Sounds like you got it backwards. If it gets colder, it means there will be less water/humidity in the air. Colder air will be "dryer" then warmer air.Its why your skin and lips tend to dry out when your outside in the winter, if that helps your imagination.
Edit.. oh right just noticed the comment below, heh

Absolutely. Heat from the ground causes the horizon to look wavy. I’m sure everyone has seen this on a hot summer day. When the ground is cold there is not as much heat rising so things in the distant look more HD.

Scintillation causes blurring of images over distance. The mechanism is that rising bubbles of warmer air act like lenses. This kind of lensing is what causes stars to twinkle, and also the "heat shimmer" you might see above a hot roof or hot pavement.

Scintillation is generally weakest in the morning when the ground is cold.

Thank you. I'm a little puzzled, however in that wouldn't the attractive forces weaken with distance? That is to say, shouldn't, say, Andromeda and the Milky Way have collided a long time ago?

[removed]

There's not typically a problem with the pharmacokinetics, where additional benefit can potentially be extracted from alternative delivery methods. If the oral route works, that's almost always the best way to go.

[removed]

[deleted]

Typically, it's an expensive proposition to study unnecessary delivery methods, especially when user error can become a problem, this complicates the path to market. Typically, there's not a lot of benefit to the extracted from just testing every type of delivery.

If oral delivery poses certain challenges, then other methods can be explored.

Oral is the most effected for reaching the liver. All those other administration techniques skip first pass metabolism which means they’ll go everywhere in the body THEN then liver while oral admin will go mouth>stomach>intestines>liver> rest of body

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

A note on the “size” of the universe - you will see articles referencing the size of the “observable” universe. This is just the bit of the universe that we can see. As /u/mfb- says, there is currently no known “edge” to the universe.

However, the current “observable” universe is likely the most of the universe we will ever see. This is because the universe is expanding. After a certain distance, things are moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Those objects are unreachable to us now (and probably forever). You can think of it like a moving walkway that is moving faster than a person can run. Even if you run full tilt against the moving walkway, you will not reach the other side.

So there is no “edge” in the sense of a wall or something, but there is a limit to what we can see and (as far as current models predict) a limit to what we will ever see.

[removed]

I was on Amtrak’s Empire Builder westbound in Montana. Off in the distance, I could see the mountains of Glacier National Park. I thought they were maybe 30 miles away. They were 150.

Redshifting slows down the frequency of light. But the total amount of oscillations of the light signal isn't affected.

Suppose a far away galaxy sends a 1 second long burst at 1 GHz, 1 billion cycles. At Earth it arrives redshifted to twice the wavelength, and a frequency of 0.5 GHz. We still receive 1 billion cycles, they're just spread over 2 seconds of time now. So we effectively see the signal - and everything else from that distant galaxy - at 0.5 speed.

Really it's kinda common sense. You can't see as well in fog, or in any other high humidity situation (sauna, steamy shower, etc.) so even without knowing the actual science/formulas it's pretty easy to extrapolate that the less humid places will have more visibility (although not dissing the formulas at all, respect for knowing the exact science).

This is a trick question. Our current understanding of the universe is this: The portion of the universe that is visible to us is about 93-ish billion light years in diameter or about 28.5 gigaparsecs. Space is expanding at a rate of about 45mi (73km) for every megaparsec. Consequently, beyond the observable universe there are things racing away from earth (frame of reference) faster than light speed thus are part of our particle universe but forever disconnected from our reality. We will never know because any information emitted will never reach us.

I'm hopeful that one day we will devise the necessary physics to dwell into the edges of the universe much like the edges between us and the point of singularity of the black holes.

An interesting thought experiment, as I said earlier, there are things racing away from us at faster than light speed. From their frame of reference, we are receding from them at equal rate. So technically we're both right. We are going through the universe on a roller coaster traveling faster than light. "Make it so"

That’s true, the path integral of water viewpoint is what you would ideally want, especially if you were trying to explain just how far you could see on a given day, or why the top of the mountain is usually clearer than the foothills below (more water and dust at lower altitudes).

In fact, because you do care about scattered light coming from anywhere, you can’t just look at the line between your eye and the mountain. You need to know the whole spatial distribution, including stratification (e.g., rainbows). Indeed, some of those photons are scattering multiple times before they enter the light path from your eye to that green tree (double rainbows). Radiative transfer modeling is hard!

But column H2O is a well measured quantity for which there are off the shelf data that do show and explain the seasonal effect that OP mentioned (as the map shows). Basically, the gross, hundreds-of-kilometer monthly-average H2O that’s in that map is the constant factor out front of the light-path integral that is the “right thing” to use.

[removed]

[removed]

In addition to temperature, humidity & other atmospheric effects that others have mentioned, there is some perceptual trickery going on.

1. the low angle of the sun casts long shadows all day throughout winter. In a place like Colorado those shadows make it easier to see topographic details that would be uniformly lit during the day. Those shadows also change substantially throughout the day as the sun crosses the sky, and you’re more likely to pay attention to the changing landscape.
2. The low angle of the sun also extends the length of golden hour. You’re probably familiar with that all-day twilight feeling in the winter. Just as it does during sunrise and sunset, sun’s light refracting through the atmosphere during winter leaves more long red & green wavelengths. The yellow-orange color is the additive complement of the blue hues you typically see on distant mountains. in addition to the value contrast from the shadows, this also creates a color contrast. In art we call this successive contrast where contrasting colors next to each other make both appear more intense.
3. the presence of snow can also setup situations of simultaneous contrast, where 3 values can look like 4. Snow remains longer on the north side of the mountains where it’s shaded from the sun. You end up with a situation where the light patches in the otherwise shaded areas of the mountains appear lighter than they are and make the shadow appear darker.

Source (even though they used red and green for their example of contrasting colors when red and cyan would be more appropriate in an additive system) https://colorusage.arc.nasa.gov/Simult_and_succ_cont.php

Tempeture gradients can conduct sound along the ground. Importantly, snow being a good sound absorber tents to quiet everything down.