Here is the post, special for you, FLRW, which I mentioned in my previous post.

@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 composition in this thread 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.

Kermos wrote:

Here is the post, special for you, FLRW, which I mentioned in my previous post.

@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 composition in this thread 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.

Why do you sound like an artificial intelligence?

It’s because he believes it comes from a higher source.

Kermos, why do you like Chinese scientist?

The validity of Eda Gjergo’s concept that early massive galaxy formation significantly contaminates or even constitutes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently not accepted by the mainstream cosmological community and is considered a controversial hypothesis rather than established fact.

Gjergo and co-author Pavel Kroupa published a paper in Nuclear Physics B (2025) arguing that radiation from the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) could account for at least 1.4% and potentially 100% of the observed CMB energy density, thereby challenging the standard Big Bang model. Their calculations suggest that these galaxies were up to 10,000 times brighter during formation than they are today, and their redshifted infrared emissions could mimic the CMB spectrum.

However, prominent physicists and reviewers have raised significant criticisms:

1. Mechanism Issues: Critics note that for galaxy emission to mimic the CMB, there must be a mechanism to distribute cosmic dust uniformly and thermalize it to the exact temperature of the CMB, which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies, not uniformly distributed.
2. Observational Evidence: Standard cosmology maintains that the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang), while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years). The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models.
3. Methodological Concerns: Some reviews point out circularity and a lack of sensitivity analysis in the authors' claims, noting that the 1.4% figure is a conservative lower bound that the authors themselves admit could scale up to 100% with "small tweaks" to assumptions, which undermines predictive rigor.

In summary, while Gjergo and Kroupa’s work highlights a potential foreground contamination that warrants further study, the consensus view remains that the CMB is a relic of the Big Bang, and the claim that it arises primarily from early galaxy formation is regarded as unsalvageable nonsense or a provocative but unproven hypothesis by many in the astrophysics community.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: For the record I had to break down your post with AI because it’s so utterly incomprehensible. Wtf does “red-shift related phrase” even mean?

Poor neuron-deprived Magoroth, you had to use augmented intelligence (AI) in order to understand a simple reference to your own writing!

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: It’s like 123114 extra words for literally no reason except to appear smart.

Obviously, your lack of innate neural capacity requires that I be pedantic with you. By the way, you overcounted my post #563’s word count by a factor exceeding 272, so your brain is delusionally deficient for debating your 13,800,000,000 year old Big Bang.

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: 1) “delta of the speed of light” - No, it’s the difference in velocity between the source that emits light and the receiver. The speed of light remains the same. The energy of a photon isn’t related to its velocity, which is constant, it’s related to its frequency. Not sure what you’re even trying to say here

I’m about to disect your concepts of your above paragraph very carefully for you, Magoroth.

You wrote “difference in velocity”.

Velocity is simply defined as “Rapidity or speed of motion; swiftness” (source thefreedictionary.com/velocity).

The “velocity” concept in your writing represents precisely the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

I’ll state this for you another way. The speed of light (C) and the velocity of a photon (C) are exactly the same thing, and both ways of saying the same thing apply to Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

Your brain’s “it’s the difference in velocity between the source that emits light and the receiver” confusedly contradicts your brain’s immediately subsequent “The energy of a photon isn’t related to its velocity, which is constant”, and I can prove it by quoting a physics textbook here, “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts).

The next segment of your broken brain’s output is “it’s related to its frequency” where you attempt to disintegrate the energy (E) relationship with the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

And, finally, your brain’s blather of “Not sure what you’re even trying to say here” is a lie or you are stupid.

@Magoroth wrote in post #565: 2) “results …snip…. We are discussing Doppler redshift, not cosmological redshift.

This whole thread is about cosmology in reference to the Big Bang, just look at the thread title, Magoroth, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

Your whole “E=MC2 has nothing to do with this. The energy of the system is the kinetic energy of the source plus the energy of the photon/light beam itself. E=MC2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy, it has nothing to do with this topic” is a poorly crafted deception.

Einstein’s E=MC2 equation is an equivalence formula between energy (E), mass (M), and photonic velocity a.k.a. the speed of light (C).

The Magoroth Model, E=M

The effect of your brain’s “E=MC^2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy” results in a new, non-Einstein equation of E=M. Your words explicitly excluded the speed of light (C) from E=MC2, so you end up with the Magoroth Model of E=M where E is energy and M is mass.

Back to Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

The “system” in your “the energy of the system is the kinetic energy” is energy (E) inside of the “system” defined by Einstein in E=MC2 with the constituent speed of light (C) that is so very integral to this “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” topic going back to post #361.

The red-shift concept pushes the light particle speed way beyond your maximum speed limit for light of 186,000 miles per second in Einstein’s E=MC2 equation, and the red-shift concept amounts to Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) that I explained to you earlier in post #548, and Newton’s Law amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. You are desperately trying to escape physics, Magoroth.

The action of photonic energy (E) displacement inside E=MC2 requires an equal and opposite reaction inside E=MC2, and the reaction is explained in the next paragraph.

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.

The horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills are glaringly visible, again.

I remind you about your bringing up “Satan” in your writing “you can’t claim the experimental results are corrupted by Satan” in your post #524. Since Lord and God Jesus Christ is not a God of confusion but of peace (1 Corinthians 14:33), then your confusion detailed in the above paragraphs of this post places you squarely in the domain of Satan the devil with you preaching your discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8) about red-shift and the Big Bang.

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

Please state clearly what the relevance of the energy difference between violet and red is. They both travel at the same velocity, their frequency differs.

Also E=MC^2 isn’t a system. Where’s the forces? It states that if you convert a particle of mass M into a photon (particle-antiparticle annihilation), you get a photon whose energy is equal to the the mass of the particle (rest mass) times the speed of light squared. There is no system, what system could there possibly be in E=MC^2?

Again, red shift doesn’t push anything past anything. The speed of light is constant. Photons’ oscillations appear to you to be more rapid or slower depending on the velocity and this is conmon sense since light is a wave.

Or are you seriously suggesting photons of different frequency travel at different velocities? Why has literally the speed of light been consistently found to be 300,000km/s in a vacuum? Do you actually believe all the photons we tested were of the same wavelength?

And more importantly; how do you explain radio waves, they travel “instantly” as far as we are concerned. If you were correct they should be much slower than other photons since they have a very low frequency, correct? This doesn’t happen.

We have sent messages via radio and received messages via radio from the Moon, which is approximately 1 light second away from Earth (Apollo 11 was televised), and it had a delay of 1 second.

And this is true for gamma rays too; a lot of nuclear physics would break down if gamma rays were faster than other photons.

You seem to further be doubting the validity of general relativity but I don’t think you realise how far reaching its implications are. It even affects the chemical characteristics of certain metals, like gold for instance. Why is gold yellow and not white? It’s because of relativity, the electrons are so energetix they move at considerable fractions of the speed of light.

Also… why would anyone call it the speed of light if it weren’t constant? They would just say the speed of blue light or whatever.

I don’t think you understood what I said. When a source moves away from a receiver, the speed of light doesn’t change, both the source and the receiver would agree the speed of the beam of the light travelling from one to the other is 300,000 km/s. If the source stops moving with respect to the receiver, the speed the measure of the light beam remains the same 300,000km/s. The kinetic energy of the source is then 0 since its not moving, BUT in the case where it IS moving (Doppler effect), it is non-zero.

Yes congratulations Einstein E=MC^2 is the equivalence formula between mass (matter) and pure energy (photons), this is what I’ve been saying all along lmao

@Magoroth wrote in post #572: Why do you sound like an artificial intelligence?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

You exhibit the Pharmakeia Principle (post #71).

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You fail to present Big Bang facts, so you have a Big Bang leap of faith.

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe the Big Bang never happened when the Bible describes creation as similar to the Big Bang where creation had a beginning, took time to develop and continues to expand.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Kermos, why do you like Chinese scientist?

You’re racist. You admitted that you look like one who associates with communists (post #570), and the chinese have a communist form of government.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: The validity of Eda Gjergo’s concept that early massive galaxy formation significantly contaminates or even constitutes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently not accepted by the mainstream cosmological community and is considered a controversial hypothesis rather than established fact.

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. I previously explained that I use your science against you. Gjergo is your mainstream cosmological community’s scientist sorceress.

Kroupa’s credentials are primarily European. 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’s credentials far exceed your credentials to address the CMBR’s status in the mainstream cosmological community!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Gjergo and co-author Pavel Kroupa published a paper in Nuclear Physics B (2025) arguing that radiation from the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) could account for at least 1.4% and potentially 100% of the observed CMB energy density, thereby challenging the standard Big Bang model. Their calculations suggest that these galaxies were up to 10,000 times brighter during formation than they are today, and their redshifted infrared emissions could mimic the CMB spectrum.

So, your CMBR is faith-based which is the very point that you nonsensically non-scientifically fight.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: However, prominent physicists and reviewers have raised significant criticisms:

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. Name names.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 1. Mechanism Issues: Critics note that for galaxy emission to mimic the CMB, there must be a mechanism to distribute cosmic dust uniformly and thermalize it to the exact temperature of the CMB, which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies, not uniformly distributed.

Your CMBR is not uniform as established in post #376.

Your “which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies” is your scientist sorcerers belief without proof (assumption, see post #53 for the dictionary definition).

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 2. Observational Evidence: Standard cosmology maintains that the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang), while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years). The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models.

Here, you credit “Observational Evidence”. There, you discredit “Observational Evidence” (see post #478). Your sloppy science is self-contradictory!

Your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” is a massive assumption (belief without proof, see post #53 for the dictionary definition). Nobody observed your CMB origination, so you lied by including your unobserved CMB origination under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” is your “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53 built on top of your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” massive “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53), so you lied by including your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your “The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models”, that you stated so “matter of fact” is really a “matter of faith” built on your detailed lies above.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 3. Methodological Concerns: Some reviews point out circularity and a lack of sensitivity analysis in the authors’ claims, noting that the 1.4% figure is a conservative lower bound that the authors themselves admit could scale up to 100% with “small tweaks” to assumptions, which undermines predictive rigor.

Hmm, “Some reviews”, but not all reviews, so much for your “authoritative” “mainstream cosmological community” cohesion.

You have “assumptions”, and they have assumptions. You dogmatically believe your “belief without proof” are superior to their belief without proof by way of your fanatical evolution religion intense zeal.

Your “3. Methodological Concerns” apply to your position, as well, FLRW! You employ scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion followed by their application of mathematical statistics (magic) to arrive at your “definitive 2.725 K” (proof post #421). I posted your CMBR data points with detailed mathematical analysis in post #376 and post #421 which clearly exposed your “definitive 2.725 K” to be a magical, mystical, nonsense nonscience faith.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: In summary, while Gjergo and Kroupa’s work highlights a potential foreground contamination that warrants further study, the consensus view remains that the CMB is a relic of the Big Bang, and the claim that it arises primarily from early galaxy formation is regarded as unsalvageable nonsense or a provocative but unproven hypothesis by many in the astrophysics community.

Oh, look, “potential foreground contamination” is a variant of you “scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion” which I referenced earlier in this post. That is you, Mr. MIT AI IQ scientist sorcerer FLRW committing your magical, mystical act right there!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

You failed to prove your CMBR, and you failed to disprove your CMBR. I am using your science against you, so whether you prove or disprove Kroupa et al’s paper doesn’t matter to me because I’m showing you that your whole Big Bang is a leap of faith.

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 you the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has personal faith expressed as scientific fact in his own composition in this thread 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.

Your whole Big Bang is unproven and unobserved with bad evidence, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

The CMBR acts as primary evidence for the Big Bang Theory and disproved the steady state model.

A theory cannot disprove a theory...Only fact can disprove a theory...Though one theory might supplant another in terms of popularity.

Though BIG BANG is a nominal generalization of an initiated and progressive universe and the very fact that we are having this conversation would seem to support this idea...Nonetheless as such, theoretical ideas do not require faith, but rather, require further consideration.

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.

He will admit it still takes him a leap of faith to accept the Big Bang theory, the science is too complicated for him.

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Please state clearly what the relevance of the energy difference between violet and red is.

I am happy to oblige, so here you go.

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 refer you to 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.

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: They both travel at the same velocity, their frequency differs.

Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Also E=MC^2 isn’t a system.

“A group of interacting, interrelated, or interdependent elements forming a complex whole” is the definition of “system” (source: thefreedictionary.com/system), so energy (E) with mass (M) with photonic velocity (C) of E=MC2 are the interacting and interrelated elements which comprise a system.

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Where’s the forces?

Would that force be the ember (photon) speedily traveling brightly through the universe that astronomer astrologers claim has been traveling through space for 13.5 billion years from Galaxy candidate HDI until it was extinguished in a telescope at Earth? That ember which purportedly maintained it’s flame for more than a whopping 197 million lifespans of your life. Would that force be the propellant that releases a high energy blue photon as a lower energy red photon? None of this matters for the system that is represented inside of the E=MC2 formula because photons are represented by the speed of light (C) in the E=MC2 formula.

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: It states that if you convert a particle of mass M into a photon (particle-antiparticle annihilation), you get a photon whose energy is equal to the the mass of the particle (rest mass) times the speed of light squared. There is no system, what system could there possibly be in E=MC^2?

The equal sign (=) indicates balance inside E=MC2, but an integral symbol (∫) is missing. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is incomplete at best for you and false at worst for you based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Again, red shift doesn’t push anything past anything. The speed of light is constant. Photons’ oscillations appear to you to be more rapid or slower depending on the velocity and this is conmon sense since light is a wave.

Again, you converted the formula to Magoroth’s Model of E=M. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Or are you seriously suggesting photons of different frequency travel at different velocities?

I wrote that equilibrium within E=MC2 must be maintained between energy (E) and mass (M) and the speed of photons (C), but you persist in diverting to your “frequency” which isn’t specifically a variable element within E=MC2. Red-shift forces the increase of velocity as per equilibrium within E=MC2. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Why has literally the speed of light been consistently found to be 300,000km/s in a vacuum?

Light has never been tested at 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from Earth, so the answer to your question is that “it hasn’t”, yet this doesn’t matter because this is about the the relationship between red-shift and Einstein’s E=MC2. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Do you actually believe all the photons we tested were of the same wavelength?

It doesn’t matter because your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: And more importantly; how do you explain radio waves, they travel “instantly” as far as we are concerned. If you were correct they should be much slower than other photons since they have a very low frequency, correct? This doesn’t happen. We have sent messages via radio and received messages via radio from the Moon, which is approximately 1 light second away from Earth (Apollo 11 was televised), and it had a delay of 1 second.

There’s no red-shift involved in your radio wave examples. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: And this is true for gamma rays too; a lot of nuclear physics would break down if gamma rays were faster than other photons.

It does not matter about your gamma ray example because this is about the relationship between Einstein’s E=MC2 and red-shift. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: You seem to further be doubting the validity of general relativity but I don’t think you realise how far reaching its implications are. It even affects the chemical characteristics of certain metals, like gold for instance. Why is gold yellow and not white? It’s because of relativity, the electrons are so energetix they move at considerable fractions of the speed of light.

You are missing the point which is the impact of your so-called red-shift on Einstein’s E=MC2. The gold metal seen by a person is not red-shifted. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Also… why would anyone call it the speed of light if it weren’t constant? They would just say the speed of blue light or whatever.

The speed of the car was… Your argument fails to address the core issue of the relationship between Einstein’s E=MC2 with Doppler effect for light. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: I don’t think you understood what I said. When a source moves away from a receiver, the speed of light doesn’t change, both the source and the receiver would agree the speed of the beam of the light travelling from one to the other is 300,000 km/s. If the source stops moving with respect to the receiver, the speed the measure of the light beam remains the same 300,000km/s. The kinetic energy of the source is then 0 since its not moving, BUT in the case where it IS moving (Doppler effect), it is non-zero.

I acknowledge what you are saying avoids the core concept of the relationship between the Doppler effect for light and Einstein’s E=MC2. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

@Magoroth wrote in post #575: Yes congratulations Einstein E=MC^2 is the equivalence formula between mass (matter) and pure energy (photons), this is what I’ve been saying all along lmao

The Magoroth Model, E=M, competes against Einstein’s E=MC2.

In effect, you eliminated the speed of light (C) from Einstein’s E=MC2 which converts the formula into your Magoroth Model E=M. Your stated red-shift contextuaized belief, there, is false based on Einstein’s E=MC2 as detailed for you in “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” (see the first section of this post and also in post #361).

Red-shift disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2, and/or Einstein’s E=MC2 disrupts red-shift; therefore, red-shift is a leap of faith, so the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Red shift does not disrupt E=MC2 and neither concept invalidates the other. In modern physics both cosmological redshift and Einstein’s mass-energy equivalence are highly verified, mathematical compatible pillars of science. The premise that one disrupts the other is incorrect, meaning the conclusion that the Big Bang is a mere leap of faith does not logically follow.

Red-shift does not disrupt Einstein’s E=mc²; rather, it is a direct consequence of the energy-frequency relationship defined by the equation.

Gravitational and cosmological redshift occur when photons lose energy as they travel out of a gravitational well or through expanding space. Since a photon's energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

1. Energy Conservation: In general relativity, energy conservation is maintained through the curvature of spacetime; the photon's energy shift reflects the change in gravitational potential or the expansion of space, not a violation of mass-energy equivalence.
2. Frequency Shift: The observed redshift is simply the photon adapting to the new reference frame or potential, with its lower energy manifesting as a longer wavelength (redder light).
3. Theoretical Consistency: Einstein predicted this effect in 1907, and it has been experimentally verified (e.g., by Pound and Rebka), confirming that light behaves consistently with relativistic physics.

Redshift is a verification of General Relativity and the Einstein equivalence principle, not a disruption of E=mc². 

Since a photon's energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

Loss of some kind of momentum-like energy, not the photon itself, and in fact, the wave length gets longer, so from my perspective, we still have the same photon, that is spread out over a greater distance of space { Gravitational space is my choice }.

^v^v^v goes to / \ / \ / goes to _____________ ultra-long wave nearly flatline space, ergo, Entropic Heat Death of Universe i.e. lower frequency = colder Universe, with same sum-total accounting because, naught is lost nor created only transformed, eternally.

So does that latter included, transformation from higher frequency energy to lower frequency energy?

Logic doesn't follow Kermos...You should have realised that by now.

But you refute yourself. How can E=MC^2 ever be in equilibrium for a photon when its mass is 0? Its energy is not zero as you admit, so obviously the formula does not apply to the photon.

Again, I literally linked studies that tested REDSHIFT on EARTH using manmade objects, in 1907, using motors on a mirror.

”Light has never been tested at 6,0000,000000,000 miles from Earth”

1. This is an unreasonable demand. Why don’t we make these demands of you, since you’re the one coming up with a theory backed by nothing but sand? I make the sand comparison with the mental image of you trying to grasp a fistful of sand only to have it crumble and fall out of your fingers.
2. You complain that redshift has never been tested on Earth/its immediate environs, and now you complain that the speed of light (directly related to redshift in your view since according to you violet light travels faster than red light) has only been tested on Earth. This is a pretty clear contradiction…

”There is no redshift involved in radio waves”

No, but they are photons of longer wavelength and thus lower energy, so thus they should travel more slowly according to you, which doesn’t happen. Again, this refutes your theory.

Same goes for gamma rays.

The point of me bringing up gold was to show that relativity and the value of the speed of light has direct influence on everyday life, it is not just a theory about spacetime and astronomy. Denial of the speed of light makes a lot of nuclear processes and just the physical behaviour of certain substances change radically, quite possibly making life as we know it impossible.

It ignores E=MC^2 because it has nothing to do with this formula. Again, this formula cannot apply to photons or other massless particles because they have nothing mass yet they do have energy. You cannot have 0 on one side of the equation and non-zero on the other.

I eliminate nothing, it is you who persists in claiming that e=mc^2 has a relevance in this situation, when it is pretty fucking blatant that it doesn’t if you just think for two seconds.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #581: Though BIG BANG is a nominal generalization of an initiated and progressive universe and the very fact that we are having this conversation would seem to support this idea…Nonetheless as such, theoretical ideas do not require faith, but rather, require further consideration.

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

Since a theory is not a proven fact, then a theory is a person’s faith. Your writing conveys about yourself that “I am a believer in the Hubble-Lemaître Law Big Bang because I believe in the Hubble-Lemaître Law Big Bang and my belief in the Hubble-Lemaître Law Big Bang is not a belief”.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You fail to present Big Bang facts, so you have a Big Bang leap of faith.

Science is not based on faith but evidence. The Big Bang theory is supported by scientific evidence that include the Hubble-Lemaître Law, Einstein’s E=MC2 and many others.

@FLRW wrote in post #586: Red-shift does not disrupt …snip

Mr. observationally challenged scientist FLRW,

Instead of addressing my CMBR disrupting recent response post #578 to you, you skipped it, so here is a full copy for (1) you to get back on track with your faith based CMBR and (2) you to be unable to respond to me with scientific method based procedure for your CMBR.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Kermos, why do you like Chinese scientist?

You’re racist. You admitted that you look like one who associates with communists (post #570), and the chinese have a communist form of government.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: The validity of Eda Gjergo’s concept that early massive galaxy formation significantly contaminates or even constitutes the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) is currently not accepted by the mainstream cosmological community and is considered a controversial hypothesis rather than established fact.

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. I previously explained that I use your science against you. Gjergo is your mainstream cosmological community’s scientist sorceress.

Kroupa’s credentials are primarily European. 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’s credentials far exceed your credentials to address the CMBR’s status in the mainstream cosmological community!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: Gjergo and co-author Pavel Kroupa published a paper in Nuclear Physics B (2025) arguing that radiation from the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs) could account for at least 1.4% and potentially 100% of the observed CMB energy density, thereby challenging the standard Big Bang model. Their calculations suggest that these galaxies were up to 10,000 times brighter during formation than they are today, and their redshifted infrared emissions could mimic the CMB spectrum.

So, your CMBR is faith-based which is the very point that you nonsensically non-scientifically fight.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574:](https://www.debatecraft.com/forum/c/science-and-technology/posts/10g/show-me-how-the-big-bang-theory-is-not-a-leap-of-faith?page=20&comment_number=574) However, prominent physicists and reviewers have raised significant criticisms:

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. Name names.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 1. Mechanism Issues: Critics note that for galaxy emission to mimic the CMB, there must be a mechanism to distribute cosmic dust uniformly and thermalize it to the exact temperature of the CMB, which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies, not uniformly distributed.

Your CMBR is not uniform as established in post #376.

Your “which is physically unlikely given that dust is generated by specific galaxies” is your scientist sorcerers belief without proof (assumption, see post #53 for the dictionary definition).

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 2. Observational Evidence: Standard cosmology maintains that the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang), while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years). The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models.

Here, you credit “Observational Evidence”. There, you discredit “Observational Evidence” (see post #478). Your sloppy science is self-contradictory!

Your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” is a massive assumption (belief without proof, see post #53 for the dictionary definition). Nobody observed your CMB origination, so you lied by including your unobserved CMB origination under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” is your “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53 built on top of your “the CMB originates from recombination (380,000 years after the Big Bang)” massive “belief without proof” (assumption, see post #53), so you lied by including your unobserved “while the galaxies in question formed much later (~200 million years)” under your “ 2. Observational Evidence”.

Your “The spectral shape and anisotropies of the CMB are robustly explained by the Big Bang model and are not fully accounted for by galaxy formation models”, that you stated so “matter of fact” is really a “matter of faith” built on your detailed lies above.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: 3. Methodological Concerns: Some reviews point out circularity and a lack of sensitivity analysis in the authors’ claims, noting that the 1.4% figure is a conservative lower bound that the authors themselves admit could scale up to 100% with “small tweaks” to assumptions, which undermines predictive rigor.

Hmm, “Some reviews”, but not all reviews, so much for your “authoritative” “mainstream cosmological community” cohesion.

You have “assumptions”, and they have assumptions. You dogmatically believe your “belief without proof” are superior to their belief without proof by way of your fanatical evolution religion intense zeal.

Your “3. Methodological Concerns” apply to your position, as well, FLRW! You employ scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion followed by their application of mathematical statistics (magic) to arrive at your “definitive 2.725 K” (proof post #421). I posted your CMBR data points with detailed mathematical analysis in post #376 and post #421 which clearly exposed your “definitive 2.725 K” to be a magical, mystical, nonsense nonscience faith.

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

@FLRW wrote in post #574: In summary, while Gjergo and Kroupa’s work highlights a potential foreground contamination that warrants further study, the consensus view remains that the CMB is a relic of the Big Bang, and the claim that it arises primarily from early galaxy formation is regarded as unsalvageable nonsense or a provocative but unproven hypothesis by many in the astrophysics community.

Oh, look, “potential foreground contamination” is a variant of you “scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion” which I referenced earlier in this post. That is you, Mr. MIT AI IQ scientist sorcerer FLRW committing your magical, mystical act right there!

You expressed no scientific method support for your CMBR, there.

You failed to prove your CMBR, and you failed to disprove your CMBR. I am using your science against you, so whether you prove or disprove Kroupa et al’s paper doesn’t matter to me because I’m showing you that your whole Big Bang is a leap of faith.

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 you the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has personal faith expressed as scientific fact in his own composition in this thread 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.

Your whole Big Bang is unproven and unobserved with bad evidence, so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

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.

@ebuc wrote in post #587: Since a photon’s energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

I see that you subscribe to the MITman Model (post #465) school of thought which holds that your faulty E=hf formula concludes with you performing the G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1) formula where G must equal 0 for logical consistency. Your loss of photonic energy is a loss of photonic frequency which is two decreases, but you have a single increase in your formula with the wavelength. Hence your imbalanced equation garbage physics are illuminated by the MITman Model (post #465)!

@ebuc wrote in post #587: so from my perspective

Your perspective is not based on the scientific method. Your perspective is your faith.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

He is quoting the Planck relation and the wave length equation.

The combined formula shows that energy is inversely proportional to wavelength. A lower energy state directly corresponds to a longer wavelength.

Unfortunately Kermos is too much of a Kermit thermos hybrid.

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.

Kermos wrote:

@ebuc wrote in post #587: Since a photon’s energy is proportional to its frequency (E=hf), a loss of energy results in a decrease in frequency and a corresponding increase in wavelength.

I see that you subscribe to the MITman Model (post #465) school of thought which holds that your faulty E=hf formula concludes with you performing the G=(+1)+(-1)+(-1) formula where G must equal 0 for logical consistency. Your loss of photonic energy is a loss of photonic frequency which is two decreases, but you have a single increase in your formula with the wavelength. Hence your imbalanced equation garbage physics are illuminated by the MITman Model (post #465)!

@ebuc wrote in post #587: so from my perspective

Your perspective is not based on the scientific method. Your perspective is your faith.

The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

My man, if you deny anything and everything that disagrees with what you say and believe, what even is the point of arguing? If you desperately want to believe in this nonsense, feel free to do so, you don’t need our permission.

That being said, no matter how much you cry about it, you’re not only wrong, you’re provably wrong, about as far as one can prove something about anything.

Why do you accept e=mc^2 but not e=hf?

I’ll humour you. e=mc^2 doesn’t apply to the photon because it has no mass, and yet it has energy (and momentum). e=hf has been experimentally confirmed multiple times; Wikipedia says it was confirmed in 1919 and in 1960, along (ironically enough) with gravitational blue-shift.

You selectively accept formulas/ideas that agree with whatever preconceived notion you have about the Universe, and reject whatever doesn’t. This is quite clearly insane. If you are not yet psychotic, you are certainly well on the road to losing touch with reality, and I don’t mean this in an insulting manner.

I believe in God too, but I don’t feel the need to disprove the Big Bang by denying facts that have been known for 100 years, and not just discovered by anyone, but by big names like Einstein, Planck, etc. Do you not realise how crazy this is? I know you won’t, but you should do some self-examination and consider whether such a faith (especially in irrelevant details like these, whether the Big Bang created the Universe [which COULD be entirely consistent with God’s existence]) is worth holding. Surely you can abandon irrelevant details whilst keeping the substance. Otherwise, I’m afraid you will either become insane or an atheist incredibly fast.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #599: Unfor …snip

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

Slander as you may, slander as you might, your science (knowledge) deficiency manifests in your failure to respond with the scientific method.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You fail to present Big Bang facts, so you have a Big Bang leap of faith.

@Skipper wrote in post #534: 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?

THREAD HIJACK ATTEMPT ALERT

You posted generalized emotion at the expense of specific evidence. If you present specific scientific method based analysis about your Big Bang Conjecture, then, the Lord willing, I will respond.

I’m not going out on a limb by saying your mommy ain’t 13.8 billion years old.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. You fail to present Big Bang facts, so you have a Big Bang leap of faith.