stephen_speicher

The following is taken from the interview called "Objectivism in Brief: The Raymond Newman Journal," which should be available from The Ayn Rand Bookstore (whose web site seems to be down at the moment):

==================================================

Q: Miss Rand, Article Six of the Bill of Rights gives individuals the right to subpoena witnesses to testify in their favor, and people who don't respond to those subpoenas are subject to contempt citations and possible fines and imprisonment. Does this deny the freedom of the witness if he chooses not to testify?

AR: No, not really. I'm in favor of those laws, because if it's a court case, then somebody presumably has been hurt. The witness has knowledge that's relevant to the issue; and if he refuses to testify, he is the one who is then violating the rights of the defendant (or whoever is involved). If either party needs the information which you have, you couldn't have a rational or an honest reason for refusing that information, because you're interfering with justice, then: you're in effect saying, "the court may decide otherwise without me, but I don't want to testify." I don't think that that's legitimate.
===================================================

(Thanks to Alex for so quickly locating the tape and transcribing this segment.)

Yes, cosmological redshift as velocity is not an "observational fact" but rather an inference drawn from other observations, and indeed there are other (less well-known and, perhaps, lesser) theories that make different inferences. Someone asked a similar question on this forum several months ago and here is the response I gave.

Probably the most mainstream advocate of alternate redshift theory is Irving Segal from MIT. Segal developed his Chronometric Cosmology, and has published many papers in the mainstream journals on his theory. He wrote a book called "Mathematical Cosmology" which has been used in many courses at various universities. Segal died about five years ago, but many of his students carry on his work.

There is a survey paper which lists more than 20 alternative theories:

Ghosh, A. (1991), "Velocity-dependent inertial induction: a possible tired-light mechanism", Apeiron 9-10, 35-44

I have read proceedings from a Redshift Controversy conference, but I do not have the reference handy.

The problems with most of the "tired light" theories are mostly due to a lack of observed scattering effects. At least one person has developed a theory in which we are awash in a sea of gravitons, and that type of interaction would have neglible scattering effects. One book containing this idea is:

Van Flandern, T. (1993), "Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets", North Atlantic Books, Berkeley.

I believe there is a more current edition available.

Please note that I am not endorsing any of these theories, nor am I catgorically rejecting redshift-as-velocity. Rather, I am pointing out that redshift is not an "observational" fact (as it is often represented) -- it is an inference-- and there is other data which conflicts with the standard view.

Such discrepancies have been published in the literature for decades, and here I list just a few concerns.

1. Observations of high redshift quasars and low redshift galaxies that are clearly interacting and/or connected, yet have extremely disparate redshifts.

2. Companion galaxies that have redshifts higher than their parent galaxy. Both in the Local Group and in M81 there are eleven companions and this has been noted for all. Since the companions are orbiting, about half should have been blueshifted, but are not.

3. Higher redshift quasars have lower measured Faraday rotation than smaller redshift quasars, and the reverse should be true.

4. Galaxy clusters have been found which have as much as a four magnitude range of dispersion from the standard Hubble diagram relating redshift and brightness.

5. There is some evidence that redshifts are quantized, which is inconsistent with expected continuity of velocity. This preference for certain discrete values has been observed in a wide range.

These are just some of the concerns with the traditional interpretation of redshift-as-velocity. The most notable objector to the standard view is famed astronomer Halton Arp, who has campaigned against the Big Bang theory for many years. His latest book has a lot of information that can be gleaned by the non-physicist. The reference is:

Arp, Halton. (1999) "Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology, and Academic Science", Apeiron, Canada.

And, again, I am not endorsing any of these alternate theories -- all are problematic in my view -- but such alternate theories do exist.

I was not aware that Objectivists have been stereotyped as being bitter people, but based on things you have written in other threads I am even more surprised to hear yourself being resigned to that as your self-image. You seemed to have a much more lively and upbeat spirit.

Anyway, I still suspect that you are not looking in the right places. Do you go to Objectivist conferences? Many happy marriages came about as a result of people meeting there. Do you advertise yourself by the right sort of postings to large Objectivist lists? Have you registered yourself with my wife Betsy's Cybernet social list?

Also, I do not know where you live, but here in California I have met many beautiful and intelligent women. I am quite happily married so I just enjoy their company or interchanges, but many of these women complain about not finding many men as decent and as intelligent as me. I am not tooting my own horn here, but just letting you know that, in my opinion, if you are a good and intelligent person, a valuer with a passion for life, maybe you should try moving to California.

I have been a prolific poster to this forum and I want to make a public statement in that regard. Unbeknownst to me -- with no notice or warning -- a moderator, NIJamesHughes, has modified the content of some posts of mine. I am only aware of this fact because someone else brought it to my attention. I have no idea what content of mine in any other posts has been changed. Therefore, for the record, I want it to be known that no one should take the content of any previous postings bearing my name on this forum, to necessarily be reflective of my actual views.

I take my ideas, and my reputation, very seriously. I refuse to participate on a forum where what I write can be changed without any notice or acknowledgement to me. I am leaving this forum immediately.

I have been a prolific poster to this forum and I want to make a public statement in that regard. Unbeknownst to me -- with no notice or warning -- a moderator, NIJamesHughes, has modified the content of some posts of mine. I am only aware of this fact because someone else brought it to my attention. I have no idea what content of mine in any other posts has been changed. Therefore, for the record, I want it to be known that no one should take the content of any previous postings bearing my name on this forum, to necessarily be reflective of my actual views.

I take my ideas, and my reputation, very seriously. I refuse to participate on a forum where what I write can be changed without any notice or acknowledgement to me. I am leaving this forum immediately.