Michael Anteski
Registered Senior Member
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.
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.
