The Universe Should Not Actually Exist, Scientists Say

a reply to: Black_Fox

All the sales are final. Universe shall exist. Let there still be light.

well then this might confirm the existence of a creator and he made it happen because he's the only one that can make it happen

originally posted by: Dr UAE
well then this might confirm the existence of a creator and he made it happen because he's the only one that can make it happen

Then the creator must also have been created....

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.

yes...and never mind if they railroad some poor fool who dared to tell them it's crap in the beginning.

They never apologize afterwards...for calling people anti science extremists. Calling for people to be imprisoned for denying scientific theories. They never admit that most of time...scientific theories are best guesses...and should be treated as such.

They just calmly state...in not too bolded print..."Scientist previously believed/thought...but new research now shows...bla bla bla"...who cares about the road kill, right ?

Who says it exists?

As if these scientists or any sentient being is able to contemplate such a thing.

honestly i read this headline and the only thought in my brain is
Big Mood

a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

well i meant a GOD, and if he was created then he is not a GOD, because there is someone grater than him and that is who created him

originally posted by: starwarsisreal

While I know Star Wars is fiction, Obi Wan Kenobi once mentioned that the Force is what keeps the galaxies together.

How controversial is this?

There shouldn't be a star after supernovae, yet there's either a neutron star or a black hole both spherical in form one's either black or white but still, there's something there. Houdini's grand finale.

Maybe everything that stops to exist within a three-dimensional world automatically turned into a two-dimensional object or maybe jumping to a four-dimensional or higher state of being " like taking a picture of your dog before dying and the picture is the only thing that exists although not for real only surreal?

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.

His reply is " Let no man draw asunder what the Lord has joined together"

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.

Did you read the article? That is not at all what they are saying.

What they have been theorizing all along is that there was an asymmetrical creation of particles and anti-particles, otherwise the universe would not have existed, the current tests have been unable to detect at what level the symmetry break occurred and they will attempt to further refine the procedure in an attempt to locate this break.

The universe is obviously here therefore an asymmetrical level of particles and anti-particles must have existed at the universe's inception.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

to me what you are saying is that it cannot be a coincidence

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.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: Black_Fox

While I know Star Wars is fiction, Obi Wan Kenobi once mentioned that the Force is what keeps the galaxies together.

Meek meeeeek.... says the road runner

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I understood what you were saying and thats why I said that it means to me that it cannot be a coincidence because it has to be accurate

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.

So they will keep seeking for the result they want?
What if they never get the result they theorised? Will they then have to believe that the universe does not actually exit?

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.

What if the annihilation is happening now and it is the flash that is appearing as what is seen right now? Only now!
When is it not now? The seer and seen flash on and off as one seamless event.

a reply to: Black_Fox

Clearly the universe SHOULD exist as we are sitting here talking about its existence. The problem is that scientists don't fully understand why it exists given the info they've uncovered. People should be careful with how scientific information is presented.

originally posted by: Dr UAE
I understood what you were saying and thats why I said that it means to me that it cannot be a coincidence because it has to be accurate

You can believe it means anything you want.

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...

Here's a paradox for you. If science cannot be trusted, why do you trust this report then? Confirmation bias?

originally posted by: Itisnowagain

So they will keep seeking for the result they want?
What if they never get the result they theorised?

It would appear, since the universe is here, that there was a symmetry break. There obviously cannot be an equal number of particles and anti-particles, so yeah, they will keep searching.