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.
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.