@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.

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.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rungs are a leap of faith.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #498’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.

@Magoroth wrote in post #497: 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

Did you finish the reading assignment, shown below from my (post #218)? The assignment you requested addressed your new inquiry without being reduced to your vulgar belligerence which is unbecoming to scientific debate (hint, I’m preparing you for my responses to your next posts).

@Magoroth wrote in post #200: Wtf does relativity have to do with anything?

You requested schooling about the Big Bang’s relationship with Einstein’s relativity theories, so I’m assigning for you to read the content of the following list of posts in order to comprehend the subject matter as well as the current state of this thread, provided your mind can handle it:

1. post #61
2. post #87
3. post #93
4. post #199

@Magoroth wrote in post #200: If relativity is just fictional fantasy why is it that it explains the motion of planets better than Newton’s theory of gravity?

See the above list for content which emblazons the error embedded in your question.

@Magoroth wrote in post #200: Also energy-matter equivalence is not a myth you can literally turn energy into matter or vice versa.

I don’t find the word “myth” in the post to which you quoted, but I’m not skipping this.

As you can see in post #149, the MIT scholar scientist, @FLRW, wrote “At time=0 the Universe was at zero size” based upon his presentation of the Friedmann equations; therefore, your formula E=MC2 (energy-matter equivalence) existed not according to your nonscience scientist buddies.

Regardless of which formula that you employ, you end up with an irrationally illogical universe beginning. Your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

It will take a leap of faith to believe the universe has an ill logical beginning when it is shaped by universal physical laws.

@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

@Magoroth wrote in post #504: Wtf is there even to debate about. Red shift can be observed experimentally???

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

Red-shift is devoid of the Scientific Method

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.

This post supplements my post #275.

A Big Bang cosmic distance ladder’s foundational rungs are a leap of faith.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #511’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.

In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was observed in Fraunhofer lines, using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red.[7] In 1887, Hermann Carl Vogel and Julius Scheiner discovered the "annual Doppler effect", the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic, due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[8] In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors.[9][7]

This is literally from the wiki page. This has been observed experimentally and empirically for over 100 years. Wtf are you even debating?

@Magoroth wrote in post #505: You’re straight up retarded if you think redshift/blueshift are a theory, THESE ARE NOT DEBATABLE FACTS.

You quoted mathematical proof that red-shift is not fact:

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.

Then you in your mental deficiency wrote “THESE ARE NOT DEBATABLE FACTS”.

Here, I’ll repair your sentence for you. AS PER THE ABOVE ABOUT E=MC2 AND RED-SHIFT AND DISEQUILIBRIUM, THESE ARE NOT DEBATABLE FACTS WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT RED-SHIFT IS A BELIEF, SO THE BIG BANG IS A LEAP OF FAITH.

It is true the Big Bang is not debatable facts but scientific evidence of the expanding universe. No leap of faith is necessary when the scientific evidence supports the Big Bang.

@Magoroth wrote in post #506: 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?

Hey foul mouth Magoroth, show me a single publicly accessible scientific method paper including data as support for your “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”.

Here is astronomical observations that red shift sinks 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, and the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #506: 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?

Hey foul mouth Magoroth, show me a single publicly accessible scientific method paper including data as support for your “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”.

Here is astronomical observations that red shift sinks 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, and the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Do you realise the number of scientific theories you have to deny to reach the conclusion that Doppler Red/Blue shift doesn’t exist? Do you not believe light behaves as a wave? Do you deny the validity of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance?

@Debby wrote in post #492: Without the Big Bang all we are left with is a leap of faith in the creation story in the Bible.

Your Big Bang is a leap of faith, and you convey that you believe the Bible is nothing without the Big Bang.

You present zero scientific method fact about the Big Bang, 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. 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, Debby, align yourself with people like SergeantLynch who wickedly compose blasphemous writings against God as recorded in his post 490 (to you before your post) and his post 495 (to you after your post).

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.

Many mainstream theologians believe the Big Bang theory matches the biblical creation story because both describe the universe having a definite and sudden beginning.

Both were created from nothing.

The Vatican observatory notes that the Big Bang does not conflict with the idea of Divine creation.

There are even verses in the Bible that describe the Big Bang and expanding 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.

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!

Your “Redshift is widely” believed “as a primary method for determining cosmic distances and lookback times (the age of the universe” is a leap of belief!

Lord Jesus says “the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it” (Matthew 7:13), and the Big Bang way is wide!

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #514’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.

The beginning is either illogical or logical...Though I would suggest that as potential must have been available then everything becomes logical and is likely to conform to a process of behavioural conformity or physical laws...So "BIG BANG" as representative of a moment of inception is valid, relative to material existence, and therefore negates the need for faith leaping...Because we think, therefore we are here and are components thereof...Red shift as a scientifically derived concept makes no difference.

But hey let's take a leap and say, it could have been a magician with a massive wand...Though the only problem with that is; where the f**k did the magician with the massive wand come from.

Since you asked so nicely, here, experimental results SHOWING Doppler redshift:

W. Huggins, “Further observations on the spectra of some of the stars and nebulæ, with an attempt to determine therefrom whether these bodies are moving towards or from the earth,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 158, 529–564 (1868).

H. C. Vogel, “Ueber die Bestimmung der Bewegung von Sternen im Visionsradius durch spectrographische Beobachtungen,” Astronomische Nachrichten 119, 97–100 (1888).

“On the Spectrum of ζ Ursae Majoris,” American Journal of Science, ser. 3, 39, 46–47 (1890).

Vogel on β Aurigae. H. C. Vogel, “Researches on the System of the Spectroscopic Binary β Aurigae,” Astrophysical Journal 19, 360 (1904)

Bélopolsky, 1901 (moving mirrors). A. Bélopolsky, “On an Apparatus for the Laboratory Demonstration of the Doppler–Fizeau Principle,” Astrophysical Journal 13, 15 (1901)

B. Galitzin and J. Wilip, “Experimental Test of Doppler’s Principle for Light-Rays,” Astrophysical Journal 26, 49 (1907).

Fabry and Buisson, 1914 (spinning disk). Ch. Fabry and H. Buisson, “Vérification expérimentale du principe de Doppler–Fizeau,” Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 158, 1498–1500 (meeting of 25 May 1914).

Ives and Stilwell, 1938 (canal rays). H. E. Ives and G. R. Stilwell, “An Experimental Study of the Rate of a Moving Atomic Clock,” Journal of the Optical Society of America 28, 215–226 (1938).

These are just a few experiments showing Doppler redshift. Some of them don’t even look at stars, they’re done in the laboratory with motors and mirrors, so you can’t claim the experimental results are corrupted by Satan

@Debby wrote in post #501: From your earlier post #500, the redshift is mentioned several times in Einstein’s Relativity theory.

E=MC2 is still an unbalanced equation when you inject red-shift as shown in the “FLRW and Debby provided ‘corrupt science’ confirmation of formula calculation error production proof of concept ala the William and Valdemar example” (details recorded in post #485).

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Now you are attacking Einstein’s Relativity theory E=MC2.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

Now he is attacking Einstein’s Relativity theory or E=MC2.

@Debby wrote in post #503: 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).

Red-shift remains science fiction because 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 “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The E=MC2 mentions the redshift as the Doppler effect for light a.k.a as redshift in the link provided.

Hmmm, Photons have zero invariant (rest) mass, meaning they lack the intrinsic mass that characterizes particles like electrons or quarks. Despite being massless, photons possess energy and momentum, governed by the relativistic equation E=pc (where p is momentum and c is the speed of light).

This unique state arises because photons are massless gauge bosons that always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Because they move at c, they cannot be brought to rest; thus, the concept of "rest mass" does not apply, and their total energy is derived entirely from their motion and frequency.

Kermos wrote:

@Debby wrote in post #503: 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).

Red-shift remains science fiction because 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 “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Literally your whole phrase can be summarised as: “photons cannot lose energy because that would make me big sad"

So, I have two observations to make:

a) Congratulations on saying so little while filling an entire paragraph.

b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to, you draw your conclusions out of thin air - aka you believe what you want to believe and you dress the facts up to make them say what you want.

Basically this entire thread is you complaining about people being mean to you and ppl fabricating/misinterpreting science... you’re projecting so hard you’re effectively two-dimensional

He wants to create the impression he understands the discussion which to many he is just taking a leap of faith.

Kermos wrote:

@Debby wrote in post #178: @Kermos Belief in the creation of the world billions or thousands of years ago by God or the Big Bang is both an act of faith because no one actually witnessed it.

Please reread this message to you.

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

I believe in the Big Bang because after a Big Bang, my mother was pregnant and I was born. How could I be alive right now if there was no Big Bang?

@Magoroth wrote in post #515: In 1871, optical redshift was confirmed when the phenomenon was observed in Fraunhofer lines, using solar rotation, about 0.1 Å in the red.[7]

Your astronomer astrologer hero Hermann Carl Vogel of your next section’s “1887” account is attributed with your current section’s “1871” account as well.

In 1920, your great genius god Einstein wrote, “For the Sun, the theoretical redshift predicted is approximately two-millionths of the wavelength" (scraped from here).

Look at that, your great general relativity god Einstein wrote “predicted is” which indicates a red-shift reading yet to be discovered, not an already satisfied reading!

Either your genius Einstein was no genius, or your astronomer astrologer hero Hermann Carl Vogel was no observer of a Sun red-shift phenomenon. Either way, your belief is not red-shift fact because your belief is red-shift faith.

Einstein’s comment(1920) relative to mid-century Vogel(1871) is similar to @FLRW’s comment(2026) relative to mid-century Penzias(1965)/McKellar(1941).

You specifically left out your source document link which exposes your mental deficiency, so I assign Redshift (on Wikipedia) as your source document. The source citation 7 hyperlink (“The fall and rise of the Doppler effect”) for your “1871” account is your leap of faith. Your star bible lacks cohesion.

You present no scientific method in your “1871” account. Your research skills are pathetic.

I found your “wiki page” to be self-sustaining self-deceptive science with your very first of three red-shift supports.

@Magoroth wrote in post #515: In 1887, Hermann Carl Vogel and Julius Scheiner discovered the “annual Doppler effect”, the yearly change in the Doppler shift of stars located near the ecliptic, due to the orbital velocity of the Earth.[8]

Your source citation 8 hyperlink (“A History of Astronomy”) in your “literally from the wiki page” contains this:

An essential improvement was made when, in 1887, Vogel and Scheiner at the Potsdam Observatory constructed a spectrograph with proper provi¬ sions against a flexure and changes of temperature. Now the results had such greater accuracy that the orbital velocity of the earth was clearly shown by a periodic change in the measured radial velocity of the stars. Thus the validity of Doppler’s principle — previously doubted by some physicists — was demonstrated, as well as the yearly motion of the earth, for whomever might need it.

Your source failed to provide data even with two levels of indirection. You claim “I am right about red-shift because I am right about red-shift, and you are wrong about red-shift” through your data deficient source with your failed attempt at fact of “the validity of Doppler’s principle — previously doubted by some physicists — was demonstrated, as well as the yearly motion of the earth, for whomever might need it”. Just look at your high priest Stephen Hawking’s own star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”. You present no scientific method in your “1887” account. Your research skills are pathetic.

@Magoroth wrote in post #515: In 1901, Aristarkh Belopolsky verified optical redshift in the laboratory using a system of rotating mirrors.[9][7]

Belopolsky constructed “a device with a narrow-linewidth light source and rapidly rotating mirrors” per your source citation 7 hyperlink (“The fall and rise of the Doppler effect”) which can be extended with “between two oppositely rotating ‘water wheels’ whose blades were strips of plane mirrors, he succeeded in obtaining a speed of the image’s motion on the order of 1 km./sec” (source “Belopolsky, Aristarkh Apollonovich” on encyclopedia.com) which scientist sorcerers erroneously believe is proof of the Doppler effect for light.

Your source citation 9 hyperlink (“On an Apparatus for the Laboratory Demonstration of the Doppler-Fizeau Principle”) links to a page with the title without data and without a paper to evaluate Belopolsky’s work.

According to your champion, MIT educated nuclear scientist @FLRW as recorded in post #421, Belopolsky’s inferior pre-mid-century technology lacked the precision instrumentation to adequately simulate the required characteristics to validate a so-called doppler effect of light.

If Belopolsky used any “Apparatus for the Laboratory Demonstration of the Doppler-Fizeau Principle” at all, then he did not measure the Doppler effect of light - not blue-shift - not red-shift because of the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” as described in detail inside post #511 just a few posts above your current post that your post neglected which indicates the horrid state of your observational ability and your pathetic research skills.

@Magoroth wrote in post #515: This is literally from the wiki page. This has been observed experimentally and empirically for over 100 years. Wtf are you even debating?

I am debating you whose first debate argument was your deceptive “1871” accouunt, whose second debate argument was your data deficient “1887” explanation of faith masquerading as fact, and whose third debate argument was your unsubstantiated, science fiction 1901 Belopolsky discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8).

As shown above, your red-shift is faith, not fact, and it’s a sloppy faith at that, so I rationally call your red-shift your leap of faith. Since red-shift is the evolutionist’s foundation for the Big Bang, then the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

You leap of faith has jumped from your religious beliefs to science. This has only increased your faith in the many leaps you have taken.

@FLRW wrote in post #531: Hmmm, Photons have zero invariant (rest) mass, meaning they lack the intrinsic mass that characterizes particles like electrons or quarks. Despite being massless, photons possess energy and momentum, governed by the relativistic equation E=pc (where p is momentum and c is the speed of light). This unique state arises because photons are massless gauge bosons that always travel at the speed of light in a vacuum. Because they move at c, they cannot be brought to rest; thus, the concept of “rest mass” does not apply, and their total energy is derived entirely from their motion and frequency.

Red-shift remains science fiction because 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 “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

You, the MIT trained nuclear scientist, fail again (proof post #455) and fail again (proof post #465) and fail again (your current post above) to bring your relative “Albert Einstein through the Koch family” ignominious E=MC2 formula into equilibrium resulting in the revealing of red-shift ridiculousness.

Red-shift is a leap of belief, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Photons have zero rest mass, yet they still experience gravitational redshift because they carry energy and momentum.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #523: The beginning is either illogical or logical…Though I would suggest that as potential must have been available then everything becomes logical and is likely to conform to a process of behavioural conformity or physical laws…So “BIG BANG” as representative of a moment of inception is valid, relative to material existence, and therefore negates the need for faith leaping …snip… Red shift as a scientifically derived concept makes no difference …snip

As primarily foundational and pivotal to the Big Bang’s “physical laws”, so to speak, red-shift imposes a make or break condition for the Big Bang; in other words, Red shift as a nonsense nonscience derived concept makes an existential difference according to astrophysicists. The astronomer astrologer’s explanation for the expansion of the universe is very dependent on red-shift for the Big Bang adherent’s ultimate truth Hubble-Lemaître Law, v=H0D. H0 is the astronomer astrologer’s exalted Hubble Constant. That variable constant, er, constant variable, er, high priestly astronomer astrologer guesswork number (Hubble Constant) is driven by red-shift, and astronomer astrologers believe the Hubble variable Constant is between 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec and 100 km/sec/Mpc. When H=50, then the universe’s existence is about 20 billion years. When H=100, then the astronomer astrologers arrive at 10 billion years for the universe’s existence.

The age of the universe is between 10 billion years and a factor of 2 larger (essentially double the 10,000,000,000 years at 20,000,000,000 years; in other words, the events in the universe could have been transpiring for as much as 10,000,000,000 years more than the minimum of 10,000,000,000 years believed by your astronomer astrologer conjecturers!

Check this out, SergeantLynch, the error range is 10 billion years, so the error range is as big as the astronomer astrologer’s 10 billion year minimum existence time of the universe.

Consider your opening sentence of “The beginning is either illogical or logical”, and your statement’s implications combined with the v=H0D formula details, above, in evaluating the boolean state of your conclusion ‘So “BIG BANG” as representative of a moment of inception is valid’ which arrives at an illogical conclusion for your “BIG BANG”.

Now, consider your word “valid” in your conclusion of ‘So “BIG BANG” as representative of a moment of inception is valid’ which conveys your position that your “BIG BANG” theory is a fact (“valid”), yet I recall that you wrote “If it was proven it would be an unequivocal fact rather than a theory” about the Big Bang (your post #395). You produced a severe contradiction.

SergeantLynch, you are in Sector Science Battlefield

Consider the name of this thread, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. The thread is not titled “throw out unsupported Big Bang Theory statements”. The title of this thread equates to show me the facts, not just haphazardly mentioning your faith masquerading as fact. And you failed to show me any redshift facts, so you have a redshift leap of faith leading to a Big Bang leap of faith.

Since your “BIG BANG” is illogical and not a fact, then your “BIG BANG” is a leap of faith.

@Debby wrote in post #489: Redshift is critical to the Big Bang theory because it provides direct observational proof that the universe is expanding.

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.