@FLRW wrote in post #412: The premise that the temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation increased between 1941 and 1965 is based on a historical misunderstanding of early experimental measurements, rather than an actual physical increase in the temperature of the universe.

Upon my thorough inspection, your post appears to be more than 95% composed by AI (artificial intelligence). If the evidence I collected from your post accurately demonstrates your AI utilization, then your MIT augmented intelligence (AI) failed you miserably. Do not forget, you opened your post with “This is why SomRek’s IQ is approximately 45-47”, and I’m about to show your inferior intelligence quotient (IQ) even with the addition of your augmented intelligence (AI).

@FLRW wrote in post #412: The universe did not warm up; rather, scientists were using two entirely different methods that yielded slightly different numbers for the exact same static background.

You admit:

1. they measured the same thing.
2. they measured at two different times.
3. their measurements differed.

These points aggregate into a Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation increasing temperature from 1941 to 1965 resulting in a logical inconsistency for the Big Bang Theory requirement for decreasing temperature (see post #376 for mathematical analysis demonstrating this fact).

@FLRW wrote in post #412: Because of this, there is no logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe. The difference in values is explained by how these two historic data points were collected:

Your MIT AI failed you, and in just your first few paragraphs, but your MIT AI folly runs even deeper, so I illuminate your logical inconsistency even further!

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 1. The 1941 Measurement (2.3 Kelvin) In 1941, Canadian astronomer Andrew McKellar analyzed the light absorbed by cyanogen (CN) molecules in interstellar clouds. He noted that these molecules were being excited by a background source, calculating a “rotational temperature” of space to be roughly 2.3 K. Crucially, because the Big Bang model was still in its infancy, McKellar did not know he was looking at a relic of the early universe; he simply documented the local temperature of interstellar space. Why this is not a contradiction

You omit, obfuscate, and try to deceive by using a statistical aggregation of McKellar’s median 2.3 K reading instead of his full measurements of 2.5 +0.9/-0.7 K or stated another way, McKellar (1941): M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4} (see post #376 for details).

You wrote “he simply documented the local temperature of interstellar space”, so he measured and documented your CMBR, yet you proceed to claim it’s not a contradiction, yet McKellar’s measurements differ from Penzias and Wilson (1965): P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5} or stated another way 3.5 +/- 1.0 K (see post #376 for details); therefore, the two researchers, McKellar and Penzias, measured the same thing, CMBR, and they arrived at substantively different ranges leading to a logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe.

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 1. Observational Margins of Error: Early mid-century astrophysics lacked the precise satellite instrumentation we have today. A fluctuation between 2.3 K and 3.5 K represents the technical margins of error inherent to ground-based radio telescopes and chemical spectrum analysis at the time.

I will summarize your argument as “Two scientists measured a right angle. Scientist Alpha used a protractor while Scientist Beta used the Pythagorean Theorem with a ruler. Both scientists determine a 90° angle on the same angle, years apart, decades ago. Logically, because we have better measurement tools now, Scientist Alpha’s measurement is inferior, even Scientist Beta’s measurements are inferior, so they must be excluded because I say they must be excluded”.

Your own mid-century imprecise satellite instrumentation argument in your current post busts your own prior Big Bang belief support arguments about VLBI (recorded in my response post #93) and about Einstein’s General Relativity with the 1919 solar eclipse (recorded in my response post #199 (see also post #61)).

You illogically fantasize that “2.3 K and 3.5 K”, 1941 and 1965 respectively, are the same thing, but those represent two separate statistical aggregation totals in two different decades with a result of an increasing temperature leading to a logical inconsistency with the Big Bang Theory’s requirement for a cooling universe.

Typical of you sorcerer scientists, you Illegitimately eliminate valuable data points, the 1941 data set and/or the 1965 data set, in order to conquer in a debate, but your deception is exposed. You, Mr. MIT AI IQ Scientist, are doing what your astrophysicist high priest Stephen Hawking wrote about in your star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@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.

Your MIT AI IQ lacks the knowledge that Modern precision satellites like NASA’s COBE and ESA’s Planck are built on data from prior years and decades of data collection which means that your Modern precision satellites were calibrated with flawed data by way of your imprecise satellite instrumentation, as per your own admission in your “1. Observational Margins of Error” section above, resulting in your faith based, nay flawed fantasy, conclusion about a “definitive 2.725 K”.

Your “definitive 2.725 K” is a fraudulent statistical aggregation, not an actual universally uniform data acquisition of “definitive 2.725 K” temperature readings from all directions, and you scientist astronomer astrologers are known for throwing out data that disproves your preconceived notions with said elimination indicators recorded inside of your star bible’s studies. Your astronomer astrologers work their magical, mystical mathematical manipulations (statistical sorcery (making numbers disappear)) in order to arrive at their preconceived notions about CMBR, and their statistical sorcery is excruciatingly easy to locate because of phraseology, such as “outliers” and “compensating for”.

@FLRW wrote in post #412: 3. Proof of Cooling: Astronomers can test the Big Bang’s cooling requirement by looking at the CMB spectrum in the ultra-distant universe (looking back in time). When measuring the CMB temperature in galaxies billions of light-years away, the temperature increases linearly with redshift ((z)) exactly as predicted—meaning the universe was much hotter in the past and has been steadily cooling ever since.

Your red-shift cosmic distance ladder is broken because the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section in post #361 demonstrated that red-shift requires E to decrease while increasing C in E=MC2 resulting in light’s speed limit soaring beyond 186,000 miles per second, so your “galaxies billions of light-years away” are much, much closer than than “galaxies billions of light-years away”!

Considering your final sentence “When measuring the CMB temperature in galaxies billions of light-years away, the temperature increases linearly with redshift ((z)) exactly as predicted—meaning the universe was much hotter in the past and has been steadily cooling ever since” which it doesn’t because 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 produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which explained their discovery of a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two stellar 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 is The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620). Under this circumstance, your “galaxies billions of light-years away” is a leap of faith.

Your “Proof of Cooling” just went “poof”.

As I detailed in post #411, your Big Bang Theory is logically inconsistent, falsified, untestable, unparsimonious, and a leap of faith!

You are debating members not the scientists who created the Big Bang Theory.

@FLRW wrote in post #416: OMG, you graduated from Trump University, didn’t you?

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.

What’s the matter, pudding, did Trump University decline your application and now you’re angry and bitter?

Not only are your Big Bang “predictions” a leap of faith, your MIT scientific “prediction” about my education is false. You are a false prophet!

I’m reminding you of my post which you failed to respond in my next post in this thread.

You failed to address the thread topic of “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”.

The Big Bang theory is a scientific theory and does not need a leap of faith to accept because it is backed by evidence.

Here is the aforementioned reminder for you of my post which you failed to respond.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: Red-shift is not merely red-spectral;

Red-shift is merely red-spectral. Your words that you use, as shown below, solidify the scientific fact that red-shift is merely red-spectral!

I pointed out to you back in post #361 that 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 astronomer astrologers red-shift unscientific confirmation of error.

Mr. Nuclear Scientist, 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.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: it is a shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, not just visible red light.

You supplied absolutely, positively no scientific method based fact as support for your nonscience “shift toward longer wavelengths and lower frequencies across the entire electromagnetic spectrum” as documented in post #376 (but you couldn’t have known about post #376 yet, but you should have known about it’s predecessor post #53).

Furthermore, you ramble on while neglecting that the “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” of my post #361 addressed to you, above, forces light to greatly surpass your 186,000 miles per second speed limit of light. Your red-shift breaks E=MC2 (and vice versa).

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 1. Terminology: The term “red” indicates the direction of the shift (toward the red end of the visible spectrum), but the effect applies to radio waves, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.

The Electromagnetic Spectrum Maintains Uniformity

Under the uniformity of the Universe doctrine of your star bible such as the RW Metric (see post #325), if a distant stellar light source component particle emissions all shift toward the “red” end of the spectrum, then a replacement particle emission from the red range-ish replaces the infrared range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the orange range-ish replaces the red range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the yellow range-ish replaces the orange range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the green range-ish replaces the yellow range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the blue range-ish replaces the green range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the indigo range-ish replaces the blue range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the violet range-ish replaces the indigo range-ish, a replacement particle emission from the ultraviolet range-ish replaces the violet range-ish, etc. This describes a cascade effect that keeps the electromagnetic spectrum uniform with particle emissions occupying all the original wavelengths; therefore, astronomer astrologers red-shift Earth reference element base assumption (belief without proof (see post #53)) mismatches with the actual element at the stellar object (see the Las Cumbres Observatory Redshift document at this link), or the astronomers astrologers misinterpret the data at hand in some other manner. Astronomer astrologers interpret the light according to their star bible which is a case of astronomer astrologers high priest Stephen Hawking’s own star bible contribution of condemnation “a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science”.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 2. Physical Meaning: Red-shift signifies that the wavelength of light has been stretched (increased) due to the source moving away from the observer or the expansion of space.

Yet, you supply no scientific method based fact as support for your fantasy red-shift, so your red-shift assumption (belief without proof) is a leap of faith.

As pointed out to you, Mr. Scientist, in the “Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers” section of post #376, there is no such thing as you describe.

@FLRW wrote in post #368: 3. Observation: Astronomers detect this by measuring the displacement of known spectral lines (fingerprints of elements like hydrogen) toward longer wavelengths, regardless of whether the resulting light is visible to the human eye.

Speaking of “Observation”, 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 produced the “The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319” paper which explained their discovery of a quasar with an enormous redshift embedded inside a nearby to Earth spiral galaxy with far lower red-shift, so these two stellar 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 is The Astrophysical Journal, issue 1, volume 620). Red-shift as a distance calculator is falsified.

Your “Astronomers detect this by measuring the displacement of known spectral lines (fingerprints of elements like hydrogen) toward longer wavelengths, regardless of whether the resulting light is visible to the human eye” statement directly contradicts that astrophysicist’s determination. You have faith that the universe is expanding based on red-shift, yet your faith opposes astrophysicist Burbidge’s faith.

Since you fight against your own, FLRW, then you are in a state of faith for the Big Bang.

Recent high-redshift discoveries by instruments like the James Webb Space Telescope continues to refine our models of the early universe rather than overturn the underlying mechanics of redshift.

@Double_R wrote in post #417: Replying to everyone else while skipping over my posts, what a coward. Here’s my simple question yet again; Are all jury verdicts derived on faith? Yes or No?

So says you who continues to hide from the spot where I left off with you when you failed to rationally explain how you arrived at your irrationally convoluted post #89 explanation as I inquired of you in my post #136, so I disregarded your followup post 140. If you want to engage further, then explain yourself, first. I explained this to you last Thursday, 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.