"Clyde Squid" wrote in message
...
| On Apr 5, 9:07 am, "adman" wrote:
| Roger Penrose , a man with impressive edcuation, and an impressive
career.
| Shows how impossible it is for the universe, earth and manking to form
| itself after a big bang explosion.
|
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
|
| The calculations of British mathematician Roger Penrose show that the
| probability of universe conducive to life occurring by chance is in 10
to
| the10.123. The phrase "extremely unlikely" is inadequate to describe
this
| possibility.
|
| Roger Penrose*, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of
Stephen
| Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the
| probability. Including what he considered to be all variables required
for
| human beings to exist and live on a planet such as ours, he computed the
| probability of this environment occurring among all the possible results
of
| the Big Bang.
|
| According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the
order
| of 1010123 to 1.
| It is hard even to imagine what this number means. In math, the value
10123
| means 1 followed by 123 zeros. (This is, by the way, more than the total
| number of atoms 1078 believed to exist in the whole universe.) But
Penrose's
| answer is vastly more than this: It requires 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
|
| Or consider: 103 means 1,000, a thousand. 10103 is a number that that
has 1
| followed by 1000 zeros. If there are six zeros, it's called a million;
if
| nine, a billion; if twelve, a trillion and so on. There is not even a
name
| for a number that has 1 followed by 10123 zeros.
|
| In practical terms, in mathematics, a probability of 1 in 1050 means
"zero
| probability". Penrose's number is more than trillion trillion trillion
times
| less than that. In short, Penrose's number tells us that the
'accidental" or
| "coincidental" creation of our universe is an impossibility.
|
| Concerning this mind-boggling number Roger Penrose comments:
| This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to
an
| accuracy of one part in 1010123. This is an extraordinary figure. One
could
| not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary
| notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's. Even if we
were to
| write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the
entire
| universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good
measure- we
| should fall far short of writing down the figure needed.
|
| http://www.faizani.com/news/news_200...ssibility.html
|
| Yawn! Has he published anything in a scientific journal, where his
| "data" and conclusions are reviewed by professional, educated grown-
| ups?
|
| I'll gladly read that.
|
| Credentials don't impress me, nor does un-reviewed mathematical
| shenanigans.
|
| Why are you so impressed by this nonsense? Do you have any
| intellectual scrutiny at all?
|
| Pathetic...

The only thing pathetic is an arm chair scientist wanna be discounting
information from an obviously well qualified, well edcuated, and wlll
accomplished, real scientists; a person that has written a book with Steven
Hawkins.

Now THATS pathetic.