You don't believe in the death penalty?

[John Adams]

Gerald Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor, and currently teaches at the Hebrew University. He wrote a book called The Science of God, in which he reconciles the Book of Genesis with established science. Based on the Big Bang theory and on measurements of things like red shift, the universe is 15 billion years old. According to the Book of Genesis, God used six days to create everything. Schroeder pointed out that the word "day" cannot refer to the length of time it takes for the Earth to rotate once on its axis; because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of Creation. So he interpreted the word "day" to mean "a period of time 24 hours long."

 

Schroeder explained that the universe is explanding at nearly the speed of light. As Einstein's relativity theory points out, time is relative. If you are in a space ship traveling at nearly the speed of light, a clock on board the ship might indicate your journey has lasted just 20 minutes. A clock back on Earth might indicate the journey took 20 million years. Because time is relative, neither clock is more correct than the other--they are both right in the relative sense.

 

From the perspective of someone on Earth looking back into the past, the universe has been around for 15 billion years. But because of the relativistic time effects of the universe's expansion, the perspective of someone physically present at the Big Bang would be somewhat different. According to Schroeder's calculations, from the perspective of an observer physically present at the Big Bang, the universe has been around for about six periods of twenty-four hours each.

229378[/snapback]

 

Please tell me you don't teach physics anywhere. This "explanation" is as much a leap of faith as saying that Jesus is the son of god. Schroeder's assertion boils down to this.

 

1) The univese is 15 billion years old.

2) Genisis says the world was created in 6 24 periods.

3) 6 24 periods for someone at the center of the BBang correspond to 15 billion years.

 

Who said what? Huh? That's some wacky ipse dixit logic.

 

Now help me out on this question, which just might cause a problem. The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... does that mean Adam lived for 130*365*15/6 earth years? Never mind- that's all just Biblical time shifting, right? Pre-Adam, we go off this center of the Big Bang watch...post, we go off an earth watch. There's no scientific proof for this- or against it. If God chose to use two watches, he did... but there's no proving one or the other. The 6 24 periods=15billion years is TOTALLY arbitrary, cealrly forced logic to reach his conclusion.

 

If that's the case, how do you explain that humans are 40K years old, but according to Bible, no mare than 6,000. Stick to Earth years.

 

Never mind. I know you can't do it, and neither can he. He also can't explain away the fact that using his calculations, if he choses the right numbers for the redshift factor, the universe is 72 billions years old.... or as much as 10^30 years old. This guy is a fraud, and not worthy of serious discourse among scientists.

[KurtGodel77]

Please tell me you don't teach physics anywhere. This "explanation" is as much a leap of faith as saying that Jesus is the son of god. Schroeder's assertion boils down to this.

 

1) The univese is 15 billion years old.

2) Genisis says the world was created in 6 24 periods.

3) 6 24 periods for someone at the center of the BBang correspond to 15 billion years.

 

Who said what? Huh? That's some wacky ipse dixit logic.

 

Now help me out on this question, which just might cause a problem. The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... does that mean Adam lived for 130*365*15/6 earth years? Never mind- that's all just Biblical time shifting, right? Pre-Adam, we go off this center of the Big Bang watch...post, we go off an earth watch. There's no scientific proof for this- or against it. If God chose to use two watches, he did... but there's no proving one or the other. The 6 24 periods=15billion years is TOTALLY arbitrary, cealrly forced logic to reach his conclusion.

 

If that's the case, how do you explain that humans are 40K years old, but according to Bible, no mare than 6,000. Stick to Earth years.

 

Never mind. I know you can't do it, and neither can he. He also can't explain away the fact that using his calculations, if he choses the right numbers for the redshift factor, the universe is 72 billions years old.... or as much as 10^30 years old. This guy is a fraud, and not worthy of serious discourse among scientists.

232218[/snapback]

It seems you missed a few points I made; but at least you seem willing to discuss actual issues instead of using blanket, unsupported declarations and name calling.

 

To address the points you've raised: the usual meaning of the word "day" is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis one time. This CANNOT be the meaning of the word "day" for the six days of Creation, because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of the six day Creation period. Therefore, Shroeder argues, the word "day" means a period of 24 hours when applied to Creation. The question is, 24 hours from whose perspective--ours or someone physically present at the Big Bang?

 

As for the figure of the universe being 15 billion years old; I've seen that in websites about general science. The 15 billion year figure appears more widely accepted than the 72 billion year figure, let alone the 10^30 figure. Calling Schroeder a fraud for accepting mainstream Big Bang science--which is what you appear to be doing--is going a little far.

 

"The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... " This is inaccurate. The Bible states that Adam lived for hundreds of years.

[John Adams]

It seems you missed a few points I made; but at least you seem willing to discuss actual issues instead of using blanket, unsupported declarations and name calling.

 

Don't overcredit me. I'm millimeters from calling you names. I'm quite willing to call Schroeder all kinds of names.

 

To address the points you've raised: the usual meaning of the word "day" is the time it takes for the Earth to rotate on its axis one time. This CANNOT be the meaning of the word "day" for the six days of Creation, because the Earth didn't exist at the beginning of the six day Creation period. Therefore, Shroeder argues, the word "day" means a period of 24 hours when applied to Creation. The question is, 24 hours from whose perspective--ours or someone physically present at the Big Bang?

 

As for the figure of the universe being 15 billion years old; I've seen that in websites about general science. The 15 billion year figure appears more widely accepted than the 72 billion year figure, let alone the 10^30 figure. Calling Schroeder a fraud for accepting mainstream Big Bang science--which is what you appear to be doing--is going a little far.

 

This is my point- that 24 hours (at center of BB) = 15 million (earth) years based on redshift constants is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but when you use the right numbers, the age of the universe, by HIS dubious method, comes out to 72 billion years. If you consider the Planck time, it's on the order of 10^30. I'm not arguing that the universe is 72 billion years old (or older). I'm just saying that if you are willing to follow his arbitrary physics, you don't even get his numbers. Schroeder is a fraud.

 

 

 

"The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... " This is inaccurate. The Bible states that Adam lived for hundreds of years.

 

 

Sorry- 130 stuck in my head for a different reason. Adam fathered Seth at 130. LOL. I'm sure Schroeder has an explanation for that one too, as well as the flood, the different stories RE the birth of Jesus, and the holes in the firmament.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like the Bible. But it aint science, and this pseudoscience thing that shucksters like Schroeder sell is disgusting.

[KurtGodel77]

This is my point- that 24 hours (at center of BB) = 15 million (earth) years based on redshift constants is wrong. Not only is it wrong, but when you use the right numbers, the age of the universe, by HIS dubious method, comes out to 72 billion years. If you consider non-Planck time, it's on the order of 10^30. I'm not arguing that the universe is 72 billion years old (or older). I'm just saying that if you are willing to follow his arbitrary physics, you don't even get his numbers. Schroeder is a fraud.

Sorry- 130 stuck in my head for a different reason. Adam fathered Seth at 130. LOL. I'm sure Schroeder has an explanation for that one too, as well as the flood, the different stories RE the birth of Jesus, and the holes in the firmament.

 

Don't get me wrong. I like the Bible. But it aint science, and this pseudoscience thing that shucksters like Schroeder sell is disgusting.

232270[/snapback]

You and Schroeder clearly disagree about physics. There are two ways of deciding who is right: credentials/qualifications, or looking at the actual equations in enough depth that I fully understand both your lines of reasoning. Schroeder has you beat in the first department, and you haven't shown enough work/reasoning to beat him in the second department.

[John Adams]

Because you can't understand the proofs, you choose based on credentials. Sound reasoning. I don't know what problem Tom has with you... but is it that you're a senseless ninny?

 

Did you see those articles last week about the professor who likened the people who died in the WTC to Nazis?

 

Based on your (absurd) rationale that professors are to be believed, I should believe the WTC/Nazi guy. He's a PhD. He's a professor. He's studied history and sociology. QED. The victims of the WTC are like Nazis. How could I have missed it?

 

Anyone care to revive the thread where we discussed why our kids are failing in science?

 

Google your boy and "redshift", "age", and "universe." I feel bad that sensible people have been drawn into this debate, but they have. He's retrofitting data for his convenience, and has no scientific credibility. None.

[erynthered]

Because you can't understand the proofs, you choose based on credentials. Sound reasoning. I don't know what problem Tom has with you... but is it that you're a senseless ninny? 

 

Did you see those articles last week about the professor who likened the people who died in the WTC to Nazis?

 

Based on your (absurd) rationale that professors are to be believed, I should believe the WTC/Nazi guy. He's a PhD. He's a professor. He's studied history and sociology. QED. The victims of the WTC are like Nazis. How could I have missed it?

 

Anyone care to revive the thread where we discussed why our kids are failing in science?

 

Google your boy and "redshift", "age", and "universe." I feel bad that sensible people have been drawn into this debate, but they have. He's retrofitting data for his convenience, and has no scientific credibility. None.

232447[/snapback]

 

 

In case he didnt:

 

http://www.stadiumwall.com/index.php?showtopic=17095

[DC Tom]

All you ever do is call me or my ideas idiotic, while never providing a single reason why they are so. Because your posts contain no new information, reading them is not a good use of time for the people on these boards.

232216[/snapback]

 

The idiocy of your posts is self-evident; pointing it out in detail is not a good use of time. Not to mention that, when I do, you cry "Irrelevant details! You can't prove anything!"

[DC Tom]

Please tell me you don't teach physics anywhere. This "explanation" is as much a leap of faith as saying that Jesus is the son of god. Schroeder's assertion boils down to this.

 

1) The univese is 15 billion years old.

2) Genisis says the world was created in 6 24 periods.

3) 6 24 periods for someone at the center of the BBang correspond to 15 billion years.

 

Who said what? Huh? That's some wacky ipse dixit logic.

 

Now help me out on this question, which just might cause a problem. The Bible says Adam lives 130 years... does that mean Adam lived for 130*365*15/6 earth years? Never mind- that's all just Biblical time shifting, right? Pre-Adam, we go off this center of the Big Bang watch...post, we go off an earth watch. There's no scientific proof for this- or against it. If God chose to use two watches, he did... but there's no proving one or the other. The 6 24 periods=15billion years is TOTALLY arbitrary, cealrly forced logic to reach his conclusion.

 

If that's the case, how do you explain that humans are 40K years old, but according to Bible, no mare than 6,000. Stick to Earth years.

 

Never mind. I know you can't do it, and neither can he. He also can't explain away the fact that using his calculations, if he choses the right numbers for the redshift factor, the universe is 72 billions years old.... or as much as 10^30 years old. This guy is a fraud, and not worthy of serious discourse among scientists.

232218[/snapback]

 

You forgot to mention the state of the universe before gravity decouples, and the effect that has on Schroeder's calculations...

 

Whoops! That can't be right. I don't have Schroeder's credentials.

[John Adams]

You forgot to mention the state of the universe before gravity decouples, and the effect that has on Schroeder's calculations...

 

Whoops!  That can't be right.  I don't have Schroeder's credentials. 

232552[/snapback]

 

I mentioned the Planck time qbove, but no matter, I'm not an MIT professor. Another friend of mine referred to the prof at Northwestern (Butz) who wrote the book that the Holocaust was a hoax. Another thing I should believe I guess. Wait- the Unibomber was a professor. I need to grab his Manifesto and study up.

[DC Tom]

I mentioned the Planck time qbove, but no matter, I'm not an MIT professor. Another friend of mine referred to the prof at Northwestern (Butz) who wrote the book that the Holocaust was a hoax. Another thing I should believe I guess.  Wait- the Unibomber was a professor. I need to grab his Manifesto and study up.

232768[/snapback]

 

Not Planck time - that's a somewhat arbitrary and largely unproven quantization of time itself. Neat idea, but I don't know if it's ever seen any use, practical or theoretical.

 

What I'm talking about is that very early in the universe, you have a density that requires relativity to describe, but a distance scale that requires quantum physics. That is, before a certain point the universe operated by a quantized theory of gravity coupled to QCD (that's the Grand Unified Theory theoretical physics chases). In other words...there's no current theory to describe the relativistic effects of time dialation in the early universe, because there's no quantized theory of gravity, so there's a peroid of time that Schroeder's postulation can not account for. Unless he's doing some sort of goofy half-assed renormalization to prove that that fragment of time does not, in fact, exist...which is hardly valid anyway, and if it were he'd already have been to Stockholm for it.

 

And that belies the fact that simply because relativity says that observations of time and mass are frame-of-reference dependent, it does NOT mean that all frames-of-reference are valid. Sure, I can create a frame of reference where 15 billion years contracts into six days...but it would probably (almost certainly) be a load of BS (e.g. a particle accellerates from the Big Bang at 99.99999999999999999999994% the speed of light...but I don't know how or why you establish an electron travelling within one hundredth-septillion the speed of light as God's and the Bible's frame of reference.)

 

But hey...Schroeder's the greatest physicist ever, Ilya Ehrenberg was the Soviet Propaganda Minister and one of FDR's stooges along with Stalin, the wide proliferation of the IBM PC architecture was caused by MS-DOS, and Kurt Warner is the greatest qb ever. So what the hell do I know about anything?

[CarolinaBill99]

Thank you for somebody speaking up about this crazy post. Creationist have been beaten up so much with the advances in Genetics and other sciences that they see only one logical conclusion. The universe is 15 billion years old and the Bible says so!!! Unbelieveable...

[KurtGodel77]

Because you can't understand the proofs, you choose based on credentials. Sound reasoning. I don't know what problem Tom has with you... but is it that you're a senseless ninny? 

232447[/snapback]

NOBODY understood your proofs, because you offered no proofs. At least you need to offer a link or something.

[KurtGodel77]

The idiocy of your posts is self-evident; pointing it out in detail is not a good use of time.  Not to mention that, when I do, you cry "Irrelevant details!  You can't prove anything!" 

232544[/snapback]

To you, anything which contradicts your conventional wisdom is, by definition, stupid. That would be fine if there was some sense to your conventional wisdom; but as far as I can tell it's as much propaganda as anything.

 

In the original series of posts which prompted our disagreement, I pointed out that FDR's first major foreign policy act was to recognize the Soviet Union. The Soviets were engaged in murdering 7 million Ukrainians at the time. FDR continued his pro-Soviet stance throughout his administration. FDR had several opportunities to de-Nazify Germany without having German soil come under Soviet control. FDR could have offered a fair peace to a de-Nazified Germany, thus encouraging the German generals to take the risk of overthrowing Hitler. Instead, FDR demanded unconditional surrender from any German government; and the surrender had to be to all the Allies--including the Soviet Union. FDR clearly refused to envision, pursue, or even accept any future that did not involve Soviet occupation of large sections of Germany. The inevitable result of this extremist pro-Soviet stance was the mass murder the Soviet government inflicted on the German people.

 

Your response to all this was to draw into question whether Ilya Ehrenburg did or did not have the title of official propaganda minister. Some sources indicate he had this title; you claim to have found a reliable source that indicates he did not. Even assuming your claim is correct, it is a technicality. The basic point of my argument remains unchallenged: the Soviets engaged in mass murder, and FDR helped them do it. Add that to the mass murder that FDR was directly responsible for at Dresden; and you have a liberal Democrat record on mass murder which is the most lamentable disgrace in the history of this once-great nation.

[KurtGodel77]

Not Planck time - that's a somewhat arbitrary and largely unproven quantization of time itself.  Neat idea, but I don't know if it's ever seen any use, practical or theoretical.

 

What I'm talking about is that very early in the universe, you have a density that requires relativity to describe, but a distance scale that requires quantum physics.  That is, before a certain point the universe operated by a quantized theory of gravity coupled to QCD (that's the Grand Unified Theory theoretical physics chases).  In other words...there's no current theory to describe the relativistic effects of time dialation in the early universe, because there's no quantized theory of gravity, so there's a peroid of time that Schroeder's postulation can not account for.  Unless he's doing some sort of goofy half-assed renormalization to prove that that fragment of time does not, in fact, exist...which is hardly valid anyway, and if it were he'd already have been to Stockholm for it.

 

And that belies the fact that simply because relativity says that observations of time and mass are frame-of-reference dependent, it does NOT mean that all frames-of-reference are valid.  Sure, I can create a frame of reference where 15 billion years contracts into six days...but it would probably (almost certainly) be a load of BS (e.g. a particle accellerates from the Big Bang at 99.99999999999999999999994% the speed of light...but I don't know how or why you establish an electron travelling within one hundredth-septillion the speed of light as God's and the Bible's frame of reference.)

 

But hey...Schroeder's the greatest physicist ever, Ilya Ehrenberg was the Soviet Propaganda Minister and one of FDR's stooges along with Stalin, the wide proliferation of the IBM PC architecture was caused by MS-DOS, and Kurt Warner is the greatest qb ever.  So what the hell do I know about anything? 

232849[/snapback]

 

Your point about the quantized theory of gravity is at least worth finding more about. However, I've heard physicists talk about the first 1/100th of a second of the Big Bang and so forth; as being the time when things were MOST quantum. Given the speed at which the universe expanded, I suspect that unless you have some reverse time dilation at work; the whole quantum phase of the universe would add little to its overall age. But it's an interesting thought.

[DC Tom]

Your point about the quantized theory of gravity is at least worth finding more about. However, I've heard physicists talk about the first 1/100th of a second of the Big Bang and so forth; as being the time when things were MOST quantum. Given the speed at which the universe expanded, I suspect that unless you have some reverse time dilation at work; the whole quantum phase of the universe would add little to its overall age. But it's an interesting thought.

233051[/snapback]

 

"Reverse time dilation"? You're too stupid for words.

 

And it's not just a thought. Schroeder's "proof" is insufficient on its face because it's based on a theory (modern cosmology and relativity) that can not and does not claim to account for everything he believes he's accounting for. If it did, he'd have a Nobel Prize (probably more than one) for developing a GUT.

 

And you claim the "the whole quantum phase of the universe would add little to its overall age"...prove it. You can't. There's no theory that can describe it. Schroeder pretends he can, but really he just dismisses it (by calculating "quark confinement in strong gravitational fields" to get "six days = 15 billion years"...the problem with that being, frankly, beyond your comprehension unless you've studied the renormalization of non-Abelian gauge fields, which I doubt. The best he's done (and I doubt he's done even as much as that, for reasons to follow) is demonstrate (not "prove") that the universe existed in certain of its earlier conditions for an arbitrary, indeterminite, yet finite length of time.

 

Furthermore...he's not a professor at MIT (most of his bios - including his personal one - say he's an "MIT trained scientist"). And after searching, I can't find one single professional citation of him in any physics or astronomy journal - so if you want to judge on credentials, the man has demonstrably fewer credentials as a physicist or astronomer than I do.

[KurtGodel77]

"Reverse time dilation"?  You're too stupid for words.

 

And it's not just a thought.  Schroeder's "proof" is insufficient on its face because it's based on a theory (modern cosmology and relativity) that can not and does not claim to account for everything he believes he's accounting for.  If it did, he'd have a Nobel Prize (probably more than one) for developing a GUT. 

 

And you claim the "the whole quantum phase of the universe would add little to its overall age"...prove it.  You can't.  There's no theory that can describe it.  Schroeder pretends he can, but really he just dismisses it (by calculating "quark confinement in strong gravitational fields" to get "six days = 15 billion years"...the problem with that being, frankly, beyond your comprehension unless you've studied the renormalization of non-Abelian gauge fields, which I doubt.  The best he's done (and I doubt he's done even as much as that, for reasons to follow) is demonstrate (not "prove") that the universe existed in certain of its earlier conditions for an arbitrary, indeterminite, yet finite length of time. 

 

Furthermore...he's not a professor at MIT (most of his bios - including his personal one - say he's an "MIT trained scientist").  And after searching, I can't find one single professional citation of him in any physics or astronomy journal - so if you want to judge on credentials, the man has demonstrably fewer credentials as a physicist or astronomer than I do.

233161[/snapback]

My point--in case you didn't understand it--was that unless time worked differently for the quantum period than it has for the normal space period, the quantum period of the universe would account for little of the universe's age. This would be true even if you ignored the relativistic effect created by the universe's nearly light speed expansion. Basically what you are doing is assuming that, because there is no theory of time in a quantum state, the arrival of any such theory at a future point will disprove Shroeder's analysis.

 

The book jacket for The Science of God states that Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor. I suggest you read the book before announcing to the world that Shroeder is a fraud.

[Alaska Darin]

Is it time to start a "Dork Board?"

[KurtGodel77]

Is it time to start a "Dork Board?"

233367[/snapback]

You're the reason Americans don't know anything about science or math!

[DC Tom]

My point--in case you didn't understand it--was that unless time worked differently for the quantum period than it has for the normal space period, the quantum period of the universe would account for little of the universe's age. This would be true even if you ignored the relativistic effect created by the universe's nearly light speed expansion. Basically what you are doing is assuming that, because there is no theory of time in a quantum state, the arrival of any such theory at a future point will disprove Shroeder's analysis.

 

233351[/snapback]

 

And my point - which you obviously didn't understand - is that Schroeder's theory is necessarily incomplete and hence wrong for NOT accounting for that period. Not only that, but it is VERY likely that time worked differently in that very early phase of the universe. Frankly, to say otherwise demonstrates clearly your complete ignorance on the subject (like I said: come talk to me when you renormalize a non-Abelian gauge field. Hell, come talk to me when you renormalize an Abelian gauge field...maybe then you'll be able to discuss it.)

 

Schroeder's ideas are false on their face simply because they're based on theories that have very serious problems: relativity (isn't quantized, hence can't explain the early universe), the Big Bang theory (in which enough holes have been found the past ten years for it to essentially be a bad theory), and Genesis (which isn't even a theory, but an allegorical catchall "God did it" statement that explains nothing). And that's not even to mention that accepted "age" of the universe nowadays is 12 billion years - even though there's objects observed that are 15 billion years old. So Schroeder basically claimes to have solved the problem of: quantizing gravity, estimating the correct mass of the universe, estimating the correct age of the universe including solving all the paradoxes discovered in the past ten years, and "proven" Genesis. That's basically what you're telling me...and yet, the guy hasn't been to Sweden.

 

The book jacket for The Science of God states that Schroeder is a former MIT physics professor. I suggest you read the book before announcing to the world that Shroeder is a fraud.

 

I don't need to read the book to know he's a fraud, I just need to read his published professional research. Which I did. This morning. It took me precisely zero seconds, because he has precisely no published professional research. Ergo, he's not a professional physicist or astronomer or cosmologist...and a friggin' fraud with no credentials in the field whatsoever.

 

And his website says nothing about being an MIT professor, it says he was MIT trained. Neither one's authoritative, though...the real authority would be MIT. Oddly, they only list him as a trustee of MIT's drama department some years back.

 

Now please...explain to me again precisely how you know what the !@#$ you're talking about.

[John Adams]

Kurt: you're clearly way out of your league, and want to believe Jay Schroeder's theories (I always wondered where he went) about the universe for some reason. Let me ask you: do you believe that the Bible is the literal word of God? Is that why you believe Mr. Schroeder? Because it's pretty clear he doesn't have a scientific leg to stand on.