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

by GateKeeper , Monday, June 09, 2014, 02:46 (3819 days ago) @ David Turell


> > gk: really the theory was fitted to match the radiation. There is a difference.
> 
> Not fitted. Guth's theory came first: In Guth's book, The Inflationary Universe (1997) he discusses his predicted graph for the CMBR findings and the COBE Wilkinson study years later fit almost exactly. Page243. 
> > 
> > 
> > GK: 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. 
> 
> All I wrote was we don't know the cause. It is unknown.
> 
> > GK: 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
> 
> I just follow Strassler's explanations:
> 
> http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-mat... 
> And I conclude that prior to the BB "quantum energy" existed and a perturbation caused the BB and what followed. The first matter particles, as Strassler defines, come out from that event. I think that is as precise as you wish. Let us just leave it at that.-no, not really. You and I would have to get more precise. I will leave it at that also.
 
they look at the uniformity of visible matter and used the earlier background radiation from the guys at bell. They wondered how could it be so uniform. Poof, guth's. It is important you understand and talk to the notions that observations came first in this case. It is important david. It does not mean he is wrong by any means. But also, nobody knows how right and nobody has a better idea. So I like guths too.-dwh stopped at energy to matter. that's where I am stopping. Until we start using this stuff as a "creator creating,"