• Robmart@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    7 months ago

    Aren’t you just seeing the lack of water rather than actually seeing the oxygen?

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              It would be close but but exactly the same. A vacuum would refract the light going through it differently than a bubble of gas. Though I think it would need to be pretty big to see it with the naked eye.

          • Kühe sind toll@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            You see the a bubble of gas(and therefore the absence of water), not the oxygen itself. You could use only nitrogen gas and you couldn’t tell the difference.

        • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 months ago

          There won’t be that much CO2 for a long time, even if we increase our carbon output. Currently it stands at around 0.04%, third to argon at a bit under 1%. Oxygen is just under 21%. Oxygen and nitrogen together make up over 99% of the atmosphere (at sea level). That’s for dry air, otherwise water vapour is at around 1% and the others reduced to fit that in.

      • Goblin_Mode
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Well if we’re gonna get specific then if your blowing the bubbles I would assume it’s largely carbon dioxide lol

    • Venat0r@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Maybe, but its a similar case with a mirror, unless its dirty or the backing is flaking off.