Thread: the colour wheel and the blue shift

Incidentally if I do not use glasses long enough i have a PERCEPTION of pictures of galaxies in 3d

For example this:



I was wondering if my brain could tell the tiny differences in blue shift of the stars

if the universe had a bluish tone then the farther an object is the more its colour turns to blue



in fact isnt artisticallyrepresenting behind the stars a cobalt blue background?

Your 3D perception is hard to determine from what you wrote on the picture, unfortunately. The closer part of that galaxy is in the bottom right portion of the picture.

Blueshift is not down to the colour of the star itself. Blue stars can be redshifted and red stars can be blueshifted.

Yeah well im not saying my perception is right but you can believe me for some reason i have a 3d perception of that

Thinking wildly I wonder if my brain could be obtaining distance the same way astronomers do uncounciously

For example in a foggy afternoon you could have a depth perception just with one eye

Your perception is clearly wrong. An personally I don't believe you, you have demonstarted in thread after thread after thread that you imagine things that are not there.

Astronomers do not get distance from what their eyes see, they get it from measurements of the redshift of spectral lines. You know, that science stuff.

Well sped freak from some cues could obtain the 3d shape of the galaxy

yYeah probaly is my wild brain imagining things, still its an awesome view

edit:

I have one question:

If you measure rate of expansion by the redshift taking into account the farther the star the more it expands are we assuming we are at the center of the universe?

Originally Posted by luxtpm

Well sped freak from some cues could obtain the 3d shape of the galaxy

yYeah probaly is my wild brain imagining things, still its an awesome view

edit:

I have one question:

If you measure rate of expansion by the redshift taking into account the farther the star the more it expands are we assuming we are at the center of the universe?

No, we are only at the center of the observable universe, meaning we can see the same distance into all directions; there is no physical center of the universe, because it is a 4-dimensional manifold were each point moves away from every other point ( expansion ). Thus there is no center.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

No, we are only at the center of the observable universe, meaning we can see the same distance into all directions; there is no physical center of the universe, because it is a 4-dimensional manifold were each point moves away from every other point ( expansion ). Thus there is no center.

I'm positive that comment will be clearly understood!

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

No, we are only at the center of the observable universe, meaning we can see the same distance into all directions; there is no physical center of the universe, because it is a 4-dimensional manifold were each point moves away from every other point ( expansion ). Thus there is no center.

I'm positive that comment will be clearly understood!

You mean the explanation isn't clear ? How better to explain it ?

It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics

Oh, I get you now.
Sorry, didn't see it when I initially read it.

So you understand "4 dimensional manifold"?

If the universe is expanding the points at the center should expand less with respect to each other than two points at the edge

And then why say the universe is 13000 million years? You mean the observable universe edge is at that distance

THERE IS NO CENTER!!!!

From any observation point within the whole Universe, stuff that is close moves away slower than thing that are further away.
It's actually one of the simpler concepts in cosmology...

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics

Actually, I am starting to regret even replying to luxtpm...good grief.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

So you understand "4 dimensional manifold"?

If the universe is expanding the points at the center should expand less with respect to each other than two points at the edge

And then why say the universe is 13000 million years? You mean the observable universe edge is at that distance

Yes, I understand 4-dimensional manifold.
All points move away from each other. Local expansion is the same everywhere.

I don't want to mention the balloon analogy, because then he'll start talking about the middle of the balloon.

Let´s see if I understand this:

The universe is FINITE yet it has no center since its a 4 dimensional manifold

This sounds to me no different than inmaculate conception fairy tale sorry

Both concepts do not fit in a human mind

Originally Posted by luxtpm

Let´s see if I understand this:

The universe is FINITE yet it has no center since its a 4 dimensional manifold

Yes, correct. Just like the Earth is finite, yet doesn't have an edge that you could fall off from.

This sounds to me no different than inmaculate conception fairy tale sorry

No, it's basic geometry, just not in three dimensions, but in four, and not static, but metrically expanding. See this page under the heading "Astronomy" :

Center of the universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Compare the universe to the surface of a balloon ( not the interior ), when it is blown up - on the balloon's surface all points move away from each other when it expands, yet there is no center point. Now, the universe is obviously not a surface, but the same principle applies. For the same reason, the universe also doesn't have an edge/boundary.
Careful now - the above is only an analogy. I hope you understand that word. I am not saying that the universe is the same as a balloon, I am only using this analogy to demonstrate the basic principle.

Don't mention the ballo....

Oh, too late.

Note that we don't know if the universe is finite. It might be infinite. But that is not a concept that fits in a human mind either.

Originally Posted by Strange

Don't mention the ballo....

Oh, too late.

Note that we don't know if the universe is finite. It might be infinite. But that is not a concept that fits in a human mind either.

Well, I quite clearly said "surface of a balloon ( not the interior )". Besides, the balloon analogy is mentioned several times on the page I referenced anyway...
Let's see what he makes of it. Should be interesting.

Originally Posted by Strange

Note that we don't know if the universe is finite.

True of course, but let's take it a step at a time. Let's see first what he makes of the last few posts...

"May you live in interesting times"

Both concepts do not fit in a human mind

You mean they don't fit in your mind. To me the concept of an expanding 4-manifold is quite clear and logic.

Well I thought we live in a 3d universe

how many dimension claim science that the universe has?

Also your proving my point, a 4 dimensional space does not fit in our mind prepared for 3d

Originally Posted by luxtpm

Well I thought we live in a 3d universe

how many dimension claim science that the universe has?

Also your proving my point, a 4 dimensional space does not fit in our mind prepared for 3d

Actually, the surface of the balloon can be described mathematically, with its curvature and all, in only 2 spatial dimensions (I think!). It is analogous to the 3 spatial dimensions of our universe. Time is the fourth, but is not required for curvature or for the the concept of there not being a centre to our universe.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

Well I thought we live in a 3d universe

how many dimension claim science that the universe has?

Also your proving my point, a 4 dimensional space does not fit in our mind prepared for 3d

The universe is 4-dimensional, but I do actually agree with your last point : it is obvious that a 4-manifold cannot be visualized by the human mind, it is outside our realm of experience. This does not, however, make the geometry any less true. Basic geometrical principles like distance, curvature, center points etc can be mathematically generalized to any number of dimensions, even though you cannot really visualize that any more.

Originally Posted by luxtpm

Well I thought we live in a 3d universe

Just to be clear, we live in 3 space dimension (up-down, left-right, forward-back) plus 1 time dimension.

What I have been understanding so far it`s that like a 2D surface which bends in the third dimension in an sphere has no center, the universe, a 3D space, bends in the fourth dimesion OF SPACE and has no center as well

But if space is 3d+time...

Well any 3d object in a 3D space has a center(of mass)

This is 2 and 2 and one of the basis of reality

Originally Posted by luxtpm

What I have been understanding so far it`s that like a 2D surface which bends in the third dimension in an sphere has no center, the universe, a 3D space, bends in the fourth dimesion OF SPACE and has no center as well

No. 3D space does not bend in a 4th dimension. It is 4D space-time which is "intrinsically" curved; i.e. it is not curved in some higher dimension.

Well any 3d object in a 3D space has a center(of mass)

That is true. But it is not necessarily the case that space itself has a center. Imagine if space is curved such that if you far enough in a straight line in one direction you end up back where you started. Then there is no edge and no center.

All right i see,thanks, now how does that the observable universe edge is 13 million light years away leads to the conclusion that the universe started 13 million years ago with the Bigbang

To me this shows the real face of science, creationist in last instance supporting a priest interpretation of creation

The edge of the observable universe is not 13.7 billion light-years away in distance. It is 13.7 billion light-years away in terms of light travel time. The edge is actually thought to be 46 billion light-years away...

... actually, I'm not going to bother going any further.

Have a look at the link below:
The Distance Scale of the Universe

luxtpm

It's about 13.7 BILLION, not million years. That's a big difference. And that's only the observable Universe...it's actually much bigger.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

The edge of the observable universe is not 13.7 billion light-years away in distance. It is 13.7 billion light-years away in terms of light travel time. The edge is actually thought to be 46 billion light-years away...

... actually, I'm not going to bother going any further.

Have a look at the link below:
The Distance Scale of the Universe

Wise choice my friend...

From the wiki:

Doppler correctly predicted that the phenomenon should apply to all waves, and in particular suggested that the varying colors of stars could be attributed to their motion with respect to the Earth.<sup>[

Could not be that varying colour what tells my brain the perception of depth?

thats a 32 million colour picture, better than huble time resolution</sup>

This thread really doesn't belong in the astronomy section. No science to be learned here. I'm going to move to pseudo.

Could not be that varying colour what tells my brain the perception of depth?

thats a 32 million colour picture, better than huble time resolution

Sure, blue and red shifts can indicate a movement relative to us, but you have no way of knowing what the starting spectrum of a source of light is. A star unmoving relative to us with a certain colour could potentially be of the exact spectrum than a slightly bluer star that is receding with a resultant red shift that makes it the same colour as the first one. Your eye and brain has no way of knowing which is which and consequently, no matter of training can let you be able to judge depth while looking at the sky. I am sure you could force yourself to hallucinate a number of things though...

percieving depth from colours its not hallucination but higher perception:

Chromostereopsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by luxtpm

percieving depth from colours its not hallucination but higher perception:

Chromostereopsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is a false depth perception, don't you get it? The very first words in your linked article reads "Chromostereopsis is a visual illusion". Also, a star can be bluer than one that is farther away and vice versa. Colour alone is not enough.

Also, red shift due to expansion only starts to happen at scales larger than galactic superclusters. That means you can have an entire super cluster of galaxies with all about the same red shift due to expansion, meaning the variety of spectra stars you will be able to see will have no direct link between colour and distance at all. Does that make sense to you?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics

Or just simply geometry. It was actually SpeedFreek who mentioned the concept to me.

It is somewhat unfair how all of you aren't giving a chance to teach this user the concept politely. You can't expect everyone to immediately understand topological manifolds in a 4-dimensional setting. Or does this particular one have a history of frustrating you guys, as it seems...?

Originally Posted by brody

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics

Or does this particular one have a history of frustrating you guys, as it seems...?

Oh yeah, big time. Just click on his profile and look at some of the other nonsense he has posted. Yes, I am frustrated at someone who steadfastly ignores attempts to teach him anything. I won't speak for the others, but I suspect you will find wide agreement.

but I suspect you will find wide agreement.

Indeed.

yeah well i wonder why i didnt get banned here as i amd in the rest of science forums for ignoring books and thinking by myself

i think its so these science priests can sharp their claws

In reply to Meteor Wayne & Kalster, and all of you besides luxtpm on this thread...

I understand how frustrating it may be. The ignorance is apparent, but it's perfectly fine to question an answer you don't understand.

Since it seems like he's not intentionally trolling anyone and has legitimate inquiry of the topics, then you all should at least be a little more fair and lay off the personal references like "Oh, we could tell him this, but he's too stupid to get it anyway so there's no point". As implied on post #15 of this thread which gained large agreement.

The point is... Don't victimize innocence. He's not trolling. Just correct him without the nastiness.

Again, you haven't read through all his threads.

point me to a thread where i insult somebody

i can point plenty of yours doing that

whose really the troll?

edit:

in fact this thread is the pefect exmaple of whats science in education

if you think by yourself youll be insulted and ridiculed

only if you follow imposible to understand dogmas like 4D manifold with no center you can expect to be treated nice

in fact the only reason cause crakcpots like me dont get banned is to atract trafic by the science priests bulling their dogma to a disenter(disenter=crackpot)

the only apportation waynes wolrd did to my thread of obtaining longitude without a clock was saying nonsense time after time when i was mostly right as strange agreed

edit:

not to mention waynes afirmation that the earth rotates on its axis every 24 h to my affirmation that the solar day was a media of 24 hours but not uniform

so he was saying a solar day doesnt last 24 hours but a rotation of earh on its own axis does

and it was me who had to apologize for the debate not going retard by his sophism that a rotation depends on the reference you take

Originally Posted by luxtpm

only if you follow imposible to understand dogmas like 4D manifold with no center you can expect to be treated nice

Luxtpm, unfortunately the universe does not care whether you understand its laws or not.
It is not a dogma, but reality. The universe is a 4-manifold and does not have a center. The fact that you don't understand that doesn't make it any less true...

if you think by yourself youll be insulted and ridiculed

There's a difference between thinking for yourself, and proposing nonsense.
Again, it seems you don't understand that.

The point is... Don't victimize innocence. He's not trolling. Just correct him without the nastiness

That's nice. In case you haven't noticed, this thread is not filled with simply having at him. We have made plenty attempts to explain things to him, but he simply ignores it and seems to confuse thinking for your self with stubborn ignorance. And the same thing has been happening in the numerous threads he has started. He just refuses to accept correction. There is no innocence there.

Normally we have no problems helping people that come here with questions and we do it without being nasty, unless they behave like he does. Why do you think he got banned from all of those other forums? I know you mean well, but in this case you are simply wrongly interpreting the situation.

i got banned from the phisycs forum for not accepting the law of conservation of angular momentum according the word of the mod who banned me

point me to a single beahaviour of mine here which deserves banning

i can point to a mod deserving ban for calling me stupid by saying i say nonsenses without pointing which

so i see pictures of galaxies in 3d, is that the nonsense?

im just trying to figure out why

this is the forum most full of bullies i have ever found

edit:

as an artist i come here to propose creative ideas(creativity?science?=crackpot)

but my fans, the people who frecuent my threads, i have the feeling they dont come here to learn, much less to be creative with original ideas

they come here to vent off steam by insulting abiding by the toc

of course someone calling me stupid or retard would be against the toc

but what is saying "nonsense" actually but an insult abiding by the toc rules

admit it you dont join my threads to teach me thing you even admit since you say im animposible case

then why do you flood my threads

think about it be honest with yourself

you do it to bully

and youre doing a thin favour to all the people confused with the misteries of life who come here crying for help

ive seen a mental, a guy who had to endure brain surgery, being bully in such a manner even by mods oh come on if you dont have nothing nice to say say nothing, but don be an energetic vmapire of the people with the lowest energy

Originally Posted by luxtpm

point me to a single beahaviour of mine here which deserves banning

If you were to be banned, the reason would be to improve the quality of the information on the site, by eliminating the endless stream of nonsense that you post. Addition by subtraction. Many members think we are too lenient here. However, as long as you stay on the pseudoscience forum, you should be okay.

i can point to a mod deserving ban for calling me stupid by saying i say nonsenses without pointing which

so i see pictures of galaxies in 3d, is that the nonsense?

Yes, it most certainly is. There are no 3-d photographs of galaxies.

well chromostereopsis is not a nonsense

just cause you dont see it doesnt mean is not there

im sorry but if you cant see this in 3d youre perception is poor


im sorry harold but you like the rest who claims my 3d perception of stars nonsense had you live 500 ago and you would be excomuniating thos who climed earth revolved around the sun

you built a wolrd of certainties and insult as stupid anybody who questions the rules

if anybody had the balls they would apologize on calling me stupid for talking about my chromostereo percpetion

well you should check your wikibible before talking and insulting

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromostereopsis

I thought, for the first time ever, lux was actually listening on this thread. (Well done.) I think we should take brody''s advice and encourage this small change. From lux's point of view it does seem like a closed club where everyone gangs up on you for expressing your thoughts. To get an idea of what he feels like go to a fundamentalist Christian site and promote evolution.


Edit: lux, it is not in 3D, it appears to be in 3D. That is an illusion. That is what we are saying. You think you see pictures of galaxies in 3D. That is also an illusion. Do you follow that?

yes i understand im not getting the right distance

i just have an apparent percpetion by which blue stars are far away and red stars appear closer

yet my perception though not real is not nonsense nor hallucination as most agree here since its scientifically explained by chromostereopsis

but in the end even real 3d perception is not real for coming from a FLAT retine

edit

also i would like to ask

an astronomer gets the colour of a star to be blue number 123456

but how do they know the real colour of the star taking into account the colour you see is changed by blue shift?

edit:

also dont you have remarkable that crhromostereopsis implies a perception of blue=deepest red=closest

just as expected with stars and its colour shift

an example a posted here about my nonsensical ravage hallucinated madness as you will all agree:

i have a very intense depth.3d perception of this video



the reason i figure out BYMYSELF, if it was up to you id think im hallucinating, is that my brain obtains the depth cues by the focus

my brain knows its farther by the farther from focal point the less focused and my brain build depth from there

not to mention that our normal depth `perception is wrong

the 3d perception we should have is one like in 3d movies

i have had the perception of being inside a 3d movie many times in my life, and i figured out how to boost it

its a matter we look wrong we shouldnt cross the rays from the eyes in the object we are looking at but we should cross them at midel distance form the object we are looking at to have 3d perception

Originally Posted by luxtpm

also dont you have remarkable that crhromostereopsis implies a perception of blue=deepest red=closest

just as expected with stars and its colour shift

Why do you think that closer stars should be redder than more distant stars?

When something is moving towards us its spectrum will shift towards the blue, whereas if it moves away the spectrum will shift towards the red.

If we think of the rotating disc of a galaxy like the one in the OP, then the side of the disc that is rotating towards us would be blueshifted, whilst the side that is rotating away from us would be redshifted, relative to the centre. This does not mean we see all blue stars on one side and all red stars on the other, and it is not about how close or far they are, it is about what direction they are moving in.

yeah thanks but how does an astronomer know the real colour of an star if he sees it shifted by the dopler effect?

Well, for instance, the astronomer can see what it is made of by looking at the relationships between all the little black lines in its spectra. They can use this information to compare it to stars local to us in our own galaxy to work out which it resembles.

thanks

but what do the litle black lines represent in the spectrograph?

after all an spectometer its an scientific method to determine colour as i understand

You may have been taught that electrons, when they are part of atoms, occupy energy levels. (Think of them as steps on a staircase.) Each atom has its own distinct staircase. The electrons can jump from one step to another if they are provided with the energy. This can come from a photon that has just the right energy. The photon 'strikes' the electron and is absorbed and the electron jumps up one or more steps. This is happening to many trillions of atoms, so that there is less light (fewer photons) with that particular energy level, so we see a dark line in the spectrum. The pattern of dark lines lets us identofy the atoms that are present. If the light is red or blue shifted then the pattern is moved right or left.

Does that make sense? Obviously it is much more complex than that, but I hope you get the general idea.

The little lines represent the different atoms present in the object in question.

Have a read of these webpages, I think you will find them interesting.

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/specphot.html

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/redshift.html

thanks ill keep lookint at that