On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.

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".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

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

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.

On May 1, 3:42 pm, Harold Saxon wrote:
On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.





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".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

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

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.

I find the claim that Penrose made such calculation a bit suspect.
Can somebody confirm or confute?

On May 1, 11:00 am, Vend wrote:
On May 1, 3:42 pm, Harold Saxon wrote:



On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.

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".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

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

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.

I find the claim that Penrose made such calculation a bit suspect.
Can somebody confirm or confute?

I found a reference to Penrose's odds of the universe being as it is
in Skeptic Magazine.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/...c13-2_Kuhn.pdf

It uses the number referred to above. The footnote says "Penrose,
Roger 2005. The Road to Reality: A complete Guide to the Laws of the
Universe, New York: Knopf, p. 726-732, 762-765. Penrose's analysis of
the 'extraordinary specialness of the Big Bang' is based on the Second
Law of Thermodynamics and the 'absurdly low entropy' [i.e., highly
organized] state of the very early universe."

"Harold Saxon" wrote in message
...
| On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
|
| Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| of difference between impossible and improbable.


His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.

On Thu, 01 May 2008 09:00:52 -0700, Vend wrote:

On May 1, 3:42 pm, Harold Saxon wrote:
On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.

Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
of difference between impossible and improbable.





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".

That looks to me like a deliberate distortion of an assertion into a
fact.

Who is supposed to have worked this out?

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

If something has happened, no matter how improbable the odds were,
there is no point going around claiming it is impossible.

I find the claim that Penrose made such calculation a bit suspect.
Can somebody confirm or confute?

Palsy you have a real bad scientific attitude. Science is not about
authority, but demonstration. So ... figure toward a solution yourself.
That's science behavior. Your result will either support or deny-support
to the Penrose result.

You may then analyze the calculation with fellow scientists. For example I
speculate on (big crunch) black-hole entropy:

10^80 baryons * 10^21 eu/baryon*galaxy * 10^11 galaxies

That gives ` 10^112 eu -- ` 10^10^112 as most probable eu=LNp
universe ( bunch of snarky black holes ) start-to-finish.

Ohmeohmy that's NOT Penrose number. What a cheezy physicist am I. But you
will make a better calculation I hope.

nss
******

On May 1, 8:57 pm, "adman" wrote:
"Harold Saxon" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
|
| Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| of difference between impossible and improbable.

His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.

So, has Penrose convinced you of the Multiple Universe (Multiverse)
model?

On 2 May, 02:57, "adman" wrote:
"Harold Saxon" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
|
| Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| of difference between impossible and improbable.

His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.

Impossible means a thing cannot happen or exist, improbable on the
other hand means unlikely, but clearly possible.

You are touting it as an impossibility, which is ludicrous as it
actually has happened.

And you are calling me dumb?

On 2 May, 02:57, "adman" wrote:
"Harold Saxon" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
|
| Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| of difference between impossible and improbable.

His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.

You are touting the existence of the universe as an impossibility in
your subject line and in your opening post.

Impossible means that a thing cannot happen.

Improbable means that a thing is unlikely to happen.

And you are calling me dumb?

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 2 May, 02:57, "adman" wrote:
| "Harold Saxon" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
| |
| | Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| | of difference between impossible and improbable.
|
| His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.
|
| Impossible means a thing cannot happen or exist, improbable on the
| other hand means unlikely, but clearly possible.
|
| You are touting it as an impossibility, which is ludicrous as it
| actually has happened.

The singularity is not proven, so why claim it actually happened?

|
| And you are calling me dumb?
Are you using a different nick?

adman wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 2 May, 02:57, "adman" wrote:
| "Harold Saxon" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | On 5 Apr, 15:07, "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.
| |
| | Actually he merely showed how improbable it was, and there is a world
| | of difference between impossible and improbable.
|
| His POINT was how difficult it would be. Gosh you are dumb.
|
| Impossible means a thing cannot happen or exist, improbable on the
| other hand means unlikely, but clearly possible.
|
| You are touting it as an impossibility, which is ludicrous as it
| actually has happened.

The singularity is not proven, so why claim it actually happened?

The Universe is observed to be expanding. The further away galaxies are,
the faster they are moving away from us. Extrapolate back 13.6 billion
years and the whole universe comes down to a very small region. This
extrapolation does not imply that the universe was once the size of a
proton, since measurement of galactic velocities and distances are not
that accurate. However, if we /hypothesize/ that at some time all the
energy in the universe was compressed into a volume the size of a
proton, we can make /predictions/ about what the universe would look
like 13.6 billion years later. Guess what? The /predictions/ match the
/observations/.

That's why people claim the Big Bang happened.


|
| And you are calling me dumb?
Are you using a different nick?

-----------------
www.Newsgroup-Binaries.com - *Completion*Retention*Speed*
Access your favorite newsgroups from home or on the road
-----------------