Not “96% matter and 4% antimatter”, as you say, but 96% “dark matter” and 4% matter, as they say (here).
Not “4% of antimatter” but 96% “dark matter” and merely 4% matter, Zinnat. They say (here): “In modern physics almost the entire Universe is missing: 96 percent. We can only account for just 4 percent of the Universe. This is because we can’t find enough mass in galaxies to maintain their rotational spiral shape and stop stars spinning off into deep space. To explain why galaxies are not breaking up mankind has come up with the idea that 96 percent of the Universe is Dark Matter! Dark Matter is just a name; we don’t have a clue what it is. The only thing we know is that Dark Matter does not shine like stars or reflect light or give off any detectable radiation it just creates a gravitational pull.”
They just don’t know what “dark matter” really is.
“Antimatter” merely refers to atoms that are formed by having a negative nucleus and positive orbitals (anti-protons and positrons) instead of the normal positive nucleus and negative orbitals (protons and electrons).
Antimatter naturally annihilates normal matter simply because the electron and positron are impedance matched and thus annihilate as well as the protons and anti-protons being impedance matched and thus annihilate. The release of radiant energy is horrendous.
And the “darkmatter/energy” they refer to is simply regions higher density Affectance in space, a natural and unavoidable occurrence.
The common physicists have a huge problem with their own theory. In former days they said that antimatter disappeared because of the annihilation of matter and antimatter in the so-called “hadron epoch” (10^−7 seconds after the “Big Bang” until 10^−4 seconds after the “Big Bang”); but now they say antimatter exists today (13.8 billion years after the “Big Bang”). That’s funny.
In this example they say “matter annihilates antimatter” with the outcome: “animatter rare” ( ); in earlier times they said “matter annihilates antimatter” with the outcome: “no more antimatter”. They don’t know anything about antimatter, they merely contradict themselves and speculate (like their money lenders), they have no idea but bosses with dogmas.
Yeah, that’s one of their stories that I don’t believe. Antimatter does not naturally form (despite Higgs’ theory). Positive and negative particles are not merely equal with opposite polarity. Large negative particles are inherently less stable … for a reason.
Yes, That seems to be a mistake on my part. I confused your stats of grey metter with antimatter.
Having said that, i cannot recall that correctly now, scientists give some ratio of matter and antimatter produted during the Big-Bang. That was in my mind and i wrongly assumed that you are mentioning that ratio.
Again (because it’s really interesting and amusing):
In this example they say “matter annihilates antimatter” with the outcome: “animatter rare” ( ); in earlier times they said “matter annihilates antimatter” with the outcome: “no more antimatter”. They don’t know anything about antimatter, they merely contradict themselves and speculate (like their money lenders), they have no idea but bosses with dogmas.
As explained before, light travels at that particular speed due to it being made of much more infinitesimal EMR pulses (“affects”) which cannot logically travel any faster. It is not because we have never noticed light traveling any faster nor because we have never found a way to push light to go faster. It is a logical impossibility for light to travel faster in a homogeneous extreme “vacuum”. Logic “dictates”.
Light alters its course because, like particles, it is always reconstituting itself, picking up small infinitesimal pulses and losing some. And when it picks up more on one side than the other, the center of the entire clump shifts, just as it does with particles (causing gravity and electrostatic interactions). A more dense gradient mass field (“gravity field”) causes the clump of infinitesimal EMR pulses to accumulate more toward the higher density side of the clump and lose more on the far side. Thus the clump appears to have shifted and the clump as a whole, has shifted. But it should be noted that the original minute pulses are no longer a part of that clump because they have continued straight but merely far to small to be detected in normal ways.
Light has some properties similar to particles, but with one critical difference. A pulse of light has basically all of its constituent infinitesimal pulses (“Affectance”) traveling in the same direction. A mass particle, although made of exactly the same thing, has its infinitesimal pulses traveling in all directions (which is why it can’t travel as fast as the light). Like particles, a light pulse is always rebuilding itself but cannot maintain itself as a clump as well as a mass particle. And thus the light clump is actually a wave that disperses extremely slowly, and not a true particle. But physics experiments can only detect light as either existing or not, thus giving the impression that they are either a full clump or not there, misleading theoretical physicists into thinking that a “photon” is a “particle”, either existing as a clump of energy or not existing at all (despite them having further evidence proving the contrary).
And for those who can’t gain confidence from immutable logic, this theory can be empirically proven with the double slit experiment as specified thusly:
So you do not deny the speed of light as a constant (299792458 m/s).
Infinitesimal pulses means affectance. But where do the small infinitesimal pulses which are picked up by the light come from? You are describing it as if the light were a particle (see here), although you also say that light is a wave and not or actually not a particle. So do you actually deny that the character or property of light can be both a wave and a particle? And you say that “a photon is a particlized wave”, but you “would indicate that photons really are strictly particles”. You can’t overcome the wave/particle dualism.
Actually, can not this duality be overcome by the concept of situational function, vis., that it acts like a wave under certain conditions, but appears as a particle in others?/ And thirdly it may not appear nor function, in others? (Where the gaps, as James desribes the pulsing ?)
I can’t verify the number itself other than the fact that they have declared that to be the proper number by definition. They might choose to change that later. But I can verify that it is a fixed number close to that.
From the space that the light pulse is traveling through. Space is never empty of such affectance.
Have I stated that a photon is strictly a particle somewhere? I didn’t mean to, if I did.
The issue is that a light pulse will be detected as though it was a particle whether it was or not because detectors have a threshold and as a light pulse bends its path, it largely maintains its energy level by picking up more affectance headed in the new direction. The total level of energy is largely maintained, but the inner constituency is exchanged.
Mass particles do that also, but they are stable when not moving. So there isn’t much difference between a particle and a pulse. And a pulse does spread out over extreme distances whereas a particle will not. The photons detected from distance stars are not the pulses that departed from the stars as much as newly formed clumps made from all of the affectance waves that left the stars in the same general direction along with a great deal picked up along the way. Photons are not a one-for-one transaction between source and destination over very long distances. They combine portions such as to vary in intensity depending upon what the ran across on the way. They are a blob of affectance.
That is the way they are handling it. But I prefer to not speak in terms of “a photon” because every photon is actually merely a “virtual photon”, a selected portion that might be of any chosen amount of energy. That is another distinction between particles and waves of light. A particle has a pretty solidly fixed amount of energy within it. You can’t raise the energy within a particle so freely (although it can be done temporarily). A light pulse can be given more energy or lose some energy down to the point of not being able to detect it at all, such as when reflecting between parallel mirrors.
I would prefer calling light “pulses” (a portion of a wave), not waves or particles.
Here you can even see how much I am affected by the currently prevailing physics. Sorry, for I had forgotten that according to RM:AO space is never empty of affectance, especially of such affectance.
You haven’t. Excuse me but I read “I” instead of “it”, so I read “I would indicate that photons really are strictly particles” instead of “it would indicate that photons really are strictly particles” (here). Excuse me.
How can we verify or prove what affectance really is and how can we falsify or disprove it?
Not in that way because it is the way the currently hegemonic physicists prefer. It is not possible to overcome the wave/particle duality with the wave/particle duality.
The only rational way to prove anything: Rational Metaphysics: 1) Definitional Logic (so that you know what you are actually proposing) 2) Scientific Falsification (so that you know there is no alternative) 3) Resolution Debating (so that you can verify that nothing has been overlooked)
Define the concepts involved: Fundamentals of Affectance Ontology
Emulate the concepts and see where they lead: Jack (the program)
Debate the issue (online for example) to see if anything has been left out.
It is not possible to know whether there will also be “no alternative” in the future. Due to that there is no scientific truth but merely probability. The conclusion “gold, silver, iron … etc. are metals, they are havier than water, thus all metals are heavier than water” had been “true” (“no alternative”; see your point 2)) until the potassium was discovered.
); in earlier times they said “matter 
