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

Groups > sci.physics > #524213 > unrolled thread

green stars

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-02 01:17 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:19 -0500
      Re: green stars john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 06:30 -0700
        Re: green stars Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 08:59 -0500
          Re: green stars benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 12:24 -0400
            Re: green stars HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 10:19 -0700
          Re: green stars Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2015-10-03 12:14 +0200
    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 Angelo <patrizio.pan-2002@libero.it> - 2015-10-05 08:30 -0700
        Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 16:02 -0700
          Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 02:29 +0000
            Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 22:29 -0700
            Re: green stars Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> - 2015-10-03 23:49 -0300
              Re: green stars "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> - 2015-10-04 08:48 +0100
                Re: green stars Cryptoengineer <treifamily@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 11:07 -0500
                  Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 12:50 -0400
                    Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:54 -0700
                  Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 13:21 -0400
                  Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-04 11:15 -0600
                    Re: green stars Stumpy <perilmung@spamnet.con> - 2015-10-05 13:39 -0700
              Re: green stars "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2015-10-04 09:27 -0400
              Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 16:45 -0400
          Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-03 17:40 -0400
            Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:51 -0700
            Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-03 21:54 +0000
              Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-03 17:24 -0700
              Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 06:46 -0400
                Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 13:15 +0000
                  Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-04 14:27 +0000
                    Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-04 16:53 +0000
                      Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-05 13:02 +0000
                        Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-05 14:39 +0000
                          Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
                            Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 14:24 +0000
                              Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-07 13:18 +0000
                            Re: green stars Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2015-10-07 19:27 -0400
                              Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-07 19:43 -0400
                              Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-08 01:58 -0600
                                Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 01:11 -0700
                                  Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 13:49 -0700
                                    Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 21:20 -0700
                                      Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 22:04 -0700
                                Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-08 08:19 -0400
                                  Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 08:59 -0700
                                  Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-09 00:10 -0600
                                    Re: green stars William Vetter <mdhangton@gmail.com> - 2015-10-09 13:19 -0400
                                    Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-09 21:27 -0400
                                      Re: green stars Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2015-10-10 20:12 -0600
                        Re: green stars Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 19:08 -0500
                        Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 17:20 -0700
                          Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 01:09 +0000
                            Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 22:21 -0400
                              Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-06 02:33 +0000
                                Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-05 23:03 -0400
                                  Re: green stars Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2015-10-05 22:03 -0700
                                  Re: green stars Wayne Brown <fwbrown@bellsouth.net> - 2015-10-08 19:38 +0000
                                    Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-08 22:19 +0000
                                      Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:14 -0700
                                      Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 16:16 -0700
                                        Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 17:33 -0700
                                          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-08 19:33 -0700
                                            Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-08 19:59 -0700
                                      Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 21:36 -0400
                                        Re: green stars djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) - 2015-10-09 04:19 +0000
                                          Re: green stars The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-09 11:12 -0700
                                        Re: green stars scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2015-10-09 14:05 +0000
                                    Re: green stars "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2015-10-08 18:57 -0400
                          Re: green stars jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2015-10-06 13:34 +0000
                  Re: green stars Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taustinca@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 10:57 -0700
                Re: green stars "Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:41 -0400
                  Re: green stars wdstarr@panix.com (William December Starr) - 2015-10-04 13:43 -0400
        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 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 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2015-10-06 10:24 -0700
                    Re: green stars pnalsing@gmail.com - 2015-10-06 11:39 -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 13:20 -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 "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-02 13:26 -0700
      Re: green stars "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2015-10-06 09:58 -0700
    Re: green stars Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-10-04 07:53 -0500

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#524213 — 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]

#524227

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]

#524230

No center because no big bang

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

#524232

On 10/2/2015 8:30 AM, john wrote:
> No center because no big bang
>

Then what's your rationale for the temperature of the cosmic ray 
background, and its complete alignment with the blackbody spectrum, and 
its remarkable uniformity?

The big bang theory made remarkable predictions about all that before it 
was measured, and for it to get all the numbers right BEFORE it was 
measured would be a stunning coincidence if it were all wrong, wouldn't it?

How do you dismiss these predictions as just coincidences?

-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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

#524248

On 10/02/2015 09:59 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 10/2/2015 8:30 AM, john wrote:
>> No center because no big bang
>>
>
> Then what's your rationale for the temperature of the cosmic ray
> background, and its complete alignment with the blackbody spectrum, and
> its remarkable uniformity?

Actually not uniform. And even more astounding aligned with the plane of 
our solar system.

> The big bang theory made remarkable predictions about all that before it
> was measured, and for it to get all the numbers right BEFORE it was
> measured would be a stunning coincidence if it were all wrong, wouldn't it?

Mindless babble. A couple of observations wrongly interpreted as 
supporting the Big Bang theory is FAR from, "stunning" Boinker. I guess 
you are easily impressed.

> How do you dismiss these predictions as just coincidences?

Just misinterpretation. Happens all the time. If you knew anything about 
science, you'd know that.



-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

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

#524688

Bj still insists that god created the universe. He cites the bible as proof

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

#524361

Odd Bodkin wrote:

> On 10/2/2015 8:30 AM, john wrote:
>> No center because no big bang
> 
> Then what's your rationale for the temperature of the cosmic ray
> background,

The term you were probably looking for is Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), 
which is low-energy thermal (infrared) electromagnetic radiation *now* 
(2.725 K ≙ 0.23 meV [sic] by E = kT).

“Cosmic rays” are like the opposite of that: high-energy, ionizing radiation 
consisting primarily of high-energy protons and atomic nuclei even though 
they may also produce air showers that include electromagnetic radiation, 
where the particle energy corresponds to very high temperatures and 
electromagnetic radiation with maxima beyond the ultraviolet range of the 
spectrum (1.16 × 10¹³ K to 1.16 × 10²⁴ K ≙ 10⁹ to 10²⁰ eV).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background>
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray>

> and its complete alignment with the blackbody spectrum,
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmmm.
 

PointedEars
-- 
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?  
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

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

#524265

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]

#524312

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]

#524316

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]

#524657

Il giorno sabato 3 ottobre 2015 00:45:13 UTC+2, Sam Wormley ha scritto:
> 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

Albireo's 'green' component might seem green or bluish
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albireo#/media/File:Albireo_20150919.jpg
" The brighter yellow star (actually itself a very close binary system) makes a striking colour contrast with its fainter blue companion star."
http://www.nightskyinfo.com/cms/img/archive-img/albireo/albireo.jpg
"The two components are known as Beta Cygni A and B. A is the primary member of the system, a golden yellow or "topaz" star shining at 3rd magnitude, while B is known as the companion, a fainter 5th-magnitude star with a beautiful bluish color."

The color we think to see is influenced by the other brighter component, 
similarly with Antares B component in Scorpius.

>    in yellow-green ligh

Never the less no one would say that it appears yellow-green.
If the Planckian Locus (below) is accurate, we won't see green in a 
'thermal' light source, i.e. in one that comes out of a black body 
emission:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_star_(astronomy)#/media/File:PlanckianLocus.png

Green+blue+red gives white, plus a tiny residual tinge if the the three 
are not properly balanced and, in any case, an unsaturated tinge.
Green could come out if some absorption lines (of sufficient intensities) 
are present in blue and red regions of the thermal source.

regards
Angelo

PS - Albireo is a blob name after an intermingling of Arabic, Latin, 
and Greek terms, so your misspelling may be forgivable.

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

#524320

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]

#524343

In article <XnsA527A31B8D7FBtaustingmail@69.16.179.43>,
Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy  <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>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.
>
Thanks.  I probably got it from some article by Phil Plait on
_Slate._

-- 
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]

#524350

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:nvMHKs.671@kithrup.com: 

> In article <XnsA527A31B8D7FBtaustingmail@69.16.179.43>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy  <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
>>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.
>>
> Thanks.  I probably got it from some article by Phil Plait on
> _Slate._
> 
I believe the Wikipedia article links to it. Phil is a bit more
understandable, too. 

-- 
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#524470

I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove
burners glowing read.

Start with a burner that's merely warm.  You can feel the infra-red
radiation coming off it, but the coils are black.

As the burner heats, it gives off more infra red, but the peak of the
spectrum its giving off shifts blueward, so it also gives off a little
red.  But it's very little red, and you'd have to be thoroughly
dark-adapted to see it.

As it heats further, it give off more infra-red, and more red, but
when the peak is in the red, there is a lot of orange and yellow and
green and blue in the sloping tail, just as there is a lot of
infra-red in the other sloping tail.  

Even though the peak is in the red, there's enough higher-frequency
light that you don't see a pure-red red.

Get it a little hotter and the peak goes higher and shifts a little
more, and you see a definite orange.  

We've pulled a safety device off somewhere, and this being a gedanken
experiment, the coils won't melt as the burner keeps heating and the
peak emission gets higher and bluer.  

As the light gets brighter and the peak moves into the yellow area,
the light gets paler as well as yellower, and once it's pure yellow,
it just gets paler.  And when the peak hits green, we get pure white
light, because green is right in the middle, and there is as much
long-wave radiation below it as there is short-wave radiation above
it.

Which makes me wonder why plants reject green light instead of using
it.

Still hotter, and the light starts to take on a pale blue cast.  If
it's possible for something to get hot enough to appear pure blue, I
don't want to be in the same solar system with it, and I'm not sure I
want to be in the same galaxy.

-- 
joy beeson at comcast dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
The above message is a Usenet post. 
I don't recall having given anyone permission to use it on a Web site.

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

#524478

Joy Beeson wrote:
> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove
> burners glowing read.
>
> Start with a burner that's merely warm.  You can feel the infra-red
> radiation coming off it, but the coils are black.
>
> As the burner heats, it gives off more infra red, but the peak of the
> spectrum its giving off shifts blueward, so it also gives off a little
> red.  But it's very little red, and you'd have to be thoroughly
> dark-adapted to see it.
>
> As it heats further, it give off more infra-red, and more red, but
> when the peak is in the red, there is a lot of orange and yellow and
> green and blue in the sloping tail, just as there is a lot of
> infra-red in the other sloping tail.
>
> Even though the peak is in the red, there's enough higher-frequency
> light that you don't see a pure-red red.
>
> Get it a little hotter and the peak goes higher and shifts a little
> more, and you see a definite orange.
>
> We've pulled a safety device off somewhere, and this being a gedanken
> experiment, the coils won't melt as the burner keeps heating and the
> peak emission gets higher and bluer.
>
> As the light gets brighter and the peak moves into the yellow area,
> the light gets paler as well as yellower, and once it's pure yellow,
> it just gets paler.  And when the peak hits green, we get pure white
> light, because green is right in the middle, and there is as much
> long-wave radiation below it as there is short-wave radiation above
> it.
>
> Which makes me wonder why plants reject green light instead of using
> it.
>
> Still hotter, and the light starts to take on a pale blue cast.  If
> it's possible for something to get hot enough to appear pure blue, I
> don't want to be in the same solar system with it, and I'm not sure I
> want to be in the same galaxy.

Too late; the galaxy has loads of luminous O- and B-type stars that, in 
effect, appear blue due to their high temperatures.  Not to mention the even 
hotter O subdwarfs, though these are comparatively rare.

-- 
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) 

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

#524516

"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
news:nN6dnXmNp_gsRI3LnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@supernews.com: 

> Joy Beeson wrote:
>> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove
>> burners glowing read.

In my youth, growing up in Europe, I saw electric stove burners
glowing cherry red often enough that it was unremarkable.

This wasn't the big flat disk type of burner that's most common
here in the US - they were open spirals of metal, a little under
a centimeter thick. 

They were also running at 220V, which might make a difference.

pt

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

#524519

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:07:37 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<treifamily@gmail.com> wrote
in<news:XnsA5297B6ACDE11melchizedek@216.166.97.131> in
rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics:

> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:nN6dnXmNp_gsRI3LnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@supernews.com: 

>> Joy Beeson wrote:

>>> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see
>>> electric stove burners glowing read.

> In my youth, growing up in Europe, I saw electric stove
> burners glowing cherry red often enough that it was
> unremarkable. 

> This wasn't the big flat disk type of burner that's most
> common here in the US - they were open spirals of metal,
> a little under a centimeter thick. 

> They were also running at 220V, which might make a
> difference.

That’s the kind with which I grew up, and they could glow
red running at 110V.

Brian
-- 
It was the neap tide, when the baga venture out of their
holes to root for sandtatties.  The waves whispered
rhythmically over the packed sand: haggisss, haggisss,
haggisss.

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

#524532

"Brian M. Scott" <b.scott@csuohio.edu> wrote in 
news:hidj0aiben5m.1e1p7razdf7jd.dlg@40tude.net:

> On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 11:07:37 -0500, Cryptoengineer
> <treifamily@gmail.com> wrote
> in<news:XnsA5297B6ACDE11melchizedek@216.166.97.131> in
> rec.arts.sf.written,sci.physics:
> 
>> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
>> news:nN6dnXmNp_gsRI3LnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@supernews.com: 
> 
>>> Joy Beeson wrote:
> 
>>>> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see
>>>> electric stove burners glowing read.
> 
>> In my youth, growing up in Europe, I saw electric stove
>> burners glowing cherry red often enough that it was
>> unremarkable. 
> 
>> This wasn't the big flat disk type of burner that's most
>> common here in the US - they were open spirals of metal,
>> a little under a centimeter thick. 
> 
>> They were also running at 220V, which might make a
>> difference.
> 
> That’s the kind with which I grew up, and they could glow
> red running at 110V.
> 
They're designed for a specific voltage, and to reach a specific 
temperature. The ones runnin on 110v draw twice as much current as 
the ones running on 220v. I've seen 440v stoves and dryers, too, 
though it's not the norm (and most houses don't have 440v service).

-- 
Terry Austin

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

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

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

#524524

In article <XnsA5297B6ACDE11melchizedek@216.166.97.131>, 
treifamily@gmail.com says...
> 
> "Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in
> news:nN6dnXmNp_gsRI3LnZ2dnUU78UednZ2d@supernews.com: 
> 
> > Joy Beeson wrote:
> >> I figured it out when I wondered why I never see electric stove
> >> burners glowing read.
> 
> In my youth, growing up in Europe, I saw electric stove burners
> glowing cherry red often enough that it was unremarkable.
> 
> This wasn't the big flat disk type of burner that's most common
> here in the US - they were open spirals of metal, a little under
> a centimeter thick. 
> 
> They were also running at 220V, which might make a difference.
> 
> pt

Nope.  US electric stoves run on 220.  At least the kind that sit on the 
floor and have an oven and the kind that are built into the countertop 
do.  The ones that sit on top of the counter are 110.  

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

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web