The only other noticeable difference is that the one on the left is far more "bluer" than on the right.
It's more blue because, as the clouds suggest, there is more humidity in the air.
The water vapor dissipates the light, and lower-frequency (red light) gets stuck while blue light escapes.
Think of it this way:
Two cars on the road have the same top-speed, but have different traction. The Blue car has grippier wheels. The Red car has less so.
Both go off the road, where they are relatively evenly matched, and go onto a gravelly path.
The Blue car, with better traction, steadily gains on the Red car, with flatter tires.
Extend the gravel path for 100 miles.
At a point, the Red car is so far behind you can no longer see it at the front of the race.
Blue light moves faster than red, so every time it hits a water vapor bauble in the air it's like hitting a rough patch of gravel. Extrapolate that over a bajillion bounces and eventually more red light dissipates as heat before it can escape the atmosphere to come back to the camera lens than the blue light dissipates.
The speed of the blue light allows it to escape first and in greater "volume".
Proof of this effect is in a sunset. It goes red-salmon-citrine-yellow-blue
That's because gravity is pulling down on the light and red light, being the slowest, arcs downwards first and bunches up near the sun. Blue light is fast enough to escape and arcs further.
The more humid, the more red light is captured, which results in less vibrant sunsets. No vapor at all results in no sunset, like on the Moon or on Mars (if we assume those photos are authentic).
Taking it back to this picture, the one on the left is just more humid, therefore more red light is captured and, relatively, more blue light escapes.
On another note, I see no indication of a receding forest line. This person is off their knocker if they think they've presented a sound argument using these photos. I'm not saying there isn't any deforestation, but their approach is disingenuous at best and and down-right malicious at worst.
Wut? Clearly you've never seen a rainbow. The blue light lurks on the bottom, so it's obviously more affected by the tug of gravity. This means red light is lightest and thus it floats to the top of the rainbow. It's actually the greater density of the blue light that gives it more momentum to power past the gravelly surfaces, and not greater velocity. I'm pretty sure both colors move at the same speed.
The rainbow is a refraction of the light of the sun using the water vapor as a prism.
The light being sent from the sun is mirror-flipped when it goes through the water vapor. The rainbow, then, doesn't have enough distance for the light to settle out such that red is on the bottom.
Light doesn't have mass, at least, not on its own. Light's mass only manifests when it interacts with something. It's effective mass is relative only to the energy it carries.
I acknowledge that they travel at the same speed in a vacuum, but red is more easily bogged down by interference.
Blue light has more energy (mass vs energy, E=mc^2 right?), so it can wiggle its way out of the water vapor more efficiently.
A ball spinning in flight is more stable than not, so it goes further. The more it spins, the farther it goes. This is because it can more easily shrug off outside influences. This is why modern bullets have spin.
You're right though, perhaps I shouldn't have simplified it even for the sake of easier understanding.
Yeah, I thought your simplification was hysterically bad, so I gave another one for fun. Sorry, I included a winky ;) but I guess that's a bit too oldschool now that we have real emoticon glyphs.
The internet says it's actually the smaller wavelength (higher energy) blue light scattering that makes the sky and distant mountains blue. This also makes the sunset sun red because the longer red wavelengths still make it straight thru to your eyes, even when traversing more atmosphere at the low angle of sunset. As far as I know, gravity plays no part even though it supposedly can act as a lense for distant stars.
I suspect the blue tint in the cloudy pic may simply be bleeding from all the white light reflected by the clouds.
The internet says it's actually the smaller wavelength (higher energy) blue light scattering that makes the sky and distant mountains blue.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Diffuse scattering can occur when light gets caught up in a fine cloud of water vapor. This is why fog is usually "well lit" and there are no shadows, because water acts as a bajillion tiny mirrors bouncing the light all around. Red gets caught more easily in the cloud while blue can wiggle its way out and get stuck "further away" from the light source as it interacts with ever more vapor droplets.
As far as I know, gravity plays no part even though it supposedly can act as a lense for distant stars.
Gravity does effect light, but not because light has mass. Instead, light bends around the "well" made by gravity as it bends space/time. Because light is so intertwined with the nature of space and time, gravity pulls on it, but light will correct itself in a vacuum. If it encounters an atmosphere, then it gets absorbed and scatters.
It's kinda backwards. Neither red nor blue light "fall" because neither have mass, but because blue is "faster", which is that they have more energy (higher frequency) which some simplify to "spin/momentum" it makes a wider arc as it navigates around a massive body.
I'm still figuring this out myself, but while I have the general theory down in my head thanks to all the diagrams and demonstrations I've seen, the terms, names, and semantics still tangle me up.
Dense water vapor scatters ALL light with reflection and refraction, that's why clouds are white. But blue light still scatters even in air with little water vapor, which is why the sky is still blue and so are the distant mountains on the clearest dry days. It has to do with the wavelength being closer to the size of the air molecules, but I'd have to read this to reason out why.
The easiest simplification is the prism diagram. Blue light bends the most at the points of refraction so that would tend to scatter it more.
As for gravity bending light, I have no way to test it, so I await a time when we can believe what [they] tell us. But even so, the bend angle is so tiny due to the immense speed of light that you would only see it with far away stars bending light from even further sources of light.
Rotational momentum you can test for your self with a gyroscope. Get it spinning in your hand and try to move it around. You can feel it resisting when you move it in a way that would change the axis of the spin. But I don't know of any spin associated with light. Are you thinking of polarization?
Anyhow, physics is fun stuff, at least the parts you can test yourself, so thanks for the chat. And sorry for the distraction. I really enjoy your comms decode tutorials. You have a gift for describing that stuff in concise easy to digest prose. If I ever get to the point where I make a decode that holds up over time and scrutiny you will deserve most of the credit.
This is how I visualize light "wiggling" at its individual frequency.
Those "humps" when everything seems to "slow down" marks the resonant period of the light wave, when all partitions of wavelengths converge in their peaks.
What the gif doesn't represent, how I see it, is that the circles are rotating as well. Consider it analogous to a Lorentz Force with magnetism, but with light instead.
I could be wrong, but that's how I see it in my mind.
White light has all the "circles" combined. All the wavelengths present at once.
If you can manage to extract a circle, you isolate its color wavelength.
The light maintains its own momentum, which lends itself to different physical properties. Blue would be the smallest circle, because it geometrically moves the most relative to other light forms (tighter wavelength). Red is the outer circle, which others "ride" on in a sense, but only because its wider wavelength is more pronounced conceptually. It's hard to say if light wavelengths stick together simply because they were discharged with the same vector, or there is something else keeping the frequencies together.
When the wavelengths interact with a prism, a very dense material, the blue wavelength can wiggle between the cracks in the material better than the red. It's not that it's "smaller" or "faster" but that the "tread on the tire" is finer so it is more "grippy" as it pertains to wiggling through any obstructions. All the wavelengths take up the same "space" but their stability in that same nugget of space depends on their frequency.
Like a bullet, the more erratic the internal forces, the less likely it is to diverge from its trajectory.
How I see it with vapor, which might contradict established theorems, is that a white light hits a prism, the blue escapes with the least amount of influence from the vapor molecules while the red gets scooted around more in the matter. Blue goes on past the vapor and gets caught in another and another, so on and so forth, until it escapes at odd angles and heads towards your eye. The red does so much earlier, and so the splitting results in red light being visually closer to the light source while the blue further away, as demonstrated in a sunset. The only reason a sunset scatters the light as it does is because as the sun crests the horizon the atmosphere relative to the light source is the most dense as compared to the middle of the day where the sun is directly overhead. The sky is default blue, because blue makes more bounces than red, and so red light doesn't proliferate as much before all its energy is converted into heat.
I could be wrong, but at least now you have some idea what visuals are bouncing around in my mind.
“rainforests are on the brink of being wiped out”
So is he arguing against deforestation? That would be fine. Most of us agree that trees are being cut down, no one is in denial of that. But his photos don’t show less tree cover in one than the other. The difference in the photos is the gas clouds. Is he trying to say they’re smoke from burning the rainforest? Or pockets of greenhouse gasses? If they’re greenhouse gasses, then they would’ve come from industrialization, not from the rain forest. Why would those gasses migrate from, say a factory in India, to the rainforest of South America? They wouldn’t. Those are clouds.
The “Amazon rainforest is the lungs of the world” idea has already been debunked. We get more oxygen from the photosynthesis of sea plants. The earth’s surface is 70% water, and there are many plants on and in the water. If I were this guy, I’d be more concerned with ocean pollution, such as all the plastic in the ocean, than with whatever he thinks this photographic comparison is showing.
Give the guy a break, maybe his glasses got fogged up because of his mask.
The only other noticeable difference is that the one on the left is far more "bluer" than on the right.
It's more blue because, as the clouds suggest, there is more humidity in the air.
The water vapor dissipates the light, and lower-frequency (red light) gets stuck while blue light escapes.
Think of it this way:
Two cars on the road have the same top-speed, but have different traction. The Blue car has grippier wheels. The Red car has less so.
Both go off the road, where they are relatively evenly matched, and go onto a gravelly path.
The Blue car, with better traction, steadily gains on the Red car, with flatter tires.
Extend the gravel path for 100 miles.
At a point, the Red car is so far behind you can no longer see it at the front of the race.
Blue light moves faster than red, so every time it hits a water vapor bauble in the air it's like hitting a rough patch of gravel. Extrapolate that over a bajillion bounces and eventually more red light dissipates as heat before it can escape the atmosphere to come back to the camera lens than the blue light dissipates.
The speed of the blue light allows it to escape first and in greater "volume".
Proof of this effect is in a sunset. It goes red-salmon-citrine-yellow-blue
That's because gravity is pulling down on the light and red light, being the slowest, arcs downwards first and bunches up near the sun. Blue light is fast enough to escape and arcs further.
The more humid, the more red light is captured, which results in less vibrant sunsets. No vapor at all results in no sunset, like on the Moon or on Mars (if we assume those photos are authentic).
Taking it back to this picture, the one on the left is just more humid, therefore more red light is captured and, relatively, more blue light escapes.
On another note, I see no indication of a receding forest line. This person is off their knocker if they think they've presented a sound argument using these photos. I'm not saying there isn't any deforestation, but their approach is disingenuous at best and and down-right malicious at worst.
Wut? Clearly you've never seen a rainbow. The blue light lurks on the bottom, so it's obviously more affected by the tug of gravity. This means red light is lightest and thus it floats to the top of the rainbow. It's actually the greater density of the blue light that gives it more momentum to power past the gravelly surfaces, and not greater velocity. I'm pretty sure both colors move at the same speed.
;)
One other point.
Consider this:
The rainbow is a refraction of the light of the sun using the water vapor as a prism.
The light being sent from the sun is mirror-flipped when it goes through the water vapor. The rainbow, then, doesn't have enough distance for the light to settle out such that red is on the bottom.
Light doesn't have mass, at least, not on its own. Light's mass only manifests when it interacts with something. It's effective mass is relative only to the energy it carries.
Consider my car analogy.
I acknowledge that they travel at the same speed in a vacuum, but red is more easily bogged down by interference.
Blue light has more energy (mass vs energy, E=mc^2 right?), so it can wiggle its way out of the water vapor more efficiently.
A ball spinning in flight is more stable than not, so it goes further. The more it spins, the farther it goes. This is because it can more easily shrug off outside influences. This is why modern bullets have spin.
You're right though, perhaps I shouldn't have simplified it even for the sake of easier understanding.
Yeah, I thought your simplification was hysterically bad, so I gave another one for fun. Sorry, I included a winky ;) but I guess that's a bit too oldschool now that we have real emoticon glyphs.
The internet says it's actually the smaller wavelength (higher energy) blue light scattering that makes the sky and distant mountains blue. This also makes the sunset sun red because the longer red wavelengths still make it straight thru to your eyes, even when traversing more atmosphere at the low angle of sunset. As far as I know, gravity plays no part even though it supposedly can act as a lense for distant stars.
I suspect the blue tint in the cloudy pic may simply be bleeding from all the white light reflected by the clouds.
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Diffuse scattering can occur when light gets caught up in a fine cloud of water vapor. This is why fog is usually "well lit" and there are no shadows, because water acts as a bajillion tiny mirrors bouncing the light all around. Red gets caught more easily in the cloud while blue can wiggle its way out and get stuck "further away" from the light source as it interacts with ever more vapor droplets.
Gravity does effect light, but not because light has mass. Instead, light bends around the "well" made by gravity as it bends space/time. Because light is so intertwined with the nature of space and time, gravity pulls on it, but light will correct itself in a vacuum. If it encounters an atmosphere, then it gets absorbed and scatters.
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2019/09/how-does-gravity-affect-photons-that-is-bend-light-if-photons-have-no-mass
It's kinda backwards. Neither red nor blue light "fall" because neither have mass, but because blue is "faster", which is that they have more energy (higher frequency) which some simplify to "spin/momentum" it makes a wider arc as it navigates around a massive body.
I'm still figuring this out myself, but while I have the general theory down in my head thanks to all the diagrams and demonstrations I've seen, the terms, names, and semantics still tangle me up.
Dense water vapor scatters ALL light with reflection and refraction, that's why clouds are white. But blue light still scatters even in air with little water vapor, which is why the sky is still blue and so are the distant mountains on the clearest dry days. It has to do with the wavelength being closer to the size of the air molecules, but I'd have to read this to reason out why.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering
The easiest simplification is the prism diagram. Blue light bends the most at the points of refraction so that would tend to scatter it more.
As for gravity bending light, I have no way to test it, so I await a time when we can believe what [they] tell us. But even so, the bend angle is so tiny due to the immense speed of light that you would only see it with far away stars bending light from even further sources of light.
Rotational momentum you can test for your self with a gyroscope. Get it spinning in your hand and try to move it around. You can feel it resisting when you move it in a way that would change the axis of the spin. But I don't know of any spin associated with light. Are you thinking of polarization?
Anyhow, physics is fun stuff, at least the parts you can test yourself, so thanks for the chat. And sorry for the distraction. I really enjoy your comms decode tutorials. You have a gift for describing that stuff in concise easy to digest prose. If I ever get to the point where I make a decode that holds up over time and scrutiny you will deserve most of the credit.
This is how I visualize light "wiggling" at its individual frequency.
Those "humps" when everything seems to "slow down" marks the resonant period of the light wave, when all partitions of wavelengths converge in their peaks.
What the gif doesn't represent, how I see it, is that the circles are rotating as well. Consider it analogous to a Lorentz Force with magnetism, but with light instead.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/styles/os_files_xlarge/public/gmwgroup/files/lorenzforce-fig2.jpg?m=1540326425&itok=_KSb3SgM
Each circle would be its own "color" on the light spectrum.
https://www.thoughtco.com/thmb/qP1_h_MKsrmAlx_MK-hDOasJXPY=/768x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/the-visible-light-spectrum-2699036_FINAL2-c0b0ee6f82764efdb62a1af9b9525050.png
I could be wrong, but that's how I see it in my mind.
White light has all the "circles" combined. All the wavelengths present at once.
If you can manage to extract a circle, you isolate its color wavelength.
The light maintains its own momentum, which lends itself to different physical properties. Blue would be the smallest circle, because it geometrically moves the most relative to other light forms (tighter wavelength). Red is the outer circle, which others "ride" on in a sense, but only because its wider wavelength is more pronounced conceptually. It's hard to say if light wavelengths stick together simply because they were discharged with the same vector, or there is something else keeping the frequencies together.
When the wavelengths interact with a prism, a very dense material, the blue wavelength can wiggle between the cracks in the material better than the red. It's not that it's "smaller" or "faster" but that the "tread on the tire" is finer so it is more "grippy" as it pertains to wiggling through any obstructions. All the wavelengths take up the same "space" but their stability in that same nugget of space depends on their frequency.
Like a bullet, the more erratic the internal forces, the less likely it is to diverge from its trajectory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum_of_light
How I see it with vapor, which might contradict established theorems, is that a white light hits a prism, the blue escapes with the least amount of influence from the vapor molecules while the red gets scooted around more in the matter. Blue goes on past the vapor and gets caught in another and another, so on and so forth, until it escapes at odd angles and heads towards your eye. The red does so much earlier, and so the splitting results in red light being visually closer to the light source while the blue further away, as demonstrated in a sunset. The only reason a sunset scatters the light as it does is because as the sun crests the horizon the atmosphere relative to the light source is the most dense as compared to the middle of the day where the sun is directly overhead. The sky is default blue, because blue makes more bounces than red, and so red light doesn't proliferate as much before all its energy is converted into heat.
I could be wrong, but at least now you have some idea what visuals are bouncing around in my mind.
Nice chat.
Can you help me solve this?
Yes, cause humans choose at random the places in inner Forests to just up and destroys shit for profit. Totally safe.
Fuck it, I’m starting my glassblowing business in the Sahara
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLCCzLQ4V8E - Redwood Logging | 1946 | Documentary on the Giant Redwood Lumber Industry in California
“rainforests are on the brink of being wiped out”
So is he arguing against deforestation? That would be fine. Most of us agree that trees are being cut down, no one is in denial of that. But his photos don’t show less tree cover in one than the other. The difference in the photos is the gas clouds. Is he trying to say they’re smoke from burning the rainforest? Or pockets of greenhouse gasses? If they’re greenhouse gasses, then they would’ve come from industrialization, not from the rain forest. Why would those gasses migrate from, say a factory in India, to the rainforest of South America? They wouldn’t. Those are clouds.
The “Amazon rainforest is the lungs of the world” idea has already been debunked. We get more oxygen from the photosynthesis of sea plants. The earth’s surface is 70% water, and there are many plants on and in the water. If I were this guy, I’d be more concerned with ocean pollution, such as all the plastic in the ocean, than with whatever he thinks this photographic comparison is showing.
Aren't they are the ones saying "carbon dioxide is bad" -- well, what do plants turn into Oxygen? #ThesePeopleAreStupid