Re: Yep, it is an impossibility!
adman
"RedDog" <jimmyd...@budweiser.com> wrote in message
news:a1ba7693-9c6e-4221...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
| On Apr 5, 10:07 am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> 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.
|
| Says the proven shit-eater. LMAO! :-)
|
| Proof of faggot adman's shit fetish:
|
|
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.personals.gay/browse_thread/thread/01a940e1f74d1343
SEEK PROFESSIONAL HELP.
DO IT SOON!!!!
No One
> "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b85a572a-5322-4693...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> | On Apr 5, 9:07 am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> 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.
> | >
> | >
> | > 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_2003/math_impossibility.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.
No One
> On Apr 5, 11:29 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> > "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:b85a572a-5322-4693...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > | On Apr 5, 9:07 am, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> Says the
<snip>
... more forgeries from the troll.
BTW, if you try to search for "Penrose" and some of the numbers given,
you'll find the following:
<http://books.google.com/books?id=b7qBokcK7TIC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=penrose+10123&source=web&ots=pSLM7wREcK&sig=lrkrxppNT5JKeQFmzCbq7WL7bm4&hl=en>.
It had nothing to do with deities, real or imagined. Perhaps the creationist
nuts can provide a real citation this time, but I doubt it. :-)
No One
> On Apr 5, 11:29 pm, "adman" <72...@hottmail.et> wrote:
> > "Clyde Squid" <clydesq...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Says
<snip>
.... forgery