@FLRW, I point out your lack of logic in the below about the Big Bang, so you are left with a Big Bang leap of faith. This post continues my response to your post #341.

@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.

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, FLRW, refused to respond to the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section regarding astronomer astrologers utter confusion about the impossible relationship between E=MC2 and red-shift.

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

Hubble’s Law depends upon red-shift, but red-shift is merely red-spectral, so Hubble’s Law is an evolutionist’s leap of faith, not even a law, just faith. The Big Bang bang is a leap of faith.

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.

A scientific theory is different from just a theory. It has to meet the standards of science.

We're talking about science

But are you talking about a theory or a scientific theory like the Big Bang?

Right...Conjecture is a synonym and guess is a synonym for conjecture.

Hey, Darwin has a big theory but try telling that to a religious nutcase.

And religious nutcases have theories of their own.

So a broadly accepted theory never quite cuts the mustard...Chiefly because it can never be proven.

But scientific theories are different and backed by science. That is why the Big Bang is a scientific theory backed by science.

For sure, but even if backed by bananas, theories remain theoretical.

A theory that is unequivocally proven becomes a fact.

So a lemon was once thought to be a yellow orange...But not anymore.

Not to mention limes and satsumas.

Nor grapefruits.

Scientific theory is back by massive amounts of verifiable evidence unlike ordinary theories which are just a hunch, guess or personal opinion.

Red-shift is not merely red-spectral; it is a shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible red light.

1. Terminology: The term "red" indicates the direction of the shift (toward the red end of the visible spectrum), but the effect applies to radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
2. Physical Meaning: Red-shift signifies that the wavelength of light has been stretched (increased) due to the source moving away from the observer or the expansion of space.
3. Observation: Astronomers detect this by measuring the displacement of known spectral lines (fingerprints of elements like hydrogen) toward longer wavelengths, regardless of whether the resulting light is visible to the human eye. 

Yep but still nonetheless theories rather than known facts.

So not the BIG BANG FACT, despite massive amounts of verifiable science evidence.

And like I always say...No BIG BANG at all... Because no ears...And that's a fact.

But are you talking about a theory or a scientific theory like the Big Bang?

We're talking about science

Hey, Darwin has a big theory but try telling that to a religious nutcase.

And religious nutcases have theories of their own.

So a broadly accepted theory never quite cuts the mustard...Chiefly because it can never be proven.

You do know what a theory is in science right?

Unlike an ordinary theory, scientific theory is backed by massive amounts of verifiable evidence .

Well theory is theory and science is science and we use scientific method to test theory.

Theory is a proposal based upon incomplete evidence, so we utilise established scientific method in order to assess a proposal, thereby we maybe establish facts, falsehoods or the proposal remains incomplete...As far as creation and existence is concerned BIG BANG is still no more than a woolly epithet that might or might not reasonably describe a momentous universal event...As it stands BIG BANG is incomplete and still theoretical...Right?

It is a scientific theory that is well accepted in the scientific community and the Big Bang theory is taught in schools throughout the world.

Theory is a proposal based upon incomplete evidence

No. That's the colloquial usage of the term, which is why I specifically asked if you know what the term means in science.

In science, a theory is the graduation point at which we accept a proposed explanation for set of facts as the unequivocally accepted model for how the universe works. If explanations had ambitions, every explanation would aspire to one day become a theory.

As it stands BIG BANG is incomplete and still theoretical...Right?

No. That's why we call it the Big Bang *Theory*.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: The Big Bang theory is supported by massive empirical evidence gathered through the scientific method,

I intend to interrogate you via your arguments as to whether the scientific method applies. I draw on post #53’s content, but the scientist, that you are, failed to science (know) that post #53 addressed your post before you posted your post even with me pointing you to post #53 beforehand.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: proving that the universe originated from an extremely hot, dense state and has been expanding ever since.

Your verbiage of “proving” elevated your bar to equivalency with scientific fact for the Big Bang; in other words, you are absolutely, positively, certain that the Big Bang occurred 13,800,000,000 years, but nobody was there to witness your Big Bang, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: Main Evidentiary Pillars

My post #361 used E=MC2 in the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section to prove the error of your “Main Evidentiary Pillars”!

@FLRW wrote in post #348: 1. Hubble-Lemaître Law (Expansion of the Universe): In 1929, astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that distant galaxies move away from us, with speed proportional to distance, showing space itself expands.

You provided absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based “Hubble-Lemaître Law (Expansion of the Universe)”!

The Hubble Law is centered on red-shift, and the Hubble Bubble pops without red-shift.

1. Red-shift Is Merely Red-spectral

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

Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method

First, I introduce you to an examination of red-shift, which you base on the so-called doppler effect of light, in the light of the scientific method:

1. Phase: activity
2. hypothesis: red spectral light emits from a star in space indicating the star recedes away Earth and the star’s great distance from Earth.
3. experiment: no test cases.
4. observation: none of experiments.
5. conclusion: a star receding away from Earth with distances of monumental proportion emit 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.

Astronomer astrologers, such as Hubble and Lemaître, engaged in circular reasoning between their hypothesis and conclusion, so their logic is flawed, and so is your logic by extension.

This circular reasoning is nonsense scientists saying “I correctly science the proof because I correctly science facts, and you are wrong because I science right”. All the while, those nonsense nonscience scientists don’t science (know) with the scientific method.

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your 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, and astrophysics declare that it’s impossible, yet human witness indicates that the change from red to blue occurred, so your red-shift falls apart based on recorded history.

Conclusion for your pillar of red-shift

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

Red-shift is a magical, mystical interpretation of red-spectral light without a scientific method based explanation of “why” or “how”.

I need to dig into your ridiculously miniscule observational window in terms of space and time in this post.

The good evidence contradicts your section “1. Hubble-Lemaître Law (Expansion of the Universe)”. You have very bad evidence for your faith in the Big Bang.

Your star bible’s red-shift massive star direction teaching and distance doctrine is a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: 2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation: Detected in 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe.

You provided absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based “Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation”!

Nobody measured your purported “microwave glow fills all space” from the vantage point of “all space” in order to make your ridiculously faith based statement. Your CMB is not of the scientific method, and I am about to show you that your CMB claim disintegrates even further!

2. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

I present to you the history recorded by others which reveals CMB was a known quantity decades before 1964. This directly derails your “predicted” “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 (your alma mater), 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.

McKellar recorded the CMBR in 1941, so the CMBR was a known quantity by the time of Penzias et. al. as well as Dicke et. al.; therefore, neither Penzias et. al. nor Dicke et. al. “predicted” anything. You wrote deception.

In essence, your history of using something like the RW Metric (see post #361 for RW Metric details) deceives people, including you.

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

Your manipulation of statistics (mathematical nonsense) to arrive at “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” is a deeper lie and malevolent representation.

Your astrophysicist high priest Stephen Hawking issued the condemnation of astronomer astrologers with “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so you keep his words in mind while reading the following.

CMBR UnSETtling Theory

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your 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 potentially indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” writing.

CMBR Average Disformity

Scientists like averages (mean), or medians, or blind faith guesses, such as the astronomer astrologer’s current magical, mystical 2.7255 K CMBR nonsense nonscience 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 your CMBR is very bad evidence for your Big Bang.

CMBR Logical Conclusion

The above dissection of historical 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, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your 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 your 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.

Your section “2. Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation” is very bad evidence for the Big Bang.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: 3. Abundance of Light Elements: Observations of primordial nucleosynthesis confirm that the amounts of hydrogen, helium, and lithium in space match calculations of reactions in the early universe.

You supplied absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based “Abundance of Light Elements”!

Nobody made your purported “Observations of primordial nucleosynthesis” because nobody was there during your and Lemaître’s “primordial” leap of faith based “before mankind existed” timeframe in order to observe your fantasy “primordial nucleosynthesis” as a natural phenomena for the scientific method’s hypothesis phase.

An example is needed, here.

When astronomer astrologer William sess light in the sky then formulates an equation to match what he sees then solves his flawed formula about cosmic evolution in London and astrophysicist Valdemar solves the same flawed formula in Copenhagen arriving at the same flawed result, then confirmation occurred which is truly confirmation of an error, yet William and Valdemar believe the formula with their ensuing result are good evidence.

William and Valdemar’s work was not based fully on the scientific method of hypothesis (concept based on observation of natural phenomenon), experiment (test with natural ingredients in controlled environment), observation (natural ingredients reproduce the hypothesis), conclusion (reasonable thoughts of prior steps), and repeatability (confirmation under similar circumstances).

William and Valdemar excluded hypothesis (not an observed in natural phenomenon), experiment (replaced by formula/model), observation (the hypothesis is calculated/speculated not reproduced).

See Hawking’s “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so your vaunted astronomer astrologer Hawking laid out your leap of faith long ago.

3. Prideful man sees light in the heavens and says to himself, “there is no god” (Psalm 14:1)

A prediction exposes a future person, place, or thing. The Big Bang purportedly existed as a thing of the past.

In your “3. Abundance of Light Elements” section, your broken linguistics wrongly utilize predict (foretell, see post #82) for your past thing (Big Bang).

I present a real example of a prediction. Unless you think differently after an encounter with the Word of God, you will surely die in your crimes against the Living God who created you (Luke 13:5). See, I’m referring to the future.

Your section 3 fails to adhere to the Scientific Method in all aspects. Your hypothesis and conclusion are the same which leads you to circular reasoning. Nobody observed a natural phenomenon that you call the Big Bang, so your hypothesis is null and void. You have no experimentation, so you have no observations of said experimentation. Repeatability exists not. You do not have science because you actually have sorcery about your light recipes which you presented.

You leap to faith for your abundance of light as support for your Big Bang.

@FLRW wrote in post #348: 4. Age of Oldest Objects: Stellar ages and white dwarf cooling rates measure out to roughly 13.5 to 13.8 billion years, aligning tightly with calculated cosmological timelines.

You provided absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based “Age of Oldest Objects”!

Your total leap of faith based “white dwarf cooling rates measure out to roughly 13.5 to 13.8 billion years” entirely lacks scientific method based fact support in your post!

4. Galaxies change

Galaxies changing over time does not indicate that a Big Bang occurred. The Earth revolves around the Sun, so this results in change for the Milky Way Galaxy, yet the Earth’s orbit is by no means proof of your fantasy Big Bang Theory.

If you looked at a small galaxy, then all you science (know) is that you saw a small galaxy in relation to your location. You know (1) not whether the galaxy is truly large and very distant, (2) not whether the galaxy is truly small and very near, (3) not the luminosity at the galaxy, and (4) not the galaxy size as an age determinant. Your “Stellar ages” “aligning tightly with calculated cosmological timelines” is an astoundingly unscientific theory (conjecture) which makes your conjecture a leap of belief/faith.

During your Big Bang, the speed of light was greatly exceeded. You do not know whether current conditions conducive to exceeding the speed of light exist out in the vastness of space; therefore, nonsense nonscience scientist’s “When we look billions of light-years away, we’re looking billions of years into the past”, presented as fact by types such as yourself, is truly a leap of faith based statement.

Your “Monumental Star Distance Conversion Calculator To Massive Star Age Calculations” are based on light speed of 186,000 MPS, but the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section in post #361 details that Einstein’s relativity theories result in the speed of light far outpacing the astronomer astrologer’s top speed of 186,000 miles per second, so your calculator for star age is broken. This illuminates a higher degree of error for your “Age of Oldest Objects” section.

The Zenith Model

I examine just how untenable it is for you to believe you can accumulate sufficient data to draw conclusions about an event 13.8 billion years ago.

Carl Sagan wrote Cosmos, and in Cosmos, Sagan presented his Cosmic Calendar representing 13.8 billion years as a conventional single calendar year with January 1st as the Big Bang and December 31st as the current time. Are you familiar with Sagan’s work?

Sagan’s calculations put the birth of Christ on December 31st at 23:59:55. That’s mere seconds before the end of the calendar year.

Each second on the Cosmic Calendar corresponds to 438 Earth years, According to historians, Hans Lippershey applied for a “telescope” patent in 1608, and astronomical observations were initiated by Galileo Galilei using an improved design. For your sake in this model, I’ll give you the more ancient date of 1608 which is 417 years of documentary evidence for telescopes which is one second at the very end of that Cosmic Calendar year.

You believe you collected sufficient data about the Big Bang through such a negligibly small window, one second out of 31,536,000 seconds as represented by Sagan’s Cosmic Calendar.

As an aside, Edwin Hubble is largely credited by the scientific community with discovering in 1924 that almost all galaxies are moving away from Earth, about 100 years ago, which is the last one-quarter second of 23:55:59 on December 31st. Further distilling the times into equal time segments, each unit being equal to 0.25 of 1 second, the ratio is 1:126,144,000 for your data collection since Hubble’s work.

Back to giving you the full second.

The model also needs to compensate for space, and I’m extending a beneficial handicap to you. I’ll only calculate for an X-axis, and I’ll skip the Y-axis and Z-axis. Light reportedly travels at 186,000 miles per second, so one light year is about 6 trillion miles (6,000,000,000,000 miles).

Earth is 8 light minutes from the Sun, so the field of measurement is about 16 light minutes (2,976,000 miles diameter of orbit).

Scientists speculate the solar system is about 4 light years across (24,000,000,000,000 miles).

Our own Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light-years (600,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across according to NASA personnel, and they estimate that the observable universe is about 92 billion light-years (552,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles) across.

As of Feb. 1, 2020, Voyager 1 is about 13.8 billion miles (13,800,000,000 miles) from the Sun.

Let’s pretend CMBR data, telemetry data, and such continues to flow back to Earth’s scientists from Voyager 1 collected with instruments congruent with 2025 technology instead of 1977 technology; in other words, I’m giving you another big fat handicap.

Your data collection ratio is 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 miles. That ratio is a linear X-axis - excluding the compounding effect of the Y-axis and the Z-axis.

Scientists collected data across 13.8:552,000,000,000,000 distance units spanning 1:31,536,000 time units (a.k.a. 438:13,800,000,000 time units). This is conservatively favorable to your advantage.

I observe that you collected data over an insufficient time frame in an insignificantly sized sampling region.

In conclusion, the Big Bang Theory is not science, and the Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Scientists had a leap of faith with a data reading in time - a sliver of time - in a sliver of space. No detailed temperature with speed including specific path history embedded in the particles exists. Bi Bang scientists are not doing science because they are doing sorcery.

The above is titled the Zenith Model.

Your “4. Age of Oldest Objects” section is laden with assumptions, that is, your believing without proof (see thefreedictionary.com/assumption).

@FLRW wrote in post #348:Opinions are mixed regarding the absolute origin of singularities versus alternative models like eternal inflation, though observations heavily favor the standard hot Big Bang framework.

The “Opinions” to which you refer are beliefs, not proof, not scientific fact, but are leaps of faith.

5. The Cosmic Distance Ladder is a poorly formed faith

As you coalesced your prior four points into your “observations heavily favor the standard hot Big Bang framework”, your astronomer astrologer cosmic distance ladder, which you as a scientist failed to specifically name, emerges with broken and missing rungs as distinctively enumerated above; in other words, your Big Bang is a leap of faith as evidenced above. In fact, the following obliterates your foundational rungs.

The Episcopic Model

Now, I arrived at your cosmic distance ladder or your “star bible” as I put it. You have a book of your forefathers, and that book was developed with less mature technology as compared to your current instruments.

A galaxy candidate named HDI is pegged at 13.5 billion light years from Earth by astronomers who put HDI in the early universe of only about 300 million years after the Big Bang.

The astronomer astrologers cannot use parallax in combination with the inverse square law because of the hyper super-small angles (even in arcseconds), the requirement to know the luminosity at the source, or the requirement to know the distance to the object.

Astronomers already claim to know the distance without visiting the source to determine the brightness.

This leaves telescopes for determining the distance.

Astronomers claim that telescopes provides evidence for you, even that telescopes enable you to determine the distance from Earth to celestial bodies many light years away.

If you take a first measurement to a particular object in space from a telescope on Earth on June 21 and a second reading on December 21 of the same year, then you can use the angle-side-angle geometric formula to determine the distance to the object.

For the purposes of this example, I’m switching to a much more manageable distance from 13,500,000,000 light years (HDI) to an object 1 (one) light year away from Earth.

I want to give you an idea of just how narrow that triangle is by way of a scale model.

A first person uses a red marking pen to put a dot on the TransAmerica building in San Francisco.

A second person sets up two street survey instruments on tripods 800 miles away on the Space Needle in Seattle, and the survey instruments are set 16 inches apart. These two points sixteen inches apart represent Earth’s orbit around the Sun for a triangulation base.

Now, the second person finds the red dot and collects the angle-side-angle data for calculating the distance to the red dot.

That is one NARROW triangle, and that is merely a single light year scale model.

The triangle with respect to the nearest solar system, Andromeda, at 4 light years away, is much narrower. Think of it, the first person leaves San Francisco California, 800 miles from Seattle, to travel south, past Los Angeles, past Mexico City all the way through Mexico, further south into Central America, into the northern outskirts of Managua in Nicaragua, 3,200 miles from Seattle, and tethers a red helium filled balloon to the top of the tallest tree; meanwhile, the second person keeps the two survey instruments in the same 16" separated locations on the Space Needle in Seattle of the USA, and the second person finds the red balloon and collects the angle-side-angle data for triangulating the distance to the red balloon. Those angles are ever so slight, in fact, the triangle baseline angles are virtually indistinguishable from 90° angles!

FLRW, if you don’t perceive your evidence disappearing, then that’s a shame.

Astronomers claim VY Canis Majoris, is approximately 3,900 light-years away from Earth. Could the second person place a red tarp over the descent stage of the Lunar Module Eagle sitting on the moon for this example? Not without being about 60,000 to 80,000 miles too close to those two survey instruments sitting 16" apart on the Space Needle in Seattle, WA, USA, Earth (312,000 miles required for the 16" surveyor scale model)! I’m giving you the benefit of the red tarp over the decent stage, yet the triangulation has the appearance of being parallel lines for a celestial object far less than 100,000 light years from Earth, and this example hasn’t even touched upon the 100,000 light years diameter of the Milky Way galaxy, so Astronomers are faith based regarding celestial bodies being 1,000,000 (one million) light years from Earth instead of science based. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) light years from Earth is a triangulation distance measurement nightmare leap of faith calculation.

Back to galaxy candidate HDI, the resulting triangle using telescopes on Earth to arrive at 13.5 billion light years from Earth is nonscience, definitely not the scientific method.

Your star bible fails to help you avoid the leap of faith because your star bible itself is a foundation based on faith.

I title this the Episcopic Model that proves you only have the characteristics of received particle emissions at the time of reception. Light particles contain (1) no date of production data, (2) no static location of production data, and (3) no internally recorded path of travel data. You do not have accurate origin object distance nor luminosity nor size nor age for celestial objects purportedly exceeding 6,000 light years from Earth.

The Big Bang is a belief system

You failed to establish fact for the Big Bang, so you are left with a leap of faith for the Big Bang.

You possess bad evidence for the Big Bang. Your grounds for belief (evidence) is just shifting sand, and Lord Jesus says this about shifting sand: Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.

(Matthew 7:24-27)

The Big Bang theory challenge has reduced the requirements to a Tik Tok episode. It claims there was a big Bang before the Big Bang and the evidence is overlapping.

FLRW wrote in post #349: Hmmmm, poor thinking or cognitive changes can sometimes be a sign of a brain tumor or a side effect of cancer and its treatments (often called “chemo brain” or brain fog),

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.

Ohhhhhh, are you suffering from poor thinking or cognitive changes? It doesn’t necessarily mean you have a brain tumor or cancer, FLRW. You might be really, really tired. Is that why you failed to come back with scientific method evidentiary based fact about the Big Bang?

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

You have proven it will take a leap of faith to accept the Big Bang theory for people like you who believe the universe was created without any noise.

Yes that's correct, BIG BANG is theoretical. I have never suggested otherwise.

Nor have I ever suggested an alternative basis of either theory or scientific method.

I not sure why you are trying to grind an already sharp axe.

Unlike Kermos, who's axe head has long since fallen off.

Their arguments is no one heard the Big Bang therefore it can’t be true.

Debby wrote in post #351: @Kermos Even Einstein changed his original position and accepted the expanding universe. The Big Bang is universally accepted by the scientific community. You doubting it is a leap of faith. But you are not going to far. You have not provided an alternate theory and just continue to deny facts.

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.

Your irrelevant science (knowledge) about whether Einstein believed (“accepted”) the Big Bang *is not the point of post #301; moreover, you appear incapable of sciencing (knowing) the point which is specifically stated in the post.

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

I not sure why you are trying to grind an already sharp axe.

Because it isn't sharp at all. You continue to play word games rather than address the core fallacy you are engaging in.

I explained to you what a theory is in science because you continue to attribute the word theory to it as we use it in a colloquial sense. That's not what it means.

You claimed the big bang is based on incomplete evidence. It's not.

You argued it has not been proven. It has.

You suggested if it were proven then it should be called the big bang fact, that's not even how those words work.

Now you're saying it's theoretical, which has no real application in this context because theoretical isn't used in science the same way theory is. So again, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what all this means because you are stuck on your definitions and not the definitions science is actually applying.

Unlike Kermos, who's axe head has long since fallen off.

He tends to ignore me, let's see if he responds to my last (re)post. I think he skips over my posts because I am dragging him kicking and screaming towards answering basic logical questions that he cannot use his 10k character AI slop to hide behind.

Yes "scientists" have a habit of trying to hijack the dictionary.

Scientist or Saxophonist, theory is theory.

And if the Big Bang was not based upon incomplete evidence it would be either BIG BANG fact or BIG BANG bunkum...But as it is, it is widely regarded as BIG BANG theory.

But what do I know, I'm a mere colloquialist.

Oh, and the essence of debate is word games...One either says something, or nothing at all...And I see that you play a similar game to me.

Even the Bible does not mention Adam and Eve hearing a bang during creation.

@Double_R wrote in post #353: @Kermos Still going I see. I never did get a response to my post 140. Pasted it below for your convenience:

You didn’t rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation as I inquired of you in my post #136, so I disregarded your followup post 140. If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first.

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball, and that “theorize” is faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

If you trust science you will trust the Big Bang.

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball

You presented an analogy where there were multiple competing explanations for a given phenomenon, all equal in terms of plausibility, and for which no experiment was conducted to test which one was most likely correct. For you to think that is even analogous to big bang cosmology demonstrates your remarkable ignorance of this subject.

How about this, instead of coming up with more excuses for not responding to my posts which addressed every relevant point you made, just answer this one simple question:

Is every guilty jury verdict that has ever been rendered a matter of faith? Yes or No?

Scientist or Saxophonist, theory is theory.

Continuing to use the term theory colloquially, as in "I have a theory...", is perfectly fine, we all do at some point. But continuing to assert that because scientists use the same word that they're using you're definition, especially after being educated on what the term means in science is flagrantly dishonest and unserious.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #369: still nonetheless theories rather than known facts. So not the BIG BANG FACT,

Sir, yes sir! We agree on this fact.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #369: despite massive amounts of verifiable science evidence.

Sir, no sir! Red-shift is a movement toward the U.S.A.’s adversarial type of government called communism, not a Doppler effect of light as strongly evidenced in post #361.

The Big Bang Theory has unverifiable evidence. 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; therefore, the Big Bang’s red-shift is not of the scientific method.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith