Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #370593 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-11-22 06:44 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-22 12:42 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 77 — 16 participants |
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.
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 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 06:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Could gravitational energy have a spectrum of colors ? |
| Message-ID | <dbd31aF8gsgU1@mid.individual.net> |
Am 14.11.2015 13:45, schrieb Y: > Don't really need to ask more here... > > What do you think ? > > -y We see something blue, if we look upwards. '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. TH
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 06:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2rmhq$vif$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370593 |
a crank wrote:
> 'Blue' is actually a color and 'up' is related to gravity.
>
> So: possibly something is coming down from the heaven, what gets
> accelerated downwards by gravity and this acceleration causes
> blueshift.
>
> So some kind of energy is pouring down to Earth, which gets
> accelerated and this acceleration is, what makes the sky blue.
Then again, perhaps standard long-established physics is correct.
The blue sky is not a mystery and no, it isn't due to blueshift.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 09:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbdcdqFaf8fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370596 |
Am 22.11.2015 07:15, schrieb shuba: > a crank wrote: > >> 'Blue' is actually a color and 'up' is related to gravity. >> >> So: possibly something is coming down from the heaven, what gets >> accelerated downwards by gravity and this acceleration causes >> blueshift. >> >> So some kind of energy is pouring down to Earth, which gets >> accelerated and this acceleration is, what makes the sky blue. > > Then again, perhaps standard long-established physics is correct. > The blue sky is not a mystery and no, it isn't due to blueshift. > Well then, defender of long established physics: why is the sky blue? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 09:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2s2a6$ism$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370600 |
a crank wrote:
>why is the sky blue?
I assume, that 'Growing Earth' is actually correct, making the sky
blue as well as proving that 'Hitler' was an English spy.
I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the
disorder in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows
in the opposite direction. This clearly predicts a blue sky.
My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to
which of each is associated an entire universe. So the sky is blue.
My assumption is related to 'complex four-vectors' and 'Pauli
algebra'. Therefore the sky is blue. This sounds certainly strange,
but I would like to express my opinion, this is apparently how
nature works in real. Time-travelers should keep quiet and leave no
signs of their presence. The real nature of the world is understood
somehow, but this is not told to the general public. Instead we
have some sort of blunder, that is utilised to educate apprentices
in the art of logical thinking and acceptance of voodoo rituals.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 20:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbh814FakivU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370603 |
Am 22.11.2015 10:36, schrieb shuba: > a crank wrote: > >> why is the sky blue? > > I assume, that 'Growing Earth' is actually correct, making the sky > blue as well as proving that 'Hitler' was an English spy. > > I assume, there would be different timelines, along which the > disorder in one universe is 'recycled' in another, where time flows > in the opposite direction. This clearly predicts a blue sky. > > My own assumption is, that we have actually different timelines, to > which of each is associated an entire universe. So the sky is blue. > > My assumption is related to 'complex four-vectors' and 'Pauli > algebra'. Therefore the sky is blue. This sounds certainly strange, > but I would like to express my opinion, this is apparently how > nature works in real. Time-travelers should keep quiet and leave no > signs of their presence. The real nature of the world is understood > somehow, but this is not told to the general public. Instead we > have some sort of blunder, that is utilised to educate apprentices > in the art of logical thinking and acceptance of voodoo rituals. > Yes, I remember some of these fragments. Only the context was slightly different. what makes me actually happy: that I have such a faithful reader. Thank's! But next time you should not stir these pieces so terribly together. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 05:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7c4e522a-f87b-4f35-bb12-febbc8729d47@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370600 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 05:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <33a0c361-7a2b-4459-bb35-fce895589118@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370608 |
On Sunday, November 22, 2015 at 6:06:33 AM UTC-7, 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. It's called "scattering" - look it up instead of bloviating nonsense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2sj3g$tim$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370610 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> 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. > > It's called "scattering" - look it up instead of bloviating nonsense. Oblovious nonsense. It's called Rayleigh Light Scattering, whereas the wavelength of the incident light is larger than the particle. That's why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 09:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <4ri35b9k39j4tfa3pfcb6qqmbvoraqluge@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370608 |
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 05:06:30 -0800 (PST), Y <yanarchi@hotmail.com>
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
No, the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light,
why don't you google instead of giggling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 19:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2t6kk$i2s$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370616 |
an incompetent fool wrote:
> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light
This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 20:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2t8h7$n04$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370652 |
shuba wrote: > an incompetent fool wrote: > >> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light > > This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible. Not sure who is the incompetent fool. As the whatever including red is absorbed, then the blue is given away intensified. The point is that the blue is not absorbed in a sunny day. However, red can also be observed when the sun goes down. This is how things works in physics. You have to take into occurrence the entire spectrum, assuming what it comes from Sun is white, the content of colors is even distributed, before the incidence. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/ Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 20:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2t9gp$pm2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370655 |
Walter Ilinois wrote: > shuba wrote: > >> an incompetent fool wrote: >> >>> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light >> >> This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible. > > Not sure who is the incompetent fool. As the whatever including red is > absorbed, then the blue is given away intensified. The point is that the > blue is not absorbed in a sunny day. However, red can also be observed > when the sun goes down. This is how things works in physics. You have to > take into occurrence the entire spectrum, assuming what it comes from > Sun is white, the content of colors is even distributed, before the > incidence. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/ > Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png Maybe the above can be misunderstood. The energy content is conserved. Hence at sharper angles, due to the molecular size, say the Nitrogen, the Blue color is deflected (the wavelength larger then but closer to the molecular size). Now, when the sky is Red, it means the amount of large particles, say dust, is the reason the Red content is deflected (red wavelength close to the larger dust). Size matter. Especially in my Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 23:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ap355bh19q3jpie09k8nq91voboi13njv2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370659 |
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 20:45:13 +0000 (UTC), Walter Ilinois
<walin@wej98j5q.org> wrote:
>Walter Ilinois wrote:
>
>> shuba wrote:
>>
>>> an incompetent fool wrote:
>>>
>>>> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light
>>>
>>> This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible.
>>
>> Not sure who is the incompetent fool. As the whatever including red is
>> absorbed, then the blue is given away intensified. The point is that the
>> blue is not absorbed in a sunny day. However, red can also be observed
>> when the sun goes down. This is how things works in physics. You have to
>> take into occurrence the entire spectrum, assuming what it comes from
>> Sun is white, the content of colors is even distributed, before the
>> incidence.
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/
>> Rayleigh_sunlight_scattering.png
>
>Maybe the above can be misunderstood. The energy content is conserved.
>Hence at sharper angles, due to the molecular size, say the Nitrogen, the
>Blue color is deflected (the wavelength larger then but closer to the
>molecular size). Now, when the sky is Red, it means the amount of large
>particles, say dust, is the reason the Red content is deflected (red
>wavelength close to the larger dust). Size matter. Especially in my
>Divergent Matter.
Only the stupid, annoying nym-changing
troll ever says "my Divergent Matter".
FOAD creep.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Walter Ilinois <walin@wej98j5q.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 15:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2vbgn$c2a$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370672 |
kefischer wrote: >>Maybe the above can be misunderstood. The energy content is conserved. >>Hence at sharper angles, due to the molecular size, say the Nitrogen, >>the Blue color is deflected (the wavelength larger then but closer to >>the molecular size). Now, when the sky is Red, it means the amount of >>large particles, say dust, is the reason the Red content is deflected >>(red wavelength close to the larger dust). Size matter. Especially in my >>Divergent Matter. > > Only the stupid, annoying nym-changing > troll ever says "my Divergent Matter". FOAD creep. Probably somebody else. In my theory of Divergent Matter the size of "matter" is fundamental. I would even say, size is most fundamental, in Physics. Even Transcendental Fundamental. In fact it must be transcendental in All possible Universes and Simulation outthere. Uneducated individuals like you will never sense this essential particularity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-22 17:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c8f45b5atiboo28o4p13aimpiu7m41g0ou@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370652 |
On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:56:04 +0000 (UTC), shuba <tim@sh.uba> wrote:
>an incompetent fool wrote:
>
>> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light
>
>This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
The scatter story seems to ignore the fact
that molecules do not reflect light as much as
they absorb and re-emit it.
So, the re-emitted light is more toward
the blue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 20:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbh8amFamvgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370664 |
Am 22.11.2015 23:26, schrieb kefischer: > On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:56:04 +0000 (UTC), shuba<tim@sh.uba> wrote: > >> an incompetent fool wrote: >> >>> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light >> >> This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible. >> >> >> ---Tim Shuba--- > > The scatter story seems to ignore the fact > that molecules do not reflect light as much as > they absorb and re-emit it. > > So, the re-emitted light is more toward > the blue. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy Actually the frequency had to be lower, since light looses energy after being absorbed and re-emitted. So we get blue only from violet or UV-radiation. But what does actually speak against 'blueshift', caused by gravity? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kefischer <emoneyjoe@iglou.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 17:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <jo275b5oarqo1s3sm3ktfte3djufhthetj@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #370729 |
On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 20:38:55 +0100, Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
>Am 22.11.2015 23:26, schrieb kefischer:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2015 19:56:04 +0000 (UTC), shuba<tim@sh.uba> wrote:
>>
>>> an incompetent fool wrote:
>>>
>>>> the atmosphere _absorbs_ red light
>>>
>>> This explains why red balloons and red fireworks are invisible.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---Tim Shuba---
>>
>> The scatter story seems to ignore the fact
>> that molecules do not reflect light as much as
>> they absorb and re-emit it.
>>
>> So, the re-emitted light is more toward
>> the blue.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absorption_spectroscopy
>
>
>Actually the frequency had to be lower, since light looses energy after
>being absorbed and re-emitted.
I don't know about that, but light does lose
energy during absorption and re-emission.
That is seen some as a darker blue
farther from the Sun.
>So we get blue only from violet or UV-radiation.
It is more than just loss of energy, each
chemical element absorbs and emits different
colors differently.
>But what does actually speak against 'blueshift', caused by gravity?
>
>TH
In the case of sunlight, probably little
to none, but for spectral line shifts of other
stars, mostly Doppler, and galactic recession
blue-shift is rare, because almost all are
moving away, with commensurate redshifts.
There may be something in the wavelength
relative to atom size, but I suspect most molecules
are big enough to not make a difference in how
much gets through without getting affected
by the absorption process.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | shuba <tim@sh.uba> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 02:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n30jji$l39$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #370729 |
Thomas Heger wrote:
> But what does actually speak against 'blueshift', caused by gravity?
Earth's gravitation is far too weak to produce an effect detectable
to the human eye. Plus, it's already understood quite well how the
interaction of sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky.
---Tim Shuba---
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-23 19:23 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d716012e-d245-42e4-96b6-4aff6f8f1fc6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #370762 |
On Monday, November 23, 2015 at 6:55:55 PM UTC-8, shuba wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: > > > But what does actually speak against 'blueshift', caused by gravity? > > Earth's gravitation is far too weak to produce an effect detectable > to the human eye. Plus, it's already understood quite well how the > interaction of sunlight with the atmosphere produces the blue sky. > > > ---Tim Shuba--- An interesting outline of radiometric quantities, along the lines in metaphor of "thirteen types of magnetism", where the reduction toward unification is key, for the organization of all the widely diverse features in effect in physical systems (natural philosophy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radiometry Eg. http://info.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Workshop/advice/coils/terms.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-11-24 05:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dbi71jFhqssU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #370762 |
Am 24.11.2015 03:55, schrieb shuba: >> But what does actually speak against 'blueshift', caused by gravity? > > Earth's gravitation is far too weak to produce an effect detectable > to the human eye. 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. So there is actually a possibility, this obvious question is in fact not well understood, but the assumed explanation is not the real cause. I asked this question several times, but found none of the common explanations very convincing. So how about mine? I associates 'down' with 'timelike'. The vertical in freefall (arrow pointing down) is the local 'axis of time'. Since the Earth is curved, these axis have an angle to the other verticals. This angle causes the spacelike relation to get in an angle, too. This angle produces radiation, since the requirement for blackness is, that the antisymmetric rotations cancel out. That it cannot do, if they have an angle. This is the same light, you find in a sparc, only MUCH smoother and created by another cause. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web