"Mike Painter" wrote
weatherwax wrote:
snip

I once had a college professor who came up with a brilliant theory
based on the fact that everybody's legs were the exact length needed
to reach the ground. That is even more astounding when you consider
that while you are growing, your legs are getting longer too. Yet,
your legs are always just the right length to reach the ground. The
odds of that being by chance is so extreme that it could be called
impossible.
I work with several short people and am always telling them that if their
legs reach the ground they are tall enough. It's good to know there is
solid science behind it.

Douglas Adams (author of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy") wrote a
story about a girl whose legs were about one half inch too short. Most
people never noticed it, but it did bother some when she walked on the beach
and didn't leave footprints.



The same professor also pointed out how extraordinary it is that most
American babies will soon speak English. French babies will start
speaking French. Chinese babies will become Chinese speakers.
And where are all the Russian speaking babies? In Russia. If this
was done at random, the United States would have more Chinese speakers
than it has.. The odds against that is just too great.

--Wax

Did he cover dialects and accents? That clearly raises the odds.

He didn't say.

--Wax

"Ye Old One" wrote in message
...

| On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:04:26 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
|
| wrote in message
| ...
|
| | On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:
| | wrote in message
| |
| |
| ...
| |
| | | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe
wrote:
| | | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| | | "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| | | .. . | On Thu, 10
Apr
| | 2008
| | | 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched
| this
| | | group when s/he wrote: |
| | | | adman wrote:
| | | | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will
| state,
| | | quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | |
from
| | | himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is |
|
| | | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
| have |
| | | | come about by natural causes.
| | | | |
| | | | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
| (his
| | | email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm
sure
| he
| | | will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to
f*ck
| off
| | | and stop being so | | stupid.
| | | |
| | | | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came
up
| with?
| | |
| | |
| | | | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him,
but
| |
| | I
| | | can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
|
| | | | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
| refuted,
| | |
| | | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | | | I trust the Professor.
| | | Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
| page:
| | | "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."
| | |
| | | Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders
of
| | | magnitude among friends?
| | |
| | | Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| | |
| | | "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
| has
| | | estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular
set
| of
| | | physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989:
343).
| | | However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
| other
| | | possible universes formed with different properties could still
have
| | lead
| | | to some form of life.
| | |
| | | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and
you
| | | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| | | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| | | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still
be
| | | a very large number against but remember that this is the
statistics
| | | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want
the
| | | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| | | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| | | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| | | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are
unfortunately
| | | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| | | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid
ammonia
| | | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| | | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| | | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| | | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to
make
| | | some myself to find out what it meant.
| | | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the
chances
| | | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| | | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| | | Dale
| |
| | has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we
know
| | being elsewhere in the universe
| |
| | Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| | similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| | some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| | spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| | extreme odds against that.
|
|
|
| Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that
atmosphere
| earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
| twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension
say
| least
|
| Our atmosphere is a product of life.
|
|
|
| However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
| that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar
earth
| in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| You have shown that your opinion is coloured by an unscientific view
| of things.
|
| [snip rot.]



How did she get out of my kill file. Back in their.



Plonk*




|
| --
| Bob.
|

"weatherwax" wrote in message
...

|
| wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote:
| wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote
|
| And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
| my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
| completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
| you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.
|
| Brainiac,
|
| One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
| back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
| about half way through because the math was beyond anything
| I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
| and has less math. I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
| years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.
|
| You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
| Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
| on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
| Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
| predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
| curvature predominates.
| The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
| are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
| symmetric.
|
| Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
| believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
| Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
| of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
| doing that.
|
| --Wax
| The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
| The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter
inside
| the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
| has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
| regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has
the
| same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.
|
| A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
| table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
| object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
| take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
| table.
|
| The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".
|
| Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
| because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
| thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
| having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
| entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
| equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
| tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
| gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
| whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
| chump together.
| Roger Penrose
|
| Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
| off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
| excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
| therefore the black hole itself is cold.
|
| Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
| 500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
| was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
| radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
| comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)
|
| What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
| out of it, rather than falling in.
|
| --Wax
|
| What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
| no entropy there!
| what you are describing is the outside!
| Why compare the outside of a black hole
| with the inside of the universe ?
| Of course you won't get symmetry that way!
|
| What I am describing is a black hole.
|
| You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
| black hole. Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
| out. With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
| star collapses. This is a state of high entropy.
|
| --Wax



Incorrect



The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD



Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics.
They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes."



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/






|
|

On Apr 17, 9:33 pm, "weatherwax" wrote:
wrote



"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me back to
reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up about half way
through because the math was beyond anything I had. However,
the second half of the book is more theoretical and has less math.
I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several years ago and wish I
knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The Emperor's
New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections on Weyl and
Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature predominates,
but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger
Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given off by a
body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can excape from a
black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small, therefore the black hole
itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

Wow you guys are close.Actually according to this alternate theory you
cant have singularities because every time you try you end up with a
black hole and if you remember the theory it predicts that the time
dilating effects expand space.
Every time you create a black hole you expand space so I suppose you
could say that all of that newly created space gets in the way of
forming that hypothetical singularity.You cant have singularities
without the gravity and you cant have gravity without its time slowing
effects and you cant have those time slowing effects without
contracting matter and expanding the space.
Probably worth noting how this expanding space effect may give the
same predictions as those now credited for how gravitational binding
energy works to conserve the total original amount of gravity.



What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming out of it,
rather than falling in.

An event horizon seen from the inside of a black hole ends up being a
white hole.Remember that expanded space can very easily end you up
with more space than the original event horizon could originally
contain.This alternate theory gets to predict some rather odd things
about how our white hole or rather now as white holes as they would
appear as broken up into different locations would appear and
behave.Easy to understand how their repulsive gravity's would be a bit
like throwing objects at the sky and then claiming the sky has
antigravity properties but the stuff about how they should behave in
some ways like wormholes would be more surprising.
They will need to be observable in our universe for this theory to be
valid but keep in mind that even white holes can appear dark if
nothing falls into them from the previous universe.But if lots do fall
into them and randomly then they could easily appear like quasars.I
should post asking about the idea that quasars could be these types of
white holes and its easy to disprove if any object has ever been seen
accelerating towards one.
alttheories.com
Dale


--Wax

Take me back to the black hole,
the black hole of the Big Bang
to the beautifull crowded enigma
that once was.

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands

On Apr 18, 7:04 am, "adman" wrote:
wrote in message

...

| On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:| wrote in message

|
| ...
|
| | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
| | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| | "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| | .. . | On Thu, 10 Apr
| 2008
| | 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched
this
| | group when s/he wrote: |
| | | adman wrote:
| | | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will
state,
| | quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | | from
| | himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is | |
| | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
have |
| | | come about by natural causes.
| | | |
| | | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
(his
| | email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm sure
he
| | will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to f*ck
off
| | and stop being so | | stupid.
| | |
| | | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came up
with?
| |
| |
| | | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him, but
|
| I
| | can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English. |
| | | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
refuted,
| |
| | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | | I trust the Professor.
| | Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
page:
| | "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."
| |
| | Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders of
| | magnitude among friends?
| |
| | Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| |
| | "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
has
| | estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular set
of
| | physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989: 343).
| | However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
other
| | possible universes formed with different properties could still have
| lead
| | to some form of life.
| |
| | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and you
| | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still be
| | a very large number against but remember that this is the statistics
| | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want the
| | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are unfortunately
| | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid ammonia
| | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to make
| | some myself to find out what it meant.
| | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the chances
| | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| | Dale
|
| has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we know
| being elsewhere in the universe
|
| Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| extreme odds against that.

Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that atmosphere
earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension say
least

Yes the odds are close to zero if you want to find life exactly as we
know it with beings exactly like us and if you want the same people
next door with the same dog and cat having the same names and the two
cars on the road with those same license plates at that same moment in
time etc etc then the odds of it happening do indeed approach
infinitely unlikely to the extreme.But it still happens.
But these types of unlikely s are not the same as predicting
intelligent life in our universe with their own pets and something
like cars on the roads near by.

But seriously if you want a good argument for the possibility of god
or at least something like one you need to review this alternative
theory more.The reason it predicts the probability of some sort of god
is because of the same sort of predictions as those of the drake
equation.
Our universe is only about 15 billion years old and not really old
enough for the chances for any super civilization to have much chance
of existing but the odds on this go up by a large margin if you can
show that there was an older previous universe.This alternative theory
dose this.



However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar earth
in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| or in a parallel universe?
|
| There is a part of the many-worlds interpretation or MWI where the
| question is that while many of those worlds may be empty, where we
| exist to observe the world the get the idea life is common even when
| it is not.
|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Interesting website.

| I don't yet have enough information on it to really have much really
| valid opinions on it but it appears plausible.

anything can appear plausible with enough rationalization.

| I don't have a lot but
| here is a few speculations I do have or have read about on this
| subject apart from the quantum physics stuff you can easily find.
| Its actually one of the best arguments for any type of time travel
| because of the way you can avoid paradoxes.In this version if you
| travel back in time and kill your grandparents you will still exist
| and that would be because the future you came from would no longer be
| the same one.Your version where you stepped into the time machine will
| still be real but you could probably never go back.
| Time travel of that sort can never give you any future knowledge of
| the how the dice will land but only another throw of the dice.If you
| travel to the time before you were born you will probably never see
| another you even if you sat on the moon and watched with no way to
| interfere.
| It would be as if you traveled I suppose you could call sideways when
| you traveled back in a bit like in the tv series Sliders but with time
| travel as well.The farther back in time the greater the divergences in
| reality's.
| Like I mentioned in a previous post I do hypothesize that the soul
| quanta that makes up our conscious minds may turn out to not be time
| frame bound and so could in theory time travel.

Sounds reasonable to me. Except the part about killing your grandparents and
you still surviving. Unless you meant you could go back ( foward in time )
to another dimension but not go back to the dimension you left because you
would leave a paradox in the dimension you originated from once your
grandparents were dead.

| Actually now that the subject is brought up where weight loss was
| reported for dying subjects I have been wondering about repeating the
| experiments using insects.Its possible that while they weight far less
| they might still show a similar percentage of weight change and
| smaller samples can be more accurately weighed probably would be just
| as good as much larger animals.Really wish someone would as the
| previously done experiments were not that good and this is simple
| stuff to do.Really I am curious.
| Dale
|

On Apr 18, 7:04 am, "adman" wrote:
wrote in message

...

| On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:| wrote in message

|
| ...
|
| | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe wrote:
[SNIP]

|
| Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| extreme odds against that.

Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that atmosphere
earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension say
least

Yes the odds are close to zero if you want to find life exactly as we
know it with beings exactly like us and if you want the same people
next door with the same dog and cat having the same names and the two
cars on the road with those same license plates at that same moment in
time etc etc then the odds of it happening do indeed approach
infinitely unlikely to the extreme.But it still happens.
But these types of unlikelys are not the same as predicting
intelligent life in our universe with their own pets and something
like cars on the roads near by etc etc.

But seriously if you want a good argument for the possibility of god
or at least something like one you need to review this alternative
theory more.The reason it predicts the probability of some sort of god
is because of the same sort of predictions as those of the drake
equation.
Our universe is only about 15 billion years old and not really old
enough for the chances for any super civilization to have much chance
of existing but the odds on this go up by a large margin if you can
show that there was an older previous universe.This alternative theory
does this by the reasonable speculation that any civilization advanced
enough to actually be able to prove their was a way to immitate god
would also be advanced enough to proceed to create one.
And why would they do so,for the same reason we would if we could,as a
way to provide an afterlife world for ourselves and those we cared
about.They would have had to have migrated to ours and or other newly
created universes because those original universes will by now be dead
of heat death or came to some other end.
While we only need one of those civilizations to do this and or even
ourselves in the very very distant future but with this alternative
its also got the problem of time but the question then becomes is it
even possible to do this,ever.
Its to be noted that for this hypothesis you need evolution.
Dale



However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar earth
in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| or in a parallel universe?
|
| There is a part of the many-worlds interpretation or MWI where the
| question is that while many of those worlds may be empty, where we
| exist to observe the world the get the idea life is common even when
| it is not.
|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

Interesting website.

| I don't yet have enough information on it to really have much really
| valid opinions on it but it appears plausible.

anything can appear plausible with enough rationalization.

[SNIP]

"adman" wrote

The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD

Then we learn more about physics. That is what Roger Penrose was saying.

--Wax

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:51:47 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



"Ye Old One" wrote in message
.. .

| On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:04:26 -0500, "adman"
| enriched this group when s/he wrote:
|
|
|
| wrote in message
| ...
|
| | On Apr 17, 6:47 pm, "adman" wrote:
| | wrote in message
| |
| |
| ...
| |
| | | On Apr 10, 12:49 pm, Garamond Lethe
wrote:
| | | On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:13:11 -0500, adman wrote:
| | | "Ye Old One" wrote in message
| | | .. . | On Thu, 10
Apr
| | 2008
| | | 10:31:47 GMT, Bryan Olson | enriched
| this
| | | group when s/he wrote: |
| | | | adman wrote:
| | | | "Ye Old One" wrote [...]: | | I will
| state,
| | | quite categorically and without fear of contradiction | |
from
| | | himself, the Professor Penrose does not believe that it is |
|
| | | mathematically improbable/impossible for the universe we see to
| have |
| | | | come about by natural causes.
| | | | |
| | | | | If you disagree then your best bet would be to email him
| (his
| | | email | | address is available in a number of places. I'm
sure
| he
| | | will tell one | | of his junior assistants to tell you to
f*ck
| off
| | | and stop being so | | stupid.
| | | |
| | | | Are you saying that Penrose will deny the figure he came
up
| with?
| | |
| | |
| | | | No, that is not what he was saying. I cannot speak for him,
but
| |
| | I
| | | can tell what he was saying -- because he wrote it in English.
|
| | | | 'Ye Old One' - A.K.A - 'Bob', sure did set himself up to
| refuted,
| | |
| | | if in fact Professor Penrose sides with adman. |
| | | | I trust the Professor.
| | | Here is what the Professor said and what i quoted from the web
| page:
| | | "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."
| | |
| | | Wow, you really misquoted that. But what are a thousand orders
of
| | | magnitude among friends?
| | |
| | | Generally you want to give citations for quotes. For example:
| | |
| | | "In a calculation similar to Hoyle's, mathematician Roger Penrose
| has
| | | estimated that the probability of a universe with our particular
set
| of
| | | physical properties is one part in 10^10^123. (Penrose 1989:
343).
| | | However, neither Penrose nor anyone else can say how many of the
| other
| | | possible universes formed with different properties could still
have
| | lead
| | | to some form of life.
| | |
| | | That makes sense.Change any constant by the slightest amount and
you
| | | will still probably have the chance of some form of life but the
| | | statistics might change to either be more or less than the universe
| | | where we live in now.But in any case life as we know it will still
be
| | | a very large number against but remember that this is the
statistics
| | | for life nearly exactly as we know it and the more exact you want
the
| | | the more unlikely it becomes.It probably ignores all near infinite
| | | other possible other forms of life that could just as easily have
| | | existed but we have only guesses about let alone how many
| | | possibility's.Our views of the probability of life are
unfortunately
| | | biased to our universe as it is and the limits on our immagination.
| | | See one of my other posts where I look at the idea of liquid
ammonia
| | | replacing water in life even in our universe as it is now.
| | | I read in some encyclopedia that selenium oxychloride was the best
| | | solvent known and have been trying ever since to figure out what it
| | | meant.Can anyone here tell me more.I will probably just have to
make
| | | some myself to find out what it meant.
| | | Remember Drakes equation for a statistical estimation on the
chances
| | | of life elsewhere in our universe.Its also an attempt to try for a
| | | mathematical prediction for life thats somewhat reasonable.
| | | Dale
| |
| | has anybody calculated the number for the possibility of life as we
know
| | being elsewhere in the universe
| |
| | Thats a lot less probable the more you mean as we know it.The more
| | similar the less likely.Think about this for a bit what if they for
| | some odd fantastically improbable reason beyond comprehension actually
| | spoke flawless English and evolved it by chance.What would be the
| | extreme odds against that.
|
|
|
| Well, the odds would be near zero I'm sure. Just considering that
atmosphere
| earth has an all the other variables that life needs to live converging
| twice in the same universe is highly improbable and beyond comprehension
say
| least
|
| Our atmosphere is a product of life.
|
|
|
| However, the number 1010123 is quite astronomical also and would suggest
| that this universe should not be here. So the effort to find a similar
earth
| in my opinion is a waste of time.
|
| You have shown that your opinion is coloured by an unscientific view
| of things.
|
| [snip rot.]



How did she get out of my kill file. Back in their.



Plonk*


Stupid troll.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:56:31 -0500, "adman"
enriched this group when s/he wrote:



"weatherwax" wrote in message
...

|
| wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote:
| wrote
| "weatherwax" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote
|
| And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
| my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
| completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
| you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.
|
| Brainiac,
|
| One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
| back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
| about half way through because the math was beyond anything
| I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
| and has less math. I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
| years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.
|
| You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
| Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
| on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
| Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
| predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
| curvature predominates.
| The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
| are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
| symmetric.
|
| Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
| believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
| Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
| of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
| doing that.
|
| --Wax
| The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
| The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter
inside
| the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
| has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
| regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has
the
| same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.
|
| A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
| table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
| object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
| take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
| table.
|
| The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".
|
| Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
| because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
| thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
| having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
| entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
| equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
| tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
| gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
| whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
| chump together.
| Roger Penrose
|
| Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
| off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
| excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
| therefore the black hole itself is cold.
|
| Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
| 500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
| was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
| radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
| comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)
|
| What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
| out of it, rather than falling in.
|
| --Wax
|
| What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
| no entropy there!
| what you are describing is the outside!
| Why compare the outside of a black hole
| with the inside of the universe ?
| Of course you won't get symmetry that way!
|
| What I am describing is a black hole.
|
| You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
| black hole. Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
| out. With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
| star collapses. This is a state of high entropy.
|
| --Wax



Incorrect



The singularity defies physics as we know it. EOD

Not really. Maybe is you learnt some science you would be able to
understand it.



Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics.
They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes."



http://www.big-bang-theory.com/


Not exactly cutting edge science.

Fix your newsreader.

--
Bob.

On 18 apr, 17:47, "weatherwax" wrote:
wrote





"weatherwax" wrote:
wrote
"weatherwax" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote

And may I remind you once again, your opinion that I have closed
my eyes and ears to Roger Penrose's work and comments is
completely unfounded. And in the light of the fact that I informed
you that I am reading Roger Penrose's book completely false.

Brainiac,

One good thing about this discussion is that it has gotten me
back to reading "The Road to Reality" again. I had given up
about half way through because the math was beyond anything
I had. However, the second half of the book is more theoretical
and has less math. * I read "The Emperor's New Mind" several
years ago and wish I knew where my copy was.

You mentioned that you are reading Penrose's book "The
Emperor's New Mind". May I call your attention to the sections
on Weyl and Ricci tensors?
Penrose points out that at the Big Bang Ricci curvature
predominates, but in a black hole (or the Big Crunch) Weyl
curvature predominates.
The result: The Big Bang is hot and low entropy while black holes
are cold and high entropy. In other words, gravity is not time
symmetric.

Quantum forces on the other hand are time symmetric. Penrose
believes we have to unite quantum mechanics with General
Relativity before we can come up with the solution to the fine tuning
of the universe problem. Penrose also says we are nowhere near
doing that.

--Wax
The difference between a black hole and the big bang is illusionary.
The black hole is not low entropy, and it is not cold. All matter inside
the black hole has accelerated towards light speed. That means that it
has maximum temperature. (temperature being the average velocity
regardless of direction) also the matter inside a black hole all has the
same direction (inside) that means it has minimum entropy.

A falling body loses energy. For example: If an object is sitting on a
table, it has a fixed potential energy in relation to the floor. If the
object falls off the table onto the floor, that energy is lost. It will
take and equal amount of energy to replace the object back on the
table.

The following is a quote from page 706 of "The Road To Reality".

Gravitation is somewhat confusing, in relation to entropy,
because of its universally attractive nature. We are used to
thinking about entropy in terms of an ordinary gas, where
having the gas concentrated in small regions represents low
entropy . . . and where in the high-entropy state of thermal
equilibrium, the gas isspread uniformly. But with gravity, thing
tend to be the other way about. A uniformly spread system of
gravitating bodies would represent relatively low entropy . . .
whereas high entropy is achieved when the gravitating bodies
chump together.
Roger Penrose

Temperature is measured by the amount of heat or energy being given
off by a body. With the exception of Hawking's radiation, nothing can
excape from a black hole, and Hawking radiation is quite small,
therefore the black hole itself is cold.

Moreover one can easily calculate that when the universe was only
500.000 years old, the matter that we can - theoretically - see today
was comprised in a space with a radius smaller than it's schwarzschild
radius. Thus the universe was a black hole by definition. (matter
comprised into a space inside it's own schwarzschild radius)

What you are describing is a white hole, because energy is coming
out of it, rather than falling in.

--Wax

What I am desribing is the inside of a black hole,
no entropy there!
what you are describing is the outside!
Why compare the outside of a black hole
with the inside of the universe ?
Of course you won't get symmetry that way!

What I am describing is a black hole.

You are incorrectly trying to describe the singularity at the center of a
black hole. * Singularities are formed when a large star literally burns
out. *With no remaining force to oppose the pressure of gravitation, the
star collapses. *This is a state of high entropy.

--Wax- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht niet weergeven -

- Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -

Yes and no

No I am not descrining somthing that is nescessarily formed when a
large star litterally burns out, I am only describing an amount of
matter that is contained within it's own schwarzschild radius.
if a universe woukld contract due to gravity (which ours doesn't seem
to do by the way) it would at some point turn into a black hole,
without any star needing to burn out.

Yes such an amount of matter would yield high entropy as seen from the
outside, but I maintain that does not apply to matters inside.
To my surprise adman even made an intelligent remark about that,
saying the inside of a black hole would make a seperate universe.

However the gravity of such a black hole would still remain inside the
original universe. . . . .

thanks for your reaction anyway

Peter van Velzen
April 2008
Amstelveen
The Netherlands