On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:28:48 -0700 (PDT), janpajak@
gmail.com wrote:
>On Apr 30, 4:29Â pm, DanielSan
gmail.com> wrote:
>...>> No, that's not the reason at all. Â Do you know anything about the
>> composition of our own atmosphere?
>>
>> The "blue" you see is from Rayleigh scattering. Â Portions of the
>> spectrum with longer wavelengths pass through the atmosphere. Â Portions
>> of the spectrum with shorter wavelengths get diffused by the makeup of
>> the atmosphere. Â If you get rid of either the atmosphere or the light
>> from the sun, the sky turns black.
>>
>> During sunset, the light has to pass through more atmospheric gases to
>> get to your eyes, causing the longer wavelengths to diffuse, creating a
>> red sky.
>>
>> The color of the sky has NO bearing on doppler shifts.
>...
>If the colour of light is the outcome of scattering of the light on
>components of the atmoshere, then the light originating from the Moon
>should also be blue. Unfortunately for the official human science,
>this is NOT true - the light of Moon is "white", instead of being
>"blue".
Okay, I'll bite.
First: The light from the moon is reflected light
Second: The moon is a lousy reflector, having a reflective index of
less than 15%%.
Third: It is somewhat smaller in diameter, than the Earth.
As I have already stated, The moon is a lousy reflector, having a
reflective index of less than 15%%.
Which means that only fifteen percent of the light that hits it, is
reflected.
On top of this, and considering both the moon, and Earth, as disks,
the moon is only about one thirteenth the size of Earth, which brings
the amount of reflected light down to about 1.2%% of sunlight.
But as we know, the moon is a rough sphere, and that means that the
reflected light does not all come to earth.
What all this means is that only a tiny fraction of the sunlight that
hits the moon, perhaps less than a half of one percent, (I'd have to
do the math, and can't be bothered) ever reaches us.
Nonetheless, as you correctly point out, moon light is white.
Blue however, is one of the component colours of white.
but there is so little of it reaching us, it is insufficient to show
the colour of anything.
If the moon were a polished silver sphere, it would reflect more
light. The night sky would remain black, but a hint of colour might be
seen in the grass, flowers, etc..
If it were possible to replace the moon with a slightly
concave/focused mirror, of the same diameter as the moon, then the
night sky would be a deep blue.
How blue would depend on the phase of the mirror/moon.
Go a step farther, and use a focused mirror, of the same diameter as
earth, and when the mirror was "full", the sky would be as blue at
night, as it is during the day.
You would also feel the heat, just as if it was direct sunlight.
>So your explanation (or rather the current, errornoeus,
>official scientific explanation which you repeat so blindly) is worth
>nothing, as it is NOT supported by the existing evidence.
Actually, it is supported by evidence.
When are you people going to learn that, denying empirical evidence
does not make it go away?
>I believe
>that in time to come this explanation must be withdrawn from the use -
>but of course firstly the present generation of "cemented" minds must
>die out (as this always is the case with new scientific ideas).
>
>However, the existing evidence fully supports the gravitational
>explanation for the colour of light.
Please elaborate, as no one here seems to have heard of that one.
snip
