But to what extent we can show the stupidity of the believers as correlated to the stupidity of the belief is a matter entirely other.

This is where idiots like you are coming off the beam NT. You look for everything to be evidence except for actual evidence.
Only evidence is evidence. And non-evidence is not evidence.

Whether really brainy people believe in various stupid beliefs is not evidence for those stupid beliefs.

Plus its instituionally harmful for idiots like yourself to be encouraging people to substitute the alleged beliefs of allegedly brainy people for evidence.

All that this is evidence for is that allegations exist that brainy people believe this or that.

This is not evidence for the proposition at all. But only evidence for the allegation that certain people hold certain beliefs.

And since the person I’m arguing with might be one of the creators of these allegations of beliefs we see ourselves getting further and further away from actual evidence.

Can you find evidence for the Big Bang NT? No you cannot. So your belief amounts to a mindless superstition.

But its worse than that. Because the Big Bang as presented is far more stupid than any other creation myth yet invented.

I fought my way to the front and asked the prof what was up. He grinned and told me he’d sort it out fast when the bell went. When it rang, he called for quiet and explained to the crowd that the class was for astronomy, not astrology. He explained the difference. There was a huge groan and about 80% of the people left, most of them being arts students.

I don’t know why I had been looking forward to the class so much because it was about the driest class I have ever taken. It was all about calculating hydrogen gas, brightness and mass of stars, celestial mechanics, etc. It was interesting enough, but I was looking for a bit of sci-fi, which I quickly realized had very little to do with the reality of the universe.

NT…I didn’t know about the big hadron collider in the universe, so I guess that might explain the Big Bang.

You said something about red shifts being measured with an optical telescope. Do you know what they are? When atoms and molecules have transitions in their shells, they emit signature radiation at a specific frequency/wavelength. That spectra is normally collected with a radiotelescope but I imagine they have ways to do it with an optical telescope. It doesn’t seem like a great idea, however, since optical telescopes on Earth are not nearly as large as radiotelescopes. Their ability to collect that kind of radiation is limited.

When the spectra are collected, they are examined for their signature wavelengths. If they are shifted toward the red end of the visible spectrum, that’s a red shift, and if toward the blue end, that’s a blue shift. What can that possibly tell us about a Big Bang?

Red and blue shifts are Doppler shifts. In other words, if a celestial body is moving away, the emitted wavelength is at a lower frequency than it should be, and the difference is due to its relative velocity compared to us.

You put way too much faith in that kind of science. I’m not knocking the science because someone has to do the research and good on them for doing it. However, the amount of information out there is scant, and I’m afraid many physicists are claiming way to much knowledge for what is available.

I asked a question recently, “what’s on the other side of the universe”? Can you answer that, or can any scientists answer it? We haven’t the slightest clue as to the size of the universe, so how can we talk about a centre where a Big Bang might have happened? The relative motion measured by red and blue shifts is meaningless in the overall picture.

James…what does break the laws of thermodynamics is the flow of heat from the atmosphere at 0.25 C to the calculated 0.6 C average of the surface. Satellites are showing the atmosphere is 1/3 of the surface temperature and it has been pretty well established that the higher we go in the atmosphere, the cooler it gets.

You’re talking about heat flowing from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer surface. Unless you have an external means of doing that, like the motor in a refrigerator, you have the basis of a perpetual motion machine.

In this paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v3

it is explained why realclimate’s Rahmstorf’s has the concept mixed up. See Page 44 of 114 and 77 of 114.

The authors of the paper call his concept a ‘perpetuum mobile of the second kind’.

They go on to say:

***The second law is a statement about heat, not about energy. Furthermore the author introduces an obscure notion of “net energy flow”. The relevant quantity is the “net heat flow”, which, of course, is the sum of the upward and the downward heat flow within a fixed system, here the atmospheric system. It is inadmissible to apply the second law for the upward and downward heat separately redefining the thermodynamic system on the fly.***

It is understandable for the heat of the Sun to flow from a much hotter source to the cooler Earth’s surface but not from the cooler atmosphere to the surface, unless the Sun is heating the atmosphere to a higher temperature than the surface.

In fact. I am wondering if the model theory that a hot spot is being created in the troposphere due to CO2 warming is not based on that apparently faulty theory. The satellites are not showing that warming.