The "Big Bang" and Random-Universe Theory

Contemporary physics, with its model of a big bang, is ignoring the concepts of non-randomness in the cosmos, and of creational influences. A glaring example of this concept being bypassed would be "what happened to all the antiparticles and antimatter that we know should have annihilated the universe upon its origin?"

This is a basic question, and should be an essential one to deal with. Instead of ignoring it and going on to hypothetical constructs invoking a random big bang universe, we should be considering more basic theoretic issues to include creational non-randomness, to deal more thoroughly with an inexplicable question such as this, in thinking about cosmic origins.

An originally-etheric origin-model of the cosmos, such as I have presented previously in this Forum, could also help develop a new kind of model that would reconsider how the problem of anti-particles could have been avoided.

In my model of an ether which originated in a pre-universe setting, it was derived from an oscillational type of original space, and was an ether composed of vibrational, uniform, ether units that resonated with each other as their outward vibrations formed interconnections. This led to further such linkages in the ether, producing linear etheric entrainments and then foci of ether energy, with linkages that formed somewhat-larger ("etheroid") units, and eventually, even larger quantum units such as electrons.

However, the anti-electrons that we know (from the work of particle physicists) "should" have appeared simultaneously with each "positive" electron are not found in our universe. What happened to account for the presence of the electrons we see and the disappearance of the anti electrons and other anti-matter particle units?

I submit that there is only one possible explanation: that non-random creational input selectively "removed" anti-particles, as a necessary step in forming a positive-particle-centered universe.

In the aforementioned origin-world where ether forces predominated, ether units would have been ultimately tiny, and therefore they would have been extremely energic (innumerable energy units per volume of space, compared to the much-larger units they were forming, through their linkages.) Later, when a new, material, universe was desired (presumably for greater cosmic magnetic stability), the energy units of the new world, being much larger, and thus much-less-energic, than the ether being used to create the new universe, were capable of being manipulated by using the powerful pre-existing ether-scale forces.

Anti-electrons would have had a specific "signature" within this ether/etheroidal/emerging-quantum setting, different from positive electrons. This kind of signature-difference could then be used to mentally, and creationally, channel antiparticles out of the way of, and unable to interfere with, the positive particles about to make up our universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Describe the experiment that you would perform to confirm or falsify your explanation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I derived my model of a universal aether from a long-term study of a little known set of codes, in an old Document, that were discovered by another cryptographer years ago, and the encoded source describes the kind of field-test you asked about.

The field test would use natural materials (not based on modern technology), set up in a particular way that is designed to selectively generate, and amplify, aether forces from Earth itself. I can't give out any more of the details in the present context.

The presence of aetheric forces would be shown by a predicted decrease in the densities of materials in the test system. That type of effect does not occur with any known form of energy.

A new form of energy could have unique beneficial effects. -But the test would have to be done in the field, as a fairly large-scale procedure. It would be expensive to carry out, and I don't have a financial backer for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What is the document? What are the set of codes?

 

And what's the test?

 

As I said above, I feel that an Internet forum is not a context for revealing the possible test for the aether that I obtained by deciphering a secret set of codes. My last post gave all the information I want to. If a potential financial backer appears I would go into all the details of it then.

 

I see, the internet is not the place to talk about your test, but an internet forum is the place to search for financial backers. Hmmmm. So seriously, new forms of energy, deciphering secret sets of codes, non-random creational input, etc? Typically there are not alot of people that are willing to invest money into an idea that for all intense and purposes sounds like the musings of an unbalanced person. I think you need a bit more than sciency sounding arm waving to get backers. But who knows, the Nigerian Prince scam works sometimes.....

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Are you writing a novel?

 

I can't tell if this is spam, trolling, or terminal ignorance.

 

If someone's interested in my version of this Thread's aether cosmology model, I have a Web Page. -To bring it up, enter

Michael Anteski
John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society

It gives discussions on how this model of an underlying vibrational-resonational aether can readily and easily explain quantum entanglement and a number of other such phenomena.

 

If those discussions are as good as the information in this thread, then there is no point in bothering to search for them.

 

It is fun watching morons, pretend to be experts, by acting like critics. It can also be frustrating. since it would be better if the morons stand in the corner and pay attention.

One thing about matter and anti-matter, is matter can contain anti-matter and still be stable. For example, positrons, during beta plus decay are a product stemming from matter; nuclei. This does not generate the antiparticle of the positron; electron. The matter and anti-matter don't appear in pairs in this case, because the positron was a stable part of the nucleus of matter.

Why didn't the positron, blow up the nucleus, if matter and anti-matter are supposed to annihilate? Anti-matter is a misnomer. Some combinations of sub particles, within matter to anti-matter, can act as catalysts for lowering activation energy. Some don;t lower the activation energy as well allowing both to co-exist

If you assume the consensus is correct, and we start with mutually exclusive matter and anti-matter, with a slight discontinuity that favors matter, where is that energy signature in the universe that reflects this? Also how much matter was left from the original BB material if the discontinuity was very small. Is a 99% energy universe observed?

Matter is composed of sub particles, with different combinations creating different states of matter and anti-matter. If you start with matter and anti-matter, at extreme pressure, all that needs to happen is a rearranging sub particles, to reflect a lowering of potential. The fact that the nucleus can hold a positron, shows certain states of sub particles are less catalytic for annihilation when next to certain sub-particle configurations.

 

Thanks, but I think not.

 

All energy is primarily transmitted aetherically, through vibration and resonance. Quantum-scale units, like photons or electrons, may be observed, as they are generated along a transmission's path, whether a light beam or an electromagnetic path, but the primary transmissional process is aetheric.

In quantum entanglement, two similar quantum units are able to interact, even at a great distance, as a connecting impulse is produced in the aether, between them, acting in the form of a packet of aether units, which allows ongoing "communication" between similar quantum units, due to their corresponding similarity at the aether level, such as having the same vibrational frequency in the aether.

 

Without supporting evidence this just sounds like someone making stuff up and using sciency sounding words he does not understand.

Without supporting evidence this just sounds like someone making stuff up and using sciency sounding words he does not understand.

Without supporting evidence this just sounds like someone making stuff up and using sciency sounding words he does not understand.

Without supporting evidence this just sounds like someone making stuff up and using sciency sounding words he does not understand.

 

I believe origin has seen my post in the past where I mentioned that my aether theory comes from a long term study of a secret code in an old Document, and not "just making stuff up."

 

Ah yes, this old document that's so secret you can't even name what the document is, because "reasons".