About origin of life and evolution

[pbahchevanov]

Currently there are two basic concepts related to the origin of life. The official, scientific, claims, life is based on some natural force, excluding the opportunity a reason to move the process. The other concept claims life is based on intelligent design, but as a consequence of a miracle.
The concept proposed by the author of these lines is described in details in his books, and here follows a brief resume.
Ignoring the intelligent design means, the particles of our inertial matter to have a property to self-organize in to complex compounds, structures and organisms. And when talk about some natural force that puts in motion the processes is strongly recommended to define what about the question is, otherwise the talk is about foggy natural force.
When talk about intelligent design, based on miracle must be more definite as well.
The current concept accepts intelligent design strongly based on physical regulations and laws and excludes accidental origin and development of life. All that people make in our material world is based on an idea, followed by a plan, made before the action. Should we claim, the most complex, life, is originated and developed without whatever reason, idea and plan?
The particles of our inertial matter are unable to create any complex compounds, structures and organisms. Influenced by the environmental conditions, the inertial matter erodes, and the organic one – decays.
The link that has been ignored by all concepts are the physical fields. The reason is in our mentality to consider all that we are unable to detect as being inexistent. We are able to detect all physical fields emitted by the inertial matter, but unable to do that with the ones emitted by a meter, closed to non-inertial. These fields, called by the author “of third type” have properties such as hyper high velocity and tact frequency. They may create complex closed structures, bearer of coded information. These structures may be the living organisms, not the material particles by themself. They are able to penetrate the inertial matter, to have large memory, to operate the material organisms, performing the complex emotions.
The living organisms are non-material and material. All that we are used to call paranormal is due to this missed link. All blank spots in our concepts too.
According the current concept, life is based on intelligent design. By the Will of God the loop physical fields are created. Every material organism is integrity of such a field and a material body. The material body is nothing more than particles of inertial matter, operated and animated by the field.
It is evidently, there is evolution, Darwin is right. But, the evolution is far from any contemporary theory. The author of these lines has introduced a concept called “Evolution order and chaos”. In brief, if the step between monkey and human was as the contemporary concepts claim, currently and ever would be intermediate links, semi monkeys, and semi humans. This is a chaos that we do not observe. The process of that transition had been initiated at once and never more repeated. By The Will of God. All attempts to find intermediate link failed, the monkeys are and will be nothing more than animals. All attempts to teach them failed as well.
Every specie from the chain is an upgrade of the previous one. Every specie from a horizontal chain is changed the basic one. In his books the author introduced “standard and tolerance” to explain the evolution process in the context of the relations: The Will of God – physical fields – species. Every next specie is created when in the field of the previous an intervention has been done. The intervention is a change of the code system of the corresponded field in the way the code system of the new specie to be created. In that train of reasoning there is evolution as continuum of the origin and there is no evolution that to correspond to our official contemporary concept. The intervention for each transition is made once and never more. After that the organisms adapt in the framework of their standard and tolerance. This is what makes the illusion of some natural evolution.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Just so that I get this straight yes.. And I do not think I will even be able to catch everything thats wrong with this.

The title is "About the origin of life and evolution".
Well props I guess for atleast somewhat acknowledging that there is a difference.

It briefly touches on abiogenesis to just proclaim by divine decree that its impossible for anything to form naturally, thus ignoring quite a bit of evidence already available.
Then jumps to claim that it cannot be natural because the laws of universe where clearly designed to allow for life? (Why drag the origin of the universe into the origin of life?)

Tries to claim that because humans create plans, humans where clearly created by a plan.

Claims there are no intermidate links between "Monkey to man" While there are hundreds. Again ignoring the evidence.

Then says that all evolution go's in a straight line without any divergence? I am not even sure how much further from the truth you could get.

Is there anything in that book thats not either an
Appeal to emotion (We must be here for a reason)
A plain ignoring of the facts (no intermediate)
A missrepresentation of reality by analogy (Dna is clearly a code to be read)
Simply made up on the spot assertions (Natural processes would decay before anything could happen)

 

[pbahchevanov]

Mean living intermediate links to surround us, if the evolution is accidental

 

[Naraoia]

Mean living intermediate links to surround us, if the evolution is accidental

A couple of points.

One. What does the accidental (or not) nature of evolution have to do with when the intermediate forms live(d)?

Two. There is nothing about the theory of evolution that requires intermediates to exist at the same time as the "endpoints" they link. Quite the contrary, though it depends a bit on your definition of "intermediate links". It's a lot more likely with definition (2), and even then, it's a lot more likely at higher taxonomic levels (see below).

Let me elaborate by considering two different definitions of "intermediates".

Definition (1): intermediates are forms that connect two species by direct descent. B is an intermediate between A and D if and only if A evolved into B, which evolved into C, which evolved into D.

For A, B or C to survive, you must meet some pretty specific conditions.

First, the descendant has to live in a different place, or have a different role in the same ecosystem from the ancestor. Why? Because if B is simply better adapted to the same environment that A occupied, then B will outcompete A, B will lose out to C, and then D will outcompete and replace C. By the time you have species D, A-C are long extinct because of D. This reasoning is so classical that Charles Darwin used it:

As natural selection acts solely by the preservation of profitable modifications, each new form will tend in a fully-stocked country to take the place of, and finally to exterminate, its own less improved parent or other less-favoured forms with which it comes into competition. Thus extinction and natural selection will, as we have seen, go hand in hand. Hence, if we look at each species as descended from some other unknown form, both the parent and all the transitional varieties will generally have been exterminated by the very process of formation and perfection of the new form.

Second, assuming that the first condition was fulfilled (i.e. species A was split), each step along the way has to stay the same while only the latest version keeps evolving. Pretty darn unlikely, and the more intermediates, the more unlikely it gets.

Definition (2): intermediates are forms that are more closely related to the descendant than the ancestor and share features of both, but aren't necessarily in the direct line of descent. So, Z can also be an intermediate between A and D if A gave rise to B, which gave rise to C and Z, but it was C, not Z, that evolved into D. Z did something else (say, specialised on a different kind of food).

You are far more likely to find Z and D together than B and D, since Z has found another path and therefore won't compete with the lineage of D.

But still in that case, it is more likely to find such intermediates at higher levels than at the species level. Species are fragile. A group consisting of many species is less likely to go extinct than a single species simply because there are many species in it - and if any one survives, the group survives. For example, you may not find living descendants of every single species that branched off the line leading from fish to placental mammals, but you do find living intermediates in larger increments, in the form of amphibians, "reptiles", and egg-laying mammals. (The longer the time, I think, the larger the expected gaps between living intermediates)

I hope that makes sense.

 

[pbahchevanov]

Dear NARAOIA, thank you for your reply. According the official concept the evolution process has been initiated by chance, spontaneously. Main factors are the aim to survive and to adapt to conditions. All the official concepts are completely materialistic. About the evolution order and chaos. By evolution process according the official concept ever must be intermediate, sorry, if I was not correct, between two species. Semi monkeis semi humans in different stages of development. What we observe during our short time on this planet is completely developed men and monkey that never will be more than monkey. The process has been initiated once and never more repeated. In principle, I do not deny the evolution, it is out of doubt, but according my own concept each specie is an upgrade of the previous, made once and never more. Further we may talk about standard and tolerance. The tolerance gives to each specie opportunty to change according the conditions and to survive.

 

[Naraoia]

Dear NARAOIA, thank you for your reply.

You're welcome.

According the official concept the evolution process has been initiated by chance, spontaneously.

I hope you are aware that those two are not the same. Objects you drop spontaneously fall towards the earth, but there's very little chance involved.

Main factors are the aim to survive and to adapt to conditions.

My emphasis. Huge, and very common, misconception. There is no "aim", any more than a rock "aims" to roll downhill.

Natural selection is a bit like catching particles. If you have a lump of radioactive material that shoots off electrons randomly in all directions, you'll only see the electrons that happen to fly towards your detector - but they are still flying off randomly in all directions. If you have a population that produces all kinds of variation at random, you'll see adaptation because the random variations that go in the wrong direction will not survive. No "aim" needs to be involved, any more than carbon-14 has to aim its electrons towards your Geiger counter.

All the official concepts are completely materialistic.

Evolution is science. Science can only deal with observable things that behave consistently. If there is no pattern in something, we can't make predictions about it, and if we can't make predictions about it, we can't decide whether our explanations are correct. (That doesn't mean they aren't... just that we can't use them to figure anything out.)

Now, I suppose there are "non-materialistic" phenomena that we can expect to cause observable, consistent effects. But I have a strong hunch that the one you would like to see in biology is not one of them.

(Unless you can explain to me how a being that can literally do anything, and is repeatedly said to cause one-off miracles, can be subjected to rigorous testing)

So, aside from the fact that "materialistic" explanations seem quite sufficient to explain the diversity of life, they are also the only explanations science can say anything about.

About the evolution order and chaos. By evolution process according the official concept ever must be intermediate, sorry, if I was not correct, between two species.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Semi monkeis semi humans in different stages of development.

Out of curiosity, what would a semi-monkey, semi-human look like?

I'd say apes are pretty good "semi-monkey, semi-humans", but you obviously disagree...

What we observe during our short time on this planet is completely developed men and monkey that never will be more than monkey.

Most of my previous post was devoted to explaining why that is expected to be the case.

The process has been initiated once and never more repeated. In principle, I do not deny the evolution, it is out of doubt, but according my own concept each specie is an upgrade of the previous, made once and never more.

Ah, I think I see the problem. It's the "aim" thing again.

So, yes, evolution is partly based on chance. There is no law of nature compelling monkeys to keep evolving into humans. Some monkeys once upon a time happened to go in that direction, selection stepped in, and here we are. Most monkeys went other ways. They are not the same as the monkeys that lived 15 million years ago, though. They are still evolving, but you can't tell what they will evolve into until they actually do so.

Because of the element of chance involved, you will not see the exact same evolutionary event happen more than once. Often, two lineages will evolve in similar ways if they are faced with similar environments, but it's still not an exact repetition.

Further we may talk about standard and tolerance. The tolerance gives to each specie opportunty to change according the conditions and to survive.

Yes, pretty much.

 

[pbahchevanov]

OK the non material factors are the physical fields. The particles of inertial matter have as property a reason?
The monkeys on the trees are animals and nothing more. The transition has been stopped.
What about my bloody thinking? I have spent alot of my life by the communists. They did not like the freedom of considering. What about dogma?

 

[Naraoia]

OK the non material factors are the physical fields.

Then I totally misunderstood what you were trying to say. So what about physical fields?

The particles of inertial matter have as property a reason?

(1) What is "inertial matter"? (2) I don't understand the question.

The monkeys on the trees are animals and nothing more.

How about the monkeys on the ground?

Also, I'm sick and tired of this "nothing but animals" line. In what ways are we not "nothing but animals"?

The transition has been stopped.

What transition?

What about my bloody thinking? I have spent alot of my life by the communists. They did not like the freedom of considering. What about dogma?

What does this have to do with anything???

 

[pbahchevanov]

According the official concept the particles of the mater assemble the organic compounds, structures etc. How indeed? Do you know how life is being originated? Panspermia? No algorithms in life? Is life simple enough the particles of inertial matter to make up? How the cells of embryo determine how to differentiate in 3D organism during long years of development?
About the physical fields. The field between the fingers of Ury Geler. The genesis of life is based on these fields, not on chance. Crop Circles - who is the author - hoax, extraterrestialle, wind, lightning? Is there some presence of reason?
We went away from the start point - the evolution, but all these questions are actual. What I mean to be evolution chaos is to live with non developed humans around us and the evolution to continue permanently - for the rest of the monkeys. As a result of an accidental process. All we are surrounded by clearly developed and accomplished species.

 

[Naraoia]

According the official concept the particles of the mater assemble the organic compounds, structures etc.

Right, so we are talking about abiogenesis now. I missed that part, sorry.

How indeed? Do you know how life is being originated?

I highly doubt it is being originated now. If oxygen doesn't destroy the building blocks, you can be sure microbes eat them up long before they could develop into life.

As to how it was originated, there is an increasing wealth of research about that. I'm not terribly familiar with most of it, to be honest, but it seems to me that we're slowly figuring out some important things.

At the most fundamental level, life is made of fairly simple ingredients. Sugars, purines and pyrimidines (which form the "letters" of DNA and RNA), amino acids, lipids. These sorts of things can all form under plausible early Earth conditions, and many of them are abundant in space (including meteorites).

Of course, these building blocks have to be put together to form more complex molecules. This is also quite possible - chains of RNA, for example, can form on a clay surface, while the right kinds of lipids can spontaneously form little bubbles similar to cell membranes when you put them in water.

I mentioned RNA specifically because it's thought to have been the key to the origin of life. Why? One of the defining features of life is that it can reproduce, faithfully copying the information needed to make a working organism in every generation. Most modern life forms (all of them if you don't consider viruses alive) have their genetic information encoded in DNA. RNA plays various roles in translating that information into biological functions.

But DNA doesn't really do anything on its own; it certainly can't copy itself, so a lone DNA molecule wouldn't make a very good ancestor for life. RNA, on the other hand, can catalyse all sorts of chemical reactions, so it's commonly thought that at some point, an RNA molecule managed to catalyse its own replication - and that's how life began. (This self-copying RNA molecule, trapped inside one of the lipid bubbles mentioned earlier, is the simplest living cell you can imagine.)

At that point, you have something that can reproduce and evolve.

The other big steps that had to happen were the invention of proteins (which do most of the chemistry in a modern cell), and the switch from RNA to DNA as the "hard drive" of the cell. All the rest is just coming up with new variations on old things - new proteins, for example.

I usually recommend a couple of awesome videos when someone asks about the origin of life. They are well-made, quite easy to understand (nice graphics!) and based on some really exciting research by some of the most prominent figures in the field. If you're interested, go here and watch the first two videos (The origin of life, and The origin of the genetic code). You can watch the rest, too - in fact, all of cdk007's evolution-themed videos are quite good.

Panspermia?

Depends which version. I'm pretty sure the earth got a lot of organic material from space - but I don't think anything more than that is likely to have come from out there.

No algorithms in life? Is life simple enough the particles of inertial matter to make up?

See above. It very much seems so.

How the cells of embryo determine how to differentiate in 3D organism during long years of development?

Now, that is a complicated topic if there ever was one. To tackle it in its entirety, a whole university course probably wouldn't be enough.

The most fundamental concept to keep in mind here is gradients. Basically, even in the egg, certain molecules are distributed unevenly. The reasons can vary - where a sperm cell enters when it fertilises the egg, or where the mother lays down particular bits of RNA or protein, etc. The upshot is that one side of the cell is different from another, and so when it divides, one daughter cell will be different from the other. As time progresses and the cells keep dividing, the things that make up the initial gradients will cause more changes, which cause even more, and the whole pattern gets more and more complex.

Essentially, all the different gradients eventually create a kind of coordinate system. Every cell in the embryo "knows" where it is because of its chemical environment. This environment determines what the cell does (move this way but not that way? divide? grow? change shape? express a particular set of genes?).

Meanwhile, cells also exchange chemical messages with their neighbours, which can do things like strengthen boundaries (like those between an insect's segments), refine positional information ("you're not just in the heart, but in the tip of the left ventricle"), tell a cell that there are enough of one type of tissue ("we don't need more nerve cells here, don't become one")... and so on.

Much of the information that the cells of the embryo use might remain there for the organism's whole life. If you cut off a newt's leg, it will grow back a leg, and not a head or an eye or anything else. Leg cells still "know" where they are in the body, so when they have to replace lost parts, they'll also "know" precisely what is missing.

In animals like ourselves, where there are dozens or hundreds of different cell types and many different organs with their own complex inner structures, the whole thing is very, very complicated. You can devote a whole scientific career to just one tiny aspect of it, like how nerves find their way from their origin to all parts of the body. But in the first multicellular organisms, it was a lot simpler. For example, the first animals may have been nothing more complicated than this - only a few cells, two cell types and a very simple, symmetrical shape. All of the complexity was added in increments over millions of years.

About the physical fields. The field between the fingers of Ury Geler.

I'm afraid there's only quackery there, no fields of any kind.

The genesis of life is based on these fields, not on chance.

What makes you think so? (And no one said it's based entirely on chance, anyway. Chemistry is fairly predictable, and natural selection isn't a chance process either.)

Crop Circles - who is the author - hoax, extraterrestialle, wind, lightning? Is there some presence of reason?

I'd go for "hoax" as the default hypothesis...

We went away from the start point - the evolution, but all these questions are actual. What I mean to be evolution chaos is to live with non developed humans around us and the evolution to continue permanently - for the rest of the monkeys. As a result of an accidental process. All we are surrounded by clearly developed and accomplished species.

Oh, but "intermediate" forms are developed and accomplished. Otherwise, they wouldn't survive long enough to leave descendants. It's just that later, something even more accomplished, or something accomplished in a different thing, came along. You can't distinguish intermediates from non-intermediates without knowing their future.

Although, sometimes you do wonder.

Look at this creature, for example. Mudskippers are fish. They still need water - to lay eggs, to keep themselves from drying out; they also need their skins wet because their breathe through the skin (like amphibians). But they are very good at being out of water. They have their strong fins to move them about - even climb -, and they can use their tails to jump. And, as I said, they can breathe air so long as they are wet.

Don't they look almost as if they were in the process of evolving into real land animals? (Now, I think that is unlikely to happen, because as soon as they leave the intertidal zone, there is too much competition from already superbly adapted land animals... but if the land was mostly empty, like it was when vertebrates first crawled onto it...)

 

[pbahchevanov]

Thank you. At this point I would like to say, I have my own concept that try to publish, but do not engage anyone wit it. Am far from this to say I'm right. But, would like to cause considering. About the science - with respect to the advantages of the contemporary science. There is no force to stop this process, this is the future. But, to pray, some day no Frankenshtein to be born. And, to know what we eat.
In our material world we have restrictions, for example, cycles of Otto and Diesel, to collect electricity, supersonic flight of massive objects, speed of light. In addition, we are unable to consider what could not detect to be possible - all we recognize es being possible is closed to what can touch and see.
In that context are the physical fields. 500 years ago physical fields do not exist. Today, the space around our planet is blocked by numerous artificial electromagnetic fields. Already, they exist. But, there could exist other fields, which possess quite different properties - hyper high speed and frequency. They do not exist, because we are unable to detect, and never would be. Our mentality does not allow to admit, they could exist. Like 500 years ago.
In brief, these fields has a property to create closed structures and these structures to be constructed as coded systems. The levels may be from simple energy and information to complex living organisms. Impossible! Heretic!
The authors of Crop Circles - intelligent non material creatures. All is based on physics, no miracles, nothing paranormal. Sorry, at this discussion board could not say everything, and finish here. Write my third book and hope to be maximal clear and argued.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Thank you. At this point I would like to say, I have my own concept that try to publish, but do not engage anyone wit it. Am far from this to say I'm right. But, would like to cause considering. About the science - with respect to the advantages of the contemporary science. There is no force to stop this process, this is the future. But, to pray, some day no Frankenshtein to be born. And, to know what we eat.
In our material world we have restrictions, for example, cycles of Otto and Diesel, to collect electricity, supersonic flight of massive objects, speed of light. In addition, we are unable to consider what could not detect to be possible - all we recognize es being possible is closed to what can touch and see.
In that context are the physical fields. 500 years ago physical fields do not exist. Today, the space around our planet is blocked by numerous artificial electromagnetic fields. Already, they exist. But, there could exist other fields, which possess quite different properties - hyper high speed and frequency. They do not exist, because we are unable to detect, and never would be. Our mentality does not allow to admit, they could exist. Like 500 years ago.
In brief, these fields has a property to create closed structures and these structures to be constructed as coded systems. The levels may be from simple energy and information to complex living organisms. Impossible! Heretic!
The authors of Crop Circles - intelligent non material creatures. All is based on physics, no miracles, nothing paranormal. Sorry, at this discussion board could not say everything, and finish here. Write my third book and hope to be maximal clear and argued.

Just checking but you just argued there may be things out there we cannot detect? Fair enough.
Then you go on to argue that if there are these things that we cannot detect they are responsible for life?
I think you skipped step 2, demonstrate there is any reason to believe what you claim to know about these undetectable things in step 3.

 

[pbahchevanov]

The physical fields. We are able to detect all fields - natural or artificial emitted by inertial matter. They have significant restriction - the speed of light. The hypothesis relates to life electromagnetic fields emitted by particle of matter (unknown), closed to non inertial one, for example, plasma. The problem how and when the reason in the Universe has been created is out of my possibilities to explain, and I do not intend to try in any way. But the relation Reason /fields /life is quite different thing.
If you type in Google "automatic drawing" may find a lot of articles. Of course, this topic does not explain the things, but is closed to.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

The physical fields. We are able to detect all fields - natural or artificial emitted by inertial matter. They have significant restriction - the speed of light. The hypothesis relates to life electromagnetic fields emitted by particle of matter (unknown), closed to non inertial one, for example, plasma. The problem how and when the reason in the Universe has been created is out of my possibilities to explain, and I do not intend to try in any way. But the relation Reason /fields /life is quite different thing.
If you type in Google "automatic drawing" may find a lot of articles. Of course, this topic does not explain the things, but is closed to.

Lets keep this organized in a simple format.
Just to be clear, if you are unable to communicate your ideas in a clear way I'm out.
I do not think that is too much too ask.

Q1: We are able to detect physical fields?
A1: Y/N

Q2: There are fields we cannot detect directly?
A2: Y/N

Q3: These fields are detected by their consequence?
A3: Y/N, Explain.

Q4: These consequences include seemingly spontanious appearance of life, and every other currently unexplained occurance?
A4: Y/N, explain.

Q5: The reason for believing these unexplained occurances are the result of a unknown creative force is?
A5: Explain.

Edit:

Q6: What is Inertial matter?
A6: Explain.

 

[Naraoia]

I still want to know what inertial matter is.

 

[pbahchevanov]

My manner of considering is far from ABC, 123. But, of course, the things must be explained in their order, clear and specific as more as possible.
Let keep in mind, this is a hypothesis based on logical chains and arguments.
The basic point of all is physics. In the late 19th century Michelson and Morley, American physicists provide experiments to detect a supposed media for the electromagnetic fields-ether. The experiment is perfect, media not detected. The conclusion – ether does not exist. Further experiments and Einstein put the final point.
The hypothesis is based on the opposite claim – ether exists and is basic, non-inertial matter. It is closed to the processes annihilation and de-annihilation.
In that context, inertial matter is the matter of our world, obeyed to Newton’s mechanic. To put something in motion or to stop something must apply a force
The physical fields that we are able to detect are gravitation (neutral) and electromagnetic, emitted by electrically charged particle – electron, a material particle.
Neutrino is a particle with negligible small mass, but material too.
Photon is according the official concept a particle without mass, non material.
In parenthesis, photon according the hypothesis is impulse of energy. Here the problem is in the corpuscular – wave dualism (quantum optics and wave optics). All these items are arguments of the hypothesis, but there is no place here to explain all in details.
There are natural and artificial electromagnetic fields. We produce now a lot of them, of course, able to detect.
The hypothesis relates to life other a group of fields. As ether, they are undetectable by means made of inertial matter. In that context, the claim, these fields exist needs a serious argumentation. The only way is to obtain arguments and build logical chains.
Next follows the relation between these fields and life. The first link in that chain is probably the question, is the reason material (brain) or there is non material, based on these fields as being primary and material, secondary.
It follows to compare the properties of inertial matter to the opportunities of these (probably existing) fields and to make some conclusions. The speed of light compared to the speed of these fields is as of a snail (according the claims of the hypothesis of course, this is not an official statement).
The physical fields of that third type build very complex closed (loop) algorithmic structures. Only by the conditions of these hyper parameters may be expected the complex structures of living organisms to be available.
All organic substructures that may be separated from the organism and to live independently by defined conditions have own field structures.
An example, how is easy to explain some phenomena in that context. The birds have algorithms implemented in their field structures to fly from / to (migration) besides, their own field compares their position with the magnetic field of the Earth. What we call instinct is based strongly to physical regulations and laws.
Concrete to your questions.
We are able to detect all physical fields related to inertial matter.
Probably; the hypothesis claims so, this is not an official statement.
The existence of these undetected fields may not be proved directly, only argued by some examples and logical chain.
The hypothesis excludes any form of spontaneous origin of life as unavailable.
Structures of such a complexity could not be created without a reason, the unknown force.
Inertial matter has a property mass, and is obeyed to regulations of the Newton’s mechanic. Use this non official term to distinguish the non-inertial one. But, the particles of inertial matter are obeyed to the regulations of the quantum mechanics.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

So.. You have no interest in just answering straight forward questions?

 

[Naraoia]

Well, he did mine. Even if I was extremely lucky to spot it at the bottom of the Text Wall.

 

[Naraoia]

Inertial matter has a property mass, and is obeyed to regulations of the Newton’s mechanic. Use this non official term to distinguish the non-inertial one. But, the particles of inertial matter are obeyed to the regulations of the quantum mechanics.

What particles don't obey quantum mechanics?

 

[pbahchevanov]

Ethereal particles have no motion, no kinetic energy. They contain the particles of matter and antimatter. By applying energy and break the (energy) threshold process of de-annihilation initiates. By the opposite process of annihilation the particle and antiparticle do not disappear into nothing, they lose energy and transform into large ethereal particle. Again, this is not official statement, existence of ether is denied.