Warped space-time

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Today's APOD Hubble image shows many warped galaxies that are supposedly much farther away than the foreground galaxy that is lensing them. My question is why are all those distant galaxies blue? Would they not be red due to their light being red-shifted?

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Today's APOD Hubble image shows many warped galaxies that are supposedly much farther away than the foreground galaxy that is lensing them. My question is why are all those distant galaxies blue? Would they not be red due to their light being red-shifted?

The image was constructed from data collected through seven different
broadband filters- two in the visible, five in the near IR. The blue
channel is the sum of the two visible range filters, and essentially
covers the entire visible spectrum. So we can't take the colors we see
in this image as natural.

The distant galaxies are hot, with a lot of UV output. That is
redshifted into the visible, which is why they are much brighter in
that range than in IR, and why we see them as blue in this image.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:46:31 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Today's APOD Hubble image shows many warped galaxies that are supposedly much farther away than the foreground galaxy that is lensing them. My question is why are all those distant galaxies blue? Would they not be red due to their light being red-shifted?

The image was constructed from data collected through seven different
broadband filters- two in the visible, five in the near IR. The blue
channel is the sum of the two visible range filters, and essentially
covers the entire visible spectrum. So we can't take the colors we see
in this image as natural.

The distant galaxies are hot, with a lot of UV output. That is
redshifted into the visible, which is why they are much brighter in
that range than in IR, and why we see them as blue in this image.

Ok, that makes sense. I spent some observing time at Cerro Tololo with a professor from the University of Chile. We were imaging galaxies of around mag 21 - 22 in RGB and found that the vast majority of them were quite red. Those of course were closer than the Hubble warped galaxies, but still quite a ways out there.

On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 08:06:19 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:46:31 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 07:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Razzmatazz
wrote:

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Today's APOD Hubble image shows many warped galaxies that are supposedly much farther away than the foreground galaxy that is lensing them. My question is why are all those distant galaxies blue? Would they not be red due to their light being red-shifted?

The image was constructed from data collected through seven different
broadband filters- two in the visible, five in the near IR. The blue
channel is the sum of the two visible range filters, and essentially
covers the entire visible spectrum. So we can't take the colors we see
in this image as natural.

The distant galaxies are hot, with a lot of UV output. That is
redshifted into the visible, which is why they are much brighter in
that range than in IR, and why we see them as blue in this image.

Ok, that makes sense. I spent some observing time at Cerro Tololo with a professor from the University of Chile. We were imaging galaxies of around mag 21 - 22 in RGB and found that the vast majority of them were quite red. Those of course were closer than the Hubble warped galaxies, but still quite a ways out there.

These might be red, too. We can't tell, since the entire visible
spectrum is presented as just one color. In visible light this is just
a luminance image.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 3:26:19 PM UTC+1, Razzmatazz wrote:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Today's APOD Hubble image shows many warped galaxies that are supposedly much farther away than the foreground galaxy that is lensing them. My question is why are all those distant galaxies blue? Would they not be red due to their light being red-shifted?

The only thing warped is your mind and anyone who doesn't find Albert's rejection of stellar islands known as galaxies hilarious or his reasons for 'warping' space likewise gets what they deserve When I read it I left the relativity forum as there is no way anyone can be taken seriously -

http://www.bartleby.com/173/30.html

Anyone who needs spacetime for time travel purposes can have it where they find it in a 1898 science fiction novel by H.G. Wells -

"‘Now, it is very remarkable that this is so extensively overlooked,’ continued the Time Traveller, with a slight accession of cheerfulness. ‘Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between time and any of the three dimensions of space" The Time Machine -

http://www.bartleby.com/1000/1.html

The justification for entire nonsense is Newton's description of the Equation of Time as absolute/relative time -

"Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation of time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions...The necessity of which equation, for determining the times of a phænomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter." Principia

The guys 100 years ago had a ball and many of their followers today still follow that junk but not here in this forum and not with the joke of an image containing diffraction spikes.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 4:27:31 PM UTC+1, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
When I read it I left the relativity forum

Lucky sods.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:27:31 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
anyone who doesn't find Albert's rejection of stellar islands known as galaxies
hilarious

Well, galaxies are quite real; if at some time, Albert Einstein denied their
reality, he was mistaken - since he lived until 1955, though, and by then the
nature of galaxies beyond the Milky Way was well established, I'd be very
surprised if he hadn't corrected himself by then.

John Savard

There is a condition where people reached adulthood physically but never made the transition out of a classroom/academic atmosphere and these are the ones likely to follow the precepts of a late 19th century science fiction novel and its formal 20th century version known as relativity. It was achieved at the expense of Newton's ideology even though the proponents of relativity knew nor know next to nothing of the intentions behind Sir Isaac's absolute/relative time,space and motion as they were applied to the antecedent astronomical methods,principles and insights.

The fairytales of huge intellectual achievements by mathematicians in an astronomical setting is a destructive and disruptive myth that undermines actual achievements. It is supported by a detestable celestial sphere cult who limit astronomy to a circumpolar Universe, a flat Earth bounded by the local horizon, the ability to give names to celestial objects and identify them with a rotating dome.

If society wants to waste another 100 years on voodoo and bluffing then there is little I can do about it but the standards are non-existent and better off empiricism die under the weight of its own pretenses as it is doing presently.

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:37:19 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 9:27:31 AM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
anyone who doesn't find Albert's rejection of stellar islands known as galaxies
hilarious

Well, galaxies are quite real; if at some time, Albert Einstein denied their
reality, he was mistaken - since he lived until 1955, though, and by then the
nature of galaxies beyond the Milky Way was well established, I'd be very
surprised if he hadn't corrected himself by then.

Perhaps you had come across this web page:

https://ericfdiaz.wordpress.com/geor...ical-constant/

I don't think that Albert Einstein even had the time to be a supporter of
Harlow Shapley - and I doubt he would have been championing outworn ideas once
Hubble had established the truth. That he did only where it directly concerned
him, in relation to quantum mechanics, which did seem to contradict relativity.

John Savard

On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:39:50 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:

If society wants to waste another 100 years on voodoo and bluffing then there
is little I can do about it

....fortunately, since what you think is "voodoo and bluffing" is in fact the very
engine of our continued progress and advancement in science and technology.

John Savard