@FLRW wrote in post #368: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral;

Red-shift is merely red-spectral. Your words that you use, as shown below, solidify the scientific fact that red-shift is merely red-spectral!

I pointed out to you back in post #361 that 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 astronomer astrologers red-shift unscientific confirmation of error.

Mr. Nuclear Scientist, you seem unable to address the points I present to you. Your position is so weak that you repeat yourself, but I systematically dissect your arguments, and I methodologically dismantle your scientific fact statements into their proper state as your sacred faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: it is a shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible red light.

You supplied absolutely, positively no scientific method based fact as support for your nonscience “shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum” as documented in post #376 (but you couldn’t have known about post #376 yet, but you should have known about it’s predecessor post #53).

Furthermore, you ramble on while neglecting that the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” of my post #361 addressed to you, above, forces light to greatly surpass your 186,000 miles per second speed limit of light. Your red-shift breaks E=MC2 (and vice versa).

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 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.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Maintains Uniformity

Under the uniformity of the Universe doctrine of your star bible such as the RW Metric (see post #325), if a distant stellar light source component particle emissions all shift toward the “red” end of the spectrum, then a replacement particle emission from the red range-ish replaces the infrared range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the orange range-ish replaces the red range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the yellow range-ish replaces the orange range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the green range-ish replaces the yellow range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the blue range-ish replaces the green range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the indigo range-ish replaces the blue range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the violet range-ish replaces the indigo range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the ultraviolet range-ish replaces the violet range-ish, etc. This describes a cascade effect that keeps the electromagnetic spectrum uniform with particle emissions occupying all the original wavelengths; therefore, astronomer astrologers red-shift Earth reference element base assumption (belief without proof (see post #53)) mismatches with the actual element at the stellar object (see the Las Cumbres Observatory Redshift document at this link), or the astronomers astrologers misinterpret the data at hand in some other manner. Astronomer astrologers interpret the light according to their star bible which is a case of astronomer astrologers high priest Stephen Hawking’s own star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 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.

Yet, you supply no scientific method based fact as support for your fantasy red-shift, so your red-shift assumption (belief without proof) is a leap of faith.

As pointed out to you, Mr. Scientist, in the “Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers” section of post #376, there is no such thing as you describe.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 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.

Speaking of “Observation”, astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which explained their discovery of a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two stellar 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 is The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620). Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified.

Your “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” statement directly contradicts that astrophysicist’s determination. You have faith that the universe is expanding based on red-shift, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.

Since you fight against your own, FLRW, then you are in a state of faith for the Big Bang.

Nope theory is theory...I don't no how better to put it.

Hmmmm...Would a banana only be a colloquialism when considered by numpties, but when considered by superhumans, become a scientific banana.

Nonetheless, it would still be a banana.

Debby wrote:

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

HaHa...Up until Moses, GODDO was still doing tablets of stone stuff, so who would have written the bible...And presumably A and E came a tad later on, post bang, because don't forget that GODDO had the gardening and the serpents to do first...You're just having a daft laugh aren't you Debs.

Nope theory is theory...I don't no how better to put it.

Usage of Theory and Hypothesis

While hypothesis and theory are both commonly used in non-technical contexts to mean "idea" or "hunch," the words function differently in the sciences. Hypothesis technically refers to an assumption that is proposed expressly so that it can be tested to see if it might be true. Theory refers to a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data; because of the rigors of experimentation and control, a theory is understood to be much more likely to be true than a hypothesis is, and is in fact relied upon for further scientific investigations. For this reason, it is an error to assert that a scientific theory is nothing more than conjecture.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

The funny thing is, even if you wanted to deny reality and just assert yourself as the arbiter of what words mean, you are still being wholly dishonest to pretend that when other people use words in a way that means something different from your accepted definition, that you get to decide what they meant when they said it.

Scientists know what the word theory actually means in the world of science, and they understand that it's being used to point to something that is in fact substantiated. You can sit here and play word games all you want, the big bang theory is still proven.

I've only ever asserted that a theory remains theoretical for as long as it remains theoretical.

Therefore BIG BANG theory is still unproven, because it remains theoretical...If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory.

That said, and given what evidence is available, then BIG BANG is perhaps reasonably analogical...Maybe...But there is still no way of actually knowing.

Could have been a vibration followed by a profound orgasmic ejaculation of particulate matter.

A scientific theory explains why and how it happens. Theories do not become scientific laws. It remains a scientific theory on a particular observation.

Well, we know that our Big Bang Club is not a theory,

Simple answer to the thread title. It's not possible. The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Obviously nobody alive witnessed the so-called big bang. There's no infallible authority behind it, however we have God's own Word so, although that is also faith, it is a supported faith. That's the evidence that we have as believers

Therefore BIG BANG theory is still unproven, because it remains theoretical...If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory.

By this point you're obviously trolling, no one is this stupid.

Yes, my above theory would seem to substantiate this.

Well, some might argue that continuing to assert that a theory is rendered untheoretical if a scientist says so, is trolling.

But let's just conclude amicably by agreeing to disagree.

Have a nice day.

Debby wrote in post #377: @Kermos 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.

Debby wrote in post #379: @Kermos 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.

Debby wrote in post #387: @Kermos If you trust science you will trust the Big Bang.

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.

The blindly blather of your non-scientific method bad evidence, that is, your science (knowledge) deficiency manifests in your failure to respond with scientific method good evidence.

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

The Big Bang Theory is an unproven leap of faith.

continuing to assert that a theory is rendered untheoretical

This is like criticizing someone for saying that "turning right is not right" all because you can't figure out that "right" had two different meanings there.

But let's just conclude amicably by agreeing to disagree

We can conclude amicably and walk away from the conversation, but this isn't a matter of agreeing to disagree on anything because it's not a matter of opinion. You're just denying how science works because you are either unwilling or incapable of absorbing it's terminology.

His leap of faith into religion is not helping him in his leap of faith into the Big Bang theory because there is no Jesus to explain the theory.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #384: Yes “scientists” have a habit of trying to hijack the dictionary.

You call it like it is, right there. Many people vehemently use the word “theory” confusedly in-situ for the concept of “fact”, and your opponent practices this linguistic lunacy.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #395: Therefore BIG BANG theory is still unproven, because it remains theoretical…If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory.

The concept of the word “theory” is “faith” as per the quoted dictionary definition recorded in post #20 and repeated here, again, for convenience:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
4. Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
5. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fifth Edition. Copyright © 2016 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Obtained from thefreedictionary.com/theory

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so “theory” arrives at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #395: But there is still no way of actually knowing.

That’s right! Your word “knowing” is intimately related to the concept of “science”.

The word “science” (link to thefreedictionary.com/science) fundamentally conveys the concept of knowledge.

A person’s knowledge equates to fact or faith.

The word “fact” (link to thefreedictionary.com/fact) represents absolute existence of a person, place, thing, or event.

Faith is proof of things not seen; in other words, that which one says/thinks, but not sees, is what one believes (faith=belief).

The phrase “Big Bang Theory” and the phrase “Big Bang Belief” are equivalents.

A scientific theory requires logical consistency, empirical testing, and falsifiability to reliably explain natural phenomena.

As the saying goes, "science without logic is blind". Logic provides the structural framework that connects observations, hypotheses, and evidence into a unified explanation.

Core Logical Rules for Scientific Theories

1. Logical Consistency: A valid theory cannot contain internal contradictions. Every part of the explanation must fit neatly with the rest without canceling itself out.
2. Falsifiability: Introduced heavily in the philosophy of science by Karl Popper, a good theory must state what evidence could prove it wrong. If no test can ever disprove an idea, it is not scientific.
3. Testable Predictions: Theories must do more than just describe past events. They must use logical deduction to forecast new outcomes that experiments can verify.
4. Simplicity (Parsimony): Guided by principles like Occam's razor, the best theories use the simplest unifying ideas without adding unnecessary assumptions.

But the universe is very visible and the Big Bang theory has established its finding as a scientific fact with overwhelming evidence. It will take a leap of faith to ignore it.

@JenKiggans2026 wrote in post #398: Simple answer to the thread title. It’s not possible.

Amen! Truly!

@JenKiggans2026 wrote in post #398: The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Obviously nobody alive witnessed the so-called big bang. There’s no infallible authority behind it,

Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.” For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water. But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

(2 Peter 3:3 -7)

@JenKiggans2026 wrote in post #398: however we have God’s own Word so, although that is also faith, it is a supported faith. That’s the evidence that we have as believers

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

(John 1:1-5)

We Christians have the Light. Disbelievers have the darkness.

The Redeemer redeems the disbeliever into the redeemed in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. By His Blood, we redeemed are saved from the wrath of God.

Like John 1:1-5 in the beginning was the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. All things came into existence after the Big Bang.

@FLRW wrote in post #407: A scientific theory requires logical consistency, empirical testing, and falsifiability to reliably explain natural phenomena.

The Big Bang Theory violates your first statement in your set of parameters because your Big Bang natural phenomena was never empirically recorded by a logically thinking human.

@FLRW wrote in post #407: As the saying goes, “science without logic is blind”. Logic provides the structural framework that connects observations, hypotheses, and evidence into a unified explanation.

Post #376 illuminated your Big Bang broken hypothesis, bad evidence, and absence of observation. Your Big Bang Theory “science without logic is blind”.

@FLRW wrote in post #407: Core Logical Rules for Scientific Theories

Your position is so weak that you neglected to respond with scientific method evidentiary based fact for your Big Bang belief, but I systematically dissect your arguments, and I methodologically dismantle your scientific fact statements into their proper state as your sacred faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #407: 1. Logical Consistency: A valid theory cannot contain internal contradictions. Every part of the explanation must fit neatly with the rest without canceling itself out.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation increasing temperature from 1941 to 1965 indicates a logical inconsistency for the Big Bang Theory requirement for decreasing temperature (see post #376 for mathematical analysis demonstrating this fact).

@FLRW wrote in post #407: 2. Falsifiability: Introduced heavily in the philosophy of science by Karl Popper, a good theory must state what evidence could prove it wrong. If no test can ever disprove an idea, it is not scientific.

As I wrote in the original post, your Big Bang is a philosophy, and it’s a field populated by philosophers, not scientists who adhere to the parameters of your post!

@FLRW wrote in post #407: 3. Testable Predictions: Theories must do more than just describe past events. They must use logical deduction to forecast new outcomes that experiments can verify.

I’m quoting your colleague, here, about you employing the words “Predictions” and “forecast” in respect to purportedly “past events”:

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #384: Yes “scientists” have a habit of trying to hijack the dictionary.

Mr. MIT Graduate, your parameter is absurdly illogical and linguistical lunacy, that you predict a past event! The definition of predict is to foretell a future event as shown in the dictionary definition of predict contained in post #82. You Big Bang philosophers come across as very desperate to sound like sorcerers predicting things.

@FLRW wrote in post #407: 4. Simplicity (Parsimony): Guided by principles like Occam’s razor, the best theories use the simplest unifying ideas without adding unnecessary assumptions.

Assumptions run rampant in the Big Bang Theory. An assumption is believing without proof as shown in the dictionary definition of assumption contained in post #53; therefore, the Big Bang Theory violates your closing statement in your set of parameters because your Big Bang isn’t simple.

The Big Bang Theory is illogical, falsified, untestable, unparsimonious, and a leap of faith.

This is why SomRek's IQ is approximately 45-47.

The premise that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation increased between 1941 and 1965 is based on a historical misunderstanding of early experimental measurements, rather than an actual physical increase in the temperature of the universe.

The universe did not warm up; rather, scientists were using two entirely different methods that yielded slightly different numbers for the exact same static background. Because of this, there is no logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory's requirement for a cooling universe.

The difference in values is explained by how these two historic data points were collected:

1. The 1941 Measurement (2.3 Kelvin)

In 1941, Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar analyzed the light absorbed by cyanogen (CN) molecules in interstellar clouds. He noted that these molecules were being excited by a background source, calculating a "rotational temperature" of space to be roughly 2.3 K. Crucially, because the Big Bang model was still in its infancy, McKellar did not know he was looking at a relic of the early universe; he simply documented the local temperature of interstellar space.

Why this is not a contradiction

1. Observational Margins of Error: Early mid-century astrophysics lacked the precise satellite instrumentation we have today. A fluctuation between 2.3 K and 3.5 K represents the technical margins of error inherent to ground-based radio telescopes and chemical spectrum analysis at the time.
2. Modern Verification: Modern precision satellites like NASA's COBE and ESA's Planck Observatory have measured the CMB's true current temperature down to a definitive 2.725 K.
3. Proof of Cooling: Astronomers can test the Big Bang's cooling requirement by looking at the CMB spectrum in the ultra-distant universe (looking back in time). When measuring the CMB temperature in galaxies billions of light-years away, the temperature increases linearly with redshift (\(z\)) exactly as predicted—meaning the universe was much hotter in the past and has been steadily cooling ever since.

Debby wrote in post #408: @Kermos But the universe is very visible and the Big Bang theory has established its finding as a scientific fact with overwhelming evidence. It will take a leap of faith to ignore it.

Debby wrote in post #410: @Kermos Like John 1:1-5 in the beginning was the Big Bang, there was nothing before the Big Bang. All things came into existence after the Big Bang.

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 #412: This is why SomRek’s IQ is approximately 45-47.

Mr. Scientist, your statement, there, is you performing the Pharmakeia Principle (see post #71).

I plan to respond to your post in detail, but I remind you of more which you failed to refute again.

I pointed out to you back in post #361 that 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 astronomer astrologers red-shift unscientific confirmation of error.

Red-shift is merely red-spectral, and your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

What college degrees do you have?

OMG, you graduated from Trump University, didn't you?

Replying to everyone else while skipping over my posts, what a coward.

Here's my simple question yet again;

Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

The concept of the word “theory” is “faith” as per the quoted dictionary definition recorded in post #20 and repeated here, again, for convenience:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

This definition is the literal opposite of faith.

In definition 1, “accepted” is a synonym for “believed”, so “theory” arrives at “widely believed” which is faith, not fact.

It is widely believed that the earth is round, that doesn't mean our acceptance of the shape of the earth is faith based.

The phrase “Big Bang Theory” and the phrase “Big Bang Belief” are equivalents.

This is not how the English language works.

Theory is categorically different from a fact. Facts the things we recognize as uncontestably true. A theory is the framework for which a set of facts are explained. To put it another way, facts are the dots. A theory is what connects those does to form a picture.

In science, a framework for explaining facts does not get the title of theory until it can demonstrate through testing that it can generate repeated correct predictions. That's not faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a scientific theory filled with facts.

@FLRW wrote in post #415: What college degrees do you have?

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”.