It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
originally posted by: rickymouse
So, science says it shouldn't exist. No wonder I don't pay attention to everything scientists say.
Scientists always get things wrong before they get them right. It's part of their quest, do experiments tirelessly until they narrow it down.
originally posted by: incoserv
originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Black_Fox
God is the force in the Universe that keeps our full understanding of nature just one step beyond our comprehension.
Well, there's this ...
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. ~ Colossians 1:15-17
But my guess is that many of the folks at CERN might not agree with that.
originally posted by: scraedtosleep
The only thing that really is being said here is that an assumption that science has had is wrong. That assumption was that equal parts mater and anti-mater were formed at the beginning of the universe.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: Dr UAE
to me what you are saying is that it cannot be a coincidence
What I'm saying is that the universe is here, therefore the symmetry break they theorized exists, they just haven't been able to find at what level it occurred.
One of the big questions about the universe is how the first matter formed after the Big Bang. Because particles and antiparticles annihilate one another when they come into contact, if there were exactly equal measures of both, the universe wouldn’t exist—at least not in the form we see it today. As such, there must be an imbalance between particles and antiparticles, even if it is only by the tiniest fraction.
originally posted by: BloodStainedGlass
Once again science proves it cannot be trusted, whats new?
Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann take full credit for this thread. Among very many others...
originally posted by: Itisnowagain
So they will keep seeking for the result they want?
What if they never get the result they theorised?