Continued from
post #971
Like I wrote in
post #770 regarding Ptolemy and the Library of Alexandria, your analytical skill deficiency manifested here with Trinchieri et al 2003, again.
It is no accident that you didn't properly reply to post #784 by quoting me which is now evident because your Chandra god fails you!
All that you know regarding red spectrum light is that red spectrum light arrives at Earth as outlined in
post #784, but your star bible says the red spectrum light is a strange thing you call red-shift, so you preach your star bible's Big Bang.
You, like religious zealots, fight that the Burbidge et al 2005 paper dislodges your self-perceived red-shift sure foundation as wrong headed, and your belief in an error in the Burbidge et al 2005 paper depends on the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper
which is illogical and circular reasoning since the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper was incorporated into the Burbidge et al 2005 paper. Your religion's star bible is self-referencing.
Your Big Bang is unscientific faith.
Your Big Bang is not scientific fact.
You failed to present a scientific paper up to your above quoted sentence in this exchange that falsifies the Burbidge et al 2005 paper in a post of your's addressed to me that uses this site's functioning alert mechanism, so the Burbidge et al paper is a paper that remains unfalsified by any other paper to this day as far as I am aware even with your attempted falsification of the Burbidge et al 2005 paper by the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper which I scientifically reversed on you as demonstrated with logic, linguistics, and veracity, above.
Accurate logic, linguistics, and veracity are the enemy of dishonest "scientists", and one skipping valid logic, linguistics, and veracity is bad debate form. I wrote with accuracy about logic, linguistics, and veracity. You now threaten "
official" sanction for my continued accurate logic, linguistics, and veracity which your threat of "
official" sanction is a trait outlined in the Pharmakeia Principle (
post #179).
Let's see if we can find anything new from you.
There's abundant data that shows the Hubble law is correct, contrary to your repeated assertions.
Your community's Hubble law "science" is truly sorcery because your community dabbles in doppler for light waves, yet the Doppler effect relates to sound waves (see
post #837 for details with the gelatin (sound waves) / bullet (light waves) example and red-shift is truly just red-spectral).
Why are you still using old figures, when I have helpfully pointed you towards the most recent estimates of H? The uncertainty range for the age of the universe is far less than 10 billion years, as you now know. It is more like about 800 million years (using the most conversative estimate), which is an improvement by at least a factor of 10 on the old data you're still dishonestly shopping around.
I'll answer that by using currently practicing graduate of UC Berkeley Professor Douglas Scott of UBC's numbers which I previously quoted to you in the post series to which you are replying in
post #840 as source material for your Hubble law Hubble constant variable of H=50 & H=100 which results in a 10B y.o.u. < actual y.o.u. < 20B y.o.u. where y.o.u. is "years old universe" (see
post #845 for details).
I will require you, in future posts, to refer to modern estimates of H and the age of the universe. Apparently, you can't be honest without a little encouragement from a moderator of the forum. We can certainly go down that road, if that's the way you want to roll with this discussion.
You are wrong, and I already corrected you in the prior section.
As you can see, I am rejecting your unscientific requirement.
All my explanations have been scientific. I guess you just didn't understand the science. Maybe try reviewing my previous posts. Ask questions if you're stuck.
I proved your "science" to be in error, so you threaten me with censorship on your site.
I have not mentioned the use of potions, drugs or enchantments in this thread, as you know.
You have mentioned escalated repercussions in this very post as you threaten to punish me on your site for me writing with accurate science, logic, linguistics, and veracity - of which that escalation is you exhibiting the Pharmakeia Principle (
post #179).
Ironic that this was the very next thing you wrote after trying to dismiss me on the basis of an ad hominem attack you made with you "Pharmakeia principle".
I'm not impressed by your double standards, Kermos. Try to do better.
Actually, me telling you to "debate on the merit of the topic, not on the merit of the debater" makes sense because you were not debating on topic when you wrote "
If you are the best linguist your god can produce, I despair for him in his lack of power and effectiveness".
But, hey, you're the moderator, for today, James R, so you confidently infract your own rules, but your time is fast approaching to meet the great mediator, He is Jesus Christ (
1 Timothy 2:5).
I note that I previously addressed these objections of yours in detail.
Do you deny that the inverse square law can be used to deduce the absolute magnitude of a star, if we know its apparent magnitude and the distance to the star?
That's a yes/no question.
We've all seen how much you struggle to answer yes/no questions. Let's see how you go with this one. You have to try to answer at least one of them.
You do not have the distance from Earth to even the nearest Cepheid star in order to use the inverse square formula as explained in the Zenith Model (
post #111) and the Episcopic Model (
post #113)).
You are starting at 0; in other words, your cosmic ladder low rung is missing.
You brought up Chandra, and I explained Chandra to you back in
post #852 to which I referred you at the opening of the post that you replied to yet you neglected to respond to
post #852 so I included all of
post #852 in the beginning of this very 2 post continuation.
You demand that I speak your
ultimate truth (that I cease and desist using normal word dictionary definitions to reveal your faith-based Big Bang and no longer mention H=50 and H=100), but, I declare to you, your demand is denied based on spiritual and scientific grounds, and, now, I am jumping ahead to respond to your reply to my CMBR post. I may do some other jumping around depending on your action. You are about to show whether you are a man or a coward - a man is steadfast in the heat of battle but a cowardly tyrant hides behind the cloak of censorship. I would like to continue this debate with a response to your next post #933, but I am now watching to find out who you are.
