On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" 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.
|
| 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
|
| Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you cited.
|
| It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
| than negative values.
|
| Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for any
| reason, other than to show it to be false.
|
| Sorry about having to tell you that.
|
| [chuckle]
|
| 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
|
| I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR name
is in
| wikipedia!
|
| I stand corrected on one thing only.
|
| Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
|
| It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason none
| of his works are ever written under his real name.
|
| I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise the
| Creator's aim must have been."
|
| Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| works, or websites that refer to his works.
|
| Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| with this quotation.

References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael Denton,
Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9

|
| Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| article is flawed is still correct.
|
| And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| probability is not an impossibility.
|
| That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| unable to accept.
|
| .- Hide quoted text -
|
| - Show quoted text -
|

Lets consider some information here.

Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.

This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
an event of negligible probability.

Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
probability".

Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.

Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.

I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
online:

http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/

If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.

So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
Roger Penrose.

Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
flawed.

On Apr 5, 10:07*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.


Penrose later went on to calculate the probabilty that he would be
born at the exact time and exact place to the exact mother and exact
father from the exact egg and exact sperm then promptly vanished into
a cloud of smoke...

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"jablair" wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 10:07 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.


| Penrose later went on to calculate the probabilty that he would be
| born at the exact time and exact place to the exact mother and exact
| father from the exact egg and exact sperm then promptly vanished into
| a cloud of smoke...


Exactly. Calculating the probability of an event when it already
has a probability of 1 is the ultimate absurdity.

In article ,
ics says...
Subject: Yep, it is an impossibility!
From: Androcles
Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics.relativity, alt.atheism



--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"jablair" wrote in message
...
On Apr 5, 10:07 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.


| Penrose later went on to calculate the probabilty that he would be
| born at the exact time and exact place to the exact mother and exact
| father from the exact egg and exact sperm then promptly vanished into
| a cloud of smoke...


Exactly. Calculating the probability of an event when it already
has a probability of 1 is the ultimate absurdity.



It is often done read up on bayesian probability.

"BRAINIAC" wrote in message
...
| On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| | "BRAINIAC" 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.
| |
| | 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
| |
| | Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you
cited.
| |
| | It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
| | than negative values.
| |
| | Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for
any
| | reason, other than to show it to be false.
| |
| | Sorry about having to tell you that.
| |
| | [chuckle]
| |
| | 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
| |
| | I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR
name
| is in
| | wikipedia!
| |
| | I stand corrected on one thing only.
| |
| | Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
| |
| | It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| | enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason none
| | of his works are ever written under his real name.
| |
| | I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise the
| | Creator's aim must have been."
| |
| | Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| | works, or websites that refer to his works.
| |
| | Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| | with this quotation.
|
| References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael
Denton,
| Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
|
| |
| | Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| | article is flawed is still correct.
| |
| | And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| | probability is not an impossibility.
| |
| | That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| | unable to accept.
| |
| | .- Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
| |
|
| Lets consider some information here.
|
| Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
| the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
|
| This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
| an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
| an event of negligible probability.
|
| Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
| probability".
|
| Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
| Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
| times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
|
| Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.

That is exactly what Penrose wrote. 1x 10- to the power of 123
|
| I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
| online:
|
| http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
| anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.
|
| So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
| Roger Penrose.
|
| Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
| flawed.

Incorrect.

From your link:
V/W = 10^10^123.


This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an

accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.


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
10^123

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

as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure

needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be
in no

way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become

accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's,
Einstein's)

which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or
the

singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It
would

appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the
WEYL

part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear
to find

is that there is a constraint

Nuff said.

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...

--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:MPG.2262c41bbe7d6c989896c8@news...
| In article ,
| ics says...
| Subject: Yep, it is an impossibility!
| From: Androcles
| Newsgroups: alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics.relativity,
alt.atheism
|
|
|
| --
| This message is brought to you by Androcles
| http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
| "jablair" wrote in message
|
...
| On Apr 5, 10:07 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.
|
|
| | Penrose later went on to calculate the probabilty that he would be
| | born at the exact time and exact place to the exact mother and exact
| | father from the exact egg and exact sperm then promptly vanished into
| | a cloud of smoke...
|
|
| Exactly. Calculating the probability of an event when it already
| has a probability of 1 is the ultimate absurdity.
|
|
|
| It is often done read up on bayesian probability.

People often kill themselves driving recklessly.
Does "often" make it sane, ****head?

"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.

"adman" wrote in message
.. .

"Clyde Squid" wrote in message
...

|
| 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.


Associating your claim somehow with Hawking does not give it any validity,
in fact it is rather cheap.
Besides Hawking has taken more of a back seat in recent years, perhaps
Penrose in this case should follow his example.

On 6 Apr, 02:29, "adman" wrote:
"BRAINIAC" wrote in message

...
| On 5 Apr, 18:36, "adman" wrote:
| "BRAINIAC" wrote in message
|
| ....
| | On 5 Apr, 16:57, "adman" wrote:
| | "BRAINIAC" 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.
| |
| | 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
| |
| | Having looked again there is a massive error in the article you
cited.
| |
| | It uses positive values for the power by which ten is raised rather
| | than negative values.
| |
| | Conclusion the article is grossly flawed, and not worth citing for
any
| | reason, other than to show it to be false.
| |
| | Sorry about having to tell you that.
| |
| | [chuckle]
| |
| | 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
| |
| | I'll let him know YOU are correct and HE is wrong as soon as YOUR
name
| is in
| | wikipedia!
| |
| | I stand corrected on one thing only.
| |
| | Roger Penrose isn't the one who got this wrong.
| |
| | It was Harun Yahya, the well known anti evolutionist, and funnily
| | enough Harun Yahya is his nome de plume, for some strange reason none
| | of his works are ever written under his real name.
| |
| | I Googled - "Roger Penrose" and "This number tells us how precise the
| | Creator's aim must have been."
| |
| | Guess what, the only sources I can find all point to Harun Yahya's
| | works, or websites that refer to his works.
| |
| | Nowhere on Google do I find any other source linking Roger Penrose
| | with this quotation.
|
| References:* Roger Penrose, The Emperor's New Mind, 1989; Michael
Denton,
| Nature's Destiny, The New York: The Free Press, 1998, p. 9
|
| |
| | Therefore I am forced to conclude that my original surmise that the
| | article is flawed is still correct.
| |
| | And might I respectfully point out that any event with a non-zero
| | probability is not an impossibility.
| |
| | That is the fact that opponents of the Big Bang and Evolution are
| | unable to accept.
| |
| | .- Hide quoted text -
| |
| | - Show quoted text -
| |
|
| Lets consider some information here.
|
| Harun Yahya claims that an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to
| the power of 50 is a "zero probability" event.
|
| This is not true, as it is a distortion of Emil Borel's statement that
| an event with a probability of 1 times 10 to the power of MINUS 50 is
| an event of negligible probability.
|
| Emil Borel never set this probability value as being the same as "zero
| probability".
|
| Harun Yahya claims that Roger Penrose in his book "The Emperor's New
| Mind" has calculated the probability against the universe forming as 1
| times ten to the power of 10 to the power of 123.
|
| Roger Penrose said nothing of the sort.

That is exactly what Penrose wrote. 1x 10- to the power of 123
|
| I did some more digging and found this section of Roger Penrose's book
| online:
|
|http://www.ws5.com/Penrose/
|
| If you read this you will not see the word "probability" written down
| anywhere, nor will you see the words "zero probability" either.
|
| So your precious source has twisted the works of both Emil Borel and
| Roger Penrose.
|
| Therefore I stand by my statement that the article you cited is
| flawed.

Incorrect.

From your link:
V/W = 10^10^123.

This now tells us how precise the Creator's aim must have been: namely to an

accuracy of one part in 10^10^123.

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
10^123

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

as well for good measure-we should fall far short of writing down the figure

needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is seen to be
in no

way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become

accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's,
Einstein's)

which govern the behaviour of things from moment to moment.

But why was the big bang so precisely organized, whereas the big crunch (or
the

singularities in black holes) would be expected to be totally chaotic? It
would

appear that this question can be phrased in terms of the behaviour of the
WEYL

part of the space-time curvature at space-time singularities. What we appear
to find

is that there is a constraint

Nuff said.

Read the article again, and look for the words "zero probability", or
even the word "probability" or even the word "impossibility".

You wont find them.

Regarding Emil Borel's work and how Harun Yahya deliberately misuses
it, take a look he

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/borelfaq.html

"Borel asserts that 10-50 represents a negligible event on the cosmic
scale as it is well below one over the product of the number of
observable stars (109) times the number of observations that humans
could make on those stars (1020)."

The component "10-50" reads as 10 to the power of MINUS 50.

Does Borel say that an event with a probability value that small is
impossible?

No he says that it is a "negligible event", which is not the same.

Therefore my assertion that Harun Yahya's article is flawed still
stands, and your assertion that it isn't remains unproven.