Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #365948 > unrolled thread

green stars

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
    green stars Francis Oldogf <francisoldogf@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 03:30 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
    Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 09:25 -0700
    Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 09:26 -0700
    Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-02 14:40 -0400
      Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-02 22:18 +0000
        Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 17:45 -0500
          Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-02 16:55 -0700
        Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
        Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-02 22:38 -0400
        Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:37 -0400
          Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:52 -0700
          Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:36 -0500
            Re: green stars nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-10-04 01:59 -0700
            Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:39 -0700
              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:55 -0700
          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 01:17 -0700
            Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-05 14:04 -0400
              Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 13:07 -0500
              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 12:58 -0700
                Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-05 23:52 -0700
                  Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 09:44 -0700
                    Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
                      Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:06 -0700
                        Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 12:35 -0700
                          Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 13:16 -0700
                          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:15 -0700
                            Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 15:31 -0700
                              Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 15:58 -0700
                              Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:12 -0700
                  Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 23:34 -0700
                    Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-07 00:49 -0700
                      Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:24 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500
      Re: green stars nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2015-10-05 01:08 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#365948 — green stars

Now, I know this is differcult
for yous to understand...

you should be able to take a picture
of the universe and see a half second
of after the big bang...
you would be able to see stars
and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
from 'the center' of the big bang.

A color photo would be shown as
red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...


i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.

(science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted 
with the mysteries first.)

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#365955

..from where do you read that  green stars are stabile????

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#365981

On 10/2/15 3:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> you would be able to see stars and galaxies 'moving' in all
> directions from 'the center' of the big bang.


   Nope -- No Center

   No Center
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

   Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html
     http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/CosmoCalc.html

   WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

   WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
     http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366002

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Now, I know this is differcult
> for yous to understand...
> 
> you should be able to take a picture
> of the universe and see a half second
> of after the big bang...
> you would be able to see stars
> and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
> from 'the center' of the big bang.
> 
> A color photo would be shown as
> red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...
> 
> 
> i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.
> 
> (science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted 
> with the mysteries first.)

Ya know, you could easily Google this stuff for yourself.

There are mo green stars at all...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)

http://www.universetoday.com/25152/are-there-green-stars/

... and 1/2 second after the Big Bang there were no stars or galaxies, there weren't even any atoms, they didn't form for 300,000 years...

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366003

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 1:17:00 AM UTC-7, The Starmaker wrote:
> Now, I know this is differcult
> for yous to understand...
> 
> you should be able to take a picture
> of the universe and see a half second
> of after the big bang...
> you would be able to see stars
> and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
> from 'the center' of the big bang.
> 
> A color photo would be shown as
> red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...
> 
> 
> i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.
> 
> (science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted 
> with the mysteries first.)

Ya know, you could easily Google this stuff for yourself. 

There are no green stars at all... 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy) 

http://www.universetoday.com/25152/are-there-green-stars/ 

... and 1/2 second after the Big Bang there were no stars or galaxies, there weren't even any atoms, they didn't form for 300,000 years... 

http://www.astro.utu.fi/~cflynn/Stars/l1.html 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure_formation 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366026

On 02/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> Now, I know this is differcult
> for yous to understand...
>
> you should be able to take a picture
> of the universe and see a half second
> of after the big bang...

The closest that we can conceivably see towards the Big Bang is 380,000 
years afterwards. That's the time of the Cosmic Microwave Background 
radiation. Before that time, the entire universe could be thought of as 
one huge star by itself. All of the photons of the universe were 
confined to getting captured and recaptured by all of the matter in the 
universe, which was mainly in the form of just loose hydrogen and helium 
nuclei, and electrons. It was only at the 380,000 year mark that the 
matter had dropped enough in temperature and density that photons were 
able to escape into free space unimpeded. There was no way that there 
were any organized structures like stars and galaxies that could've 
formed so soon after the BB.

> you would be able to see stars
> and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
> from 'the center' of the big bang.
>
> A color photo would be shown as
> red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...

There would be no stars at all at this point in time, not even 380,000 
years later when the cosmic fog lifted. It's still too early.

> i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.

Yes, and it will remain a mystery to you because there won't be any such 
things yet. No red stars, and no green stars.

> (science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted
> with the mysteries first.)

Okay then, good luck with that.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366056

In article <k8SdnVsCeckGUpPLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Yousuf Khan  <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>On 02/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>> Now, I know this is differcult
>> for yous to understand...
>>
>> you should be able to take a picture
>> of the universe and see a half second
>> of after the big bang...
>
>The closest that we can conceivably see towards the Big Bang is 380,000 
>years afterwards. That's the time of the Cosmic Microwave Background 
>radiation. Before that time, the entire universe could be thought of as 
>one huge star by itself. All of the photons of the universe were 
>confined to getting captured and recaptured by all of the matter in the 
>universe, which was mainly in the form of just loose hydrogen and helium 
>nuclei, and electrons. It was only at the 380,000 year mark that the 
>matter had dropped enough in temperature and density that photons were 
>able to escape into free space unimpeded. There was no way that there 
>were any organized structures like stars and galaxies that could've 
>formed so soon after the BB.
>
>> you would be able to see stars
>> and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
>> from 'the center' of the big bang.
>>
>> A color photo would be shown as
>> red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...
>
>There would be no stars at all at this point in time, not even 380,000 
>years later when the cosmic fog lifted. It's still too early.
>
>> i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.
>
>Yes, and it will remain a mystery to you because there won't be any such 
>things yet. No red stars, and no green stars.
>
>> (science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted
>> with the mysteries first.)
>
>Okay then, good luck with that.

As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
this universe anyway.

-- 
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the gmail edress.
Kithrup's all spammy and hotmail's been hacked.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366057

On 10/2/15 5:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
> this universe anyway.

   One of the Alberio pair certainly looks green. Actually our sun peaks
   in yellow-green light

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366060

On Friday, October 2, 2015 at 3:45:11 PM UTC-7, Sam Wormley wrote:

>    One of the Alberio pair certainly looks green. Actually our sun peaks
>    in yellow-green light.

At public star parties I often put Albireo in the eyepiece, and tell people that they will probably see 2 colors... but I never tell them what to expect, but rather ask them what colors they see. Their answers are all over the place, including blue, white gold, red, orange, etc. The reason for this is because color in stars is very subjective, and one man's red is another man's gold... and the beat goes on. To the best of my recollection, no one has seen green in the Albireo pair, but that doesn't mean that you don't.

Even though the sun puts out more green light than any other color, most sources tell us that our Sun is actually white...

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-blogs/fireflies-green-stars-and-chromatic-duos070120150701/

http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2013/12/what-color-is-the-sun/

http://www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-the-sun/

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/SID/activities/GreenSun.html

The companion to Antares is perhaps the most famous 'green' star, but it only appears green because of an optical illusion, where a red object can make nearby objects look greenish.

\Paul A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366059

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nvM5yI.1sLq@kithrup.com: 

> In article <k8SdnVsCeckGUpPLnZ2dnUU7-S-dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> Yousuf Khan  <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On 02/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Now, I know this is differcult
>>> for yous to understand...
>>>
>>> you should be able to take a picture
>>> of the universe and see a half second
>>> of after the big bang...
>>
>>The closest that we can conceivably see towards the Big Bang is
>>380,000 years afterwards. That's the time of the Cosmic
>>Microwave Background radiation. Before that time, the entire
>>universe could be thought of as one huge star by itself. All of
>>the photons of the universe were confined to getting captured
>>and recaptured by all of the matter in the universe, which was
>>mainly in the form of just loose hydrogen and helium nuclei, and
>>electrons. It was only at the 380,000 year mark that the matter
>>had dropped enough in temperature and density that photons were 
>>able to escape into free space unimpeded. There was no way that
>>there were any organized structures like stars and galaxies that
>>could've formed so soon after the BB.
>>
>>> you would be able to see stars
>>> and galaxies 'moving' in all directions
>>> from 'the center' of the big bang.
>>>
>>> A color photo would be shown as
>>> red stars moving and galaxies, and green stars stable...
>>
>>There would be no stars at all at this point in time, not even
>>380,000 years later when the cosmic fog lifted. It's still too
>>early. 
>>
>>> i'm not sure what are the green stars, ..it's a mystery to me.
>>
>>Yes, and it will remain a mystery to you because there won't be
>>any such things yet. No red stars, and no green stars.
>>
>>> (science hasn't caught up with me yet so I'm confronted
>>> with the mysteries first.)
>>
>>Okay then, good luck with that.
> 
> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
> this universe anyway.
> 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)

Short answer: you are, as usual, correct.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366070

In article <nvM5yI.1sLq@kithrup.com>,
djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) said:

> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't
> possible.  In this universe anyway.

I don't know.  They can do some pretty amazing things
with lime Jell-O these days.

-- wds

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366104

On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
> this universe anyway.

Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is primarily 
radiating in the green range. That's why plants on Earth are green, they 
are reflecting the strongest portion of the Sun's radiation, because it 
is too much energy for them to take in.

The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of atmospheric 
scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in space, from outside 
the atmosphere, but that's primarily because it's so close to us, all 
colours look saturated in our vision.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366108

Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in
news:QYudnQDAGrU9143LnZ2dnUU7-bGdnZ2d@giganews.com: 

> On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
>> this universe anyway.
> 
> Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is
> primarily radiating in the green range. That's why plants on
> Earth are green, they are reflecting the strongest portion of
> the Sun's radiation, because it is too much energy for them to
> take in. 
> 
> The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of
> atmospheric scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in
> space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's primarily because
> it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our vision.
> 
There is literally no single fact in your post that it correct.

-- 
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
    -- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366113

On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's
> primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our
> vision.


   No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved
   with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the
   yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making
   white.

-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366140

Il giorno domenica 4 ottobre 2015 00:36:07 UTC+2, Sam Wormley ha scritto:
> On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's
> > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our
> > vision.
> 
> 
>    No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved
>    with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the
>    yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making
>    white.
> 
> -- 
> 
> sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
> to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
> community, and physics-related social issues.

..do you know if somebody tried to measure the ( very small , if existing ) component of Redshift in the interior distances in our galaxy?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366203

Sam Wormley wrote:
> 
> On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's
> > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our
> > vision.
> 
>    No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved
>    with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the
>    yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making
>    white.


plenty of red and blue does not make white. 



The reason why they see red shifts is because red is the weakest
color...it's the first to go.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366204

The Starmaker wrote:
> 
> Sam Wormley wrote:
> >
> > On 10/3/15 4:37 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> > > The Sun looks white in space, from outside the atmosphere, but that's
> > > primarily because it's so close to us, all colours look saturated in our
> > > vision.
> >
> >    No--The Sun looks almost white to us because our eyes have evolved
> >    with green, blue and red sensors. Even though there is a peak in the
> >    yellow green range, there is still plenty of red and blue making
> >    white.
> 
> plenty of red and blue does not make white.
> 
> The reason why they see red shifts is because red is the weakest
> color...it's the first to go.


hottest stars are blue, while coldest stars are red. 
http://www.astrophysical.org/starclassification.php


that would mean the green stars are ...just right.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366202

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> 
> On 02/10/2015 6:18 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > As a matter of fact, I believe green stars aren't possible.  In
> > this universe anyway.
> 
> Why not? As a matter of fact, our own star, The Sun, is primarily
> radiating in the green range. That's why plants on Earth are green, they
> are reflecting the strongest portion of the Sun's radiation, because it
> is too much energy for them to take in.
> 
> The Sun looks yellow within the atmosphere because of atmospheric
> scattering of the sunlight. The Sun looks white in space, from outside
> the atmosphere, but that's primarily because it's so close to us, all
> colours look saturated in our vision.
> 
>         Yousuf Khan


so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366231

On 05/10/2015 4:17 AM, The Starmaker wrote:
> so, are you saying the true colors of stars is ....Green?


Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs 
around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around 
it, that are nearly as large as the peak.

The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#366232

On 10/5/15 1:04 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Not all of them, and in fact in the case of the Sun, the peak occurs
> around the green, but there's still plenty of colours immediately around
> it, that are nearly as large as the peak.

   I agree.

>
> The Sun's colour works out to a pink colour.
>

   I disagree.


-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web