[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  ?

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 2053 times)
smoke-filtered sun.jpg (3.27 kB . 275x183 - viewed 2032 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?

[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?

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".

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[chiralSPO]

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 1256 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).

[guest39538]

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 1216 times)

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

ln.jpg (179.63 kB . 900x675 - viewed 1202 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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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..

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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

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,

[guest39538]

emf.jpg (41.71 kB . 1015x625 - viewed 1187 times)

[Bored chemist]

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.

[guest39538]

UV+ TEST Spectrum Chart.jpg (97.74 kB . 1453x729 - viewed 1152 times)

[guest39538]

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?