[Bored chemist]

Meaningless because of your say so?  I think not.

OK, find someone else who thinks they have meaning.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

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.

[Bored chemist]

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 1.3µH/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.

[guest39538]

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 1.3µH/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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[paulggriffiths]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

 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.

[guest39538]

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 1718 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.

[guest39538]

Yet you pretend you haven't been answered.

And air?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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 .