Relativity Question

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I'm beginning to see that in order for it to do so, there needs to be a commonality of background understanding. (Which perhaps, may be partially absent in this case).

Cheers

Precisely.....how can you explain something properly if the basics of understanding for the subject in question is missing from one or more of the parties involved. That's why scientists have such a hard time trying to get information across to the public. By dumbing things down, you lose much of the meaning of what you're trying to convey.

It's also precisely why pseudoscience and other nonsense has the foothold it has and why the public don't trust what scientists say. Most just don't want to understand it (too lazy, not really interested etc).

I've tried to explain lots of things to do with science to many people. Only to have blank stares in return...even after dumbing things down.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Precisely.....how can you explain something properly if the basics of understanding for the subject in question is missing from one or more of the parties involved. That's why scientists have such a hard time trying to get information across to the public. By dumbing things down, you lose much of the meaning of what you're trying to convey.

It's also precisely why pseudoscience and other nonsense has the foothold it has and why the public don't trust what scientists say. Most just don't want to understand it (too lazy, not really interested etc).

I've tried to explain lots of things to do with science to many people. Only to have blank stares in return...even after dumbing things down.

Yep .. its a major issue which inhibits effective communication, alright.

I think I'd rather wrangle with someone who is honest and comes right out and says: "I don't believe in Big Bang Theory" or "I don't believe in cosmological redshift", etc.

I'd always come back to my applicable principle, (which is out there for all to see), which is "you can believe whatever you like .. just don't let it get in the way of what's real".

The other issue here is about the role of scientific Theory in explaining independently verifiable, objective measurement. The two can be separated (and should be). We should not fear tackling the explanation (the theory part).

For me, as long as the theory is internally consistent (and testable), I'm satisfied.

It may not be so for others, however.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Yep .. its a major issue which inhibits effective communication, alright.

All too often!!!.

Originally Posted by CraigS

I think I'd rather wrangle with someone who is honest and comes right out and says: "I don't believe in Big Bang Theory" or "I don't believe in cosmological redshift", etc.

That's good...but how often do people just do that out of ignorance and can't explain why or have some lame reason as to why. Most can't back up their assertions.

Originally Posted by CraigS

I'd always come back to my applicable principle, (which is out there for all to see), which is "you can believe whatever you like .. just don't let it get in the way of what's real".

A good principle, but most wouldn't subscribe to it. Nor would most let reality get in the way of their beliefs. Their beliefs are usually the things which are real to them, and the real facts become the nonsense. That's why things get so messed up.

Originally Posted by CraigS

The other issue here is about the role of scientific Theory in explaining independently verifiable, objective measurement. The two can be separated (and should be). We should not fear tackling the explanation (the theory part).

For me, as long as the theory is internally consistent, I'm satisfied.

It may not be so for others, however.

Cheers

No one should fear any part of the process, theory or observation. But many get the two confused and most would rather run in the other direction concerning theory.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's good...but how often do people just do that out of ignorance and can't explain why or have some lame reason as to why. Most can't back up their assertions.

Gotta let 'em, try though … it is very rare that an alternative theory which is internally self-consistent, testable (and independently verifiable), arises in amateur science forums.
This does not mean that one can't arise, though.

Originally Posted by renormalised

A good principle, but most wouldn't subscribe to it. Nor would most let reality get in the way of their beliefs. Their beliefs are usually the things which are real to them, and the real facts become the nonsense. That's why things get so messed up.

The communication is difficult but it must still be possible.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Of course, they have every right to try. But like you said, it doesn't mean they're onto something. Even if they think they are and keep deluding themselves by dogmatically holding onto it.

People tend to invest too much personal worth in ideas. That's what gets them into trouble. An idea is just that...an idea, nothing more or less.

[xelasnave]

Come on you guys I developed my hypothisis of everything here
I do think it would be a difficult task to pull down the big bang theory or anything we take as established science but we still could be wrong...and no matter how small the probability we cant rule out that probability irrespective of the overpowering evidence that may suggest otherwise. That is still not saying we are wrong but that we should never think we are "infinitely" correct.
I neither believe in the big bang or disbelieve. I find it difficult to think humans could know it all however... I do know I will never know exactly how the Universe came into being but enjoy learning of how our science interprets their observations to date

alex

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Well, ok .. so that doesn't really provide me with any insights into explaining anything I observe …

So I'm now in alignment with Steven's question … how is this relevant in my quest to explain what I might see ?

Cheers

Don't hold your breath Craig.

This is all new territory for him, he is now in a situation of having to defend his position by demonstrating a knowledge and understanding of the subject.

The troll tactic of attacking an individual's integrity to convey the impression of having that knowledge and understanding has been well and truly exposed for what it is.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Something he's been trying very hard to do and succeeding rather badly in the attempt. He can't even recognise the difference between his own question and Craig's original.

[bojan]

The popularisation (explaining) of science in layman's terms is a science (and/or art) in it's own right.
Only a few people are good at it, most are not.

[Archy (George)]

In reply to your statements:

Originally Posted by renormalised

No, you chose one reply which was not based on anything to do with your initial and subsequent inquiries. ...

My initial reply to your question was correct and is as correct as Bojan's.

My question was how can the "redshift" of a single photon be measured? So Bojan's response was the only relevant one and had everything to do with my initial and subsequent inquiries.

Your reply and Bojan's can't both be correct.
Redshift is measured from a spectrum. A single photon is not a spectrum of photons.

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Being "smart" about it will not make your reply any less puerile.



Let's make it clear right from the start....the relative ages of any photon have nothing to do with the question that you specifically asked. Your question has nothing to do with the original question of Craig's.

Your responses show a clear lack of understanding either our answers or any of the physics involved. I doubt very much if you'd understand the original question that was posed.



Don't try and sound all reasonable. It doesn't work. Yours is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

You are looking at your reflection in a mirror

All I asked was how can the "redshift" of a single photon be measured?

Only Bojan addressed that question squarely

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Archy

You are looking at your reflection in a mirror

… deep ...

[sjastro]

My question was how can the "redshift" of a single photon be measured?

What was the relevance of your question regarding cosmological redshift and relativity?

Still waiting, waiting, waiting.......

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

In reply to your statements:


My question was how can the "redshift" of a single photon be measured? So Bojan's response was the only relevant one and had everything to do with my initial and subsequent inquiries.

Your reply and Bojan's can't both be correct.
Redshift is measured from a spectrum. A single photon is not a spectrum of photons.

I'll put this in plain and simple terms so that even you can understand....a redshift doesn't need a spectrum in order to be measured. A spectrum is just the visible manifestation of the light passing through a spectrograph, or a prism, and can be used to observe and calculate a redshift. It can be just as easily done with any other instrument that detects light, so long as you know the method to do the necessary calculations and you have reference sources (which you need for spectra/spectrographs in any case) to compare to.

The redshift of a single photon can be measured if...1. The source of the photon is known (which I have reiterated about half a dozen times), and, 2. You can calculate or measure its observed wavelength/frequency.

The equations for calculating redshift are very simple, whether you calculate the redshift based on wavelength and/or frequency, or use the various relativistic calculations for z for those situations where it is used.

If you don't know what the source of the photon is, then measuring its redshift is impossible (which is what Bojan said in his answer).

Both our answers are correct, depending on the circumstance in which the photon is measured.

I have pretty much repeated myself several times in answering your question and so have some others here. I am not going to do it again. If you can't understand it even after this, then I suggest you don't bother trying.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Archy

You are looking at your reflection in a mirror

All I asked was how can the "redshift" of a single photon be measured?

Only Bojan addressed that question squarely

Oh funny boy

You have been told this several times, repeatedly, the same answer. My previous post is the last you're going to get.

Oh, BTW....how about answering Steven's question about the relevance of your question regarding cosmological redshift and relativity...which is what this post was originally about. I'd like to see the answer to that as well.

[sjastro]

Oh, BTW....how about answering Steven's question about the relevance of your question regarding cosmological redshift and relativity...which is what this post was originally about. I'd like to see the answer to that as well.

Let's look at this from his point of view. He is in a no win situation.

I have issued him with a challenge. In reality I have called his bluff.
If he refuses, it simply confirms he is a troll.

If he accepts, the onus is on him to explain mathematically the relevance of his question on relativity and the cosmological model.

Why explain it mathematically you may ask.
Firstly for someone who apparently is qualified enough to judge that a scientific statement "is beating around the bush" or constantly uses the phrase "is this the best you can do" must be in possession of considerable mathematical skills.
Secondly the use of mathematics minimizes the human or BS element.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Not only considerable mathematical skills, but a very good grounding in the theory as well, Steven. He would have far more experience in the field than we would, if you go by his bravado.

[xelasnave]

While we await a responce...
I have been taking in what I can and ask although we see a photon as a descrete object is there any view of it as made up of many other smaller er bits.
And does a photon only cover the visual range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

While we await a responce...
I have been taking in what I can and ask although we see a photon as a descrete object is there any view of it as made up of many other smaller er bits.
And does a photon only cover the visual range of the electromagnetic spectrum.
alex

The photon is an elementary particle.

It also describes the abstract carriage of the electromagnetic force. As such, it also covers the full range of the EM spectrum .. not just the visible.

Cheers

[sally1jack (Phil)]

seem's to be degrading again , the behavior is very similar to my children, so disappointing to see this happening.
Carl ( renormmalise) i read in one of your post a while ago that when people behave in this way you just don't reply, what happened to that ? not that i disagree with you i think you explained your point & i understood it.
if this is the way the wider scientific comminity debate things then progress will be at a snails pace
there are a group of regular contributors with a good knowledge base which i enjoy reading & have learned from them which i appreciate. but what disturbs me is when a contributor ruffles there feathers they gang up & attack this is not to say that there scientific point of view was wrong, but its the way it is done
To have superior knowledge or intelligence gives know one the right to belittle someone or name call like "troll"
I think the moderators should be firmer on personal attacks which both sides are firmly guilty of
I see & understand that strict scientic principals are abided by to ensure good scientific debate , strict ethical guidelines here are lacking.
I see fewer & fewer people contributing i believe that this behavior can't be helping this

hope this improves