Reply #2: An argument for imbalance as metaphor.

[RandomThoughts]

Claiming first that what is current is matter, and out of balance with what is bad antimatter. Note that they make up the antimatter.

If they want to talk about star trek drive, then it is not about matter antimater first off. Second ion drive is slow constant acceleration, like years of force over much time to reach high speed, so it would be easier to see effects as ion drive.

they also make the claim of right in imbalance, then claiming that balance would be destruction, but they speak of matter not energy.

Note that it was posted long ago that antimatter and matter do not destroy each other, so their use of that metaphor misses that part and is part of destruction doctrine. But what is worse is by thinking in terms of matter not energy they miss that light is a form of energy, as is other dark things. And in that construct, outside of matter thought, but in energy thought, light does not destroy but when in contact it turns dark to light. And most matter does not allow light inside, although some like water does.

Unfortunately they chose an analogy that puts imbalance of current system as if it is correct. And further postulated that imbalance is needed for existence and part of plan of existence, thinking in terms of matter not light

It is interesting spin, using a matter argument in areas of energy. It also shows where their mind frame is.

Note that they not only use labels in normal matter form, but they also talk of destruction in collision, and claim current existence is better by that imbalance. In light dark realities light turns dark to light, which is not a destruction doctrine.