Talk:Brian Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Error?[edit]

As at July 2007, article contains text "traced the Universe's expansion back nearly 8 billion light years." This reads like an error to me, as a light year is a distance, not a time. Can someone more knowledgeable fix this, or else confirm here that it's right? Ian Page 06:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Title[edit]

Brian Schmidt goes to a music composer for pin balls games. Clearly that article should be named Brian Schmidt (music composer) and this article, now he has won a Nobel Prize, should be moved to Brian Schmidt. Do you agree? --Bduke (Discussion) 23:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move as this person has risen in prominence. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
There are three people with almost identical names, so I have put hatnotes on all three articles. They are:
  • Brian Schmidt (this article) about the Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist;
  • Brian L. Schmidt about the music composer;
  • Bryan Schmidt about the American ice hockey player.
If we get any more, I think we will need a Disambiguation page, but this should do for now.--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
None of this is about an improvement to the article
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Existence of God[edit]

"I have been described by one of my colleagues as a "militant agnostic" with my tagline, "I don't know, and neither do you!". I take this hard-line, fence-sitting position because it is the only position consistent with both my scientific ethos and my conscience."

Brian Schmidt on "God"

A true agnostic wouldn't include "and neither do you!" Tony Rodi (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Atheism[edit]

The belief that "God", as defined by an atheist, does not exist. Seems somewhat meaningless. Tony Rodi (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tony Rodi: Are you making a suggestion about how to improve this article? If so, I'm afraid that I can't make out what your suggestion is; please clarify it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gronk Oz. Thanks for your interest. I’m just making a comment about Brian Schmidt’s assertion that if he doesn’t know whether “God” exists, then neither do you. I’m unsure whether that’s a warranted or fair comment.

I've also made a comment on Atheism, or at least, atheists. But I think that Wikipedia’s article on Atheism, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism, covers the gist of my comment quite well, under the following subheading. Viz:-

Range "Some of the ambiguity and controversy involved in defining atheism arises from difficulty in reaching a consensus for the definitions of words like deity and god. The plurality of wildly different conceptions of God and deities leads to differing ideas regarding atheism's applicability. The ancient Romans accused Christians of being atheists for not worshiping the pagan deities. Gradually, this view fell into disfavour as theism came to be understood as encompassing belief in any divinity.[43] With respect to the range of phenomena being rejected, atheism may counter anything from the existence of a deity, to the existence of any spiritual, supernatural, or transcendental concepts, such as those of Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism, and Taoism.[44]"

I did find that the word “favour” is spelt incorrectly. i.e. “favor". Would you like to make the correction, or should I? Tony Rodi (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tony Rodi: I still am not clear what change you are proposing. Looking at the sources, it seems to me that the article accurately summarizes what they say about his religious views. I am not sure how you think the ancient Romans' views on Christianity relate to this article about Brian Schmidt. Nor what atheism has to do with it; that is not mentioned in any of the sources. Perhaps if there is a reliable source where he discusses those matters, it might be worth a brief mention - do you have such sources? On your second point, I have searched this article and the word "favor" does not appear in it.--Gronk Oz (talk) 11:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
@Tony Rodi: oops, I got the ping wrong on my previous post. --Gronk Oz (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Gronk Oz Sorry about the misunderstanding. The word "disfavor" appears in the article on Atheism, not on Brian Schmidt's page, and neither was there any reference to atheism. I thought my comment was relevant in view of the comments on agnosticism. I suppose that comment should have been made on the article on atheism. I actually corrected the spelling on my post, but not on the article itself. I'll get back to you when I find the link to Brian Schmidt's article that referred to him as being agnostic, and declaring he had no knowledge of "God" and that consequently, "neither do you." I found that quote when I was looking for references to Brian Schmidt's much publicised assertion that mass simply manifested from "nothing", which he then suggested was really "something". The media reported that notion by a declaration that now that we knew that existence derived from "nothing", God as a primordial creator, was no longer necessary. I did find some forums on this theory, which expressed opinions suggesting that this was "nonsensical" and "hogwash" Thanks again. Tony Rodi (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


Hi Gronk Oz RE- comments I made after reading an article written by Brian Schmidt in Sydney's Daily Telegraph. This article was not referenced on the Brian Schmidt page. Sorry if my post was misleading. Here's the link:- http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/very-different-paths-to-god/news-story/8ad6f1ba8516ba4d5dd68972f0b1314a I hope my comments make more sense and become more relevant in this context. Thanks Tony Rodi (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2017 (UTC)