@FLRW wrote in post #293: The statement is incorrect; the Doppler effect does apply to light. Similar to sound …snip

Mr. relative “to Albert Einstein through the Koch family” - FLRW with your prestigious MIT issued nuclear scientist collegiate certificate, who repeats his red-shift leap of faith responses lacking scientific method based evidence (aka ground for belief (post #25),

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.

Your nonsense nonscience statement resides in your fantasy because the waves are fundamentally different waves. Sound waves vibrate a molecule maintaining localized proximity yet transferring energy to the next molecule which repeats the cycle through the Earth’s atmosphere; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles; therefore, the Doppler effect applies to sound, but the Doppler effect applies not to light (see also post #53).

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.

The Redshift and Doppler effect strongly support the Big Bang theory by showing that distant galaxies are moving away from us which indicates an expanding universe.

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

In a well illuminated display of historical ignorance by a MIT graduate nuclear scientist, you omitted the ancient historian and astronomer Ptolemy’s record that the star named Sirius, known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt, was described as red, but Sirius is currently blue. This change describes (1) a stellar u-turn from an Earth bound vantage point which astronomer astrologers claim cannot occur as rapidly as the Sirius change time-line, or (2) Sirius merely producing higher concentration of blue-spectral light instead of red-spectral light.

I demonstrated the Big Bang is a leap of faith in my post #271, including the good evidence about human witness record of Sirius’ red to blue change of color.

Ancient descriptions describe the bright Sirius as fiery red or ruddy around 2000 years ago.

Modern appearance. Sirius is clearly a brilliant blue-white star today. While the red-blue shift in Cosmology relates to light spectra in an expanding universe, but neither involves Sirius changing colour because of the Big Bang.

Sirius appears blue-white today, but ancient descriptions of it as red are likely due to atmospheric scintillation or metaphorical usage rather than actual rapid stellar evolution.

Why Ancient Writers Saw Red

1. Atmospheric effects: Stars low on the horizon often twinkle with red, yellow, or green flashes due to atmospheric refraction, especially when viewed during heliacal rising.
2. Cultural metaphors: Ancient astronomers like Ptolemy used "red" or "ruddy" to denote a dim, hazy, or ominous star signaling a poor harvest, rather than a precise modern color spectrum.
3. Stellar physics: Modern astrophysics shows that a star like Sirius cannot change from a red giant to a blue-white main-sequence star in just a couple of thousand years, as that evolutionary timeline takes millions of years.

It has take over 2000 years to change from red to blue.

@Debby wrote in post #272: @Kermos Ancient descriptions describe the bright Sirius as fiery red or ruddy around 2000 years ago. Modern appearance. Sirius is clearly a brilliant blue-white star today. While the red-blue shift in Cosmology relates to light spectra in an expanding universe, but neither involves Sirius changing colour because of the Big Bang.

Since current astrophysicists, astronomers, and university professors preach, teach, and believe the red-shift and blue-shift doctrine, then Sirius changing color has serious problematic consequences for the Big Bang.

You should understand physics before you post, Debby, because FLRW’s 3rd point in his post which follows your post (and to which you replied in your post #306) shows the astronomer astrologers urgent requirement to crush their theological opposition about Sirius changing from red to blue because such a serious Sirius change in color proves their Big Bang god is false.

You finally correspond about evidence after so many emotional posts, but you essentially admit the light arriving at Earth is merely “light spectra” which is the point I conveyed before you posted.

Your purported “expanding universe” viewport is far, far too small to determine whether the universe is expanding, see the Episcopic Model, spatial limitations, too vast a visage, in post #53 and the Zenith Model, temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan, in post #53.

Redshift is proof of an expanding universe.

@FLRW wrote in post #305: Sirius appears blue-white today, but ancient descriptions of it as red are likely due to atmospheric scintillation or metaphorical usage rather than actual rapid stellar evolution. Why Ancient Writers Saw Red 1. Atmospheric effects: …snip… 2. Cultural metaphors: …snip… 3. Stellar physics: Modern astrophysics shows that a star like Sirius cannot change from a red giant to a blue-white main-sequence star in just a couple of thousand years, as that evolutionary timeline takes millions of years

Ptolemy of Alexandria Egypt was an astronomer, not merely one of your “Ancient Writers”, but also a mathematician.

The temporal and physical proximity of Ptolemy in Alexandria with the historically renowned Library of Alexandria in Egypt placed Ptolemy in a position to readily acquire information about a red Sirius for his works from said library. Recall that you wrote “Ancient Writers”.

You are so religiously zealous for your Big Bang that you personally disqualified the mathematician and astronomer Ptolemy of Alexandria Egypt.

Your points apply to astronomer Lemaître, astronomer Hubble, astronomer Hawking, astronomer Sagan, astronomer deGrasse Tyson, nuclear scientist you FLRW, and other astronomer astrologers etc. What Modern Writers conjure

1. Atmospheric effects: Lemaître, Hubble, Hawking, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, you, etc built a faulty cosmic distance ladder with data collected from the Earth’s surface which suffered from distortion by traveling through the Earth’s atmosphere (see your point 1).
2. Cultural metaphors: Lemaître, Hubble, Hawking, Sagan, deGrasse Tyson, you, etc ‘used “red”’ “to denote” star’s direction of travel and/or distance from Earth and/or velocity of which you all contribute to your Big Bang Theory culture.
3. Stellar physics: “Modern astrophysics” models lack any tolerance for “a star like Sirius” to “change from a red” “to a blue” “star in just a couple of thousand years, as that evolutionary timeline takes millions of years.” Therefore, “Modern astrophysics” models are broken thus “Modern astrophysics” is a Big Bang leap of faith.

This post continues post #303.

You believe astronomer Hubble’s bubble red-shift, but you disbelieve astronomer Ptolemy’s perceived red-spectral.

Your science is biased, so you fail to exercise the objective scientific method.

You exalt yourself as a godlike authority to disqualify the human witness of a red Sirius by Ptolemy of Alexandria, but you merely preach your nonsense nonscience Big Bang belief.

Those who are not familiar with science, accepting the Big Bang theory would be a leap of faith.

@Debby wrote in post #306: @Kermos Redshift is proof of an expanding universe.

Your statement is for people, like you, who disbelieve facts (look at you neglect evidence (grounds for belief, see post #25) based response to post #301.

Your statement is for people, like you, who believe that fantasy is proof (look at you omit proof while you fail to understand the physics models as demonstrated in post #307).

Your statement is for people, like you, who believe the magical, mystical red-shift Roman Catholic Church priest Lemaître preached. In post #214, I detailed that astronomer astrologer Lemaître disobeyed Lord Jesus Christ who is the Son of God, and John the Baptist declared “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (John 3:36). But it gets worse for antichrist Lemaître and his followers because as a liar, Liar Lemaître did the works of his father (John 8:41) described by Jesus with “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

Not only is your “Redshift is proof of an expanding universe” statement a leap of faith, but you and your statement lacks solid evidence, omits sound logic, neglects realistic reasoning, and most critically opposes the Truth (John 14:6).

In the 1920$ EdwinHubble discovered that almost all distant galaxies show a redshift.

@Debby wrote in post #310: @Kermos Those who are not familiar with science, accepting the Big Bang theory would be a leap of faith.

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”.

@Debby wrote in post #312: @Kermos In the 1920$ EdwinHubble discovered that almost all distant galaxies show a redshift.

What was it that you wrote in post #310? Ah, yes, it was “Those who are not familiar with science, accepting the Big Bang theory would be a leap of faith”.

I scientifically detailed how red-shift breaks under Einstein’s Special Relativity formula E=MC2 causing the 186,000 miles per second speed limit of light to be shattered in my post #301 a very short distance above your post. Red-shift is merely red-spectral, but you believe your magical, mystical astronomer astrologer Roman Catholic Church priest Lemaître’s preaching the Big Bang with Hubble’s redshift universe expansion as detailed in post #313.

Astronomer astrologer Edwin Hubble interpreted red-spectral light which is bad evidence for the existence of red-shift. Hubble was a liar about red-shift. Hubble had no proof that he was looking at anything more than red-spectral light.

You sell-described yourself as one of “Those who are not familiar with science, accepting the Big Bang theory would be a leap of faith”.

Your profile does of mention any of your science qualifications. To you the Big Bang is a leap of faith. I practice science asa therapist.

I scientifically detailed how red-shift breaks under Einstein’s Special Relativity formula E=MC2 causing the 186,000 miles per second speed limit of light to be shattered in my post #301 to you, the namesake FLRW spacetime scientist expert, but you remain silent about this Big Bang breakdown!

The physical phenomenon of redshift has not been disproven, It is a thoroughly documented and measured observation in physics and astronomy. Cosmological redshift, Doppler redshift and Gravitational redshift.

@Debby wrote in post #315: @Kermos Your profile does of mention any of your science qualifications. To you the Big Bang is a leap of faith. I practice science asa therapist

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

You believe your astronomer astrologer Roman Catholic Church priest Georges Lemaître’s preaching the Big Bang with Edwin Hubble’s redshift universe expansion as detailed in post #313, but red-shift is merely red-spectral, yet you, self-described Scientist, believe Lemaître’s nonsense nonscience instead of you believing Jesus Christ as detailed in post #214 which means you are not a Christian.

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”.

Einstein did not disprove redshift. In fact gravitational redshift is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

@Debby wrote in post #317: @Kermos The physical phenomenon of redshift has not been disproven, It is a thoroughly documented and measured observation in physics and astronomy. Cosmological redshift, Doppler redshift and Gravitational redshift.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence.

I scientifically detailed how no scientific method procedure used a man controlled, receding, light emmitting object to measure a purported frequency shift of light (more specifically, red-shift) in my post #301 only a little way above your post, but you fail to provide scientific method evidence as support for your "thoroughly documented and measured observation for red-shift!

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”.

Even Einstein did not disprove redshift. It is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

@Debby wrote in post #319: @Kermos Einstein did not disprove redshift. In fact gravitational redshift is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

You failed to understand the science of “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” in post #301 with it’s implications. Red-shift is merely red-spectral. Astronomer astrologer Hubble interpreted red-spectral light using his magical, mystical formulation, and he leads you and has led many others away to hell with his red-shift sorcery.

Einstein’s Relativity theories are demonstrated to be Big Bang believer’s leap of faith in these interrelated posts:

1. post #61
2. post #87
3. post #93
4. post #199
5. post #258
6. post #301.

The Big Bang is your leap of faith.

Flogging a dead horse now Kermos...Nonetheless I will remind you again.

The "BIG BANG" is a general theory of universal creation and development and therefore as such, does not require any leaping about...Just take it or leave it.

Whereas a magic man living forever, who in a fit of boredom decided to wave his wand and make a universe, is perhaps a tad jumpier...But hey, one can also just take it or leave it.

I prefer the blancmange hypothesis...Not that I leapt.

The alternate theory to the Big Bang is the creation story in the Bible. But end with the same conclusion a beginning , slow development and an expanding universe. Obviously scientist are behind the Big Bang.

@Debby wrote in post #321: @Kermos Even Einstein did not disprove redshift.

FLRW Spacetime Cancelled By E=MC2

As per “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” in post #301, Einstein’s Special Relativity E=MC2 causes the speed of light to do precisely that which physicists declare cannot be done - LIGHT BURSTING SPEEDILY BEYOND THE 186,000 MILES PER SECOND SPEED LIMIT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF RED-SHIFT. This is a violation of the Robertson-Walker Metric (RW Metric) which is astronomer astrologers formulaic assumption of a uniform universe with characteristics of (1) isotropy (same in all directions) and (2) homogeneity (constant density). That RW is in FLRW, Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker. You might recall the user named @FLRW who refuses to respond to post #301, regarding E=MC2.

Einstein’s E=MC2 calculates the impossibility of red-shift as per astronomer astrologers’ own rules.

Red-shift is merely red-spectral, so red-shift is an evolutionist’s leap of faith. The Big Bang bang is a leap of faith.

@Debby wrote in post #321: It is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

Calculate Versus Predict

Einstein calculated his formulas, and Einstein conjured up his theories, but Einstein did not predict anything (see post #82 for the dictionary definition of predict which is foretell).

@Debby wrote in post #321: It is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

Your Dilemma

If you believe that Einstein correctly calculated his formulas, then you believe in the demise of redshift and the Hubble Bubble pops and the Big Bang goes bust.

@Debby wrote in post #321: It is a fundamental prediction of his General theory of relativity.

You failed to explain the “how” in relation to your statement and the title of this thread You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

No other theory has replaced the Big Bang theory. Which proves how well it stands in the scientific community.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #323: @Kermos Flogging a dead horse now

How dare you call @Debby a horse!

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #323: …snip… The “BIG BANG” is a general theory …snip

As a theory (see post #20 for the dictionary definition of theory), the Big Bang is a belief, that is your leap of faith!

Your linguistical ineptitude is on full display in your writing.

You don’t have the science (knowledge) to refute my post #301 nor it’s associated post #325, do you?

You are in fantasy land with your Big Bang leap of faith.

Major space agencies like NASA and European Space Agency support the Big Bang Theory.

@Kermos

I argue that the premise is a fundamentally flawed contradiction...Extensive science knowledge is irrelevant.

Scientific theory does not require belief...The clue is in the word "theory".

Therefore "Leap of Faith" is an irrelevant secondary epithet that contradicts to the primary epithet "Big Bang Theory".

The contradiction therefore perfectly satisfies the enquiry...You show yourself that The Big Bang Theory is not a Leap of Faith.

Not really an alternative Deb's.

The whole event is presumably some sort of creation and development thing.

It's just that popular Middle Eastern Magic Man Theory began a few thousand years ago rather than at a beginning point...Not forgetting that "The Bible" mythology was written a few thousand years later than that.