An alternative history of time?

The balance between matter and antimatter
Why is the world we observe done mostly of matter with only traces of anti-matter?
Where is all the antimatter gone?
Or was there an imbalanced generation of more matter as opposed to antimatter?

This and other fundamental questions are being probed in the most expensive science experiment of all times, the Large Hadron Collider.
As for the answer to question number 3 and the apparent unbalance between matter and antimatter, it looks very much like there is no unbalance after all.
Equal amounts of matter and antimatter are statistically generated in pairs, but then where is all the antimatter gone since all we see and touch is made of matter?

Quite simply it is still out there, condensing into galaxies made of antimatter and also populated of life made of anti-cells and anti-molecules.
However, these galaxies are somewhat hard to detect, in the sense that the light emitted by them has a negative coefficient of refraction so you need to use concave lenses to be able to focus the anti-light on your sensor.

Another interesting point is that anti light has negative energy value, so a galaxy of anti-matter will shine a dark (cold) dot on your picture as opposed to normal light generating a positive energy bright spot on your camera sensor.

There are instances in which near Earth objects have been detected through Santilli’s telescopes whose light has negative coefficient of refraction (so not detectable with naked eye or conventional telescopes), but have positive energy content (bright spot on the camera sensor). Could this be the effect of some sort of cloaking device inverting the refraction coefficient but maintaining the positive energy content of the photon?

The death of dark energy and dark matter
As far as we can tell, equal amounts of matter and anti-matter coexist quietly into the universe both hiding from each other unless you use Santilli’s telescopes featuring concave lenses.
Another relevant fact about galaxies made of antimatter is that their gravity is attractive to likewise galaxies also made of antimatter, but it is repulsive to normal matter and galaxies made of matter, chiefly because the mass of antimatter particles is the same (in absolute value) as the normal particles we are used to, however their value is negative in sign, meaning their mass is negative (hence the inversion in the gravitational formulas).

The fact that masses could also be negative was an acceptable solution of the original Dirac equations, but this was causing some headaches with causality and hence the possibility of negative masses was forbidden among the scientific ton.

Matter of fact if we look up the positron mass on Google we find this answer:

However if you dare to measure said mass against the deflection of a low energy positron beam subjected to Earth gravity (a relatively inexpensive experiment), you might be disappointed to find out that the deflection happens upward (repulsively) and not downward (attractively) toward the ground, thus implying a gravity working upside down, caused by the negative sign of the mass value of the positron.

This causes an entire new vista on the cosmological model taught so far, as the universe is now cast into a dynamic equilibrium of matter and antimatter, with galaxies made of normal matter (or anti-matter) trying to collapse back unto themselves because of the action of attractive gravity pulls, but this collapse is countered by the presence of galaxies made of anti-matter (or matter) trying to push these galaxies further apart.

Then the universe is in a dynamic equilibrium or dance of galaxies made of matter and antimatter, with the gravitational influence of antimatter galaxies being the balancing term of the equation without the need to add complicate theories about dark matter and dark energy whose existence is required to balance flawed astrological models.

One final note about the anti matter dilemma: There appear to be experiments that have measured the mass of anti-hydrogen atoms as indeed being positive value, however the doubt here is that the anti proton of said atom is in fact a pseudoproton (namely a neutron (proton+electron) with an added bonded electron so to exhibit a net negative charge), paired to a positron orbiting around it. In this case the mass of said particle will look like the one as per our Galaxy.

The most meaningful experiment to prove the mass sign of anti particles is likely to be the one proposed above and namely the upward deflection of low energy positrons on “freefall” (or “free repulsion”) against Earth’s gravity.

The Tunguska event
As per earlier matter and anti-matter repel each other gravitationally and try to stay away from each other as much as possible, at least in their electrically neutral and balanced form.
So even if an asteroid made of anti-matter is flung toward Earth, the gravitational “anti-pull” of our planet will swerve the trajectory of said body away from Earth.

However, if the trajectory of the anti-asteroid is particularly well centered and the kinetic energy sufficiently high then not even the gravitational anti pull of the Earth will be able to swerve the trajectory hard enough to avoid the collision.
As soon as the anti-asteroid enters the upper atmosphere, the contact between the anti-asteroid atoms and the air atoms and molecules of our atmosphere will cause a sudden “nuclear evaporation” of said atoms into gamma rays (and also ultra cold ANTI-gamma rays!), so it will appear like an extremely bright and hot object falling through the sky.
The heat radiated from said object could be as high a to set forests or buildings on fire hundreds of kilometers away!

As the anti-asteroid progresses through the air it loses more and more of its mass into light radiation, however a relevant quantity of its original anti mass might still make its way to the Earth surface and the impact of anti-matter against a massive quantity of densely packed matter (Earth rock and soil).
When this happens the conversion of matter and anti-matter into light will be so intense and rapid to appear like a thermonuclear bomb, which is most likely what happened in Tunguska back in 1908.

What about the red shift of the expanding universe model?
The light coming from faraway galaxies is more redshifted than the light coming from nearby galaxies, so one explanation about this is that more distant galaxies are travelling away from us with much greater speed than closer galaxies thus suggesting a universe exponentially expanding its fringes to infinitum.

This idea of an universe expanding exponentially away from Earth suffers many flaws and inconsistencies since it requires Earth to be at the very center of the Universe whilst the rest evenly and exponentially moves away from this Earth centric Universe, and it also requires gravity to eventually flip over and become repulsive all of a sudden?

To balance this geocentric view of the universe (like the Ptolemaic system but on a galactic scale), Einstein had to add half heartedly a gravitational constant to prevent galaxies from gravitationally collapsing back into a big crunch, and then add to add an offset to flip the gravity backward/repulsive at greater distance to match the Hubble constant observations based on a doppler (universe expansion speed) assumption.

It was a mathematical butcher job BUT it was matching our astronomical observations so things were balanced and in order for a little bit, but as our telescopes got more powerful, our observations got more bizzarre indeed, since the edges of galaxies are a lot more red shifting than their centers.

Eventually scientists have come up with adjustment factors in their equations nowadays called dark matter and dark energy in order to explain the otherwise unexplainable reversal of gravitational pull into an exponential antigravitational push along with the anisotropic and differential velocity factors causing cognitive dissonance between observed spherical shaped galaxies and the need to have them expanding and shaping like a letter V according to the red shift measurements.

Another possibility explaining the red shift of faraway galaxies is quite simply that light naturally red shifts as it travels through solid or semi solid/gaseous media also known as the tired light theory.
Energy from the photon is lost by the travelling light as it passes through the quasi-empty cosmic void made of extremely rarified gasses and particle, this phenomenon being called Iso Red Shift (IRS) caused by “hot” photons passing nearby “cold” intergalactic media made (mostly) of hydrogen.

This energy (frequency) loss is due not to adsorption and re-emission of photons (this would cause the light to scatter), but is instead a non contact energy transfer mechanism between the wave function of the photon with nearby atom’s wave functions, with the nearest and denser media being the first to get some energy off the photons, but also faraway atoms and molecules are getting some although at much lower levels.

Of course if “cold” light passes through “hot” gasses the effect will be reversed and energy will be passed on from the gas to the electromagnetic radiation thus causing an Iso Blu Shift (IBS).

This also explains why the light coming from the edge of galaxies is much more redshifted than the light captured from the center of said galaxies, without the need to add all sorts of dark matter and relativistic patches and corrections to the equations to try fit the experimental data.

Even simpler experiments involve tracking the redshift of the sunlight during the day. Of course a certain amount of red shift or blue shift is caused by the doppler effect and the relative speed between Earth based observer and Sun, however most of the redshift at dawn and dusk is due effectively to “hot/bright” Sun photons losing some of their energy as they pass through the cold Earth atmosphere. The denser and longer the path through a gas (like at dawn and dusk), the more energy is lost and the redder the photon gets as opposed to when the Sun is at the Zenit and the photon travels through a thinner atmosphere length.

Tracking the frequency change of hydrogen adsorption lines or other atmospheric gasses for which the bands are very narrow (such as the O2 band) as the relative atmospheric mass length changes throughout the day should be an easy enough experiments perform.

In fact it looks as though the usual suspects already performed this easy experiment with the following results:

The interested reader is invited to lookup more scientific and detailed explanations in this article.

OK but what about the microwave background radiation?
Again we must clear the rubble of the current Big Bang theory classifying the MBR as a relic radiation from the early stages of a hot mess universe.

Instead we hereby re-present the conjecture about the MBR origin as a re-emitted light generated by the rarefied intergalactic gasses previously “warmed up” by passing by “hot” photons.

As previously discussed the light emitted from stars loses energy and red shifts as it passes through non-entirely-void intergalactic spaces. As a consequence said rarefied gasses acquire a certain energy from said “hot” light and they warm up as a consequence to a temperature of circa 2.7 K.

Of course a gas left alone in empty space will eventually cool itself down and it will re-emit part of its energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation which is what astronomers call the microwave background radiation being uniformly emitted from all the uniformly rarefied atoms and molecules populating the intergalactic spaces, a bit like a fluorescent light bulb but distributed and rarefied across the entire universe.

Anisotropies and unusually colder spots of said evenly emitted radiation might be caused by supermassive anti-matter black holes causing gravitational “un-lensing” of said light (remember the negative coefficient of refraction along with gravity acting repulsively toward normal photons?).

The universe is expanding (slowly?) after all
Where is the mass or anti mass in the universe coming from and where is it all going anyway?
The total universe mass, anti-mass, radiation, anti-radiation, etc (total ABSOLUTE energy and anti-energy) is continuously increasing or so it seems.

At proper pressures the atomic distances protons and electrons fuse into eachother and they conjure 0.784 MeV into our physical reality which was not there before.

In fact the excess mass of the neutron is (was?) one of the open problem of modern (old?) physics subsequently resolved by hadron mechanic formulations.
But regardless of this excess mass origin, stars are de facto free energy fountains conjuring tons of mass per second and ultimately pour energy into our physical reality all the times. This extra energy and mass conjured into existence eventually allows the formation of heavier elements and the dispersion of the same within clouds of gasses between interstellar spaces. These gasses then constitute the raw materials for the formation of more complex structures, heavier planetary bodies, complex life and so forth.

Every time one such explosion happens, whether in a galaxy made of matter and anti-matter, energy (or negative energy) is leaked into existence within the otherwise isolated universe.

In fact local fluctuation in mass or anti mass generation (and relative total angular moment) is what causes fluctuations in the aetheric space, so a supernova explosion at one edge of the Universe might cause a ripple in the fabric of the aether and stimulate an equivalent event on the other side of the universe to balance the mass addition out in terms of anti mass and/or total angular moment.

This relentless net energy balance causes a constant addition of energy (mass) into existence through these galactic phenomena, and because of the matter/antimatter gravitational equilibrium described above we have the picture of a universe constantly expanding its radius of existence, its total quantity of planets, galaxies, life, etc.

Traveling to the end of the Universe and back at the center of it
So if mass and anti mass and more stuff, planets, etc are conjured into the universe by astrophysical processes all the times AND the gravitational collapse of said mass and energy is prevented because of the presence of anti mass and anti gravity making sure galaxies and anti galaxies remain spaced apart AND we assume the total universe absolute density made by the sum of all the masses and anti masses taken with their absolute positive sign is somewhat constant, then the universe must be expanding ever more like an air filled balloon where the air molecules keep duplicating and increasing in number in a sort of runaway thermonuclear reaction.

The reader can rest assured that we have no intention of placing mankind at the center of Creation as this has not been happening ever since the times of the Ptolemaic revolution, but still if the universe keeps adding to its mass and overall radius/volume in a geometrical exponential way then ANY place or point of the Universe becomes The Center of its own Universe horizon sooner or later, unless you so happen to be surfing along the most outer fringes of it and manage to stay on the expanding wave for prolonged periods of time…

We must also note that eventually the outer fringes of the Universe will eventually reach an effective cruise expansion speed from any center O of c (300.000 Km/s = speed of light). The light coming back at us from these faraway runaway stars becomes extremely faint, extremely redshifted because of true doppler effect and therefore hardly detectable from an observer at the center.

Is this the possible origin of the CBR? These outer layers are effectively some kind of Universe Event horizon hardly detectable and perceivable at least until we manage to master hyperlumniar travel speeds so we can bring back some useful information back to us at the center O of our lightspeed Universe Event Horizon.

At the beginning of time
Still if we look backward in time, then we should reach a point when total universal radius, mass, energy, life etc, should have been null? What kind of initial creative Will might have created the original anisotropy that conjured into existence the first electron-positron pair with enough escape velocity? and then the the first ray of light? Brewing and simmering slowly until enough energy could finally conjure up more energetic proton/anti proton pairs? Then stars, and galaxies and so on and so forth?

Was the initial creation a sudden BANG or was it a slow, relentless act of willful creation?

The closest understanding available to us of this point when there was laterally nothing, probably not even the aetheric substrate which underlies the existence of everything else on it, comes from the Genesis.

The interested reader is invited to read through the Genesis with an open mind and consider the possibility of an intelligent function (that we shall call God), sandboxing the Universe into existence like a kid playing Minecraft.

It began with the creation of an aetheric substratum and subsequently populating it with enough light energy (anti energy) to jump start the existence of the first paleo-nucleosynthesis, until there was enough atomic differentiation and celestial bodies to try out more complexity by embodying itself into life forms of different degrees and complexities and so on and so forth up to where we are, right here and right now.

The next step in imagination is to contemplate the possibility that the Universe as we know it along with the aetheric substrate underlying it, might eventually run out of Time and that it might dissolve completely at some point in a remote future.

Let’s call it some kind Universal reboot, to take into account all the experience drawn from this cosmogenetical experience and all the life and things that came out of it, so that The Intelligence might re-cast a new system (a new aetheric substrate), a new type of Universe, with upgraded physics and phenomena, an even smarter and astonishing Creation, with more amazing underlying physics and formulas than the one we are living into right now.