Is the theory of a matter, antimatter Universe valid?

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
How true is the matter antimatter version of the Universe? The theory arose mainly out of theoretical considerations. According to this theory matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. In fact Dirac calculated that Einstein's relativity implied that every particle in the universe has a corresponding antiparticle, each with the same mass as its twin, but with the opposite electrical charge. What if the Schrodinger wave theory is wrong, won’t it then follow that the whole of the matter anti-matter Universe is also wrong? What if special relativity is also wrong? Do positrons exist? The whole of the existence of the positron was based on the cloud chamber experiment conducted by Carl Anderson in the 1930’s. According to his claim a positron was detected in the cloud chamber. Anderson surrounded his cloud chamber with a large electromagnet, which caused the paths of ionizing particles to bend into circular paths. By measuring the curvature of those tracks, he could calculate the particles' momentum and determine the sign of
the charge. In the normal course of things an electron can never be attracted towards the negative pole of a magnet, it will always be diverted towards the positive pole in a magnetic field.

Positron-Discovery.jpg


The positron entered the cloud chamber in the lower left, was slowed down by the lead plate, and curved to the upper left. The curvature of the path is caused by an applied magnetic field that acts perpendicular to the image plane. The higher energy of the entering positron resulted in lower curvature of its path.

By measuring the curve, momentum and speed of the particle, Anderson was able to conclude that the particle was not a proton. The length of the path was at ;least ten times greater than would be left by a proton which has a mass 1862 times that of the electron. The curve of the track and its length corresponded almost exactly with the track that would be left by an electron but going to the negative instead of the positive pole. Hence a positron! This claim that the particle was a positron has never been contested. Yet if one looks closely at the experiment one finds that it is almost and exact analogue of the experiment to determine the Lorentz force. Here you have a magnetic field set up perpendicular to the plane of the experiment. You have a charged particle moving at velocity. It should be noted that in the experiment for the Lorentz force, the charge of the particle does not matter, it doesn’t matter if it is a proton involved or an electron, all that matters is the velocity of the particle. The particle can then move to either pole, the positive or the negative! The conclusion is that the electron was impartially drawn towards the negative pole by the Lorentz force.

lorentz-force.jpg

The conclusion is that what was discvered was not the positron but a new example of the Lorentz force.

As far as PET goes (positron emission tomography) goes, it would work equally well with any radio active material that emits photons on annihilation. Nothing to stipulate that those photons must be from a positron electron annihilation.

Just a thought.
 
Nov 29, 2022
19
3
515
The discovery of wild or stray self contained Antihydrogen fusion has led to the underlying technology of quantum physics, hydrogen and electromagnetic radiation that builds our universe of consciousness and matter. The ancient Egyptians trapped it in the pyramids and utilized it as the basis of their society until the pyramids were shutdown 1500 BC.
Antihydrogen fusion creates antihelium and liquid oxygen in a twelve foot diameter ringed disc that eventually turns up building our van Allen belt. It was discovered by the PAMELA satellite team. It lives in what is called the plasma tubes surrounding the Earth and protects us from the sun. We live in a parallel electromagnetic field that is negative and the plasma tubes are positive. Antihydrogen fusion can be seen creating atmospheric sprites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jzz and Atlan0001
The discovery of wild or stray self contained Antihydrogen fusion has led to the underlying technology of quantum physics, hydrogen and electromagnetic radiation that builds our universe of consciousness and matter. The ancient Egyptians trapped it in the pyramids and utilized it as the basis of their society until the pyramids were shutdown 1500 BC.
Antihydrogen fusion creates antihelium and liquid oxygen in a twelve foot diameter ringed disc that eventually turns up building our van Allen belt. It was discovered by the PAMELA satellite team. It lives in what is called the plasma tubes surrounding the Earth and protects us from the sun. We live in a parallel electromagnetic field that is negative and the plasma tubes are positive. Antihydrogen fusion can be seen creating atmospheric sprites.
I barely understand a word of it, if any. A little bit dense. But still, I like it. Good going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MantleMan
Jzz, the only alternative that I can think of is what Dirac also once proposed that we are immersed in a cloud of regular matter with "negative energy" that we cannot detect. "Antimatter" would be a "hole" in the negative energy regular matter, and would be able to "annihilate" a regular matter particle when it fell into this "hole" in the negative energy matter cloud, releasing photon energy in the process. (I can't find my old textbook that talked about this briefly.) The concept is similar to the electron "holes" in transistor materials.

There seem to be several problems with that concept, for example what is "negative energy"? Conceptually, negative energy could be some sort of "false vacuum" where everything we can detect is at a higher energy level (that we think of as zero energy), and the negative energy particles are probably constrained there by quantum physics, so that the "regular matter" that we can see does not drop to any lower state, although there is a lower state.

The concept of "dark energy" that has detectable gravitational effects but cannot otherwise be detected would provide some similarities to a cloud of "negative energy" matter. And, Bose condensates that hold regular matter in extremely low, but a highly coordinated single energy state do seem similar in concept. But, it would have to have some quantum characteristics that keep us from detecting it, experimentally. Think of a cloud of "negative energy" regular matter coalescing along with regular matter in higher energy states to form stars and galaxies, with humans unable to see the negative energy regular matter except by its gravitational effects.

This concept seems to address both the identity of "dark matter" and the problem with the Big Bang Theory about where all the antimatter went if it was made in the same quantity as regular matter when the universe was formed in the Bang event.

But, it definitely is not a main stream theory, and I am not proposing that it is "right". I am just keeping an open mind for alternatives to some parts of the BBT that don't seem to work with the physics that we understand today. But, I am also not seeing a way to make this other concept work right with energy states for the "negative energy matter" not allowing a single "negative energy particle" to simply absorb a regular photon of high enough energy to make the particle detectable without also satisfying the conditions we have identified for "antimatter" creation in accepted Standard Model quantum theory. There may be some quantum explanation related to momentum conservation with the rest of the condensate, but that is way above my knowledge level in this type of thinking.

Another poster to this group, Harry Costas, is highly interested in Bose condensates and their applicability to cosmology. Search for some of his posts if you are interested in the thinking about this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atlan0001
Nov 29, 2022
19
3
515
How true is the matter antimatter version of the Universe? The theory arose mainly out of theoretical considerations. According to this theory matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. In fact Dirac calculated that Einstein's relativity implied that every particle in the universe has a corresponding antiparticle, each with the same mass as its twin, but with the opposite electrical charge. What if the Schrodinger wave theory is wrong, won’t it then follow that the whole of the matter anti-matter Universe is also wrong? What if special relativity is also wrong? Do positrons exist? The whole of the existence of the positron was based on the cloud chamber experiment conducted by Carl Anderson in the 1930’s. According to his claim a positron was detected in the cloud chamber. Anderson surrounded his cloud chamber with a large electromagnet, which caused the paths of ionizing particles to bend into circular paths. By measuring the curvature of those tracks, he could calculate the particles' momentum and determine the sign of
the charge. In the normal course of things an electron can never be attracted towards the negative pole of a magnet, it will always be diverted towards the positive pole in a magnetic field.

Positron-Discovery.jpg


The positron entered the cloud chamber in the lower left, was slowed down by the lead plate, and curved to the upper left. The curvature of the path is caused by an applied magnetic field that acts perpendicular to the image plane. The higher energy of the entering positron resulted in lower curvature of its path.

By measuring the curve, momentum and speed of the particle, Anderson was able to conclude that the particle was not a proton. The length of the path was at ;least ten times greater than would be left by a proton which has a mass 1862 times that of the electron. The curve of the track and its length corresponded almost exactly with the track that would be left by an electron but going to the negative instead of the positive pole. Hence a positron! This claim that the particle was a positron has never been contested. Yet if one looks closely at the experiment one finds that it is almost and exact analogue of the experiment to determine the Lorentz force. Here you have a magnetic field set up perpendicular to the plane of the experiment. You have a charged particle moving at velocity. It should be noted that in the experiment for the Lorentz force, the charge of the particle does not matter, it doesn’t matter if it is a proton involved or an electron, all that matters is the velocity of the particle. The particle can then move to either pole, the positive or the negative! The conclusion is that the electron was impartially drawn towards the negative pole by the Lorentz force.

lorentz-force.jpg

The conclusion is that what was discvered was not the positron but a new example of the Lorentz force.

As far as PET goes (positron emission tomography) goes, it would work equally well with any radio active material that emits photons on annihilation. Nothing to stipulate that those photons must be from a positron electron annihilation.

Just a thought.
Jzz, the only alternative that I can think of is what Dirac also once proposed that we are immersed in a cloud of regular matter with "negative energy" that we cannot detect. "Antimatter" would be a "hole" in the negative energy regular matter, and would be able to "annihilate" a regular matter particle when it fell into this "hole" in the negative energy matter cloud, releasing photon energy in the process. (I can't find my old textbook that talked about this briefly.) The concept is similar to the electron "holes" in transistor materials.

There seem to be several problems with that concept, for example what is "negative energy"? Conceptually, negative energy could be some sort of "false vacuum" where everything we can detect is at a higher energy level (that we think of as zero energy), and the negative energy particles are probably constrained there by quantum physics, so that the "regular matter" that we can see does not drop to any lower state, although there is a lower state.

The concept of "dark energy" that has detectable gravitational effects but cannot otherwise be detected would provide some similarities to a cloud of "negative energy" matter. And, Bose condensates that hold regular matter in extremely low, but a highly coordinated single energy state do seem similar in concept. But, it would have to have some quantum characteristics that keep us from detecting it, experimentally. Think of a cloud of "negative energy" regular matter coalescing along with regular matter in higher energy states to form stars and galaxies, with humans unable to see the negative energy regular matter except by its gravitational effects.

This concept seems to address both the identity of "dark matter" and the problem with the Big Bang Theory about where all the antimatter went if it was made in the same quantity as regular matter when the universe was formed in the Bang event.

But, it definitely is not a main stream theory, and I am not proposing that it is "right". I am just keeping an open mind for alternatives to some parts of the BBT that don't seem to work with the physics that we understand today. But, I am also not seeing a way to make this other concept work right with energy states for the "negative energy matter" not allowing a single "negative energy particle" to simply absorb a regular photon of high enough energy to make the particle detectable without also satisfying the conditions we have identified for "antimatter" creation in accepted Standard Model quantum theory. There may be some quantum explanation related to momentum conservation with the rest of the condensate, but that is way above my knowledge level in this type of thinking.

Another poster to this group, Harry Costas, is highly interested in Bose condensates and their applicability to cosmology. Search for some of his posts if you are interested in the thinking about this.
Antihydrogen fusion creates atmospheric sprites, converting liquid oxygen to hydrogen, terrestrial gamma radiation, antihelium for the Van Allen belt and producing the aether in the configuration of the Fibonacci Spiral from our invisible plasma tubes surrounding the planet.
 
Nov 29, 2022
19
3
515
How true is the matter antimatter version of the Universe? The theory arose mainly out of theoretical considerations. According to this theory matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. In fact Dirac calculated that Einstein's relativity implied that every particle in the universe has a corresponding antiparticle, each with the same mass as its twin, but with the opposite electrical charge. What if the Schrodinger wave theory is wrong, won’t it then follow that the whole of the matter anti-matter Universe is also wrong? What if special relativity is also wrong? Do positrons exist? The whole of the existence of the positron was based on the cloud chamber experiment conducted by Carl Anderson in the 1930’s. According to his claim a positron was detected in the cloud chamber. Anderson surrounded his cloud chamber with a large electromagnet, which caused the paths of ionizing particles to bend into circular paths. By measuring the curvature of those tracks, he could calculate the particles' momentum and determine the sign of
the charge. In the normal course of things an electron can never be attracted towards the negative pole of a magnet, it will always be diverted towards the positive pole in a magnetic field.

Positron-Discovery.jpg


The positron entered the cloud chamber in the lower left, was slowed down by the lead plate, and curved to the upper left. The curvature of the path is caused by an applied magnetic field that acts perpendicular to the image plane. The higher energy of the entering positron resulted in lower curvature of its path.

By measuring the curve, momentum and speed of the particle, Anderson was able to conclude that the particle was not a proton. The length of the path was at ;least ten times greater than would be left by a proton which has a mass 1862 times that of the electron. The curve of the track and its length corresponded almost exactly with the track that would be left by an electron but going to the negative instead of the positive pole. Hence a positron! This claim that the particle was a positron has never been contested. Yet if one looks closely at the experiment one finds that it is almost and exact analogue of the experiment to determine the Lorentz force. Here you have a magnetic field set up perpendicular to the plane of the experiment. You have a charged particle moving at velocity. It should be noted that in the experiment for the Lorentz force, the charge of the particle does not matter, it doesn’t matter if it is a proton involved or an electron, all that matters is the velocity of the particle. The particle can then move to either pole, the positive or the negative! The conclusion is that the electron was impartially drawn towards the negative pole by the Lorentz force.

lorentz-force.jpg

The conclusion is that what was discvered was not the positron but a new example of the Lorentz force.

As far as PET goes (positron emission tomography) goes, it would work equally well with any radio active material that emits photons on annihilation. Nothing to stipulate that those photons must be from a positron electron annihilation.

Just a thought.
How true is the matter antimatter version of the Universe? The theory arose mainly out of theoretical considerations. According to this theory matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. The modern theory of antimatter began in 1928, with a paper by Paul Dirac. Dirac realised that his relativistic version of the Schrödinger wave equation for electrons predicted the possibility of antielectrons. In fact Dirac calculated that Einstein's relativity implied that every particle in the universe has a corresponding antiparticle, each with the same mass as its twin, but with the opposite electrical charge. What if the Schrodinger wave theory is wrong, won’t it then follow that the whole of the matter anti-matter Universe is also wrong? What if special relativity is also wrong? Do positrons exist? The whole of the existence of the positron was based on the cloud chamber experiment conducted by Carl Anderson in the 1930’s. According to his claim a positron was detected in the cloud chamber. Anderson surrounded his cloud chamber with a large electromagnet, which caused the paths of ionizing particles to bend into circular paths. By measuring the curvature of those tracks, he could calculate the particles' momentum and determine the sign of
the charge. In the normal course of things an electron can never be attracted towards the negative pole of a magnet, it will always be diverted towards the positive pole in a magnetic field.

Positron-Discovery.jpg


The positron entered the cloud chamber in the lower left, was slowed down by the lead plate, and curved to the upper left. The curvature of the path is caused by an applied magnetic field that acts perpendicular to the image plane. The higher energy of the entering positron resulted in lower curvature of its path.

By measuring the curve, momentum and speed of the particle, Anderson was able to conclude that the particle was not a proton. The length of the path was at ;least ten times greater than would be left by a proton which has a mass 1862 times that of the electron. The curve of the track and its length corresponded almost exactly with the track that would be left by an electron but going to the negative instead of the positive pole. Hence a positron! This claim that the particle was a positron has never been contested. Yet if one looks closely at the experiment one finds that it is almost and exact analogue of the experiment to determine the Lorentz force. Here you have a magnetic field set up perpendicular to the plane of the experiment. You have a charged particle moving at velocity. It should be noted that in the experiment for the Lorentz force, the charge of the particle does not matter, it doesn’t matter if it is a proton involved or an electron, all that matters is the velocity of the particle. The particle can then move to either pole, the positive or the negative! The conclusion is that the electron was impartially drawn towards the negative pole by the Lorentz force.

lorentz-force.jpg

The conclusion is that what was discvered was not the positron but a new example of the Lorentz force.

As far as PET goes (positron emission tomography) goes, it would work equally well with any radio active material that emits photons on annihilation. Nothing to stipulate that those photons must be from a positron electron annihilation.

Just a thought.
Antihydrogen fusion converting antihelium to aether is dark matter producing dark energy.
View: https://youtube.com/shorts/VVXGTkG5MTA?feature=share
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
Jzz, the only alternative that I can think of is what Dirac also once proposed that we are immersed in a cloud of regular matter with "negative energy" that we cannot detect. "Antimatter" would be a "hole" in the negative energy regular matter, and would be able to "annihilate" a regular matter particle when it fell into this "hole" in the negative energy matter cloud, releasing photon energy in the process. (I can't find my old textbook that talked about this briefly.) The concept is similar to the electron "holes" in transistor materials.
Unclear engineer

Thank you for your thoughts, it was interesting to read of Dirac’s ideas about alternatives to antimatter. Looked at from a practical point of view is such a scenario acceptable? The existence of the matter, anti-matter theory has added clutter to an already cluttered theory. For instance apart from each particle possessing its own field, it is also necessary by the tenets of this theory that every anti-particle should also possess its own field. A very complicated Universe indeed! Add to this scenario, length contraction and time dilation and it goes from being strange to downright eerie!

If the circumstances under which the positron was first discovered are re-examined oversights can be found. For instance a ‘positron’ if it exists (which I sincerely doubt) could only travel a couple of millimeters at the most, before encountering an electron, with which it would interact and undergo mutual annihilation. Do the mathematics. The track shown in the cloud chamber was impossibly long, even if it was purported to be taken in a partial vacuum. Records show that the track was close to 14 cms! The constructed cloud chamber was small, 17 cm in diameter and 3 cm thick. It was inserted between two coils about 1 m in diameter, made from copper tubes that carried cooling water as well as electric current. These coils placed on both sides of the chamber left a small space in between the coils, for particles to move freely. These components together with the framework weighed over 2 tons and the apparatus took several weeks to construct. Together with a large motor-generator with a rating of 425 kW Anderson was capable of maintaining a magnetic field, parallel to the coil central holes, of 17000 gauss (1.7 T). To put this into perspective, 425 kW was about 1/10 of the power needed to power the entire campus at Caltech.

Surely what is seen in Anderson’s cloud chamber is an energetic electron, a result of cosmic ray interaction. The direction that this highly energetic and fast moving electron took towards the negative pole of the magnet was then merely a manifestation of the Lorentz force.

Further, as regards the Positron Emission Tomography claim that only coincident pairs of 510 KeV photons are detected by the PET cameras, surely this is far more likely to be the result of parametric down conversion of energetic gamma rays produced in radio nuclides having a preponderance of protons? Suppose in such radionuclides, the conversion of a proton to a neutron always involves the emission of a high 1.02 MeV gamma ray and that this 1.02 MeV gamma rays undergoes parametric down conversion to yield two identical photons of 510 KeV travelling in opposite directions. These are the photons that are detected by the PET cameras. Since PET cameras only detect coincident photons, it stands to reason that the original high energy gamma ray would be ignored. The premise here is that proton rich isotopes in which there is a predominance of protons, emit energy of 1.02 MeV at the time of decay. In actual fact there are so many other interactions taking place that it would be difficult to verify.

Lastly don’t tell me that one metre thick electromagnetic coils can be discounted?
 
UE, you not only reached for the entire antimatter universe in a "hole," in the 'vacuum', in the 'void', I do believe you found and grasped the entirety of the antimatter universe (as being the hole; as being the vacuum; as being the void)! The real ghost universe when the ghosts are brought, wrenched, from out of the "closet"!

I hate like hell to use these terms, but "in the closet" and "from out of the closet," and in general, being the "closet"!
--------------------------------

There is no such thing as nowhere and nothingness regarding the universe . . . except of course, everywhere and everythingness all at once; all in one.

"An infinite, absolute, density is an infinitely, absolutely, deep hole." -- Atlan0001
It is a wonder that we can contain holes in a force field.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
Carl Anderson used a giant magnet around his cloud chamber, as I had stated in the OP, this was almost an analogue of the experiment to detect the Lorentz force. Sure enough the results also seemed to bear this out. Here is an excerpt:

“In the very first experiments in 1931 and 1932, Anderson saw the deflected tracks of as many positive as negative cosmic-ray particles. At this time, scientists had identified two elementary particles of matter: negatively charged electrons, and positively charged nuclei.”

The experiment shows exactly what would be expected if the Lorentz force were present, namely that the direction in which a particle curved (i.e., towards the positive or the negative magnetic pole) depended solely on its velocity and not upon its charge. This is why Anderson’s experiment showed an equal probability of particles travelling to either pole. To lend further credence to this theory about 99% of all cosmic ray particles are positive; only 1 % are negative electrons. How then was Carl Anderson detecting an equal probability of particles travelling to the negative and the positive poles? Almost certainly due to the Lorentz Force.

This is not the crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that if defective data were introduced right at the start of the positron discovery process, how can any subsequent claim be relied upon?
Do positrons exist? I don't think so!

A little more about why particles turned right toward the positive magnetic pole or left toward the negative magnetic pole. If one draws an imaginary line across the lead bar that bisects the cloud chamber , it would effectively turn the cloud chamber into quadrants. If a particle enters from the left lower quarter, the magnetic field would bend it towards the left upper quadrant or towards the negative magnetic pole. In the same way if the particle entered in the right lower quadrant the particle would be deflected towards the right upper quadrant, or the positive magnetic pole.
 
Last edited:

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
Given the extremely ambiguous nature of the energies involved it is difficult to accept the interpretation that the results are due to matter – anti matter interactions. For instance, it is impossible to directly detect gamma rays, they can only be detected by studying secondary reactions. Also beta positive decay from radioactive isotopes such as 22NA is often accompanied bya 1.27 MeV photon. (i.e., gamma ray) . It is possible that all these reactions are due to Gamma rays and not to positrons at all. It is possible that matter reacts with gamma rays by splitting its energies into more resolvable forms.
 
No it is not. Not only is it not valid, it's complete nonsense. There is no such thing as anti-matter. And that's why science will never solve this fake mystery.

Modern man proposes that he understands light and gravity. But light and gravity come from mass. So, without knowing what mass is.....in which we have no clue or idea... we pride ourselves on these light and gravity theories. No matter how many contradictions occur, we insist on these failed theories.

It's like an addiction. Or a religion.

Out of three basic concepts, light, gravity and mass/energy... mass/energy is the easiest to understand and visualize. And that's because mass is stationary, and particle mass will become visible to observe in the future. But not now, for we need faster switches. And also in the future we will be able to paint E and M fields. And when this happens, our science will be in shock.

The first thing to realize to the concept of mass and energy is to exactly define the terms.....mass and energy. Has any instructor ever defined these concepts to you? They have not......for they do not know what energy and mass is. They can only explain how energy and mass ACT......not what they are. They tell you they can be ratio-ed, but not what exactly it is. These terms have never been defined.

Energy and mass are NOT entities. Energy and mass is a property of an entity. That entity science calls charge, but our science knows nothing about charge. And what they do know is wrong.

The physicality of the entire universe is very simple, and this alone will prevent science from understanding it. Because a PhD is not required.

The reason that charge has the properties that it has.....AND the reason the charge properties change in ratio the way that it does.......is STRUCTURE. Not only does the particle have structure, the properties of the charge has structure. A force, a stimulus or an acceleration has structure also. A beam of light has structure. One does not need mass for structure.....or momentum. All mass has an EM field around it. And of course the EM field around the particle has a structure.

First one needs to realize how an absolute and constant length....or an amount, can be adjusted/tuned to a relative length, and yet keep it's absolute length or amount. As in a circumference. Or a ring type structure.

A non pi circumference. A non pi rotation. Our universe does not use pi, only mathematicians do. It's only one reason why math has been such a failure. And why we have so many contradictions with our math theories. Nature never makes a 2D rotation. The circumference of nature is NOT a 2D arc.

The circumference of nature always has a twist. A spin. The twist will shorten the circumference. But that twist only shortens the relative circumference, not the absolute length of circumference. This results in a ratio-ed density, without adding or subtracting charge. e is the only known constant at this time.

But here is the kicker. The angular velocity of the circumference is at constant c. Therefore when the circumference shrinks, the RPM(not the velocity) increases. Now we have increased density at a faster RPM, which is an increase in momentum and an increase in inertia.....mass.

Charge circumference contracts with energy and expands with discharge. They change size with energy. And after decades of being called a crackpot, the ignition facility has verified this dynamic known by me for decades. This changing size with energy is something we do not observe in our macra scale world.

The handedness of that charge twist, causes a HUGE asymmetry between the left and right handed particles. It causes the left handed charge twist to normally be discharged.....and the right handed charge twist to be normally charged up. Even though the particles have the same structure and same energy spectrums, the left handed one is usually 200 to 600 times larger than the right handed one.

The normal states of these particles can be temporarily inverted with a hard fast acceleration, such as in a thunderstorm. Here....the proton is discharged, and the electron is charged up.

But science, instead of calling them a discharge proton, and an charged up electron, call them a positron and an anti proton. And make a fake mystery called anti matter. And make up all kinds of things trying to explain something that does not exist.

But this is only the beginning of bad news. The explanation of light is the most mis-guided thing we have in our science. And this lie...........is the only thing our science is sure of......and base all other science on it.

Go figure.

Energy is the property of ANY and ALL motion or movement.....of a physical entity. Mass is the confinement of that motion property. It's that easy. There are only two physical entities, charge and the fields from it. This whole universe comes from AND only has one entity.........charge. There is nothing else physical. No other mass. It's the only stuff.

An EM near field or a propagation can add or subtract the twist and therefore the circumference(and energy level) of the charge.

Earth's orbit(any planetary orbit) is NOT a 2D ellipse. It's a one turn closed helix, and can be clearly seen with Ios(moon) debris orbit. And now with finer measurement, an orbital torus has been found for every planet.

And most reading this probably don't understand what I am saying.

Would any here like to know what an atomic dipole looks like? How about a nucleus, would you like to know what one looks like? Would you like to see the mechanical motion that causes emission.......how about absorption? Would you like to see the mechanical physicality of these events........or the math of these events?
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
No it is not. Not only is it not valid, it's complete nonsense. There is no such thing as anti-matter. And that's why science will never solve this fake mystery.
It is refreshing to read such a passionate post. Although, IMHO, it is a subject deserving of such passion. For how long can scientists and the public at large be conned into thinking that this weird dogma and these esoteric ideas are science. They aren’t. The tragedy is that the really massive achievements of the modern age that have been made using empirical methods, are used to mask the uselessness of theories like wave-particle duality, superposition, quantum entanglement, Born’s wave function, multiple dimensions, not to mention, time dilation and length contraction. Therefore notwuithstanding nuclear energy and the hydrogen bomb, the above mentioned theories still reek of unfounded faith based ideas.

Your reference and obvious fascination with ‘electric’ and ‘magnetic’ fields is equally inexplicable. I regret to have to say this but in my opinion it would have been better if James Clerk Maxwell had never entered the scene at all! It is true that this would have meant the loss to the British Empire of tremendous prestige and respect. The world would have also been a poorer place without Maxwell’s impressively learned and elegant equations which gave the world its iron butterfly in terms of the oscillating and self-renewing electric and magnetic fields that supposedly carried electric energy. However, even given all this, it is just possible we might have ended up with a better theory. Here is how.

If Maxwell had never entered the scene, then Faraday’s notion of lines of force would have carried the day at least in Faraday’s own mind. It must be assumed that this (lines of force) is the mode of investigation he would have followed. A little thought shows that he would have noticed how iron filings align themselves in a magnetic field (and also and electromagnetic field). He would have noticed that each tiny iron filing behaved like a miniature magnet with a north and south pole. Sooner or later he would have come to the conclusion that lines of force were made up of infinitesimal dipoles (particle possessing polarity) that formed into lines of force in the presence of an electric current. From there he would have rationalised, that this was the aether, that the aether consisted of innumerable invisible dipoles and that the aether, in the form of Dark Matter, pervaded the whole of the Universe.
 

Latest posts