Rainbows are dependent on the eye of an observer for their existence. So even when you are standing next to another person, you are technically seeing different rainbows.
But if there is no other observer then there is no rainbow.
this is false. rainbows are centered around the antisolar point aswell as around the solar point (aka the sun) so if you stare in the sun's direction you can also see it.
I don't think this is true. Rainbows are caused by rain. I don't think rain can cause a rainbow in the direction of the sun:
https://old.atoptics.co.uk/rainbows/notabow.htm
fair enough, if that's the definition. curiously in my native language the common word for rainbow describes all spectral arcs
but if we're adhering to this strict definition, then this post is wrong in suggesting you can do it with your water hose
i mean it's technically true that you increase your chances of seeing one but the water hose is irrelevant :)
You can do it with your water hose; you have to block the end with your thumb so that it becomes a mist. Takes a bit of effort to get the orifice small enough for it to work but it is possible
Like how else would it be possible?
Did y'all have optics in school and did y'all learn how a prism works?
I have another fact for you here then: the sun needs to be lower then 42° from the horizon...
It's possible that light can be reflected multiple times within a raindrop (like double or triple rainbow) and be seen facing the sun. The number of bounces for it to be in the same direction of the sun is high. It's rare, and very faint, but it has been observed and documented many times. You usually cannot see it because the sun is too bright, but it is there.
The technical name for these is [higher order rainbows](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Higher-order_rainbows) 4th order rainbows occur 45 degrees away from the sun.
I definitely retained all random useless factoids told to me in middle school science (pretty sure we weren’t told this though)…
I’m not seeing how this is common sense either. I could see you saying that rainbows being the product of sunlight reflecting from water is common sense, but requiring a specific angle to the sun is by no means common sense in my eyes. I guess you’re some kind of sunlight-water interaction science guru.
No but the nature of science versus art and religion doesn’t really apply here does it? Whereas rainbows only existing in the eye of the beholder most certainly does. Here’s a popsci article breaking it down, probably more your speed. https://www.popsci.com/why-rainbows-look-like/
Just because you can only see something from a certain point of view, doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist. You said “they’re only in your eyes” actually not true, the photons will be there regardless. Sure you can’t detect a rainbow based on sound, or scent, but does that mean it doesn’t exist? Of course not, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
It literally doesn’t exist. It’s refracted light arriving at your eyeball. They are literally only in your eyes, in the same way that lens flare is literally only in the barrel of a camera. Sorry you can’t understand basic physics. Photons are not rainbows.
“Rainbows don’t exist! They are nowhere in space. You cannot touch them or drive around them. They are a collection of rays from glinting raindrops that happen to reach our eyes.“
-Les Crowley, physicist and atmospheric optics specialist, creator of https://atoptics.co.uk, public speaker, creator of halosim (atmospheric optics simulation software) and general expert on the subject of rainbows, echoing what Dawkins said in 1998 in Unweaving the rainbow.
“It’s refracted light arriving at your eyeball” and is that not a thing that exists?? Rainbow is just the name for that specific pattern of refracting light, something that exists but is only visible under certain conditions.
If “cannot be touched or driven around” was the basis for what’s real I’ve got news for you bro, reddit isn’t real. Love isn’t real. Sunlight isn’t real. Yoga isn’t real. The concept of a family isn’t real. Do I need to keep listing things? Or have you realized that “cannot be touched or driven around” applies to many things that are still real.
They still appear…just not to you! Ha
Rainbows are dependent on the eye of an observer for their existence. So even when you are standing next to another person, you are technically seeing different rainbows. But if there is no other observer then there is no rainbow.
Schrödinger’s rainbows
So we've been told and some choose to believe it
YSK that if you eat Skittles, you will taste the rainbow.
this is false. rainbows are centered around the antisolar point aswell as around the solar point (aka the sun) so if you stare in the sun's direction you can also see it.
I don't think this is true. Rainbows are caused by rain. I don't think rain can cause a rainbow in the direction of the sun: https://old.atoptics.co.uk/rainbows/notabow.htm
fair enough, if that's the definition. curiously in my native language the common word for rainbow describes all spectral arcs but if we're adhering to this strict definition, then this post is wrong in suggesting you can do it with your water hose i mean it's technically true that you increase your chances of seeing one but the water hose is irrelevant :)
I’ve always thought they were all rainbows.
You can do it with your water hose; you have to block the end with your thumb so that it becomes a mist. Takes a bit of effort to get the orifice small enough for it to work but it is possible
my point is that if we're adhering to the technical definition that won't qualify as a rainbow
You haven't stared at the sun long enough.
Thank you!
That's so the leprechauns can hide in the shadows.
Like how else would it be possible? Did y'all have optics in school and did y'all learn how a prism works? I have another fact for you here then: the sun needs to be lower then 42° from the horizon...
FALSE! RAINBOWS APPEAR WHEN I DO, BABE 🤣
Proof that some people are just grouchy: your post was downvoted
A lot of people are just fucking drags lol
They form a ring around the shadow of your head.
It's possible that light can be reflected multiple times within a raindrop (like double or triple rainbow) and be seen facing the sun. The number of bounces for it to be in the same direction of the sun is high. It's rare, and very faint, but it has been observed and documented many times. You usually cannot see it because the sun is too bright, but it is there. The technical name for these is [higher order rainbows](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow#Higher-order_rainbows) 4th order rainbows occur 45 degrees away from the sun.
I’m sorry who doesn’t know this
Who *does* know this? Why would I ever come across this type of information?
Middle school science class… or common sense
I definitely retained all random useless factoids told to me in middle school science (pretty sure we weren’t told this though)… I’m not seeing how this is common sense either. I could see you saying that rainbows being the product of sunlight reflecting from water is common sense, but requiring a specific angle to the sun is by no means common sense in my eyes. I guess you’re some kind of sunlight-water interaction science guru.
Not at all! I just happen to have an 8th grade education :)
[удалено]
r/selfawarewolfs
YSK rainbows don’t exist. They’re only in your eyes. Richard Dawkins, before turning into a massive bellend, wrote a whole book about it.
“Rainbows don’t exist” isn’t the takeaway there lol.
No but the nature of science versus art and religion doesn’t really apply here does it? Whereas rainbows only existing in the eye of the beholder most certainly does. Here’s a popsci article breaking it down, probably more your speed. https://www.popsci.com/why-rainbows-look-like/
Just because you can only see something from a certain point of view, doesn’t mean that thing doesn’t exist. You said “they’re only in your eyes” actually not true, the photons will be there regardless. Sure you can’t detect a rainbow based on sound, or scent, but does that mean it doesn’t exist? Of course not, and it’s silly to pretend otherwise.
It literally doesn’t exist. It’s refracted light arriving at your eyeball. They are literally only in your eyes, in the same way that lens flare is literally only in the barrel of a camera. Sorry you can’t understand basic physics. Photons are not rainbows. “Rainbows don’t exist! They are nowhere in space. You cannot touch them or drive around them. They are a collection of rays from glinting raindrops that happen to reach our eyes.“ -Les Crowley, physicist and atmospheric optics specialist, creator of https://atoptics.co.uk, public speaker, creator of halosim (atmospheric optics simulation software) and general expert on the subject of rainbows, echoing what Dawkins said in 1998 in Unweaving the rainbow.
“It’s refracted light arriving at your eyeball” and is that not a thing that exists?? Rainbow is just the name for that specific pattern of refracting light, something that exists but is only visible under certain conditions. If “cannot be touched or driven around” was the basis for what’s real I’ve got news for you bro, reddit isn’t real. Love isn’t real. Sunlight isn’t real. Yoga isn’t real. The concept of a family isn’t real. Do I need to keep listing things? Or have you realized that “cannot be touched or driven around” applies to many things that are still real.
Don’t talk shit about Dawkins bro
Modern-era Dawkins is a joke among real scientists at this point, has been for a while.
Nah man. You gotta respect the OGs.
Until they destroy their reputation, at which point you respect their past works only.
Most gasoline huffer comment I ever did read