Scientific Proof That The Big Bang Is A Leap Of Faith

1. Red-shift Is Merely Red-spectral

Red-shift is one of astronomer astrologer’s star bible pillar foundations.

Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method

First, let’s look at a examination of red-shift, which astronomer astrologers base on the so-called doppler effect of light, in the light of the scientific method:

1. Phase: activity
2. hypothesis: red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.
3. experiment: no test cases.
4. observation: none of experiments.
5. conclusion: stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.
6. confirmation: no experiments to repeat.

Red-shift conjecturers abysmally failed to completely apply the scientific method. Red-shift as a distance determinant is not science.

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

Astronomer astrologers are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on their assumptions, not science.

Sound waves are atmospheric tightly localized particle vibrations passed from particle to particle; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles.

As an example of the doppler effect, when a fast moving train blows it’s whistle while passing a person, then the pitch increases on approach to the person (sound wave compression) and the pitch decreases as the train races toward the horizon (sound wave decompression) as the train leaves the person; however, red-shift conjecturers have no such proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis pointing at their conclusion joined with their conclusion pointing at their hypothesis.

Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss

Astronomers discovered a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal). Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified.

History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift

Sirius was known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt and was described as red, but Sirius is blue, now. This change describes a stellar u-turn.

Conclusion for astronomer astrologer pillar of red-shift

Stellar red-shift is really stellar red-spectral frequency production.

Red-shift is an observed phenomena without a scientific explanation of “why”.

Astronomer astrologers used a ridiculously miniscule observational window in terms of space and time in order to believe in their Big Bang (see the Zenith Model and the Episcopic Model in post #53).

Big Bang believer’s star bible red-shift massive star distances doctrine and tremendously ancient billions of years old universe is a leap of faith.

2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

CMBR is another of astronomer astrologer’s star bible pillar foundations.

Big Bang adherents lie along the lines of “In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space”, and here is the proof of concept.

I present to you the history which reveals CMB was a known quantity decades before 1965. This directly derails nonscience scientists “fact” leaving a mere residual called “faith”.

Andrew McKellar used W. S. Adams’ spectroscopic instrumentation during 1941 to measure background temperature of 2.3 K of a B type star.

In 1948, cosmologist George Gamow led a group that calculated cosmic microwave radiation.

The vaunted Bell Telephone Laboratories had a facility atop Crawford Hill in Holmdel, New Jersey where Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson experimented in 1964. They detected a homogeneous, constant radiation. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their CMB work.

Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University believed the Big Bang emitted a tremendous radiation blast resulting in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), and they prepared to investigate microwave radiation levels in the year 1964.

But, Bernard F. Burke, professor of physics at MIT, introduced the two groups working a mere 40 miles from each other.

The two groups agreeably jointly published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Two notes were published, (1) Dicke et al substantiated the Big Bang based on CMBR, and (2) Penzias et al noted the existence of 3.5 K CMBR universally.

In essence, Big Bang philosopher history of

In 1965, astronomers accidentally discovered faint microwave radiation coming from every direction in space. The Big Bang predicted decades earlier that if the universe began in an extremely hot state, it should leave behind cooled radiation filling the cosmos. That’s exactly what was found

deceives people.

Scientist’s, er, philosopher’s public CMBR deception

It is time to compare and contrast these data collections:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

Big Bang philosophers manipulation of statistics (mathematical nonsense) to arrive at “It has almost exactly the predicted temperature (2.725 K)” is a deeper lie and malevolent representation.

The astrophysicist Stephen Hawking said of astronomer astrologers, “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so keep his words in mind while reading the following.

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to Big Bang philosophers argument.

1. McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}

M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

M=P is false.

M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

Proof samples:

1. M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
2. M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
3. MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
4. MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
5. MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.

The result is M<P.

The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to Big Bang adherents star bible data upends their “the universe began in an extremely hot state” faith based statement.

Scientists like averages (mean), or medians, or blind faith guesses, such as your “2.725 K” CMBR temperature, so I present the mean temperature values to test their conclusion that there has been a decrease in the temperature over the years.

The data averaged:

1. McKellar (1941): 2.5
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): 3.5

2.5=3.5 is false.

2.5<3.5 is true.

1941<1965 is true.

3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.

1965-1941=24 is true.

The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD.

A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent’s requirement, but it’s just not there, so their CMBR is very bad evidence for their Big Bang.

The above dissection of astronomer astrologer data shows that these are each distinctly different surveys:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K is not isotropic agreement with Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K.

Statistical consolidation of the points is unreasonable because reasonable doubt has been cast by the potential for decreased temperature in earlier time thus anyone claiming increased temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data; in other words, one cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around their Big Bang timeframe which would make the differences in points statistically insignificant. The differences in points are statistically significant as a function of the recorded increase in temperature over the decades, yet astronomer astrologers exhibit Stephen Hawking’s quote, recorded above.

In other words, these measurements are in agreement with one another that the Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.

Deception of the CMBR is a very poor method to present the astronomer astrologers case.

Various sources of material for this whole CMBR section include “cosmic microwave background” of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Cosmic microwave background” of Wikipedia, and “A Review of the 1941 to 1961 CMBR Temperature Measurements” on ResearchGate.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is very bad evidence for the Big Bang. Logically, astronomer astrologers strong evidence of the CMBR represents strong grounds for disbelief in the Big Bang.

The premise that redshift collapses under the Scientific Method is incorrect; rather, redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon that has withstood rigorous testing for over a century. While alternative hypotheses like tired light or intrinsic redshift have been proposed to challenge the standard interpretation of cosmological expansion, they fail to account for key observational data, such as the time dilation of supernova light curves and the specific spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). 

The claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is "very bad evidence" for the Big Bang is contested; while mainstream cosmology regards the CMB as the strongest observational support for the theory, critics highlight specific anomalies and theoretical inconsistencies that they argue undermine its validity. 

Arguments Against the CMB as Evidence

1. The Horizon Problem: The CMB is remarkably isotropic (uniform in temperature), yet distant regions of the sky should not have had time to reach thermal equilibrium in a standard Big Bang model, leading to the horizon problem. 
2. Large-Scale Anomalies: Observations from satellites like Planck and WMAP have revealed unexplained features, such as the Axis of Evil (anomalous alignment) and the Cold Spot, which contradict the statistical expectations of standard cosmology. 
3. Alternative Origins: Some researchers propose the radiation is not primordial but locally generated (e.g., by interstellar dust or early galaxies), which would render the CMB a "red herring" rather than proof of a hot, dense beginning. 
4. Theoretical Contradictions: Certain critiques argue that standard cosmological calculations incorrectly predict the CMB’s blackbody spectrum and temperature, suggesting the model is internally inconsistent or that the radiation’s strength has been overestimated. 

Arguments Supporting the CMB as Evidence

1. Perfect Blackbody Spectrum: The CMB exhibits the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever observed in the universe, a prediction unique to the hot Big Bang’s early hot, dense plasma state. 
2. Failure of Alternatives: Alternative models, such as the Steady State theory or explanations involving redshifted starlight, fail to reproduce the CMB’s precise isotropy, temperature, and spectral characteristics. 
3. Consistency with Expansion: The radiation’s current microwave frequency and 2.7 K temperature are consistent with the cosmological redshift of high-energy photons from the early universe, matching the expansion predicted by the Big Bang. 
4. Lack of Viable Competitors: Despite anomalies, no alternative theory currently explains the full suite of CMB data—including its dipole anisotropy and minute fluctuations—better than the Big Bang model supplemented by inflation. 

The Big Bang Theory is referring to to the creation of the universe at a moment in time, it continues with the expansion of the universe over time. Scientists have found it aligns with the creation in Genesis which also had a beginning and developed over time.

@FLRW wrote in post #272: snip… redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon …snip

In typical nonscience scientist fashion, you stated as fact without any scientific method results as support for your unsupported statement, so you stated your leap of faith.

On the contrary, I provided the astrophysicist produced paper in which sstronomers discovered a quasar with an enormously ancient redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal). Red-shift as a distance and age calculator is falsified.

He provided other scientific theories to support his position on the Big Bang. He has not yet resorted to a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #273: The claim that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is “very bad evidence” for the Big Bang is contested; …snip

Mr. MIT Trained Nuclear Scientist,

By virtue of you contesting the quality of CMBR evidence, you admit that that your CMBR position is focused on grounds for belief; in other words, you have a leap of faith for your CMBR as a historical Universe age indicator. I previously presented the dictionary definition of “evidence” in post #25, and the “evidence” concept indicates “grounds for belief” or “grounds for disbelief”.

Not a single one of your points addressed my points presented in my post #271. I outlined the error of your history of the CMBR. I mathematically detailed the opposite of astronomer astrologer’s conclusion of decreasing temperature over time which places your/their increasing temperature going backward in time squarely as a leap of faith.

Your arguing against other people’s arguments illuminates your “scientific” inability to address my arguments recorded in my post #271.

Your good evidence for CMBR is red-shift (see your point 3), yet I demonstrated that redshift is poor evidence in my post #271.

You failed to show fact for your Big Bang, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@Debby wrote in post #276: @Kermos He provided other scientific theories to support his position on the Big Bang. He has not yet resorted to a leap of faith.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

Big Bang philosophers are in a leap of faith.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Faith is belief in someone, something or an idea often without needing absolute physical proof. The proof of the Big Bang is the universe which continues to expand. The ideas of the universe have a scientific basis and various pieces of evidence confirmed the theory in general. The Bible creation was a leap of faith till the Big Bang established the fact that creation too like the Big Bang had a beginning , took time to develop and expand. Today both creation and the Big Bang is accepted as the beginning of the universe developing and expanding with time.

@Debby wrote in post #279: snip… F …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence for the Big Bang.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Specific scientific method based analysis can be found in the big Bang theory and how they arrived at the conclusion. It was then adopted by the scientific community when it passed their scientific requirements.

@Debby wrote in post #281: @Kermos Specific scientific method based analysis can be found in the big Bang theory and how they arrived at the conclusion. It was then adopted by the scientific community when it passed their scientific requirements.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted recently repeated generalized emotion by you at the expense of specific evidence for the Big Bang.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@FLRW wrote in post #272: snip… redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon …snip

Mr. relative “to Albert Einstein through the Koch family”,

Astronomer astrologers conjured the Doppler effect for light as a successor to the Doppler effect for sound:

1. The Doppler effect for sound adheres to the scientific method.
2. The Doppler effect for light adheres not to the scientific method.

As shown in my post #271, the environment for sound in Earth’s atmosphere strikingly differs from the environment for light in space.

Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift

“A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts).

Einstein’s formula E=MC2 has high relation to red-shift. Red-shift’s high energy, high frequency light deteriorates into low energy, low frequency light at the time of emission, and astronomer astrologers believe this reveals age, distance, and/or direction of celestial objects. Einstein’s formula E=MC2 is in permanent equilibrium between energy (E) and mass (M) and speed_of_light (C). Since E=MC2 needs to be maintain equilibrium with the red-shift massless (M) photon, then the commutative property of mathematics keeps the equation’s balance by moving energy (E) to the speed_of_light (C). In essence, E=MC2 forces an increase to the speed of light under the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. redshift.

I obtained the following from 4.5: The Doppler Effect at LibreTexts with respect to red-shift:

The relationship between the degree of shift in wavelength to the speed of the object is found by:

Apparent wavelength/true frequency = true wavelength/apparent frequency = 1 + recession velocity/wave speed.

Since the speed of light in a vacuum, c, is a constant, the speed of the object can be found with the following equation:

Δλ/λ = v/c

Where Δλ is the change in wavelength, λ is the normal or laboratory wavelength of the light, and v is the relative speed of the source toward or away from the observer.

No scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift), so your Δλ/λ = v/c formula is akin to the William and Valdemar example of post #118 showing the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error.

You need to mess with adjusting the C (constant representing the speed of light at 186,000 miles per second) in Einstein’s E=MC2, but you are left with a MESS in so doing because light pushes beyond 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles per billion years which translates to light moving faster, much faster than your C of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles per billion years (a.k.a. velocity well beyond 186,000 miles per second), so light speedily traverses the 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mile distance in some unknown amount of the time, for example, maybe 2 days. I remind you in my post #199 to you regarding Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory where I detailed that Rowland explained a time element is absent from E=MC2.

Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light exists not; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rung is a leap of faith.

Yes, the Doppler effect applies to light as well as sound and other waves.

How It Works for Light

1. Relative Motion: When a light source and an observer move toward or away from each other, the observed frequency and wavelength of the light change.
2. Blue Shift: If the light source moves toward the observer, the light waves are compressed into shorter wavelengths, shifting the light toward the blue end of the spectrum (higher frequency).
3. Red Shift: If the light source moves away from the observer, the light waves are stretched into longer wavelengths, shifting the light toward the red end of the spectrum (lower frequency).

Key Differences from Sound

1. No Medium Required: Sound needs air or another medium to travel through, but light can travel through a vacuum.
2. Relativistic Effects: Because light travels at a constant maximum speed, calculating the Doppler shift for light requires using Einstein's theory of special relativity, which accounts for time dilation.
3. Everyday Scale: You do not notice the Doppler effect for light in everyday life because objects do not move fast enough relative to the speed of light to cause a visible color change. However, astronomers routinely use it to measure the speed and direction of distant stars and galaxies.

There are so differences in the results when the theories are put to the test. But that is no sufficient to discard the theory. Some adjustments are required.

@FLRW wrote in post #272: snip… redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon …snip

MITman,

Circular reasoning dominates your and astronomer astrologer’s star bible red-shift.

Scientific method experiment, observation, and confirmation are all missing for red-shift.

The nonscience red-shift hypothesis points at the conclusion while the nonscience red-shift conclusion points back at the hypothesis.

This red-shift hypothesis:

red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.

points at this red-shift conclusion:

stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.

yet, this red-shift conclusion points at this red-shift hypothesis:

red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.

and the loop continues because this red-shift hypothesis points at this red-shift conclusion:

stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.

and your circular reasoning loop goes on and on. Red-shift is nonsense nonscience.

Astronomer astrologers declare their Big Bang star bible is right because they say their Big Bang star bible declares itself right.

This post extends post #283.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith built on red-shift that is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang is still the only major scientific theory about the universe. Now that they are able to measure the expanding rate of the universe. They had to make some adjustments. The Big Bang is the only theory taught in schools throughout the world at a academic level.

@FLRW wrote in post #284: Yes, the Doppler effect applies to light as well as sound and other waves.

Only in your fantasy because you clumsily neglected to address the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” of my post #283 to you. Your composition is riddled with belief without proof (assumptions).

You are incapable of debating scientific method fact just as the evidence of your postings show that you fail to logically argue against my posts to you (another case in point, besides the current, is post 258 which you STILL fail to logically argue against the "Coup de Grâce: Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model).

The Doppler effect applies not to light, so your red-shift for your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

You make a good case. He has fallen far short of the mark.

I am going to act presidential here. You are dumb as fuck.

I am going to act presidential here. You are dumb as fuck.

The statement is incorrect; the Doppler effect does apply to light.  Similar to sound, the observed frequency of light changes when there is relative motion between the source and the observer. 

1. Blueshift: When a light source moves toward an observer, the light waves are compressed, resulting in a higher frequency and shorter wavelength, shifting the light toward the blue end of the spectrum. 
2. Redshift: When a light source moves away from an observer, the light waves are stretched, resulting in a lower frequency and longer wavelength, shifting the light toward the red end of the spectrum. 

Unlike sound, which requires a medium (like air) and uses classical equations, the Doppler effect for light is governed by special relativity.  This is known as the relativistic Doppler effect, which accounts for the fact that light travels at a constant speed (c) in all reference frames and incorporates time dilation.  This phenomenon is fundamental in astronomy for measuring the radial velocity of stars and galaxies, such as the expansion of the universe. 

The statement is incorrect; the Doppler effect does apply to light.  Similar to sound, the observed frequency of light changes when there is relative motion between the source and the observer. 

1. Blueshift: When a light source moves toward an observer, the light waves are compressed, resulting in a higher frequency and shorter wavelength, shifting the light toward the blue end of the spectrum. 
2. Redshift: When a light source moves away from an observer, the light waves are stretched, resulting in a lower frequency and longer wavelength, shifting the light toward the red end of the spectrum. 

Unlike sound, which requires a medium (like air) and uses classical equations, the Doppler effect for light is governed by special relativity.  This is known as the relativistic Doppler effect, which accounts for the fact that light travels at a constant speed (c) in all reference frames and incorporates time dilation.  This phenomenon is fundamental in astronomy for measuring the radial velocity of stars and galaxies, such as the expansion of the universe. 

SomRek said "The Doppler effect applies not to light," See, he is dumb as fuck.

The Doppler effect does apply to light. But you might still be right about him.

@FLRW wrote in post #272: snip… redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon …snip

FLRW, the scientific method’s hypothesis phase requires a natural phenomenon just as LiveScience indicates with “A scientific hypothesis is a tentative, testable explanation for a phenomenon in the natural world. It’s the initial building block in the scientific method” (again, see the LiveScience link in the original post or select this LiveScience link).

Red-shift’s hypothesis violates the scientific method because man observes not a natural phenomenon (stars detectably receding) in order to “discover” the explanation for said natural phenomenon, so red-shift is part of the astronomer astrologer’s magical, mystical star bible.

In Truth (John 14:6), red-spectral light “is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon”.

FLRW, you lampoon science with your “redshift is a robust, empirically verified phenomenon” deception.

This post extends post #286.

In fact, the Big Bang fails the scientific method’s hypothesis phase because no human observed your purported Big Bang natural phenomenon; therefore, the Big Bang is disqualified as scientific fact, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang has not been disqualified by scientist. The evidence that support it are still valid.

Debby wrote in post #287: @Kermos The Big Bang is …snip

Debby wrote in post #289: @Kermos You make a …snip

Debby wrote in post #297: @Kermos The Big …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@FLRW wrote in post #290: @Kermos I am going to act presidential here. You are dumb as fuck.

@FLRW wrote in post #291: …snip…

@FLRW wrote in post #294: …snip…

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted extremely emotional content at the expense of intelligent MIT certified nuclear scientist quality specific evidence. Your vulgar demeanor epitomizes the Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71 for details).

If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

@FLRW wrote in post #292: The statement is incorrect; the Doppler effect does apply to light.  Similar to sound …snip

MITman flops again,

Circular reasoning dominates your and astronomer astrologer’s star bible red-shift.

Scientific method experiment, observation, and confirmation are all missing for red-shift (the Doppler effect for light).

The nonscience red-shift hypothesis points at the conclusion while the nonscience red-shift conclusion points back at the hypothesis.

This red-shift hypothesis:

red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.

points at this red-shift conclusion:

stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.

yet, this red-shift conclusion points at this red-shift hypothesis:

red spectral light received from a star in space indicates the star’s direction of travel away and great distance from Earth.

and the loop continues because this red-shift hypothesis points at this red-shift conclusion:

stars receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion trail longer red spectral light.

and your circular reasoning loop goes on and on - that’s called an infinite loop, MITman. Red-shift is nonsense nonscience.

Astronomer astrologers declare their Big Bang star bible is right because they say their Big Bang star bible declares itself right.

The scientific method supports the Doppler effect for sound.

This post extends post #283.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith built on red-shift that is a leap of faith.