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 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#370992

On 11/25/2015 10:06 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue
> sky, but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself.

I'm sorry, but you're definitely not entitled to this. When physicists 
come up with a concept, it is up to those physicists to provide the 
evidence.

Why would anybody try to find evidence for a concept that an amateur who 
hasn't read much of anything about the subject has dreamed up?

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

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

#371006

Am 27.11.2015 19:43, schrieb Odd Bodkin:

>> But I don't want to learn, what physicists have to say about the blue
>> sky, but provide evidence about a concept I have invented myself.
>
> I'm sorry, but you're definitely not entitled to this. When physicists
> come up with a concept, it is up to those physicists to provide the
> evidence.

Actually I did: Growing Earth.

There are also these experiments by George Lochak. Other possible 
experiments would be the creation of dust inside a sealed cube of plastic.

> Why would anybody try to find evidence for a concept that an amateur who
> hasn't read much of anything about the subject has dreamed up?
>

Well, the question is not, who invented something, but how useful it is.

If the idea I present is bad, than it's one of many (unsuccessful) 
attempts in this realm.

But if it's not, you would certainly miss something, if you reject an 
idea, because it's not the right person who presents it.

TH

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

#371544

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Am 25.11.2015 20:21, schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> 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.
>
> But I don't want to learn, […]

Tell news.


PointedEars
-- 
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?  
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#371057

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

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

#371058

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, 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.

Nope.  Prisms REFRACT light.  That's different from scattering.

> 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.

Which proves that your prism idea is dead wrong.
 
> 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.

Nope.  YOU are the one that's 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

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

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

#371060

Am 29.11.2015 05:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, 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.
>
> Nope.  Prisms REFRACT light.  That's different from scattering.
>
>> 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.
>
> Which proves that your prism idea is dead wrong.


http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm

'Rayleigh Scattering' functions similar to 'colour-selective milk-glass'.

So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are 
scattered.

This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away. The 
spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.

But this is - obviously- not what we see in the sky.

The sky is blue in all directions, in and out of the atmosphere.

So we had to consider the possibility, that the sky would produce blue 
light on its own, possibly from other radiation.

I would compare the colour of the sky to plasma rays and would assume 
something 'electric'. This would cause kind of 'self-glowing' effect, 
which corresponds to the composition of the gases in the atmosphere.

Another possibility would be redistribution of UV by gas molecules on 
lower frequencies.

>> 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.
>
> Nope.  YOU are the one that's wrong.


Well, maybe you regard me as wrong. But what do you think about my 
statements about the blueness of the sky?


TH

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

#371071

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:45:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 29.11.2015 05:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, 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.
> >
> > Nope.  Prisms REFRACT light.  That's different from scattering.
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Which proves that your prism idea is dead wrong.
> 
> 
> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm
> 
> 'Rayleigh Scattering' functions similar to 'colour-selective milk-glass'.
> 
> So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are 
> scattered.
> 
> This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away. The 
> spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.

Why would you think such a thing?  Blue light would still be scattered
near the sun, and much more strongly scattered than red light.

> But this is - obviously- not what we see in the sky.
> 
> The sky is blue in all directions, in and out of the atmosphere.
> 
> So we had to consider the possibility, that the sky would produce blue 
> light on its own, possibly from other radiation.

Baloney.

> [more baloney deleted]
>
> > Nope.  YOU are the one that's wrong.
> 
> 
> Well, maybe you regard me as wrong. But what do you think about my 
> statements about the blueness of the sky?
> 
> TH

You KNOW what I think about that :-)

BTW, this whole conversation is way off the topic for this thread, but
it certainly illustrates that your whole belief system is that of a
thorough crackpot.

Gary

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

#371105

Am 29.11.2015 13:31, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:45:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> Am 29.11.2015 05:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>>>
>>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, 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.
>>>
>>> Nope.  Prisms REFRACT light.  That's different from scattering.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Which proves that your prism idea is dead wrong.
>>
>>
>> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm
>>
>> 'Rayleigh Scattering' functions similar to 'colour-selective milk-glass'.
>>
>> So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are
>> scattered.
>>
>> This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away. The
>> spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.
>
> Why would you think such a thing?  Blue light would still be scattered
> near the sun, and much more strongly scattered than red light.

The sun emits light of almost thermal spectrum.

Now lets look at sunlight almost directly (slightly outside the solar 
'disk').

If we take out blue (because this is scattered), the remaining light is 
missing blue. That would be yellow.

If we look at rays a little further away from direct sunlight, then more 
blue should be within these rays. This is so, because the amount 
scattering is dependent on the angle.

This should generate some kind or 'rainbow-effect' (which is not observed).

So we would need some other explanation (rather than scattering) for the 
blue sky.

>> But this is - obviously- not what we see in the sky.
>>
>> The sky is blue in all directions, in and out of the atmosphere.
>>
>> So we had to consider the possibility, that the sky would produce blue
>> light on its own, possibly from other radiation.
>
> Baloney.


Here (again) you decide, what is right or wrong. But again you fail to 
present an explanation, why you reject my proposals.


TH

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

#371110

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 1:35:22 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 29.11.2015 13:31, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 11:45:58 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > >
> > > So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are
> > > scattered.
> > >
> > > This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away. The
> > > spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.
> >
> > Why would you think such a thing?  Blue light would still be scattered
> > near the sun, and much more strongly scattered than red light.
> 
> The sun emits light of almost thermal spectrum.

Irrelevant.  Blue light is still scattered more strongly.

> Now lets look at sunlight almost directly (slightly outside the solar 
> 'disk').
> 
> If we take out blue (because this is scattered), the remaining light is 
> missing blue. That would be yellow.

We can't see light outside the disc UNLESS it is scattered.  That's why
we don't see yellow or red except directly from the sun.

....
> > > So we had to consider the possibility, that the sky would produce blue
> > > light on its own, possibly from other radiation.
> >
> > Baloney.
> 
> 
> Here (again) you decide, what is right or wrong. But again you fail to 
> present an explanation, why you reject my proposals.
> 
> TH

I just did show why your "proposal" is baloney.

Gary

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

#371115

Am 29.11.2015 22:57, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>>> So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are
>>>> scattered.
>>>>
>>>> This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away. The
>>>> spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.
>>>
>>> Why would you think such a thing?  Blue light would still be scattered
>>> near the sun, and much more strongly scattered than red light.
>>
>> The sun emits light of almost thermal spectrum.
>
> Irrelevant.  Blue light is still scattered more strongly.
>
>> Now lets look at sunlight almost directly (slightly outside the solar
>> 'disk').
>>
>> If we take out blue (because this is scattered), the remaining light is
>> missing blue. That would be yellow.
>
> We can't see light outside the disc UNLESS it is scattered.  That's why
> we don't see yellow or red except directly from the sun.


The impression of a colour is a certain feature of human beings and 
their way to see. 'White' is actually a mixture of light with different 
frequencies.

Now sunlight has almost a thermal spectrum of about 5800 K and we 
interpret this as 'white'.

If we filter out blue, the remaining light is not interpreted as white 
anymore, but as yellow.

Why 'filter out blue'?

Because the light scattered does not go in a straight path, hence is 
missing from white.

If we increase the angle, we would expect more scattered light (blue) 
and less red. This would generate a gradient of colour, which is not 
observed.


TH

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

#371116

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 8:02:53 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> [Regurgitated nonsense]
>
> Because the light scattered does not go in a straight path, hence is
> missing from white. 
>
> If we increase the angle, we would expect more scattered light (blue)
> and less red. This would generate a gradient of colour, which is not
> observed. 

You STILL don't GET it!  "If we increase the angle" WE DON'T SEE IT!

Gary

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

#371117

Am 30.11.2015 04:38, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

>>
>> Because the light scattered does not go in a straight path, hence is
>> missing from white.
>>
>> If we increase the angle, we would expect more scattered light (blue)
>> and less red. This would generate a gradient of colour, which is not
>> observed.
>
> You STILL don't GET it!  "If we increase the angle" WE DON'T SEE IT!



I want to illustrate this setup:

the direct line of sight to the sun gets an angle of zero. Then the 
detector is direct in another direction, which has, (in polar 
coordinates), an angle higher than zero.

Simplified: the sun is standing in zenith and the full sky has 90° width 
in all directions.

We could also assume to bring such a detector to an elevated position, 
from where it could look up and down.

If Reyleigh scattering is true, than the detector in high position would 
measure only blue in horizontal and yellow in vertical direction. But 
all colours in between would also be expected, according to the angle in 
respect to the sun.

But this is not what happens.

So Reyleigh scattering is not true.

TH

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

#371118

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 8:24:13 PM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 30.11.2015 04:38, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> 
> >>
> >> Because the light scattered does not go in a straight path, hence is
> >> missing from white.
> >>
> >> If we increase the angle, we would expect more scattered light (blue)
> >> and less red. This would generate a gradient of colour, which is not
> >> observed.
> >
> > You STILL don't GET it!  "If we increase the angle" WE DON'T SEE IT!
> 
> 
> 
> I want to illustrate this setup:
> 
> the direct line of sight to the sun gets an angle of zero. Then the 
> detector is direct in another direction, which has, (in polar 
> coordinates), an angle higher than zero.
> 
> Simplified: the sun is standing in zenith and the full sky has 90° width 
> in all directions.
> 
> We could also assume to bring such a detector to an elevated position, 
> from where it could look up and down.
> 
> If Reyleigh scattering is true, than the detector in high position would 
> measure only blue in horizontal and yellow in vertical direction. But 
> all colours in between would also be expected, according to the angle in 
> respect to the sun.
> 
> But this is not what happens.
> 
> So Reyleigh scattering is not true.
> 
> TH

You are bashing something that you know nothing about. Why not educate yourself at least a little bit before making such a fool of yourself!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twSg2zbjjnA

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/atmos/blusky.html

Want more detail?

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node97.html

http://plaza.ufl.edu/dwhahn/Rayleigh%20and%20Mie%20Light%20Scattering.pdf

\Paul A

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

#371635

Am 30.11.2015 06:09, schrieb pnalsing@gmail.com:

>> I want to illustrate this setup:
>>
>> the direct line of sight to the sun gets an angle of zero. Then the
>> detector is direct in another direction, which has, (in polar
>> coordinates), an angle higher than zero.
>>
>> Simplified: the sun is standing in zenith and the full sky has 90° width
>> in all directions.
>>
>> We could also assume to bring such a detector to an elevated position,
>> from where it could look up and down.
>>
>> If Reyleigh scattering is true, than the detector in high position would
>> measure only blue in horizontal and yellow in vertical direction. But
>> all colours in between would also be expected, according to the angle in
>> respect to the sun.
>>
>> But this is not what happens.
>>
>> So Reyleigh scattering is not true.
>>
>> TH
>
> You are bashing something that you know nothing about. Why not educate yourself at least a little bit before making such a fool of yourself!
>
I assume a different mechanism for the origin of radiation.

This mechanism is visible in the sun, but also in other phenomena:

The sun radiates because it is so large and not because it burns some 
kind of material.

So I assume, that the light in the sky stems in parts not from the sun, 
but is generated in the atmosphere.

The good question: how could I draw such a conclusion?

Well, I use a certain trick:

it is a spherical structure with what I illustrate 'spacetime elements'.

They spin and have a spin-axis. It these are parallel you see nothing. 
But curvature make these axis get tilted against each other, what you 
can see (as radiation).

So larger objects glow more, but more reddish. And smaller objects glow 
less, but more blueish.


TH

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

#371647

On Tuesday, December 8, 2015 at 11:41:09 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> I assume a different mechanism for the origin of radiation.

"Assume" contains the words ASS [of] YOU [not] me.  Assumption means
NOTHING if it contradicts observation:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman

> This mechanism is visible in the sun, but also in other phenomena:
> 
> The sun radiates because it is so large and not because it burns some 
> kind of material.

Small objects radiate too, as anyone who has been near a fireplace knows.
Furthermore, your unfounded assertion is refuted by conservation of energy
which has been fully confirmed.

> So I assume, that the light in the sky stems in parts not from the sun, 
> but is generated in the atmosphere.

This is denial of energy conservation again.

> The good question: how could I draw such a conclusion?
> 
> Well, I use a certain trick:

The "trick" appears to be that you deny reality.

> it is a spherical structure with what I illustrate 'spacetime elements'.
> 
> They spin and have a spin-axis. It these are parallel you see nothing. 
> But curvature make these axis get tilted against each other, what you 
> can see (as radiation).

This is gobbledegook.

> So larger objects glow more, but more reddish. And smaller objects glow 
> less, but more blueish.
> 
> 
> TH

This ASSumption is refuted by observation.  One minor example: Sirius is
a large, blue-white star but it "glows" more than red Proxima Centauri.
And there are many, many, many more.  Have you ever done any optical
calibrations using a black-body oven?  No?  Well, you can READ about it,
too:

http://sciencedemonstrations.fas.harvard.edu/presentations/black-body-radiation-oven

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/black_body_radiation.html

Your ASSumptions are made in a vacuum, which appears to be inside your
head.  It's difficult to believe that anyone immersed in the information
available today could be so ignorant.

"There are three kinds of men: The ones that learn by reading. The few who
learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence and
find out for themselves." -- Will Rogers

You seem to be in the third category but are actually in a FOURTH one:
The ones who are completely disconnected from reality and NEVER learn.

"Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." 
-- Benjamin Franklin

For the sake of our civilization, I hope that the fourth category is
very, very small, but one would despair if the sample were taken from
this group.

Gary

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

#372697

Am 09.12.2015 13:26, schrieb Gary Harnagel:

> "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
> smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
> -- Richard P. Feynman
>
> "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the
> easiest person to fool." -- Richard P. Feynman
>
>> This mechanism is visible in the sun, but also in other phenomena:
>>
>> The sun radiates because it is so large and not because it burns some
>> kind of material.
>
> Small objects radiate too, as anyone who has been near a fireplace knows.
> Furthermore, your unfounded assertion is refuted by conservation of energy
> which has been fully confirmed.

???
Insecure what you try to say.

I was talking about *my* model, which I have invented. This uses a 
concept, I have written about.

The concept based on common observations and certain undisputed facts 
from physics, but not on any kind of 'law'. Such laws are generalisation 
of observed facts.

E.g. I assume that angular momentum is conserved.

Whether or not 'Conservation of energy' is valid, that depends on the 
definition of the term 'energy'.

For example I disagree with the formula E=m*c², since (in my eyes) the 
signs are wrong and 'deltas' are missing.

My version goes like this: E = - delta(m)* c²


>> So I assume, that the light in the sky stems in parts not from the sun,
>> but is generated in the atmosphere.
>
> This is denial of energy conservation again.

???

The term 'denial' is not well defined in physics.

Let's call it: I disagree with you opinion.


>> The good question: how could I draw such a conclusion?
>>
>> Well, I use a certain trick:
>
> The "trick" appears to be that you deny reality.
???

Again: I have invented a hypothesis, which attempts to explain certain 
observed phenomena.

This explanation could eventually be wrong. But definitely I don't try 
to reject the real world.



>> it is a spherical structure with what I illustrate 'spacetime elements'.
>>
>> They spin and have a spin-axis. It these are parallel you see nothing.
>> But curvature make these axis get tilted against each other, what you
>> can see (as radiation).
>
> This is gobbledegook.

In other words: you don't understand it.

But, lucky for you, I have made a lot of very nice illustration, which 
you may eventually understand:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


>> TH
>
...

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

#372707

On Thursday, December 24, 2015 at 11:37:35 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 09.12.2015 13:26, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> The concept based on common observations and certain undisputed facts 
> from physics, but not on any kind of 'law'. Such laws are generalisation 
> of observed facts.

Conservation of energy has NEVER been refuted.  If you want to claim it
can be, you must supply the experimental evidence:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
-- Richard P. Feynman

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Marcello Truzzi

> E.g. I assume that angular momentum is conserved.
> 
> Whether or not 'Conservation of energy' is valid, that depends on the 
> definition of the term 'energy'.

The term is well-defined.

> For example I disagree with the formula E=m*c², since (in my eyes) the 
> signs are wrong and 'deltas' are missing.

What you disagree with is immaterial.

> My version goes like this: E = - delta(m)* c²

Your version ignores the context of E = m*c^2.  And if you assume that
momentum is conserved, then you MUST believe in E = mc^2.

> > > So I assume, that the light in the sky stems in parts not from the sun,
> > > but is generated in the atmosphere.
> >
> > This is denial of energy conservation again.
> 
> ???
> 
> The term 'denial' is not well defined in physics.

Denial is not a physics term, it is a mental one.  You admitted that you
don't believe in energy conservation, so you are in DENIAL.

> Let's call it: I disagree with you opinion.

Let's say, NOBODY respects your opinion because it is in denial of reality.

> > The "trick" appears to be that you deny reality.
>
> ???
> 
> Again: I have invented a hypothesis, which attempts to explain certain 
> observed phenomena.

It fails miserably.

> This explanation could eventually be wrong. But definitely I don't try 
> to reject the real world.

Yes, you do.  Energy conservation has been around MUCH longer than YOU
have.  It has been confirmed in every circumstance.  So here comes
Johnny-come-lately who spews flatulence without a shred of evidence.
That's why NOBODY cares a fig about your yammerings.

> > > it is a spherical structure with what I illustrate 'spacetime elements'.
> > >
> > > They spin and have a spin-axis. It these are parallel you see nothing.
> > > But curvature make these axis get tilted against each other, what you
> > > can see (as radiation).
> >
> > This is gobbledegook.
> 
> In other words: you don't understand it.

True, I don't understand yammering nonsense which is ALL assumption with
NO evidence.

> But, lucky for you, I have made a lot of very nice illustration, which 
> you may eventually understand:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

There is NO way to turn such abject fantasies into reality.

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

#372713

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how
> smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
> -- Richard P. Feynman

Einstein said exactly the opposite. I stand with Einstein, to be safe.

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

#371125

On Sunday, November 29, 2015 at 9:24:13 PM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 30.11.2015 04:38, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > You STILL don't GET it!  "If we increase the angle" WE DON'T SEE IT!
> 
> I want to illustrate this setup:
> 
> the direct line of sight to the sun gets an angle of zero. Then the 
> detector is direct in another direction, which has, (in polar 
> coordinates), an angle higher than zero.

What in the heck are you babbling about?  Off zero is off zero in ANY
direction.  Claiming otherwise is SO imbecilic!

> Simplified: the sun is standing in zenith and the full sky has 90° width 
> in all directions.
> 
> We could also assume to bring such a detector to an elevated position, 
> from where it could look up and down.
> 
> If Reyleigh scattering is true, than the detector in high position would 
> measure only blue in horizontal and yellow in vertical direction. But 
> all colours in between would also be expected, according to the angle in 
> respect to the sun.
> 
> But this is not what happens.
> 
> So Reyleigh scattering is not true.
> 
> TH

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
-- Galileo Galilei

YOU are making up nonsense and pretending it's science.  Now, this discussion
is off-topic for the group and for this thread, too.  Besides that, you are
NOT making scientific sense.  Put a sock in it!

Gary

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

#371193

On 11/29/2015 12:45 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.11.2015 05:11, schrieb Gary Harnagel:
>> On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 7:57:22 PM UTC-7, 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.
>>
>> Nope.  Prisms REFRACT light.  That's different from scattering.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Which proves that your prism idea is dead wrong.
>
>
> http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/blsky.htm
>
> 'Rayleigh Scattering' functions similar to 'colour-selective milk-glass'.
>
> So longer wavelength path right through and shorter wavelength are
> scattered.
>
> This would make the sky reddish near the sun and blue further away.

Not reddish NEAR the sun. Only in the direct line of sight to the sun. 
This is called a red sunset.

> The
> spectrum in between would be filled with all colours of the rainbow.

No! Why would you think there would be colors of the rainbow in between?

>
> But this is - obviously- not what we see in the sky.
>



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

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web