Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yeah good one. James R is it time to ditch this 12 year old?
Show Me How The Big Bang Theory Is Not A Leap Of Faith
- Thread starter Kermos
- Start date
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
(google) Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the religious belief that the universe, Earth, and all life were created by direct supernatural acts of God within the last 6,000 to 10,000 years, based on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. Critics, including scientists and theologians, characterize YEC as a form of pseudoscience that contradicts established evidence across multiple disciplines, including geology, astronomy, biology, and physics.
Key Nonsensical or Contradictory Aspects of YEC:
YEC is widely viewed as pseudoscience because it starts with a predetermined religious conclusion and seeks evidence to support it, rather than allowing scientific evidence to guide conclusions.
Key Nonsensical or Contradictory Aspects of YEC:
- The Problem of Distant Starlight: If the universe is only ~6,000 years old, light from galaxies millions or billions of light-years away should not be visible. YEC advocates often argue that God created light "in transit," a position that implies a deceitful creator, as it presents a history of the universe that never happened.
- Geological and Radiometric Evidence: YEC relies on "flood geology," which attributes most of the geological record to Noah's Flood. However, this contradicts vast evidence from radiometric dating (e.g., U-238) that confirms Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
- The "Created Kinds" Fallacy: YEC claims that life was created in specific "kinds" (not species) that evolved rapidly after the flood. This model is seen as scientifically invalid, as it lacks a mechanism and attempts to circumvent evidence of common descent.
- Dinosaur and Human Coexistence: YEC literature often suggests that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, sometimes claiming that dinosaurs survived on Noah's Ark, which is not supported by any paleontological or archaeological evidence.
- Anti-Intellectualism and Conspiracy: YEC often operates by casting doubt on scientific consensus and asserting that mainstream science is a "conspiracy" driven by an atheist or, sometimes, "satanic" agenda.
YEC is widely viewed as pseudoscience because it starts with a predetermined religious conclusion and seeks evidence to support it, rather than allowing scientific evidence to guide conclusions.
- Rejection of Methodological Naturalism: YEC rejects the scientific method's requirement to rely on natural explanations, substituting them with supernatural, "wizard did it" explanations that are unfalsifiable.
- Quote Mining: YEC proponents are frequently accused of misrepresenting and cherry-picking phrases from scientific literature to appear as if they have academic support.
- Theological Criticism
Theological Criticism
Critics note that a literal, short-timescale reading of Genesis is not necessary for Christian faith and is a relatively modern interpretation (20th-century origins). Some theologians argue that YEC's literalism actually diminishes the majesty of God and misinterprets the text's allegorical nature...
Moderator note: Kermos has been warned for knowingly telling lies.
Kermos has continued to assert as "facts" things that he knows not to be true. He can't pretend he doesn't know any better, because accurate information has been provided to him many times in this thread.
Specifically:
* Kermos was informed that light undergoes a Doppler effect and that this is a well-verified phenomenon in science. Moreover, a specific example of experimental verification of this effect in the lab was provided. Yet Kermos continues to assert that this effect does not happen.
* Kermos continues to quote outdated figures for the Hubble constant and its uncertainty, while being aware that more recent data is available. It seems he refuses to acknowledge the best recent estimates. If he will not acknowledge the best evidence we have, he should not be talking about this.
* Kermos continues to assert, falsely, that parallax cannot be used to measure the distance to any Cepheid variable star, when he has been informed that it can be used. He was also given the specific example of the star Polaris.
Kermos could have looked into all of these matters independently, if he had been interested in the truth. Clearly, he has chosen to bury his head in the sand, instead.
Kermos will need to stop knowingly telling lies. If he wants to dispute well-accepted scientific facts he will need to provide evidence that refutes those facts.
Kermos's failure to understand certain points - like how error ranges work in science - is a problem rooted in his ignorance. That's one thing. But he can't claim ignorance of the matters mentioned above. Not after he has been given all the information needed to encourage him to investigate things further himself, to correct his errors. And given that he isn't ignorant of these matters, he is required not to tell lies about them, in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Kermos has continued to assert as "facts" things that he knows not to be true. He can't pretend he doesn't know any better, because accurate information has been provided to him many times in this thread.
Specifically:
* Kermos was informed that light undergoes a Doppler effect and that this is a well-verified phenomenon in science. Moreover, a specific example of experimental verification of this effect in the lab was provided. Yet Kermos continues to assert that this effect does not happen.
* Kermos continues to quote outdated figures for the Hubble constant and its uncertainty, while being aware that more recent data is available. It seems he refuses to acknowledge the best recent estimates. If he will not acknowledge the best evidence we have, he should not be talking about this.
* Kermos continues to assert, falsely, that parallax cannot be used to measure the distance to any Cepheid variable star, when he has been informed that it can be used. He was also given the specific example of the star Polaris.
Kermos could have looked into all of these matters independently, if he had been interested in the truth. Clearly, he has chosen to bury his head in the sand, instead.
Kermos will need to stop knowingly telling lies. If he wants to dispute well-accepted scientific facts he will need to provide evidence that refutes those facts.
Kermos's failure to understand certain points - like how error ranges work in science - is a problem rooted in his ignorance. That's one thing. But he can't claim ignorance of the matters mentioned above. Not after he has been given all the information needed to encourage him to investigate things further himself, to correct his errors. And given that he isn't ignorant of these matters, he is required not to tell lies about them, in accordance with our posting guidelines.
Let's look at the angles of triangulation that you imposed for your parallax distance between Earth and Polaris, the Cepheid variable star.
I used the 445 light years as an inside value based upon your "447 +/- 1.6 light years", so the parallax angle is 0.0073 arcsec.
The parallax subtended angles are easy to calculate. The parallax angle multipled by 2 produces the subtended angle, so the subtended angle is 0.0146 arcsec (0.0073×2).
The arcsec angles need to be converted to the 360° of a circle for easier understanding, so the subtended angle in arcsec divided by the number of seconds in an hour results in a quotient of the subtended angle in degrees of 0.0000040556° (0.0146÷3,600).
A right angle is 90°, and the complementary angle of the subtended angle is an indicator of just how close to parallel lines are the purportedly two 2,670,000,000,000,000 mile long converging lines to the apex angle at Polaris separated by 186,000,000 mile intersecting triangle baseline at Earth's solar orbit.
So, subtracting 90° from 0.0000040556° equals 89.9999959444° (90°−0.0000040556°).
The succinct Polaris parallax angle conversion formula is
90-((0.0073(2))/3,600)=89.9999959444.
You believe astronomer astrologers successfully measured an angle of 89.9999959444° to arrive at a distance of 445 light years to Polaris.
89.9999959444° is humanly imperceptible from 90° as applied to actual Earth to Polaris measurements.
You believe your star bible seer Henrietta Swan Leavitt determined the luminosity at Polaris because she knew the distance to Polaris. She didn't know the distance, so she had visions of luminosity at Polaris. Henrietta only had Polaris's brightness at Earth.
Since Henrietta's calculations about Cepheid variable Polaris was incorrect, then Henrietta's Polaris Cepheid variable with comparison to other deeper remote Cepheid variables parallax calculations is incorrect. Her gargantuan distances to hopscotch across the universe by comparing Cepheid variables is fundamentally flawed.
She didn't know the distance to Polaris. She didn't know the luminosity at Polaris. She could not effectively use the inverse square law. She couldn't use parallax between Polaris and any other Cepheid to determine the other Cepheid's distance from Earth. She didn't have the luminosity at the other Cepheid to apply the inverse square law to the other Cepheid.
None of her progeny have said data, either. Her progeny are astronomer astrologers who believe her.
Let's look at a paltry 10 light year angle, 90-((0.33×2)÷3,600)=89.9998166667. That's not much improvement from Polaris!
You should be getting very nervous. A measly 5 light year distance has an angle calculation of:
90-((0.65×2)÷3,600)=89.9996388889
Did you notice that every triangulation down to as close as 5 light years away from Earth has an angle in excess of 89.9°?
Do you realize 89.9° is closer to 90.0° than to 89.0°?
Your instrumentation cannot compensate for the marginal angles beyond 100 light years (see the Zenith Model post #111 and the Episcopic Model post #113 for reasonable and rational explanations), so your "The distance to Polaris has been determined to be 447 +/- 1.6 light years, using the parallax method" with your "Hipparcos satellite and the Hubble Space Telescope. The most recent measurements were made by Gaia DR2/DR3" exceed .
At 5 light years, the angles are virtually indistinguishable from right angles from Earth's perspective.
Your bottom star bible cosmic ladder's bottom rung is as imaginary as your Big Bang.
Are you a man or a mouse? I've had two direct message conversations on this site. The first was you issuing me a warning about post #953 regarding impending punishment for continuing to write the Truth (John 14:6) about the CMBR, and the second was you issuing me another warning about post #972 regarding impending punishment for continuing to write the Truth (John 14:6) about the absence of the Doppler effect in light and the Hubble Constant range of H=50 and H=100 per current professor writing and the parallax paradox as outlined above.
In case you haven't noticed, I do not fear you nor your punishment. But it sure looks like you fear the logic, linguistics, and veracity which Lord Jesus Christ imparted to me.
Your dissonant belief system holds "Science, in general, assumes uniformity and regularity, both in time and space" (proof post #235), which I quoted to you in the post to which you replied, and "I have no such premise. My premise is that we know what the CMBR looks like from Earth. We know, because we can measure it directly" in reply to my explanations about your "Universe's universally uniform cosmic microwave background radiation (UUUCMBR)".
Stellar red-shift is your faith, not science. I pointed you to the red-shift unsettling paper, The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 by Geoffrey Burbidge who was a noted professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego's Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team of international astronomers, but your attempt to falsify the paper flopped as recorded in post #852.
Stellar red-shift was brought into doubt in this linked article by Halton C. Arp, Ph.D. from California Institute of Technology and professional astronomer.
Your zeal for your star bible's Big Bang is evident in your actions, and your inability to respond intelligently about the set theory in my last post to you.
The Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
This is easily shown to be false.
An angle of .000361 degrees equates to 2.4km on the Moon at 384,000km distance.
2.4km diameter craters are within the range of resolution by Earth-based telescopes. A famous example is Linné crater. Space-based telescopes can do better.
This silly argument has been busted by facts. Moving on.
Last edited:
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Since (John 14:6) is a biblical reference, it is not a valid citation. It's fine to believe whatever you want from the Bible, but beliefs are not a valid defense. You've stated what you believe to be true. That's subjective. It's not the basis if a logical argument.
Can we close this thread on the basis that it is
- misusing the word Truth?
- pretending that Truth can somehow be gathered a millennium before astronomy was invented?
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
.
I think acknowledging the fact he has lied is now due also.
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
You have lied about this again and again. You need to grow up and acknowledge that.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
You sit there, pontificating pretentiously about your nonsensical beliefs, based on some ancient book, (the bible) written by ancient fishermen and goat herders, in an obscure manner, (there are as many obscure interpretations of passages of the bible, as there are different choices of christianity, including your own extreme nonsensical invalidated version of a ridiculous young earth.) and at the same time, childishly and ignorantly, trying to invalidate science by your childish belittling phrases such as "star bible"
Isn't it about time you grew up and argued like a man, (you are a man presumably? or are you just a coward...or a bot)
In case you havn't noticed, I think you are the coward, (mouse) by ignoring relevant issues showing your YEC to be nonsensical as shown by many branches of science, by cherry picking and misinterpreting many aspects of science, by acting all pretentious like, and of course by bearing false witness against the many disciplines of science.
Henrietta Swan for example. wikipedia: " Before Leavitt discovered the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheid variables (sometimes referred to as Leavitt's Law), the only techniques available to astronomers for measuring the distance to a star were based on stellar parallax. Such techniques can only be used for measuring distances out to several hundred light years. Leavitt's great insight was that while no one knew the distance to the Small Magellanic Cloud, all its stars must be roughly the same distance from Earth. Therefore, a relationship she discovered in it, between the period of certain variable stars (Cepheids) and their apparent brightness, reflected a relationship in their absolute brightness. Once calibrated by measuring the distance to a nearby star of the same type via parallax, her discovery became a measuring stick with vastly greater reach."
A great example of your quote mining and cherry picking. Burbidge like Fredy Hoyle, while being otherwise pretty good scientists, were found out as wrong in their preference of "Steady State" hypothesis, and of course even if the Steady State interpretation was found to be more correct then the big bang, it certainly does not in any way shape or form, show that the universe was created by some magical supernatural being somewhere/sometime.
Some news for you. The science of the big bang and the size of the universe has been evidenced and continually refined over the course of time by observation, experimentation and technology, such as the "Gaia mission" an ESA observatory launched in December 2013 to creat a precise 3D map of the Milky Way. Operating at the L2 Lagrangian point, it has tracked the positions, movements, and characteristics of over two billion stars, significantly advancing understanding of galactic evolution, stellar physics, and asteroid tracking.
For your education, if that is at all possible for some dishonest, isolated religious fanatic such as yourself...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrV7xeAM7bg&t=5s
Only in the eyes of some lying, delusional, ignorant religious ratbag.
Roosters for ever
Registered Senior Member
Again, invalidating your own pretentious nonsensical faith....
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
Yes, the dishonesty is strong in this one, Jesus would be proud.
Kermos:
Now, here's what you need to know, Kermos:
With ground-based telescopes, we can reliably measure angles down to about 0.01 arcseconds, which is consistent with what I told you earlier about Polaris being at around the limit of the parallax method. We're using the Earth's orbit as the baseline for the measurement here, of course.
With space-based telescopes, that limit can be pushed down by an additional factor of about 10, meaning that we can reliably measure angles down to 0.001 arcseconds. Some instruments (e.g. see Gaia, below), can do considerably better than that.
---
You will note that the relevant angle to Polaris is 0.0146 arcseconds, according to your own calculation. This is on the borderline for measurement with earth-based telescopes, but certainly well within the capacity of space telescopes to measure.
Thanks, Kermos, for confirming for yourself that the distance to Polaris can be measured with current technology, using the parallax method!
Oh, goody! Yes, let's!
Close enough.
Now, here's what you need to know, Kermos:
With ground-based telescopes, we can reliably measure angles down to about 0.01 arcseconds, which is consistent with what I told you earlier about Polaris being at around the limit of the parallax method. We're using the Earth's orbit as the baseline for the measurement here, of course.
With space-based telescopes, that limit can be pushed down by an additional factor of about 10, meaning that we can reliably measure angles down to 0.001 arcseconds. Some instruments (e.g. see Gaia, below), can do considerably better than that.
---
You will note that the relevant angle to Polaris is 0.0146 arcseconds, according to your own calculation. This is on the borderline for measurement with earth-based telescopes, but certainly well within the capacity of space telescopes to measure.
Thanks, Kermos, for confirming for yourself that the distance to Polaris can be measured with current technology, using the parallax method!
Last edited:
Kermos:
Let me tell you the actual history, since it seems you're unaware of the relevant historical events.
Leavitt identified 1777 variable stars, including 25 Cepheids, in the Small Magellanic Cloud, using photographic plates that imaged the cloud.
She assumed that all SMC Cepheids were at essentially the same distance from Earth. Therefore, any differences in their apparent magnitudes in SMC photographs must reflect differences in their absolute magnitudes. She was able to determine the gradient of the period-luminosity relation for the Cepheids in the LMC, but not the absolute luminosity scale.
She personally never measured a single Cepheid distance. However, two other astronomers calibrated Leavitt's relation:
1. Hertzsprung (1913) identified galactic Cepheids in open clusters. He used main-sequence fitting to estimate the distances to the clusters and then used those distances for the Cepheids (because the Cepheids were in the clusters and therefore at approximately the same distance as everything else in the cluster). This gave the first zero-point calibration of Leavitt's period-luminosity relation.
2. Shapley (1918) expanded on Hertzsprung's work by using more cluster Cepheids. He applied the calibrated Leavitt relation to estimate distances to globular clusters, which led to his finding of the very large size of the Milky Way galaxy.
Leavitt's work was fundamental in that it provided a standard candle with a predictable luminosity. This allowed astronomers to measure distances far larger than the parallax method permits. These measurements, in turn, set the stage for Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe.
---
To bring things more up to date, I also mention that the Gaia space observatory (ESA) was launched in 2013 and operated at the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point until 2025. During its decade of observations, it measured the largest, most precise 3D map of the Milky Way ever made. It scanned the entire sky, observing each individual target about 70 times over the duration of its mission. It observed objects down to magnitude 20, which is roughly 400,000 times fainter than the naked eye can see. It measured the positions of stars, their distances (using parallax), their proper motions, their brightness and colour and - in many cases - their radial velocities.
Gaia built a 3D map of between 1 and 2 billion stars. From its data, the absolute luminosities, temperatures and chemical compositions of each of those stars were determined.
Gaia achieved a positional accuracy of about 0.000024 arcseconds - equivalent to measuring the width of a human hair accurately at a distance of 1000 km. It's data set has been the top source for scientific papers in astronomy for years. Arguably, it is the most scientifically productive space mission in history.
Regarding Cepheids, Gaia measured the parallaxes of hundreds of stars in many separate open clusters. This data is used to calibrate the Leavitt period-luminosity relation.
No, I don't believe that.
Let me tell you the actual history, since it seems you're unaware of the relevant historical events.
Leavitt identified 1777 variable stars, including 25 Cepheids, in the Small Magellanic Cloud, using photographic plates that imaged the cloud.
She assumed that all SMC Cepheids were at essentially the same distance from Earth. Therefore, any differences in their apparent magnitudes in SMC photographs must reflect differences in their absolute magnitudes. She was able to determine the gradient of the period-luminosity relation for the Cepheids in the LMC, but not the absolute luminosity scale.
She personally never measured a single Cepheid distance. However, two other astronomers calibrated Leavitt's relation:
1. Hertzsprung (1913) identified galactic Cepheids in open clusters. He used main-sequence fitting to estimate the distances to the clusters and then used those distances for the Cepheids (because the Cepheids were in the clusters and therefore at approximately the same distance as everything else in the cluster). This gave the first zero-point calibration of Leavitt's period-luminosity relation.
2. Shapley (1918) expanded on Hertzsprung's work by using more cluster Cepheids. He applied the calibrated Leavitt relation to estimate distances to globular clusters, which led to his finding of the very large size of the Milky Way galaxy.
Leavitt's work was fundamental in that it provided a standard candle with a predictable luminosity. This allowed astronomers to measure distances far larger than the parallax method permits. These measurements, in turn, set the stage for Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe.
---
To bring things more up to date, I also mention that the Gaia space observatory (ESA) was launched in 2013 and operated at the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point until 2025. During its decade of observations, it measured the largest, most precise 3D map of the Milky Way ever made. It scanned the entire sky, observing each individual target about 70 times over the duration of its mission. It observed objects down to magnitude 20, which is roughly 400,000 times fainter than the naked eye can see. It measured the positions of stars, their distances (using parallax), their proper motions, their brightness and colour and - in many cases - their radial velocities.
Gaia built a 3D map of between 1 and 2 billion stars. From its data, the absolute luminosities, temperatures and chemical compositions of each of those stars were determined.
Gaia achieved a positional accuracy of about 0.000024 arcseconds - equivalent to measuring the width of a human hair accurately at a distance of 1000 km. It's data set has been the top source for scientific papers in astronomy for years. Arguably, it is the most scientifically productive space mission in history.
Regarding Cepheids, Gaia measured the parallaxes of hundreds of stars in many separate open clusters. This data is used to calibrate the Leavitt period-luminosity relation.
Kermos:
Do you hear voices in your head, Kermos?
Your insistence on remaining woefully ignorant of what science is and how it is done is not doing you any favours in this conversation, Kermos.
Try harder, if you can.
Are you saying you're going to continue to tell lies for your God? Okay. That's entirely up to you. We'll see how that goes for you.
That's a lie, Kermos. Or is it a delusion? Your Lord Jesus didn't impart anything to you.
Do you hear voices in your head, Kermos?
You have provided nothing that refutes stellar redshift. In fact, all indications so far are that you don't know what a spectrum is or how red-shift is measured, or what it can tell us.
Your insistence on remaining woefully ignorant of what science is and how it is done is not doing you any favours in this conversation, Kermos.
Try harder, if you can.
Kermos:
The following few replies relate to your posts #971 onwards (excepting the ones I already addressed, above).
Again, I'm going to just skip over all your useless repetition. I won't be doubling up on my debunkings of your stuff that I have already previously debunked several times. And I'm going to keep ignoring your religious nonsense, too; your religious delusions are a topic for a different thread.
Do you admire Burbidge, Kermos? I suggest that he could be a good role model for you, if you want to change your ways and learn how a real scientist goes about doing things with integrity.
The name "Chandra" was chosen to honor Indian-American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who won the Nobel prize for Physics in 1983 for his work on stellar structure and evolution.
The observatory has nothing to do with any religion. It is a scientific instrument.
The following few replies relate to your posts #971 onwards (excepting the ones I already addressed, above).
Again, I'm going to just skip over all your useless repetition. I won't be doubling up on my debunkings of your stuff that I have already previously debunked several times. And I'm going to keep ignoring your religious nonsense, too; your religious delusions are a topic for a different thread.
That suggests to me that Burbidge et al. were being scientifically honest, unlike you.
Do you admire Burbidge, Kermos? I suggest that he could be a good role model for you, if you want to change your ways and learn how a real scientist goes about doing things with integrity.
Pff! I learned the C language operators as a young kid. If you want a tutorial from me to teach you the C language, then ... forget it. I'm already too bored to waste even more time on you.
Chandra is an X-ray space observatory launched in 1999 on the space shuttle. Incidentally, it has an angular resolution of about 0.5 arcseconds.
The name "Chandra" was chosen to honor Indian-American astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, who won the Nobel prize for Physics in 1983 for his work on stellar structure and evolution.
The observatory has nothing to do with any religion. It is a scientific instrument.
True. But I gave you enough information to allow you to find more recent studies, if you're honest and sufficiently motivated to do so. I don't think for a moment that you'll put any effort into that, of course, because you're clearly a dishonest hack who is willing to tell lies for his religious sect.
Last edited:
(continued...)
Your silly denial that it occurs really is quite ludicrous. Do you expect me to continue to take you seriously, when you continue to clown around like this? Might as well get yourself a big red nose and some giant yellow boots, Kermos.
The Doppler effect for light is a well-documented effect. I have even personally observed it at work in the lab.
Your silly denial that it occurs really is quite ludicrous. Do you expect me to continue to take you seriously, when you continue to clown around like this? Might as well get yourself a big red nose and some giant yellow boots, Kermos.
Kermos:
What's your point?
Where did you learn statistics? Did you learn statistics?
Want to try again?
Or maybe you never studied it in the first place.
That's a span of either 24 years, or 85 years. Compared to the age of the universe - 13.8 billion years - that's a negligible period of time.
Try to keep up, if you can. There's a good chap. I can wait for you to catch up.
Did you change your mind mid-post?
Meanwhile, you have still been entirely unable to account for the existence of the CMBR, let along its observed temperature.
How's that project of yours coming along, Kermos? Maybe you need to ask your Lord Jesus for some better help than he has been giving you so far. You're doing so very poorly. I almost feel sorry for you, wallowing in your ignorance over there.
You're going to start being rational now? Oh, goody! About time.
That was the point.
Why would you want to calculate an average of those four measurements? Or three of them?
Both include 2.7255 K in the range of values, notice. Like I said.
Yes. So why would you want to average them?
Okay. But both measurements are consistent with T=2.7255 K. Like I said.
What's your point?
Er... what?
Time goes forwards, not backwards, Kermos. I don't know what your silly claim about the "CMBR decreasing" is supposed to be about.
Want to try again?
I don't think I mentioned averages. You did.
Why would you want to use the mean, there, when the mean does not necessarily represent the temperature accurately, as both McKellar and Penzias/Wilson noted?
They do not. Your statistics teacher - if you had one - ought to be caned for teaching you so poorly. Well, maybe it wasn't his fault. Some students just never get statistics. Maybe you're one of those.
Or maybe you never studied it in the first place.
I accurately reported the data and the conclusions one might legitimately draw from it.
Context, Kermos. Context. You and I have been talking about the years between McKellar's result (1941) and Penzias and Wilson (1965) - possibly through to the present (2026), if you're honest enough to accept the most recent data.
That's a span of either 24 years, or 85 years. Compared to the age of the universe - 13.8 billion years - that's a negligible period of time.
Try to keep up, if you can. There's a good chap. I can wait for you to catch up.
Yes it is. Both measurements include temperatures between 2.5 K and 3.4 K. More specifically, both measurements include a temperature of 2.7255 K, which is the accepted modern value.
Well, that's a sudden change of heart, from you.
Did you change your mind mid-post?
Are you suggesting that older measurements might not be as trustworthy as newer ones? If so, I entirely agree with you. Well spotted, Kermos! You're making some progress, at least, even if it is very slow.
Sure I can. All the evidence supports the big bang theory, after all. Higher temperatures in the past are a prediction of the theory.
Meanwhile, you have still been entirely unable to account for the existence of the CMBR, let along its observed temperature.
How's that project of yours coming along, Kermos? Maybe you need to ask your Lord Jesus for some better help than he has been giving you so far. You're doing so very poorly. I almost feel sorry for you, wallowing in your ignorance over there.
Moderator note: Kermos has been warned for knowingly telling lies (again).
Specifically, he has again claimed that it is "the truth" that:
* there is no Doppler effect for light; and
* the Hubble constant is only known to have a value between 50 and 100 (in units you apparently don't care about or understand).
But we already went through those matters. I informed Kermos that light does experience a Doppler effect and I also informed him about the most up-to-date estimate of the Hubble constant value.
He doesn't have to take my word for either of these things. He could check the interwebs and read the journals himself, presumably. If he takes time to do that, he will find that I'm correct.
Hopefully, we won't have to go through this a third time. Reinforcement should, in theory, encourage learning.
Specifically, he has again claimed that it is "the truth" that:
* there is no Doppler effect for light; and
* the Hubble constant is only known to have a value between 50 and 100 (in units you apparently don't care about or understand).
But we already went through those matters. I informed Kermos that light does experience a Doppler effect and I also informed him about the most up-to-date estimate of the Hubble constant value.
He doesn't have to take my word for either of these things. He could check the interwebs and read the journals himself, presumably. If he takes time to do that, he will find that I'm correct.
Hopefully, we won't have to go through this a third time. Reinforcement should, in theory, encourage learning.
Last edited:
Pinball1970
Valued Senior Member
With sincere, honest people yes.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
