• FeminalPanda
          link
          fedilink
          English
          310 months ago

          Ehhh, if you made a translucent sphere that could hold a vacuum you would get the same outcome l.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            210 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
          link
          fedilink
          110 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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        210 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.

        • Tlaloc_Temporal
          link
          fedilink
          610 months ago

          Ah, but this is a bubble blown by a person. Exhale would have less oxygen and more CO2.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      10 months ago

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