Wealthy ROFFIAN- ME!

Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Are you absolutely certain?

mark
"rw" wrote in message
m...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:16 -0400, "Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

Are you absolutely certain?

Of course he is...Stevie is ALWAYS certain he's right, and they don't
make uncertain types the Mayor of Ketchum, Jr...now, to me, the real fun
question would be "How do you know?"

HTH,
R...chimedes (I like pie...)

mark
"rw" wrote in message
om...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

I wasn't questioning his veracity, I just wanted to know if he held
steadfast to his posted words.

I do know without absolute uncertainty that I don't no were I should not sea
to fine Dipfritter.

Mark
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:28:16 -0400, "Mark H. Bowen"
wrote:

Are you absolutely certain?

Of course he is...Stevie is ALWAYS certain he's right, and they don't
make uncertain types the Mayor of Ketchum, Jr...now, to me, the real fun
question would be "How do you know?"

HTH,
R...chimedes (I like pie...)

mark
"rw" wrote in message
om...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe
could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Mark H. Bowen wrote:
Are you absolutely certain?

Yep. I counted them. :-)

For a more complete explanation than you probably want, try:

http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti.../982241844.htm


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

No further explanation was necessary, as long as you are absolutely certain
that you didn't miss any atoms, or count any more than once!

Mark
"rw" wrote in message
m...
Mark H. Bowen wrote:
Are you absolutely certain?

Yep. I counted them. :-)

For a more complete explanation than you probably want, try:


http://van.hep.uiuc.edu/van/qa/secti.../982241844.htm


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
Lat705 wrote:
When you consider that the number of atoms in the known universe could
be
expressed in terms of googleplex,


Based on whose defenition of the totality of the universe??

Actually, there aren't even close to a google of atoms in the
*observable* universe, MUCH LESS a googleplex.

Umm, the word is GOOGOL. And read this from www.googol.com:
--------------------------------------
Googolhedron - A 3 dimensional shape bounded by 1 x 10100 similar
polygons. This shape would look very much like a sphere. Having this many
sides or facets would make it smoother than any man made object. Although,
you could never have a googolhedron because there are not a googol particles
in the universe.

-------------------------------------------
And your opposition to his statement was completely invalid. You needed to
state a larger area than he did, not a smaller.

--riverman
(logic, spelling, and all that.)

riverman wrote:

-------------------------------------------
And your opposition to his statement was completely invalid. You needed to
state a larger area than he did, not a smaller.

I have no opposition to his statement whatsoever. I'm just restricting
the Google argument (my spelling, thank you very much) to the observable
universe. Who knows what else is out there?

One of my favorite science quotes is from Steven Weinberg: "The more the
universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless."

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

"rw" wrote in message
m...
riverman wrote:

-------------------------------------------
And your opposition to his statement was completely invalid. You needed
to
state a larger area than he did, not a smaller.

I have no opposition to his statement whatsoever. I'm just restricting
the Google argument (my spelling, thank you very much) to the observable
universe. Who knows what else is out there?

One of my favorite science quotes is from Steven Weinberg: "The more the
universe seems comprehensible the more it seems pointless."

Interesting quote. While we've had our differences, I believe I'm beginning
to understand you.

Wolfgang

I'm just restricting
the Google argument (my spelling, thank you very much) to the observable
universe

How do you know what's out there? What we are seeing is millions of light
years old.

Lou T