PDA

View Full Version : Attiyah's Blue Sky



Attiyah Zahdeh
April 27th, 2008, 03:55 PM
Attiyah's Blue Sky

I know that scientists attribute the blue color of the clear sky to Rayleigh scattering. However, I have my own new theory that I entitled "Attiyah's blue sky". "Attiyah's blue sky" theory has seven main hypotheses.

(1) The blueness of the sky is due to two major factors: the blue color of ozone, and the blue emissions of the global daytime auroras; and to three minor factors: Rayleigh scattering, the noctilucent clouds and argon gas.

Details:

A- The blue color of ozone gas in both the stratosphere and mesosphere is the first major factor that can account for the greatest portion of the blueness of the sky.

B- The second major factor that contributes considerably to the blueness of the sky is the blue emissions of the global daytime auroras.

C- Rayleigh scattering, noctilucent clouds and argon gas contribute slightly to the sky blueness.

(2)The blueness of the sky concerns four atmospheric layers: the troposphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere (including the ionospheric D-layer) and the ionospheric E-layer. Details:

First, regarding the troposphere:

A- Its contribution to the blueness of the sky is almost slight. This slight contribution is largely due to Rayleigh scattering. This contribution gives the troposphere only very faint blue appearance.
B- Its variable contents affect the vividness of the blueness of the overlying atmospheric layers or conceal it.

Second, regards the stratosphere:

A- The blue color of the stratospheric ozone is the main contributor to the sky blueness of the sky as viewed from on the ground or outer space.
B- The ice of the stratospheric clouds such as the nacreous clouds has a minor contribution.
C- Argon atoms have a very minor contribution.
D- Due to the presence of different molecules other than ozone molecules, Rayleigh scattering plays a minor role.
E- Blue jets contribute.

Third, regarding the mesosphere (including the ionospheric D-layer):

A- The diurnal, global auroras in the D-layer continuously emit some blue spectra. B- The electric discharges relevant to the occurrence of auroras lead to the production of the ozone of the upper ozonosphere. This ozone content contributes significantly to the blueness of the sky.
C- The ice of the noctilucent clouds has a minor contribution.

Fourth, regarding the ionospheric E-layer:
The auroras that occur in the daytime E-layer give blue light globally and continuously.


(3) The main effect of Rayleigh scattering is not played on the blue waves in the direct solar light, but instead it is played on the main blueness of the sky that is due to the blue color of the ozone molecules in both the stratosphere and mesosphere, and to the blue emissions of the continuous daytime auroras, especially of the lower ionosphere.


(4) With respect to the Earth-stationed observers, the main effect of Rayliegh scattering on the atmosphere, particularly on the troposphere i.e. on the substratospheric gases, is not the enhancement of the apparent heavenly blueness, but instead this main effect is the dilution of the blueness.


(5) The dilution of the apparent blueness of the sky caused by Rayliegh scattering is directly proportional to the length of the line of sight in the troposphere. In other words, the dilution of the apparent heavenly blueness increases from overhead towards horizon.


(6) The dilution of the blueness of the stratosphere almost helps uncover the ionospheric layers overlying it. At the same time, the blue auroral emissions from the lower ionosphere decrease greatly.


(7) The orange or red horizons at sunset and sunrise are almost due to the orange and red emissions from the daytime auroras in the ionospheric F-layer. These red and orange emissions from the F-layer auroras can outshine the Rayleigh-scattering-diluted blueness.

Evidence


http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/3.shtml


Were Rayleigh scattering the main cause of the blue appearance of the sky, the blueness should be nearly restricted to the troposphere, because about 80% of the Rayleigh scattering gases are present in it. However, when seen from the planes that fly in the highest regions of the troposphere, the troposphere itself does not show the familiar blue appearance of the sky. As well, the photos taken for the troposphere from satellites and space shuttles do not show it having the normal blue appearance of the sky as viewed from on the ground or from the outer space.

In addition to, one can see the normal blueness of the sky above the troposphere through the gaps between the clouds that are formed at the highest level of the troposphere itself. Even if the highest levels of the troposphere are full of white cirrus clouds, the troposphere under them does not seem blue. Moreover, astronauts did not give any reports about seeing a blue troposphere especially over arts of the land far from the vast oceanic waters.

Radar
April 27th, 2008, 09:46 PM
[COLOR="RoyalBlue"][SIZE="5"]
B- The second major factor that contributes considerably to the blueness of the sky is the blue emissions of the global daytime auroras.


Before I read any further Attiyah, what exactly is a global daytime aurora? Can you post some links from reputable scientific websites for this please?

Thanks

Ray

Attiyah Zahdeh
April 28th, 2008, 12:04 AM
Before I read any further Attiyah, what exactly is a global daytime aurora? Can you post some links from reputable scientific websites for this please?

Thanks

Ray

Dear Ray'
Please review the coming reputable scientific websites:

http://www-pi.physics.uiowa.edu/sai/gallery/
http://www-pi.physics.uiowa.edu/www/desai/

Great Thanks

Radar
April 28th, 2008, 10:14 PM
(1) The blueness of the sky is due to two major factors: the blue color of ozone, and the blue emissions of the global daytime auroras;




Dear Ray'
Please review the coming reputable scientific websites:

http://www-pi.physics.uiowa.edu/sai/gallery/
http://www-pi.physics.uiowa.edu/www/desai/

Those links do not contain any phenomenon called "global daytime auroras".

They contain info on Auroras, nothing about "global daytime auroras".

Straight away your theory has holes in Attiyah, you can't provide a link to this phenomenon called "global daytime aurora". Did you make that term up? What is it? Where do I find information about it?

Cheers

Ray

Dragon Man
April 28th, 2008, 11:12 PM
Hmmmmm . . .

Give something a fancy name and it sounds real!

'Global Daytime Auroras' must be something like those 'Hemispheric Solar Particulate Rays' or those 'Ionosphere Spectral Distortion Waves' :tongue:

Sound technical, don't they. Must be real. :wink:

Attiyah Zahdeh
April 28th, 2008, 11:13 PM
Those links do not contain any phenomenon called "global daytime auroras".

They contain info on Auroras, nothing about "global daytime auroras".

Straight away your theory has holes in Attiyah, you can't provide a link to this phenomenon called "global daytime aurora". Did you make that term up? What is it? Where do I find information about it?

Cheers

Ray

The referred-to two links show you lots of photos. From these photos, without any doubt, we can conclude that auroras occur continuously in the whole daytime ionosphere i.e. in the ionosphere of all latitudes: from the polar latitudes to the equatorial latitudes. In other words, the mechanisms that produce the traditional polar auroras are not confined to the two auroral ovals, but present in the whole daytime ionosphere.

Dragon Man
April 28th, 2008, 11:19 PM
The reffered-to two links show you lots of photos. From these photos, without any doubt, we can conclude that auroras occur continuously in the whole daytime ionosphere So you make an 'assumption' from photos.

So if we 'assume' hard enough, it becomes real?

Assumption has no scientific standing. Research does not 'Assume'.

Attiyah Zahdeh
April 29th, 2008, 09:06 AM
So you make an 'assumption' from photos.

So if we 'assume' hard enough, it becomes real?

Assumption has no scientific standing. Research does not 'Assume'.

Almost all the astronomy is made from photos. What is the function of the telescopes? What do SOHO and Hubble send?
The referred-to photos prove that always there are extremely bright auroras occurring throughout the whole daytime ionosphere. I'm absolutely sure that, as seen at the Earth, the Sun involves a greatly bright auroral corona.
I don't imagine.

Tony Leece
April 29th, 2008, 04:41 PM
Almost all the astronomy is made from photos. What is the function of the telescopes? What do SOHO and Hubble send?
The referred-to photos prove that always there are extremely bright auroras occurring throughout the whole daytime ionosphere. I'm absolutely sure that, as seen at the Earth, the Sun involves a greatly bright auroral corona.
I don't imagine.

How can you say almost all the astronomy is in the form of photos?
As the following link states, the Space Telescope Science Institute holds in excess of 2.5 terra bytes of data from hubble. Are you saying all or most of this data is in the form of photographs? I think not.
Hubbles instruments aquire data in many forms only some of which are visual photographs.
I agree with Ken here, assumptions and photographs alone, do not make a sound theory.

http://www.cv.nrao.edu/adass/adassVI/hanischr.html

Tony......

Rumples Riot
May 4th, 2008, 09:55 PM
I have several questions here.

First, please state the university you attended and the type of physics you studied? Without such evidence your "theories" are really no better than my own conceptions or suspicions. I studied physics are high school and nothing in your ideas is even remotely proven even from readings I have made lately.

Second, where is your supporting data. Those links are not reliable sources of data that can be intrepreted with physics or mathematics. Data is the observations and raw information taken from observatories, satellites and radio telescopes. Not photos.

Third, I would like to see your proofs (ie mathematics and physics equations) of your theory, thus far there have been none. Nor is there likely to be any given your preoccupation with avoiding questions.

Without any of these, eveything you propose is moot. Meaning not worth discussing.


Now, in terms of day time aurora's and blue skies. Blue skies are caused from light scattering through the atmosphere of an oxygen and nitrogen rich constitution. Mars has red skies because of its atmosphere constituent (being that much different from earths) and yet has no magnetic field. If the blue skies are caused from auroral activity why is it that auroral belts have not been found near the equator. This has never been seen in any images from any satellite and there have been thousands of satellites.

Not all science is known from photographs, Einstein, Maxwell, Newton, Plank, Kepler and many more never had photographs to confirm and form the laws of physics. Your statement here is so wrong that much science is made without the aid of photographs. Spectroscopy and other such forms of light gathering have confirmed these notions. Photographs rarely confirm anything.

Anyway I challenge you to express your understanding of physics and make the proofs required. Otherwise, why don't you hop back to ignominity where you originated from.