Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

Astrophysicists recalculated CMBR from data including JWST readings, and the study details astronomer astrologer’s CMBR isn’t what they scienced (knew)

Pavel Kroupa, astrophysicist and professor at the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, expressed “According to our calculations, it may not exist at all” regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as per his study published in the journal Nuclear Physics B (source: “Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else” (Austin Caldwell; MARCA; 2025-06-28).

Kroupa, with additional author Eda Gjergo, expose evidence against the existence of the CMBR. These two extracts from their abstract explain:

A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored, particularly in light of JWST’s detection of massive, evolved systems at extreme redshifts (z>13).

Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

(source: “The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background” (Eda Gjergo, Pavel Kroupa; Nuclear Physics B published by Elsevier aa distributed on ScienceDirect.com; August 2025; Article: 116931; Volume 1017))

Astronomer astrologers best case scenario is that a “definitive 2.725 K” is off by 1.4% which means the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has science fiction expressed as scientific fact in his own recent composition of:

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 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.

Which is recorded in post #421 with my response.

That study’s 1.4% is the lower of the conservative echelon.

The study’s full present-day CMB energy density is the higher of the conservative echelon which excludes a so-called CMBR from being a Big Bang indicator!

This examination of the study’s conservative echelon leaves the liberal echelon unexplored. The implications of a liberal echelon destroy the Big Bang.

Scientist sorcerers cling to their Big Bang belief despite being faced with good evidence demonstrating that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

In the absence of the ig Bang theory all we have in the creation story in the Bible. Which from a leap of faith is now the only theory that explains the creation of the universe.

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model fall apart under the logical consistency principle

Mr. MIT science degree holder, you continue to neglect to post scientific method based fact as your argument against the “Coup de Grâce: Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model” as enumerated in post 258. Debby, you demonstrated your inability to comprehend posts like this, but I included you because this relates to red-shift.

I quoted detailed scientific data from Rowland’s article in post #61 which culminated with Rowland writing about Eddington, Dyson, and Commelin’s sloppy work in application of Einstein’s Relativity to the 1919 solar eclipse “The readings themselves were also questionable because of (a) errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation, and (b) equipment failure. Results were inconclusive because the error factor was as large as the deviation the experimenters were trying to prove [3]”.

Notice the closing [3] reference in that quote which is the “What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity” in which Rowland detailed:

In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime). Notice two things about this model:  Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime

1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this four-dimensional model.

Source of Figure 1: Wikipedia [9].

That’s just a small portion of the logic and rational reasoning in Rowland’s article exposing Einstein and Minkowski’s leap of faith about Einstein’s Relativity theories.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

Therefore, your E=MC2 is a leap of faith as support for the Big Bang.

Gravitational red-shift depends on Einstein’s Relativity theories. Since Einstein’s Relativity theories are demonstrated to be a leap of faith, then gravitational red-shift is a leap of faith!

You see, I placed detailed scientific data supported by source link right in front of you, again, but you posted nonsense nonscience abstract with a source link. Your debate skills are abysmal.

It appears to me that your data is so patheticly paltry that you hide behind your paper’s abstract.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #447’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

LOL, I'm guessing you are a big fan of Brown Shift!

@FLRW wrote in post #448: Some very low IQ bot wrote-"Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second. Well this premise is incorrect. Redshift does not require the speed of light to exceed 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/s). The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and remains unchanged regardless of the motion of the source or observer. Redshift is caused by a change in the wavelength and frequency of the light, not its speed. 1. Doppler Redshift: …snip… 2. Cosmological Redshift: …snip… 3. Physics Principle: The relationship is defined by c=frequency × wavelength. Since c is fixed, an increase in wavelength (redshift) results in a corresponding decrease in frequency, with no change in velocity.

To Mr. relative “to Albert Einstein through the Koch family” - FLRW with your prestigious MIT issued nuclear scientist collegiate certificate,

You destroyed your kinsman’s absolute necessity to maintain balance in the E=MC2 equation when you wrote “The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and remains unchanged” because your red-shift frequency decrease is an energy (E in E=MC2) decrease which forces either mass (M in E=MC2) and/or the speed of light (C in E=MC2) to increase, so, since light is massless (M), then THE EQUILIBRIUM MAINTAINING INCREASE MUST BE APPLIED TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C)!

Look for energy (E) in your “c=frequency × wavelength” physics formula. Energy (E) is absent from your equation, so the physics principle “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts) requires your red-shift energy (E) displacement must go somewhere, and THAT SOMEWHERE IS UNAVOIDABLY THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C) IN E=MC2!

Equilibrium (=) is fundamental mathematics, so you are either a very low IQ individual or you are a confused person or you are a scientist sorcerer.

You still have the speed of light (C) bursting faster than 186,000 miles per second as a direct result of red-shift with E=MC2!

Your “scientific consensus” has a lot of stupid scientists, really evil scientists, regarding red-shift and Einstein’s Relativity and the Big Bang.

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.

Your nomenclature “bot” misses the mark. Properly, God is the Potter, and I am His clay (Isaiah 64:8).

Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second.

Lack of Scientific Method process leaves your Big Bang evidence in a state of science fiction, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The Big Bang theory is not proven in an absolute sense, but it is supported by an overwhelming amount of observational evidence.

@Debby wrote in post #432: The Big Bang theory does not require faith …snip

You produced linguistical lunacy because I presented the following to you just before you repeated yourself.

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.

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

A person’s knowledge (science) 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.

To begin with you forgot to add scientific to the word theory. The Big Bang is a scientific theory.

science is verified knowledge backed by evidence. The discipline is called the scientific method.

See, https://www.sciforums.com/threads/show-me-how-the-big-bang-theory-is-not-a-leap-of-faith.167184/page-57

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

Scientist sorcerers, your “scientific consensus”, “they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14)!

Your “scientific consensus” crumbled before you posted as per my post #376 to you in which explained that 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 and/or age determinant is falsified.

For the Big Bang’s overall “scientific consensus”, post #451 shows a further disintegration of your “scientific consensus” leaving you with a Big Bang leap of faith.

@Debby wrote in post #437: The redshift remains undisputed. …snip

You demonstrated your science (knowledge) retardation because I detailed the following in this thread way back in post #53 and as recently as post #421 just a few posts above your post during your highly active time in this thread!

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 and/or age determinant is falsified.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

"Red-shift as a distance calculator and/or age determinant is falsified."

Hmmmm, This claim is incorrect according to established scientific consensus. Redshift is widely accepted as a primary method for determining cosmic distances and lookback times (the age of the universe at the time light was emitted) for distant galaxies, based on the expansion of space described by Hubble's Law and the Lambda-CDM model.

1. Scientific Consensus: Measurements of redshift correlate with distance and time in a manner consistent with an expanding universe, supported by independent evidence such as the cosmic microwave background and large-scale structure.
2. Falsified Alternatives: Alternative hypotheses, such as "tired light" (the idea that photons lose energy over distance without space expanding), have been experimentally falsified because they fail to predict observed phenomena like time dilation in supernova light curves and the evolution of galaxy sizes.
3. Accuracy Nuance: While redshift itself is measured with high precision, the conversion of redshift to specific distances or ages involves assumptions about cosmological parameters (like the Hubble constant and dark energy density), which introduces uncertainty but does not falsify the method itself.

@Double_R wrote in post #438: What an unbelievable coward. The only one hiding here is you. Since you want to play games with all the posts pretending it’s all being hidden somewhere, let’s recap our entire discussion: …snip

You unjustly slandered me, and you evaded rationally explaining how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 sequence recorded in my post #136 to you, and you lied about the correspondence sequence in your current post with your very early sequential recipient error for your post #33 which was to SatanLucy without any mention of me in your post #33 yet your current post says “Me #33: I explained that you were”.

If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you Thursday of last week and Tuesday of this week, and I can continue acting like your posts to me are like the Big Bang, that is, nonexistent! Unless you can muster the courage to respond to my opening inquiry inside of post #136.

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.

No, NGC 7319 does not exhibit a redshift error within its own measurement; its redshift is consistently measured at approximately z = 0.0225 (heliocentric radial velocity ~6,740 km/s). However, it is a prominent case study for anomalous redshift because it contains a quasar (QSO) located very close to its nucleus with a drastically different redshift of z = 2.114.

This discrepancy is cited by proponents of non-cosmological redshift theories (such as those following Halton Arp) as evidence that the quasar's high redshift is intrinsic or gravitational rather than cosmological. The standard astronomical consensus, however, interprets the quasar as a foreground object projected against the galaxy or a distinct entity at a much greater distance, with the two systems appearing close due to line-of-sight coincidence rather than physical association.

@FLRW wrote in post #449: Km says,

E=MC2 forces an increase to the speed of light under the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. redshift.

This statement is incorrect. The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and does not increase or change under the Doppler effect or redshift.

Instead, redshift involves a change in the frequency and wavelength of light, while its speed remains fixed at approximately 3×108 m/s. When a light source moves away from an observer:

1. The wavelength increases (stretches).
2. The frequency decreases.
3. The energy of the photons decreases relative to the observer.

The equation E=mc2 describes the equivalence of mass and energy, not a variable speed of light. The Relativistic Doppler Effect accounts for the constant speed of light by incorporating time dilation and length contraction from Special Relativity, ensuring that all observers measure light traveling at c regardless of their relative motion.

MITman, you elicit a double unit decrease and a single unit increase which is disequilibrium!

I express your 3 points in the formula G=A+B+C where G must be equal to 0 (zero) for balance to be maintained in the E=MC2 equation.

I assign your “1. The wavelength increases (stretches)” a value of +1 for your “increases” into variable A.

I assign your “2. The frequency decreases” a value of -1 for your “decreases” into variable B.

I assign your “3. The energy of the photons decreases relative to the observer” a value of -1 for your “decreases” into variable C.

Now, I perform variable substitution for my earlier formula such that G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1), and the value of G is -1 (negative one), so G is garbage just like your mad scientist effort to nullify the necessity of equilibrium in the E=MC2 equation.

The G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1) formula indicates your closing paragraph overflows with nonsense nonscience garbage.

I name this the MITman Model, special for YOU.

As demonstrated in the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361, red-shift requires energy (E) to decrease while increasing the speed of light (C) in Einstein’s E=MC2 formula.

Red-shift is science fiction, and the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

That is a common misconception , but the speed of light in a vacuum always remains constant regardless of the Doppler effect , redshift or the energy of the system.

Yes, the premise that redshift requires an increase in the speed of light (c) in Einstein’s E=mc2 is incorrect. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant (c≈3×108 m/s) and does not change during redshift.

In the context of redshift and E=mc2:

1. Energy Decrease: Redshift corresponds to a loss of energy (E) by the photon. As electromagnetic radiation travels through expanding space or climbs out of a gravitational well, its frequency decreases, and thus its energy decreases (E=hf).
2. Mass-Energy Equivalence: While E=mc2 primarily describes rest mass, the full relativistic energy-momentum relation is E2=(pc)2+(mc2)2. For photons, which have zero rest mass, energy is determined by momentum (p) and the constant c.
3. Constant c: The speed of light remains unchanged. The "redshift" is a shift in wavelength and frequency, not a change in the propagation speed of the light itself.

Therefore, redshift involves a decrease in energy while the speed of light remains constant. 

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/What_is_red_shift