@FLRW wrote in post #655: Double_R Geoffrey Burbidge was a renowned astrophysicist

He may be dead, but he left behind his science along with the scientific consensus for the paper’s surviving scientists and his students from University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences.

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

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).

Your MITman AI IQ completely dropped the science about Cepheid variable, so here you go.

@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.

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.

The Big Bang theiry is supported by independent pillars that yield the same conclusion.

Cosmic distant ladder.

CMBR.

Big Bang nuclear synthesis.

Galactic evolution.

The Dangerous Illusion of Scientific Consensus

Science is the process by which we learn about the workings of material reality. Though modern innovations – built on the fruits of science – would look like magic to people living only decades ago, they result from the time-tested scientific method. Contrary perhaps to media portrayals of science, the scientific method depends not on the existence of a mythical consensus but rather on structured scientific debates. If there is a consensus, science challenges it with new hypotheses, experiments, logic, and critical thinking. Ironically, science advances because it believes it has never arrived; consensus is the hallmark of dead science.

From Welcome to Dr. Jay Bhattacharya (Stanford professor) and Rav Arora’s (independent journalist) exclusive, new podcast-fuelled Substack newsletter The Illusion of Consensus.

Interestingly, Mr. scientist @FLRW vapidly repeated “scientific consensus” (proof post #655) as his Big Bang belief justification without the scientific method which is his hallmark of dead science instead of vibrant knowledge (science)!

Basically, a scientist says that if science has consensus, then that science is dead; therefore, MITman declared red-shift dead thus, by extension, the Big Bang dead. Recall that I call the Big Bang a leap of faith.

Yes, definitely a leap of Faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #664: Sidewalker Yes, definitely a leap of Faith.

Mr. nuclear scientist FLRW, your Big Bang CMBR is a leap of faith as visible in the following.

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.

Several lines of evidence and theoretical arguments challenge Pavel Kroupa's claim that early elliptical galaxies (ETGs) account for the CMB:

Blackbody spectrum. The CMB matches a perfect blackbody at 2.725 K to extraordinary precision (confirmed by COBE/FIRAS). Discrete galaxy sources cannot reproduce this — as Ethan Siegel put it in his rebuttal, ETGs produce energy "in the wrong wavelength range and on the wrong angular scales to meaningfully contribute to the CMB."

Angular scale mismatch. Individual ETGs subtend less than 1/100th of an arcminute, while CMB anisotropies are resolved on scales of ~1 degree. They cannot generate the observed fluctuation pattern.

Baryon acoustic oscillations. The CMB's anisotropy spectrum contains BAO peaks — imprints of sound waves in the primordial plasma. These are a direct signature of a hot, dense early universe and have no analogue in galaxy emission.

The 1.4% → 100% leap is unsupported. A peer review on Pith (2026) notes that the upper bound ("up to 100% of CMB energy density") rests on "assumptions that are neither derived nor mutually consistent." The conservative 1.4% figure is a real calculation, but it doesn't justify discarding the CMB's primordial interpretation.

CIB is already measured and distinct. The Cosmic Infrared Background from dusty star-forming galaxies is well-characterized, separable from the CMB at sufficient resolution, and carries only ~3–4% of the CMB's energy. Kroupa's ETG light is not the same thing.

In short, the CMB's blackbody shape, its BAO structure, and its angular power spectrum all point to a thermal origin in a hot early plasma — features that discrete galaxy sources cannot replicate.

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: Several lines of evidence and theoretical arguments challenge Pavel Kroupa’s claim

MITman, your AI IQ puts your grounds for belief (evidence definition in post #25) in your Big Bang CMBR on similar grounds for belief (evidence) for Kroupa’s. Both of you are in a leap of faith.

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: Discrete galaxy sources cannot reproduce this — as Ethan Siegel

Scientist FLRW, your scientist Siegel cannot know (science) that “Discrete galaxy sources cannot reproduce this”, so your Siegel believes without proof (assumption definition in post #53); therefore, scientist FLRW, your scientist Siegel is in a leap of faith with you.

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: The 1.4% → 100% leap

You agreed with me that Kroupa is in a leap!

@FLRW wrote in post #664l6: A peer review on Pith (2026) notes that the upper bound (“up to 100% of CMB energy density”) rests on “assumptions that are neither derived nor mutually consistent.”

I present to you your “assumptions that are neither derived nor mutually consistent” which results in your Big Bang being a leap!

You provided absolutely, positively no scientific method basis for your faith based Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)!

Disrupting Your Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)

I present to you the history recorded by others which reveals CMB was a known quantity decades before 1964. This directly derails your “predicted” “fact” leaving a mere residual called “faith” (see post #376).

Andrew McKellar used W. S. Adams’ spectroscopic instrumentation during 1941 to measure background temperature of 2.3 K of a B type star.

In 1948, cosmologist George Gamow led a group that calculated cosmic microwave radiation.

The vaunted Bell Telephone Laboratories had a facility atop Crawford Hill in Holmdel, New Jersey where Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson experimented in 1964. They detected a homogeneous, constant radiation. They were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their CMB work.

Robert H. Dicke, Jim Peebles, and David Wilkinson, astrophysicists at Princeton University believed the Big Bang emitted a tremendous radiation blast resulting in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR), and they prepared to investigate microwave radiation levels in the year 1964.

But, Bernard F. Burke, professor of physics at MIT (your alma mater), introduced the two groups working a mere 40 miles from each other.

The two groups agreeably jointly published in Astrophysical Journal Letters. Two notes were published, (1) Dicke et al substantiated the Big Bang based on CMBR, and (2) Penzias et al noted the existence of 3.5 K CMBR universally.

McKellar recorded the CMBR in 1941, so the CMBR was a known quantity by the time of Penzias et. al. as well as Dicke et. al.; therefore, neither Penzias et. al. nor Dicke et. al. “predicted” anything. You wrote deception.

In essence, your history of using something like the RW Metric (see post #361 for RW Metric details) deceives people, including you.

Scientist’s, er, sorcerer’s public CMBR deception

It is time to compare and contrast these data collections:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

Your manipulation of statistics (mathematical nonsense) to arrive at “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” is a deeper lie and malevolent representation.

Your astrophysicist high priest Stephen Hawking issued the condemnation of astronomer astrologers with “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”, so you keep his words in mind while reading the following.

CMBR UnSETtling Theory

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your argument.

1. McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}

M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

M=P is false.

M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

Proof samples:

1. M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
2. M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
3. MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
4. MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
5. MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.

The result is M<P.

The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which potentially indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” writing.

CMBR Average Disformity

Scientists like averages (mean), or medians, or blind faith guesses, such as the astronomer astrologer’s current magical, mystical 2.7255 K CMBR nonsense nonscience temperature, so I present the mean temperature values to test their conclusion that there has been a decrease in the temperature over the years.

The data averaged:

1. McKellar (1941): 2.5
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): 3.5

2.5=3.5 is false.

2.5<3.5 is true.

1941<1965 is true.

3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.

1965-1941=24 is true.

The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD.

A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent’s requirement, but it’s just not there, so your CMBR is very bad evidence for your Big Bang.

CMBR Logical Conclusion

The above dissection of historical data shows that these are each distinctly different surveys:

1. McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K is not isotropic agreement with Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K.

Statistical consolidation of the points is unreasonable because reasonable doubt has been cast by the potential for decreased temperature in earlier time thus anyone claiming increased temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data; in other words, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your Big Bang timeframe which would make the differences in points statistically insignificant. The differences in points are statistically significant as a function of the recorded increase in temperature over the decades, yet astronomer astrologers exhibit Stephen Hawking’s quote, recorded above.

In other words, these measurements are in agreement with one another that the Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.

Deception of the CMBR is a very poor method to present your case.

Various sources of material for this whole CMBR section include “cosmic microwave background” of Encyclopedia Britannica, “Cosmic microwave background” of Wikipedia, and “A Review of the 1941 to 1961 CMBR Temperature Measurements” on ResearchGate.

Your grounds for belief (evidence) is very bad evidence for the Big Bang.

Hmmm, the premise that a temperature decrease from 1941 to 1965 was a specific "adherent’s requirement" is inaccurate; rather, the Big Bang theory predicted a specific temperature for the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation based on the expansion and cooling of the early universe, which was confirmed by observations in 1965.

In 1948, physicists George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman calculated that the residual radiation from the Big Bang should have a temperature of approximately 5 K. Around the same time, Robert Dicke independently predicted a temperature of about 10 K. These theoretical predictions did not cite a specific temperature change between 1941 and 1965, but rather the absolute current temperature resulting from the universe's expansion since the Big Bang.

The discovery of this radiation in 1965 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson confirmed these predictions. They detected an isotropic microwave signal corresponding to a temperature of approximately 3 K, which was later refined to 2.725 K. This discovery provided strong observational evidence that the universe had cooled from its initial hot, dense state, supporting the Big Bang model over the competing Steady State theory.

Kermos, you have extremely poor reasoning ability. Well, you do think the Universe is 6000 years old.

FLRW wrote:

Kermos, you have extremely poor reasoning ability. Well, you do think the Universe is 6000 years old.

He thinks

1) The Universe is 6000 years old, and

2) The Christian God is a liar.

One minute he's attacking science, the next minute he's attacking Christianity,

I think he inflicts the most damage on Christianity though.

@FLRW wrote in post #668: the premise that a temperature decrease from 1941 to 1965 was a specific “adherent’s requirement” is inaccurate

Mr. observationally challenged scientist FLRW,

Your CMBR conclusion contradicts the evidence found in the following data.

CMBR UnSETtling Theory

Set theory is fascinating, and set theory is destructive to your argument.

1. McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4}
2. Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5}

M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

M=P is false.

M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

Proof samples:

1. M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
2. M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
3. MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
4. MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
5. MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

The exemplary intersection (M∩P) elements of 3.1 and 3.2 sufficiently illustrate the cancelation effect of the corresponding intersection elements.

The result is M<P.

The CMBR temperature increases going forward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory which potentially indicates a lower temperature in the past.

Set theory applied to your star bible data upends your “this faint microwave glow fills all space and matches the exact predicted cooling afterglow of a hot early universe” writing.

@FLRW wrote in post #668: later refined to 2.725 K

Post #667 details the error of your “2.725 K”, and post #667 is one post before your post!

You and your astronomer astrologer cohort employ scientist sorcerer’s arbitrary data point deletion followed by your magical, mystical formulas (application of mathematical statistics) to conclude with your “2.725 K” CMBR (see post #578 for record that YOU ENGAGED IN ARBITRARY DATA POINT DELETION).

FLRW, you have extremely poor reasoning ability. Well, you do think the Universe is 13,800,000,000 years old.

No matter where you turn in your Big Bang belief, you logically end up in a leap of faith!

The Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background (CMB) radiation temperatures of 2.725 k is one of the most precisely measured constants in modern cosmology . The data supporting this figure comes from rigorous satellite missions most notable the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) launched byNASA in 1989.

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 derailed derelict debate deception.

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.

Your 3 ball example is a leap of faith. Even grandpa only had to deal with two balls.

Debby’s devilish deception displayed.

@Debby wrote in post #671: The Cosmic Microwave Radiation Background (CMB) radiation temperatures of 2.725 k is one of the most precisely measured constants in modern cosmology .

Since Andrew McKellar recorded 1.8 K in 1941, so Debby’s “(CMB) radiation temperatures of 2.725 k is one of the most precisely measured constants in modern cosmology” is a blatant LIE.

Lord Jesus declares “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44).

@Debby wrote in post #671: The data supporting this figure comes from rigorous satellite missions most notable the Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) launched byNASA in 1989.

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 “2.725 k is one of the most precisely measured constants in modern cosmology” is off by 1.4%.

That study’s 1.4% is the lower of the conservative echelon.

The study’s modern 100% is the higher of the conservative echelon which entirely derails 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 destroys the Big Bang.

Scientist sorcerers and deceivers cling to their Big Bang belief despite being faced with good evidence demonstrating that the Big Bang is a leap of faith.

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.

Mr. Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science MIT graduate scientist FLRW, you have a nasty procedure (habit) of expressing (preaching) your conclusions (conjecturers) followed by you disregarding followup, so I’m bringing this forward from post #617.

@FLRW wrote in post #614: “A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos”

I believe in Jesus Christ the Lord that by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together (Colossians 1:16-17). I proclaimed my belief in the opening post.

You believe in the Big Bang. Your belief is so very weak that you fail to admit that it’s faith.

Now, continuing with where you fumbled your Big Bang belief. You failed to answer my simple question, and, Mr. sloppy scientist, you failed to respond to my post #670 about your CMBR being disrupted.

@FLRW wrote in post #610: The following will refute Kermos’s claims on the Big Bang Theory. David Rowland is an independent writer and researcher who has self-published alternative claims arguing that the Big Bang theory is false and logically impossible. …snip… mainstream scientific community views the Big Bang theory as overwhelmingly supported …snip

To Mr. MIT trained nuclear scientist,

You refuted yourself, silly scientist.

You believe in the Big Bang, and your your Big Bang is not a proven fact, so yours is faith.

Rowland believes in an infinite universe without beginning according to you, and his infinite universe is not a proven fact, so his is faith.

The Rowland quotes, that I presented in post #61 and post #199 remain valid.

Would you kindly share with me how you refuted my belief that yours is a Big Bang belief because I’m not finding it?

And while you’re at it, where is your response to my CMBR disrupting post #670 response to your CMBR faith filled post? My post that you skipped for your apparent lack of scientific acumen.

A believer in Lord Jesus Christ, Kermos

The one you believe in was crucified for blasphemy. No one promoting the Big Bang theory has been crucified.

23 pages of getting nowhere.

Is there anything new that can be said.

Have we exhausted red shift?

Let's talk about writhing with pink babes in a pool of warm blancmange...Are you in Debs?

I’m bringing this forward from post #642 because you, Mr. Faith-based, Lazy, Ridiculous, Wrong science MIT graduate scientist FLRW, have a nasty procedure (habit) of expressing (preaching) your conclusions (conjecturers) followed by you disregarding followup!

@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.

The Einstein Relativity theory includes the speed of light in a vacuum.

@Debby wrote in post #674: Your 3 ball example is a leap of faith.

Thank you for confirming the point I was making to Double_R.

Moreover, as demonstrated in post #376, the Big Bang is a leap of faith!

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.

@Debby wrote in post #678: The one you believe in was crucified for blasphemy. No one promoting the Big Bang theory has been crucified.

You are correct that “the father of the Big Bang” Georges Lemaître was not crucified. Roman Catholic Church priest Georges Lemaître had as part of his rituals to use rosaries to recite his Hail Mary prayer over and over and etc as with all Roman Catholic Church members. Now, I move on to an intense examination of who Lemaître followed and who his Big Bang followers follow.

You are also correct in that the Queen of Heaven (Jeremiah 44:25) was not crucified. The Queen of Heaven is that self-designated spirit to whom Roman Catholic Church (RCC) members pray their Hail Mary (“Messages from Heaven” on YouTube). To be abundantly clear, RCC members are not praying to Mary, the virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception. Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1:18), is now in the Lord’s gracious care in the place of no more fears and no more tears (Isaiah 25:8) which means she cannot be aware of your turmoil - not empathizing your fears - absolutely not shedding tears about you; on the other hand, the Queen of Heaven to whom RCC members pray is not in the place of no more fears and no more tears! See the abundance of RCC Marion idols/statues willingly located near RCC members.

Astronomer astrologers refer to scientist sorcerer Lemaître as “the father of the Big Bang”.

I refer to that Lemaître in FLRW (Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric).

Oh, and look, Lemaître is in the Hubble-Lemaître law (v=H0D).

Astronomer astrologer Georges Lemaître leads his Big Bang followers into following the evil Queen of Heaven regardless of whether those followers follow knowingly or not, because, you see, Lemaître was antichrist (post #214).

You follow your and Lemaître’s Queen of Heaven.

The Big Bang is the way to destruction (Matthew 7:13). The Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Your leap of faith in the Bible creation story has been applied to the Big Bang theory as another leap of faith because both creation and the Big Bang start with a beginning, development with time and expansion of the universe. Your leap of faith can be extended to the Big Bang theory even though there is scientific evidence because of your lack of understanding of science. Your leap of faith puts the Big Bang theory on the same footing as the creation story in the Bible.

@Debby wrote in post #681: The Einstein Relativity theory includes the speed of light in a vacuum.

Thank you for confirming the point I was making to FLRW.

Astronomer astrologers preach that light travels through the interstellar vacuum of space, so the following remains valid.

Red-shift disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2 and/or vice versa as comprehensively detailed in post #361. 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!

When Einstein’s E=MC2 is viewed in the light of the above perspective, then astronomer astrologers assert a leap of faith to say that the light from Galaxy candidate HDI took 13,500,000,000 years to reach Earth.

If we use electronic photodetectors instead of our eyes, we discover that all the light in the Universe is made up of the same type of particle: the photon. It has a few properties that are the same between all photons:

1. its mass (which is 0),
2. its speed (which is always c, the speed of light),
3. its spin (which is always 1, a measure of its intrinsic angular momentum),

and one very important one that varies: its energy. Violet light has the most energy of any photon that's visible to human eyes, while red has the least energy of any visible photon. At even lower energies are infrared, microwave, and radio photons, while ultraviolet, X-ray, and gamma ray photons can be found at higher energies. The size, wavelength and temperature/energy scales that correspond to various parts of the electromagnetic spectrum.

NASA and Wikimedia Commons user Inductiveload

Through the vacuum of space, no matter what their energy is, they always travel at the speed of light. It doesn't matter how quickly you chase after or run towards light, either; that speed you view it traveling at will always be the same. The thing that shifts, instead of its speed, will be the light's energy. Move towards light and it appears bluer, boosting it to higher energies. Move away from it and it appears redder, shifted to lower energies. But none of that, no matter how you move, how you make the light move, or how you change the energy, will cause the speed of light to change. The highest-energy photon and the lowest-energy photon ever observed both travel at exactly the same speed.

From:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/29/ask-ethan-does-light-always-move-at-the-same-speed/

@FLRW wrote in post #687: If we use electronic photodetectors instead of our eyes, we discover that all the light in the Universe is made up of the same type of particle: the photon. …snip… The highest-energy photon and the lowest-energy photon ever observed both travel at exactly the same speed. From:https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/29/ask-ethan-does-light-always-move-at-the-same-speed/

Your esteemed MIT education leads you to quote from a financial site! There’s your R in FLRW for Ridiculous science!

From the RP Photonics Encyclopedia article “Photodetectors” by Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta (RP), a photodetector is a sensor which converts photonic energy into an electronic signal, and photodetectors comprise the CCD in cameras. Photodetectors do not measure the speed of light.

Your photodetectors in your satellites record violet light, but not the speed of that violet light.

Your photodetectors in your satellites record red light, but not the speed of that red light.

Your text provided your belief without proof (“assumption” dictionary definition in post #53) in your closing sentence against your own physics of E=MC2, so red-shift disrupts Einstein’s E=MC2 and/or vice versa as comprehensively detailed in post #361. 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!

Mr. Faith-based Lazy Ridiculous Wrong science scientist FLRW, your satellite based photodetectors detected red light, and you cry out red-shift, red-shift, red-shift for billions of years in age, but all you truly have is red-spectral (see post #376).

Your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Have you transferred your leap of faith from creation to the Big Bang theory?

@Debby wrote in post #685: Your leap of faith in the Bible creation story has been applied to the Big Bang theory

Delusional Debby, you distorted your declarations dated from months ago:

@Debby wrote in post #137: @Kermos Scientists are still sorting out the inconsistencies in the BigBang theory. Use the Bible to fill in the gaps.

@Debby wrote in post #143: @Kermos It might have more credibility if backed by the Bible and God as creator.

I responded to you with the clear separation between faith in Christ and the Big Bang belief as per the following:

Hello again Debby,

I still understand your sentiment.

Since the Word of God is decisively clear regarding the 6,000 years ago-ish beginning for all creation (see post #20 and post #82 for Word of God quotations), then a 13,800,000,000 years ago-ish Big Bang represents אֲבַדּוֹן (abbadon, destruction) for all who cling to that purportedly super-hot, swelteringly torturous שְׁאוֹל (sheol, hell).

No communion exists between Lord Jesus Christ who is with us Christians and Satan the enemy who is with Big Bang adherents (2 Corinthians 6:14-15). We Christians overcame the evil one, even the many of the Big Bang scheme/model/theory/belief (1 John 2:13), so there is no backfilling gaps between the Word of God and the Big Bang.

You are concerned about credibility and contorting the Word of God to the Big Bang, but I am concerned about people believing in Christ and Him crucified and the Word of God is good unto salvation from the wrath of God (Romans 1:16). The keywords are credibility versus believing.

The Big Bang is not proof of God. God is not proof of the Big Bang.

Please don’t be vague, Debby. State your meaning with detail and citations.

Regards,

Kermos

Well, there you have it - you are the one who adheres to “the Bible creation story has been applied to the Big Bang theory” - not I.

Your Queen of Heaven has you delusional (see post #684), and Satan whom you serve has you deceiving (see post #665).

As I conveyed previously, the Big Bang is not a fact, so the Big Bang is science fiction.

No fact supports the Big Bang. Not one iota of the Scientific Method supports the Big Bang. Therefore, the Big Bang is a leap of faith.