Talk:Gerald Schroeder

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

Miscellaneous[edit]

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)

There are no sources for the claim that Schroeder had a professorial appointment at MIT, nor is there any source, other than Schroeder's website, that he worked for the AEC. This should be checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.68.187 (talk) 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. In fact his website seems to claim only that he was "on the staff" at MIT. "Staff" is a word strictly distinguished from "faculty", which is what he would be with an academic appointment. It means he was employed as a technician, lab assistant, or something like that. If his middle name is Lawrence, then he obtained an MIT PhD in Geology in 1965. 202.45.98.133 03:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone with better Hebrew than mine can add biographical details from here: [1] 202.45.98.133 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved from main page[edit]

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 . 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]

- JoshuaZ 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me preface that I have not read Dr. Schroeder's books. I have one problem (so far) with the statements made here by JoshuaZ. As far as I know in Classical Mechanics Kinetic Energy is proportional to the square of velocity by one half the mass of the travelling object. This has been proven many times (see Wikipedia's own Kinetic Energy page for a derivation) and is taught in college courses on classical physics. Generally its derivationis never given outside of introductory physics courses because it is so common. It is also used by engineers around the world. However, it is only valid for systems with no relativistic effects (i.e. big and slow objects, such as cars, rockets, people, etc.), relativistic or Non-classical Kinetic Energy is very different and is not so proportional to velocity. To sum up: Classical Kinetic Energy IS proportional to velocity squared, Non-classical Kinetic Energy is not. Depending on the context, I might be willing to allow Dr. Schroeder this error, assuming he was trying to dumb down the concepts so the average reader could understand. I do not think JoshuaZ should be so quick to insult Dr. Schroeder concerning Kinetic Energy, especially when the equation he has cited shows Classical Kinetic Energy to be proportional to velocity squared by a constant. 63.196.109.71 (talk) 22:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Schroeder's errors really are errors[edit]

  • Schroeder said, "Here we use a maser, a gun that can fire one atom at a time." (Science of God, p.154) However, Masers do not fire atoms, not even a hydrogen maser. They fire microwaves. The hydrogen maser uses a stream of hydrogen atoms as part of its mechanism but does not release them. Machines that emit beams of coherent matter (i.e. atoms) are known as atomic lasers. Schroeder is wrong.
  • Proportional means only one thing in physics and mathematics: that there is a constant ratio between two variables. At best one can say that to a lay person it just means that two things are mathematically related in some way, but Schroeder is writing as a physicist and the lay reader has a reasonable expectation that outright errors will not be disseminated in the service of simplification. Schroeder is wrong again.
  • The fact that Schroeder has scientific qualifications does not mean that he cannot make mistakes, even fundamental ones. This is the Fallacy from Authority. And since the criticisms levelled against Schroeder come from Mark Perakh, who has vastly more impressive physics credentials than Schroeder (see Perakh's CV), then if one is going to commit the Fallacy from Authority, one would imagine that Perakh would be the better Authority to hang one's Fallacy on.
  • Diffraction does indeed occur if the aperture is larger than the wavelength. Diffraction occurs at any aperture or edge.
  • Perakh doesn't summarily dismiss Schroeder's use of the hf=mc2 equation; he spends nine paragraphs explaining what is wrong with it. Equation 1.1.5 in de Broglie's thesis is only the first step in a derivation. This equation refers to a particle in its own rest frame, the next two steps of the derivation show how to apply that special-case equation generally by modifying it with the Lorentz transformation. When Schroeder uses de Broglie's equation, he is using the simplest form, one that only applies to a single reference frame (that of the electron itself), and does not apply to other reference frames. Schroeder really should have used equation 1.1.7, instead of equation 1.1.5 and Perakh gives an excellent demonstration of why Schroeder is in error here. De Broglie's thesis effectively rebuts Schroeder too, and that was written in 1925.
  • Schroeder does say that mass and weight are the same thing. This is Schroeder's sentence from p. 40 of Genesis and the Big Bang: "The mass (or weight) of the object while at rest is called, in technical terms, its rest mass." The words "mass (or weight)" are repeated on page 37. As per Perakh, this can be ascribed to careless wording if one wants to be generous, but it is still an error -- and a repeated error at that.
  • I don't believe that these errors need be dealt with exhaustively in the main article, especially as most of them are found in a single article by Perakh, but it is reasonable to list some of them briefly.

Clawxyz 13:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Schroeder's comments[edit]

Gerald Schroeder left a comment on the entry, which I deleted, but I will reproduce it here on the talk page:

This is Gerald Schroeder writing in an attempt to clarify some errors on the entry for me in Wikipedia. To date this is the first time I have ever written anything for Wikipedia. I do not know who listed my name as an entry for Wikipedia. My web site Geraldschroeder.com gives an accurate one page description of my professional background. I saw on one site here on Wikipedia that I was a professor at MIT. Not true. Who writes these things I do not have a clue. I earned my BSc MSc PhD all at MIT The Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Between my MSc and until after my PhD [prior to my moving to Israel in 1971] I remained in the MIT physics department as part of the research staff and as an advisor to physics thesis students. A fellow whom I do not know but who identifies himself as a "physicist" questioned my affiliation with the MIT physics department. The research for and the writing of my PhD was done entirely in the physics department although I maintained my connection with the Geology and geophysics department where part of my MSc was done. My doctorate was thus interdepartmental, with the thesis being signed by both departments, the physics professor signing being the renowned Robley D. Evans, of blessed memory. Thus my PhD is in two fields, physics and what is now termed earth science. The topic of my PhD theses was the diffusion of gases through semi-permeable media. For this I used radon as the tracer [an alpha emitter and so easy to trace] and uranium-rich sandstone as the semi-permeable medium, hence the title, "Effect of applied pressures on the radon characteristics of an underground mine environment". [Prof Evans had active connections with the uranium industry and so was able to arrange the location for my research.] All of my publications during and after my PhD while I was at MIT list my affiliation as the department of physics. Those journals include, among others, Science; Review of Scientific Instruments; Journal of Geophysical Research. I noted in one entry about my name that an invitation for me to lecture at a Torah and Science conference was awarded and then withdrawn. This is totally not true. Again, as I wrote above about the erroneous claim that I was a professor at MIT, I do not have a clue as to where these ideas arose. Also the descriptions of my approach to understanding the age of the universe or more explicitly the flow of time from the big bang creation to the appearance of the first homo sapiens sapiens with the soul of a human [[as based on Nahmanides commentaries [ca. 1250]] does not use the theory of relativity in any manner. It is totally based on the varied perspectives of time in an expanding universe. I hope this entry can help clarify mis-understandings that may have arisen from previous errors.

140.180.156.226 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Response to Schroeder's comment from A Reader[edit]

This is a quote copied from the back of Schroeder's book, "The Science of God" (ISBN 0-7679-0303-X) [1998]:

"Gerald Schroeder earned his B.S., M.S., and Ph. D. in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he taught for several years before moving to the Weizmann Institute in Israel."

My interpretation of this is that he taught at MIT, and it seems to me that the natural assumption for a reader is that he was a professor there. It's hard to imagine that Dr. Schroeder hasn't read the cover blurbs on his own books! It's also hard to imagine that he has "no clue" as to "Who writes these things ...", as he states above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.96.244 (talk) 20:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It has been 5 years since the above response (from 2011) that I am commenting on, but the above response is also commenting on something from a few years before it (2007). I think it should be easy to understand his "who writes these things" question since, in 2007, a lot of academics were just learning about Wikipedia and it was a rather curious and confusing thing for them at the time (Wikipedia is still recovering from a sort of "backlash" from academics from that time who had little idea of what to make of Wikipedia). As for the "natural interpretation" statement, yes readers make mistaken assumptions, but that does not necessarily mean the original text is incorrect or that Schroeder is to blame (though, if it was intentional written to mislead, then the author of the statement [Schroeder? his editor, marketer, or publisher?] could fairly be blamed). — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:03, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Third party sources[edit]

This article seriously needs 3rd party sources: eg [2] [3] [4] Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Washington Post - Reliable third-party publication

The Washington Post is Washington, D.C.'s largest newspaper and its oldest still-existing paper, founded in 1877. Since 1991, the Post has won 25 Pulitzer Prizes, more than half of the paper's total collection of 47 Pulitzers awarded. This includes six separate Pulitzers given in 2008, the second-highest record of Pulitzers ever given to a single newspaper in one year. The Post has also received 18 Nieman Fellowships, and 368 White House News Photographers Association awards, among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talkcontribs) 07:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Time (magazine) - Reliable third-party publication

Time is the world's largest weekly newsmagazine, and has a domestic audience of 20 million and a global audience of 25 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talkcontribs) 07:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

FOXnews.com - Reliable third-party publication

FOXnews.com was averaging an estimated 24 million unique visitors per month, — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talkcontribs) 07:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The article only says that he was mentioned on FoxNews, it does not state anything else. If you click on the link, you can see it for yourself. אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה
  • If the source that mentioned him isn't reliable, then the fact that they did so is not worthy of mention. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Massachusetts Institute of Technology - Reliable third-party publication - National Research Council study of US research universities ranked MIT first in "reputation"

Founded in 1861. 76 Nobel Laureates, 50 National Medal of Science recipients, and 35 MacArthur Fellows are currently or have previously been affiliated with the university. MIT has a strong entrepreneurial culture and the aggregated revenues of companies founded by MIT alumni would be the seventeenth largest economy in the world. MIT managed $718.2 million in research expenditures and an $8.0 billion endowment in 2009.

The School of Engineering has been ranked first among graduate and undergraduate programs by U.S. News & World Report since first published results in 1994. A 1995 National Research Council study of US research universities ranked MIT first in "reputation" and fourth in "citations and faculty awards" and a 2005 NBER study of high school students' revealed preferences found MIT to be the 4th most preferred college in the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talkcontribs) 07:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Schroeder's former employer -- not third party. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology states that he got his BSc, MSc, and PHd from them. Because he worked there, they cannot attest that he graduated from there? If the University that you went to says you graduated from there is not reliable, who else would be reliable? If we could post his actual diploma, I guess that would be suspect as well because it it also came from the University. אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה
  • I haver no problem with citing his qualifications to MIT -- just you misrepresenting them as a third-party source -- when they are an affiliated WP:PRIMARY source. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:20, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Charles H. Townes, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics - Reliable third-party Source

Charles Hard Townes (born July 28, 1915) is an American Nobel Prize-winning physicist and educator. Townes is known for his work on the theory and application of the maser, on which he got the fundamental patent, and other work in quantum electronics connected with both maser and laser devices. He shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1964 with Nikolay Basov and Alexander Prokhorov. Townes has been widely recognized for his scientific work and leadership.

Irrelevant CV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה


But even if we were to take אֶפְרָתָה's word for it that these are "Reliable third-party" sources, they only represent 5 out of the thirteen sources cited -- most of the remainder of which are to Schroeder himself or affiliated organisations -- hence the {{primarysources}} tag. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Flew[edit]

Am I right in thinking that his having been an atheist most of his life is irrelevant? What counts is his beliefs when he made his comment,and he appears to be commenting from the perspective not of an atheist but as someone who believes in a god. Dougweller (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

  • It's probably in there because there's not much about Schroeder himself. Most of these (NYT, LATimes, TIME, etc) citations appear to be for mere mentions of Schroeder, that have little to say about him in terms of evaluative opinions. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Actually, further search does turn up evidence that GS did influence Flew in his conversion to deism. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I think he may have been the reason. Changed the wording to indicate as much. jps (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The linked article does not support your edit. Statements in our articles need to reflect reliable sources (you obviously know that), and although you may have quite a bit of expertise here, you still shouldn't be making statements not supported by their sources. You seem to have a conflict of interest here also, so perhaps you shouldn't be making edits that are clearly commenting on the subject but suggesting them here on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Why do I have a conflict of interest? My last name? I'm not related to the guy. I think that the source seems to indicate this from my reading. Apparently, Flew had the wool pulled over his eyes by this guy. Not sure why. jps (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Many apologies, no COI. The problem is that you are interpreting the newspaper article, I found some sources but don't have time. Doesn't he say something about it in his book about changing his mind? And why do some resources call him 'Anthony'? Dougweller (talk) 14:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't read Flew's book having decided from the reviews that he had essentially descended into senility by the time he wrote it, so you might be right. Maybe he read Schroeder's stuff and got excited but eventually dismissed the arguments. You've got me there. Anyway, it's pretty clear to me that Flew was enamored by the whole Intelligent Design fine-tuning arguments, and, to that end, it also seems to me that if Schroeder was the mug who introduced him to the claptrap then he should get the credit for taking down one of the more prominent brights. Exact wording may be something left to be desired. Check out the NYTimes article too where they document some evidence that Schroeder actively courted a nearly indigent Flew. jps (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Removing reception[edit]

Reception

He has been mentioned in Time Magazine[clarification needed (What did they about Schroeder or his works?)][1]

In his 1990 book Genesis and the Big Bang, Israeli nuclear physicist Gerald L. Schroeder argues in detail that there is no contradiction between the Bible's account of creation and current science. Schroeder also notes that the Ramban, the great medieval commentator on Scripture, had the remarkably modern insight that at the moment after creation, all the matter in the universe must have been concentrated in a tiny speck.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,977352-2,00.html#ixzz180B7gEVr

He has appeared in Newsweek and Scientific American as well.[clarification needed (Saying what?)][2]

An article was written on www.foxnews.com about Gerald Schroeder and his theories, it also mentions scientists giving their opinions on him.[clarification needed (What scientists, stating what opinions?)][3][unreliable source?]

This article is actually pretty good for getting some quotes from other creationists/theists about Gerald Schroeder. Peter Enns of [5], Karl Giberson from Gordon College, and Ken Ham of AiG fame have all commented there. Pretty amusing that FOXNews only gets theists to comment on their science stories. Really amusing, actually. jps (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Removed this stuff here. I don't think it belongs in the article. jps (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It was this rather bad addition (and others) yesterday) that grabbed my attention. There are loads of good sources for him, but these didn't improve the article. Glad you removed them. Dougweller (talk) 14:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


And that stupid Fox News quote has been added again. Why in the world would anyone use Fox when they can use Schroeder himself, or other reliable sources? I've warned him for 3RR. Dougweller (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
It is the first time a put a quote from Fox. Before it just mentioned Fox. People asked for more specifics so I put a quote.
Every reference I use, no one seems to like. Fox, Washington Post, Time Magazine, M.I.T., etc. If all these are no good, what else is? What is acceptable?

אֶפְרָתָה (talk) 15:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)אֶפְרָתָה

The issue is one of the writing, not of the reference. That the guy was mentioned in the Washington Post, Time Magazine, etc. is not encyclopedic. We need to have an article about him and about the ideas he has written about which have received critical reception. To that end, we could use the FOXNews sorce, for example, to show that other religious believers aren't too keen on his ideas for various reasons. The scientific and philosophical parts of his proposals have not been peer-reviewed or received very much notice. The guy is notable for being a popularizer and not much more. jps (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Another removal[edit]

Critical Reception

Writing in The Washington Post, self-employed public relations specialist and freelance writer Jonathan Groner[4] says of The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom:

The perplexed reader should give Schroeder, an Orthodox Jew who moved to Israel more than 25 years ago and has become a popular lecturer on science and religion, a chance to prove his novel thesis about the six days of creation and other biblical phenomena. This book, while it will not convince every scientific skeptic and will not satisfy every religious believer, repays careful study.[5][unreliable source?]

The point was rightly made that Jonathan Groner was employed as a reporter for the WaPost. However, he's not a reliable source for the academic opinion he offers. Not only does Schroeder's book not convince "every scientific skeptic", it has not convinced any scientific skeptic. The opinion of this reporter is not encyclopedic. I've removed it. jps (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding WP:Bare_URLs[edit]

  1. They make it more difficult to assess sources
  2. They make it difficult to maintain verifiability (because they lead to linkrot)
  3. They are against MOS:LINKS

HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

general notability[edit]

He has wrote four books, all have sold very well. The general notability tab is not needed here. Telecine Guy 21:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide citations for that? Are you saying his notability is established through him being an author? IRWolfie- (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
  • A simple search comes up with the answer, before putting a delete tag, a simple search should be done, there are many pages on many web sites about him. He is also a popular guest speaker and travel around the world. The Science of God (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster and Broadway Books of Bantam Doubleday) was on the Barnes & Noble list of non-fiction best sellers and was Amazon.com's best selling book in the field of physics/cosmology for all of 1998. While I do not agree with much in his books, he is is pass the general notability.

criticism[edit]

Is this article big enough to have a criticism section? There is an article here from a young earth creationist website which criticises his views and there is bound to be some criticism from the secular humanist point of view which might be interesting. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/08/01/schroeder-new-variation Jainsworth16 (talk) 12:30, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think primary sourced criticism from creationists has due weight for the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed Relativity[edit]

The article referred to "Einstein's Theory of Relativity. I deleted "Theory of". Relativity is not longer a theory, it is now a proven and repeatable law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JGWillson (talkcontribs) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

It's still a theory. The word "theory" in science doesn't mean a wild guess, it's an explanatory framework well supported by evidence. Jimp 05:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Gerald Schroeder/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 15:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC).

Substituted at 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)