I read something about why the sky is blue and red in sunset and it say something like we see blue when the atmosphere is smaller to penetrate cause of the wave blue light wish is smaller than red and we see red when the amosphere is bigger wich explains sunset so I dont know how is made mars atmosphere but do you think it can explain why the sky could be more red than here ... thx

Well i think you're on the right track, but here is how it works. Blue light scatters more easily in the atmosphere because of it's small wavelength. When the sun gets closer to the horizon, the light is trying to shine through more atmosphere and the blue light can't even penitrate it. Only the bigger wavelengths like yellow, orange and red can get through, hence sunsets being an orangy-red.

On Mars there is a lot of dust in the air. This helps to make the sky look like a redish colour at times and the sunsets become very red from having to shine through all the dust in the atmosphere. plus the dust is a reddish colour too, so that adds to it a bit. Hope that made sence.

yeah that's right but since the atmosphere of mars is smaller
(due to its lack of carbon) and the fact that the sun is pretty farther than here .. can't those parameter effect greatly the way those wavelenght my crosse the atmosphere
( I dont know like is there any other color that his wavelenght
is smaller than blue) does this make sense???

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by michboisnard]

[Edited on 16-1-2004 by michboisnard]

Sorta, except Mars is farther away.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I sent an e-mail to CliffMickelson, the author of the above Rumor Mill News all-caps paranoia-spew, pointing out Kano's work and some of the great contributions of our members on this subject.

His only response was: "Very interesting reading."

So, some 6 hours after receiving this response from Cliff, nothing has been updated on RMN, and it's very clear they're much more interested in spreading paranoia and conspiro-hype, rather than facts and analysis.

Obviously these types are ONLY concerned with "hits" that elevate their pop up view numbers to profitable levels.

Not only do I have a MAJOR distaste for pop ups or any form of force fed advertising... I REALLY dislike those who ignore reason and logic in favor of BULL# for no reason other than personal gain. All the while ACTING as though they are concerned with the enlightenment of mankind.

This is the type of nematode that gives ALL those who question the "Loon Badge of Irrelevence"...

I would hope we can find a way to discredit this nitwit publically without besmerching the untainted escucheon of ATS.

The big question is how? I KNOW it is not the "ATS" way to overtly criticize or impeach another website but I absolutely beleive this crapmonger needs to be shown for what he is.

How about a NEWS story about websites that are trying to profit on an idea that has been PROVEN false?

What we have here is PROOF the author has been shown the reality, he has chosen to ignore it and he has pop ups on EVERY page view that he is being paid for.

Obvisouly his intent is to keep the PROVEN FALSE "information" he is spewing in the limelight to make more money. That is in direct opposition to the implied mission of that website.

I am fairly certain the hits he is generating are based on a certain amount of historical trust by the viewer who is being INTENTIONALLY misled...

Man this type of thing REALLY gets my goat!

Thoughts? Criticisms? Opinions? I stand ready to take a pummeling if I have earned it but I have to ask everyone here, should we not speak out on this travesty?!

PEACE...
m...

[Edited on 1-16-2004 by Springer]

Hmmm.... Does it sound like Springer would make an excellent bloodhound in searching out, and destroying these hucksters? I think that task suits his personality profile nicely... and might even provide him with some much needed stress release! hmmm...

If the sky was blue NASA would say so. What better way to get your budget increased.

Originally posted by Britman If the sky was blue NASA would say so. What better way to get your budget increased.

Uh... what does that mean?

Or... being "elitist" scientists, don't care to explain their data to anyone other than other elite scientists. It's typical of the species elitus-scienti. If you follow NASA throughout their history of putting cameras in probes... you realize they're much more interested in putting the right filter on the camera lens for optimum contrast/detail, than they are with accurate color/value. Again, typical of the elitus-scienti species to not care about such every-day trivial details.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Nowhere is it mentioned that the pictures are not really color.

You have to dig pretty deep to get the truth. That 99% of the people perceive the images to be true color is NASA's fault. They must have wanted these perceptions or they would have made it clear that the images are not true color.

testify. ain't it the truth! deceivers.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Or... being "elitist" scientists, don't care to explain their data to anyone other than other elite scientists. It's typical of the species elitus-scienti.

If you follow NASA throughout their history of putting cameras in probes... you realize they're much more interested in putting the right filter on the camera lens for optimum contrast/detail, than they are with accurate color/value. Again, typical of the elitus-scienti species to not care about such every-day trivial details.

what we see from nasa doesn't come directly from the actual scientists, does it? is there not a body responsible for media and public relations? should they not be the ones providing this info?

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord

Originally posted by Britman
If the sky was blue NASA would say so. What better way to get your budget increased.

Uh... what does that mean?

I understand exactly what he means. This is the problem I have with most NASA conspiracies of "covering up the truth" concerning missions to the Moon, Mars, etc. If there is evidence that life can exist on Mars (i.e. blue sky, mossy rocks, etc.) NASA is not going to go with the path of least interest (i.e. it's a big dead ball). NASA wants to continue exploration and missions, and therefore they would go with what generated the most public interest and buy-in for funding future missions.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Nowhere is it mentioned that the pictures are not really color.

Is this deception, or an oversight, or do they simply not want to have to explain how the camera works to us sheeple?

The second one. You realise that zero digital images are 'really color', I thought I made that clear. They are all approximations of the real colors. Hell, even your eyes don't always see 'really color'.

These images are the most detailed ever seen of Mars (by a long way) and are color images. As close to accurate as a hundred million dollars worth of camera and image processing software can get it. A hell of a lot more accurate than sending my Canon digital camera up there would be.

Why the hell would they add somewhere on their site 'caution these images are not 100% precisely actual colors' when no digital image is really 'actual colors'. It would just give the conspiracy types more crap to rant about.

We can already see for ourselves that the color of the ground and sky shown in the released panoramas is correct. What are we suggesting here?

[Edited on 17-1-2004 by Kano]

"These images are the most detailed ever seen of Mars (by a long way) and are color images."

Maybe I misunderstood, but I though they were only true color if they were from L4, L5, and L6?

Are any of the images shown so far from these filters?

We know that the Panonrama image is not, but NASA is still calling it a color picture along with others.

It may be displayed in color, but it does not represent what the human eye would see on Mars. (A human would see blue on the sundial) Hundreds of millions of people around the world believe that it does.

I think Kano's point is being missed, and it is very important. There is absolutely no way for color to be calibrated between two people. That's a fairly deep thought to consider...and an important one.

There is a discreet hue - a wavelength of light - that you are programmed (taught) to perceive as "green". That exact same discreet hue I am taught to perceive as green. We, together, can look at this hue and both of us will say "that's green". Neither of us can describe what "green" looks like to the other person. It absolutely can't be done. Your green could be my orange and we would never know because every time you see that hue, you will call it green - and so will I, but we could perceive it completely different.

Once you take that fact into account, there's no establishing "true color" from a device.

I want to follow this up:

Let's look at dyslexia. The only reason we know that dyslexia exists is because of the hand-written word. If we never had handwriting, and humanity had started with typewriters or stamps, to this day we would not know that dyslexia exists.

Dyslexic are not illiterate. Furthermore, they have no problem reading...and, in fact, have been found to have at or above reading comprehension if they are taught on a computer. Why? Because the "S" on the key makes the "S" on the screen that they see. And that S (which is the same S we all call "S") is absolutely NOT what the rest of us see. But it doesn't matter, because that is "S" to the dyslexic. He is programmed (taught) that that is "S". The problem originates when he has to make his hand write the S that he sees. He has to disconnect his perception from his action in order to create the "S" that he knows.

The same thing could happen with color.