[guest39538]

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?

[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.

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.

[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 .

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[The Spoon]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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 2765 times)
wavey road.jpg (6.26 kB . 320x157 - viewed 2759 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...

[Kryptid]

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 2765 times)
wavey road.jpg (6.26 kB . 320x157 - viewed 2759 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).

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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  ?

[guest39538]

(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?

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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''.

[Kryptid]

It is not a matter of belief

 

[chiralSPO]

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 3048 times)
smoke-filtered sun.jpg (3.27 kB . 275x183 - viewed 3027 times)