[Bored chemist]

Quantum field fluctuations

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?

[Thebox (OP)]

Quantum field fluctuations

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

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.

[Thebox (OP)]

qfp.jpg (27.07 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1383 times)

[Bored chemist]

That makes no sense.
It is not evidence.
Do you understand what evidence is?

[Thebox (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Thebox (OP)]

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

see my other post on other thread.

[Thebox (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Thebox (OP)]

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.

[Thebox (OP)]

Compression is blue where scattering is red


scat.jpg (14.56 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1336 times)

[Kryptid]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Compression is blue where scattering is red


scat.jpg (14.56 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1336 times)

Wins the prize for most accurately labelled picture.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Thebox (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.

OK, find someone else who thinks they have meaning.

[Thebox (OP)]

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 .

[Thebox (OP)]

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.