‹ Back

Atraills Knight Sanderson

05/21/2025

 

Anti-matter would not surprise me if it turned out to be non-spatialgamnetic at this point. I had been conceptually antithesizing matter's every trait, which could be the case in certain other particles (e.g. tachyons). This was a poor choice of phrase perhaps, using antimatter, yet this is what other scientists had predicted as well. The concept underneath is what is important, less so than the turn of phrases. I simply wouldn't think that gravity attracting anti-matter means it has no spatialgamnetic anti-gravity, as the force of gravity on earth is ever-more powerful than any anti-gravity force. Though I have been refining my framework for in the event that no smaller particles are repelled by anti-matter in a vacuum.

I have been busy refining my definitions of space-time particles which could be at play within the spatialgamnetic field to make certain they are as accurate as possible.

 

Chromodynamics are utilized in antimatter, chromodynamics necessitate antiparticles called antiquarks. This happens within Mass-Energy rather than Space-Time is the biggest denoting factor for my hesitation towards anti-matter, though antiparticles could stretch in a spectrum, towards states of no mass & no energy. Antimatter is simply the electric inverse varient with the same mass. This is what intrinsically links antimatter to mass-energy within the current model. This is where tachyons, and other tachyon-like particles, come into play.