Topic: The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter. (Read 1518 times)

Analytical · « **on:** June 03, 2005, 07:20:22 PM »

I was listening to the radio in Oklahoma. I was informed that red shift could be caused by a red filter or strong magnetic filed. The program explained that a scientist wrote that up in a paper published in 'Popular Science' years ago and that it

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #1 on:** June 04, 2005, 12:16:17 AM »

I have heard about such possibilities. I think the key word is 'possibilities.' Without knowing exactly what you heard and just going on what you said, its going to be difficult to comment. There are many alternative interpretations to the 'red shift.' I wouldn't dare to claim to know all of them, but I have heard of a handful. The notion that these are not explored because of antipathy towards what those views would logically entailed is a viable possibility as well. Scientists are humans too, and they are as vulnerable as anyone else to having their conclusions affected by their presuppositions and motives. That's why I urge skepticism in ALL areas of inquiry, not just in regards to religion.

At anyrate, I really don't know what you want someone to give you.

First you say: "Hearing this I was quite taken aback. Can anyone explain how a red filter causes red shift? Can anyone explain this informative reveling scientific information being on a nationwide radio network?"

And then you say: "Please, I don't post any answers about how a red filter can't cause red shift. It

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #2 on:** June 04, 2005, 12:29:50 AM »

I tried to find a news article describing the situation you were speaking of. I didn't have much luck, but I did find some other alternative ideas:

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2004/03/20/swedish_science_dissident_proposes_new_view_of_red_shift_global_warming.htm

http://www.rense.com/general53/bbng.htm

And this site: http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/

That last one has been on my radar screen for quite some time. Most of what is purported to be a scientific 'fact' these days simply is not a scientific 'fact' the way people in general understand that term. When the public hears 'scientifically demonstrated' they think of something verified by observation or experiment or some other objective reality. But this isn't what scientists mean any more. It MAY mean that, but unless you dig into it, you won't know otherwise. It may be just an interpretation of some data, and other interpretations may be possible.

Therefore, be skeptical.

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #3 on:** June 04, 2005, 01:39:25 PM »

Johnny, at the end of your first post there's a rather nasty typo you might want to edit out...

FUSSCCJ · « **Reply #4 on:** June 04, 2005, 04:39:15 PM »

Thanks SSS...double points for both catching the error and giving me a good laugh.

Sir Somebody Something · « **Reply #5 on:** June 04, 2005, 10:09:23 PM »

Heh.

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #6 on:** June 05, 2005, 03:15:53 AM »

lol, someone pm me with what I said.

Analytical · « **Reply #7 on:** June 05, 2005, 10:11:18 PM »

Quote from: sntjohnny

I The notion that these are not explored because of antipathy towards what those views would logically entailed is a viable possibility as well. Scientists are humans too, and they are as vulnerable as anyone else to having their conclusions affected by their presuppositions and motives. That's why I urge skepticism in ALL areas of inquiry, not just in regards to religion.)

Yes, but scientists like nothing better than to blow up any other groups work.

Quote from: sntjohnny

At any rate, I really don't know what you want someone to give you.]

Just heard it, like I stated it, on a program brodacst from quite a few stations. I should be able to find it.

Quote from: sntjohnny

First you say: "Hearing this I was quite taken aback. Can anyone explain how a red filter causes red shift? Can anyone explain this informative reveling scientific information being on a nationwide radio network?")

And then you say: "Please, I don't post any answers about how a red filter can't cause red shift. It

Anthony Horvath · « **Reply #8 on:** June 05, 2005, 11:34:54 PM »

"Yes, but scientists like nothing better than to blow up any other groups work."

'but' ? I agree with your statement, except for the 'but.' It should be 'and.' Yes, they really do like to blow up the works of other people. That's where the money is, right?

Sounds like another reason to be skeptical.

"Just want to avoid explanations on other ways to cause red shift."

Ok, I follow you.

sntjohnny wrote:
In my opinion, if you wanted to hear how a 'red filter' could cause red shift (if that's what you wanted), perhaps looking up the popular science article and reading about it in the man's own words?

"Couldn't find it or any reference to it. It should show up several (many) places. It was on the radio. They weren

Analytical · « **Reply #9 on:** June 06, 2005, 08:52:45 AM »

I think your jumping past where I'm at.
I'm not hoping to discover what could be a red filter in space.
I just want to know the mechanism, proposed or verifiable, for a red filter causing a red shift.
A program on the radio was bassed on this, I should be able to find something out about this red filter stuff. Don't you think so?

physicist · « **Reply #10 on:** June 09, 2005, 02:20:19 PM »

By red shift a cosmologist means the ratio of a light wave's wavelength at the time emitted to the wavelength at the time of observed.

It doesn't mean that everything appears red like through a plastic filter, but that every frequency is lower at the time of observation than it was at the time it was created.

I think I have seen people discuss similar sounding effects by trying to allow time dependent fundamental "constants." A word of caution is due here, one must be very careful about allowing the fundamental parameters of our universe to vary in time.

Analytical · « **Reply #11 on:** June 10, 2005, 12:45:24 PM »

Physicist,

I can't find any papers on redshift being caused by a red filter. I understand filters and Doppler shift, but a hypothesis on how a red filter could cause a redshift would be interesting
I suspect that such a scientific paper being published in the esteemed scientific journal 'Popular Science' was a red herring. I guess the religious radio program was obfuscating.

I understand the mechanism of taking a minority view to argue that the majority view is not known to be absolutely valid. But, in this case it was like saying to the arithmetic illiterate: Question those who say 2+2 is 4 since there is an accredited expert that says 2+2 is 5; therefore, no one knows what 2+2 is. So, this is not a science and religion topic; but, rather an ethics topic. I think I'll move it to there.

Author Topic: The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter. (Read 1518 times)

Analytical

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Anthony Horvath

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Anthony Horvath

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Sir Somebody Something

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

FUSSCCJ

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Sir Somebody Something

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Anthony Horvath

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Analytical

Can't find it either

Anthony Horvath

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Analytical

Not what is the red filter, but how does a red filter...

physicist

The radio said that red shift can be caused by red filter.

Analytical

Can't find it.