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

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #439: Hey, just to remind you guys…Big Bang Theory, no leap of faith…So 15 pages of tit for tat getting nowhere, never to get anywhere…Unless of course in the meantime, some genius comes up with an undeniable explanation of creation and existence.

This thread is not titled “a comparative explanation of creation and existence discussion”. This thread is very intentionally titled “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Earlier, you wrote “If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory” about the Big Bang (your post #395). Something, that is not a proven fact, is faith. But, now, you wrote “Big Bang Theory, no leap of faith”. The contradiction between the two statements is apparent. Please see post #451 which shows that leap of faith applies to the Big Bang. I realize post #451 comes after your post, so I’m just asking you to review the evidence exposed in the post. To many people in this thread convey “I am right that the Big Bang was fact because I am right that the Big Bang was fact”, but I am seriously trying to elicit evidence from others instead of “I am right that the Big Bang was fact”.

Watch what happens when I replace the word “theory” with the word “faith” in your statement, “If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a faith”. The result is an equivalent statement with your original statement.

Big Bang Theory and Big Bang belief are equivalents.

So after all of that, you've finally found something you can respond to: I wrote “Me #33” when #33 was actually addressed to SatanLucy.

Wow. What a ground changing revelation.

Too bad it changes nothing about the substance of the argument, the fact that this is what you've chosen to focus on instead of the argument I've been making tells its own story.

You keep telling me that I need to “explain myself” regarding #136 before you'll engage with anything I've written since then. This is an obvious dodge.

#136 explains why you responded to #65 before you reached #76. That doesn't answer #76. It doesn't answer the questions I asked in #46 and repeated in #76. And it certainly has nothing to do with the question I've asked you repeatedly since #140.

Instead, you go right back to #35.

That's the pattern here.

You point to #136.

#136 points back to #89.

#89 points back to #74.

#74 points back to #35.

And then #35 is supposed to settle everything.

No. You're hiding behind the post numbers.

Your three-ball analogy in #35 demonstrates that, in your deliberately constructed scenario, the grandfather doesn't know which ball hit him or where that ball came from.

It does not demonstrate that an inference about an unobserved event is therefore “faith.”

That's the part you've never established.

And notice how convenient your standard is. You don't have to demonstrate that the inference is unreasonable. You simply declare that because nobody personally witnessed the event, the conclusion is “faith.”

That's why I've asked you the same simple question in #140, #388, #417, and #438:

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

You still haven't answered it.

Instead, you've repeatedly supplied another reason why you don't have to. First it was the chronology. Then #89. Then #136. Now it's the fact that I incorrectly identified the recipient of #33.

At some point, the audience can reasonably ask why a question that takes five seconds to answer has required this many excuses.

So by all means, keep telling everyone that my posts are “nonexistent.”

The record is right there.

So after all this, let's try this again...

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

At this point I'm not even asking to see if you'll answer it, it's obvious you will avoid this question till the eventual heat death of this thread. I'm only asking to demonstrate to anyone reading this how cowardly you are; to start a whole thread on this one question while avoiding it's most obvious implications.

@Debby wrote in post #442: Cosmological redshift remains the cornerstone and best supported scientific explanation for the behaviour of light from distant galaxies.

Redshift collapses under the Scientific Method

First, I introduce you to an examination of red-shift, which scientist sorcerers 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 adherents abysmally failed to completely apply the scientific method. Red-shift as a distance or direction 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.

This circular reasoning is nonsense nonscience with scientist sorcerers conveying “I correctly science the Big Bang proof because I correctly science Big facts, and you are wrong because I science the Big Bang right”. All the while, those deeply confused people don’t science (know) with the scientific method.

JWST suffers from the same malady as NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck which I outlined in post #421 just a few posts above your post, but you blindly post your belief without proof (assumptions).

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

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.

Cosmological redshift is not falsified as stool for determining distance and age, rather , it remains a fundamental cornerstone of astrophysics. It highlights a important reality, redshift in not a direct ruler, and applying it uncritically without accounting for localized physics and cosmological models can lead to incorrect conclusions.

@Debby wrote in post #456: 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 #446: Scientists use the relativistic Doppler effect formula to calculate light shift accurately

Your linguistical lunacy, your science (knowledge) retardation, and your illogical inconsistency are evidenced by your thoughts “Big Bang theory is not proven” fiercely fighting against your thoughts “Scientists use the relativistic Doppler effect formula to calculate light shift accurately”!

You repeat your “I am right that the Big Bang was fact because I am right that the Big Bang was fact”, but you are wrong. Scientist sorcerers, such as Roman Catholic Church priest Lemaître the astronomer astrologer, have enchanted you into believing in the Big Bang.

@Debby wrote in post #456: 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 #446: You got it wrong. The Doppler effect on sound if different because sound needs air to travel, but light travels through a vacuum. Scientists use the relativistic Doppler effect formula to calculate light shift accurately which is not possible with sound.which needs a medium to travel.

Firstly, you ignore the scientific method because, as you’ve already been informed merely a single post before your post:

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 you are left with a red-shift leap of faith. Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light does not exist; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

Secondly, you applied Einstein’s Relativity theories to red-shift which you’ve already been informed in post #325 about “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift”:

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

“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.

Thirdly. Scientists use the relativistic Doppler effect formula to conjure light shift.

An example is needed, here.

When scientist William solves a flawed formula about cosmic evolution in London and scientist 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 nature), 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 observed in nature), experiment (replaced by formula/model), observation (the hypothesis is calculated/speculated not reproduced).

In case you didn’t notice, I’m using formula and model interchangeably.

Red-shift is unverified and untested under the scientific method, and red-shift is merely red-spectral, so age and distance based on a nonsense nonscience red-shift is a leap of faith, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Still hung up on red shift and faith leaping.

But hey, get a load of this...Some people actually believe that a bloke, 2000 years ago, was executed, then recovered and flew away to a magical realm where he became his own dad...Hahahahahahahahahaha...That one sure takes a bit of a leap.

@FLRW wrote in post #459: See, …snip

Mr. nuclear scientist FLRW, you cravenly hide behind your undescribed content URL (not even a hyperlink), but I write to you requesting that you show your work in this thread, here on DebateCraft.com, where both of us are engaged in debate. I’ll provide you an example with this post to you. 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.

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.

Now you are shifting the goal post by suggesting it is a leap of faith if you are a liberal. You forget liberals also accept scientific facts.

@FLRW wrote in post #462: “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 …snip

Scientist sorcerers such as Friedmann and Lemaître and Robertson and Walker (oh, look, it’s you, FLRW), 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)! In case you are unaware, the “pit” is where Fried mann burns in hell for that creature’s crime against God of rejecting man’s Creator. The heavens declare the Grand Creator’s glory (Psalm 19:1)! Fools mask God’s glory!

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.

After the Big Bang the creation story in the Bible is no longer a leap of faith. It now has a scientific basis.

@FLRW wrote in post #462: “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 …snip

@Debby wrote in post #442: Cosmological redshift remains the cornerstone and best supported scientific explanation for the behaviour of light from distant galaxies.

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your assumptions, not the scientific method.

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 scientific method proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis revealing their conclusion joined with their conclusion revealing their hypothesis which puts such scientist sorcerers in an infinite loop of circular reasoning.

The Doppler effect of sound is based on the scientific method.

The Doppler effect of light is science fiction without any scientific method proof.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #471’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

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.