"adman" wrote in message
.. .


"Paul Mays" wrote in message
...

|
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| "weatherwax" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "adman" wrote
| | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | "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
| |
| | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
| |
| | Not at all.
| |
| | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
looking
| for
| | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
|
| The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
|
|
|
| |
| | --Wax
| |
| |
|
|
| Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| Somestuff....

|

Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is that
we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven yet
beyond a doubt.



The basic aspect of Unified Theory is unification of the known forces from
an effect aspect which I consider undoable. As I think our Intrinsic Bias
will always cause effect aspect to never dirive a causation theory of any
area of study.


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"

adman wrote:
"Paul Mays" wrote in message
...

|
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| "weatherwax" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "adman" wrote
| | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | "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
| |
| | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine physics
| |
| | Not at all.
| |
| | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
looking
| for
| | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity (AKA:
| | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
|
| The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
|
|
|
| |
| | --Wax
| |
| |
|
|
| Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| Somestuff....

|

Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is that
we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven yet
beyond a doubt.



Again? Oh bugger. You did mix up colloquial "theory" and scientific
"theory" AGAIN.

The wording alone.... "theory and nothing more". Oh boy.

Little hint he "Theory" in science is as high as you can go.

"nothing gas been proven [...] beyond a doubt"
Easy. Because science doesn't deal in "proof" or in "beyond a doubt".

Problem is, there is just no alternative SCIENTIFIC theory that explains
all the facts.

Oh, and the "unifiying theory of everything". Well, where to begin? Ah
yes. GO TO SCHOOL! LEARN what this is about. It is what Einstein was
after and what all physicists try to find. A single theory that explains
and predicts the four forces of the universe. So far, we haven't got one.

But how does this help your point?


Tokay

--

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark
side, and it holds the universe together ...

Carl Zwanzig

On Apr 5, 6:07*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.

Almost impossible.

It came from God.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008



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

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:50:18 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Apr 5, 6:07*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.

Almost impossible.

It came from God.

What's "God", question-begging moron?

adman wrote:
"Paul Mays" wrote in message
.. .

|
|
|
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| .. .
|
|
| "Paul Mays" wrote in message
| ...
|
| |
| |
| |
| | "adman" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| | "weatherwax" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | | "adman" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | | "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
| | |
| | | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine
physics
| | |
| | | Not at all.
| | |
| | | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
| looking
| | for
| | | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity
(AKA:
| | | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
| |
| | The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | | --Wax
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| | Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| | Somestuff....
|
| |
|
| Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
| make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is
that
| we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven
yet
| beyond a doubt.
|
|
|
| The basic aspect of Unified Theory is unification of the known forces from
| an effect aspect which I consider undoable. As I think our Intrinsic Bias
| will always cause effect aspect to never dirive a causation theory of any
| area of study.
|

In other words, the unified theory is unification of known forces that are
not proven.

Oh?

Gravity? Not proven?
Floated to the ceiling recently?

Weak nuclear force? Not proven?
You should probably ask the people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Electromagnetic force? Not proven?
How the heck do the magnets stay on my fridge?
Or how does your car get started? Magic?

Granted, the strong nuclear force is a little trickier. But neutrons and
protons.... you really want to argue them?




Nice try.



Another armchair scientist.


Ok, you need not use Wikipedia. But other encyclopedias would have saved
you from making a fool of yourself.


Which you just did.

All the four forces can be observed. Weak nuclear force is tricky to do
at home and even more so strong nuclear force, but gravity and
electromagnetism....



Tokay


P.S.: Ok, so "proven" is maybe the wrong word. "Observed" is probably
better in this context.



--

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark
side, and it holds the universe together ...

Carl Zwanzig

weatherwax wrote:
"Tokay Pino Gris" wrote
adman wrote:
"Paul Mays" wrote |
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| . ..
|
| "weatherwax" wrote in message
| ...
| |
| | "adman" wrote
| | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | "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
| |
| | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine
physics
| |
| | Not at all.
| |
| | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
| | looking for a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of
| | Relativity (AKA: Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
|
| The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
|
|
|
| |
| | --Wax
| |
| |
|
|
| Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| Somestuff....

|

Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory to
make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is that
we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven
yet beyond a doubt.


Again? Oh bugger. You did mix up colloquial "theory" and scientific
"theory" AGAIN.

The wording alone.... "theory and nothing more". Oh boy.

Little hint he "Theory" in science is as high as you can go.

"nothing gas been proven [...] beyond a doubt"
Easy. Because science doesn't deal in "proof" or in "beyond a doubt".

Problem is, there is just no alternative SCIENTIFIC theory that explains
all the facts.

Oh, and the "unifiying theory of everything". Well, where to begin? Ah
yes. GO TO SCHOOL! LEARN what this is about. It is what Einstein was after
and what all physicists try to find. A single theory that explains and
predicts the four forces of the universe. So far, we haven't got one.

There has been progress in unification theories. Maxwell's electro-magnetic
theory unified electricity with magnetism. The electroweak theory has
unified the electro-magnetic force with the weak nuclear force. Then the
Grand Unified Theory (GUT), if successful, will have unified
electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force with the strong nuclear force.
We now need to dig deeper to unify these forces with gravity. Then we will
have our Theory of Everything (TOE).

--Wax



Thanks. I think while answering this bugger I just stumpled across an
article that explains this.


Tokay



--

Duct tape is like the force. It has a light side, and a dark
side, and it holds the universe together ...

Carl Zwanzig

adman wrote:
snip


In other words, the unified theory is unification of known forces
that are not proven.



Nice try.


I wonder if adman can comprehend what a theory is?
He ignores what has been said about it since he showed up here.

He, Boatwrong, and Mr. Ed would make a good trio.

"Tokay Pino Gris" wrote in message
...

| weatherwax wrote:
| "Tokay Pino Gris" wrote
| adman wrote:
| "Paul Mays" wrote |
| |
| |
| | "adman" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| | "weatherwax" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | | "adman" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | | "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
| | |
| | | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine
| physics
| | |
| | | Not at all.
| | |
| | | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
| | | looking for a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of
| | | Relativity (AKA: Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
| |
| | The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | | --Wax
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| | Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| | Somestuff....
|
| |
|
| Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory
to
| make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is
that
| we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven
| yet beyond a doubt.
|
|
| Again? Oh bugger. You did mix up colloquial "theory" and scientific
| "theory" AGAIN.
|
| The wording alone.... "theory and nothing more". Oh boy.
|
| Little hint he "Theory" in science is as high as you can go.
|
| "nothing gas been proven [...] beyond a doubt"
| Easy. Because science doesn't deal in "proof" or in "beyond a doubt".
|
| Problem is, there is just no alternative SCIENTIFIC theory that
explains
| all the facts.
|
| Oh, and the "unifiying theory of everything". Well, where to begin? Ah
| yes. GO TO SCHOOL! LEARN what this is about. It is what Einstein was
after
| and what all physicists try to find. A single theory that explains and
| predicts the four forces of the universe. So far, we haven't got one.
|
| There has been progress in unification theories. Maxwell's
electro-magnetic
| theory unified electricity with magnetism. The electroweak theory has
| unified the electro-magnetic force with the weak nuclear force. Then
the
| Grand Unified Theory (GUT), if successful, will have unified
| electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force with the strong nuclear
force.
| We now need to dig deeper to unify these forces with gravity. Then we
will
| have our Theory of Everything (TOE).
|
| --Wax
|
|
|
| Thanks. I think while answering this bugger I just stumpled across an
| article that explains this.
|
|
| Tokay



So add it up, and come to a conclusion. Regardless of the progress made so
far, you still have to find a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory
of Relativity. Plus the singularity defies physics. Equals you got nothing.
All you have is a theory that happens to fit some of the observable natural
phenomenon. There are too many variables that are still misunderstood to
even remotely think these theories to date are 100 percent reliable.

adman wrote:
"Tokay Pino Gris" wrote in message
...

| weatherwax wrote:
| "Tokay Pino Gris" wrote
| adman wrote:
| "Paul Mays" wrote |
| |
| |
| | "adman" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| | "weatherwax" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | | "adman" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | | "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
| | |
| | | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine
| physics
| | |
| | | Not at all.
| | |
| | | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
| | | looking for a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of
| | | Relativity (AKA: Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
| |
| | The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | | --Wax
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| | Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| | Somestuff....
|
| |
|
| Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory
to
| make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is
that
| we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven
| yet beyond a doubt.
|
|
| Again? Oh bugger. You did mix up colloquial "theory" and scientific
| "theory" AGAIN.
|
| The wording alone.... "theory and nothing more". Oh boy.
|
| Little hint he "Theory" in science is as high as you can go.
|
| "nothing gas been proven [...] beyond a doubt"
| Easy. Because science doesn't deal in "proof" or in "beyond a doubt".
|
| Problem is, there is just no alternative SCIENTIFIC theory that
explains
| all the facts.
|
| Oh, and the "unifiying theory of everything". Well, where to begin? Ah
| yes. GO TO SCHOOL! LEARN what this is about. It is what Einstein was
after
| and what all physicists try to find. A single theory that explains and
| predicts the four forces of the universe. So far, we haven't got one.
|
| There has been progress in unification theories. Maxwell's
electro-magnetic
| theory unified electricity with magnetism. The electroweak theory has
| unified the electro-magnetic force with the weak nuclear force. Then
the
| Grand Unified Theory (GUT), if successful, will have unified
| electro-magnetism and the weak nuclear force with the strong nuclear
force.
| We now need to dig deeper to unify these forces with gravity. Then we
will
| have our Theory of Everything (TOE).
|
| --Wax
|
|
|
| Thanks. I think while answering this bugger I just stumpled across an
| article that explains this.
|
|
| Tokay



So add it up, and come to a conclusion. Regardless of the progress made so
far, you still have to find a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory
of Relativity. Plus the singularity defies physics. Equals you got nothing.
All you have is a theory that happens to fit some of the observable natural
phenomenon. There are too many variables that are still misunderstood to
even remotely think these theories to date are 100 percent reliable.



QED again... I AM a little surprised that you changed your mind from
"unproven powers" to actually knowing what this is about. Probably there
is hope for you.

QED because NO scientific theory can be regarded as 100% reliable. There
ALWAYS might crop up some observation that is NOT explained by it and
then the theory has to be changed accordingly.

But there is hope. You know how to use an encyclopedia and that is a
very good start!
Congrats!


Tokay


--

"Be sure and put some of those neutrons on it."

-Mike Smith, Baseball pitcher, ordering a salad at a restaurant

"adman" wrote in message
. ..


"Paul Mays" wrote in message
.. .

|
|
|
|
|
| "adman" wrote in message
| .. .
|
|
| "Paul Mays" wrote in message
| ...
|
| |
| |
| |
| | "adman" wrote in message
| | . ..
| |
| | "weatherwax" wrote in message
| | ...
| | |
| | | "adman" wrote
| | | "weatherwax" wrote
| | | | "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
| | |
| | | It sounds to me like Penrose is saying we have to redefine
physics
| | |
| | | Not at all.
| | |
| | | Scientists are always learning more about the world. Penrose is
| looking
| | for
| | | a way to unify Quantum Mechanics with the Theory of Relativity
(AKA:
| | | Quantum-Gravity or Theory of Everything.)
| |
| | The "unifying theory"? Or are you describing something different?
| |
| |
| |
| | |
| | | --Wax
| | |
| | |
| |
| |
| | Something Defferent.. He's only looking for a Unified Theory of
| | Somestuff....
|
| |
|
| Well, I find it odd The we need yet another theory, a unifying theory
to
| make all the other theories work. What most people seem to forget is
that
| we're talking about theory's and nothing more. Nothing has been proven
yet
| beyond a doubt.
|
|
|
| The basic aspect of Unified Theory is unification of the known forces
from
| an effect aspect which I consider undoable. As I think our Intrinsic
Bias
| will always cause effect aspect to never dirive a causation theory of
any
| area of study.
|

In other words, the unified theory is unification of known forces that are
not proven.



Nice try.



Another armchair scientist.

Not at all.. Not in Other Words.. Thats in your understanding of what I
wrote
not in the content of what I wrote for if you understood the basic construct
of the postulate you might have considered that it has several aspects that
are
predicted and varifiable, if not varified yet it still has several aspects
that can
be varified but requires a different internal bias from the start. Every
theory starts
from a internal bias of the researcher , just as you have, but almost none
will
even reconize the internal bias or conceive of Intrinsic Bias both of which
will
cause issues with any theory..


--
http://fast.filespace.org/PaulRMays/Postulate.pdf

--
Paul R. Mays
"I Believe in Nothing, I Know, I think I Know or I Do Not Know
I Never Believe... For to Believe is a Religious Incantation"