Originally Posted by JazzRoc
The scattering of the blue light should occur just as much along the horizontal line of sight as it does along the vertical.
And it does. If you ever were a landscape painter you would KNOW to paint increasingly distant objects bluer.
In this case one would expect the air in this direction to glow with four times the brightness as it does directly overhead but it quite clearly does not.
Of course it doesn't. There is much scattering and absorption of light. Less light always arrives from objects which are further away by the inverse square law, for starters.
But this would not tally with the observation that the sky’s brightness is even throughout.
But it isn't. Any daytime panoramic picture will show you this. Where do you get such an idea?
The equation would predict that the sky should glow more brightly in the blue around the Sun (where the scatter angle is low) and get progressively dimmer the further away from the Sun you get.
And it does.
Why is the sky therefore not violet in colour? An explanation for this is unfortunately lacking in the descriptions we have been given of Rayleigh scattering but what are we to make of this obvious omission?
It is only an omission in your knowledge and understanding. The stratosphere absorbs the violet and ultraviolet, warming in the process, which is why it is warmer the higher you go in it. That process is entirely separate from Rayleigh Scattering.
Three ‘hits’ must surely leave little doubt that an entirely different process lies behind the phenomena.
Three 'misses' should tell you it's time to go back to school.
Is the Earth’s upper atmosphere not fluorescing in the Sun’s short-wave radiation?
Yes it is, kind of. It's fluorescing INFRA-RED radiation. It heats up.
It would appear that there is a possible problem with the exact physics describing what goes on in the Earth’s upper atmosphere.
That's the way it looks when you lack understanding.
Nice try JazzRoc.
The only problem is you were making it all up as you went along!
If you ever were a landscape painter you would KNOW to paint increasingly distant objects bluer.
Do they really paint distant objects bluer? Well I also take quite an interest in art and I can tell you that you are categorically wrong.
And what about the perpetual blue fog visible on the ground which is predicted by Rayleigh's equation?
As for the rest of what you have said it is not worth commenting upon.