Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith

Astrophysicists recalculated CMBR from data including JWST readings, and the study details astronomer astrologer’s CMBR isn’t what they scienced (knew)

Pavel Kroupa, astrophysicist and professor at the Helmholtz Institute for Radiation and Nuclear Physics at the University of Bonn and Charles University in Prague, expressed “According to our calculations, it may not exist at all” regarding the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) as per his study published in the journal Nuclear Physics B (source: “Goodbye to the Big Bang theory: a university challenges everything we thought we knew and suggests that the creation of the universe may have been something else” (Austin Caldwell; MARCA; 2025-06-28).

Kroupa, with additional author Eda Gjergo, expose evidence against the existence of the CMBR. These two extracts from their abstract explain:

A previously overlooked foreground component is the formation of massive early-type galaxies (ETGs), which can no longer be ignored, particularly in light of JWST’s detection of massive, evolved systems at extreme redshifts (z>13).

Even in our most conservative estimates, massive ETGs account for 1.4% up to the full present-day CMB energy density.

(source: “The impact of early massive galaxy formation on the cosmic microwave background” (Eda Gjergo, Pavel Kroupa; Nuclear Physics B published by Elsevier aa distributed on ScienceDirect.com; August 2025; Article: 116931; Volume 1017))

Astronomer astrologers best case scenario is that a “definitive 2.725 K” is off by 1.4% which means the MIT trained nuclear scientist FLRW has science fiction expressed as scientific fact in his own recent composition 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.

In the absence of the ig Bang theory all we have in the creation story in the Bible. Which from a leap of faith is now the only theory that explains the creation of the universe.

@FLRW wrote in post #434: The assertion that redshift is not a valid determinant for cosmic distance or direction contradicts the established scientific consensus and observational data. …snip

@Debby wrote in post #426: 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.

Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model fall apart under the logical consistency principle

Mr. MIT science degree holder, you continue to neglect to post scientific method based fact as your argument against the “Coup de Grâce: Einstein’s Relativity Theories with the Minkowski Spacetime Model” as enumerated in post 258. Debby, you demonstrated your inability to comprehend posts like this, but I included you because this relates to red-shift.

I quoted detailed scientific data from Rowland’s article in post #61 which culminated with Rowland writing about Eddington, Dyson, and Commelin’s sloppy work in application of Einstein’s Relativity to the 1919 solar eclipse “The readings themselves were also questionable because of (a) errors in parallax from varying angles of measurement and atmospheric conditions at the respective points of observation, and (b) equipment failure. Results were inconclusive because the error factor was as large as the deviation the experimenters were trying to prove [3]”.

Notice the closing [3] reference in that quote which is the “What Einstein did Not Consider about Gravity” in which Rowland detailed:

In 1908, attempting to better explain his former student’s theory of special relativity (E=mc2), mathematics professor Hermann Minkowski expressed it in terms of a mathematical model that fused time and the three dimensions of space into a single four-dimensional continuum (later known as Minkowski spacetime). Notice two things about this model:  Figure 1: Hypothetical Minkowski 4-D Spacetime

1. It is not possible to assign co-ordinates to the hypothetical time axis; and
2. Because E = mc2 does not include any time variable, there is nowhere said equation fits into this four-dimensional model.

Source of Figure 1: Wikipedia [9].

That’s just a small portion of the logic and rational reasoning in Rowland’s article exposing Einstein and Minkowski’s leap of faith about Einstein’s Relativity theories.

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

Therefore, your E=MC2 is a leap of faith as support for the Big Bang.

Gravitational red-shift depends on Einstein’s Relativity theories. Since Einstein’s Relativity theories are demonstrated to be a leap of faith, then gravitational red-shift is a leap of faith!

You see, I placed detailed scientific data supported by source link right in front of you, again, but you posted nonsense nonscience abstract with a source link. Your debate skills are abysmal.

It appears to me that your data is so patheticly paltry that you hide behind your paper’s abstract.

For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #447’s demonstrated scientific fact that red-shift is your leap of faith.

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

Essentially, Einstein’s General Relativity, Einstein’s Special Relativity, Minkowski spacetime, and related gravitational lensing are fictional fantasy faith, not fact, just faith.

LOL, I'm guessing you are a big fan of Brown Shift!

@FLRW wrote in post #448: Some very low IQ bot wrote-"Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second. Well this premise is incorrect. Redshift does not require the speed of light to exceed 186,000 miles per second (300,000 km/s). The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and remains unchanged regardless of the motion of the source or observer. Redshift is caused by a change in the wavelength and frequency of the light, not its speed. 1. Doppler Redshift: …snip… 2. Cosmological Redshift: …snip… 3. Physics Principle: The relationship is defined by c=frequency × wavelength. Since c is fixed, an increase in wavelength (redshift) results in a corresponding decrease in frequency, with no change in velocity.

To Mr. relative “to Albert Einstein through the Koch family” - FLRW with your prestigious MIT issued nuclear scientist collegiate certificate,

You destroyed your kinsman’s absolute necessity to maintain balance in the E=MC2 equation when you wrote “The speed of light (c) is a universal constant and remains unchanged” because your red-shift frequency decrease is an energy (E in E=MC2) decrease which forces either mass (M in E=MC2) and/or the speed of light (C in E=MC2) to increase, so, since light is massless (M), then THE EQUILIBRIUM MAINTAINING INCREASE MUST BE APPLIED TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C)!

Look for energy (E) in your “c=frequency × wavelength” physics formula. Energy (E) is absent from your equation, so the physics principle “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts) requires your red-shift energy (E) displacement must go somewhere, and THAT SOMEWHERE IS UNAVOIDABLY THE SPEED OF LIGHT (C) IN E=MC2!

Equilibrium (=) is fundamental mathematics, so you are either a very low IQ individual or you are a confused person or you are a scientist sorcerer.

You still have the speed of light (C) bursting faster than 186,000 miles per second as a direct result of red-shift with E=MC2!

Your “scientific consensus” has a lot of stupid scientists, really evil scientists, regarding red-shift and Einstein’s Relativity and the Big Bang.

Scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for light exists not; in contrast, scientific method validation of the Doppler effect for sound exists. The result is that red-shift is merely red-spectral.

Your nomenclature “bot” misses the mark. Properly, God is the Potter, and I am His clay (Isaiah 64:8).

Red-shift requires that the maximum speed of light shoots above 186,000 miles per second.

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.