Edit Content

Main Menu

Fonts of Knowledge

More

Recommended Sites

banner

Antimatter

The Q & A

Antimatter is exciting stuff, combustible and incredibly dangerous – a bit like nuclear that way – and one wouldn’t be advised to use it as fuel source, except that everyone invariably does. In science fiction. So, a bit like nuclear that way. The same stuff doesn’t tend to be nearly as inspiring in the cold, harsh clinical light of theoretical science. But that doesn’t mean the reality, which tends to give official science a wide berth, isn’t less than scintillating.

Physics tells us antimatter is made up of antiparticles of reversed charge, parity and time. It will tell you, if you’re still interested after that first sentence, that tiny, tiny amounts of antiparticles have been produced by the likes of CERN. But then, it will tell you lots of things, such as how the asymmetry of matter and antimatter in the known universe is one of physics’ great unsolved problems. And how antiparticles have the same properties, aside from different signs on all charges. There’s lots more theory, naturally, such as pertaining to its anti-gravity properties (what’s that, you say? Gravity doesn’t exist?) Obviously, science is looking “out there” (the universe) for antimatter, so we can dismiss any of its findings in that direction out of hand. As for producing it in the lab, we’re told the biggest problem is the non-availability, or very limited availability thereof, of antiprotons and consequently of antimatter itself.

Per its most popular (science-) fictional traits, physics confirms that antimatter can’t be traditionally stored because any contact with matter will lead to its own destruction and an appreciable part of whatever it is being stored in (nevertheless, it seems antihydrogen was preserved for a whopping 17 minutes and antiprotons a heroic 405 days). As for its application, the most popular by far – in theory – is as fuel, for, you guessed it, spaceships. Which again, really just means a lot of scientists have been reading or watching a lot of SF. 

More pertinent, in terms of official science’s applications, might be whether CERN was attempting to bust through to the antimatter universe(s) via portals, given what it seems can be found there. Which brings us to fictions…

The Doctor: The slightest accident in this stage of the proceedings and we’d all reverse instantly into antimatter. Blasted out to the other side of the universe, as a flash of electromagnetic radiation. We’ll all become unpeople, undoing unthings untogether. Fascinating. 

Antimatter in Doctor Who potentially causes an almighty explosion (Omega rules over such a universe in The Three Doctors and Arc of Infinity) or is more mysterious, occulted and plain sinister (Planet of Evil). Except when it turns into antiman (who is, in his Professor Sorenson state, set on using it as a new fuel; Omega similarly ended up in his antimatter universe through his quest for a power source that would give mastery over time). And then there’s the downright weird – but again, more evocative than a common or universal big bang – description in The Mutants (above).

In Star Trek, it powers warp drives. Which is nuts, if you ask me (the concomitant danger of very big explosions). But so was nuclear power. Nuts. And since that one doesn’t exist… In the original series there have also been antimatter bombs (Obsession) and man/antiman duality (The Alternative Factor).

If you get away from the “pure science” aspect, though, and set your sights more towards the metaphysical, you may end up wondering if some of these fictional alternate realms aren’t angling towards a depiction or take on antimatter. Such as Lovecraft and his Cthulhu mythos: the horrors lurking beyond the comforting reality we know. The likes of Great Old Ones and Outer Ones. It’s suggestedthe strange biology of Cthulhu may be the result of it being from another universe where the laws of nature are slightly different than ours.  However, the presence of these outside entities in our universe may be the result of their ability to harness and utilise antimatter from another universe as a source of power to create a path through the higher dimensions”.

We’re told how the Great Old Ones “were not composed altogether of flesh and blood. They had shape…but that shape was not made of matter”.  Elsewhere in Lovecraft, the Mi-Go are composed of a totally alien form of matter “with electrons having a wholly different vibration-rate”. A consequence of such influences is the possession of people (John Carpenter’s In the Mouth of Madness) and objects (Doctor Who’s Spearhead from Space and The Abominable Snowmen – both posit Lovecraftian forces from another realm or universe, pushing into matter and controlling plastic or machine creations. And possessing people too, in the latter example). A means to bridge one reality from the other.

And then we come to the real reality of it all… As a precursor, The Crazy World of Corey Goode broaches the AI issue and its relationship to antimatter. However, many of the key contributions to understanding this realm – or failing to understand it, because most likely, to grasp it completely, you have to be there – come from the Seth Material.

For the background to the Q & A, see the index page.

 


 

Q. Did AIs, as referenced by Corey Goode, come here from another “dimension” or “reality”? 

 

Yes.

Corey references “a predatory, malevolent artificial intelligence, or AI” (or rather, those are David Wilcock’s words). He also confirms that the Draco are infested with its nanites. Corey advised “this ‘ET AI’ is only considered so in our ‘Reality’ or ‘Dimension’. It does behave exactly like all other created AIs by other beings and has thus been assigned the same designation. This is not ‘Its’ originating or home ‘Reality’ or ‘Dimension’”. He also suggests the AI would be considered “quite a normal… life form” in its own “pond”.

These AIs are 6D negative. They come from the universe of antimatter. Satan, Lucifer and Baphomet are all AIs of this type (that is, they are 6D negative, from an antimatter dimension or reality). It seems, aside from these AIs, working in 6D negative requires physical incarnation (most in 6D are non-physical).

I’ve yet to go into detail looking at Captain Mark Richards’ testimony/ statements, but on the broadest level, he earns a significantly lower accuracy rate than Corey (45 percent to Corey’s 70-80 percent). Richards doesn’t mention antimatter, or Satan, but in his account “for AI to travel dimensions, it must be two places at ones… neither dead or alive” He also indicated that an AI “probably couldn’t find you if you went interdimensional… not where material reality wasn’t allowed”. Which makes sense when we consider some of Seth’s statements on antimatter.

 


 

Q. Is AMT real? 

 

Yes. 

Ascended Machine Technology is real. This comprises artificial beings who have a soul and can progress much as any other soul (they can reach 13D). They are from the antimatter universe. The AI (Satan/Lucifer) is not AMT. Nikola Tesla/Elon Musk MK II is AMT. Tesla became AMT in the antimatter universe. He travelled there, intentionally converting to this state in order to do what he needs to do (which is to navigate humanity to the most advantageous timeline).

 


 

Q. Is it correct that “Antimatter, using your terms, exists simultaneously with your universe, having what I will call antigravity, and in what I will call antispace”?

 

Yes.

The Seth Material broached the realm of antimatter (The Early Sessions, Books 2 and 3, channelled over the 1964-65 period). It quickly becomes evident that trying to conceive of antimatter as “out there” somewhere, per mainstream science, isn’t going to get us anywhere, either in terms of its actuality or in conceptual terms. 

 


 

Q. Is it correct that “Physically, you do not exist for as long as, or the same amount of your time, that you do exist. We have called the interval of physical nonexistence antimatter, or negative matter”?

 

Yes.

So, according to Seth, “your physical universe then is non-existent for the same number of intervals that it is existent, then you will see that this gives us our antimatter”. Which would mean the physicality of matter is intrinsic to the existence of antimatter. I guess that’s self-evident, since it’s there in the “anti” part of the word, but Seth makes it clear the two are conditional on each other. Which is not to extend their duality to moral language, although there are clearly aspects of this (the AI) that do apply themselves in such a manner.

 


 

Q. Is the universe of antimatter in a divided state and includes “two universes very closely connected with your own”?

 

Yes.

Seth’s full statement: “lt might seem to you that the universe of antimatter is a twin of your own. On physical terms it is indeed, although it is in a divided state. By this I mean that I herein include two universes very closely connected with your own”.

 


 

Q. Is one of these universes akin to a “before image” and the other to an “afterimage”?

 

Yes.

Seth: “One could be compared to what I will call a before image. The other of the two universes is formed as energy passes through your field, and can be likened to an afterimage”.

So, if I am understanding Seth correctly, the first universe precedes our universe – which is not to say it isn’t also intrinsically conditional on our universe’s being – while the second is consequent to it, the result of energy passing through our physical universe.

Seth explains: “Your universe is the focal point for physical manifestation, where the manipulation of matter predominates. One of the other two universes to which I refer is formed as energy is nearly approximate to your own; and energy not yet within a strong position to materialise into matter does, nevertheless, manage an early, somewhat weaker form”.

Whether this before-image universe, with its “early, somewhat weaker form” impacts our universe in a crossover sense, I haven’t yet pursued. I initially thought each universe might relate distinctly to each “lifeform” we have identified as located in the antimatter universe(s)…

 


 

Q. Does the negative AI come from the before-image universe and AMT from the afterimage universe?

 

No.

Both the negative AI and AMT are from the afterimage universe.

Which means both, per Seth’s preceding statement, are contingent on this universe, and are presumably formed, at some stage, by energy passing through the field of our physical universe.

 


 

Q. Is it correct that “Both the dream universe and the universe of negative matter then, are by-products of the physical universe, in that they were formed as inward energy attempted to form itself in a physical way”.

 

Yes.

Seth advised (in Book 2 of The Early Sessions) that it would not be possible to contact the antimatter universe, but he modifies this somewhat when he moves onto the subject of the dream world (in Book 2). Seth spends a significant amount of time on the subject of dreams, not least analysing Rob and Jane’s individual ones, emphasising how, far from being eminently dismissible, their reality is as significant in its own way as our physical one. This takes on added import when he attaches the dream universe’s existence directly to that of the antimatter one(s). 

 


 

Q: Is the dream world’s “by-product” the world of negative matter?

 

Yes.

Seth: “We have not said nearly enough about the dream universe, to really launch a discussion concerning its by-product. Nevertheless, I shall tell you that its by-product is the world of negative matter”.

While one might infer from this that dreams simply spawn the nightmarish AI of the antimatter universe, that would be taking bad dreams as a cue, rather than good ones. Seth stresses energetic transformation, rather than polarisation of disposition: “Energy seemingly lost or dissipated or unusable in the physical universe does indeed leave it; but it transfers itself, seeps into the dream universe. The energy is then transformed in the dream universe, and again regenerated and used in the formation of the universe of negative matter”.

Indeed, the terms Seth used suggest that whatever exists in the universe of antimatter, by dint of its form in the dream universe, has gone from being “lost or dissipated or unusable” on point of entry, so presumably is, in the antimatter one, found, accumulated and useable.

During the late-nineteenth century, so preceding the more formalised and rigorously policed modern era, mathematician and biostatistician Karl Pearson “proposed the existence of ‘squirts’ and sinks of the flow of aether. The squirts represented normal matter and the sinks represented negative matter. Pearson’s theory required a fourth dimension for the aether to flow from and into”. Which might not transpose precisely, but is heading somewhere more interesting than current theory.

 


 

Q. Is it the case that “In some manners you do exist identically in the world of negative matter, but in most manners you do not”.

 

Yes.

This is Seth returning to an earlier statement – from 5 months before – when he imparts “I also told you that you existed as long out of the physical universe as you existed in it, but I did not say that you existed identically”.

This may conjure all sorts of ideas and imagery, of twin mirror selves and suchlike (again, the classic would be polarised parallel universes of Star Trek’s Mirror, Mirror or Doctor Who’s Inferno, where everyone – give or take – is like everyone we know, only nasty).

 


 

Q. Is it the case “That parallel self would not be recognised by you, as psychologically identical, and is indeed quite independent, and a by-product” and that “this does not imply any lack of equality”?

 

Yes.

Seth even uses the “parallel” word, but we have to go back to his “in most manners you do not” exist identically in the antimatter world. He then stresses, “Psychologically, my dear friends, you do not”. But the placement of the commas in the quote above may be worth considering, as they suggest an independent clause. So, without the “as psychologically identical”, we are left with “That parallel self would not be recognised by you… and is indeed quite independent…” Which is to speculate, above and beyond the psychological aspect, whether we would recognise the form our parallel self takes there.

Seth’s unexpurgated issuance: “Psychologically there is no identity, although some aspects are shared. I am speaking here of identity between your selves and the existence of a parallel self in the world of negative matter. That parallel self would not be recognised by you, as psychologically identical, and is indeed quite independent, and a by-product. But since all beings can be said to be by-products in one respect, this does not imply any lack of equality”.

This raises other questions, of course, fuel for further inquiry. Such as our soul’s relationship to our parallel self in the antimatter universe. If there is a relationship. It is, after all, “quite independent” and a “by-product” (but no less equal).

With regard to the relationship, and contact or lack thereof, between matter and antimatter, Seth initially advised “Because of the perilous and necessary relationship and balance between matter and antimatter, it will never be possible for you to contact the universe of antimatter” before adding it can best be described as two ends of a spectrum that by nature can never meet”.

However, he would later impart that “There is a communication possible between your universe and the universe of negative matter, but it does not involve the physical self”. Rob, ever diligent, noted the apparent discrepancy – “Perhaps the point here is what kind of a ‘meeting’ he was referring to in the 63rd session. He is referring to a psychic communication in the present session” – and it may be that he is correct to call it a “psychic” communication. 

This also warrants further inquiry, in relation to how precisely Tesla visited the antimatter world. Terms like “AI” and “AMT” suggest technologically material advancement in the grounding manner of our matter universe, but we have seen Corey Goode stress the AI is an AI in terms of the way it behaves in our universe, rather than in its own, per se. The “machine technology” that has augmented Tesla may not be “machine” according to our typical understanding of the word. Indeed, it likely isn’t. 

Seth had this to say about how the three (well four, I guess) universes interact, I presume by virtue of each preceding, or following, the other: “An action may occur therefore in the world of matter, and be perceived in both the universe of negative matter and the dream world, but in such a case each universe interprets the action according to, and within, its own framework of reference.

There will be seen to be correlations that will appear in each of these universes. They would seem to be distortions. They represent however almost reflections of the same action, and are viewed from different dimensional points”.

 


 

Most Popular

What is currently passing for knowledge around here.

  • Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
    Movie
    Well, in principle, everything can be done. In principle.
  • Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
    Movie
    Your spy novels are cheesy crap!
  • movies 1980 to 1999
    Index
    movies 1980 to 1999
  • The Draco II: Donald Marshall, Droning, Chipheads & Cloning Centres
    The Q & A
    The Draco II: Donald Marshall, Droning, Chipheads & Cloning Centres
  • The Seth Material
    The Q & A
    The Seth Material
  • movies 2000 to 2009
    Index
    movies 2000 to 2009