Notices
Results 1 to 59 of 59
Like Tree7Likes
  • 1 Post By Markus Hanke
  • 4 Post By KALSTER
  • 1 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By Harold14370

Thread: the colour wheel and the blue shift

  1. #1 the colour wheel and the blue shift 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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?
    Last edited by luxtpm; March 21st, 2012 at 07:00 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    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!

    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    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 ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics
    Oh, I get you now.
    Sorry, didn't see it when I initially read it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    It's perfectly clear to folks that understand physics
    Actually, I am starting to regret even replying to luxtpm...good grief.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    I don't want to mention the balloon analogy, because then he'll start talking about the middle of the balloon.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    "May you live in interesting times"
    Markus Hanke likes this.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    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...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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.[

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

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

  35. #34  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    This thread really doesn't belong in the astronomy section. No science to be learned here. I'm going to move to pseudo.
    MeteorWayne likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    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...
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    percieving depth from colours its not hallucination but higher perception:

    Chromostereopsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    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...?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by brody View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    but I suspect you will find wide agreement.
    Indeed.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    276
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Again, you haven't read through all his threads.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Last edited by luxtpm; March 24th, 2012 at 11:34 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    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.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post

    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Last edited by luxtpm; March 24th, 2012 at 02:07 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yeah thanks but how does an astronomer know the real colour of an star if he sees it shifted by the dopler effect?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    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


    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    thanks ill keep lookint at that
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Can Rayleigh Scattering Explain the Sky’s Blue Colour?
    By galexander in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 171
    Last Post: May 8th, 2011, 04:56 AM
  2. Attiyah's Cosmological shift and 'Attiyah's galactic shift'
    By Attiyah Zahdeh in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: March 12th, 2011, 03:45 PM
  3. Why is there no Blue Shift?
    By Booms in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 27th, 2010, 01:33 PM
  4. A mace-wheel in front of the wheel on a car
    By LeavingQuietly in forum Mechanical, Structural and Chemical Engineering
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 28th, 2010, 10:51 AM
  5. Is impure blood blue in colour?
    By Robins Thomas John in forum Biology
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: October 7th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •