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.
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.