this scattering effect depends on the wavelength of the light and many properties of the matter that is causing the scattering.

This effect is very hard to see by experimenting with just pure air (you need a whole atmosphere's worth!)

But it can be very effectively seen with smoke. If you happen to be a smoker or if you camp or BBQ often you may already have noticed this at some point, but smoke often appears to be kind of blueish (this is best observed when the sun is behind you and the smoke is in front of you, so you are seeing the light that scatters back at you). But when thick smoke is between you and the sun, it often takes on a red or brown sort of look to it. It's hard to show in pictures, but these might sorta work (both pictures show that the sunlight coming through the smoke looks red, and the surrounding smoke is blue/grey). It's best to check it out in person.

* red smoke.jpg (4.36 kB . 259x194 - viewed 1920 times)
* smoke-filtered sun.jpg (3.27 kB . 275x183 - viewed 1900 times)
Ok, I still do not understand though how light travelling random ways can have a shorter wave-length i.e blue

I would expect a scattering to cause a wave length that was longer, i.e red

I can't ''see'' in the mechanics involved how the light can compress enough to be blue?   

In your explaining of a scattering not once is there any mention of permeability?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2017 20:19:40
Then answer this, what happens to light according to present information when it spreads out more?

You can either consider the inverse square law or a longer wavelength.

Given that scattering doesn't follow the inverse square law, nor generally lead to a longer wavelength, why would I consider those?

Because the word scattering would be quite the opposite of compress.  For something to scatter, the distance expands between particles.
Which is what happens with scattered photons.
That's why they call it "scattering".
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2017 20:22:59
Ok, I still do not understand though how light travelling random ways can have a shorter wave-length i.e blue
It doesn't.
The light from the sun has a range of wavelengths- some red, some blue, others in between.
As that mix travels through the air some is scattered.
More of the blue light is scattered than red.
So, if you look "side on" to the sunlight- i.e. at the sky, but not straight at the sun, you see blue light.
If  you look at the light that isn't scattered- e.g. at a sunset, you see light with less blue in it- becae that was scattered away and so it looks red.

None of this is difficult.
It's elementary school stuff.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/10/2017 20:24:45
I can't ''see'' in the mechanics involved how the light can compress enough to be blue?   
Nor can anyone else.
That's why we are not saying it is compressed.
Why are you saying that?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: chiralSPO on 03/10/2017 20:44:20
Ok, I still do not understand though how light travelling random ways can have a shorter wave-length i.e blue

I would expect a scattering to cause a wave length that was longer, i.e red

I can't ''see'' in the mechanics involved how the light can compress enough to be blue?   

In your explaining of a scattering not once is there any mention of permeability?

It doesn't change the wavelength of the light. Sunlight is composed of many wavelengths of light together. Scattering separates them a little bit (like a refraction prism or diffraction grating, but using yet another principle). The shorter the wavelength of the light, the more significantly the light is scattered. This changes the observed colors by changing the ratio of red to blue light without actually changing the wavelengths of anything. See below:

* Screen Shot 2017-10-03 at 3.42.44 PM.png (146.67 kB . 760x1270 - viewed 1176 times)
An observer on the righthand side of the image looking towards the source of the light would see a mixture of red and blue light (more red than blue) apparently coming right from the source, and essentially just blue light comeing from apparently random directions (everywhere else).
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 03/10/2017 22:18:31
Sunlight is composed of many wavelengths of light together.

I would like to ask a query to this statement.  Do you mean white light is a mixture of frequencies ?    What sunlight is, not being determined.   To me sunlight permeating through space is certainly not white light.  To me sunlight permeating trough space is a frequency variate , spectral content 400nm-700nm being constants.
I do not 'see'' how light permeating through space which offers no permeability can have any sort of opposing force to create a wave length.
Surely there has to be applied opposing force to create a wave length , like the wind makes a calm lake wave by force that over comes the inertia of the water.

And as for the diagram you provided, I am still not ''seeing'' the mechanics to make ''blue''.  To me a blue sky is more pressured than a red sky at night. I for now can not see past this when your explanation does not seem logical.


added- Why can it not be the below example?


* pu.jpg (41.31 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1137 times)

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 08:03:29
I would like to ask a query to this statement.  Do you mean white light is a mixture of frequencies ?
Yes, it is.
Every single experiment ever done on the subject shows this to be true, as do many commonplace observations.
To me sunlight permeating through space is certainly not white light. 
So, what you are saying is that you are right and that everyone else is wrong.
Where did you get such a delusion of  grandeur from?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 12:35:55
I would like to ask a query to this statement.  Do you mean white light is a mixture of frequencies ?
Yes, it is.
Every single experiment ever done on the subject shows this to be true, as do many commonplace observations.
To me sunlight permeating through space is certainly not white light.
So, what you are saying is that you are right and that everyone else is wrong.
Where did you get such a delusion of  grandeur from?
Quite clearly you are not the smartest cookie in the jar.  Quite clearly you keep making things up and keep using ambiguity in some way trying to make me look bad.   I think everyone reading this post can certainly see for themselves that the light between their eyes and an object is not white , period.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 12:48:37
Quite clearly you keep making things up
What do you think I have made up?
The screen on which you are reading this emits (more or less) white light.
What other colour could it be between the screen (an object) and your eyes?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 12:59:00
Quite clearly you keep making things up
What do you think I have made up?
The screen on which you are reading this emits (more or less) white light.
What other colour could it be between the screen (an object) and your eyes?

It isn't any colour between your eyes and object, it is clear in appearance, i.e transparent

Now if you say clear or invisible light is a mixture of frequencies and can create variable wave-lengths, then you have the correct semantics and remove the confusion of white.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 13:04:49

* ln.jpg (179.63 kB . 900x675 - viewed 1125 times)

We can clearly observe that white light has a greater ''viscosity'' than the clear/transparent light of the space surrounding the white light. The white light being far more opaque.

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 13:15:27
Quite clearly you keep making things up
What do you think I have made up?
The screen on which you are reading this emits (more or less) white light.
What other colour could it be between the screen (an object) and your eyes?

It isn't any colour between your eyes and object, it is clear in appearance, i.e transparent

Now if you say clear or invisible light is a mixture of frequencies and can create variable wave-lengths, then you have the correct semantics and remove the confusion of white.
OK, the first thing you need to do is understand that colour is (more or less) a property of the light itself. It depends on the wavelength (or more commonly) on the mix of wavelengths and their relative intensities.
Your eyes can judge that colour, but only when he  light actually reaches your eyes.
Got that?

We can clearly observe that white light has a greater ''viscosity'
That's just nonsense.
Look up the meaning of the word "viscosity".
Colloquially, it's to do with the "thickness" or oiliness of liquids.

Scientifically it is to do with momentum transfer and velocity gradients.

Neither of those can apply to light.

You are making up the idea that it might.

So, please stop making things up and, btw, please stop pretending that I'm the one who makes stuff up.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 13:24:26
Quite clearly you keep making things up
What do you think I have made up?
The screen on which you are reading this emits (more or less) white light.
What other colour could it be between the screen (an object) and your eyes?

It isn't any colour between your eyes and object, it is clear in appearance, i.e transparent

Now if you say clear or invisible light is a mixture of frequencies and can create variable wave-lengths, then you have the correct semantics and remove the confusion of white.
OK, the first thing you need to do is understand that colour is (more or less) a property of the light itself. It depends on the wavelength (or more commonly) on the mix of wavelengths and their relative intensities.
Your eyes can judge that colour, but only when he  light actually reaches your eyes.
Got that?

We can clearly observe that white light has a greater ''viscosity'
That's just nonsense.
Look up the meaning of the word "viscosity".
Colloquially, it's to do with the "thickness" or oiliness of liquids.

Scientifically it is to do with momentum transfer and velocity gradients.

Neither of those can apply to light.

You are making up the idea that it might.

So, please stop making things up and, btw, please stop pretending that I'm the one who makes stuff up.

Can you not read English?  Do you not know that when a word is put in quotation brackets , it does not actually mean that word exactly.
Secondly Colour is not a property of the ''light'' (electromagnetic radiation) itself. Colour is a property of light and substance interaction, without the interaction there is no colour period. All objects are relative dark in appearance. Only the objects are visible dark or visible light. This interaction I can measure to be in its exact geometrical position.  Not only does the picture and colour exist in your mind, it also exists outside of your mind.

And I know you are trolling me because you did it yourself with quotation so nice try.

Colloquially, it's to do with the "thickness"

So instead of trying to make me look bad all the time for no apparent reason, why not try helping and actually do some science?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 13:31:41
I'm not trolling  you.
 I used the quote marks, because, as you point out- that's how English works.

I didn't want you saying  dross like "how thick is it? Is it 10mm thick?"


The point is that light doesn't have a thickness in either use of the word.

"Secondly Colour is not a property of the ''light'' (electromagnetic radiation) itself. Colour is a property of light and substance interaction, without the interaction there is no colour period."
Just plain wrong.
If I point a red HeNe laser at stuff in a room with no other light source, the only colour I will see is red- because the laser only emits red light.
It doesn't matter much what substance or object it interacts with the only thing I see is shades of red from bright, through dark to almost black..
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 13:41:28
I'm not trolling  you.
 I used the quote marks, because, as you point out- that's how English works.

I didn't want you saying  dross like "how thick is it? Is it 10mm thick?"


The point is that light doesn't have a thickness in either use of the word.

"Secondly Colour is not a property of the ''light'' (electromagnetic radiation) itself. Colour is a property of light and substance interaction, without the interaction there is no colour period."
Just plain wrong.
If I point a red HeNe laser at stuff in a room with no other light source, the only colour I will see is red- because the laser only emits red light.
It doesn't matter much what substance or object it interacts with the only thing I see is shades of red from bright, through dark to almost black..

And you know very well you don't see a laser beam unless a medium is reflecting it creating visible light.  No interaction no reaction.

You keep mimicking present information, it is the easiest thing in the world to do is copy and repeat from memory.   I understand everything present information says about light and I too could also repeat that.  However that is not doing any science what so ever.
What I am doing is science.  I am looking at the information and dissecting that information to look for correctness in the information.   Yes we know that white light is a mixture of frequencies, but the very fact remains that we do not know what the light between point sources is made up of because we are stuck with white light which is clearly different to the light permeating between point sources.
I ask you to move on from white light and discuss clear/invisible  light properties. Something that science seems to leave out.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 13:51:51
Now Mr Chemist I am going to presume you and the moderators are quite clever.  So moving on , lets see if you can actual do science or just remember science.

I state that I think the light permeating between point sources that is clear/invisible in relative appearance is in a state of chaos.  Only when there is an interaction does light find order and a constant of appearances.    Colour being spectral constant wave-lengths. Order to disorder.   
I also suggest that the signals we transmit though space are a constant, a constant transmitted through chaos (white noise) that we can detect because it is constant compared to the chaos.

What do you think of my speculative thinking?

Added - I tried to explain before the light backing up, I should of simply said I think the sky is blue because of feedback.

feed back
phrasal verb of feed
1.
(of an electrical or other system) produce feedback.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Quote
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops,
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 14:41:47

* emf.jpg (41.71 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1110 times)
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 14:56:28
And you know very well you don't see a laser beam unless a medium is reflecting it creating visible light.  No interaction no reaction.
Yes I do know that.
I already said it.
Specifically, I said this
Your eyes can judge that colour, but only when he  light actually reaches your eyes.
Got that?

A beam of light going across your field of view is practically invisible.
That's because none of it reaches your eye.
If there's a speck of dust in the beam it reflects some of that light towards your eyes - and then you can see it.
What I am doing is science. 

Ignoring established science is not doing science.

Yes we know that white light is a mixture of frequencies, but the very fact remains that we do not know what the light between point sources is made up of because we are stuck with white light
Nonsense, we can choose any colour we like and do experiments with it.
I ask you to move on from white light and discuss clear/invisible  light properties.
The distinction there is simple.
Is it heading for  someone's eye?
If not it will not be seen- you can call it invisible if you like- but it's an odd way to put it.

This has nothing to do with the colour (how could it if it's invisible?)
Something that science seems to leave out.
The light travelling through space is exactly the sort of situation which Maxwell's  equations  sorted out scientifically over a hundred years ago.
It's preposterous to say that science has some how managed to "leave out" light travelling in space.
I state that I think the light permeating between point sources that is clear/invisible in relative appearance is in a state of chaos. 
In fairness, you can speculate that, between interactions, the light rides a unicorn.
Nobody will ever prove you wrong.
But why not just accept  that it travels in the way that electromagnetics shows it would travel?
There's no evidence that the conventional approach is wrong. and it has been tested in ways that fill stacks of books.

It's possible that the path is chaotic- that's sometimes done deliberately.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9806183.pdf
as far a I'm aware, it is currently in the box marked "fascinating, but useless".
The chaos arises from a chaotic substrate.

Why would a clear path - air, or even a vacuum- do that?
What do you think of my speculative thinking?
I think that , at best, it adds nothing.
It sees to be based on a flawed understanding of  physics and it's a waste of both your time, and mine.
I'm only replying because I don't want nonsense to have the last word on a science forum.
Your picture means nothing.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 14:57:50
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 15:02:43
Ignoring established science is not doing science.
Interesting , I often discuss stuff that involves established science, although my stuff being new and all that, obvious not established yet. However you are not doing science if you are not trying to advance that established science in which I do.

As for the rest, you again just being a Parrot and repeating established science.

Lets start with a really simple question as you just don't seem to understand how to do science.

In my picture of observation I provided of the lightning strike, what colour do you see the lightning to be?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 15:16:52
It's preposterous to say that science has some how managed to "leave out" light travelling in space.
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.

added- science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies.  White light is different to the randomness of the light permeating through space. We can't see randomness, not only in probability but also when discussing the nature of light. We can only see or detect things that are constant and have enough intensity and magnitude compared to the chaos.

Quote
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns,

Quote
Permeability (electromagnetism), the degree of magnetisation of a material in response to a magnetic field

Consider the field itself as been a material relative to other fields. (N-field).

The degree of magnetisation of a field in response to a magnetic field
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 15:18:54
t's possible that the path is chaotic- that's sometimes done deliberately.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/9806183.pdf
as far a I'm aware, it is currently in the box marked "fascinating, but useless".
The chaos arises from a chaotic substrate.

Why would a clear path - air, or even a vacuum- do that?
Or glass, because it has low permeability of the field magnitude.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 20:23:27
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 20:27:01
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 21:05:32
Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-monochromatic-light-how-used-468051
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 21:09:33
Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-monochromatic-light-how-used-468051
I think you will find that ''light''permeating through space is colourless therefore it can not be monochromatic.   It has no colour, especially not white. 

Like I said science as not covered the nature of this.

You can't provide information because there is none. 

So lets discuss.

added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/10/2017 21:24:03
If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?

Just because nobody is looking doesn't stop it having a colour.

Since you are simply flat out wrong, I can't provide information about your hallucination.
added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?

It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.

You need to get to grips with the fact that light is light.
You only see it if it goes into your eye.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 04/10/2017 21:28:16
If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?


By feedback ,



Quote
Since you are simply flat out wrong, I can't provide information about your hallucination.
added- for the purpose of discussion are you happy calling the electromagnetic radiation that permeates through ''free space'' , clear light?


It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.

You need to get to grips with the fact that light is light.
You only see it if it goes into your eye.
If it has no colour, how does it "know" to make, for example a bit of paper light up blue or green?
The magnitude of feedback.
It's just light; there's nothing "clear" about it.
Huh, no, it is very clear in appearance between my eyes and object, the light is invisible/clear between eye and observation. You are quite mad if you think it is not. I can see it is.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 04/10/2017 22:12:49
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light
So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 05/10/2017 12:38:27
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light
So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.
Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 05/10/2017 17:04:00
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light
So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.
Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
Oh I see. So it is the special kind of light that you have made up that we are talking about? Not the light that everybody else is referring to? Good diversion pigeon.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 05/10/2017 20:46:12
But they did, that is why I have spent years getting the answers but you don't want to listen.
No
They didn't.
They did quite a lot of work on it.
Starting with stuff like Maxwell's equations, and going on to things like microwave radar and the fibre optic communications through which you are receiving this message.
It really is preposterous to try to say they didn't .

science only ever considered white light which is a constant made by a mixture of constant frequencies. 
Clearly hogwash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photochemistry
etc

There's a whole stack of stuff using lasers which only produce a single wavelength.
Holography is, perhaps, the most widely used.
We can't see randomness,
Yes we can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speckle_imaging

Why don't you spend some time finding out what we can, and do, achieve, before trying to tell us we can't.
I type in white light I get https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Light

Please provide the link to the light that is not white and permeates through space.

I will provide a link what I get when I type in clear light

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Light
So you have never seen light shining on a surface from the sun for example? Is the light on the surface clear? Of course it isnt Mr. Pigeon.
Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
Oh I see. So it is the special kind of light that you have made up that we are talking about? Not the light that everybody else is referring to? Good diversion pigeon.
huh.... are you reading something else.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 05/10/2017 21:08:51
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 05/10/2017 21:58:10
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 11:18:19
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 11:25:36
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 11:29:34
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.
In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 13:49:30
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.
In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.
How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 13:51:59
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.
In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.
How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.
Yep. Like 'the Donald'. Where facts are inconvenient to your belief, they are 'fake news'. Enjoy your delusion Pigeon.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 13:58:54
'we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''. '

Utter nonsense.
Huh. quite clearly you have lost it. Do you not know the difference between visible light and light?
A good definition of light can be found in your favourite (and only) source of information:
'Light is electromagnetic radiation within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. The word usually refers to visible light, which is visible to the human eye and is responsible for the sense of sight'
We are referring to the usual definition. No doubt you are referring to your own definition which nobody else on the planet recognises as usual to ensure you get some attention and continue this farce.
It is quite clear to me now that you are just trolling me like Mr Chemist, so no longer will I be replying to your replies.   In fact I won't be bother replying again  in general.  I can not beat religion , I mean science.
Carry on believing your own lies about the Universe, I can't be bothered anymore wasting my very precious time of life, this is getting me nowhere so time to move on into something else.
In other words, the definition does not conform to what you think it should do, the world does not conform to what you think it should, evidence does not confirm your deluded beliefs so you accuse people who point out your mistakes of trolling. Amazing how many people you accuse of trolling really. You remind me of Donald Trump but without the intellect.

ETA. This is not an airport so there is no need to announce your departure.
How about I be totally blunt with you, you are stupid.  You are not a clever person, you can only do remembrance of subjective dogma,

End of continue to be stupid.
Yep. Like 'the Donald'. Where facts are inconvenient to your belief, they are 'fake news'. Enjoy your delusion Pigeon.
You is the one who is delusional and some way thinks they are clever.. Why not face reality and accept you can not do any science.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 14:04:51
I do not do beliefs, unlike you believe everything you read on Wiki to be true and axiom facts.  Only a fool would believe in such.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 14:08:50
Your problem is you can not comprehend things that are not wrote on wiki because these things are more than just remembering, you have to have the ability to think for yourself in which you clearly lack.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 14:48:05
My! What an angry little pigeon!

I cannot do any science eh? Maybe not. I make a pretty good living from doing science. How do make a few pennies?

You seem to get so wound up when people point out that your definition of things is at odds with the way the rest of the world define things. Maybe you should get some kind of counselling?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 18:03:34
. I make a pretty good living from doing science. How do make a few pennies?


What you really mean is you make a living of mimicking something you were taught to remember.  That is not doing science.  Provide one piece of science that you have provided yourself?

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 18:10:20
. I make a pretty good living from doing science. How do make a few pennies?


What you really mean is you make a living of mimicking something you were taught to remember.  That is not doing science.  Provide one piece of science that you have provided yourself?


What have you actually done? Other than cluttering up online forums? Name one practical thing you have done - and I dont mean generic carp fishing videos with a robotic voice. You don't even have a clue what science is as you have not even made the effort to learn the basics - same with maths. All you do is wind people up on forums pigeon.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 18:16:52
. I make a pretty good living from doing science. How do make a few pennies?


What you really mean is you make a living of mimicking something you were taught to remember.  That is not doing science.  Provide one piece of science that you have provided yourself?


What have you actually done? Other than cluttering up online forums? Name one practical thing you have done - and I dont mean generic carp fishing videos with a robotic voice. You don't even have a clue what science is as you have not even made the effort to learn the basics - same with maths. All you do is wind people up on forums pigeon.
See the proof's in the pudding, you do not do science.   What have I done?  I do experiments regularly but using things I can find lying around the house.  I have answers what is time, I have not sent it for peerview as a paper because I want something a bit ''bigger'' than just time. Like answering what gravity is.
The only person I see getting wind up is yourself by yourself, this is not my doing.  Just because you are stereotypical as a person that does not mean other people do not have answers.
I could out think most people all day long is my ability.
Practical wise not involving science I am very good in doing many different things. I am versatile.

What is your job? I wonder if I could do it.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 06/10/2017 18:25:27
. I make a pretty good living from doing science. How do make a few pennies?


What you really mean is you make a living of mimicking something you were taught to remember.  That is not doing science.  Provide one piece of science that you have provided yourself?


What have you actually done? Other than cluttering up online forums? Name one practical thing you have done - and I dont mean generic carp fishing videos with a robotic voice. You don't even have a clue what science is as you have not even made the effort to learn the basics - same with maths. All you do is wind people up on forums pigeon.
See the proof's in the pudding, you do not do science.   What have I done?  I do experiments regularly but using things I can find lying around the house.  I have answers what is time, I have not sent it for peerview as a paper because I want something a bit ''bigger'' than just time. Like answering what gravity is.
The only person I see getting wind up is yourself by yourself, this is not my doing.  Just because you are stereotypical as a person that does not mean other people do not have answers.
I could out think most people all day long is my ability.
Practical wise not involving science I am very good in doing many different things. I am versatile.
I do experiments regularly but using things I can find lying around the house.  I have answers what is time, I have not sent it for peerview as a paper because I want something a bit ''bigger'' than just time. Like answering what gravity is.

You are obviously just taking the piss.

How can you claim to do science when you are so completely ignorant of science, maths, English etc  and frequently demonstrate this. Your 'experiments' like claiming to see atoms? Nonsense. Trying to sound 'sciency' by writing in what you think (incorrectly) approximates German.

You seem to disagree on commonly used definitions because they do not  fit in with what you imagine they should e.g. what constitutes light (and trying to distinguish this from visible) light. You don't wind me up - I think of you as a bit of a joke. I make money from science. You never, ever will. Try a circus Pigeon. 
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/10/2017 21:01:41

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 06/10/2017 21:28:58

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?





Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 00:02:04

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?






No. Light is the generalised term for the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why short wave radio, gamma radiation and xrays are not referred to as light. Got it now?
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 07/10/2017 02:03:42

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?






No. Light is the generalised term for the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why short wave radio, gamma radiation and xrays are not referred to as light. Got it now?
Hmmm, radio waves is light (electromagnetic radiation) and so are x-rays and gamma radiation and the CBMR you missed out. .  Quite clearly you do not understand the difference between visible by the eye and visible/detectable by device.

We as humans can only observe light between 400nm-700nm, Other species can observe infra red light which is not within our visual range.
We can detect wave-lengths of light by device that we can not see with our own eyes, but it is still light . 




Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 09:13:03

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?






No. Light is the generalised term for the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why short wave radio, gamma radiation and xrays are not referred to as light. Got it now?
Hmmm, radio waves is light (electromagnetic radiation) and so are x-rays and gamma radiation and the CBMR you missed out. .  Quite clearly you do not understand the difference between visible by the eye and visible/detectable by device.

We as humans can only observe light between 400nm-700nm, Other species can observe infra red light which is not within our visual range.
We can detect wave-lengths of light by device that we can not see with our own eyes, but it is still light . 





No. As pointed out further up the thread by me and others light refers to that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible. Oxford English dictionary defines it as 'The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible'.

If we go to wikip=aedia again we have 'The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light'

This is the accepted definition that is used. This how language works - we use accepted definitions otherwise we cannot communicate and you do seem to have all sorts of problems communicating anything. What you do is claim you have a new idea and instead of using accepted definitions that everybody else uses claim that it is 'book learning'. 

The definitions of light explicitly exclude radio waves, gamma radiation, xrays and your favourite 'sciencey' jargon CMBR.

Your denial of this is rather like somebody saying 'apples are fruit, therefore all fruit are apples' being told this is incorrect and then claiming everybody is trolling you and just using book learning. It is completely idiotic.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:18:41

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?






No. Light is the generalised term for the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why short wave radio, gamma radiation and xrays are not referred to as light. Got it now?
Hmmm, radio waves is light (electromagnetic radiation) and so are x-rays and gamma radiation and the CBMR you missed out. .  Quite clearly you do not understand the difference between visible by the eye and visible/detectable by device.

We as humans can only observe light between 400nm-700nm, Other species can observe infra red light which is not within our visual range.
We can detect wave-lengths of light by device that we can not see with our own eyes, but it is still light . 





No. As pointed out further up the thread by me and others light refers to that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible. Oxford English dictionary defines it as 'The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible'.

If we go to wikip=aedia again we have 'The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light'

This is the accepted definition that is used. This how language works - we use accepted definitions otherwise we cannot communicate and you do seem to have all sorts of problems communicating anything. What you do is claim you have a new idea and instead of using accepted definitions that everybody else uses claim that it is 'book learning'. 

The definitions of light explicitly exclude radio waves, gamma radiation, xrays and your favourite 'sciencey' jargon CMBR.

Your denial of this is rather like somebody saying 'apples are fruit, therefore all fruit are apples' being told this is incorrect and then claiming everybody is trolling you and just using book learning. It is completely idiotic.
No, you are only representing visible light and not invisible light, the invisible part of the spectrum that you can not see.

Quote
Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. ... At 300 GHz, the corresponding wavelength is 1 mm (0.039 in), and at 3 kHz is 100 km (62 mi). Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light.

All electromagnetic radiation is light, get it now?

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/14710/is-visible-light-and-radio-waves-made-of-the-same-thing
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 11:24:32

Of course the light that glares off an object is not clear, we are not taking about the visible light of interaction.  We are discussing the light that permeates through ''free space''.
At the risk of being accused of  pinching an idea from the Prime Minister, Light means light.
There aren't these two different "flavours" that you seem to imagine.
If I must then...

Quote
Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm. In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

Quote
The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz.

To put it simply light is a generalised term for electromagnetic radiation. Some of it is observable by the eye, i.e visible light

Some of it can be detectable by device but not the eye  i.e invisible spectrum

Quote
invisible spectrum
The portion of the spectrum either below the red (infrared) or above the violet (ultraviolet), which is invisible to the eye, the waves being too long or too short to affect the retina. The invisible spectrum includes rays less than 3900 in length (ultraviolet, roentgen or x, gamma, and cosmic rays) and those exceeding 7700 in length (infrared, high-frequency oscillations used in short- and long-wave diathermy, radio, hertzian, and very long waves). These range in length from 7700 to 5,000,000 m.

Quite clearly you do not know what you are talking about because light is a general term we use but light is not just light.

The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?






No. Light is the generalised term for the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. This is why short wave radio, gamma radiation and xrays are not referred to as light. Got it now?
Hmmm, radio waves is light (electromagnetic radiation) and so are x-rays and gamma radiation and the CBMR you missed out. .  Quite clearly you do not understand the difference between visible by the eye and visible/detectable by device.

We as humans can only observe light between 400nm-700nm, Other species can observe infra red light which is not within our visual range.
We can detect wave-lengths of light by device that we can not see with our own eyes, but it is still light . 





No. As pointed out further up the thread by me and others light refers to that portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible. Oxford English dictionary defines it as 'The natural agent that stimulates sight and makes things visible'.

If we go to wikip=aedia again we have 'The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light'

This is the accepted definition that is used. This how language works - we use accepted definitions otherwise we cannot communicate and you do seem to have all sorts of problems communicating anything. What you do is claim you have a new idea and instead of using accepted definitions that everybody else uses claim that it is 'book learning'. 

The definitions of light explicitly exclude radio waves, gamma radiation, xrays and your favourite 'sciencey' jargon CMBR.

Your denial of this is rather like somebody saying 'apples are fruit, therefore all fruit are apples' being told this is incorrect and then claiming everybody is trolling you and just using book learning. It is completely idiotic.
No, you are only representing visible light and not invisible light, the invisible part of the spectrum that you can not see.

Quote
Radio waves are a type of electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum longer than infrared light. ... At 300 GHz, the corresponding wavelength is 1 mm (0.039 in), and at 3 kHz is 100 km (62 mi). Like all other electromagnetic waves, they travel at the speed of light.

All electromagnetic radiation is light, get it now?


Nope. They travel at the speed of light, but are not light. Carry on using your own made definitions if you like. No one else will recognise your definition or seriously engage with you but as long as you are happy in your own isolated, deluded little world, that is fine by me Pigeon.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 07/10/2017 11:29:33
Nope. They travel at the speed of light, but are not light. Carry on using your own made definitions if you like. No one else will recognise your definition or seriously engage with you but as long as you are happy in your own isolated, deluded little world, that is fine by me Pigeon.
Radio waves travel at c and is invisible light, light that is not in the frequency of visible light 400nm-700nm. 
Did  you not read the previous posts where I provided you with visible spectrum and invisible spectrum?

The invisible spectrum is wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation, i.e light

The stuff we transmit is photons (electromagnetic radiation).   
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: The Spoon on 07/10/2017 11:36:32
Nope. They travel at the speed of light, but are not light. Carry on using your own made definitions if you like. No one else will recognise your definition or seriously engage with you but as long as you are happy in your own isolated, deluded little world, that is fine by me Pigeon.
Radio waves travel at c and is invisible light, light that is not in the frequency of visible light 400nm-700nm. 
Did  you not read the previous posts where I provided you with visible spectrum and invisible spectrum?

The invisible spectrum is wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation, i.e light

The stuff we transmit is photons (electromagnetic radiation).   
Nope. Wrong. Feel free to post more nonsense. It serves as a testament for everybody to see of your huge ignorance.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 07/10/2017 12:19:05
Nope. They travel at the speed of light, but are not light. Carry on using your own made definitions if you like. No one else will recognise your definition or seriously engage with you but as long as you are happy in your own isolated, deluded little world, that is fine by me Pigeon.
Radio waves travel at c and is invisible light, light that is not in the frequency of visible light 400nm-700nm. 
Did  you not read the previous posts where I provided you with visible spectrum and invisible spectrum?

The invisible spectrum is wave-lengths of electromagnetic radiation, i.e light

The stuff we transmit is photons (electromagnetic radiation).   
Nope. Wrong. Feel free to post more nonsense. It serves as a testament for everybody to see of your huge ignorance.
Well seems as everyone reading this can type in visible spectrum and invisible spectrum on google, I think you are making yourself look rather a troll. I do like the reverse character move though from you.
Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/10/2017 17:39:26
The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?
No
Becauses that's made-up gibberish.
Light going through space is exactly the same as the light that, when it hits your eye, is visible.
It doesn't "change" .
You have misunderstood the definition (possibly deliberately).
Let me clarify it.

"The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye or would be if it entered the eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz."

Title: Re: Are all atoms transparent?
Post by: Thebox on 07/10/2017 20:42:18
The ''light'' permeating through space is the invisible spectrum, light interacting with permeability and having a force feedback is visible light.

Ok, you got it now?
No
Becauses that's made-up gibberish.
Light going through space is exactly the same as the light that, when it hits your eye, is visible.
It doesn't "change" .
You have misunderstood the definition (possibly deliberately).
Let me clarify it.

"The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye or would be if it entered the eye. Electromagnetic radiation in this range of wavelengths is called visible light or simply light. A typical human eye will respond to wavelengths from about 390 to 700 nm.[1] In terms of frequency, this corresponds to a band in the vicinity of 430770 THz."



No, The visible spectrum is the portion of the electromagnetic spectrum that is visible to the human eye.  Visible light only exists of electromagnetic radiation and substance interaction in it's exact geometrical position.  The invisible spectrum is the electromagnetic radiation permeating through space that enters your eyes to allow you to see. Photons do not exist and visible light is a consequence of Q.F.F (Quantum field fluctuations).


added- I suppose the N-field electromagnetic spectrum  theory, will be too much for your mind to comprehend at this  time and is probably years ahead of your time. ....