"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:r7KOj.3956$q51.2046@fe087.usenetserver.com...

|
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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.

 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_2003/math_impossibility.html

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:r7KOj.3956$q51.2046@fe087.usenetserver.com...

|
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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.

adman wrote:
"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote |
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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 here: "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.

On Apr 5, 6:07 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.

Almost impossible.

It came from God.

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:PcOOj.19639$ye3.4924@fe119.usenetserver.com...

|
|
|
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:qwNOj.28597$Q52.4025@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
|
|
| > "Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
| > news:r7KOj.3956$q51.2046@fe087.usenetserver.com...
|
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| > |
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > | > |
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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.

"Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote
adman wrote:
"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote |
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
|
| > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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 here: "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

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



Nice try.

On Apr 5, 6:07 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.

Almost impossible.

It came from God.

Mitch Raemsch Twice Nobel Laurate 2008

"Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:fuh44h$ama$01$2@news.t-online.com...

| weatherwax wrote:
| > "Tokay Pino Gris" <tokay.gris.beau@gmx.net> wrote
| >> adman wrote:
| >>> "Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote |
| >>> |
| >>> |
| >>> | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| >>> | news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| >>> |
| >>> | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| >>> | > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| >>> | > |
| >>> | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| >>> | > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| >>> | > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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 here: "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.

"Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
news:PcOOj.19639$ye3.4924@fe119.usenetserver.com...

|
|
|
|
|
| "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| news:qwNOj.28597$Q52.4025@bignews9.bellsouth.net...
|
|
| > "Paul Mays" <PaulR@Mays.com> wrote in message
| > news:r7KOj.3956$q51.2046@fe087.usenetserver.com...
|
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote in message
| > | news:NrIOj.41084$r76.27917@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
| > |
| > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
| > | > news:uYyOj.217535$cQ1.158762@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| > | > |
| > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> wrote
| > | > | > "weatherwax" <weatherwax@worldnet.att.net> wrote
| > | > | > | "adman" <72545@hottmail.et> 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.