Posted on 06/01/2010 12:39:32 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Physicists have long wondered why the universe exists when matter and anti-matter particles obliterate each other on contact.
But new data from a particle accelerator in the United States suggests a reason.
The tests showed that when anti-protons and protons collide, the resulting new particles show a one per cent skew toward matter over anti-matter. Over a long period of time, this characteristic of the universe could explain why matter has come to dominate over anti-matter.
"Many of us felt goose bumps when we saw the result," said Stefan Soldner-Rembold, a physicist at the University of Manchester in the United Kingdom.
"We knew we were seeing something beyond what we have seen before and beyond what current theories can explain."
Every basic particle of matter has a matching anti-particle. The anti-particle has the same mass as the standard particle, but an opposite electric charge. Anti-matter is not to be confused with dark matter.
While anti-matter has been demonstrated in numerous experiments, dark matter remains a hypothesis used to help explain the effects of mass which scientists cannot currently see.
The dark matter hypothesis helps to explain why the universe hasn't expanded into a cold and relatively motionless void. The extra mass, and resulting gravity, is the reason galaxies form into clumps rather than flying apart.
Particle accelerators, such as the Tevatron collider at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, which conducted the tests, and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN on the Swiss-French border, use electric fields to smash particles into each other at incredibly high speeds.
(Excerpt) Read more at ca.news.yahoo.com ...
A God day could be a Billion yrs long in our perception of time.
~New Model Army—”White Coats”
Couldn’t read past the first dozen or so replies...wow, your post created a weirdo-avalanche event of galactic proportion.
It’s OK for you to believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old. It doesn’t really hurt anyone. It’s also OK to believe that it’s not, because it is not necessary to believe that, in order to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God.
Since the Sun, Moon and Stars didn’t exist until the fourth “day” I don’t suppose it was literally seven days, any more than I think it’s possible or reasonable to trace the generations back with any accuracy at all. But I don’t need to.
“Adam” also translates as “man”. Whether there really was an Adam and Eve or whether it’s an allegorical construct designed to explain the process of creation and evolution to illiterate sheepherders... also doesn’t matter to me. It’s not important, and I wasn’t there so I don’t really know. Someday we’ll all know and probably all laugh at how wrong we were about a great many things.
Then it is amazing how God gave us the brain we have and the cognitive ability to begin to understand the immensity of his creation, yet he leaves SOOOOOOOOO many clues that are at odds with a strict interpretation of the creation story in Genesis.
So which is inerrant? The account of creation in Genesis or the universe we can observe and study?
See Gerald Schroeders' Age of the Universe for details:
You’re not believing the bible if you believe in a 6000 year old universe but man’s attempt to use the Bible to get to a year counting backwards.
How long is a day when the earth didn’t exist? (Day 1 from Genesis)
I try not to limit God.
And you know this is junk science due to your scientific analysis skills......??????
Both work for me, relativistically. Yet the picture (Hubble) seems pretty clear extending ~12 billion years, which makes God and His ways all the more interesting.
Biblical law in tension with Biblical narrative.
I had never heard of Berlinski until my sister gave me The Devil's Delusion for my birthday. Wonderful book.
Yes.
Exactly. Which explains the fallacy of a 6,000 year old Earth when we realize God is eternal and not on Earth time.
God gave us a brain to understand and marvel at his Scripture.
The “Hubble picture” is a work of man. The Word of God trumps the works of man.
I do, but it doesn’t mean I bury my head in the sand and ignore God’s creation.
Then again, by denying cognizance of God, there is no meaning for existence, ergo no meaning for the lives of scientists seeking to find that meaning, but still in denial of God.
One can still study science, through faith in what God provides and even more is revealed by Him and His so great love for us.
‘Never said they didn’t.
Well stated argument regarding the the validity of both scientific and religious points of view.
How many hours were the days prior to Genesis 1:14?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.