Astronomy in Hawaii under threat?

[TomK]

"Have you ever wondered why the sky is blue during the day? Gases in the atmosphere bend sunlight the way a prism or lense would to produce different colors. The color of the sky at different times of the day is a prime example of atmospheric lensing."

The sky is blue during the day because of light scattering, not lensing.

"If what you say is true, photographs taken on the dark side of the moon would have visible stars. While photos snapped on the light side would have none."

Now I think this is a troll. 

"People throughout history used bifocals, contact lenses and eyeglasses to make images sharper and more distinct."

Right, those bifocals, contact lenses, and eyeglasses are made out of the atmosphere. Give me a break; no one is this stupid.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

If what you say is true, photographs taken on the dark side of the moon would have visible stars.

Look at the photograph on the cover of Pink Floyd’s Dark Side of the Moon.  There are no stars.


sky is blue during the day? Gases in the atmosphere bend sunlight the way a prism or lense would to produce different colors.

Again, using Pink Floyd’s album cover as an example, it has a prism on it, but the background is black.  There is a beam of light that splits into colors however.  Pink Floyd can certainly be considered the NASA of prog rock, so these examples certainly must prove something.  

I drove into Pahoa yesterday and witnessed people standing in the middle of business entrances where I needed to pass through, staring distantly into space, completely unaware of their surroundings.  I watched shoppers try to navigate grocery store aisles looking for food in a manner comparable to our ancestors as they hunted and gathered, with much the same rate of success.  I imagined if I put a stethoscope on some of their heads I’d hear the sounds of Pink Floyd playing, scratchy and tinny with pops and clicks as if it emanated from a distant vinyl record player, forever playing the B side.

It was daytime.  The sky was cloudy.

[Space Karen]

The sky is blue during the day because of light scattering, not lensing.

"If what you say is true, photographs taken on the dark side of the moon would have visible stars. While photos snapped on the light side would have none."

Now I think this is a troll. 

"People throughout history used bifocals, contact lenses and eyeglasses to make images sharper and more distinct."

Right, those bifocals, contact lenses, and eyeglasses are made out of the atmosphere. Give me a break; no one is this stupid.

Light scattering? That wouldn't explain color shifts which occur in the sky throughout the day. 

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky.

Its the shape of the lense that gives it its properties, not the material its made of. What is the shape of the atmosphere?

[randomq]

Actually the material a lense is made of is very important, for its refractive index. A lense with a neutral (near 1) refractive index doesn't do much. The atmosphere is very close to 1, as is the vacuum of space.

[MyManao]

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky..

Repeated reference to instances of stars verses no stars in a photograph without clarifying the details of each photo is as if to express a lack of understanding of the photographic process.

Photographs, whether they be taken by one of the telescopes on the mauna, a pinhole camera, or any of the myriad machines in-between, are constrained by a number of factors, all of which play a part in determining how much light is captured in the resulting image.

Stars, which when looked at from Earth, or our moon, are each very small amounts of light, especially when compared to the central subject of most photographs. As such they may or may not appear in any photo, not because they are, or are not, visible from the camera's perspective, but merely as a function of the light gathering properties of the camera/film/sensor settings.

As such, whether there are stars in a photo's sky, or not, is irrelevant to the point being made.

[AaronM]

Thank you Karen for making my day. I definitely needed the chuckle that your posts provoked.

[TomK]

Light scattering? That wouldn't explain color shifts which occur in the sky throughout the day. 

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky.

Its the shape of the lense that gives it its properties, not the material its made of. What is the shape of the atmosphere?

1) Light scattering does explain the colors of the sky, "atmospheric lensing" does not: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...lusky.html

2) Who took these more recent photos from the dark side of the moon? Please give a citation.

3) As randomq pointed out, it's the refractive index of the lens material that is most important, and when you look at a star through the Earth's atmosphere, you are effectively looking through a plane slab of atmosphere, so the shape of the atmosphere plays little to no role. What the atmosphere does is shift an image of a star as you look closer to the horizon due to refraction, the light from the star has to go through more of the atmosphere so the star appears to dim and since you are looking through a greater air mass of the atmosphere, the image quality degrades due to atmospheric turbulence and temperature layers and the light you see becomes redder due to scattering. It's why sunsets give you a red sky.

PS. I should add that "atmospheric lensing" is a term some flat-earthers often invoke to explain why the sun and moon don't change their apparent size even though the flat earth model involves the sun and moon moving toward or away from the observer which would change the observed apparent size of either. Unfortunately, no one has provided any evidence for such an effect.

[TomK]

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky..

Repeated reference to instances of stars verses no stars in a photograph without clarifying the details of each photo is as if to express a lack of understanding of the photographic process.

Photographs, whether they be taken by one of the telescopes on the mauna, a pinhole camera, or any of the myriad machines in-between, are constrained by a number of factors, all of which play a part in determining how much light is captured in the resulting image.

Stars, which when looked at from Earth, or our moon, are each very small amounts of light, especially when compared to the central subject of most photographs. As such they may or may not appear in any photo, not because they are, or are not, visible from the camera's perspective, but merely as a function of the light gathering properties of the camera/film/sensor settings.

As such, whether there are stars in a photo's sky, or not, is irrelevant to the point being made.

In other words, the photos the lunar astronauts took used an exposure time that was too short to see stars.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

A solar flare with reach earth on July 19th.  We most likely will notice nothing, but social media is already abuzz and exaggerating the possible effects.  COMMUNICATION SATELLITE APOCALYPSE!   

Not sure if stars will suddenly appear in lunar photos, or light scattering and color shifting will dramatically be affected (other than auroras near the poles), but right here seems like the go-to thread for this sort of think right now.

Or, more to the point TomK might inform us if the solar flare will threaten equipment and observatories on Mauna Kea, and what precautions (if any) may be taken.

[Space Karen]

Actually the material a lense is made of is very important, for its refractive index. A lense with a neutral (near 1) refractive index doesn't do much. The atmosphere is very close to 1, as is the vacuum of space.

he atmosphere is a lense thousands of miles in size.

Apparently size matters?

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky..

Repeated reference to instances of stars verses no stars in a photograph without clarifying the details of each photo is as if to express a lack of understanding of the photographic process.

Photographs, whether they be taken by one of the telescopes on the mauna, a pinhole camera, or any of the myriad machines in-between, are constrained by a number of factors, all of which play a part in determining how much light is captured in the resulting image.

Stars, which when looked at from Earth, or our moon, are each very small amounts of light, especially when compared to the central subject of most photographs. As such they may or may not appear in any photo, not because they are, or are not, visible from the camera's perspective, but merely as a function of the light gathering properties of the camera/film/sensor settings.

As such, whether there are stars in a photo's sky, or not, is irrelevant to the point being made.

I'll contend the same pinhole camera shooting the night sky on earth.

Would record stars.

Its not a question of framerate or exposure. Its luminescence that matters.

Light scattering? That wouldn't explain color shifts which occur in the sky throughout the day. 

There are more recent photographs taken on the dark side of the moon which show no stars in the sky.

Its the shape of the lense that gives it its properties, not the material its made of. What is the shape of the atmosphere?

1) Light scattering does explain the colors of the sky, "atmospheric lensing" does not: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hba...lusky.html

2) Who took these more recent photos from the dark side of the moon? Please give a citation.

3) As randomq pointed out, it's the refractive index of the lens material that is most important, and when you look at a star through the Earth's atmosphere, you are effectively looking through a plane slab of atmosphere, so the shape of the atmosphere plays little to no role. What the atmosphere does is shift an image of a star as you look closer to the horizon due to refraction, the light from the star has to go through more of the atmosphere so the star appears to dim and since you are looking through a greater air mass of the atmosphere, the image quality degrades due to atmospheric turbulence and temperature layers and the light you see becomes redder due to scattering. It's why sunsets give you a red sky.

PS. I should add that "atmospheric lensing" is a term some flat-earthers often invoke to explain why the sun and moon don't change their apparent size even though the flat earth model involves the sun and moon moving toward or away from the observer which would change the observed apparent size of either. Unfortunately, no one has provided any evidence for such an effect.

Light scattering describes more the method mass spectrometers use to determine elements from their interaction with light. The angle at which light makes contact isn't important.

The color of the sky depends on the angle sunlight hits the atmosphere. A lense is the best way to define this. Its the same principle as moving a magnifying glass in sunlight to make different colors.

I know NASA says the color of the sky is due to light scattering. But there is a reason NASA can't build rockets in this day and age. I think people might have found it. Good job.