Talk:Gerald Schroeder

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Physics Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]

???

This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics.

Help with this template

Comments:

edit – history – watch – refresh

In recent communication with Dr Schroeder, he asked this response be given to the critics of his calculation that six days of creation as described in Genesis is approximately 14-15 billion years.

"In calculating the age of the universe based on biblical data, Schroeder uses neither gravity nor velocity relativistic effects. The calculation, based totally on the expansion of space, a concept totally accepted in cosmology, in brief flows as follows. The Talmud (ca. the year 400) in the section HaGigah tells us that the six days of Genesis from the creation of the universe to the creation of Adam form a separate calendar from the time after Adam, the first human but not the first human-like being according to the Talmud, Maimonides (ca. 1190) and Nahmanides (ca. 1250). The Kabalist Nahmanides writes that his teachers taught that the numbering of each of the six days shows that for these six days, the perspective of time is seen from near the creation looking forward rather than back into history as we do. The numbering goes: day one, a 2nd day, a 3rd day etc. So why day one and not a first day he asks. And explains the Bible writes ‘day one’ because for its view, there had not yet been a 2nd day. That is the Bible for these days sees time looking forward from near the beginning. Then Nahmanides proceeds and expands. The clock of the Bible starts when stable matter forms from the energy of the creation. Time is created at the creation, Nahmanides writes, but the clock of the Bible starts only when stable matter forms. (“When matter forms, time grabs hold,” to use his wording). That moment is the energy level of protons. The ratio of the scale or the energy level or the temperature of space between then and now is nominally a million million according to astronomy text books. Projecting the estimated age of the universe as viewed from our perspective back to the biblical perspective requires a compression of time by this million million factor. That compression, blue shifting is the jargon in astronomy, reduces the 14 to 15 billion year age as per NASA to approximately five and a half days. The days remain 24 hours each, as “the days of our work week” again to quote Nahmanides, but “contain all the days of the world.” And they do."

Gerald Schroeder

RK, could you provide a reference for that spat between Gerald and Aish. Please also email User:Joshuaschroeder to check whether this version is factually correct. JFW | T@lk 10:39, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC) He is realted to AISH ,you can see so in their site.

Further mote ,can someone help em understand thec criticism aginst his claims ,what does it mean "choosing another moment" ,wasn't the moment of creation chosen as quark confinement ..? if I choose an infinity shorter time ,will I get infinty...? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

(Responding to above) I believe the criticism is that not all scientists agree that time should start with the moment of quark confinement (QC). Scientists could arbitrarily choose a moment before or after QC and say time started there. Schroeder's argument is that energy (which is all that existed before QC) is not believed by modern science to experience time, and that matter (which existed after QC) does experience time. Therefore, the moment matter first exists is a logical place for the beginning of time. He then extrapolates from other factors like wavelength distortion and such that the approximate age of the universe from the perspective of light (a universal constant) is 6 days (which corresponds to an age of ~15 billion years from the perspective of the Earth). All this information is gleaned from his book, "The Science of God". Hope that clears things up for you. :) (Posted 3:41 PM, 2 July 2006 (CST))

No, Not really. Maybe I'll have to wait for my PHD to really understand these things. He looses credibility on other grounds, so this ultratheoretical extrapulation is not that convincing.

Besides, Energy Does experience time. it oscilates, decay and convert. E=MCC, so what's the actual differnce here?

Furthermore, it seems like If one would to choose an infetisimalyl shorter/closer time, will get infenity. that is instaed of 6 days ,200 days or 200000 days. it seems like an arbitrary selection to conform to his predispositioned belief of biblical creation. see selection bias. If I am wrong, this is probably one of THE MOST PROFOUND scientific discoveries ever. Yet it doesn't seems like it..:)--Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone. I noticed one of his criticisms is inaccurate, stating that he had the serious factual error of saying that velocity and kinetic energy are proportional. This would be a valid criticism if Kinetic Energy were not proportional to velocity. Since Kinetic Energy is proportional to velocity, this criticism is unfounded and false. I removed this error from page beforehand and for some reason this false criticism was reinstated. Now, I included next to the false claim, cited from the wikipedia source, why the criticism is invalid. I think this looks tacky and am curious as to when an official moderator or thorough cleanup can be done to preserve the intergrity of this article. I trust you all want this too. I hope that this will be taken care of. Thank you.

Proportionality has specific meaning in the language of mathematics. Please see the article on proportionality: Proportionality_(mathematics)

[edit] Moved from main page

This needs sourcing and needs to be less he-said she-said. I'm therefore moving it to the talk page:

Masers fire atoms (not untrue, Hydrogen Masers fire hydrogen atoms)
Kinetic energy is proportional to velocity ^{[citation needed]}. (Kinetic Energy is not mathematically proportional to velocity, as indicated in $K E = (1 / 2) m v 2$ . Mathematical Proportionality implies that the ratio of the two proportional variables remains a constant. However, Schroeder may be using the Layman's meaning of the word proportionality, and not the mathematical definition (as indicated by an absence of mathematical calculations). If this is the case, it would be more appropriate for a physicist (who typically are also recognized mathematicians, which in this case he is not) to say "is a function of" or some variant. Although this may be unprofessional of Schroeder to use an ambiguous term, critics must acknowledge that this book is intended to be read by the layman and that error in Schroeder's work can only be pointed out in his logic and computations, not an overbearing critique of a physiscists literary ability to translate professional work into something readable by the layman. The probability that this is a literary error is emphasized in that this kinetic energy equation is very rudimentary, taught at the high school introductory level, and if Schroeder accepted that Kinetic Energy is indeed directly proportional to velocity, he could not have obtained a triple doctorate and become a physics professor at M.I.T.)
Diffraction does not occur if the opening is larger than the wavelength
Mass and weight are the same (he does not claim this, see Science of God p. 48)
Heat may be diluted by expansion
If someone tries to tell you that hf=mc^2 is absurd, don't listen to him. Just look at de Broglie's thesis at this link: http://www.ensmp.fr/aflb/LDB-oeuvres/De_Broglie_Kracklauer.pdf. Notice equation 1.1.5.
Charles Darwin believed in the inheritance traits acquired through a single organism's life. ^{[citation needed]}