This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think someone was confused by the phrase "atmospheric Schlieren measurements". This means Schlieren measurements of the atmosphere. There is no such thing as an "atmospheric Schlieren" as far as I know. Rnt20 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Worth mentioning why? RayJohnstone ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article on the appearance of stars and planets, replaces one I had written earlier. It relies on the false statement that the eye can form images of the planets which are circular discs. The eye has a scotopic resolution of approximately 3 arcminutes. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Visual_acuity). Apparent planetary size varies ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html) but is mostly about 0.5 arcminutes. The absolute largest is the crescent Venus at 1.1 arcminute. So the image of a planet is unresolved and is not a disc. I have replaced the article with the original. RayJohnstone ( talk) 12:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
no merge
I'm proposing merging the Twinkling article into Astronomical seeing, as the former is an effect of the latter. The discussion can be found here -- Primefac ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The article has this statement that I think is misleading: "light rays near the horizon must penetrate a denser layer of and have longer paths through the atmosphere before reaching the observer". What is the "penetrate a denser layer" part based on?
Consider an observer standing at sea level: they can view something near the horizon and something near the zenith. If they could send a barometer along each light path that measures air density along the way, the way this article reads now seems to imply that the barometer going toward the horizon would measure absolute values that are higher (more dense) than the barometer going toward the zenith. Why would that be true? Why would we not expect both light paths to pass through exactly the same layers of air with the same densities, but the path toward the horizon would simply take a longer path through those same layers?
I propose removing the words "must penetrate a denser layer of and". The rest of the sentence makes it clear that a path toward the horizon is longer.
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I think someone was confused by the phrase "atmospheric Schlieren measurements". This means Schlieren measurements of the atmosphere. There is no such thing as an "atmospheric Schlieren" as far as I know. Rnt20 20:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Worth mentioning why? RayJohnstone ( talk) 14:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article on the appearance of stars and planets, replaces one I had written earlier. It relies on the false statement that the eye can form images of the planets which are circular discs. The eye has a scotopic resolution of approximately 3 arcminutes. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#Visual_acuity). Apparent planetary size varies ( http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetfact.html) but is mostly about 0.5 arcminutes. The absolute largest is the crescent Venus at 1.1 arcminute. So the image of a planet is unresolved and is not a disc. I have replaced the article with the original. RayJohnstone ( talk) 12:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
no merge
I'm proposing merging the Twinkling article into Astronomical seeing, as the former is an effect of the latter. The discussion can be found here -- Primefac ( talk) 23:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
The article has this statement that I think is misleading: "light rays near the horizon must penetrate a denser layer of and have longer paths through the atmosphere before reaching the observer". What is the "penetrate a denser layer" part based on?
Consider an observer standing at sea level: they can view something near the horizon and something near the zenith. If they could send a barometer along each light path that measures air density along the way, the way this article reads now seems to imply that the barometer going toward the horizon would measure absolute values that are higher (more dense) than the barometer going toward the zenith. Why would that be true? Why would we not expect both light paths to pass through exactly the same layers of air with the same densities, but the path toward the horizon would simply take a longer path through those same layers?
I propose removing the words "must penetrate a denser layer of and". The rest of the sentence makes it clear that a path toward the horizon is longer.