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

[Pinball1970]

Out comes my Kemos bingo card, what do we have?

First couple of paragraphs.

Astrology /astrology
Leavitt
Censorship
Cepheid
The Pharmakeia Principle
Star bible

later on we get

Doppler
Bible quotes
CMBR
Stephan Quintet

House!

 

[DaveC426913]

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.

Also kermos:

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

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.

Ahahahaha. What a delusional hypocrite.

 

[Pinball1970]

I use your "science" against you

Yeah, good one.

Since every single thing you have said on this subject, is based on a profound ignorance of science bathed in breath taking arrogance and dishonesty, I will let James respond.

 

[Roosters for ever]

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.

My question to you is simple. Why are you showing total cowardice and lack of intestinal fortitude by ignoring the scientific data that I have posted over the last couple of months? No I aint a scientist by any means, but I am certainly intelligent enough to recognise the bullshit you post to support your rage against science and the scientific method. Your bible that you take so literally is the best example of that bullshit.
Anyway since your claim above was shown to be incorrect by me back away, I'll repeat it for you...not that I expect that you have finally grown a pair, and will address it. You are too far gone for that.

(google)
the difference between Andrew McKellar’s 1941 measurement of 2.3 K (often cited as 2.5 K in some contexts) and Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson’s 1965 measurement of 3.5 K does not invalidate the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation.
Instead, these measurements are seen as early, independent confirmations of a faint, uniform background temperature in the universe, which was later precisely measured and confirmed to be 2.725 K
Here is why the 1.0 K difference does not invalidate the CMB:

• Initial Detection Context: In 1941, McKellar used the excitation of CN (cyanogen) molecules in interstellar space to calculate an effective temperature of 2.3 K. He was not looking for the Big Bang, but rather the temperature of space.
• 1965 Measurement as "Excess" Noise: Penzias and Wilson found a "residual background noise" of 3.5 K (± 1 K) that remained after accounting for all known antenna and atmospheric noise. Their measurement was groundbreaking because they recognized it as a universal, non-directional noise that matched theoretical predictions of a "primeval fireball".
• Experimental Limitations: The 3.5 K measurement was on the "high side," as Penzias and Wilson noted at the time, largely due to early, ground-based radiometry limitations and the difficulty of subtracting exact atmospheric and instrument noise.
• Subsequent Confirmation: Later measurements, most notably by the COBE satellite in the 1990s, refined this value with extreme precision to 2.725 K. The 1.0 K discrepancy is simply a sign of improving scientific technology over three decades.

The, findings by both McKellar (2.3 K) and Penzias/Wilson (3.5 K) were in the same approximate "3-degree" range, which was critical for validating the Big Bang model over the competing Steady State model.

 

[Roosters for ever]

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.

Liar liar, pants on fire!
My advice to you is to go back to your overlords, and tell them that your/their's bullshit, is just that. Or alternatively get on your knees and get your Jesus to smite me, for my blasphemy.
And if, IF!, the big bang model is ever invalidated in the future, it will be via the scientific method, and most certainly by an educated scientist, not some bible quoting religious fanatic. That my friend is why science will always remain the source of knowledge. You see, science is always about progression, advancing as new knowledge and new data becomes available. It is not, nor ever is based on some "set in concrete belief/demand" under pain of eternal damnation. (Roosters forever: Science.com, 24:53)

 

[Roosters for ever]

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.

Well again! here's your chance...if of course you are fair dinkum in wanting to be scientifically minded, honest and linguistically normal. I doubt that by the way.....(specifically at the 8 minute mark)

 

[Roosters for ever]

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

And your incessant nonsensical bleating, does not affect the overwhelming evidence supporting the big bang model of universal evolution, nor ever will. At least not while you use some obscure biblical passage, that can be and is construed in many different ways, from the crazy, young Earth, Flat Earth fairy tales, to the Catholic Church and their acceptance of both evolution and the big bang. (Although they quickly get back into supernatural explanations at those points where science does not yet have knowledge. You know, the old "god of the gaps" routine.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

The Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC) is about 200,000 light years from Earth per your astronomer astrologers.

Astronomers. Astrologers aren't scientists.

You essentially wrote that Leavitt's law comes from her work measurements of the SMC.

I wrote that Leavitt was able to the determine the gradient of the period-luminosity relation for the Cepheids in the LMC, yes.

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.

I assume you don't understand what I wrote. An assumption isn't a measurement, Kermos.

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"...

I will ignore this since you did not quote what I wrote. Please quote me accurately. I shouldn't have to ask you many times to do that, but apparently this is necessary with you. Why is that, Kermos?

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...

I agree. I didn't say she did.

... she didn't have the distance to the SMC

Yes. Like I said.

... she didn't have the luminosity at a single Cepheid in the SMC, but she only had the brightness at Earth

What didn't you understand about what I wrote? Here it is again: "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."

I'm happy to answer questions. I know this is difficult for you, Kermos.

... therefore, she lacked data for both the luminosity and distance, yet the inverse square law requires at least one of those figures!

She had the apparent luminosities. Did you read the rest of my post where I gave you the history?

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

No faith was necessary, since Leavitt's period-luminosity relation was calibrated by Hertzsprung and Shapley, among others, as I explained. What did you not understand?

 

[James R]

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...

Only, it's not an indistinguishable angle. I told you that Gaia can measure parallax angles with an accuracy down to 0.000024 arcseconds. Any angle larger than that is therefore distinguishable.

On the short 250,000 mile trip to the Moon, we find an on-the-fly course adjustment was required...

Not sure how this is supposed to connect with anything to do with Gaia.

The point being that nearby extraterrestrial space broad baseline triangulation calculations and measurements required correction for the spacecraft to travel near the Moon...

That was a travelling spacecraft. Gaia, on the other hand, sits at the Sun-Earth L2 Lagrange point. Once it was positioned correctly at that point, it worked just fine.

... 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.

Yes.

1. 89.9998166667° for 10 l.y.

Yes.

1. 89.9999959444° for 445 l.y.

Yes.

1. 89.9999999909° for 200K l.y.

Yes.

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

All seems fine for Gaia, then, if your numbers are accurate.

How did you get your numbers, Kermos? How did you work out the distances?

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.

You got it. Gaia, by the way, is not a ground-based telescope - in case you missed it.

... therefore, Hubble's Law was built upon the faulty faith based Leavitt's Law (aka the Period-Luminosity relation)...

Are you asserting that the period-luminosity relation does not hold? On what basis?

Seems like you're just in science denial, as usual.

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).

Yes! Impressive, isn't it?

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.

My team? How so? Where's the mistake?

Notice, SMC is beyond the Gaia satellite parallax precision

Is it?

... which definitely puts SMC beyond ground-based telescope parallax measurement ability...

Okay. Let's assume the SMC is too far away. From that, you jump to the following unwarranted conclusion:

, so the foundational cosmic distance ladder rungs are a leap of faith/belief.

This is unwarranted because the cosmic distance ladder is independent of knowing the distance to the SMC by parallax.

You don't seem to be understanding the science of this, Kermos. Do you want me to explain it more slowly to you?

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​

Where is the contradiction you assert? Not in anything that you quoted here.

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).

Repeating errors many times does not make them correct, Kermos. Your "red-spectral" illiteracy is laughable, just to take one example - and that's even before we get to any science.

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"!

Please use the most up-to-date value and uncertainty for the Hubble constant, Kermos.

To do otherwise is just blatantly dishonest on your part. Is it not?

Are you a man who can't make his case honestly, Kermos? You want to knock down straw men rather than the best current science? Is that what you need, Kermos?

It's a bit pathetic, the lengths you feel you need to go for to lie for your religion, don't you think?

Your evil miscalculations are unscientific and, even worse, lead to man's self-exaltation.

What did I miscalculate?

 

[James R]

Your writing there is good evidence of your abased analytical ability...

My writing there is good evidence that I can easily spot your lies.

... 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).

Jesus doesn't talk to you, Kermos. That voice in your head is you, not Jesus.

Besides, if Jesus was real, he wouldn't so blatantly stoop to telling lies, like you do. Nor do I think he'd tell you to lie.

If I was religious like you are, I might be tempted to say that the devil is guiding you, not Jesus. But the devil isn't here any more than Jesus is.

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

Oh, I'm sure that it's not the access that's affecting your well-being!

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

You didn't answer the question I asked you. Do you hear voices in your head, Kermos?

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.

"Red-spectral" is an adjective, not a noun, Kermos. At least try to get your English right, if you can't talk usefully about the science.

Is that journal reference supposed to somehow support your claim? Can you please quote the relevant passages, if so? Or are you just throwing a random reference in, to try to look impressive?

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

I previously asked you to explain spectroscopy and red-shift, as you understand it. You were unable to even start. So, no conjecture, Kermos. It's fair to assume you're clueless on the topic.

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

I have not mentioned the use of potions, drugs or enchantments in this thread, as you know.

James R, you are not God.

When it comes to our respective levels of knowledge of science and astronomy, I might as well be, as far as you are concerned. And that's all that really matters for this discussion.

 

[James R]

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.

Correct. You'll have to put in some effort of your own if you want to confirm that the hypothesis that the AGN and the galaxy were at a similar distance has been falsified. I have already spent enough time doing your work for you.

Of course, you don't want to do that, so you won't put in any effort. Oh well.

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.

It certainly raised legitimate questions about the hypothesis. Like I said.

Your ridiculous argument conveying falsification of Burbidge et al 2005 paper by the Trinchieri et al 2003 paper blew up in your face ...

I didn't say that the Trinchieri paper falsifies the Burbidge 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.

The irony is that even if I could not falsify the Burbidge paper, it would just be one anomalous and puzzling data point. Meanwhile, all the rest of the data that helps to established and verify the cosmic distance ladder remains completely untouched and intact.

Apart from that, why do you, Kermos, believe in the distance measurements made by Burbidge et al.? I don't think you do believe it. How could Burbidge do what you say that no astronomer can do - i.e. measure the distance to two different galaxies? If you're going to rely on him, you'll need to explain why you think you can rely on him, but on no other astronomer.

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.

I provided you with facts you could check for yourself. I don't need to go find a paper for you. Go find it yourself, if you care enough about the truth.

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.

By your own argument re the Burbidge paper, my claim that red-shift is not "red-spectral" remains unfalsified unless and until you can produce a paper that says otherwise.

That's how this goes, isn't it, Kermos? You can't insist on one standard for me and a different one for yourself. That would be hypocritical, to say the least.

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

I'm sure all your friends (if you have any) will agree with you.

Have you been telling them all about me and your great victory over me, Kermos? You seem like the kind of guy who needs external reassurance.

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

Excuse me?

If you are claiming I have posted lies about something, please be specific in your accusation.

 

[James R]

You misinterpreted the data [for the Doppler shift of light]...

How do you know?

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

You don't even know what you're talking about, do you, Kermos?

Light wave Doppler effect is evil sorcery.

Is any clearer indication necessary to show that none of this is about science for you, Kermos?

Clearly, your religion has damaged you. But realise: it's never too late to start living a more honest life. Step 1 is that you have to start being honest with yourself. Step 2 is being honest with other people. If you ever manage it, you'll find it's very liberating.

 

[James R]

Kermos:

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 must try to stop telling lies, Kermos. It's something of a compulsive behaviour you have, it seems.

In my post #957, I addressed precisely the issue you mention, which is actually a non-issue for reasons I explained in that post.

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!

What use is the mean of the four measurements mentioned? Or three of them.

I asked you previously, in post #997. You still haven't answered. Can you answer now?

• 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.

What mean calculation? The only person here who seems to have calculated a mean using those four measurements is you, is it not?

Maybe you embedded a McKellar median, for all I know.

Anyhoo ... you're saying that you believe the McKellar measurement is a "valid metric"? Do you mean you think that one is accurate?

It's consistent with the modern value of 2.7255 K, just like the other four measurements that were mentioned.

• Matrix: set theory illuminates the overall trend of increasing heat over time from 1941 to 1965:

The four measurements are completely consistent with the value remaining constant between 1941 and 1965.

I don't know where you're getting a temperature increase from.

Are you telling me you still don't understand what the error bounds on the measurements mean? I can help explain them to you, if you like. Let me know.

• 
  
  
  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 is consistent with x = 2.7255. P is consistent with x=2.7255. That's all that matters.

In fact, the range of agreement between M and P is larger than that one value. In fact, M=P as long as 2.5 <= x <=3.4.

This is basic stuff, Kermos. I think even you should be able to understand this, if you try hard. Turn on that brain of yours!

• M∩P is a range of real number temperature elements...

Yes, specifically, the continuous set {2.5 ... 3.4}.

• ... 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)

What does it mean for one set to be greater than another? What do you mean?

• ... so M∩P elements are excluded from this evaluation because these cancel each other out.

Huh? What do do you mean "cancel each other out"? Do you understand what the ∩ symbol means?

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.

You seem to be looking at the temperatures in the two ranges that do not agree with one another. But those temperatures are part of an uncertainty range. We would not necessarily expect two independent experiments to have the same uncertainty range. Did you think we should?

You seem very confused. I think this math might be beyond your capacity, Kermos.

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.

I can't tell what your rationale is for excluding values where the two measurements agree with one another. That seems like a totally obtuse kind of thing to do. If the measurements are assumed to be of the same physical quantity, the idea of looking at the independent studies would be to determine the extent to which they agree with one another and the extent to which they disagree, would it not?

In this example, the important point is that both these particular measurements include the best modern value we have, which is 2.7255 K.

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

Your version of "set theory" seems to be a hopeless muddle. Maybe go back to the start and try again. Consulting your grade-school textbooks on sets to learn what ∩ means might be a good start, I suggest.

Set theory is destructive to your argument.

Not from where I'm sitting.

I just don't think you understand how sets work. Maybe more time studying maths and less time studying your bible could help, if you want to become good at sets.

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

Why would you want to ignore the uncertainties in the data?

(No need to answer. I know why, of course.)

 

[James R]

(continued...)

2.5=3.5 is false.

Well done, Kermos! There's hope for you yet.

2.5<3.5 is true.

1941<1965 is true

3.5-2 5=1.0 is true.

1965-1941=24 is true.

Uh huh.

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.

No they don't.

We can agree that the mean temperature measured by McKellar in 1941 was less than the mean temperature measured by Penzias and Wilson in 1965. But it would be a terrible mistake to ignore the uncertainties in the quoted results. It would also be wrong to ignore everything that Penzias and Wilson themselves had to say about their mean temperature measurement probably being higher than the actual value.

Why are you ignoring the uncertainties and the careful qualifications the scientists made in reporting their work, Kermos? Dishonesty, still?

A decrease in heat temperature from 1941 to 1965 is the Big Bang adherent's requirement...

Over that time period, like I said, any decrease would probably not be measurable. What we'd expect is that the measurements in that era should be consistent with a constant temperature for the CMBR.

And - what do you know - they are!

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.

No. I made an accurate statement, based on the data.

In response, you have only produced a mangled misunderstanding of sets and further evidence that you don't understand error bounds. Whether that's for real or feigned on your part, either way it comes across as very unimpressive at best, and dishonest at worst.

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.

Oh, I meant deliberately measured, there, not accidentally. Sorry you got the wrong end of the stick, again.

You believe the CMBR has an increasing temperature travelling backward in time...

The CMBR doesn't travel backwards in time. Neither do I.

... 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".

Yes. So should you. Maybe you will, if you can learn what an error bound is.

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

Yes and no. Yes, different measurements made at different times. And no: all four measurements distinctly the same in all being consistent with T=2.7255 K. Like I said.

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

They are in agreement in the range 2.5 < T < 3.4 K. Which contains T=2.7255 K.

Come on, Kermos. This isn't difficult! You can get this. I'm cheering you on!

Statistical consolidation of ALL FIVE points is unreasonable ...

What's "statistical consolidation"?

Is your set-theory "statistical consolidation" unreasonable?

... because reasonable doubt has been cast by the decrease of temperature going back in time...

These data do not show an increase in temperature over time.

... thus anyone claiming an increase of temperature is a person defying the logical conclusion from the data;...

Or a decrease.

... in other words, you cannot logically claim that there was a high heat temperature deep in the past around your Big Bang timeframe...

Not from these data alone. Of course. We need the theory to draw conclusions about "deep in the past".

... which would make the differences in ALL FIVE points statistically insignificant.

What?! After all that nonsense about sets and stuff, you now want to try running the line that differences in the five values are "statistically insignificant"?

I'm having a good laugh at your level of mathematical incompetence, Kermos. You get funnier with every sentence you write about maths and statistics.

You don't argue scientific facts...

The readers will judge for themselves who has the best scientific facts, of the two of us, Kermos. Your impotent posturing makes no difference.

... your arguments lack sound analytical skill...

Says the guy who doesn't know what ∩ means or what an error bound is. I'm laughing harder now, Kermos.

This post of yours that I'm responding to here is one of your most embarrassing ones so far, I think. You're really exposing your ignorance in this one.

I use your "science" against you.

On the contrary, you've helped me to show that my science is right and that you don't understand any of it.

Thanks, Kermos.

You are impotent to control me from spreading the Truth (John 14:6) beyond your site!

Far be it from me to try to curtail your freedom to preach your nonsense in any other forum you want to preach it, Kermos. Besides, I wouldn't want to deprive anybody else of the laughs you've given me here. You're actually a lot of fun, up to a point. You're almost a parody of yourself.

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

I note, again, that none of this is about science, for you. It's all about the lies your religion apparently demands that you tell.

To give you your due, you did tell us all about your motives and where you're coming from in your very first post to this forum, so I can't fault your honesty in that regard. You truly are a model creationist. Your mother must be very proud of you, I think. Is she?

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.

Heh. Nice one, Kermos. Thanks for the chuckles. Are you looking for an excuse to run away? Had enough?

 

[DaveC426913]

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

Yes and no. Different measurements made at different times. But all distinctly the same in all being consistent with T=2.7255 K. Like I said.

What's his beef?

These all have error bars bigger than 0.5 K. And there's a sweet spot of 0.8 K wide (3.3 - 2.5 K, in green) that all measurements are consistent with.

The current estimate of 2.7255 falls nicely in there.

A beautiful example of sciencing.

 

[Pinball1970]

What's his beef?

The universe is not 6000 years old, it messes with his Bible stories.

 

[Pinball1970]

Cosmology is not the only thing doing that.

 

[Pinball1970]

My question to you is simple. Why are you showing total cowardice and lack of intestinal fortitude by ignoring the scientific data that I have posted over the last couple of months?

Because he does not give a shit about the science. He wants to preach to us about scripture that he does not understand and insist that science he is completely clueless on is wrong.

 

[exchemist]

Because he does not give a shit about the science. He wants to preach to us about scripture that he does not understand and insist that science he is completely clueless on is wrong.

I thought there was a theory that this is a robot?

 

[Pinball1970]

I thought there was a theory that this is a robot?

Maybe. It's just a chicken shoot now. Perhaps he is a bot, or uses bot sources or he is real and runs to DI.

We are dismantling YEC in real time, low hanging fruit but needs to be done.