Release of RosAsm V.2.025a
in [ASM]
|
From: T.M. Sommers on 1 Oct 2005 16:36 randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > wolfgang kern wrote: >><randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>| ... (IIRC, the size of the universe is somewhere around 10^78 >>| particles or so, far less than the two to this very huge number). >> >>Randy Hide's universe is limitied to 10^78 particels. >>(a very tiny world indeed). > >>And how many particles are to be found on just our planet? > > I don't know the answer to that one, but I suspect you'd find the > answer with a quick Google search. The mass of the Earth is 6e24 kg. The mass of a nucleon is 2e-27 kg. This gives 3e51 nucleons. Add a few electrons and you get 10^52 particles, not counting photons, pions, etc. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: T.M. Sommers on 1 Oct 2005 16:42 wolfgang kern wrote: > <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > | > Mine is infinitive. > | > | Whatever that means. Certainly you don't live in a universe with an > | infinite number of particles. > > I do. Regardless of Your believe. > .. Show me the border of the universe ... It is possible for a space to be finite yet unbounded. Consider the surface of a sphere, for example. -- Thomas M. Sommers -- tms(a)nj.net -- AB2SB
From: Jim Carlock on 1 Oct 2005 17:15 <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > If you take *all* the possible bits in a hypothetically maxed-out > x86 system (including all secondary storage, registers, memory, > and anything else that can be set one way or the other), then > one configuration (that is, bit pattern) of all these bits is *one* > state of the machine. Now raise two to the power specified by > this number of bits and that the number of possible states in the > system. This is a *very* large number. That's like stating calculating the temperature is NEVER exact, because an infinite number of temperatures exist for each and every molecule within a substrate and each every molecule travels at a different speed, and each operates at a different temperature while the states constantly change. Some folks leave such ideas out of conversations and observe some "limits" when discussing things. "Perfect" represents someone's opinion. Most realize a finite definition for "perfect" (i.e., some limits exist) and some insist upon a "magical" definition for "perfect" (i.e., a state of constant change, effectively leaving "perfect" undefined). In reality, only one true definition exists, the "limiting" definition, while those that use the other definition end up talking about "magical" things. -- Jim Carlock Post replies to the newsgroup, thanks.
From: Evenbit on 1 Oct 2005 17:37 T.M. Sommers wrote: > randyhyde(a)earthlink.net wrote: > > wolfgang kern wrote: > >><randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > >>| ... (IIRC, the size of the universe is somewhere around 10^78 > >>| particles or so, far less than the two to this very huge number). > >> > >>Randy Hide's universe is limitied to 10^78 particels. > >>(a very tiny world indeed). > > > >>And how many particles are to be found on just our planet? > > > > I don't know the answer to that one, but I suspect you'd find the > > answer with a quick Google search. > > The mass of the Earth is 6e24 kg. The mass of a nucleon is 2e-27 > kg. This gives 3e51 nucleons. Add a few electrons and you get > 10^52 particles, not counting photons, pions, etc. > Please note that in the quote above, Randy said "particels" not "particles" -- there IS a difference. When you seperate the root words ("parti" and "cels"), you get "partition cells" -- each of which is an area of space which can contain up to 10^52 particles. :) Nathan.
From: Evenbit on 1 Oct 2005 17:48
T.M. Sommers wrote: > wolfgang kern wrote: > > <randyhyde(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > | > Mine is infinitive. > > | > > | Whatever that means. Certainly you don't live in a universe with an > > | infinite number of particles. > > > > I do. Regardless of Your believe. > > .. Show me the border of the universe ... > > It is possible for a space to be finite yet unbounded. Consider > the surface of a sphere, for example. > That would mean that if I could travel really, really fast (much faster than Beth's light-speed-running man :), and you see me leaving on your right side, then, eventually [after the passing of 'forever' amount of time], you would see me approaching again on your left side. This, however, seems to be in disagreement with a mountain of evidence supporting a geometrically flat universe. I don't understand how the universe can be both *flat* and *finite* at the same time. Nathan. |