Uhhh, that's not really how we define those terms. They aren't blue just because they're doppler shifted. The rose is still red. It's still reflecting those wavelengths.
Maybe this slight edit is more accurate:
Roses are red
But might appear blue
Depending on their velocity relative to you
And yes, I am invited to parties
Mushroomunk at parties
Regardless of your status at parties, I actually prefer your wording, it seems to scan a little more easily.
Let me outunfun you.
Roses are multi colours. There are many white species of rose.
Oh we can spoil it further.
Roses aren't inherently any color. Color is a perceptual phenomenon created in your mind based on which cone cells are triggered in what quantity and how your brain interprets the signal. If you're red-green colorblind, they might legitimately appear grey in normal sunlight.
Also, at least where I live (and with normal vision and sunlight conditions), violets appear majority white, sometimes yellow, and once in a while actually violet -- but never what I'd call blue 🤷
I did think about going that way, how blue roses are the one color we really don't have even yet.
I'm even more fun at parties.
I think we have a little more freedom around where we label colours, as all existing colours are just an active bounding relative to our usually-semi-aligned receptors. Someone who can't see blue could call something blue because others see it as blue, but it's technically still accurate to bound and define strictly from their style of receptors, we just appreciate cohesion in our heuristics due to the nature of our social way of being.
Perceiving something temporarily as a different colour due to the changing environment also altering our internal representation does not make it inaccurate to temporarily alter which made up words appropriately describe the made up boundings around an assumed relationship our internal model representation of wavelengths share with each other, regardless of whether surface contact changing the reflected wavelengths, or a doppler shift giving a temporary relative change in experience or classification.
Also see: why language is more suggestions than law, due to the valid growth of language happening simultaneously in myriad eco-niches with different salience or needs which may alter the 'proper' way of communication specifically within that eco-niche, or in relative shape to other locales. Especially when dealing with preference or style over function, but even bias for 'function' can have a proper local-niche optimization over 'improper' models despite 'proper' local models having functional conflict with broader models. meaning we need better ways to align while diversifying without enforcing the most large and salient local collective preference as law.
Also a lot of our experience is relative or confabulatory in ways that we should recognize before rejecting other localization of experience. recognizing how we handle language at multiple simultaneous scales crafted around-and-for myriad locally/generally salient settings. Unfortunately this becomes difficult to communicate when a politician tells all the people seeing red flowers that the person in a different context seeing the blue flower is just 'wrong,' while the rest are 'correct,' even though the same people with the same logic would argue differently if positions were reversed. This silly hypothetical is the same kind of issue as conveyed around 'the double empathy problem' as a broader systems mechanic, for different boundings on building logic vs model growth purely through passive socialized affirmation, or the same vulnerability to sycophantic delusion you see with "AI" psychosis, but due to a sycophantic group rather than an LLM.
Reality is just weird and dumb, and our existing systems kind of a gauge around what is actively useful as we grow ourselves into new shapes going forward. We definitely need to be wary of socializing strict binaries around local relative confabulatory structures or preferences. Ergo: the rose can be blue, even if that's not permanently useful outside of a strict communication around a personal position and experience. We can recognize the paradox from observer states with both confabulated classifications simultaneously, with both being true and neither being wrong, dependent on the acceptance of both states as valid experiences.
Question: if you spin fast enough, will everything redshift around you?
I mean sure, velocity is still normal relative to the photons traveling perpendicular but what if you, like, look to the side?
That feels like an xkcd question. How fast do you have to spin to color shift things? I have no idea how the math actually works out
Roses are red, roses are blue,
If you open up GIMP, and fuck with the hue
So, what I'm taking away from this is that, if I ever see a blue rose, it's already too late, and the object moving at relativistic speeds toward me has already probably ignited a thermonuclear reaction in the air around it, but the light from the fusion bomb before me has not yet reached me?
It's fine! My math says the rose is actually moving away from you, at around a third of the speed of light.
At this speed, it orbits the earth (at sea level) 2.5 times in a second. Maybe it shoots for the moon, which it reaches in less than 4 seconds. Or it might be on its way to Neptune, which will take it 12 hours!
Also, if this red rose was actually moving towards you at the same speed, I guess it would look black, since you would receive a wavelength you can't see? Ignoring the pesky thermonuclear reaction stuff...
It's not necessarily too late ! it could be far, far from you. Far enough.
In that case, given that a rose would need to have a certain minimum angular size to be recognisably a rose, and it would have to be outside the atmosphere to not be a guarantee of the imminent cessation of my existence, that would have to be a VERY big rose, which doesn't bode well for life on earth if it's approaching at relativistic speeds. Or are you suggesting that it's a galactic - scale rose, and we've got a few million years before it obliterates the Milky Way?
I was thinking we were looking at it through the lens of some bigass telescope
the only sane answer
"A galactic-scale relativistic rose by any other name would smell just as blue."
Well, more accurately, it's poetry in motion.
Dem blue roses be comin at me tho.
And fast too
Sung to the tune of "Roses Are Red" by Mac Band, I'm dying laughing.
Astrocapella!
Prepare to have this song stuck in your mind for a few weeks.
What if the rose is the exact blue/red color that matches the acceleration, does it go dark, invisible, white, more red/blue?
Oh, this is my new favourite variant !
all my homies be redshift-maxxing 😤🤙
(ae moving away from me at relativistic speeds)
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
