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

DaveC426913 said:
I have flipped on this issue.

At first, I declared they are all just trolls. But I am concluding that this is part of a larger, more coordinated effort to sow misinformation and doubt in science and western establishment.
(Not exactly a new idea, but I'm connecting the dots now). I see religious fundies and non-western actors had both having strong motives to undermine education and critical thinking. And, ultimately, it's working: it contributed to getting Trump elected.

IOW, I'm beginning to think that flerfers and hoaxers and creationists of all kinds are not just fringers- they're a threat that are ignored at our peril.
Click to expand...
James R said:
I am wary about inferring a conspiracy when simple ignorance and incompetence are more than enough on their own to adequately explain most of what we see.
Click to expand...
Perhaps a bit of both.
billvon said:
Yep. The Internet Research Agency, which is the troll farm in St. Petersburg, has been sending out flat-Earth content via its bots since 2015. These show up on Facebook, Instagram etc. The Russians know that a conspiracy-addled US is a weaker US.
Click to expand...
Sort of validates the actions of the Australian Albanese led government and their new social media age restriction laws. The amount of doubt about an oblate spheroidal shaped Earth, and the manned Moon landings on facebook when I was frequenting the place, was pretty unsettling to me. And a sizable proportion were Aussies had me even more perplexed.
Social media in general, being open to every Tom, Dick, Harry and Kermos, has developed into the arm of conspiracists and orginizations such as that mentioned by billvon above.
Thankfully our age limitation social media restriction laws will at least limit the shit flowing from these quarters for our young people, even considering they were implemented mainly for the bullying aspect that was taking place, leading to some suicidal tendencies among our young folk, who were on the receiving end of such bullying.
It also appears other countries are now doing similar.
 
billvon said:
It is growing fast. In 2021, 19% of Americans either thought the Earth was flat or thought it might be flat. In 2025 it was up to 24%. (Source - Polar, Environment, and Science (POLES) Survey, by the Carsey School of Public Policy.)
Click to expand...
Yikes!
 
exchemist said:
Yeah but what if it's just a projection, not a real heavenly body?
Click to expand...
Ok we could blame NASA for faking the moon in the 1950s, with some very big and very clever OHP, what about before that?
The moon features in literature and art all the way back to Genesis.
 
exchemist said:
There, you see? Now you are arguing about it! ;)
Click to expand...
No I just see it as an argument flerfs would not use because of that reason.

Trying to be a smart flurfer regarding this I would say, NASA launch rockets that just land again.
They did it in the 60s and every time after.
All the footage is fake.

If I was giving an argument against, I would ask about the astronauts who died and their families, 17 in total.

That's a lot to fake.

So is GPS.
 
billvon said:
It is growing fast. In 2021, 19% of Americans either thought the Earth was flat or thought it might be flat. In 2025 it was up to 24%. (Source - Polar, Environment, and Science (POLES) Survey, by the Carsey School of Public Policy.)
Click to expand...
That is so alarming I almost don't believe it.
 
At one time while debating a religious ratbag, claiming the earth was irrefutably flat, ( as per some questionable obscure bible passage) I asked him to walk directly 10,000 miles in a straight line on the Earth's surface, then make a 90 degree turn, walk another 10,000 miles, make another 90 degree turn back, and walk another 10,000 miles, you will be back where you first started, having traced out a triangle. Even the most basic education in geometry will tell you that is impossible on a flat surface. . Couple this with the equally crazy buffoonish claims of "we never landed on the Moon" and vaccination denialists, and it seems to me that some simply have a distaste for science and authority. Then they (in the USA) decide to vote for Trump. Then of course we have social media where people are allowed to express whatever nonsensical claim they are liable to pull out of their arse!
 
Roosters for ever said:
At one time while debating a religious ratbag, claiming the earth was irrefutably flat, ( as per some questionable obscure bible passage) I asked him to walk directly 10,000 miles in a straight line on the Earth's surface, then make a 90 degree turn, walk another 10,000 miles, make another 90 degree turn back, and walk another 10,000 miles, you will be back where you first started, having traced out a triangle. Even the most basic education in geometry will tell you that is impossible on a flat surface. . Couple this with the equally crazy buffoonish claims of "we never landed on the Moon" and vaccination denialists, and it seems to me that some simply have a distaste for science and authority. Then they (in the USA) decide to vote for Trump. Then of course we have social media where people are allowed to express whatever nonsensical claim they are liable to pull out of their arse!
Click to expand...
Did he take you up on your suggestion and walk 30,000 miles?
 
James R said:
Kermos:

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!
Click to expand...

James R said:
Kermos:

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.
Click to expand...

The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is about 200,000 light years from Earth per your astronomer astrologers. You essentially wrote that Leavitt's law comes from her work measurements of the SMC. There's a lot to this, James R, so I'm digging in. Are you man or mouse - a man can bear it out but a mouse hides in censorship!

I already included Hertzsprung and Shapley as Leavitt's progeny in post #984 because I'm already aware of history without your explanation; in fact, you might recall when you wrote "We can identify Cepheid variable stars in some galaxies external to the Milky Way. So you are correct: they can be used to measure the distances to some galaxies that are millions of light years away. I'd have to check your billions claim" in response to me (proof post #696), so this demonstrates your awareness of my awareness of history. Your inclusion of history can be indicative of any one of several things (1) you forgot about the referenced correspondence, (2) you demonstrated your lackadaisical analytical ability, or (3) you are exhibiting The Pharmakeia Principle (post #179) again. When I refer to your star bible seer Henrietta, then it's likely I'm referring to her progeny, too, such as Hertzsprung and Shapley.

When you started off by describing your star bible seer Henrietta Swan Leavitt with "She assumed that all SMC Cepheids were at essentially the same distance from Earth", then your subsequent paragraph data of "She personally never measured a single Cepheid distance" is science fiction.

Since you started off by describing your star bible seer Henrietta Swan Leavitt with "She believed without proof that all SMC Cepheids were at essentially the same distance from Earth" (see normal dictionary definition of assume at post #235), then your whole Cepheid luminosity at the star is foundationally based on visions (faith/belief) of your seer Henrietta.

Since the SMC is 1,200,000,000,000,000,000 miles away (200,000 light years times 6,000,000,000,000 miles per light year), then your star bible seer Henrietta couldn't parallax that, those would have been parallel lines to her - she didn't have the distance to the SMC - she didn't have the luminosity at a single Cepheid in the SMC, but she only had the brightness at Earth; therefore, she lacked data for both the luminosity and distance, yet the inverse square law requires at least one of those figures!

This means Leavitt's law measurements, in turn, set the faith/belief based stage for Hubble's discovery of the expansion of the universe.

Continued to post #1,036
 
Continued from post #1,035

THE GAIA SATELLITE DETAILS

A fascinating aspect of the Gaia satellite is the ignominiously miniature size of the instrument in relation to the triangulation Earth to a star side length with the correspondingly indistinguishable triangulation baseline angle greater than 89.999° but less than 90° for all stars in excess of 5 light years from Earth that you astronomer astrologers believe that you measured! Your Gaia instrument is a mere 15.1 feet × 7.5 feet (4.6 meters × 2.3 meters) (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)) with a 33 foot wide (10 meter) diameter Deployable Sunshield Assembly (DSA) (www.eoportal.org/satellite-missions/gaia), and it was fitted with two telescopes that sit 106 degrees apart (www.space.com/41312-gaia-mission.html), and the spacecraft rotated 360° every 6 hours on an axis perpendicular to the telescopes. The instrument was programmed to hold a 45° angle to the Sun in a ~932,000 mile from Earth Sun-Earth orbit.

On the short 250,000 mile trip to the Moon, we find an on-the-fly course adjustment was required despite all the mathematics applied to the mission:

Mission control teams in Houston and the Artemis II crew completed an outbound correction burn to refine the Orion spacecraft’s trajectory to the Moon. The burn began at 11:03 p.m. EDT and lasted 17.5 seconds

("Artemis II Flight Day 5: Correction Burn Complete", NASA, APRIL 5, 2026 11:50PM)
​

The point being that nearby extraterrestrial space broad baseline triangulation calculations and measurements required correction for the spacecraft to travel near the Moon, yet you believe that you can accurately triangulate stellar objects based upon unreasonably fine detailed angles along the lines of:
  1. 89.9996388889° for 5 l.y.
  2. 89.9998166667° for 10 l.y.
  3. 89.9999959444° for 445 l.y.
  4. 89.9999999909° for 200K l.y.

Number 3 is the angle for Polaris, and number 4 is the angle for SMC.

James R, you wrote "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", so according to your own logic it was not possible for your seer Henrietta to have a distance to the SMC; therefore, Hubble's Law was built upon the faulty faith based Leavitt's Law (aka the Period-Luminosity relation) as evidenced by your writing of "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".

Back to you writing "reliably measure angles down to about 0.01 arcseconds".
0.01 arcseconds is 0.0000055556° ((0.01×2)÷3,600), that is, 1/2 of one-hundred-thousandth of a degree.

In other words, split a 1° (one degree) angle into one hundred thousand equal angles then cut one of those in half - that arrives at the resolution you believe your astronomer astrologers accurately determines from Earth.

Then you moved on to the utterly indiscernible "Gaia achieved a positional accuracy of about 0.000024 arcseconds" which is 0.0000000133° or roughly ten-millionths of one single degree ((0.000024×2)÷3,600). If you believe that your team can distinguish the near right angle of 89.9999999867°, then you are sorely mistaken about that 135898.33 light year distance.

Notice, SMC is beyond the Gaia satellite parallax precision which definitely puts SMC beyond ground-based telescope parallax measurement ability, so the foundational cosmic distance ladder rungs are a leap of faith/belief.

Your "Gaia achieved a positional accuracy of about 0.000024 arcseconds" contradicts the following published American Astronomical Society paper:

The publication of 1.47 billion stellar parallaxes from Gaia is a major contribution to this. Despite Gaia’s precision, the majority of these stars are so distant or faint that their fractional parallax uncertainties are large, thereby precluding a simple inversion of parallax to provide a distance.

"Estimating Distances from Parallaxes. V. Geometric and Photogeometric Distances to 1.47 Billion Stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3"; C. A. L. Bailer-Jones, J. Rybizki, M. Fouesneau, M. Demleitner, and R. Andrae; 2021-02-25; The American Astronomical Society
​

I wrote the Truth (John 14:6) regarding the Zenith Model (temporal limitations, too titanic a timespan as detailed in post #111) and the Episcopic Model (spatial limitations, too vast a visage as detailed in post #113) and the Cepheid variable star true luminosity parallax (as detailed in post #155) and the red-shift is really just red-spectral (as detailed in post #469).

There is no quarter for your illegitimate command for me not to quote current Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of British Columbia Professor of Astronomy & Astrophysics Douglas Scott who authored "The exact value of the Hubble constant is somewhat uncertain, but is generally believed to be between 50 and 100 kilometers per second for every megaparsec in distance, km/sec/Mpc"!

TRIANGULATION GIGO BY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHERS
  • we (pseudo)scientists split one single degree angle (1°) into 1,000,000 individually recognizable angles in order to triangulate, er, we mean parallax, the monumentally gargantuan triangle side lines to fantastically distant stars older than 6,000 years old, so Jesus Christ is not God.
(GIGO = garbage in, garbage out)

Your evil miscalculations are unscientific and, even worse, lead to man's self-exaltation.
 
James R said:
Kermos:

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.
Click to expand...

Your writing there is good evidence of your abased analytical ability because I directed my statement at you when I wrote "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" (see my posts before and after this current post which expose your errors in logic, linguistics, and veracity).

My expressions of the Truth (John 14:6) can exclusively go well for me.

Access to your site does not affect my well-being.

James R said:
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?
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ is the Way and the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except because of Him (John 14:6).

Red-shift is really merely red-spectral (The American Astronomical Society's Astrophysical Journal 620:88-94), so red-shift is the sorcerer's recipe of delusion.

James R said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is more nonscience conjecture on your part. Hey, James R, red-shift is nonsense too.

James R said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do you feel good about yourself exhibiting The Pharmakeia Principle (see post #179 for details about the principle)?

Your religious zeal for your star bible's Big Bang is evident in your actions such as your inability to respond intelligently with science, logic, linguistics, and veracity about triangulation of stellar objects from Earth, the UUUCMBR, and red-spectral light.

PHARMAKEIA GIGO BY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHERS
  • James R: "That's a lie, Kermos. Or is it a delusion? Your Lord Jesus didn't impart anything to you." "I will require you, in future posts, to refer to modern estimates of H and the age of the universe." "Say what I tell you to say!"

James R, you are not God. My Lord and my God Jesus Christ imparts all children of God, including me, with wisdom. I don't recognize validity in your lawless and ungodly commands.
 
James R said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

James R, your pathetic, nonscience "I gave you enough information to allow you to find more recent studies" response failed to falsify the The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 paper authored by a team of international astronomers and astrophysicists including 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.

Way back on 2026-01-27, I proceeded to provide you with the link to the Burbidge et al 2005 paper, yet you failed to proceed forth with a paper falsifying Burbidge et al 2005 in the interceding timeframe with many posts by you, so, in effect, you have conceded that Burbidge et al 2005 is unfalsified; therefore, the Hubble law Hubble constant (50<H<100 even 68<H<74) is GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Furthermore, sir, your inverted debate argument conveyed to me that you believe your older Stephan's Quintet: The X-ray Anatomy of a Multiple Galaxy Collision by Trinchieri et al in 2003 paper falsified your astronomer and astrophysicist's newer The Discovery of a High-Redshift X-Ray-Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319 by Burbidge et al in 2005 paper published in The American Astronomical Society's The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 620, Number 1.

Your ridiculous argument conveying falsification of Burbidge et al 2005 paper by the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper blew up in your face when I presented to you on the fact that the Burbidge et al 2005 paper actually references the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper.

You failed to present a paper that falsifies Burbidge et al 2005 in your post - that's an epic failure in your debate arguments.

I presented the Burbidge et al 2005, so you need to proceed a falsification paper or concede that red-shift has good evidence against it.

Your farcical faith/belief that I need to provide any other paper, whether antagonistic or protagonistic, on the matter of red-shift truly being merely red-spectral is you losing this debate.

Your failure to procure a paper falsifying the Burbidge et al 2005 paper in your quoted post is you losing this debate.

Your misguided moderator direct messages to me demanding that I write your lies as if your lies are true is you losing this debate.

RED-SHIFT GIGO BY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHERS
  • GARBAGE IN: stars emitting red light indicates those stars are receding away from Earth.
  • GARBAGE OUT: Hubble's law of v=H[sub]0[/sub]D where the Hubble variable constant falls between H=50 and H=100 resulting in a 10B y.o.u. < actual y.o.u. < 20B y.o.u. where y.o.u. is "years old universe" (post #845).
(GIGO = garbage in, garbage out)

The 10,000,000 or more year old Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.
 
James R said:
(continued...)

The Doppler effect for light is a well-documented effect. I have even personally observed it at work in the lab.
Click to expand...

You misinterpreted the data because extraterrestrial projectile particle light waves are not Earth atmosphere oscillating particle sound waves exhibiting the Doppler effect (scientifically examined in post #837).

James R said:
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.
Click to expand...

Science proves you abide The Pharmakeia Principle (see post #179 for details about the principle).

DOPPLER GIGO BY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHERS
  • GARBAGE IN: sound wave Doppler effect exists which means light wave Doppler effect exists.
  • GARBAGE OUT: light wave Doppler effect indicates the universe is expanding with an age of about 10 bn or 13.8 bn or 20 bn years old (post #695).
(GIGO = garbage in, garbage out)

Light wave Doppler effect is evil sorcery.
 
James R said:
Kermos:

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? Where did you learn statistics? Did you learn statistics?

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.
Click to expand...

Not once did you rationally address the increase of 1.0 K from McKellar (2.5 K in 1941) to Penzias (3.5 K in 1965) whether mean, median, or matrix, so you exist in a leap of faith for your CMBR indicating hotter in the past because the data demonstrates an decrease over that couple of dozen years indicating cooler in the past.

You failed to logically address these points scientifically found in the post to which you replied:
  • Mean: The average formula (2.3+3.1+2.7)÷3=2.7 must omit the Penzias and Wilson value of 3.5 K altogether and illogically use the McKellar median instead of McKellar mean to arrive at your irrationally unattributed CMBR!
  • Median: you confusedly embedded the McKellar median, a valid metric in it's own merit, of 2.3 K into the mean calculation regardless of whether it was intentional.
  • Matrix: set theory illuminates the overall trend of increasing heat over time from 1941 to 1965:

    These sets are from the data you provided:
    • M = {x ∈ R | 1.8 ≤ x ≤ 3.4} (McKellar (1941))
    • P = {x ∈ R | 2.5 ≤ x ≤ 4.5} (Penzias and Wilson (1965))

    M and P represent two mutually exclusive, independent and discreet studies.

    M=P is false.

    M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements that potentially one set can be greater than or lesser than the temperature in the opposing set (except for the boundaries which would be equality on one side), so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out. This leaves the elements represented in MΔP.

    MΔP is the range of real number temperature elements that uniquely qualify as exclusively greater than or less than the temperature in the opposing set, so MΔP is included in this evaluation.

    Proofs:
    • M∩P and M>P, M=3.2 and P=3.1
    • M∩P and M<P, M=3.1 and P=3.2
    • MΔP and M>P, nonexistent
    • MΔP and M<P, M=1.8 and P=4.5
    • MΔP and M<P, M=2.4 and P=3.5

    The example elements of 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the cancelation effect at the intersection (M∩P), so the rational for removing the intersection elements of M∩P is very sound.

    The result is M<P.

    The CMBR is decreasing going backward in time according to this logic demonstrated using set theory.

    Set theory is destructive to your argument.
    ​
  • Lies, damn lies, and statistics: Since you, so vigorously, use unscientific generalizational averages, and broken at that, as shown a few bullet points back, then this cleans out the delusion you persistently reinject:

    You like averages, so let's use the mean temperature values to test your "The data do not support the conclusion that there has been an increase (or a decrease!) in the temperature over the years".

    • McKellar (1941): 2.5
    • Penzias and Wilson (1965): 3.5

    2.5=3.5 is false.

    2.5<3.5 is true.

    1941<1965 is true

    3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.

    1965-1941=24 is true.

    The five factual statements directly above show a 1.0 K increase of heat on average over a period of 2 dozen years starting in 1941 AD until 1965 AD.

    A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent's requirement, but it's just not there, so your CMBR is very bad evidence for your Big Bang.

    Your "The data do not support the conclusion that there has been an increase (or a decrease!) in the temperature over the years" is deception as your pillar of support for your faith based Big Bang.

    Do you remember writing "In the case of the big bang theory, it doesn’t just predict the expansion of the universe. It doesn’t just predict the existence of the observed cosmic microwave background radiation (which, by the way, it predicted before the CMBR was first measured)" as recorded back in post #236? Just take a look at your ALL FIVE point data list above to see the CMBR was measured before, thus you wrote nonscience.

    Moreover, your own belief contradicts your own belief. You believe the CMBR has an increasing temperature travelling backward in time, but you believe "The data do not support the conclusion that there has been an increase (or a decrease!) in the temperature over the years".

    The above dissection of your data shows that these are each distinctly different:
    • McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K
    • D.C. Hogg (1959): (3.1 +/- 1.0) K
    • E.A. Ohm (1961): (2.7 +/- 0.6) K
    • Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K

    McKellar (1941): (2.5 +0.9/-0.7) K is not in agreement with Penzias and Wilson (1965): (3.5 +/- 1.0) K.

    Statistical consolidation of ALL FIVE points is unreasonable because reasonable doubt has been cast by the decrease of temperature going back in time thus anyone claiming an increase of temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data; in other words, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your Big Bang timeframe which would make the differences in ALL FIVE points statistically insignificant. The differences in ALL FIVE points are statistically significant as a function of the recorded decrease in temperature over the decades moving backward in time.

    In other words, ALL FIVE of these measurements are in agreement with one another that the Big Bang is a leap of faith/belief.
    ​

You don't argue scientific facts (just look at your above avoidance regarding temporal data undermining your CMBR increasing heat going back in time to your nonexistent Big Bang, your arguments lack sound analytical skill), yet you commanded I speak your science fiction as fact in your third direct message conversation to me.

I use your "science" against you. You are impotent to control me from spreading the Truth (John 14:6) beyond your site! Professional Big Bang philosophers use abnormal linguistics, star bible adherents utilize illogical mathematics, and evolution religion zealots deceitfully convert their Big Bang faith into fact in their own minds and the minds of their deluded disciples.

CMBR GIGO BY BIG BANG PHILOSOPHERS
  • GARBAGE IN: a superheated, intensely small dot had a Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago while escaping the laws of thermodynamics.
  • GARBAGE OUT: radiation from that Big Bang dissipated outward to lower and lower heat temperatures over time to arrive at a CMBR of about 2.7 Kelvin in 2026 while adhering the the laws of thermodynamics.
(GIGO = garbage in, garbage out)

CMBR extrapolation back to the Big Bang as scientific fact is evil cognitive dissonance at work.

I would like to continue debating all of you, but it would be so helpful for you to be scientifically minded, honest, and linguistically normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top