@FLRW wrote in post #626: Hmmm, In public Hitler embraced religion and religious rhetoric is through his speeches. …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.

Inept scientist FLRW used broken grammar that rendered his sentence as garbage, like his garbage science as illustrated by the MITman Model in post #465.

Having escaped your scientific observational skills or lack thereof, Hitler was a evolutionist who preached the superiority of the Arian race. That puts the mass murderer Hitler squarely in your evolution religion camp. You just massively upped the scale from when you liken yourself to Oppenheimer as recorded in post #570.

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. So, I draw your attention to a prior post to which you evade a response!

@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 nor post #592 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: However, prominent physicists and reviewers have raised significant criticisms:

You are a sloppy scientist who was indoctrinated at MIT. Name names with links to papers.

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.

Who the f**k was going to observe the beginning of the universe.

Hence why we can only theorise, rather than faithfully leap.

Now, if you want to faithfully leap, go kneel and pray to a magic creator man.

@SergeantLynch wrote in post #632: Who the f**k was going to observe the beginning of the universe.

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 Jesus willing, I will respond.

I’ll tell you who wasn’t there - you weren’t there, so you are an unreliable witness for the Big Bang!

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.

The physician signs of the Big Bang are still visible across the entire sky today, most notably as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

@Debby wrote in post #634:The physician signs of the Big Bang

That is one nonsensical phrase about a nonsense nonscience Big Bang!

@Debby wrote in post #634: are still visible across the entire sky today, most notably as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB).

So says the self-described scientist therapist Debby without a scrap of scientific method in a “matter of fact” fashion with only a “matter of faith”, but 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” as detailed with a link to his paper in post #631 just a short distance above your antichrist post.

Your CMB is your religious leap of faith, so your Big Bang is your leap of faith.

The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is considered highly accurate and robust, serving as the most perfect blackbody spectrum ever measured in nature. Measurements from the COBE, WMAP, and Planck satellites have confirmed its spectrum matches theoretical predictions for a temperature of 2.725 K with exquisite precision, making it a cornerstone of the Big Bang cosmological model.

While the overall temperature and spectrum are measured with extreme accuracy, the CMBR exhibits tiny anisotropies (temperature fluctuations) on the order of one part in 100,000. These minute variations are critical for cosmology, as they reveal the density fluctuations that led to the formation of galaxies and provide precise constraints on the age, geometry, and composition of the universe. Despite some minor unresolved anomalies at large angular scales and tensions with other cosmological measurements (like the Hubble constant), the CMBR data itself is among the most reliable and precise in modern physics.

@FLRW wrote in post #636: The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is considered highly accurate and robust

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” as detailed with a link to his paper in post #631 just a short distance above your faith-based post.

FLRW, your science is so weak that you just repeat yourself without responding to post #631. WEAK SCIENCE FLRW.

Your CMB is your religious leap of faith, so your Big Bang is your leap of faith.

The research was inconclusive and the difference in calculation very minor. Not enough for scientist to reject the Big Bang theory.

@Debby wrote in post #638: The research was inconclusive and the difference in calculation very minor. Not enough for scientist to reject the Big Bang theory.

You fabricate antichrist faith. The maximum conservative deviation results in the nullification of CMBR, so astrophysicist Kroupa’s research is not your “difference in calculation very minor”; furthermore, a liberal deviation is worse for CMBR than a conservative deviation.

Your “scientist” has Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science (knowledge) as clearly illustrated in the CMBR disrupting post #631 just a short distance above your faith-based post.

Thank you for using the word “reject” which indicates your Big Bang CMBR is believable or disbelievable.

Your CMBR is your religious leap of faith, so your Big Bang is your antichrist leap of faith.

OK, I see what is going on here. I estimate Debby's IQ at 160 and K's at 45-47.

Kermos needs a higher IQ to understand the science behind the Big Bang theory. Your estimate is very close.

@FLRW wrote in post #640: OK, I see what is going on here. I estimate Debby’s IQ at 160 and K’s at 45-47.

FLRW has Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science (knowledge) such as exposed in my red-shift disrupting post #603 to which FLRW still fails to respond, so here’s the proof for writing Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science about FLRW.

You are antiscience because you delusionally discard and besmirch the reputation of the astrophysicist who said of NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe” and quasars in general “too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental”, and these quotes were issued by astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences (source for Burbidge quotes), who with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper published in m The Astrophysical Journal (issue 1, volume 620).

@FLRW wrote in post #586: Red-shift does not disrupt Einstein’s E=mc²

Red-shift most certainly disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2 and/or vice versa. Here is the proof that disrupts your whole post. You repeated your frequency argument, but frequency is not explicitly included in Einstein’s E=MC2, so a photon with the photon’s frequency and wavelength are represented in the speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s E=MC2; therefore, the shift from high energy violet light to low energy red light results in a decrease of energy (E) within Einstein’s E=MC2 forcing the speed of light (C) for the photon without mass (M) to increase beyond 186,000 miles per second thus smashing your constant speed limit for light!

@FLRW wrote in post #586: 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.

Your statement overflows with illogical inconsistency:

1. You repeated the MITman Model (post #465) 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 one increase up your sleeve with the wavelength. Hence your imbalanced equation garbage physics are illuminated by the MITman Model (post #465)!
2. Your E=hf fails to provide a balanced account for your E=hf, so your E=hf certainly fails to provide a balanced account for Einstein’s E=MC2!

@FLRW wrote in post #586: energy conservation is maintained through the curvature of spacetime

Your “spacetime” is a leap of faith as per post #199 which, among other valid fact disrupting your Big Bang, shows that time is not represented in Einstein’s E=MC2 so Einstein’s E=MC2 has no plottable position in the Minkowski spacetime model resulting in Big Bang adherent’s leap of faith in spacetime.

@FLRW wrote in post #586: mass-energy equivalence

Your restriction of Einstein’s E=MC2 exclusively to equivalence of mass (M) and energy (E) results in YOU eliminating the speed of light (C) from Einstein’s E=MC2; therefore, you promote your E=M model. You science is so incredibly sloppy!

You are using your E=M leap of faith to support your spacetime leap of faith to support your red-shift leap of faith to support your Big Bang leap of faith.

You unjustly slandered me

No, my slander was perfectly justified.

I called you a coward. Because you are. Over 600 posts into this thread, dozens or maybe even hundreds by yourself, many of which being into the thousands in terms of characters, and you still make up excuse after excuse after excuse just to avoid answering perhaps the most basic question you've been asked in this entire thread.

You consistently hide behind post numbers because you know no one will read them. Which means no one will bother to see for themselves what a liar you are by claiming the reason you won't answer my question is because I failed to explain my "convoluted post 89 explanation..." even though you wrote post 89.

So even when it comes to the thing you want me to explain, you can't even point directly to it, you have to hide behind one post that references another post, which itself references another post, that references another post that you took issue with. It's beyond cowardly, it's sad and pathetic.

600+ posts in and you're still arguing about red shift, the theory of gravity, E=MC2, all in an effort to justify your claim that the big bang theory is just a leap of faith, and yet you can't even address the simplest question you've been asked because you know your entire position will crumble of you try...

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

Go ahead, keep ignoring and running away from this question. Everyone reading this knows exactly why.

Double_R’s debate deception doubly derailed.

Double_R lied about the historical chronology within his first few entries thus his explanation was irrational thus he failed the rational chronology requirement as layed out in the accurate chronology detailed post #136, so the earliest on-topic unanswered request among the two of us was my post #136 to him.

This current post isn’t directed specifically to Double_R, but he is welcome to read it and gnash his teeth. I present post #463, below, again, for the record. I leave my composition’s second person references intact for clarity.

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

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

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

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball, and that “theorize” is faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

I didn’t hear back from you about your jury confusion, so here you go.

@linate wrote in post #613: Double_R What if he countered your argument, and claimed that jury decisions are in fact rooted in faith?

Take a good, long, hard look at the Scott Peterson case regarding the murder of his unborn child, Conner, and his wife, Laci (“Watch Scott Peterson: The New Evidence Full Episodes, Video & More - A&E”). Scott was on death row in California, U.S.A. for their murders. A full jury of 12 found him guilty “beyond a shadow of a doubt” based on their faith, but continuing case revelations bring into question whether all twelve of the jurist’s faith even achieve the jurisprudence principle “a reasonable person would believe” threshold.

linate, you Double_R_epeat like a parrot. This concept was covered in my post #82 to you way back on August 7th! I explained your Big Bang belief is outside of human witness history, so you are comparing dissimilar things. Your cognitive collection capacity is crippled.

We Christians believe in Christ. You evolutionists believe in your Big Bang god(s).

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.

Double_R’s debate deception doubly derailed during Double_R’s doublespeak deleting direct discourse denotation.

Double_R lied about the historical chronology within his first few entries thus his explanation was irrational thus he failed the rational chronology requirement as layed out in the accurate chronology detailed post #136, so the earliest on-topic unanswered request among the two of us was my post #136 to him.

This current post isn’t directed specifically to Double_R, but he is welcome to read it and gnash his teeth. I present post #463, below, again, for the record. I leave my composition’s second person references intact for clarity.

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

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

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

My 3 ball example in post #35 demonstrated one does not know (science) as a matter of fact where the ball came from which rolled over the grandpa’s foot, but one may conject (theorize) about the ball, and that “theorize” is faith.

The Big Bang Theory is a leap of faith.

Maybe we are reading Kermos wrong. The Big Bang theory is his leap of faith into the scientific explanation of the creation and expanding universe.

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

Astronomical Observations, red shift sinks further into the abyss

Astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences with an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers discovered a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two celestial objects that need to be the same distance away from Earth due to the collocation are simultaneously greatly separated because of red-shift (both conditions cannot be true). The galaxy is reportedly 300 million light years away while the quasar within the heart of the galaxy is reportedly several billion light years away (source “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper readily publicly available from Table of contents for issue 1, volume 620, The Astrophysical Journal). Red-shift as a distance calculator and/or age determinant is falsified.

You are the mystical, magical worker of “incorrect conclusions” as my post #485 details your and @FLRW’s E=MC2 mathematical malpractice for red-shift.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #546’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith. I plan to reply to your post, again, with more scientific fact showing the ridiculousness of red-shift.

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

The assertion that redshift is falsified as a distance or age determinant is a fringe viewpoint, primarily found in alternative cosmology sources, and is contradicted by mainstream scientific consensus and observational data. Standard cosmology relies on redshift (z) combined with the Hubble-Lemaître Law (v=H0​d) and specific cosmological models (like $\Lambda$CDM) to convert redshift into lookback time and proper distance, a method validated by independent "distance ladder" measurements using Cepheid variables and Type Ia supernovae.

Mainstream astronomy acknowledges that redshift-based distances are not direct measurements but model-dependent inferences, particularly at high redshift (z>1) where the simple linear Hubble law fails. Critics sometimes argue that redshift could be caused by "tired light" or other non-expansion mechanisms, but these alternatives are largely falsified by observations such as the time dilation of supernova light curves and the surface brightness of galaxies, which align with expanding universe predictions rather than static ones.

@FLRW wrote in post #650: The assertion that redshift is falsified as a distance or age determinant is a fringe viewpoint, primarily found in alternative cosmology sources

MITman AI IQ leaps in faith beyond astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, who explained with “observational data” of the NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe” and quasars in general “too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental” (source for Burbidge quotes), who with the “scientific consensus” of an international team of astrophysicists and astronomers produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper published in m The Astrophysical Journal (issue 1, volume 620).

@FLRW wrote in post #650: a method validated by independent “distance ladder” measurements using Cepheid variables

How quickly you fall into the Lazy in your Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science! I addressed Cepheid variable earlier in this thread - another non-acute observational issue for your Ridiculous science (post #82) - your science (knowledge) is Wrong - and the following exposes your broken “distance ladder” rungs, AGAIN.

Cepheid variable; faith not fact

Astronomers believe Polaris is the nearest Cepheid variable star to Earth, at 445.5 light years (2,673,000,000,000,000 miles). Polaris is commonly referred to as the North Star.

Polaris’ minimum and maximum diameter in miles at Polaris is unobserved by astronomers, and any temperature change for Polaris is not measurable at Polaris by astronomers.

Astronomers possess no luminosity data at the source for Polaris, but astronomers do possess brightness data at Earth.

And, finally, astronomers never accurately measured the distance from Polaris to Earth - see the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage) in post #53.

Astronomers do not collect sufficient, complete, and accurate data at 2,673,000,000,000,000 miles (2.6 quadrillion miles) from Polaris, the nearest Cepheid variable star, nor any other Cepheid star for comparative parallax measurements which astronomers believe are more distant from Earth.

Astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt published a 21-page account of her work “1777 Variables in the Magellanic Clouds” in 1908 with more astronomical work before her death in 1925. She believed that observing a Cepheid star’s pulsation period results in astronomers knowing the luminosity at a Cepheid star thus astronomers believe they possess sufficient information to determine fantastic Interstellar distances. Based on Leavitt’s work, astronomers believe they can use the luminosity of a Cepheid star in the inverse square law, which requires knowing either the distance or the luminosity at source, to determine the distance to Cepheid variable stars, and they further believe that they can hopscotch hugely gargantuan distances using these “known” (truly unknown) luminosity (of a star at the star) illogically based on observed brightness (of a star at Earth) calibrated with parallax distance to Polaris (or another Cepheid star with a “known” distance from Earth) which results in the distance to another star.

Cepheid variable nonsense nonscience is your prophetess Leavitt and her progeny preaching the abundance of light and parallax of your star bible’s millions and billions of light years away with millions and billions of years in the past.

Rewind to the foundational star bible contribution by Leavitt in which astronomers use an unobserved luminosity to calculate a star’s distance. Astronomer astrologers cannot determine the luminosity, which requires measurement at the source star, of a Cepheid by observing the change in the star’s brightness, which is a measurement at Earth - such brightness-to-luminosity extrapolation is a leap of faith.

Your cosmic distance ladder is your Faith-based science.

YOU PRESENT NO SCIENTIFIC METHOD - a real failure for you, the MIT educated nuclear scientist!

Therefore, your missing fact Cepheid variable “distance ladder” rung joins with your missing fact red-shift “distance ladder” rung joins with your missing fact CMBR “distance ladder” rung to arrive at your Big Bang leap of faith.

Where does your leap of faith end. Before or after the Big Bang theory?

Are all jury verdicts a leap of faith? Yes or No?

You're too much of a coward to answer, but I'll keep asking.

MITman AI IQ leaps in faith beyond astrophysicist Geoffrey Burbidge, noted professor of physics and astronomy at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences, who explained with “observational data” of the NGC 7319 quasar that “its redshift cannot...

Funny how much faith Kermos has in Geoffrey Burbidge

Geoffrey Burbidge was a renowned astrophysicist, but his later cosmological views are widely considered incorrect by the scientific consensus. While he co-authored the seminal B2FH paper that correctly explained stellar nucleosynthesis (how stars create elements), his long-standing rejection of the Big Bang theory and his advocacy for the quasi-steady state cosmology were ultimately disproven.

Key points regarding his scientific standing:

1. Rejection of the Big Bang: Burbidge remained a prominent skeptic of the Big Bang, arguing instead for an eternal universe with continuous matter creation. He argued that quasars were not distant cosmological objects but nearby entities ejected from galaxies, a view contradicted by evidence showing their extreme distances.
2. Scientific Consensus: Despite his contributions to understanding active galactic nuclei and galaxy rotation curves, his alternative cosmological models failed to gain traction. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation and subsequent data from missions like COBE and WMAP provided overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang, leading to the abandonment of the steady-state theory he championed.

In summary, while Burbidge was a brilliant and influential scientist whose early work was correct and vital, his contrarian cosmological views were wrong, and he died as one of the last significant proponents of a rejected cosmological model.

This is what he looked like:

I'm guessing Kermos looks just like him.

Here is another picture of him

FLRW wrote:

Geoffrey Burbidge was a renowned astrophysicist, but his later cosmological views are widely considered incorrect by the scientific consensus. While he co-authored the seminal B2FH paper that correctly explained stellar nucleosynthesis (how stars create elements), his long-standing rejection of the Big Bang theory and his advocacy for the quasi-steady state cosmology were ultimately disproven.

Key points regarding his scientific standing:

1. Rejection of the Big Bang: Burbidge remained a prominent skeptic of the Big Bang, arguing instead for an eternal universe with continuous matter creation. He argued that quasars were not distant cosmological objects but nearby entities ejected from galaxies, a view contradicted by evidence showing their extreme distances.
2. Scientific Consensus: Despite his contributions to understanding active galactic nuclei and galaxy rotation curves, his alternative cosmological models failed to gain traction. The discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation and subsequent data from missions like COBE and WMAP provided overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang, leading to the abandonment of the steady-state theory he championed.

In summary, while Burbidge was a brilliant and influential scientist whose early work was correct and vital, his contrarian cosmological views were wrong, and he died as one of the last significant proponents of a rejected cosmological model.

Yes, nicotine addiction probably led to his fall from grace...Nonetheless he lived until he was 85 and interestingly was born in Chipping Norton Oxfordshire.

Faith Jepkemboi Kipsang - 6.6 meters