Talk:Sky

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think a link to the Sky Satelite TV service should be provided.

I argee with this person. [1].

Its been done.

Contents

[edit] Difficulty defining "Sky?"

This statement from the article is interesting: "There is no 'blue object' above the earth in any normal sense, so it is hard to say what object the sky is(for a retared)." Yet there certainly is a blue substance up there. It's called air. Air is colored blue for the same reason that any blue object looks blue: when the air is illuminated by white light, the short wavelengths are preferentially reflected to our eyes. However, the blue of the air is a structural color produced by wave effects, whereas most other blue substances are blue because of preferential absorbtion. (Other examples of structural color: the blue of bird feathers, the blue of human irises, the blue of aerogel and cigarette smoke, ...and the bright colors of holograms, interference filter elements, and soap bubbles.)

Perhaps a widespread misconception is the cause of our misunderstanding. People seem to believe that pure dust-free air is completely transparent. Actually, only a thin layer of air is transparent, while a thick layer behaves as a blue substance, and a very thick layer would appear as white as milk. ("Thin" here means thinner than ten miles or so.)

Analogy: similar things happen when we look at a muddy river, versus a glass of water from the same river. If we look at the glass of clear water and decide that river water is perfectly transparent, then we'd be hard pressed to explain the brown opacity of the river, and might put it down to arcane causes such as "molecular scattering." A simple description would be that river water is a dilute brown color, and a thin enough layer is perfectly clear.

So shouldn't we say that air is a blue substance, but a thin enough layer looks clear? --Wjbeaty 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The color of the sky is in dispute again!

The edit indicated by:

2007-02-11T12:29:24 Spiel496 (Talk | contribs) (→Sky luminance and colors - If it "appears" blue, it _is_ blue; not violet)

may merit being reverted, but I will not do it without consensus.

However, I also think the previous explanation was incomplete/fuzzy, which is what prompted this person to "be bold" in his or her edit. But I don't know enough about it to suggest what the correct wording is.

Here is an example of something I know about from first hand experience that might help nail this down. Granted the human eye barely perceives violet, and ultraviolet not at all. That the sky is heavily violet, despite our inability to see it, is easily demonstrated via photography. Film is able to see a wider gamut than the eye, extending well into the violet. I routinely fit my camera with a "Sky" filter for the deliberate purpose of forcing my film to only see what I can see.

Additionally, polarization of the sky's light should at least be mentioned in any truly complete explanation of the sky's appearance.

I understand why Spiel496 changed it. A better explanation needs to be developed.

Badly Bradley 08:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not checking back earlier; I didn't mean to "edit and run". I would just warn that color perception is fairly complicated. It can't be that relevant thatt the eye is more sensitive to some wavelengths than others. Even if you change the eye's sensitivity by putting on color-tinted glasses, the effect is only temporary. After a few minutes, paper looks white again and trees look green. Spiel496 17:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, i just disputed the colour of the sky by adding "citation needed" to the fact that you call it blue. Im not realy dooing this to despute the colour of the sky (not that i precive the sky as blue since my colourvision is rather fubar but it seems to be the general sensus that it is blue). Instead this is some childish trashing of me since i just got fedup with the resent snobbery of "citation needed" and alikes on Wikipedia. I expect it to be reverted. Yes, this spelling is fubar to.

83.226.168.237 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I must confess that I most wholeheartedly agree with you; I think that this whole citation needed/POV business is getting way out of hand. Wikipedia is not as good as it once was. However, try not to vandalise again as it wo't get us anywhere. thank you. 211.30.132.2 11:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
User 211.30.132.2: Adding a 'citation needed' tag is not vandalism. While it might be argued as 'disrupting wikipedia to prove a point,' said arguments would need to maintain that a 'citation needed' tag was, in fact, disruption.
Interestingly, I checked out the first citation that the sky is blue (which presented photos--photos are not proof of colour, but I digress). Most of the images were broken, and only one showed the sky as mostly blue (with strong orange and yellow at the horizon).
It does remain interesting that Wikipedia's guidelines on Original Research do not, for some reason, apply to the colour of the sky. Apparently the requirement of citations is only really necessary when convenient.65.87.20.98 (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Protection or semi-protection

I think it's time to protect or at least semi-protect this article. Just take a look at the history. How many times has "Sky" been vandalized? I've just erased some vandalism ("Sky is a person, he's small and nice" or something). Does anyone agree with me? Victao lopes 16:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days. I can't believe how much crap has been done to this article! I vote to Protect the article. Badly Bradley 03:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I've listed Sky at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but it was declined for not enough vandalism. Maybe we'll have to wait a few more days, or protect/semi-protect Sky ourselves. Those IP have also vandalized other articles such as Happiness, they are here for nothing.Victao lopes 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] check something

http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/miscon/miscon4.html#blu see this site and maybe consider that in respect to why the sky is blue. It makes sense that its blue because its blue, like water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User13752 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

the sky is blue 220.239.187.97 23:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Night sky

I'm seeking for a night sky with stars and so one. There is any picture neither on commons nor here. 83.179.69.133 19:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

In all of existence, I can think of nothing that has been seen by more people than the sky, and so it seems silly to have eight images of it. If nobody objects, I intend to remove SI-Sky.JPG, Above_the_Clouds.jpg, Stormy_skies.jpg, and Trees-sky.jpg. -- Headwes 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is out of control, yes. However, in my opinion the ones to keep are Trees-sky.jpg and Sunset02.jpg. Spiel496 22:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)