Talk:1818: Rayleigh Scattering - Revision history

Magic9mushroom: /* The full answer */ new section

2019-12-08T13:16:01Z

‎The full answer: new section

Gr4viton: Explanation why does chlorophyll scatter green light.

2017-04-19T07:12:00Z

Explanation why does chlorophyll scatter green light.

Gr4viton: explanation why do you see distant object in blue color

2017-04-19T06:59:01Z

explanation why do you see distant object in blue color

108.162.241.172 at 16:07, 9 April 2017

2017-04-09T16:07:55Z

162.158.122.96 at 13:29, 9 April 2017

2017-04-09T13:29:16Z

108.162.246.29: /* The other side of the argument */

2017-04-06T14:45:57Z

‎The other side of the argument

162.158.150.88 at 06:59, 4 April 2017

2017-04-04T06:59:54Z

162.158.79.5 at 15:27, 3 April 2017

2017-04-03T15:27:47Z

162.158.79.5 at 15:25, 3 April 2017

2017-04-03T15:25:09Z

172.68.215.88 at 08:21, 3 April 2017

2017-04-03T08:21:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:16, 8 December 2019
Line 99:		Line 99:

	Basically, these are simplified stories we tell – and not just to children – when we want to begin to explain something, but feel that our audience doesn’t have the background information necessary to understand the “full” story. These can be anything from “the stork brought you” to “Columbus wanted to prove that the Earth was round” to “atoms look like little solar systems” to “evolution is the survival of the fittest.”		Basically, these are simplified stories we tell – and not just to children – when we want to begin to explain something, but feel that our audience doesn’t have the background information necessary to understand the “full” story. These can be anything from “the stork brought you” to “Columbus wanted to prove that the Earth was round” to “atoms look like little solar systems” to “evolution is the survival of the fittest.”
		+
		+	== The full answer ==
		+
		+	The fundamental issue that this comic vaguely touches on, but doesn't really address, is that any given object actually has three different colours and people often overlook this.
		+
		+	*Emission colour - This is the colour that the object appears without external illumination.
		+	*Transmission colour - This is the colour that the object imparts to a (white) light source when illuminated from behind.
		+	*Reflection colour - This is the colour that the object imparts to a (white) light source when illuminated from in front.
		+
		+	Obviously, an object that doesn't emit light has an emission colour of "black". An object that is opaque has a transmission colour of "black". Because many objects have these properties, and most of the non-opaque objects have similar transmission and reflection colours, it's easy for people to overlook the three different colours of objects and say for instance "plants are green" when technically they mean "plants are black/green/green" or "the sun is white" when technically they mean "the sun is white/black/black".
		+
		+	The thing that makes air stick out is that it has a reflection colour of pale blue, but a transmission colour of orange/red. The reason ''why'' is that its colour derives from Rayleigh scattering rather than absorption. (Air's emission colour is black, unless strongly heated.) [[User:Magic9mushroom\|Magic9mushroom]] ([[User talk:Magic9mushroom\|talk]]) 13:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 19 April 2017
Line 29:		Line 29:

	: If I do remember it correctly from my theoretical part of thesis about telepresence (so not exact domain, but I used good sources I think) the point behind why we see distant objects as bluish is: we see them colorless - maybe grayish - because the more the object is distant from us, the less reflected photons bounce into our eye. That means less energy of the radiation. As you may know, we have two sets of photoreceptor cells in the eye retina: one type for brightness perception (bacilli) and the other for multiple colors detection (coni). The later is active only in sufficient light conditions (photopic vision) - not in the dark. So that's why you don't see much colors in the night (scotopic vision) - not enough photonic energy gets into your eyes so only brightness is perceived. The same applies for the less energy from distant object photons - only brightness detected. So why it is it seems blue and not gray only? That is because bacilli cells are most sensitive to the blue color (500nm) contrariwise to the cone cells color sensitivity maximizes at green color (550nm). So the answer is bacilli cells are most sensitive to blue color, therefore the bacilli stimulus interpreted by our brain as blueish color, and only bacilli cells are active for low energy visual input - distant objects or in dark. Sources: sorry only in Czech language pdf-section 3.1.1: https://goo.gl/hOnWoi [[User:Gr4viton\|Gr4viton]] ([[User talk:Gr4viton\|talk]]) 06:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)		: If I do remember it correctly from my theoretical part of thesis about telepresence (so not exact domain, but I used good sources I think) the point behind why we see distant objects as bluish is: we see them colorless - maybe grayish - because the more the object is distant from us, the less reflected photons bounce into our eye. That means less energy of the radiation. As you may know, we have two sets of photoreceptor cells in the eye retina: one type for brightness perception (bacilli) and the other for multiple colors detection (coni). The later is active only in sufficient light conditions (photopic vision) - not in the dark. So that's why you don't see much colors in the night (scotopic vision) - not enough photonic energy gets into your eyes so only brightness is perceived. The same applies for the less energy from distant object photons - only brightness detected. So why it is it seems blue and not gray only? That is because bacilli cells are most sensitive to the blue color (500nm) contrariwise to the cone cells color sensitivity maximizes at green color (550nm). So the answer is bacilli cells are most sensitive to blue color, therefore the bacilli stimulus interpreted by our brain as blueish color, and only bacilli cells are active for low energy visual input - distant objects or in dark. Sources: sorry only in Czech language pdf-section 3.1.1: https://goo.gl/hOnWoi [[User:Gr4viton\|Gr4viton]] ([[User talk:Gr4viton\|talk]]) 06:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+	Also to the question in hover-comment "Why does chlorophyll scatter green light?". Only lately (if I do remember correctly), in the year 2016 "scientist" found out why. From all of the electromagnetic spectra of the sun radiation, the most energy efficient frequencies are the non-greenish for the chemical reaction of photosynthesis. So the answer is: photosynthesis is more effective without green color, plants need photosynthesis to survive, Darwin principle of the strongest survives exists, plants evolved to diminish green color intake on leaves. Why there are plants with not only green colored leaves? Other reasons may drive the evolution - animals eating plants, environment temperature and other conditions may lower the importance of photosynthesis effectivity. [[User:Gr4viton\|Gr4viton]] ([[User talk:Gr4viton\|talk]]) 07:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

	I received the 'rayleigh scattering' explanation myself, and it served me well. Even without knowing anything about quantum mechanics or how the human eye works, knowing that there's an optic principle at work other than simple pigmentation explains why the light is golden early and late in the day, and why dust or smoke can have such diverse effects on the colour of the light beaming down, especially at dusk and dawn.		I received the 'rayleigh scattering' explanation myself, and it served me well. Even without knowing anything about quantum mechanics or how the human eye works, knowing that there's an optic principle at work other than simple pigmentation explains why the light is golden early and late in the day, and why dust or smoke can have such diverse effects on the colour of the light beaming down, especially at dusk and dawn.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:59, 19 April 2017
Line 27:		Line 27:

	New here, probably not following proper form in this commend, but, if I may ask, is that thing about mountains appearing blue actually true? (Unsigned)		New here, probably not following proper form in this commend, but, if I may ask, is that thing about mountains appearing blue actually true? (Unsigned)
		+
		+	: If I do remember it correctly from my theoretical part of thesis about telepresence (so not exact domain, but I used good sources I think) the point behind why we see distant objects as bluish is: we see them colorless - maybe grayish - because the more the object is distant from us, the less reflected photons bounce into our eye. That means less energy of the radiation. As you may know, we have two sets of photoreceptor cells in the eye retina: one type for brightness perception (bacilli) and the other for multiple colors detection (coni). The later is active only in sufficient light conditions (photopic vision) - not in the dark. So that's why you don't see much colors in the night (scotopic vision) - not enough photonic energy gets into your eyes so only brightness is perceived. The same applies for the less energy from distant object photons - only brightness detected. So why it is it seems blue and not gray only? That is because bacilli cells are most sensitive to the blue color (500nm) contrariwise to the cone cells color sensitivity maximizes at green color (550nm). So the answer is bacilli cells are most sensitive to blue color, therefore the bacilli stimulus interpreted by our brain as blueish color, and only bacilli cells are active for low energy visual input - distant objects or in dark. Sources: sorry only in Czech language pdf-section 3.1.1: https://goo.gl/hOnWoi [[User:Gr4viton\|Gr4viton]] ([[User talk:Gr4viton\|talk]]) 06:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

	I received the 'rayleigh scattering' explanation myself, and it served me well. Even without knowing anything about quantum mechanics or how the human eye works, knowing that there's an optic principle at work other than simple pigmentation explains why the light is golden early and late in the day, and why dust or smoke can have such diverse effects on the colour of the light beaming down, especially at dusk and dawn.		I received the 'rayleigh scattering' explanation myself, and it served me well. Even without knowing anything about quantum mechanics or how the human eye works, knowing that there's an optic principle at work other than simple pigmentation explains why the light is golden early and late in the day, and why dust or smoke can have such diverse effects on the colour of the light beaming down, especially at dusk and dawn.

@@ Line 64: / Line 64: @@
 :Calvin and Hobbes did not invent children asking science questions or parents who can't answer them.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.172|108.162.241.172]] 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 ::Lot's of homages exist to things that didn't invent other things.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5|162.158.79.5]] 15:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 == The other side of the argument ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:29, 9 April 2017
Line 88:		Line 88:

	I noticed that too... maybe its hiding. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.10\|162.158.142.10]] 15:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		I noticed that too... maybe its hiding. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.142.10\|162.158.142.10]] 15:33, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
		+
		+
		+	== This is extremely reminiscent of Terry Pratchett's concept of "lies to children". ==
		+	Defined as, "a statement which is false, but which nevertheless leads the child’s mind towards a more accurate explanation, one that the child will only be able to appreciate if it has been primed with the lie."
		+
		+	Basically, these are simplified stories we tell – and not just to children – when we want to begin to explain something, but feel that our audience doesn’t have the background information necessary to understand the “full” story. These can be anything from “the stork brought you” to “Columbus wanted to prove that the Earth was round” to “atoms look like little solar systems” to “evolution is the survival of the fittest.”

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:45, 6 April 2017
Line 80:		Line 80:

	[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166\|108.162.245.166]] 00:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) (Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>		[[Special:Contributions/108.162.245.166\|108.162.245.166]] 00:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC) (Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net>
		+
		+	:+1 [[Special:Contributions/108.162.246.29\|108.162.246.29]] 14:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

	== April fools day comic absense ==		== April fools day comic absense ==

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~-->
 I keep trying to correct the misspelled joung Girl to Young Girl but it keeps reverting. I corrected the two non-capitalized sentences and they stay put. Does "joung" have a meaning i don't understand? [[User:ExternalMonolog|ExternalMonolog]] ([[User talk:ExternalMonolog|talk]]) 14:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 :There might be conflicting edits, that happens a lot with new comics[[User:Dontknow|Dontknow]] ([[User talk:Dontknow|talk]]) 15:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 3 April 2017
Line 50:		Line 50:

	Look, there's really no question about whats going on in this comic, and people need to stop overcomplicating and overanalyzing things. Here's how it breaks down: Science Girl asks a science question. Blondie gives a simplified but still correct answer, while Megan gives the traditional but more complicated answer. Blondie then makes the point that's also the comic's intended moral - that we can view things at different levels of detail, and that just because an explanation is less detailed than you're use to doesn't mean it's actually wrong.		Look, there's really no question about whats going on in this comic, and people need to stop overcomplicating and overanalyzing things. Here's how it breaks down: Science Girl asks a science question. Blondie gives a simplified but still correct answer, while Megan gives the traditional but more complicated answer. Blondie then makes the point that's also the comic's intended moral - that we can view things at different levels of detail, and that just because an explanation is less detailed than you're use to doesn't mean it's actually wrong.
		+	:Blondie is doing the child a disservice. It's debatable if "Because air is blue" is accurate as others gave the examples of with sunrise and sunset. Also dubious is her statement, "Blue light bounces off it and hits our eyes". This makes it sound like simple reflection which is a very distinct mechanism from scattering. Things that reflect light vs. things that allow some light to pass through them (glass, air, water, irises) get wavelengths to our eyes in different ways. If you give the completely useless "because it makes it so blue light gets to our eyes" you'd be correct, but saying that the light reflects rather than is scattered is false.[[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.5\|162.158.79.5]] 15:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

	Then in the last panel, Blondie takes her valid point to its illogical conclusion by giving an explanation that isn't merely simplified, but straight up wrong, which frustrates Megan. This panel has no moral and is not trying to make a point. It's just there to be the punchline. Anyone reading ''any'' kind of moral into it should probably remember why they're called "comics" in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.172\|108.162.241.172]] 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)		Then in the last panel, Blondie takes her valid point to its illogical conclusion by giving an explanation that isn't merely simplified, but straight up wrong, which frustrates Megan. This panel has no moral and is not trying to make a point. It's just there to be the punchline. Anyone reading ''any'' kind of moral into it should probably remember why they're called "comics" in the first place.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.241.172\|108.162.241.172]] 02:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 [[Special:Contributions/162.158.92.52|162.158.92.52]] 06:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 : Actually no. And a google image search for Liquid Oxygen doesn't give an image I'm totally convinced is actually of Oxygen (Best match seems to be a flask of Ozone, although it is most certainly a very deep blue).
 What is happening with the sky is that air can appear to glow with various colors when illuminated with a strong directional source of light, such as the sun. The color depends on multiple factors, including the angle of illumination and observation. The glow can be commonly seen being blue, white, yellow, or red - with blue hues generally observable on clear days, and reddish hues at sunrise or sunset. This only works with a directional source of light; when the source of light is diffuse, such as under a large cloud cover, the sky doesn't appear blue, and neither do distant mountains, readily disproving the notion that air itself would be blue.