@FLRW wrote in post #464: 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.

That’s your non-astrophysicist nonsense nonscience leap of faith which directly contradicts the statement about the NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe” and quasars in general “too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental” by astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences (source for Burbidge quotes), who 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 published in m The Astrophysical Journal (issue 1, volume 620)).

Your “quasar (QSO) located very close to its nucleus” with your “QSO” at your “z = 2.114” in association with your “NGC 7319” at your “approximately z = 0.0225” results in Burbidge’s “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe”.

Your MIT AI IQ produced no scientific method based evidence against Burbidge et al’s paper; instead, you promulgated “I am right that the Big Bang was fact because I am right that the Big Bang was fact”, but you are wrong because red-shift is merely red-spectral.

@FLRW wrote in post #464: 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.

You projected two feuding schools of thought on your Big Bang red-shift subject, You have the astrophysicist Hubble science camp, and you have the astrophysicist Arp science camp. I am using your science camps against you In order to demonstrate that your matter of fact statement “NGC 7319 does not exhibit a redshift error within its own measurement” is truly a leap of faith. It doesn’t matter to me whether you are a Hubble believer or an Arp believer for the Big Bang to be a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #464: No, NGC 7319 does not

I am returning to your opening salvo, FLRW.

I posed no question about red-shift to you which results in a yes or no response, so your emphaticly bolded “No” is like a toddler losing his toy over a stupid error while Illegitimately rebuking his parents with him spurting “No” because he doesn’t have the composure to convince his parents to let him keep his toy; in other words, he has no good evidence to keep his toy because the toddler knew he blew it.

The toy parallels your “red-shift as fact” verbiage. As demonstrated above, your red-shift is a leap of faith, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Scientist still see and measure redshift everyday, and it remains a core tool in modern astronomy.

@Debby wrote in post #466: 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.

To the self-described scientist therapist Debby,

In your mathematical discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8), you destroyed Einstein’s absolute necessity to maintain balance in the E=MC2 equation when you wrote “the speed of light in a vacuum always remains constant regardless of the Doppler effect , redshift or the energy” 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)!

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

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!

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.

For expanded detail, please see post #361.

Red-shift and E=MC2 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.

If there was no Big Bang theory, creation would be a leap of faith for lack of scientific evidence that Big Bang brings.

@FLRW wrote in post #467: @Debby 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 …snip

@Debby wrote in post #466: That is a common misconception , but the speed of light in a vacuum always remains constant …snip

To FLRW and Debby and any other interested parties,

When MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW restricts the E=MC2 formula with “Therefore, redshift involves a decrease in energy while the speed of light remains constant” and mathematical magician Debby similarly restricts E=MC2 with “the speed of light in a vacuum always remains constant regardless of the Doppler effect , redshift or the energy of the system”, then they both break the fundamental mathematical principle of equality for E=MC2 in order to arrive at the same flawed result, then confirmation occurred which is truly confirmation of error, yet FLRW and Debby believe their constant C constraint on the equation E=MC2 formula with their ensuing unequal E=MC2 result is good evidence for red-shift and the Big Bang.

FLRW and Debby’s work was not based 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).

FLRW and Debby 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.

The above is an adaptation of the William and Valdemar example which I provided to Mr. scientist sorcerer FLRW back 2026-08-15 in post #118. I express my appreciation to FLRW for providing the production proof of concept for the William and Valdemar example of the scientific method (detailed) versus unscientific confirmation of error.

A false balance is an abomination to Yahweh (Proverbs 11:1). You embrace your unjust balance.

The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section in post #361 details FLRW and Debby’s scientific sorcery.

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.

By calculating exactly how much kinetic energy was displaced by the Doppler shifted light, Einstein proved that the change in mass is precisely equal to the emitted energy divided by the speed of light squared.

Thus the Doppler shifted of light acts as a frame dependent scale that reveals that mass is nothing more than highly concentrated energy.

@FLRW wrote in post #468: ht …snip

I previously explained to you about your personally specious links ‘If you want to correspond about that information, then you ascertain how to legally bring the information into this thread contingent upon the information being directly relevant to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”, or, better yet, you bring the author(s) here’, but this time your stubbornness proves quite advantageous for my position which is that the Big Bang’s prominent red-shift evidence is science fiction. For example, my post #485 details your and Debby’s E=MC2 mathematical malpractice for red-shift just a few posts up from this current post.

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.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

AI says, Red-shift is not merely red-spectral; it describes any increase in the wavelength (or decrease in frequency) of electromagnetic radiation, regardless of whether the light is visible to the human eye.

1. Broad Spectrum Application: The term applies to the entire electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
2. Wavelength Shift: Light from an object moving away from an observer is stretched, shifting its spectral lines toward longer wavelengths.
3. Not Necessarily Red: While visible light shifts toward the red end, red-shifted radiation can originate from or be detected as any part of the spectrum (e.g., ultraviolet light shifted into the visible blue range, or gamma rays shifted into radio waves).
4. Measurement: Astronomers measure this shift by comparing the observed wavelength (λobs​) of spectral lines to their known rest wavelength (λref​) using the formula z=(λobs​−λref​)/λref​.

The term "red" is used simply because red light has the longest wavelength in the visible spectrum, serving as a shorthand for "shift toward longer wavelengths/lower energies." 

Redshift is critical to the Big Bang theory because it provides direct observational proof that the universe is expanding.

Hypothesis 3...The BIG TUG.

Maybe it was GOD changing out of his red underpants and shifting to a frilly pink pair.

Cross dressing at the beginning of time...Such was the BIG TUG.

And out of the big banger ejaculated all the matter of the universe.

@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.

@Debby wrote in post #472: Cosmological redshift is not falsified as stool for determining distance and age, rather , it remains a fundamental cornerstone of astrophysics.

Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss

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 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.

@Debby wrote in post #472: 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.

You are the mystical, magical worker of “incorrect conclusions” as my post #485 details your and FLRW’s E=MC2 mathematical malpractice for red-shift just a few posts up from this current post.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #480’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.

Without the Big Bang all we are left with is a leap of faith in the creation story in the Bible.

@Debby wrote in post #479: After the Big Bang the creation story in the Bible is no longer a leap of faith. It now has a scientific basis.

God’s creation is not contingent on your man-made Big Bang conjecture.

You present zero scientific method fact, so your Big Bang belief is your faith foundation. Lord Jesus Christ says “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 7:26-27).

For us Christians, Christ is our glorious foundation. Lord Jesus Christ says “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.” (Matthew 7:24-25).

If you are a Christian, then you believe that all occurrences of six days in the fourth Commandment exclusively refer to 24 hour per day literal six days. Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God commands:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the LORD your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.

(Exodus 20:8-11)

If you are a Christian, then you believe that Adam and Eve were there at the beginning of creation when the six days of making all the stars and planets and Earth culminated with God creating man (Genesis 1:1-31). Lord Jesus Christ is the Word of God (John 1:14), and the Word of God declares:

He who created them from the beginning “made them male and female”

(Matthew 19:4).

Your writing, there, is concurrent with unbelievers, that is, you reject the Word of God.

Georges Lemaître, a Belgian priest, is essentially credited as a father of the Big Bang Baby by @Sidewalker a few posts ago in post #189. Roman Catholic Church (RCC) priests are called father by RCC church members and even some non-church members. Lord Jesus Christ says “Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9), so the Roman Catholic Church rejected Christ’s Commandment; therefore, Lemaître was not a Christian by that account. Lemaître’s sins includes leading fools into believing things like “According to our best science, six days is 14 billion years”. (see post #20 and post #87 for more details).

Lemaître was an unbeliever.

The Apostle Peter warned us Christians about people like Lemaître by writing:

false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction. (2 Peter 2:1)

Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned. (2 Peter 2:2)

this is hidden from them willingly, that the heavens were long ago, and the earth, out of water and through water having been composed by the Word of God, (2 Peter 3:5)

You therefore, beloved, knowing these things beforehand, beware, lest being carried away with the error of the wicked, you fall from your own steadfastness. (2 Peter 2:1)

The Word of God created the heavens and the earth.

Big Bang Philosophy holds that an evolution god created the heavens and the earth.

Every Big Bang believer is against Christ.

I remind you of your writing “Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.” recorded in post #159, so you represented yourself as a Big Bang believer.

You, Debby, willingly yoke yourself with Lemaître.

You leave out facts, but you desperately try to sound like you speak with fact with your “The BigBang theory is not an act of faith because it is backed by science” which is truly your leap of faith!

You failed to “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”, again.

The Big Bang theory is comparable to the creation story. They both had a beginning, they both took time to develop and they continue to expand. The difference, one is a scientific theory based on science and backed by scientific evidence and the other a creation story in the Bible. Because the scientific theory backs the creation story, the creation story does not need a leap of faith to believe, it is backed by science.

Eternally existent Magic MANGOD is the leap of faith...Whereas all creation stories/hypotheses/theories are analogically reasonable...Ultimately all falling short though. because we are unable to explain pre-zero...No bang, no red shift and no Magic MANGOD...All efforts begin with zero and move forwards.

@Debby wrote in post #482: Scientist still see and measure redshift everyday, and it remains a core tool in modern astronomy.

Scientist sorcerers still see red-spectral and mystically, magically measure redshift, and it remains a core tool in modern astronomy astrology.

To see your demonic deception about red-shift exposed, just look at post #481 immediately prior to your twisted declaration or maybe post #53 to see that your scientist sorcerers never applied the scientific method to red-shift.

Your red-shift is against Christ. Your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

@Kermos

Do you think that the entire concept of light losing energy/having its frequency reduced when travelling away from us is bullshit, or do you simply think it can not be used to measure distances

@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.

History, red-shift rapidly morphs into blue-shift

Sirius was known as the Star of Isis in ancient Egypt, and human witness described Sirius as red, but Sirius is blue, now. This change describes a stellar u-turn, yet astrophysics declare that it’s impossible, but human witness indicates that the change from red to blue occurred, so your red-shift falls apart based on human witness recorded history.

No human witnessed your red-shift, yet scientist sorcerers mystically, magically pronounce red-shift exists.

You seriously disbelieve human witness about Sirius, but you Sirius-ly believe human witness about red-shift. You are very confused.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #491’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.

The Big Bang started as a scientific theory and remains a scientific theory backed by science. It is gradually going mainstream with no one leaping out of the window to speed the process.

@Debby wrote in post #482: By calculating exactly how much kinetic energy was displaced by the Doppler shifted light, Einstein proved that the change in mass is precisely equal to the emitted energy divided by the speed of light squared. Thus the Doppler shifted of light acts as a frame dependent scale that reveals that mass is nothing more than highly concentrated energy.

A photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The details follow.

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 FLRW 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.

Self described scientist Debby repeats 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 science fiction with @FLRW as shown in post #485 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).

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rung is a leap of faith.

Kermos wrote:

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.

From your earlier post #500, the redshift is mentioned several times in Einstein’s Relativity theory.

@FLRW wrote in post #488: AI says,

I note that you continue to rely on your failure-prone MIT AI IQ. See post #421 for your CMBR MIT AI IQ failure earlier incident.

@FLRW wrote in post #488: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral; it describes any increase in the wavelength (or decrease in frequency) of electromagnetic radiation, regardless of whether the light is visible to the human eye.

Oh, how quickly your brain dead MIT AI IQ got confounded that I conveyed that the electromagnetic spectrum maintains uniformity in the face of red-shift infrared<–red<–orange<–yellow<–green<–blue<–indigo<–violet<–ultraviolet in post #391.

Your brainless MIT AI IQ cannot deal with the mathematical fact that your energy (E) decrease (“decrease in frequency”) contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving your family guy Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The details follow.

Look for energy (E) in your “c=frequency × wavelength” physics formula (see post #455). 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!

The Big Bang’s red-shift cosmicdistance ladder base rung is science fiction, so the Big Bang in a leap of faith.

Redshift produces longer wavelengths (lower frequency)than the original light or electromagnetic radiation emitted by the source. The three main types of redshift (Doppler, gravitational and cosmological).

Wtf is there even to debate about. Red shift can be observed experimentally???

Kermos wrote:

@FLRW wrote in post #488: AI says,

I note that you continue to rely on your failure-prone MIT AI IQ. See post #421 for your CMBR MIT AI IQ failure earlier incident.

@FLRW wrote in post #488: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral; it describes any increase in the wavelength (or decrease in frequency) of electromagnetic radiation, regardless of whether the light is visible to the human eye.

Oh, how quickly your brain dead MIT AI IQ got confounded that I conveyed that the electromagnetic spectrum maintains uniformity in the face of red-shift infrared<–red<–orange<–yellow<–green<–blue<–indigo<–violet<–ultraviolet in post #391.

Your brainless MIT AI IQ cannot deal with the mathematical fact that your energy (E) decrease (“decrease in frequency”) contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving your family guy Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The details follow.

Look for energy (E) in your “c=frequency × wavelength” physics formula (see post #455). 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!

The Big Bang’s red-shift cosmicdistance ladder base rung is science fiction, so the Big Bang in a leap of faith.

You’re straight up retarded if you think redshift/blueshift are a theory, THESE ARE NOT DEBATABLE FACTS.

Light that reaches us from planets or whatever the fuck (do you believe planets exist?) IS REDSHIFTED when the planet orbits AWAY from us, and BLUE SHIFTED when it moves TOWARDS us. You can see this at play with planets in our solar system since their size, orbital velocity and current positions relative to the Sun are all fully known. It takes the brain the size of a pea to calculate redshift from that. Why the fuck are you denyint shit that is TRIVIAL to prove?

whats next, the Earth is flat?

You gave them something to stand on .

Yes, Magoroth has a certain way with words...But will Kermos listen...Me thinks not.

SergeantLynch wrote:

Yes, Magoroth has a certain way with words...But will Kermos listen...Me thinks not.

I’m not normally this aggressive but to see someone deny such obvious things made me go ballistic lmao

Well it looks like, yet again, you seem to have missed my very long post 470. Any response to it, are are you still cowarding away from the very basic question I've asked you 5 times now?

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