God & Particles (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by GateKeeper , Sunday, June 08, 2014, 23:27 (3819 days ago) @ romansh


> > > GK: not for me. exactly where was this "pure energy". What is it? please. Could you explain it to me? I don't need to read the artcicle. 
> > > 
> > > at 10^-43 to 10-35, or 10^-15 on ward.
> > 
> > This is the standard theory:
> > 
> > http://www.livescience.com/46166-no-majorana-neutrinos-found.html?cmpid=557683
... > 
> > "Current thinking holds that right after the Big Bang that formed the universe, only energy existed, but as the universe cooled, matter and antimatter were produced in equal parts."
> 
> But when the matter and antimatter condensed it did so unequally ... at least in this universe. Otherwise we would not be here to discuss it.
> 
> http://www.radiolab.org/story/122617-nothings-antimatter/-yes, sorry about that. I was confused. Your take is fine.-I disagree with the papers "pure light". That is not exactly true. Or at least accepted by most. I would be shocked if tyson said "pure light".-My slant is a little different than yours. I use don't use the word "pure energy" as you are here. but if it is good enough for you guys, then so be it. -I also don't use radioactivity in the manor you do. Stored "big bang" stuff is cool. that is as far as I will go. It does not show the universe was "created".
 
You have to show me exactly what was working in an coherent manor "outside" of this universe to create us. The QM take, or this thing working in a QM environment would also have to be explained in a "something we know based" model. That being exactly what is working in QM model. -The qm model is based on probability and waving. So how is this creator working in that environment?-I use the word god because of the baggage. If we reject a stance because we don't like a word. We may just have to step back and think about what we are rejecting. Thae data? or the "something else". Like I have to do with the word "science".