Hello Avtar,

Thanks for reading my essay and sharing your opinion about it.

My essay does indeed not argue in favor of an equal abundance of matter and antimatter: it purely deals with gravitational repulsion - the nature of the interaction between matter and antimatter does not depend on their relative abundance. It is not true, however, that the dark energy problem has necessarily to be solved by an antigravity mechanism that requires equal amounts of matter and antimatter.

The observed acceleration of the universe gives the idea that there is something that counters the effect of gravity, but that does not necessarily mean that this something is an antigravitational force at cosmic scale. Simply put, the approach that I take is that an aggregration of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed inbetween them.

I have looked at your paper. To start with, I have a question about the main equation of your model. How do you get the value of the integral in formula (5)? The integral in (5) is, namely, syntactically incorrect: it lacks a variable of integration. If I assume that the value of integration is dr (and from the context that is likely), then the value of the integral becomes Gmm*(ln R - ln0). But this doesn't exist, so it cannot be the stated value 3Gm2/5R. But this is an important equation, because you use that value 3Gm2/5R in your master equation (6), on which your entire paper is based. So how did you get the value 3Gm2/5R?? Furthermore, you make some strong claims; since you asked for my comments, I must say that I think that your model is mathematically too simple to back up some of those claims. Your model consists of a few equations in real calculus; yet you claim on page 9 that it gives a mechanistic description of the collapse of the wave function. This raises imediately a question: how can that be when the wave function is not a term of your theory (your theory only uses numbers, while the wave function is an element of a complex Hilbert space)? As I see it, you have an idea for a simple model for the developement of the universe as a whole, and perhaps you should focus you attention at that, that is, at showing that it gives good predictions for atronomical data.

Regards, Marcoen

Hello Steve,

The notion of antithesis that I have used in my essay is not something that I have made up myself, not have I given it a new meaning: it is a common notion in philosophy. There are several forms of dialectic reasoning, though.

Furthermore, you wrote that every person is entitled to have his own idea on rationality. I agree with that to a certain degree. I am a postmodernist myself, so I think it is impossible to give criteria for a rationality predicate that work for all persons under all circumstances and in all contexts. There are always cultural differences that are irreducable: what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best.

Best regards, Marcoen

Hi Sridattadev,

I see that you give a very unusual interpretation to the expression S = BM2. Usually M2 is just the element that is produced by applying the binary operation multiplication to the elements M and M; in Polish notation M2 = *(M, M). With all due respect, I think you give the expression a meaning that is not represented by the mathematics in the expression: you might want to think it over to use this expression to represent your idea on soul, body and mind. I would advise you to first develop the idea further and write it out in words. When it then is in its final stage, you could search for a suitable symbolic representation - if that is more preferable than a formulation in just words.

Best regards, Marcoen

  • [deleted]

  • Post #30

Dear Marcoen,

I purposefully chose this non mathematical representation of soul, mind and body, S=BM^2,so as to engrain this simple truth in the hearts of humanity, as this representation of singularity or soul is similar to the popular relativistic view of E=MC^2, which very well explains the duality of existence. Universal I in us gives meaning to everything. What is E, M and C but just alphabets and exponential 2 some abstraction until we assign them meaning. So are S, B and M just another set of alphabets to give meaning to our perception of the self.

There is absolutely nothing but thy self, everything emerges from thee.

Love,

Sridattadev.

Dear Sridattadev,

It is true that the equation e = mc2 in itself says nothing about physical reality, but the "e", "m", and "c" in that equation are not just letters from the alphabet: the formula says that the real number e is identical to the product of the real numbers m and c2, where c2 is the product of the real number c with itself. That is, the formula e = mc2 is an expression that has a distinct mathematical meaning because it is formulated in the framework of the real number field. This expression gets a physical meaning by interpreting the terms e, m and c as energy, mass and light speed.

The point is that your formula S = BM2 is not formulated in the framework of any mathematical theory (like field theory), and from your interpretation it is clear that we have to view it as outside the framework of real numbers. But that makes the expression mathematically meaningless. So to give it a mathematical meaning, you have to specify -- in a way understandable for mathematicians -- what S, B, and M are mathematically, and what the operation multiplication means. Only then it becomes clear how this represents your idea on soul, body and mind.

Best regards, Marcoen

  • [deleted]

  • Post #32

Hello Marcoen,

I am understanding, it is cool to tell me it.

I agree about your words, but I beleive strongly that the universalism is the best road. The rationality is universal and possesses its laws and foundamentals.

You say"what in a given situation is a rational choice in one culture may be irrational in another culture, and there is no set of "transcultural" rules that can determine which culture is the best."

I don't really agree, because when a person is universal, the differences disappear. The irrationalities are in all cultures, religions or countries.In fact the irrationality is simply the sister of the stupidity. If it exists chaotic and irrational parameters inside the systems of all countries, cultures or religions(I am repeating :)) So it is just due to unconsciousness and the stupidity.The problem is that it exists stupid persons in several high spheres.These high spheres must be entirely universal. If not, we can add several chaotic exponentials quickly. You know Marcoan, the global earth is irrational in its pure analyze of foundamental equilibriums. The rational Universe is the same for all after all.We live all on this blue planet. We are all results of evolution.We are all humans. Why so ? the probelm is more complex than we can imagine in fact. Just due to an add of several chaotic parameters, irrational.

The real secret is this universality in evolution spherization. We are tools of optimization spherization.We are catalyzers in fact of harmonization. Why so the high spheres are not able to solve this globality ???? We return at a simple evidence about this stupidity and unconsciousness cited above. You know, personally I beleive that the hour is serious. I beleive strongly that it is time to act globbaly for the well of all. I fear of several chaotic exponentials if we do not harmonize quickly several systems. Instead of be in competition, I think that the religions can work together. If the chiefs of main religions say the peace, it will be more easy for this spherization of high spheres. In all case , at all problem, it exists a solution.Perhaps it's time to think about this global solution.

Do you know the composting Marcoen, I have worked a lot this topic, I beleive that the composting at big scale is one solution for the ecology like the increasing of vegetal mass by vegetal multiplication. In fact , you know what ? I see that a lot of people have forgotten their links with nature. We live in big towns without trees and plants and flowers ...even the bees they kill them. In fact, we loose our foundamental ecosystems, we loose our instincts, our senses. It is not rational all that Marcoen. the earth in the logic must be a big harmonized garden of equilibriums. Of course we must also prevent the future protection against meteorits....we do not know when, but we can say that we shall have a meteorit one day. What a big puzzle !

How can we solve all our probelms.......in centralizing the skilling and competences for the well of all. A time for all after all ! The solutions exist in all centers of interest in fact.The rational solutions exists. Like is rational an euler analyze.

I wish you all the best in this contest.

Best Regards

Marcoen

Very interesting and original essay and theory. I'm not entirely clear if this may be thought of in terms of the gravitational force replicating the repulsive element of the strong nuclear force. Or the latter balancing the former.

My essay pulls up at discussion of this as it was already too desne, but I hope you'll give your views on it anyway, and I'd comment you following Vladimir Tamari's web link including work in a similar area.

Best wishes

Peter

    • [deleted]

    • Post #34

    Dear Marcoen,

    That is where 0 = i = infinity comes into picture, mathematical representation of metaphysical truth about S=BM^2. You might continue to say that inverse mutliple of zero does not exist in the current mathematical field theory, we are the ones who put that limitation for ourself, then it is time to revisit the fundamentals of mathematics and change our underlying assumptions. The truth is inverse of nothing (0) is infact everything (infinity) and their multiple is singularity (i). There is only "i" in the entire cosmos and, zero = i = infinity.

    Love,

    Sridattadev

    Dear Marcoen:

    Thanks for reading my paper and providing comments. Below are answers to your questions/comments:

    The basic approach in the EPT - ".. an aggregation of individual processes, which take place at Planck scale, leads to the formation of space: that is then the reason that the universe expands. So objects do not move away from each other because of some repulsive force, they merely appear to move away from each other because there is space formed in between them." needs to be validated against the observed universe expansion data from Supernova. Until then, the completeness or correctness of the EPT remains unsubstantiated.

    You have misinterpreted the integral form of the Gravitation Potential Energy term -3Gm2/5R. The exact derivation is provided in my book, ref [15], and also excerpted in the attached PDF file herewith. Also, detailed model of the extended wave-particle model, wave-function collapse, Heisenberg uncertainty, and inner workings of quantum mechanics resolving its paradoxes such as the measurement problem, multiverses, antimatter, quantum gravity etc. are described in detail with complete mathematical derivations in Chapter 4 thru 7 (see attached Pdf for Contents of the book). Obviously, you have not have had a chance to read these detailed model descriptions and hence, prematurely labeled them too simplistic based on a quick reading the abbreviated (11 pages) paper only.

    Best Regards

    Avtar SinghAttachment #1: Gravitation_Potential_Drivation__Excerpts_from_my_book.pdf

    Hello Hyoyoung Choi,

    Thank you for reading my essay.

    You use the term similar for our ideas, but in the framework of my theory there is no such thing as negative inertial mass: if this would be detected, then my theory would have to be discarded.

    You may be able to develop a mathematically consistent framework in which negative inertial mass is possible. But it raises some serious questions from a physical point of view. For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

    In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". However, two bodies with negative inertial mass and like electrical charges would attract each other: the Coulomb force on the first charged particle, exerted by the second equally charged particle, is directed away from the second particle, so the first particle would accelerate towards the second because of its negative inertial mass. So why would atomic structures (e.g. hydrogen-like) be impossible in a universe where negative inertial mass exists? Also, objects with negative inertial mass and negative gravitational mass would be attracted gravitationally towards objects with positive gravitational mass. If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, wouldn't we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

    That brings me to another question: how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

    I myself do not believe in the existence of objects with negative mass, but the thoughts about it are interesting!

    With best regards, Marcoen

    Dear Daniel,

    Having looked at your essay, I see that we share the idea that gravitation can be repulsive and that space is not fundamentally continuous. Our views on what underlies all that are, however, radically different. I do not believe that space is continuous, but neither do I believe that it is discrete. In my upcoming postdoc project I intend to develop the (mathematical) notion of a semi-continuum: this is a (semi-topologiocal) space that at macroscopic space has some properties of a continuum, but the continuum structure breaks down at small scale (e.g. at Planck level).

    I have some questions about your claim that your system rests on only two axioms from which everything else follows. I will focus at three things, one logics-related, one mathematics-related, and one physics-related:

    1) The definition on page 1 of the notion "fundamental" is a so-called if-statement, that is, a statement of the form

    [math]a \leftarrow b[/math]

    This has a consequence: if an object is fundamental, then it does not follow from the definition that it is invariant.

    The point is, namely, that the reasoning

    [math]a \leftarrow b, \ a \ \vdash \ b[/math]

    is known to be not logically valid.

    On page 2 you write that "Per our definition of what is fundamental, preons(-) and preons() never change." This statement is, thus, incorrect from the point of view of formal logics: with your definition, something can be fundamental but not invariant. Did you perhaps have an if-and-only-if-statement in mind when you formulated your definition of the concept "fundamental"?

    2) Furthermore, your axiom about the discreteness of space is merely about the qualitative composition of your quantum-geometrical space: apart from the fact that there is no definition of the concept "distance", by no means it follows directly from this axiom that there is a smallest possible distance, as you claim on page 1 just below the axiom. The axiom does not exclude that there are infinitely many preons(-) located at different distances from each other: there might be a positive distance between any two preons(-), but a smallest possible distance has not necessarily to exist. That is to say: isn't the statement that there is a smallest possible distance an extra assumption (axiom) in your theory?

    3) In your axiom of the discreteness of space, you mention that there is a repulsive force between preons(-). Yet on page 2 you write that the preons(-) are static: they don't move. Apart from the fact that the notion "force" is not defined in your framework, the question rises: how does the repulsive force manifests itself? How can we prove that it exists at all?

    I would appreciate it if you could elaborate specifically on these three topics.

    With best regards, Marcoen

    Dear Avatar,

    You are correct in your assessment that a necessary condition for a claim of correctness of the EPT is that the empirical data about the expansion of the universe have to be explained on the basis of the EPT. This will be the topic of my postdoc research project.

    Then about your formula. In your essay, the terms m and m* in equation (5) are not defined. You refer to figure 2, but - with all due respect - a figure is an illustration, not a definition. But alas, let us consider this issue solved by your additional information. Another question then arises, however. In the document that was attached to your last post, the factor r in formula (5.14) is the distance between two separated masses M and m. But in figure 2 in your essay, m and m* seem to be adjacent, not separated. Isn't the distance r between them then not 0, as in r = 0? In other words: how do you get from that equation (5.14) to equation (5) in your essay? Is in both cases the interpretation of r the same? I hope you can elaborate on this.

    With best regards, Marcoen

    Dear Marcoen,

    Thank you for your reply.

    I am sorry. I apologize for my poor English.

    =========

    For example, if one would apply contact forces to a body with negative inertial mass (assuming there is such a thing in a world where also positive inertial mass exists). If I would push such a body away from me, it would accelerate towards me, or not? Doesn't this sound so implausible that we can dismiss the idea of negative inertial mass? I would be interested in your thoughts about this.

    =========

    For gravity, there is the influence of attractive force between objects with the same signs, but it does not come into existence, when applying this to electromagnetic force as it is. Charges with the same signs exchange repulsive force with each other, although this phenomenon is very weird, considering the case of gravity.

    Most of people have strong aversion of negative mass, but no law of physics says there is only positive mass in nature.

    I think that implausible phenomena in nature are phenomena against physical laws such as the law of conservation of energy or momentum, not our thoughts.

    We are necessary to watch carefully the fact that sort of physical laws such as law of energy conservation or law of conservation of momentum do not deny negative mass.

    ========

    In your essay you write that "negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure". ~

    ========

    As examined the equation of motion for negative mass, it is marked in form of F = -ma(m > 0), when attraction is applied together with nuclear force(when usually nuclear force is attraction, but has the form of repulsive core), and assuming nuclear force has the form of F = -Q(r) r^, Q(r) is the function of distance r, thus nuclear force is in the form of attraction worked in the direction of - r^. Because they form a binding structure together, regardless of the form of force~

    Here, for the force worked on negative mass m,

    F = - ma = - Q(r) r^

    a = (Q(r)/m) r^

    The term of acceleration is positive, so the effect of increasing distance r, namely repulsive effect appears. This means that negative mass hard to form the structure like atom(massive nucleon, baryon, particle consists of multi elementary particle), because nuclear force has not binding negative mass when it is applied to negative mass. Also, gravity has not binding negative mass (repulsive).

    We have to open up a lot of possibilities about negative mass(energy) and also, consider the possibility that negative mass does not make electromagnetic interaction.

    In a particular case, negative mass can form the structure such as atoms, but in general, it seems it is difficult for it to form a large-scale structure like stars or galaxies.

    =========

    If small particles with negative inertial mass would exist everywhere in the universe, would not we then observe a constant incoming flow of these particles on earth?

    =========

    In my article,

    If negative mass and positive mass were came into being together at the beginning of universe, since positive mass has attractive effects with each other, so it forms stars and galaxy. In addition, negative mass has repulsive effects towards each other so it cannot form any structure and may spread out almost uniformly across the whole area of universe.

    Therefore, positive masses and negative masses are completely offset in the whole universe, but there is a local area where positive masses exist more than negative masses.

    Owing to the effect of negative mass and positive mass, negative mass disappears near massive positive mass structures (such as the galaxy and galaxy clusters, etc.) after meeting positive mass. However, negative mass, which came into existence at the beginning of universe, can still exist in a vacuum state outside of general galaxy.

    The current structure of the galaxy is a structure that survived in the pair-annihilation of positive mass and negative mass and, since negative mass existed outside of this galaxy structure, therefore it has not been observed at the Earth.

    ========

    how can we in principle detect a particle with negative inertial mass? In other words: how can we prove its existence?

    ========

    1. Theoretical calculation

    After making new Friedmann eq., on the assumption that negative mass and positive mass coexist, we have to explain dark matters and dark energy using it, predict new phenomena and compare them with one another.

    Dark matter and dark energy come from one origin!

    "Pair creation model of negative mass(energy) and positive mass(energy)" insists that dark matter is not different from dark energy each other, dark matter is the effect of centripetal force by negative mass out of galaxy, and dark energy is that positive gravitational potential term in total potential energy.

    "Pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" insists that dark energy is a gravitational potential energy(with positive value) between negative mass and positive mass.

    As a matter of fact, through numerical calculation using a computer, the distribution having a similar value to the predicted rate of WMAP was revealed.( Refer to 6~7P)

    We get a result at almost zero energy state.

    (Zero rest mass energy)

    Matter (U_posiposi) : -83.2 (Ratio:1)

    Dark Matter (U_neganega) : -459.6 (Ratio:5.52)

    Dark Energy (U_negaposi) : 1286.9 (Ratio : 15.46)

    2. Computer simulation

    1) Big bang simulation

    We set up each model from the birth of universe to the present, and calculated GPE using computer simulation in each level.

    As a result, we could verify that "pair creation model of negative mass and positive mass" explains inflation of the early universe and decelerating expansion, and present accelerating expansion in time series.

    This simulation is showing incredible results.

    It not only explains the total energy of the universe, flatness, and the essence (Total zero energy, pair creation of negative energy and positive energy) of the process of birth of the universe, but it explains inflation, decelerating expansion in the early stage, accelerating expansion(dark energy) in the late stage, and dark matter through the only term, negative energy. Moreover, this negative energy is one that is essentially required by the law of energy conservation.

    - The Change of Gravitational Potential Energy and Dark Energy in the Zero Energy Universe :

    http://vixra.org/abs/1110.0019

    - Dark energy - Accelerating expansion of distant galaxy due to negative mass :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71nMvwUhHwE

    - Inflation, accelerating expansion with pair creation of negative and positive mass :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRUqQM2FfNU

    Therefore, a larger-scale, precise experiment is needed.

    2) Bullet cluster simulation

    Have a nice day!

    ---Hyoyoung Choi

    p.s.: Your question contains a universal question about negative mass. Therefore, I would like to leave the opinions that I exchanged with you in the comment box of my article, unless you oppose it.

    Hi Marcoen,

    Yours are valid questions and show that perhaps, some clarifications are needed. See numbered answers corresponding to your questions below.

    1) Yes, it is and if and only if reflexive. It is fundamental if it is absolutely invariant and if it is absolutely invariant, it is fundamental.

    2) Not really. One has to remember how distance is defined. Distance is not what exists between any two preons(-). That would imply that there may be space between preons(-) when, as explained, there exist nothing between preons(-) but the n-gravity field that keeps them apart.

    Distance between any two preons(-) is defined as the number of preonic leaps it takes for a preons() to move from one to the other. This definition of distance is a consequence of the axioms that define preons(-) and preons(). Since it can be derived from the, the notion of distance is a theorem.

    3) For preons() to move, they would need to move through space, hence, be able to transitorily couple with other preons(-) along their path. They can't do that since by definition, they carry n-gravity charges which keeps them apart. Since there is nothing between preons(-) except the n-gravity field, there isn't even space (preons(-) are space), there is no way for them to move. Thus they are virtually static. Therefore, space, according to the model I propose, has a definite structure. Though this is not absolutely correct, quantum-geometrical space may be understood as an absolute frame of reference.

    Since quantum-geometrical space and matter are defined as being particles and since they are defined as absolutely invariant, then preons cannot be transformed, created or destroyed. They must then obey the law of conservation. Since space is made of preons(-), it must then be finite. By definition, a preon() an only transitorily couple with one preon(-). Hence, there cannot be an infinite number of preons(-) that can occupy any regions of quantum-geometrical space. And since space is not infinitesimal, that is, it does not contain an infinite number of preons(), their can't be an infinite number of preons() in any given region of quantum-geometrical space.

    I hope that helps clarity the subject. As I mentioned, my essay is taken from a much larger work, the first volume of which is available here

    Hello Daniel,

    I like the enthousiasm with which you participate in the discussion on the foundations of physics.

    That being said, I have looked at your larger work to which you refer in the above post. I see that you have some outspoken ideas, but - with all due respect - the system that you present is not a formal axiomatic system that allows rigorous proofs.

    The derivations that you present are not based on logical schemes: yours are informal Toulmin schemes. That means that the argumentation contains tacit assumptions that are not implied by the premises. An example is your concept of distance: on p. 76 you call this a corollary but there is no way that this concept can be formally deduced from your set of axioms. In addition, the definition seems ambiguous. Let us assume that the distance between two preons(-) is identical to the number of preon leaps between them. What if there are several trajectories to get from one preon(-) to another, whereby these trajectories differ in the number of leaps? Then according to your definition, there are several different distances between these two preons(-).

    Furthermore, you seem to have troubles in separating object level from metalevel. Your axioms 1 - 11 are at object level, but axiom 12 is at metalevel. This axiom 12 is a proposition that you have to prove starting from the axioms at object level.

    But even apart from the way how your ideas are presented, the ideas themselves raise questions. You haven´t really answered my third question in my previous post: how can we detect the repulsive force between preons(-)? In other words: what is the difference between assuming that there is such a force, and simply assuming that space is discrete and made up of static particles but without the additional assumption that there is some force active between the constituents of space?

    If you really want to make your point about a universe consisting of preons(-) and preons(+), then my advice would be that you develop a publishable representation of your theory in symbolic logic.

    With best regards, Marcoen

    Dear Hyoyoung Choi,

    It's OK to continue this discussion on the site of your essay.

    I'll post my answer to your reply - if any - as soon as possible.

    With best regards, Marcoen

    Hello Peter,

    My essay focusses purely on gravitation as the predominant force. In other words, my essay focusses on a situation in which the strong nuclear interaction plays no role. The main finding of my research, however, applies to all interactions - although that is yet to be proven.

    I started looking for fundamental principles that would allow a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion; during the research it turned out, however, that generalized principles could be formulated that apply regardless which interaction is predominant. That is to say: what I found in my PhD research was that if a matter-antimatter gravitational repulsion is a fact of nature, then all individual processes are essentially the same. So it doesnt´t matter whether we consider a gravitational interaction or a strong nuclear interaction or an electromagnetic interaction of a microsystem: the individual process in which this interaction takes place is in principle the same. My theory, the Elementary Process Theory (EPT), is a collection of formulas expressing what happens in the indivudual processes. In my paper in Annalen der Physik I have demonstrated that a variety of observed phenomena can be described in the formal language (and with the physical principles) of the EPT. The current essay is more or less a prequel of this Annalen paper: it zooms in on the first considerations in the development of the EPT. These are not dealt with in the Annalen paper, although there is some overlap.

    I will give a responds to your essay as soon as time allows.

    With best regards, Marcoen

    • [deleted]

    • Post #45

    Hi Marcoen. While I applaude your [relatively] broad-minded approach, you will not find a fundamental and true unification of physics. Here is the clear proof of this.

    Fundamentally, inertia and gravity both involve balanced attraction and repulsion.

    The key is, at bottom, to establish space that is in between (and in the middle of) visible, invisible, and not visible space -- DREAMS DO THIS. You don't see from the ground or from the black space of the eye/body.(This has remarkable similarities with the electromagnetic spectrum.)

    Inertia and gravity have to be balanced and equivalent (both at half strength force/energy); and the fact that gravity cannot be shielded weighs in too. Instantaneity must be fundamentally accounted for, and there you have it. Dreams do all of this. They are our growth and our becoming other than we are. FACT!

    You physicists ignore the physics of the body. See the black space of the eye? That is basically [full] inertia. The ground is full gravity, isn't it? GRAVITY CANNOT BE SHIELDED. Gravity begins at the top of the head because the space there is invisible IN KEEPING WITH THE FACT that vision ALSO begins invisibly in the sye/body. (Dreams are a linked center of body experience too.)

    Gravity is key to distance in/of space.

    Seen and felt are unified in dreams. This is your final and ultimate understanding of physics in rough outline -- BUT I HAVE MUCH, MUCH MORE.

    Let's start telling truth in physics FQXi.org.

      • [deleted]

      • Post #46

      Marcoen

      Well written hypothesis, my question to you is matter and antimatter falls down how does exactly your hypothesis handle that?