Nope, that's just moving the goalposts again. Stacking spectra is perfectly common, it is not falsification. It's quite clearly stated how it was done. You specifically said it was "adjusted to such a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra", taking a mean spectrum is not that.
In that case why doesnt Blondin use a few real spectra?
And you still haven’t answered why doesn’t he actually
even show any examples of his falsified spectra comparisons
to his hi redshift sample. Why? He knows if he did he would prove
his own argument wrong.
So far you have avoided answering *any* criticisms and failed
to supply any evidence for your arguments. Except say..
” I won’t respond to gibberish”?!
Because I'm trying to make you actually consider real physics, instead of just moving words around. But it seems you're not interested. I cannot "calculate the energy of a 10-20nm emission" because as I have tried to explain, that is literal gibberish to me.
You don’t know how to calculate the energy of light emitted
at 10-20nm redshifted to 20-40nm? What part do you not understand?
Light is only observed to be a wave....nm are a measurement on very small scales, usually associated with the visible light spectrum
Redshift (Ie cosmological redshift) is where light loses frequency over
distance. A discovery by Hubble which incidentally successfully refuted
the photon model.
Real Physics? Does inventing imaginary never ever actually observed photons count as real physics. Or is real physics just based on empirically
observed phenomena like light is a wave?
Which do you prefer? Fantasy or fact?