Talk:Gerald Schroeder

message: : 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 . (Kinetic Energy is not mathematically proportional to velocity, as indicated in KE = (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. 
- JoshuaZ 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moved from main page  

message: * 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, \nu=\frac{1}{h} \frac{m_o c^2}{\sqrt{1-\beta^2}} 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Schroeder's errors really are errors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Schroeder's comments 

message: This is a quote copied from the back of Schroeder's book, "The Science of God" () [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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Response to Schroeder's comment from A Reader 

message: This article seriously needs 3rd party sources: eg     Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *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)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title:  Third party sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: I think he may have been the reason. Changed the wording to indicate as much. jps (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Flew 

message: ;Critical Reception
Writing in The Washington Post, self-employed public relations specialist and freelance writer Jonathan Gronerwww.linkedin.com/in/jonathangroner says of The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom:
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)
thread_title: Another removal

message: #They make it more difficult to assess sources
#They make it difficult to maintain verifiability (because they lead to linkrot)
#They are against MOS:LINKS
HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please stop adding [[WP:Bare_URLs]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  general notability 

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

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removed Relativity 

message: Substituted at 16:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment