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

by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 01:37 (3601 days ago) @ David Turell

David Yes, all part of current theory, but we still don't know why antimatter became so very limited.
> > 
> > GK: I M H O they are over thinking that. With that kind of "mixing" the probability of absolute uniformity is low. It could be as simple as enough "clumped" (a la van der waals type)together and the cascading effect cause enough density difference. How about adding in spin and magnetic fields? let alone exotic particle that can form.
> 
> It is more complex than that. They should be 50/50 but there is almost no anti-matter.Lots of theories, but no exact answer:
> 
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-sather.pdf
> > 
> > GK: Did space inflate totally uniform? or just uniform enough to show the background radiation they see? lol, they don't even know how space 'inflates". 
> 
> Uniformity is the basis of the theory. To make the universe look as uniform as it appears inflation was proposed. The CMBR fits the theory. There is no cause for inflation currently discovered or described.-thank you very much for the paper. cant wait to read it.-really the theory was fitted to match the radiation. There is a difference. How did space expand? did it expand at the same rate everywhere? they are not sure. 
 -there is a cause to inflation. We may not know it. look at where the weak force and gravity separated. That is one explanation. It is not considered "uncaused" it is considered unknown. -
It shouldn't be 50/50. the math says that, clearly the math is wrong. When these guys say they are "surprised" what they mean is 'I am supersized our math doesn't work". That is a tad funny to me considering what we don't know. what do you think? -Can we just drop it please. dwh accepted your take on it. If we pursue it we will need to be way more precise in what we mean by 'energy". You will have to define it for me in your words