Antimatter is Etheric Double of Physical Matter?

[MindReality]

Antimatter + Matter = LIGHT

Electron + Positron = Two Photons

Every physical object coexist on the physical and etheric plane simultaneously in two states. The physical state and the etheric state.

For every particle, there must be an antiparticle to balance its existence on the physical plane.

All particles on the physical plane have a positive or negative charge, or they contain positive or negative charge quarks within them.

The only particle that is completely chargeless is the photon!

The idea is that matter exist on the physical plane while antimatter exist on the etheric plane.

You can transform Light into Matter/Antimatter and back!

So that means LIGHT is the only thing that exist on the physical and etheric plane exactly as it is.

If that is true, then when we are in our etheric body, are we less dense then light? If everything else is less dense than light on the etheric plane, it would be floating right?

But why isn't it so? It seems that gravity still has an effect on things.

[James S]

A couple of thoughts...

"The idea is that matter exist on the physical plane while antimatter exist on the etheric plane. "

What doesn't work for me here is that these ideas seem to be a bit of an incongruent mish-mash of newtonian / particle physics and metaphysics.

There's nothing at all "etheric" about antimatter. Antimatter is simply matter made of anti-particles - particles with the exact same mass but opposite charge to those that constitute normal matter.  

When you use the example of a photon, you're looking at one of the few neutral charge particles that has an identical anti-particle. Otherwise particle / anti-particle reactions, depending on their quantum state, aren't going to produce light, their going to annihilate each other.

I think more of a look into quantum physics might provide some more answers here.

James.

[MindReality]

I am totally looking into quantum physics about this, but it seems that the solution can't be found there.

I've only managed to get some headway when I research esoteric materials and they say antimatter is etheric.

You see, a positron only appears in physical reality when it is brought from the ethereal plane.

A positron is actual the ethereal copy of the electron existing in the ethereal plane. When the ethereal copy swaps place with the physical electron, it becomes a positron in the physical plane. The physical electron becomes an ethereal positron in the etheric plane.

For every matter, there must be an antimatter for there to be balance in the universe. So where did all the antimatter go???

We can only see bits of it here and there. The only way to understand this is that antimatter exist in the same space time as matter but out of phase on another plane.

So antimatter is actually the etheric copy of matter on the etheric plane.

When you merge matter and antimatter, you get LIGHT. Positron + electron = two photons.

Particle and antipartle will always produce photons when they anihilate each other. Which means electron and positron actually MERGEs to form LIGHT. Nothing ever disappears out of physical existence unless it vibrates to higher planes.

LIght is an etheric matter that can exist simultaneously in the physical and etheric plane in the SAME state. There is no anti-photon because it is completely neutral.

So Light is the link between the physical and the etheric plane.

So that means, all etheric matter is less dense than light.

So does OBE make you feel like you are floating in light, because light is kinda fluid-like in the etheric plane?

[James S]

Ok, I see what you're getting at.

I still can't really equate the etheric relm to this phenomena, but then, that's just my perspectives. I look at the idea of the etheric world as being energies on a higher order.

Is it possible that using the multiverse theories here might be more suited?

[MindReality]

There is only one antiverse or mirror universe to our physical one.

So it can only be the etheric plane.

Beyond that would be the astral plane which is not even in physical space-time.

Check this out:

http://www.martinkeitel.net/cropcircles/articles/mira1.html

It says each time an ion rises in vibration and moves to the next plane, it reverses it's charge.

So the electron reverses its charge when it moves to the etheric, and it reverses again when it moves to the astral, and again on the mental plane.

[James S]

There is only one antiverse or mirror universe to our physical one.

So it can only be the etheric plane.

Beyond that would be the astral plane which is not even in physical space-time.

I can see where you're problem is with coming to grips with this concept. You're treating possibilities as absolutes, ruling out other possibilities from your beliefs.

How do you know there is only one antiverse?
Why does it only have to be the etheric plane?

You cannot make these statements as if they are fact. They are theory only, making them possibilities, not absolutes.

I checked out the link. I'm sorry, but when it comes to hardcore physics, I need a little more in the way of experience and credentials to go on than "translated from a young finnish contactee."

The ideas put forward on this site are laughably naive becase many of the foundational concepts for most of it are being assumed as solid proven fact instead of theory and postulation.

[MindReality]

The idea of proven is a very relative concept.

What makes you think that something can truly be proven. And if it is, what makes you think that it will be accepted?

Do you think the etheric and astral planes are proven?

If you can go beyond your concept of what is "scientifically proven", you'll see that you do not need what the "scientific community" tell you as proven before you can accept it as something as a fact.

Go to http://www.alternativescience.com and what you experience there will throw your entire paradigm of what you think is naive or not naive out of place.

It is because of the very reason that people refuse to accept certain ideas as fact whether proven or unproven, they have no guidance to rule out what is or isn't.

They put limits where they shouldn't and they don't put limits where they should. They don't know what to rule out and not rule out.

They are confused and will confuse people like you as well. I've done alot of research in these areas to finally know I don't need to follow or not follow what they say.

One of the worst mindsets to have is to believe that you need to see the experience and credentials of the person before you can take what they say is true. Some of the greatest misconceptions come from "highly credible people". It's better to judge an idea directly by itself.

By the way, the websites that I introduce here are not places which I get my ultimate foundations to know what is factual. I judge the authenticity of any knowledge based on the source knowledge that is from the most powerful places.

I was thinking that since this is the astralpulse forums and the metaphysics section, anyone here would be more open to what is not yet "scientifically proven" than others, I guess I was wrong.

Anyway I can see that you have much to learn. So I won't bother discussing with you about this. I know where you're comming from and the mindset you're in. If you'd rather stay in that mindset and not advance to the next level like I did, it's your choice to make.

Perhaps you've got to see the things that others see that aren't, and see if they really are.

[Vilkate]

As bad as being stuck in one "mindset" is also feeling superior to the people who don't automatically acknowledge your opinion.

[James S]

MindReality,

I'll say the following not out of ego, or wanting to boast or appear to be better than any one else here or anything like that, but just give you an idea of where I'm coming from in my perspective.

I'm a medium, a Numerologist, past life regression therapist and Reiki & crystal healer. I work at a college for metaphysical studies so I'm spending my days working with experienced spiritual practitioners.

With regards to "scientifically proven", there's nothing "scientifically proven" about any of what I do. But all of what I do is experientially proven not only by myself, but by many other people as well.

So yes, I do like to see something in the way of credentials. This tells me that the person putting the idea forward at least has put some effort into building a level of workable knowledge and experience.

At no stage have I said that what you're suggesting here is wrong. I've only told you that I don't see how it can work from my perspective and understanding. I've also tried to point out how it doesn't help to make definitive statements of what is and what isn't based on theory and conjecture alone.

Yes absolutely I have much to learn. Its a constantly ongoing process. But I see a difference between seeking to learn with an open minded yet cautious and analytical approach, and accepting any idea that comes along because it seems to fit a particular belief system.

Blessings,
James.