Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370593 > unrolled thread

Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 06:44 +0100
    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 06:15 +0000
      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-22 09:24 +0100
        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 09:36 +0000
          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 20:33 +0100
        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-22 05:06 -0800
          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-22 05:18 -0800
            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 14:22 +0000
          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 09:05 -0500
            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-22 19:56 +0000
              Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 20:28 +0000
                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-22 20:45 +0000
                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 23:01 -0500
                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> - 2015-11-23 15:31 +0000
              Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-22 17:26 -0500
                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-23 20:38 +0100
                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-23 17:05 -0500
                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-24 02:55 +0000
                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 19:23 -0800
                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-24 05:23 +0100
                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-24 10:53 +0000
                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-24 07:28 -0500
                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-24 04:57 -0800
                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 07:54 +0100
                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? shuba <tim@sh.uba> - 2015-11-25 08:29 +0000
                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 10:17 -0600
                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 08:54 -0800
                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-25 19:42 +0100
                              Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-25 13:21 -0600
                                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 05:06 +0100
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 04:17 -0800
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 04:25 -0800
                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 04:48 -0800
                                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-26 05:25 -0800
                                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-26 07:07 -0800
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-26 20:56 +0100
                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 06:34 -0800
                                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-28 08:02 +0100
                                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 22:47 -0800
                                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 18:57 +0100
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-27 12:43 -0600
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-28 07:55 +0100
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-07 17:53 +0100
                                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 03:57 +0100
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-28 20:11 -0800
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 07:45 +0100
                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 04:31 -0800
                                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-29 21:35 +0100
                                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 13:57 -0800
                                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 04:02 +0100
                                              Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-29 19:38 -0800
                                                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-11-30 05:24 +0100
                                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-11-29 21:09 -0800
                                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-09 07:40 +0100
                                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-09 04:26 -0800
                                                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2015-12-24 19:37 +0100
                                                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-12-24 12:06 -0800
                                                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Waye Kitchens <wscom@complang.net> - 2015-12-24 21:03 +0000
                                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-30 05:14 -0800
                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:53 -0600
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? fuller.david@hotmail.com - 2015-11-29 12:42 -0800
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-29 22:49 -0800
                                  Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-11-30 16:51 -0600
                                    Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-12-02 16:34 +0100
                                      Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Carl Heinz Krüger <heinzkrueger@ubernetz.org> - 2015-12-02 15:57 +0000
                                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-02 14:47 -0800
                                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Plexippus Kritikos <plexik@laertesegidio.org> - 2015-12-12 17:21 +0000
                                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 10:02 -0800
                                              Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-12 10:10 -0800
                                                Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-12-15 22:07 -0800
                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-24 23:29 -0800
                        Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-25 01:39 -0800
                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2015-11-25 02:04 -0800
                          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> - 2015-11-25 06:04 -0500
                            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-27 06:27 -0800
            Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-11-23 11:22 +0100
          Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2015-11-22 12:42 -0800

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

#371106

Our eyes aren't sensitive to those shorter wavelengths.  That's why we see 
the sky as blue.  The sky is VERY bright in the UV.  YOU are riding a dead 
horse. 

Gary 

Actually human eyes are most sensitive to green light 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371120

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 12:57:22 PM UTC+10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.11.2015 20:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ,,
> >> In this particular case I had assumed, that gravity is related to the
> >> colour of the sky. This was - btw- related to the OPs question:
> >
> > And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google
> > "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color
> > is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to
> > correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention.
> >
> Ok, let me do it an ask google 'Why is the sky blue?'.
> 
> Results:
> 
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/05/why-the-sky-is-blue/
> 
> "The blue part of the light gets scattered more than the other parts 
> during these collisions and thus makes the sky appear to our eyes as blue."
> 
> 
> This can't possibly be true, since it contains the idea of an effect 
> similar to a prism.
> 
> But a prism would create a spectrum of colours, not just blue.
> 
> And we do not see the sky in rainbow colours, but simply in blue.
> 
> 
> 
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005121200096
> 
> "Transmitted light (from the sun, light bulbs, fire, etc) is made up of 
> a spectrum of colors. The longest wavelengths of light are on the red 
> end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths are on the blue/violet 
> end of the spectrum.
> 
> When transmitted light such as sunlight enters our atmosphere it 
> collides with the oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The color with the shorter 
> wavelength is scattered more by this collision. Because violet and blue 
> are the shortest wavelengths the sky appears to be violet / blue. But 
> because our eyes are more sensitive to blue light than they are violet 
> light, we perceive the sky as blue. "
> 
> Same explanation and similar wrong.
> 
> "..violet and blue are the shortest wavelengths.." is nonsense, too, 
> since 'blue' is as what we perceive a specific frequency of radiation in 
> a very large spectrum of frequencies, which contain much shorter 
> wavelength than blue light.
> 
> 
> TH

The sky is blue because the chemicals that consist of the sky, aren't very good at absorbing energies in the blue spectrum. This is why I suspect. Saying that, we don't know what invisible colors that those chemicals may be absorbing (including likely gravitational energies of unknown wavelength). 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371192

On 11/28/2015 8:57 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 25.11.2015 20:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
> ,,
>>> In this particular case I had assumed, that gravity is related to the
>>> colour of the sky. This was - btw- related to the OPs question:
>>
>> And your assumption was wrong. And in fact, even a beginner can google
>> "Why is the sky blue?" to learn what the real basis for the sky's color
>> is. The fact that you said something like this and expected someone to
>> correct so basic an error, is why you are not getting much attention.
>>
> Ok, let me do it an ask google 'Why is the sky blue?'.
>
> Results:
>
> http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/05/why-the-sky-is-blue/
>
> "The blue part of the light gets scattered more than the other parts
> during these collisions and thus makes the sky appear to our eyes as blue."
>
>
> This can't possibly be true, since it contains the idea of an effect
> similar to a prism.

No, different. In a prism, there is no scattering. There is refraction, 
and ALL colors are refracted, just through different angles. In the sky, 
the blue frequencies are SCATTERED, not refracted, and the other colors 
are not scattered at all.

When you look up at the sky, you're looking at a region where the sun is 
not. Therefore you're not looking at the unscattered light from the sun. 
You're looking at a region of air that has bounced (scattered) light in 
your direction, away from the path that the sun is sending light.

Maybe you need a picture: 
http://strangesounds.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/BLUE-SKY.jpg

>
> But a prism would create a spectrum of colours, not just blue.
>
> And we do not see the sky in rainbow colours, but simply in blue.
>
>
>
> https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1005121200096
>
> "Transmitted light (from the sun, light bulbs, fire, etc) is made up of
> a spectrum of colors. The longest wavelengths of light are on the red
> end of the spectrum and the shortest wavelengths are on the blue/violet
> end of the spectrum.
>
> When transmitted light such as sunlight enters our atmosphere it
> collides with the oxygen and nitrogen atoms. The color with the shorter
> wavelength is scattered more by this collision. Because violet and blue
> are the shortest wavelengths the sky appears to be violet / blue. But
> because our eyes are more sensitive to blue light than they are violet
> light, we perceive the sky as blue. "
>
> Same explanation and similar wrong.
>
> "..violet and blue are the shortest wavelengths.." is nonsense, too,
> since 'blue' is as what we perceive a specific frequency of radiation in
> a very large spectrum of frequencies, which contain much shorter
> wavelength than blue light.
>
>
> TH


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371303

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> […] In the sky, the blue frequencies are SCATTERED, not refracted, and the
> other colors are not scattered at all.

Incorrect.  Air just scatters blue light *more* than visible light of longer 
wavelengths.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation#Color>


PointedEars
-- 
Q: Why is electricity so dangerous?  
A: It doesn't conduct itself.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371304

суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:34:43 +0100 пользователь Thomas
'PointedEars' Lahn написал:

> Odd Bodkin wrote:
> 
>> […] In the sky, the blue frequencies are SCATTERED, not refracted, and
>> the other colors are not scattered at all.
> 
> Incorrect.  Air just scatters blue light *more* than visible light of
> longer wavelengths. 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation#Color>

He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid 
wikipedia freak. Watch this
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371352

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:57:43 AM UTC-8, Carl Heinz Krüger wrote:
> суббота., Wed, 02 Dec 2015 16:34:43 +0100 пользователь Thomas
> 'PointedEars' Lahn написал:
> 
> > Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > 
> >> […] In the sky, the blue frequencies are SCATTERED, not refracted, and
> >> the other colors are not scattered at all.
> > 
> > Incorrect.  Air just scatters blue light *more* than visible light of
> > longer wavelengths. 
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_sky_radiation#Color>
> 
> He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid 
> wikipedia freak. Watch this
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png

Visible blue resonates in diatomic nitrogen?

Then, for "red skies" variously at morning 
and night, there is some notion that ideal 
gas law sees the usual "refracting interface" 
of diatomic gasses (the most part of the 
atmosphere) as photon-pachinko ("through" 
the "chargeless ions").

The sky is never green (unless it's grey).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371901

Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:47:31 -0800, "Ross A. Finlayson"
<ross.finlayson@gmail.com> ha scritto:

>> He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid
>> wikipedia freak. Watch this
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
> 
> Visible blue resonates in diatomic nitrogen?

Is been said is about particle size vs wavelength relationship. The 
closest to each other will "resonate". See Rayleigh Scattering and find 
out why.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371905

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:21:48 AM UTC-8, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:47:31 -0800, "Ross A. Finlayson"
> <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> 
> >> He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid
> >> wikipedia freak. Watch this
> >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
> Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
> > 
> > Visible blue resonates in diatomic nitrogen?
> 
> Is been said is about particle size vs wavelength relationship. The 
> closest to each other will "resonate". See Rayleigh Scattering and find 
> out why.

I recommend Waldman's "Introduction to Light:  The Physics 
of Light, Vision, and Color".

He describes differences between infrared and ultraviolet 
oscillators, now as if "visible" light is some more rich 
range of values (in the colormodel and colorspace) than 
"monochrome" bee-vision or snake-vision.  (Rods and cones 
as a retina in sclera in a ball is still just an evolutionary 
product, then for _why_.)  

"Now the power absorbed and emitted by such an oscillating 
charge depends on both its amplitude and its frequency, 
increasing as either one increases.  Again it should be 
reasonable to expect that more power is required to force 
an ocillator to vibrate through a larger amplitude, and 
also that more vibrations per second (a higher frequency) 
imply more energy per second.  All the ultraviolet oscillators 
of the atmosphere vibrating at visible frequencies have the 
same amplitude, but those with higher frequencies in the visible 
(blue) are absorbing and reradiating more power.  And that is 
why the sky appears blue!" (p.172)


Uh, the amplitude here is about the same, but it may be not 
so much the blackbody radiation (higher frequencies) as 
diatomic distance reflecting (lower wavelengths)?

"The explanation for the blue color of the sky was first 
worked out classically over a century ago by the great 
English physicist John William Strutt, better known as 
Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919).  For this reason the effect is 
still known as Rayleight scattering.  In general, the term 
scattering is used whenever light is absorbed and very 
quickly reemitted in all directions" (p.173)


That the colormodel and colorspace (eg 'Red-Green-Blue') 
are more than our usual tristimulus opponent colorspace 
into various pair-opponent colorspaces in the "visible" 
spectrum, is about a question whether visible light is 
more than just what our eyes are adapted to, in the 
boundary between infrared and ultraviolet, or where 
convection leaves off in radiation for the co-emissive, 
each as radiation.

What is the difference between heat-lamp heat and 
microwave oven heat?  One seems to heat less dense 
media, the other more dense media.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#371907

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:02:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:21:48 AM UTC-8, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> > Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:47:31 -0800, "Ross A. Finlayson"
> > <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > 
> > >> He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid
> > >> wikipedia freak. Watch this
> > >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
> > Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
> > > 
> > > Visible blue resonates in diatomic nitrogen?
> > 
> > Is been said is about particle size vs wavelength relationship. The 
> > closest to each other will "resonate". See Rayleigh Scattering and find 
> > out why.
> 
> I recommend Waldman's "Introduction to Light:  The Physics 
> of Light, Vision, and Color".
> 
> He describes differences between infrared and ultraviolet 
> oscillators, now as if "visible" light is some more rich 
> range of values (in the colormodel and colorspace) than 
> "monochrome" bee-vision or snake-vision.  (Rods and cones 
> as a retina in sclera in a ball is still just an evolutionary 
> product, then for _why_.)  
> 
> "Now the power absorbed and emitted by such an oscillating 
> charge depends on both its amplitude and its frequency, 
> increasing as either one increases.  Again it should be 
> reasonable to expect that more power is required to force 
> an ocillator to vibrate through a larger amplitude, and 
> also that more vibrations per second (a higher frequency) 
> imply more energy per second.  All the ultraviolet oscillators 
> of the atmosphere vibrating at visible frequencies have the 
> same amplitude, but those with higher frequencies in the visible 
> (blue) are absorbing and reradiating more power.  And that is 
> why the sky appears blue!" (p.172)
> 
> 
> Uh, the amplitude here is about the same, but it may be not 
> so much the blackbody radiation (higher frequencies) as 
> diatomic distance reflecting (lower wavelengths)?
> 
> "The explanation for the blue color of the sky was first 
> worked out classically over a century ago by the great 
> English physicist John William Strutt, better known as 
> Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919).  For this reason the effect is 
> still known as Rayleight scattering.  In general, the term 
> scattering is used whenever light is absorbed and very 
> quickly reemitted in all directions" (p.173)
> 
> 
> That the colormodel and colorspace (eg 'Red-Green-Blue') 
> are more than our usual tristimulus opponent colorspace 
> into various pair-opponent colorspaces in the "visible" 
> spectrum, is about a question whether visible light is 
> more than just what our eyes are adapted to, in the 
> boundary between infrared and ultraviolet, or where 
> convection leaves off in radiation for the co-emissive, 
> each as radiation.
> 
> What is the difference between heat-lamp heat and 
> microwave oven heat?  One seems to heat less dense 
> media, the other more dense media.


And yes I did mean "convection" as of "light convection" 
in the radiative absorptive and emissive through media, 
not conduction in the usual sense of equilibriation of 
heat, nor convection in the usual sense of mixed-phase 
media transfer (of heat, through space, to radiate).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#372125

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:10:23 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 10:02:35 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 9:21:48 AM UTC-8, Plexippus Kritikos wrote:
> > > Il giorno mercoledì Wed, 02 Dec 2015 14:47:31 -0800, "Ross A. Finlayson"
> > > <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> ha scritto:
> > > 
> > > >> He meant scattered less than original Sun distribution, you stupid
> > > >> wikipedia freak. Watch this
> > > >> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
> > > Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
> > > > 
> > > > Visible blue resonates in diatomic nitrogen?
> > > 
> > > Is been said is about particle size vs wavelength relationship. The 
> > > closest to each other will "resonate". See Rayleigh Scattering and find 
> > > out why.
> > 
> > I recommend Waldman's "Introduction to Light:  The Physics 
> > of Light, Vision, and Color".
> > 
> > He describes differences between infrared and ultraviolet 
> > oscillators, now as if "visible" light is some more rich 
> > range of values (in the colormodel and colorspace) than 
> > "monochrome" bee-vision or snake-vision.  (Rods and cones 
> > as a retina in sclera in a ball is still just an evolutionary 
> > product, then for _why_.)  
> > 
> > "Now the power absorbed and emitted by such an oscillating 
> > charge depends on both its amplitude and its frequency, 
> > increasing as either one increases.  Again it should be 
> > reasonable to expect that more power is required to force 
> > an ocillator to vibrate through a larger amplitude, and 
> > also that more vibrations per second (a higher frequency) 
> > imply more energy per second.  All the ultraviolet oscillators 
> > of the atmosphere vibrating at visible frequencies have the 
> > same amplitude, but those with higher frequencies in the visible 
> > (blue) are absorbing and reradiating more power.  And that is 
> > why the sky appears blue!" (p.172)
> > 
> > 
> > Uh, the amplitude here is about the same, but it may be not 
> > so much the blackbody radiation (higher frequencies) as 
> > diatomic distance reflecting (lower wavelengths)?
> > 
> > "The explanation for the blue color of the sky was first 
> > worked out classically over a century ago by the great 
> > English physicist John William Strutt, better known as 
> > Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919).  For this reason the effect is 
> > still known as Rayleight scattering.  In general, the term 
> > scattering is used whenever light is absorbed and very 
> > quickly reemitted in all directions" (p.173)
> > 
> > 
> > That the colormodel and colorspace (eg 'Red-Green-Blue') 
> > are more than our usual tristimulus opponent colorspace 
> > into various pair-opponent colorspaces in the "visible" 
> > spectrum, is about a question whether visible light is 
> > more than just what our eyes are adapted to, in the 
> > boundary between infrared and ultraviolet, or where 
> > convection leaves off in radiation for the co-emissive, 
> > each as radiation.
> > 
> > What is the difference between heat-lamp heat and 
> > microwave oven heat?  One seems to heat less dense 
> > media, the other more dense media.
> 
> 
> And yes I did mean "convection" as of "light convection" 
> in the radiative absorptive and emissive through media, 
> not conduction in the usual sense of equilibriation of 
> heat, nor convection in the usual sense of mixed-phase 
> media transfer (of heat, through space, to radiate).


A few words I think support this point, or, 
a scientist's scientific opinion on physics 
and what we know about physics:

"Our perplexity is deepened by a further complication.  
To avoid conflict with a fundamental principles of 
quantum physics, it is necessary to suppose that each 
flavour of quark actually comes in three distinct forms, 
known as 'colours'.  Any given quark must be envisaged 
as a sort of multichrome (figuratively speaking) super-
position, continually flashing (again figuratively speaking) 
from 'red' to 'green' to 'blue'.  It all begins to look 
horribly like a zoo again.  But help is at hand.  Symmetry 
comes to the rescue once again, though in a still deeper 
and subtler form known, appropriately enough, as super-
symmetry."

P.C.W. Davies "God and the new physics", 1983, page 154

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370844

W dniu wtorek, 24 listopada 2015 11:53:18 UTC+1 użytkownik shuba napisał:

> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.

It's not a fact, it's a lie, common between
relativistic morons.
A lie quite similiar to "great, undisputable  
achievements of  communism prove its obvious 
advantage over rotten  capitalism"; fanatic
morons of the world we inhabit thinks similiar
ways.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370848

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+10, shuba wrote:
> Thomas Heger wrote:
> 
> > Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
> 
> >> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
> >> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
> >>
> > 
> > Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
> > discussion.
> 
> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.

On what basis do you make these insults ? You have never said anything of value in this forum. You only come here to troll and give the same insults. 

lol

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370849

W dniu środa, 25 listopada 2015 10:39:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Y napisał:
> On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+10, shuba wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > 
> > > Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
> > 
> > >> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
> > >> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
> > > discussion.
> > 
> > True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
> > or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
> > not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
> > backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.
> 
> On what basis do you make these insults ? 

You're not applauding The Shit he believes.
Enough for a fanatic moron.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370852

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:39:34 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+10, shuba wrote:
>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 
>> > Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
>> 
>> >> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
>> >> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
>> >>
>> > 
>> > Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
>> > discussion.
>> 
>> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
>> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
>> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
>> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.
>
>On what basis do you make these insults ? You have never said anything of value in this forum. You only come here to troll and give the same insults. 
>
>lol
>
>-y

          Apparently he is impressed by the highly
scientific and very descriptive term "scatter" as
the explanation for the reduced red and yellow
in the color of the sky.   :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370979

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 9:04:58 PM UTC+10, kefischer wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 01:39:34 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 8:53:18 PM UTC+10, shuba wrote:
> >> Thomas Heger wrote:
> >> 
> >> > Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba:
> >> 
> >> >> Plus, it's already understood quite well how the interaction of
> >> >> sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
> >> >>
> >> > 
> >> > Obviously it is not well understood by the participants of this
> >> > discussion.
> >> 
> >> True enough. But the failure of ignorant buffoons like 'kefischer'
> >> or 'yanarchi' to understand it doesn't negate the fact that it is
> >> not only well understood, but the underlying concepts involved are
> >> backed by extensive observations and precision experiments.
> >
> >On what basis do you make these insults ? You have never said anything of value in this forum. You only come here to troll and give the same insults. 
> >
> >lol
> >
> >-y
> 
>           Apparently he is impressed by the highly
> scientific and very descriptive term "scatter" as
> the explanation for the reduced red and yellow
> in the color of the sky.   :-)

Scatter is a scientific term Ken. Higher energy light scatters more than lower energies. 

-y

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370683

On 11/22/2015 03:05 PM, kefischer wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 05:06:30 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> 
>          No, the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light,

If that was true, color of the Sun would be greenish.

But the opposite is true, the Sun look is warmed up by atmosphere,
compared to free space. Direct light from the Sun at Earth surface
has strongest attenuation at violet end, weakest at red end.

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

Knowledge makes a great man humble, but a small man arrogant.

Eventual Wikipedia articles are provided with intention
of a convenient reference, not as an evidence, argument,
and usually not as a primary source of my knowledge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#370658

On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 5:06:33 AM UTC-8, Y wrote:
> On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:24:31 PM UTC+10, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Am 22.11.2015 07:15, schrieb shuba:
> > > a crank wrote:
> > >
> > >> 'Blue' is actually a color and 'up' is related to gravity.
> > >>
> > >> So: possibly something is coming down from the heaven, what gets
> > >> accelerated downwards by gravity and this acceleration causes
> > >> blueshift.
> > >>
> > >> So some kind of energy is pouring down to Earth, which gets
> > >> accelerated and this acceleration is, what makes the sky blue.
> > >
> > > Then again, perhaps standard long-established physics is correct.
> > > The blue sky is not a mystery and no, it isn't due to blueshift.
> > >
> > Well then, defender of long established physics: why is the sky blue?
> > 
> > TH
> 
> 
> 
> The chemicals in the sky are obviously reflecting colors in the blue range of the visible spectrum. This would also mean that chemicals in the sky have evolved to poorly absorb higher energy light in the visible spectrum. 
> 
> Each element probably has a different value for the light it reflects, and this may be the basis of color - each element representing a "primary" color on the palette of colors. 
> 
> This may not be useful now, but in the future may be. 
> 
> -y

Heh, "glow in the dark" (radio-hot) 
and "shade in the dark" (radio-cold).

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web