OFFTOPIC: physics question

[\0xDynamite]

>>I think you answered part of my question, which was partly didactic to
> force science to get more rigor in its explanation.  I think I will
> have to content myself with this because I know that rainbows and the
> sky being blue will NEVER be explainable by science.
> Mark
>
> No, the reason the sky is blue was explained long ago.  It's called
> "Rayleigh scattering".

Mr. Bell, I understand this "explanation" which is not really science.
  To my knowledge this  data has never been replicated by any lab nor
measured in the field by balloon in the upper atmosphere.  It is a
great example of a mansplaination--the attempt merely to hold
dominance of "why everything is the way it is".

> However, that explaination does not include a reference to what my
> understanding of Rayleigh scattering entails.  Considered on the scale of
> the wavelength of the light involved, the density of air varies
> statistically.  Blue is a shorter wavelenth than red, so statistically that
> variation in air density is greater.  So, blue is scattered more than
> red.  Blue sky means that more blue is scattered.

There is no way for the atmosphere to be so stable over both time and
space on the short-scale (meters and seconds) or over time on the
long-scale (every day).  The variance in atmospheric content of carbon
dioxide, oxygen, etc. also varies, so cannot simply be reduced to a
sound bite like Rayleigh scattering.

Please consider donating less at the wikipedia denomination of the
Church of Science.

Mark