DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 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. 233469[/snapback] Yes he does. The back of his book jacket said so... Ah, to live in KurtWorld...where Ehrenberg is a Soviet minister, Stalin is a stooge of FDR, Warner's the greatest quarterback in the league right now, and Gerald Schroeder is the premire physicist of our era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 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. 233469[/snapback] It's Dr. Schroeder: he got his PhD in physics from MIT. Before you tell him that he's out of his league, please let us know which university you got your PhD in physic from. Oh, you mean to tell us that you don't have a PhD in physics? Too bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It's Dr. Schroeder: he got his PhD in physics from MIT. Before you tell him that he's out of his league, please let us know which university you got your PhD in physic from. Oh, you mean to tell us that you don't have a PhD in physics? Too bad. 233512[/snapback] This thread just keeps getting better and better. It reminds me of the telephone pole thread and Godel is playing the role of Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 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. 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. 233418[/snapback] You've managed to write quite a long post without actually calling me or my ideas stupid. I'm sure that took unwonted self-control on your part. Well, you did break down a little in the last sentence, but I guess nobody's perfect. As usual, your arguments are based on a misinterpretation of what I've written. I never said that Shroeder has proven with absolute certainty that there can be only one possible interpretation of Big Bang theory and of the relativistic effects of the universe's expansion. He himself didn't claim this. Instead, he wrote that there was a mainstream interpretation of Big Bang theory, etc., which dovetailed quite nicely with what the Book of Genesis said about the subject. If science is unable to explain everything about the universe's creation, you can hardly blame Genesis for the fact! Now, you seem to be saying that time may have been so different during the quantum phase of the universe that days, months, years, or even millenia might have been added to the universe's apparent age from the point of view of an observer. Such a view cannot be either proven or disproven by mainstream science, because as you point out, mainstream science is simply unable to explain how time worked when the universe was in its quantum phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It's Dr. Schroeder: he got his PhD in physics from MIT. Before you tell him that he's out of his league, please let us know which university you got your PhD in physic from. Oh, you mean to tell us that you don't have a PhD in physics? Too bad. 233512[/snapback] Did he go to MIT, or teach at MIT? Regardless, nowhere can I find either...and he certainly hasn't published anything in the fields of physics or astronomy. So please...tell me how great his credentials are again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 It's Dr. Schroeder: he got his PhD in physics from MIT. Before you tell him that he's out of his league, please let us know which university you got your PhD in physic from. Oh, you mean to tell us that you don't have a PhD in physics? Too bad. 233512[/snapback] Don't answer my questions RE the Bible. No matter. Although your love of Kurt "Jesus helps me win" Warner makes sense in the context of this thread. He's such a holier than thou pr1ck. Jay Schroeder was always a joke. He still is. And in case this is news to you, because it seems to be, getting a PhD doesn't overly qualify you for d1ck. I have advanced degrees, but only an intellectual lightweight would rely on a degree- even from MIT- to defend an argument. Someone intelligent would actually try to have a discourse on the subject at hand. Ever met e dumb PhD? Ever met a smart HS graduate? Once again, your reliance on Jay's credentials adds nothing to yours or his credibility. I feel like I'm tortoring a captured squirrel talking to you. And yet I keep doing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 This thread just keeps getting better and better. It reminds me of the telephone pole thread and Godel is playing the role of Ed. 233518[/snapback] Here I thought Kurt was playing the role of Debbie in the [insert various] threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Yes he does. The back of his book jacket said so... Ah, to live in KurtWorld...where Ehrenberg is a Soviet minister, Stalin is a stooge of FDR, Warner's the greatest quarterback in the league right now, and Gerald Schroeder is the premire physicist of our era. 233485[/snapback] You are either forgetful or intellectually dishonest. I've never written that Kurt Warner was the greatest QB in the league right now, just that he might well be a better option than Bledsoe or Losman. I've never called Stalin a stooge of FDR, but I have pointed out that FDR's pro-Soviet foreign policy led to a weakened American position in the postwar period, as well as the mass murder of millions of Germans by the Soviet government. I've never called Schroeder the premire (sic) physicist of our era; I've merely stated that he's done some calculations about red shift, the relativistic effect caused by the universe's expansion, etc., that are well within the grasp of any qualified physicist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Did he go to MIT, or teach at MIT? 233527[/snapback] Both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You've managed to write quite a long post without actually calling me or my ideas stupid. I'm sure that took unwonted self-control on your part. Well, you did break down a little in the last sentence, but I guess nobody's perfect. I don't have to...that your ideas are stupid is self-evident. As usual, your arguments are based on a misinterpretation of what I've written. I never said that Shroeder has proven with absolute certainty that there can be only one possible interpretation of Big Bang theory and of the relativistic effects of the universe's expansion. He himself didn't claim this. Instead, he wrote that there was a mainstream interpretation of Big Bang theory, etc., which dovetailed quite nicely with what the Book of Genesis said about the subject. If science is unable to explain everything about the universe's creation, you can hardly blame Genesis for the fact! Except that that's not the mainstream interpretation of Big Bang theory!!!! It's Schroeder's own little potato-head interpretation of it, which dovetails quite nicely with nothing but Schroeder's own "research". Let me try this again: Schroeder's theory cannot be accurate without taking into account everything from the beginning of creation, which is a fundamental impossibility unless he's come up with something new and different that no one else has thought of before. Which he hasn't, because if he had 1) he'd have published it, and 2) he'd have been to Stockholm by now. Now, you seem to be saying that time may have been so different during the quantum phase of the universe that days, months, years, or even millenia might have been added to the universe's apparent age from the point of view of an observer. Such a view cannot be either proven or disproven by mainstream science, because as you point out, mainstream science is simply unable to explain how time worked when the universe was in its quantum phase. 233526[/snapback] "From the point of view of an observer." You have absolutely no idea what that phrase even means...or if it even means anything. Your understanding of this topic is so extremely limited (basially amounting to "This is what Schroeder told me, and he claims to have studied and taught at MIT, so it must be right even though I don't understand it") that you really need to shut up. But I hope you don't, because I actually find your cloying idiocy perversely entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 You are either forgetful or intellectually dishonest. I've never written that Kurt Warner was the greatest QB in the league right now, just that he might well be a better option than Bledsoe or Losman. I've never called Stalin a stooge of FDR, but I have pointed out that FDR's pro-Soviet foreign policy led to a weakened American position in the postwar period, as well as the mass murder of millions of Germans by the Soviet government. I've never called Schroeder the premire (sic) physicist of our era; I've merely stated that he's done some calculations about red shift, the relativistic effect caused by the universe's expansion, etc., that are well within the grasp of any qualified physicist. 233539[/snapback] Having reviewed your posting history: 1) That's not what you said. 2) That's not what you said. 3) That's not what you said. And if Schroeder's done any credible calculations on such, they why aren't they published in any remotely credible scientific journal? Probably because they're not credible, and he's a crackpot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Both. 233542[/snapback] And you know this because...he told you so? I don't suppose you bothered to check with MIT, did you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Don't answer my questions RE the Bible. No matter. Although your love of Kurt "Jesus helps me win" Warner makes sense in the context of this thread. He's such a holier than thou pr1ck. Jay Schroeder was always a joke. He still is. And in case this is news to you, because it seems to be, getting a PhD doesn't overly qualify you for d1ck. I have advanced degrees, but only an intellectual lightweight would rely on a degree- even from MIT- to defend an argument. Someone intelligent would actually try to have a discourse on the subject at hand. Ever met e dumb PhD? Ever met a smart HS graduate? Once again, your reliance on Jay's credentials adds nothing to yours or his credibility. I feel like I'm tortoring a captured squirrel talking to you. And yet I keep doing it. 233529[/snapback] If you're going to call him a joke, at least get his name right. It's Gerald Schroeder, not Jay. In answer to your question, I've never met a dumb MIT physics PhD. Have you? As far as discussing the subject at hand, I've been doing exactly that. Others on this thread--including yourself--have been relying on statements like "you're out of your league," "your arguments are stupid," "you are stupid," and the like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Here I thought Kurt was playing the role of Debbie in the [insert various] threads. 233533[/snapback] I think that this is more like Ed lahjik. Dogs do not attack unless provoked because Ed has never been attacked while living in NJ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KurtGodel77 Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Having reviewed your posting history: 1) That's not what you said. 2) That's not what you said. 3) That's not what you said. 233551[/snapback] As is your habit, you're just plain wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 If you're going to call him a joke, at least get his name right. It's Gerald Schroeder, not Jay. In answer to your question, I've never met a dumb MIT physics PhD. Have you? 233555[/snapback] You really don't get the Jay Schroeder reset? Lighten up, Kurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 And you know this because...he told you so? I don't suppose you bothered to check with MIT, did you? 233554[/snapback] Did any of you Dexter's ever think that this can be resolved by just e-mailing the guy or MIT? I just sent an e-mail and will let you know what I find out. It took me less time to do that than it did to read the posts arguing about his background. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 As is your habit, you're just plain wrong. 233564[/snapback] As is my habit, I looked it all up. What, do think that once you stop reading a post it disappears forever? Particularly the Kurt Warner stuff...your infatuation with him may as well be sexual, as disturbing as it is. The sum total of your posts, though, makes one wonder if there's a topic that you aren't totally ignorant about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 Did any of you Dexter's ever think that this can be resolved by just e-mailing the guy or MIT? I just sent an e-mail and will let you know what I find out. It took me less time to do that than it did to read the posts arguing about his background. 233587[/snapback] I emailed MIT this morning, Dept. of Physics, Dept. of Astronomy, and their alumni association. Haven't heard back from any of them yet, though I've already found on my own that he's from their class of '59. Beyond that...it looks like he taught drama... It's an extraordinarily simple process, though, to search through 100 years of Physics Review for his publications, though...of which, there are none. He's got to be the least prolific "credible" scientist on the planet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 9, 2005 Share Posted February 9, 2005 I emailed MIT this morning, Dept. of Physics, Dept. of Astronomy, and their alumni association. Haven't heard back from any of them yet, though I've already found on my own that he's from their class of '59. Beyond that...it looks like he taught drama... It's an extraordinarily simple process, though, to search through 100 years of Physics Review for his publications, though...of which, there are none. He's got to be the least prolific "credible" scientist on the planet... 233592[/snapback] Why would you publish in a rag like Physics Review when you can publish books. Much more credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts