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

@Magoroth wrote in post #519: Do you realise the number of scientific theories you have to deny to reach the conclusion that Doppler Red/Blue shift doesn’t exist?

Do realize that you embedded “red-shift is a matter of faith” in your question, yet you doublespeak red-shift is a fact, but your red-shift is not a proven fact, so red-shift is a leap of faith.

@Magoroth wrote in post #519: Do you not believe light behaves as a wave?

Do realize that you embedded “red-shift is a matter of faith” in your question, yet you doublespeak red-shift is a fact, but your red-shift is not a proven fact, so red-shift is a leap of faith.

@Magoroth wrote in post #519: Do you deny the validity of the Michelson-Morley experiment, for instance?

Do realize that you embedded “red-shift is a matter of faith” in your question, yet you doublespeak red-shift is a fact, but your red-shift is not a proven fact, so red-shift is a leap of faith.

Do realize that you responded without a single scientific method based paper’s link to me in your post while I presented the following paragraph’s red-shift destroying paper’s description with link to you in the very post to which you responded!

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).

You dogmatic evolutionists get so very ignorantly confused. Look at the name of this thread, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. The thread is not titled “show me the Big Bang is a leap of faith” nor “guess whether I believe in your evolutionism scheme or not”. The title of this thread equates to show me the facts, not just haphazardly mentioning a scientist sorcerer or two. And you failed to show me any redshift facts, so you have a redshift leap of faith which leads to a Big Bang leap of faith.

It’s a proven fact, insofar as anything experimentally PROVEN by countless experiments over the past 100 hundred years is. Yes, red shift is a bloody fact. The wave-like nature of light is a FACT and has been known for over 100 years. What do you even offer as an alternative because I haven’t seen any.

Light being a wave IMPLIES it should obey the Doppler effect and indeed experiments have shown multiple times that it does. All you’re doing is cherry picking some random observation in a galaxy far far away and saying it disproves red shift; if only one result THAT ISN’T even conclusive btw says “oops we didn’t expect this” whereas countless others do, how the hell do you go to the conclusion that red shift is a myth?

I haven’t even addressed how half your post is you trying to sound intelligent by using big words. “Doublespeak” “you embed"

No, none of this pseudo intellectual garbage you keep trying to peddle, using complex vocabulary doesn’t make you smart.

Wanna hear what does? Making actually good points, which I haven’t seen you make either; you’re ignoring things others have said. For instance, you have yet to address the experiments I linked.

It’s not even 100 years, it’s been longer than that. Closer to 140 years. Michelson Morley and the ether theory of light did not emerge in a vacuum lol.

I don’t even understand why you insist on 1) redshift being false 2) the connection to the Big Bang. Again, redshift can be true and the expansion of space can be false. The former is basically known beyond the shadow of a doubt, the latter is merely an interpretation of some observations.

You dogmatic evolutionists get so very ignorantly confused. Look at the name of this thread, “Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith”. The thread is not titled “show me the Big Bang is a leap of faith” nor “guess whether I believe in your evolutionism scheme or not”. The title of this thread equates to show me the facts, not just haphazardly mentioning a scientist sorcerer or two. And you failed to show me any redshift facts, so you have a redshift leap of faith which leads to a Big Bang leap of faith.

Also nobody brought up evolution so idk why you’re even mentioning this. Please stick to the topic

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

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your assumptions, not the scientific method. Sound waves are atmospheric tightly localized particle vibrations passed from particle to particle; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles. As an example of the doppler effect, when a fast moving train blows it’s whistle while passing a person, then the pitch increases on approach to the person (sound wave compression) and the pitch decreases as the train races toward the horizon (sound wave decompression) as the train leaves the person; however, red-shift conjecturers have no such scientific method proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis revealing their conclusion joined with their conclusion revealing their hypothesis which puts such scientist sorcerers in an infinite loop of circular reasoning. The Doppler effect of sound is based on the scientific method. The Doppler effect of light is science fiction without any scientific method proof. For more “red-shift is merely red-spectral” proofs, see post #376. This current post builds upon post #540’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.

Why sound cannot be used instead of redshift.in astronomy.

Sound waves are mechanical vibrations that require a physical medium (like air, water or gas) to travel. Space is a near perfect vacuum meaning sound waves cannot propagate through it.

Redshift applies to electromagnetic radiation (like light, radio waves, or X-rays) stretching out as objects move away or as the universe expands. Sound is a pressure wave in matter, not light or radiation.

while sound waves experience a shift in frequency and pitch when a source moves relative to an observer (known as the Doppler effect, like a passing siren) this principle only works locally inside an atmosphere or medium, it cannot measure the vast , inter galactic distances and cosmic expansion that Astronomical redshift measures.

Learn the difference instead of just relying on your leap of faith.

@Magoroth wrote in post #532: Literally your whole phrase can be summarised as: “photons cannot lose energy because that would make me big sad"

So, I have two observations to make:

a) Congratulations on saying so little while filling an entire paragraph.

b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to, you draw your conclusions out of thin air - aka you believe what you want to believe and you dress the facts up to make them say what you want.

Basically this entire thread is you complaining about people being mean to you and ppl fabricating/misinterpreting science… you’re projecting so hard you’re effectively two-dimensional

Your “b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to” is precisely that which I have been conveying, yet you ignorantly continued by implying that’s not what I’ve conveyed. Here are details for you to gnarl your teeth, Magoroth.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This thread is about physics, Magoroth.

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

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

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

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

Because a photon is never at rest and has zero rest mass, using E=MC2 would incorrectly result Iin zero . To account for massless particles in motion modern physics uses Einstein’s complete relativistic energy equation. E2=(pc)2 + (m0c2)2.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #532: Literally your whole phrase can be summarised as: “photons cannot lose energy because that would make me big sad"

So, I have two observations to make:

a) Congratulations on saying so little while filling an entire paragraph.

b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to, you draw your conclusions out of thin air - aka you believe what you want to believe and you dress the facts up to make them say what you want.

Basically this entire thread is you complaining about people being mean to you and ppl fabricating/misinterpreting science… you’re projecting so hard you’re effectively two-dimensional

Your “b) Photons can lose energy, there’s literally no reason why they shouldn’t be able to” is precisely that which I have been conveying, yet you ignorantly continued by implying that’s not what I’ve conveyed. Here are details for you to gnarl your teeth, Magoroth.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion (Law of Action and Reaction) amounts to the clause, “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”. This thread is about physics, Magoroth.

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

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

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

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

There’s no energy loss, it comes back in the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver

So the net energy of the system remains the same.

It is to be seen if "the system" has infinite potential...Though we can confidently assume that no-system must have infinite potential.

So a continuous process of expansion, collapse and reinitiation seems an appropriate scenario, wherein potential energy most likely remains the same.

All based upon a certain confidence, that reality is what it appears to be, and that there is but one potential system.

Though how and why remain unanswerable questions.

@Magoroth wrote in post #542: snip… Light being a wave IMPLIES it should obey the Doppler effect and indeed experiments have shown multiple times that it does. …snip

You antiscientifically combine two entirely different types of waves to arrive at “Light being a wave IMPLIES it should obey the Doppler effect”.

In physics, atmospheric acoustical waves are fundamentally different from electromagnetic spectrum waves as shown in the following explanation.

Waveforms, it gets worse for red-shift conjecturers

You are using the nonsense nonscience doppler effect of light based on your assumptions, not the scientific method.

Sound waves are atmospheric tightly localized particle vibrations passed from particle to particle; on the other hand, light waves are projectile particles.

As an example of the doppler effect, when a fast moving train blows it’s whistle while passing a person, then the pitch increases on approach to the person (sound wave compression) and the pitch decreases as the train races toward the horizon (sound wave decompression) as the train leaves the person; however, red-shift conjecturers have no such scientific method proof for the doppler effect of light except for their hypothesis revealing their conclusion joined with their conclusion revealing their hypothesis which puts such scientist sorcerers in an infinite loop of circular reasoning.

The Doppler effect of sound is based on the scientific method.

The Doppler effect of light is science fiction without any scientific method proof.

Your “IMPLIES” is an assumption, that is, your believing without proof.

I’m addressing your post #542 in 3 interrelated posts because of the horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills. If I posted them as one, then you might get overwhelmed. This is the first of the three posts.

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.

@Magoroth wrote in post #542: snip… All you’re doing is cherry picking some random observation in a galaxy far far away and saying it disproves red shift; if only one result THAT ISN’T even conclusive btw says “oops we didn’t expect this” whereas countless others do, how the hell do you go to the conclusion that red shift is a myth? …snip

Your argument is delusional, hypocritical, and antiscience. I posted links to multiple papers related to red-shift in this thread, so you are delusional. You are hypocritical because you believe this scientist sorcerer, but you don’t believe that scientist sorcerer.

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).

“cherry picking some random observation in a galaxy far far away”

You say that I am “cherry picking some random observation in a galaxy far far away” paper, but it’s the very thing that you do except you cherry-picked an old decayed tech paper, not from this century, not from the last century, but from the prior century, going back to 1871; however, I cherry-picked a new ripe tech paper from this century!

Your whole Big Bang evolution religion is based on “some random observation in a galaxy far far away”.

I’m addressing your post #542 in 3 interrelated posts because of the horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills. If I posted them as one, then it might be too much for you. This is the second of the three posts.

The Burbidge et al paper contributes to red-shift being a leap of faith which places your Big Bang belief as a leap of faith.

@Magoroth wrote in post #542: It’s a proven fact, insofar as anything experimentally PROVEN by countless experiments over the past 100 hundred years is. Yes, red shift is a bloody fact. …snip… For instance, you have yet to address the experiments I linked.

@Magoroth wrote in post #543: It’s not even 100 years, it’s been longer than that. Closer to 140 years. Michelson Morley and the ether theory of light did not emerge in a vacuum lol.

You provided no links in either of your red-shift history posts. In my response post #535 to your demonstrated to be delusional history of red-shift post, I assigned the link that you failed to indicate. Since your second history contains substantial repeat of the first, then I’m skipping the second because you didn’t bother to address the solid historical points I presented in post #535.

If you want to advocate that Einstein, in 1920, was an idiot, then you will continue to push your “experimentally PROVEN” red-shift as a scientific fact 150 years-ish history with Vogel in 1871 (see post #535 for details).

Unless you want to obliterate Einstein’s E=MC2 formula, then you will cease to pursue your ridiculous red-shift faith (see post #548 for details).

You lied when you wrote “red shift is a bloody fact”, and the fact that you lied is supported by post #541 (immediately above your post) and post #535 and post #361 and post #548.

I’m addressing your post #542 in 3 interrelated posts because of the horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, and your pathetic research skills. If I posted them as one, then it might prove too much for you. This is the third of the three posts.

Red-shift is your faith’s discipline of delusion (Jeremiah 10:8), so your Big Bang is a leap of faith.

Scientist have detected redshirt directly in the laboratory.

The verified the Doppler redshift.

The have verified the gravitational redshift and the Cosmological redshift forming the basis of Hubble Law.

@Magoroth wrote in post #544: I don’t even understand why you insist on 1) redshift being false 2) the connection to the Big Bang. Again, redshift can be true and the expansion of space can be false. The former is basically known beyond the shadow of a doubt, the latter is merely an interpretation of some observations.

Physics Lesson for Magoroth

As primarily foundational and pivotal to the Big Bang, red-shift imposes a make or break condition for the Big Bang; in other words, red shift, as a nonsense nonscience derived concept, makes an existential difference according to astrophysicists. The astronomer astrologer’s explanation for the expansion of the universe is very dependent on red-shift for the Big Bang adherent’s ultimate truth Hubble-Lemaître Law, v=H0D. H0 is the astronomer astrologer’s exalted Hubble Constant. That variable constant, er, constant variable, er, high priestly astronomer astrologer guesswork number (Hubble Constant) is driven by red-shift, and astronomer astrologers believe the Hubble variable Constant is between 50 kilometers per second per megaparsec and 100 km/sec/Mpc. When H=50, then the universe’s existence is about 20 billion years. When H=100, then the astronomer astrologers arrive at 10 billion years for the universe’s existence.

The age of the universe is between 10 billion years and a factor of 2 larger (essentially double the 10,000,000,000 years at 20,000,000,000 years according to astronomer astrologers; in other words, the events in the universe could have been transpiring for as much as 10,000,000,000 years more than the minimum of 10,000,000,000 years believed by your astronomer astrologer conjecturers!

Check this out, Magoroth, the error range is 10 billion years, so the error range is as big as the astronomer astrologer’s 10 billion year minimum existence time of the universe.

When H=72 (ish) in v=H0D, then astronomer astrologers put the Big Bang at 13.8 billion years ago.

Now, sufficient data sits in front of a rational, reasoning human to “understand why” I relate

“redshift” in “connection to the Big Bang”. This presents you with the opportunity to demonstrate whether you are a rational, reasonable person.

Consider your “matter of fact” structured sentence of “The former is basically known beyond the shadow of a doubt, the latter is merely an interpretation of some observations”, yet post #535 and post #541 and post #553 and post #554 and post #555 - all just a little way above here - provide facts demonstrating the whole of your structured sentence is a matter of your faith, not fact as you convey, but your redshift dogma leading to a Big Bang leap of faith.

So... Still no response to post 470?

I know you're not going to respond substantively, I'm just wondering what your latest excuse will be.

Kermos, you know that I look like Robert Oppenheimer, don't you?

Yes, you seemingly possess the ability to morph into various charismatic personas...Notably Ernest.

@Magoroth wrote in post #545: Also nobody brought up evolution so idk why you’re even mentioning this. Please stick to the topic

You blindly blather because you are being led by the blind such as the Roman Catholic Church priest and astronomer astrologer Lemaître (Matthew 15:14). The original post in this thread included discourse about your cosmic evolution religion, so I’m on topic writing about your Big Bang aspect of your evolution religion. The horrid state of your observational competence, your abysmal analytical ability, your pathetic research skills, and your lost spiritual state are showing, Magoroth.

Only religious theories need a leap of faith to accept. TheBigBang is a scientific theory with supporting evidence that requires no leap of faith to believe. The Big Bang theory is taught in schools throughout the world.

@Magoroth wrote in post #550: There’s no energy loss, it comes back in the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver

@Magoroth wrote in post #551: So the net energy of the system remains the same.

Your red-shift related phrase “the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver” represents nothing less than the dellta (change) increase of speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation for a photon because “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts); furthermore, your antiphysics red-shift continuation phrase “So the net energy of the system remains the same” for E=MC2 results in a static energy (E) despite your first “the kinetic energy difference” statement’s dynamic energy (E), so you are very confused about mathematics and delusional about physics!

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

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

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

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

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

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

The redshift can be applied to hell burning. The leap of faith would be in the expanding hell to provide space for new comers like you.

Kermos wrote:

@Magoroth wrote in post #550: There’s no energy loss, it comes back in the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver

@Magoroth wrote in post #551: So the net energy of the system remains the same.

Your red-shift related phrase “the kinetic energy difference between the source and the receiver” represents nothing less than the dellta (change) increase of speed of light (C) inside of Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation for a photon because “A photon of violet light, therefore, has more energy than a photon of red light” (from 4.1: Wave Properties at LibreTexts); furthermore, your antiphysics red-shift continuation phrase “So the net energy of the system remains the same” for E=MC2 results in a static energy (E) despite your first “the kinetic energy difference” statement’s dynamic energy (E), so you are very confused about mathematics and delusional about physics!

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

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

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

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

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

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

For the record I had to break down your post with AI because it’s so utterly incomprehensible. Wtf does “red-shift related phrase” even mean? It’s like 123114 extra words for literally no reason except to appear smart.

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

2) “results in a static energy”

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here. E=MC^2 has nothing to do with this. The energy of the system is the kinetic energy *of the source* plus the energy of the photon/light beam itself. E=MC^2 is an equivalence formula between mass and energy, it has nothing to do with this topic

3) “pushes the light particle speed past 186,000” No, it doesn’t. See 2).

4) “the action of photonic energy displacement” I have no idea what this means, but, again, E=MC^2 has nothing to do with this and I don’t get why you keep bringing it up

5) Nothing was deleted, the photon’s energy is “transformed” into the kinetic energy of the system. Not really properly put since there’s no transformation, it’s just a difference of “interpretation” in a light beam’s frequency between a stationary and a moving observer.

6) Ok.

7) Red-shift and the Big-Bang are completely separate. We are discussing Doppler redshift, not cosmological redshift.

Yes Hell...Nubile babes with big horns and whips, in tight red latex catsuits...Sounds like heaven.

I must visit Norway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You wrote “difference in velocity”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Magoroth Model, E=M

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

Back to Einstein’s infamous E=MC2 equation.

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

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

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

Red-shift remains science fiction because a photon contains no mass (M) for E=MC2 per your physics, so you don’t displace energy (E) inside E=MC2, instead, you delusionally delete energy (E) from E=MC2 thus leaving Einstein’s Theory in a state of disequilibrium. The “Energy Displacement inside E=MC2 regarding the Doppler effect for light a.k.a. red-shift” section of post #361 contains the details.

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

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

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

One of the consequences of Einstein’s theory of special relativity is that particles which move at the speed of light can’t have any mass. Or that particles with mass cannot move at the speed of light.

Yes, BIG BANG is nominally a creation theory.

So we are now up to...19 pages of absolutely pointless waffle.

@FLRW wrote in post #559: I look like Robert Oppenheimer

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.

Oppenheimer was a corpse that was incinerated to ashes, and you sound proud of looking like him, and Oppenheimer’s ashes are very telling about him because he was crowned the “father of the atomic bomb” by people, the Oppenheimer whose thoughts went to the Bhavagad Gita at the time of the first nuclear weapon detonation, the instrumental developer of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima where an estimated 45,000-83,000 died the first day - many incinerated to death, and the scientist developer of the atomic bomb dropped a few days later on Nagasaki where an estimated 30,000-40,000 died the first day - many incinerated while alive (sources include [Wikipedia}(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki) and Wikipedia and Wikipedia.

You, Mr. nuclear scientist FLRW, failed to address post #476 about the collapse of the evolutionist’s nuclear decay CMBR 13.8 billion year Big Bang argument, so my next post brings it forward for you.

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.