most say it is blue and talk about R scattering.

 

i say otherwise.

 

 

any wish to debate the color of the sky?

It's pretty easy to stick a spectrometer at the sky and show it's blue. Not really a subject of debate.

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what do you say otherwise?

It's pretty easy to stick a spectrometer at the sky and show it's blue. Not really a subject of debate.

 

What makes your claim so pure when common sense can shut that position down?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm probably going to regret asking, but what do you say otherwise?

 

because of evidence, common sense, reality!

What makes your claim so pure when common sense can shut that position down?

 

Evidence trumps common sense I'm afraid.

What is the purpose of this thread?

What is the purpose of this thread?

 

to share that the 'perspective' to classical physics is relevant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectrum_of_blue_sky.png

 

First one I found on googleing.

Evidence trumps common sense I'm afraid.

 

 

so if i said the sky is black with lil' white dots; is it common sense with evidence or am i wrong just for observing in a different (albeit perfectly true) manner?

 

 

ie.... eddington did not provide evidence for einsteins postulate on the space bending (eclipse)

 

is what a mirage; the light from stars behind the sun are being diverted by the coronal energy of the sun.

 

see how common sense and perspective just expose reality over the accepted renditions of classical physics

I should be more clear. In your next post, answer my first question, what it is that "you say otherwise." What leads you to say that the sky is not blue? Keep in mind that if your answer is "common sense" then I'm closing the thread.

I should be more clear. In your next post, answer my first question, what it is that "you say otherwise." What leads you to say that the sky is not blue? Keep in mind that if your answer is "common sense" then I'm closing the thread.

 

 

as ooooosual

 

 

i offer thoughts and get hammered

as ooooosual

 

 

i offer thoughts and get hammered

 

You've offered nothing.

thats because of your refusal to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

so if i said the sky is black with lil' white dots; is it common sense with evidence or am i wrong just for observing in a different (albeit perfectly true) manner?

 

 

ie.... eddington did not provide evidence for einsteins postulate on the space bending (eclipse)

 

is what a mirage; the light from stars behind the sun are being diverted by the coronal energy of the sun.

 

see how common sense and perspective just expose reality over the accepted renditions of classical physics

 

 

is each line in this thread all true, of common sense

 

and with enough evidence that a child could comprehend it

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

You've offered nothing.

 

 

 

now any can say the sky is not blue and be able to back it up

common sense doesn't matter if thats not what happens. common sense accounts for bugger all.

 

its common sense that liquids sit at the bottom of a container yet liquid helium will climb the walls, run down the sides of the container and pool around it. its not common sense but it happens.

and with enough evidence that a child could comprehend it

Then kindly provide your evidence. We do not like people who make claims without supporting them.

Keep in mind that if your answer is "common sense" then I'm closing the thread.

Please live up to this promise. Please. With a cherry on top.

thats because of your refusal to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

 

i have been wrong from the eyes of the 'community' for almost 3 decades

 

on more items than you can shake a stick at

 

don't mean i am wrong to myself (meaning; i have more integrity to seek truth, reality and the absolute; then a reason to live)

 

some talk about being absolute; some do it

is each line in this thread all true, of common sense

 

and with enough evidence that a child could comprehend it

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

 

 

 

 

now any can say the sky is not blue and be able to back it up

 

This is why we use unbiased equipment to measure things, and quantify them. It removes confusion and allows the spread of knowledge. If you noticed I posted experimental evidence that the sky is blue in results of a spectrometer, a quantitative measurement, in my first reply I mentioned that there was a requirement for such a thing. Humans are poor measurement devices. Very poor.

This is why we use unbiased equipment to measure things, and quantify them.

 

K, i love the pursuit of evidence that is verifiable. (ie... once the truth is established and the understanding of life is comprehended globally; the rituals of beliefs will be over)

 

i am on THE TEAM

 

It removes confusion and allows the spread of knowledge.

 

i am with you on that; we have the internet and why borders and direction of educational pursuits can be overcome.

 

If you noticed I posted experimental evidence that the sky is blue in results of a spectrometer, a quantitative measurement, in my first reply I mentioned that there was a requirement for such a thing. Humans are poor measurement devices. Very poor.

 

but in this case; the sky is more often black with lil'white dots than blue

 

such as life has abused entropy for billions of years and the evidence far exceeds any measurements

i have been wrong from the eyes of the 'community' for almost 3 decades

 

on more items than you can shake a stick at

 

don't mean i am wrong to myself (meaning; i have more integrity to seek truth, reality and the absolute; then a reason to live)

 

some talk about being absolute; some do it

 

You must remember that the community only cares about whether what you are saying compares to reality. If it doesn't out the window it goes.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1941ApNr....3..273S/0000273.000.html

 

I still say blue... even with their dodgy axis labelling.

So, the point of this thread is to say that the sky looks different at night than it does during the day? Ok. Consider it said.

So, the point of this thread is to say that the sky looks different at night than it does during the day? Ok. Consider it said.

 

 

 

why not state it clearly; the sky 'in total' is better described as black with lil white dots than blue; as to leave earth; the blue is thereby almost exclusively observed upon the earth (naturally speaking of course)

 

 

some say, well the sky is the atmosphere; then i ask what is the night sky.

 

my point is 'observational' or having an expanded view offers far more than staying put just to retain assimilation to the 'classical' view of observation.

 

that is what science is all about.

 

for example; if we all within 'existence', and we are from evolved life that came to be able to 'create' words; then could it be realized or even asked:

 

is existence defining itself?

 

(see words as fractals)

 

can you get an idea of why i opened this thread?

The thing is, science is about clarity, not trying to deceive others and tricking them using words.

 

Thank you, xkcd.