It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Universe Should Not Actually Exist, Scientists Say

page: 3
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   

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.

Thomas Edison on failure - "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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?


It's not that science can't be trusted, it's those who idolise what others interpret

Some atheists are like the Christians who think the bible is inerrant, devoutly ignorant to common sense



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So this post was useless to the discussion except to insult.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:12 AM
link   
What a crazy article, just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it shouldn't exist as it clearly does. What it means is that scientists dont like to admit when they haven't a clue about some of the biggest questions around existence. I'm sure in time they will be able to make something up like 'dark matter' to help fit with there equations.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Would have been easier to say "we don't know" than it shouldn't exist.

It was not an imbalance but distribution that made it all possible.

The next unanswerable question will be... What changed the distribution of particles?




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well the first part of that statement is right.

Jaden



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
they say things work to perfectly? wow almost like it was designed!



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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.


Prove it!

I can't believe you got more stars than the OP for this, shame on you ATS!

This is a pretty big claim to make, it certainly gives you food for thought.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 12:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

Isolation of various particles or grouping to prevent homogenous and complete anaihalation?

This, and particles interacting over long periods instead of interacting totally at once.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: slider1982

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.


And who created this "God" fellow you speak of?,....

RA

Our kind, the creation is built with only a concept of coming into existence. We are not made in such a way as to be able to understand something that has always been and will always be. I personally believe where the texts mention our being in the likeness of our creator, that this is about our need to create just and our creator constantly continues creating.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly


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


That's not the problem with science, but man.

Anything that can be turned into ideology will be, and sometimes perverted.

Science is a method of finding information. Some take it further though, and many don't.

Hell, look in the beginning of this thread. Plenty of people bashing scientists.

At the end of the day, mankind has used science and religion to kill countless people. But man did that, not the ideas.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:16 PM
link   
And yet, here we are, in a giant sand box...




posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well the first part of that statement is right.

Jaden


I could have said man always gets things wrong before they get it right and it would have been just as true.

edit on 26-10-2017 by CriticalStinker because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Well, once I die the universe will go back to not existing, just like it didn't exist before I was born. At least as far as I know, anyway. "Oh, but there's evidence that the universe did exist before you were born!" you say. Yeah, but the existence of that evidence wouldn't exist unless I was alive to see it, so once I'm gone, the evidence will be gone, too.

Oh, and all of you will cease to exist, too. Sorry.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Black_Fox

Doesn’t give me too much belief in anything they say then



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: 0bserver1
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?


In some supernovae, it actually explodes into two expanding bubbles. How do we know our universe doesn't have an identical twin but with antimatter and matter ratios reversed.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormcell
In some supernovae, it actually explodes into two expanding bubbles. How do we know our universe doesn't have an identical twin but with antimatter and matter ratios reversed.

Even if the other "Big Bang" was identical to ours, minute, chaotic fluctuations in the energy of spacetime would almost immediately make it different than ours, and that difference would grow along with the expansion.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 06:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Raggedyman

So this post was useless to the discussion except to insult.


Funny how you are feeling insulted

I just don't think scientists are infallible, must cause you some pain.
Me, not so much

Now calm down, you are over reacting 🏳



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Maybe those hot-shot 10,000 IQ computers they are working on will figure it out.



posted on Oct, 26 2017 @ 09:36 PM
link   

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.


But the ones interpretting the science try to say that wrong is right and they chase their tale using things they think are correct to find new things. I have been doing a lot of studying of things over the last eight years, some would say I am an expert at some things. But All those articles I read lead me to believe that the evidence is being misinterpretted a lot. People try to say that we should believe them, they ignore the parts of the evidence that make it not applicable to things. I love reading research but I hate believing the interpretations out there derived off of it because the interpretations are often formed by beliefs or consensus of the time. I am capable of checking the interpretations, I do it almost always. I verify if the evidence matches the interpretation. Half the time it doesn't. There is a relationship but that relationship is very often not enough to prove anything. True science is full of parameters as to how to apply the evidence and as to how it is effected by other things.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join