The Great Attractor is somewhere in the Vela/Norma/Centaurus region, which is pretty much opposite the Andromeda constellation. As such, the Milky Way is mostly in between Andromeda and the GA. Thus, the collision vectors of the two galaxies is mostly, "Andromeda is moving toward the GA faster".

Never have that happen to me and I've been drying my laundry outside unless it's raining for my entire life, so you don't have to worry about that

[removed]

[removed]

30,000 km/s is 10% the speed of light, and it's an upper limit for our black hole, not the actual rate.

Like I said in my final paragraph, I was glossing over a lot :P

So any given molecule has a lot of energy levels. And for each of those transitions, there is actually a narrow range of acceptable wavelengths that will be absorbed. Start adding all of those together and what you end up with is that pretty much any wavelength of light can be absorbed, some are just much more strongly absorbed than others.

So an absorption spectrum is showing how strongly light is absorbed. The higher on the y axis, the more of that light gets absorbed by the material and the less is available to reach your eye.

Looking at water, it strongly absorbs UV (high energy light) and then there is a big drop and it has a minima right around 420 nm, which is blue. From there are the wavelength gets longer (redder) the graph ticks back up until it passes into the IR. So this tells us that water passes blue light and absorbs red light. So if you shine a red light through water, it will go away much faster than if you shine a blue light. From the graph we can (successfully) guess that water will appear blue or blue-green because it more easily allows blue light to pass (and reach our eyes) than it does yellow/orange/red light.

Complementary colors have more to do with how we perceive color than with how light works. It’s about which colors look good together rather than how those colors are made.

Wouldn't the "greenhouse effect" be the misnomer since its name came from greenhouses

The latest what?

What I'm confused about is why are some absorption spectra shown as graphs with a continuous line? I was under the impression that only specific light with one or more specific energy, frequency, and wavelength could be absorbed by a given atom/molecule. Also, how do we find what color something appears to be from it's maximum absorption? For example, water absorbs red more than other visible light, so it's absorption maximum that we can see is red. How do we know from this that water is blue? I know there are complementary colors but I'm confused on how we actually got those. I made a post here recently asking basically this but it hasn't been put up yet.

[removed]

[removed]

The temperature of an object is the result of the balance between heat being added and heat being lost. In the case of greenhouses, both effects you described are in play, but stopping the air exchange has a far bigger role than blocking infrared light. More details below:

Suppose you're standing in an open-air garden on a cold but sunny day. The majority of the heat reaching you comes in the form of solar radiation, i.e. sunlight. But because the environment around you is fairly cold, that heat is quickly lost to the cold air.

In a greenhouse, you still have roughly the same amount of heat incoming. But because the air is (mostly) trapped, heat loss is greatly reduced. More specifically, instead of the heat being lost by convection in the previous case, heat entering the greenhouse has to be conducted through the glass walls in order to escape. This is much harder, so the equilibrium temperature inside the greenhouse is higher than the garden.

Side note: regular glass is actually pretty high transmissivity in the infrared. Although the stuff inside your greenhouse aren't at a temperature where they're producing a lot of infrared radiation anyways (I hope).

In the case of Earth, incoming heat is radiation in the visible spectrum, while outgoing heat is radiation in the infrared. Having more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere block more of the infrared heat from leaving, so we end up with higher average global temperature.

So in the broad sense of reducing heat loss, the term greenhouse effect is correct and easy to understand. It's just reducing radiative heat loss (for Earth) vs convective heat loss (for greenhouses).

I found this article: https://www.acs.org/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/a-greenhouse-effect-analogy.html

If you are interested in this topic as it pertains to earth I suggest: “The physics of climate change” by Lawrence M Krauss.

[removed]

Many Germans, most mornings, open all windows and shades, wipe the seals and place bedding on the sunny side of the home while starting their morning and then just before leaving pull in the bedding, make the bed, close the windows and leave for their day. On Saturdays they wash from their front door all the way to the center of the street. Just a little extra for your consideration.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Almost all of Japan hangs their laundry and most prefer it because, and I quote my workers on this, "It smells cleaner." I still find it burdensome, personally. But you have to adjust.

Is there any way to translate that into a rough orbit time? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about math but knowing the speed of the orbit + the length of the orbit should give me the ability to estimate how long an single revolution would take at varying distances... right?

[removed]

So far, I did understood things, these are all under natural circumstances. So, taking apple example forward what if I project green or blue light on it? It won't be showing red colour then. Or atleast not the same way. Now that incident light has changed so the internal molecules or atomic system like electrons jumping form one state to other..etc will also change depending upon the energy it gets and time it takes to dissipate. All the physics I get it but it is too limited I think. Because it is with respect to ours.

Now do the same experiment with animals, their perception of colours is vastly different. So, for them also things are happening the same way like for us, but it is possible that they perceive and their perception of colours are much stronger or weaker than us. Or take people who are colour blind.

[removed]

This is absolutely wild. I figured that some photons must make it through, but these numbers are stunning. Thanks for the extra info!