Whats the Universe expanding into?

[Zeno]

Equally important is that when the expansion reachs a certian point - the universe starts shredding apart (at least that is one hypothesis).

See Here: Big Rip

"The authors of this hypothesis calculate that the end of the universe as we now know it would be approximately 35 billion years after the Big Bang, or 20 billion years from now."

Start shopping now for a ripping good "End of the Universe Party".

-Zeno

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think you looked very hard to find criticisms of Schroeder.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did and saw something by Perakh which I mentioned. Perakh is a militant atheist who hangs out on atheist web sites and has written a book called Unintelligent Design, reviewed as follows:

One review:

[ QUOTE ]

Overall Unintelligent Design lives down to a very low standard. It’s an intemperate 459 page encyclopedia filled with contempt, logical errors, misrepresentations and a lot of shock value material. If this book was healthy, it would only be 200+ pages and well balanced. More specifically, Mark Perakh fails to make important distinctions and misleads the reader by lumping together a small number of actual ID proponents with a large number of fringe Bible commentators. The willingness to use a technique such as this would tend to reflect a strong bias and malicious intent. Mark Perakh also doesn’t appear to have made any effort to contact his opponents - at all. This results in free-floating and unjustified comparisons such as those described above. Moreover, the tone of this book while sometimes calm and rational is also hostile, belligerent and obnoxious.


[/ QUOTE ]


Another reviewer said about U.D., though he was generally favorable:

[ QUOTE ]

The book is written in the style of an attack-dog. Destroying a writer's credibility is easier than wining a debate by logic. And in using that technique some information he presents is out-and-out wrong, just as he accuses other authors of inaccuracies.


An attack on Michael Behe takes the form of a subterfuge: Perakh spends over two pages describing a mathematical form of 'irreducible complexity' found in the 'algorithmic theory of probability (ATP)', "of which Behe was apparently unaware" and which Perakh admits is "something quite different from what Behe means by his term." Perakh concludes his mathematical discussion, "ATP has established that irreducible complexity is just a synonym for randomness," and therefore, "if a system is irreducibly complex, it is not a product of design." In his further discussion Perakh notes that Dembski's definition of complexity also "is very different ...than the definition of complexity in ATP." If Perakh admits that Behe and Dembski are using a different definition, why compare apples and oranges and conclude they are wrong? Perakh’s subterfuge provides a 'non-answer' to Behe and Dembski.

In criticizing Gerald Schroeder, Perakh is literally vicious. On page 38 of The Hidden Face of God Schroeder presents an equation, hv=mc^2, combining deBroglie's wave theory equation (E=hv) with Einstein's famous E=mc^2 . His point is to present to the non-physicist, lay reader, the concept of quantum mechanics in which quantum expressions of energy can be both particles and waves. Perakh pounces: "Obviously lacking the proper understanding of these two equations, and seeing the same letter E on the left side of both, Schroeder mechanically combined [the two equations] into one," which Perakh then describes as an "absurdity." Perakh claims that this equation "is not the only error in Schroeder's new book." "Since Schroeder's insufficient competence in physics, which is his professional field, is obvious, what credibility can be given to his lengthy discourse on molecular biology, which is not his professional field? Moreover, what credibility can be given to his general thesis asserting the alleged harmony between the Bible and science?" Contrast this excerpt with Thomas P. Sheahen's review of The Hidden Face of God on this web site. Sheahen with a Ph.D. in physics from M.I.T. undoubtedly saw the same equation, and understood, as I did, what Schroeder was doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

As a layman I'm reduced to flipping a coin. Heads it's Schroeder, Tails it's Schroeder, Edge it's Schroeder. OK, here goes - coin's in the air, Ok, hitting the floor, bouncing around - oh, look at that, heads, must be Schroeder.

I found a review of Schroeder's Hidden Face of God here

by

Thomas P. Sheahen hold B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Some people don't think Schroeder is an ID crackpot.

[David Sklansky]

Don't forget though that he's heading for hell. Even if he singlehandedly causes millions to believe in God.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Don't forget though that he's heading for hell. Even if he singlehandedly causes millions to believe in God.


[/ QUOTE ]

You have a very negative attitude.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
Thomas P. Sheahen hold B.S. and Ph.D. degrees in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Some people don't think Schroeder is an ID crackpot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thomas Sheahen is a noted republican and pro-theism author who often comments extensively and authoritatively on subjects far outside his expertise. His most famous work is on high-temperature superconductors, but he writes essays on evolution/(pro)ID debates as well (anti-)global warming. Degrees from MIT not-with-standing, he's definitely advocating a theist agenda.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Degrees from MIT not-with-standing, he's definitely advocating a theist agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think Perakh, Dawkins, Harris, et. al., are
doing?

What's a poor layman to do?

[yukoncpa]

Hey, Not Ready,

Notwithstanding all the heat you’re getting for a book you were just made aware of a few hours ago, it happens to be a very enjoyable read. My brother is a creationist and gave me the book one Christmas, making me about as happy as Santa slipping in deer poop. But out of sheer boredom, I read the book from cover to cover. He’s got a lot of cool cosmology and physics in a book that reads like a novel. I enjoyed it.

[Neuge]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Degrees from MIT not-with-standing, he's definitely advocating a theist agenda.


[/ QUOTE ]

What do you think Perakh, Dawkins, Harris, et. al., are
doing?

What's a poor layman to do?

[/ QUOTE ]
I like Harris, but have a problem with his methodology and assumptions, Dawkins even more so. But everything I've read of Perakh has been beyond reproach. He is a extremely intellectually honest and logically proves his points without extraneous assumptions. Harris, and Dawkins especially, come off as assuming their conclusions because of the brashness of their positions, while Perakh doesn't. But, there is a difference between "assuming" a conclusion that logic supports as opposed to forming logic around one, something theists are loathe to admit.

As for what a layman's supposed to do... You could attempt to learn, or at least understand, some of the logical points made (I realize this isn't easy) without prejudice for one viewpoint or another.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

He’s got a lot of cool cosmology and physics in a book that reads like a novel. I enjoyed it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I just put all 3 of his books on my Amazon order list, will wait a couple days to decide if I will go ahead with it.

I know almost nothing about the physics of this but I do understand something from a layman's POV about the relativity of time. For a very long time I've wondered if that could somehow affect our estimate of the age of the universe. From what I've seen, most experts in this field say the natural laws we know didn't apply at the Big Bang. As a Christian I have to wonder if the whole difficulty isn't explained by laws we don't know that God created and used specifically for creation itself. Those who look at the universe and say everything is explained by natural law just seem to me to be incredibly myopic. Newton stated that what he knew about the universe was like comparing a drop of water to the ocean. Today's atheist scientist thinks the ocean IS a drop of water.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
As a Christian I have to wonder if the whole difficulty isn't explained by laws we don't know that God created and used specifically for creation itself. Those who look at the universe and say everything is explained by natural law just seem to me to be incredibly myopic. Newton stated that what he knew about the universe was like comparing a drop of water to the ocean. Today's atheist scientist thinks the ocean IS a drop of water.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you limit your God to a very brief period of time billions of years ago? I've never understood the people who look for "proof" of his existance and end up banishing him to the bookends of time because that's the only place he fits anymore, in the cracks of what science can't explain. How much farther do you have to push him away expecting to find his phone number in the next 10 digits of Pi we don't know or the party popper he exploded for the big bang?