Basic Structures of Matter - Supergravitation Unified Theory (BSM-SG)

Hi,

There is an interesting phenomena in humans, that is really strong opposition if you don't believe in the standard model of physics. Starting with the big bang theory, general & special relativity down to quantum mechanics. Physicists even telling so causes so strong reactions that it reminds me more of religious fanaticism then objective skepticism that should be applied to all knowledge, also the already learned one. When I listen to science podcast like 'the skeptics guide to the galaxy' I often miss a skeptic view towards the standard model which shown only their half serious attempt. I think Rupert Sheldrake puts its nicely in his, by a anonymous scientific counsel banned, TED talk (no explanation given).

Most people do not realize what strange model they are actually believe in. I was raised so to say in the standard model as well and it made more or less sense for me, too - It is not totally useless and give some predictions else wise we wouldn't have it in the first place. But if you look at the details, things start to get problematic and this is one of the reasons I see, why people do not question it, they don't put any time or effort into looking into the problematic parts. We all know here, that LENR is one of the problematic points, but the list is long and this are just some of them, from my head:

Big Bang Theory:
The alternative cosmology publishes an overview of peer reviewed papers, that do not support the big bang theory at all.
Reading through the newsletters like http://www.cosmology.info/newsletter/2014.05.pdf</a> one can not really think that big bang is a clear thing.

Quantum Mechanics:
If Quantum Mechanics describes the Atom, why does it not provide the angles atom create for chemical bindings, every chemistry student has to learn ?
Why does it not provide geometrical explanations between the stimulation and measuring field in NMR
The explanation of Nuclear isomers is rather strange, while it makes much more the impression of a different geometrical shape then some energy state (yes, they must be unstable most of the time).
All virtual particles look much more like a sort of wave then a particle without mass. To think that something can have no mass but some sort of 3 dimensional expansion requires a lot of believe, because nothing in our day to day world is mass-less.
Does it really make sense to assume mathematical logic is true, something required for QM but this question is not even discussed anymore. It was in the beginning of QM but this is not something you can really solve, its a question of believe. Tho, we could wait for logicians to solve that mathematical logic is part of classical logic but I don't believe that this will every be solved
Where do all the QM counting rules come from, like the hunds rule, pauli exclusion principle,...
Is the electron really responsible for all the variety of the atom
Is the atom really round ? http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graphene_SPM.jpg</a>
Newer research showed that the electron is of much more static position, not rotation over the whole nucleus. And then even, if they have opposing charge, why does the electron not fall onto the positive nucleus.
Einstein puts it nicely: "According to the general theory of relativity space without aether is unthinkable" - Thats why could not understand it for so long...

I just stop here, because none of those questions exist for me and I actually want to come to the point

Some month ago I stumbled about the works of Stoyan Sarg, especially the cold fusion article. I was intrigued, I never saw such geometrical structures of atoms and started to look into more of his papers. Then I ordered the main book as well as the cold fusion and space porpusion.
After some more weeks digging into the theory, to be honest, I was so flashed that I could barely think about anything else and even now I'm thinking a lot about physics - I had like an epiphany event. It is like a curtan fell of, and everything started to make sense, I mean real sense. There is no randomness in nature.

A friend of me who does research started a new research project looking into Quantum Computers usage of Uranium atoms. The first thing I did was to open the BSM periodic table, look at the element and telling him what QM properties U will have and which element also would be interesting for this application
Some weeks ago I was giving a 1 hour presentation of BSM-SG at a hacker conference, because I think it's interesting theory and usually people don't get in contact with alternative physical models. Somebody asked me: "why does the electron do a wave pattern in a double slit experiment ?"
I never thought about this since I adopted this theory nor did I read about it yet, so I could not answer this question. The rest of the conference this question fascinated me and I was thinking about it quite some time. After like 3 days the answer popped into my head and yes, it must make a wave pattern and I instantly had a experiment in my head that should show that it does always have to. I already had contact with Stoyan, because I have the plan to implement a numeric simulator for BSM-SG because I want to know if this theory really fits, and having a numeric simulator would allow to test it on a new way. If the theory is right, such a simulator would simulate reality fully, even laws we have not even discovered yet. Anyway, I wrote him my explanation and experiment and he came to the same conclusion and had the same experiment in mind.
If it is true what Feynman said, that the wave pattern of an electron is the only mystery in physics and 3 days thinking about this problem in this theory gave me a total logical answer, there must be more to it.

Did somebody else dig into this theory in depth and found any errors, because I simply can't see it. For me everything there makes sense and it replaced my model of physics.
Standing on the right side is very exciting.

So, if you ask yourself how the Q-Thruster works, it is totally clear for me. You wonder why they discovered the "warp bubble" inside the drive, of course, this is predicted by BSM - tho they have no idea what they are doing and therefor their drive is utterly inefficient (it's more a wonder they even can measure torque ;)).
You wonder how cold fusion works, It's clear for me - hot fusion is the inefficient form of fusion, first one happens much more often in nature then currently believed. I would even say that a lot of our earth core heat is also from large parts to fusion.

I will answer you any question about the theory as far as I can, but you will need to dig into it yourself of course. For me this was one of the most valuable findings ever

kind regards
poelzi

I read the cold fusion book first as well, but I really suggest reading the main book as it makes some stuff much clearer.

You know, who is a physicist anyway. I think that everybody who spends time thinking and understanding the physical world as we experience it, is a physicist. I see no difference between chemistry and physics and I go with Ph. M. Kanarev: "Nature laws are uniform, and the person that has divided them into physical and chemical laws has lost touch between them."

For quite some years I studied physics, but it never made so much sense to me and learning was slow (usually a bad sign as I now understand). I was in the perfect position when I discovered BSM-SG, understanding enough of the standard model to know how strange it is, but not beeing
blinded into believing everything though years and years of working deeply in the theory. There are quite some psychological effects in us humans that are more of a hindrance then a benefit :-/

When you look an nickel and palladium in the BSM-SG atlas, you see the symmetrical upper 8 arms. This is where the magic happens and the
Closed Proximity Bindings of the Palladium seems even more effective then the Electron Bindings of the Nickel. Those 4 arms have some degree of freedom, in this case only in the horizontal direction.

It is important to understand what the coulumb barrier in BSM-SG is. It is a resonance mismatch in the CL Nodes of right handed Fundamental Partices.
The filling of the proton outer shell, made of Rectengular Lattice synchronizes with its twisted part, the CL Nodes of the same right handed fundamental Particles. When 2 atoms start to get close, both atoms try to synchronize the same CL Nodes in between, causing a opposing force, the coulomb barrier. In the very close field of the proton you have also a synchronization field of left handed nodes, created by the pion- inside the shell that leaks through - thats why the electron does not get stuck to the proton.

We are seeing a isotopic change in the Ni reaction. In the BSM-SG model, the lower Argon cores are basically done, you can't change them anymore, or add new Neutrons. The electron bindings between the protons of the upper arms, cause enough gap, for a neutron to slip over.

The question is now, where does the neutron come from. The neutron is just a proton that is folded in the center (no electron there). I could imagine that the hydrogen sits with its larger round holes on top of the arms, and gets folded by the arms to a neutron, slipping onto one of the arms (this will should not emit a neutrino wave, as it is not a stressfull neutron -> proton decay). Another likely source of a neutron could be the Li7. The neutron over the single top proton gives its neutron to the Ni, releasing energy because the higher concentration of mass releases relativistic mass effect energy from the cosmic lattice (static Zero Point Energy).

It is a bit unclear from the lugano report: Did they still find Li6 in the ash, and was the quantity of Li6 in the ash maybe Li6 + Li7(-n) from the fuel ?
Also I would be very interested to know if He was in the "fuel" "ash". I think its likely that both Li donate their proton (+ neutron) and become He.

The Palladium process is different I think. The 4 arms have very close bindings between them, I think a neutron will not slip over this. What pd seems to do, is to sychronize the columb barrier between deuterium atoms, so they call slip into each other, forming a He atom.

In my book the sodium model looks right, or do you mean the 2. neutron on top ? This can be stable, only a single proton is not capable of holding 2 neutrons due the low mass.

I think it explains the distribution of Atom decay. Our fission is basically a brute force technology. You cause asymetries in the nucleus that has no chance of balancing itself again, or by simply knocking of a part. The asymetric nucleus is unstable and decays in more asymmetric fragments until something symmetric comes out. A rather stupid process getting energy out of the aether

poelzi

Quote from JAROVNAK

I to have read all of Stoyan's book & find his theory extremely
easy to follow & rationalize. To me it also gave great insight into
the make up of elements from an innovative unique view.

Did you have the same felling as me, that since I understand BSM-SG, the standard model became like the most absurd theory ever ?
Just all the paradoxes in the space-time concept make me giggle, timetravel backwards in time. More dimensions then I have fingers and nothing seem to fit anymore

Don't get me wrong, it is just a model for me and I greatly accept something else, but it has to be even better then that or I find something that would not fit or totally contradict the theory and can't be fixed

My plan is now to crowdfund a numeric simulator for the model, so, in some years we can try to simulate cold fusion in the bsm-sg model (I'm realistic here: first versions will most likely just be able to simulate 1 atom or so due computer architecture limitations) and some other stuff

Quote from CedricE

I don't have the knowledge to be able to question the BSM theory but I'm very curious about it. I have two questions:

1) Are there any rebuttals to this theory? Are there any unexplained contradictions or reasons why it might be false?

It seems nobody found anything since 2001 while everything I find as unexplained phenomena start to make very much sense since I adopted it.
My longer term project is to implement a simulator to test it on a numeric scale and test if the model predicts what we have measured.
I would like to hear at least one real argument, but nobody could provide me one.
Funny sidenote: as everything in this theory is classical logical and you believe in logic following applies:
It uses 3 basic assumptions:
1. 3 dimensional empty euclidean space without physical properties.
2. 2 fundamental particles with intrinsic energy
3. 1 law of attraction (SG law)

If you accept these 3 assumptions and don't find any logical error, the theory must be true (much better then a dozen particles and a dozen dimensions while still not explaining a lot of effects observed, even predicting the opposite.)
And honestly, those 3 I can accept and they make sense. Theory must of course fit the experimental data and that it does.

Quote from CedricE

2) If I'm not mistaken, the BSM-SG theory would explain the lack of radiation from LENR experiments and the reason why the Coulomb barrier isn't preventing the nuclear reactions. Does it also predict the effects of magnetic fields (DC, AC, fuzzy, etc.) in LENR reactions such as the theorized nickel/lithium/hydrogen reaction?

Yes. It even gives you tools how to use some effects to boost efficiency. Someone up for building a reactor, I don't have a proper lab/workshop available

Quote from backyardfusion

I've just started looking into BSM-SG theory (Just ordered the book as well) and I must say it looks very interesting. But thought that we had confirmed that some/most atoms had spherical shapes? For example, in the picture seen here.

What evidence is there that confirms they have the BSM-implied shapes?

Also you spoke of a numerical simulator of BSM-SG -- What are the basic things this simulator would simulate? I've got a pretty good background in computer programming and computer science so I might be able to attempt at a non-visual simulator.

If I look at this image they don't look round
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…:Graphite_ambient_STM.jpg
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/nanophys/stm.html
http://cdn.phys.org/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/graphene.jpg
http://web.nano.cnr.it/heun/home/stm/stm-2/
http://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=2616

(It also depends on the material. in graphene you see the connections a predicted by bsm-sg very well)

At least, you see the connection in some images.
I explain it this way:
How does such a machine work, you have some sort of stimulation and a sensor. But you are not putting out just the sensor data, you use some sort of interpretation.
You try to filter out data points that do not fit and try to reduce noise to get a better picture. But all the algorithms you use are ultimately based on the model you use, the knowledge you have, the way you interpret reality.
You are bound to it, you can never think outside your model, you can change it, you can adjust it, but ultimately you are bond to it.
I can't tell you how exactly the instrument is constructed, I don't know the software they used to process the data. If you think atoms are round and you try to highlight the center, you could easily filter out some of the bridges you see in some images, but not in others.

What in my opinion supports the geometric structure the most is, that it shows the angles between atoms in chemical molecules very precise, and that's the real measurement for this. If you don't get the same geometric structures that chemists have shown and not just simple molecules, complex ones like DNA, your model can't be right. Chemists just learn the angles in the study, its like a tool set, but without the concept of supergravity, you can't get to the exact behavior, that's why complex processes like protein folding can't be simulated reliably.

Chemistry and Physics are the same thing

The simulator is a toolkit and a numeric simulator on most likely prism level. I have a long IT background as well, but never did such a simulator before - it is hell to simulate I can tell you, never imagined something can be that hard, even the underlying forces are so simple...
I started but have not put anything online yet, because I choose rust as the programming language and have to learn it on the way, then I'm currently heavy in physics learning mode, inventing tons of stuff (magic for most, totally logical for me), doing plasma experiments and trying to the a fundraiser going and stupid work of course... When I get some money for the project things will get traction, this needs a real team. But I'm happy for everybody who wants to contribute

Hi Prophecy,

Very nice to hear that others find this model as clean and logical as I do.

Like every model, it takes some time in the beginning to make sense. For me my first eureka like moment was after 3 month heavily investigating the model. Some parts, especially the SPM/NPM vectors need weeks to really wrap your head around it. The behavior, is very complex, even when the structure is quite simple. Also how the prims are build and the internal structures of protons.

I'm still heavily studying the model in much detail, checking if newer research papers fit the model as expected.

I changed my opinion tho. When I made the presentation I found it very interesting and that should be investigated further, but since then, as I understand more and more about the model, especially phase of galaxy crystallization (Chapter 12), I'm fully convinced of this model, that it is actually the model our physical world is implemented in - at least, not until I find at least one non theoretical paper that contradicts this model

I have one idea I'm investigate, but have no mathematical model yet:
One thing that kind of bothers me, why the 2:3 ratio between the fundamental particles. This looks like to much design for me, so what I try to investigate is this:
Maybe there is a irreversible process of particle compression in the galactic nucleus (super massive black hole in the center of well formed galaxies), that compresses the larger FPs until enough small ones are available for the crystallization to occur properly. The compressed ones would then of course have a different resonance frequency due it's higher density.

Now, just reading the 2 small books is challenging, as they are meant as additional books to the big one. Many of the details of the model are not described in them. Stoyan said to me, that he didn't want to make the big book to large, as people are often driven away from very large books and it is already quite big.

Regarding 1:
It is not antigravity. There is no such thing as antigravity, but what you can do is, to disturb gravity propagation. And this is what the SARG thruster and the Q-Thruster (quite inefficient tho) do.
The mass of Cosmic Lattice is quite high 2.07 × 10¹² kg/m³ (BSM 12.A.6.3.2).
You basically have attraction in all direction all the time, but due the fact that it's in all directions, they cancel each other out. If you now disturb the propagation on the bottom more then on the top of your spacecraft, you get a uplift. So, it is not anti-gravity, but a anomalous reaction in gravity propagation

I tried to start replicating the SARG-Thruster but unfortunately the high voltage power supply I have is unsuited to cause the effect and I have to admit, I'm a terrible electric engineer
Also, I don't have a good workshop to my usage, only some tools in our local hackcenter.

Currently I have two HV power supplies, but both unusable for a SARG Thruster:

http://highvoltageshop.com/epa…9abc4/Products/PLASMSP_v2
http://highvoltageshop.com/epa…9abc4/Products/HVSUP_50kV

I changed my plan a bit. We founded a non profit organization in November called "Supergravity Foundation" - http://supergravity.org to further investigate the model and develop open source products coming out of it. Sorry that the website is not yet filled as I would like it to be. The new software just launched this week so there is still a lot to configure, and there is still a lot of dummy texts in there

Unfortuntely, I also think that Guy McPherson is right - which gives as a quite small time-frame to fix the mess we are in. I think ~10-15 years and maybe 40 to leave the planet. Something like this is impossible to do in free time and that's the reason I founded the Supergravity Foundation.

I try now to get things running there, get people on board and find some sponsors until crowdfunding can be run properly. If we don't get our shit together, we will end up as a extinct species like many other half intelligent species like us before. I don't think that the other intelligent being will help us - the way we are acting as a species is even for me so disgusting, that I can hardly imagine somebody wants us infesting other planets. We not even can take care of our own planet, because we are so busy with bullshitting and killing each other over resources and power.

For me, this model is the last hope for humanity, that's why I'm doing everything in my power to use it for good and driving it forward. Most people never went down the rabbit hole, I hardly find anyone who even gets in what mess we really are - very sad

So, regarding 2), I would like that very much. I'm always for cooperation and joint efforts.

kind regards
Daniel

Quote from Karl Fischer

I finally got started on reading the main book after several months of delay. So far (still in chapter 2) everything seems logic but questions keep popping up in my head.

Does BSM-SG explain the working principle of the "Nassikas thruster"?

Thats very nice to hear. You will need some time to really digest Chapter 2, it is quite complex

So, just looking shortly at the schematics I would say: yes. In the BSM model you have to distinguish 2 kinds of acceleration: Impulse based and Gravity based. Impulse Based work like our rockets, while the SARG-Thruster, Q-Thruster and the for me new Nissikas Thruster seem all to be Gravity Based. You can't have anti-gravity, but you have gravity pulling in all directions due the mass of the Cosmic Lattice. If you disturbe gravity distribution, you get pulled, even upwards from earth. Depending on your actuall design, gravity based thrusters have one HUGE advantage, they don't cause a change in the inertia of the accelerated mass, they basically have the Star Trek Mass Damper already build in
The advantage of the SARG Thruster compared to all other thrusters is, that you build a buble of increased speed of light and can therefor travel much faster in the end, you can also not overcome the speed of light barrier in the BSM model (not entirely true, but the required energy for it is so enourmous, finit but enourmous). But, as a derived value, some of the fundamental influences can be accessed.

Quote from Karl Fischer

Is there any support in BSM-SG for the "Searl effect generator" or is it just the hoax that everyone says it is?

I stumbled upon this also, but have not made up a final conclusion yet. If fulfills many of the theoretical requirements and Ideas coming from the theory. My current interpertation is, that it uses the ZPE-D (Dynamic Zero Point Energy) to pull some energy out of the Cosmic Lattice. Basically you remove a bit of Energy for the Vibration of the CL nodes. This Energy is then automatically refilled by Zero Point Waves, constantly sweeping through our Galaxy. Those are driven by every moving solar object, everytime a photon losses its boundary condition etc.
You have very strict energy conservation in the BSM model, ultimately, you can't destroy Energy, as you can never destroy a fundamental particle and those are the ultimate carrier all the Energy. All the Energy we are seeing, is high level Energy due the geometric configuration and organization.

Quote from Karl Fischer

Maybe it's not the FP's that have a 2:3 ratio. You can build tetrahedrons with different number of the same size FP's to get the 2:3 ratio: 4 FP's and 10 FP's.

But in the beginning, you have only fundamental particles, not organized in any way. Due to the Supergravitational Force, they attract each other to a massive bulk, the supermassive black hole in the center of galaxies - that is basically the highest density of matter you can have. In this bulk you need 2 different particles to explain the process of crystalization and prism formation later.
The size must be a non common divider, because otherwise you don't have a frequency bitting effect. This means, they attract each-other, but at certain distance, their attraction causes repulsion due to their none harmonic frequencies in vibration. Through this frequency bitting effect, those substances become none-mixable and can build up borders. It becomes more clear in Chapter 12 where the quantization of our space comes from, why it behaves so uniformly, why all electrons are of same mass.

The process of galaxy crystallization is actually quite simple once understood, but it has different phases and in is in sum still complex.

It could be, that the small FPs are actually large FP's that got compressed due the enormous pressures inside the galactic nucleus.
But then the question arises: why are there only exactly those two kinds, and not some intermediate sizes. Those could disturb the crystallization process quite strongly.
So, this is an open hypothesis I'm investigating, but I would say, without numeric simulations those can not be answered. None of those processes.
Another question I'm investigating is Anti-Matter in Matter Galaxies, those could also be very, very, very bad, until the point that a galaxy can't recrystallize anymore, basically, killing a galaxy forever. (Not the Anti-Matter they produce in particle accelerators - the natural one is quite different).

Quote from Karl Fischer

Suggestion: Add a 3d animator to the jobs section on your website. You will need video to educate people.

About investigating the model and developing open source products: If I can be of any help, count me in. I see the necessity of developing a better understanding of nature. Currently humanity is in free fall and we don't have much time before we hit rock bottom. I don't want to sit around and just let that happen.

Sometimes I'm quite surprised, that this forum has to have so many people that actually understand our situation. Nearly nobody that I talk to, really grasps what dilemma we are in and that our time runs out, fast.

Yes, 3d animations are a key thing making this model more understandable, will add jobs for that. Definitely should finish the website soon - better go back to work

kind regards
Daniel

In fact, when you read and understand the BSM-SG theory, you will find so many ideas from many different scientists spread throughout the theory. I guess many of them came up in the process of the BSM analysis, but I guess the amount of papers he said he read while doing this, had a good influence as well.

I think our largest problem we have is our own mind. We like to think complicated, we think that everything is complicated - but I think we just got nature upside down. Yes, reality is complex, no question about that. But where ever we look "how nature does things", it uses a simple process and does it just very often, parallel and with perfect interaction.

Look for example of the shape of the brain. A very complex geometric structure. Turns out, the underlying principle is simple: the outer layers of the brain grow faster then the inner ones. Start with a smooth brain shaped like the human one and if you simulate (calculated and with physical model where done), it develops like the human one does.

Same with teeth, the first one defines the size and the neighbor just gets a bit smaller. Simple principle and outcome is perfectly balanced teeth sizes.

This is what cause my trust in this model, it uses very simple principles in every aspect, just the level of detail is very different. Even a Neutrino becomes a very large structure.

I was thinking about fundamental particles this weekend a lot and tried to imagine how this unorganized bulk matter would behave here.
So strange: It should be in smaller droplets like water, with very little refractive index and cause more some sort of heat disturbance on light. Then when it gets bigger, it starts to break the boundary condition of a photon and becomes blackish. It is much more fluid then a super-fluid and incredibly dense. Everything we have is really light compared to that. And yet, if you would put it into a bucket on a planet, it would just flow trough into the planet

Unfortunately, chances that such small bulk matter blobs exist near a galaxy cluster are very small to none. As we live in a very good spiral galaxy, this part of the universe is most likely very, very old and has gone through multiple cycles building up the large rotational momentum.

Quote from Karl Fischer

The first one is about the cosmic lattice (CL): What happens when matter from one galaxy enters the CL from another galaxy?
fields of those CL spaces are Does the chemical behavior of the matter change in the new CL? If so, does that mean that intergalactic travel is impossible because you would die in the new CL?

Wow, you are fast and it is very nice to hear when other people find it as logical and consistent as I do. It is simply more likely, that our physical world works on a more detailed grade and simple principles then high abstract complicated mathematical models that partially are beyond human logic.

When we talk about matter from other galaxies we have to first distinguish between Antimatter and Matter galaxies. Lets take the simple and normal case first, that is of matter. Side-note for those not have read the book: The BSM theory says, following: an undisturbed unorganized mass of fundamental particles will always crystalize after a certain size into either matter or anti-matter. The chances for an undisturbed mass is 50:50. If particles from another galaxy seed this pure mass, the chances increase to end up in the seeds configuration. It is unclear yet how much of matter loses this configuration on a galaxy collapse and if a galaxy can change if enough foreign matter is introduced, but a galaxy tries to stay in its configuration.

So, lets talk about different cases in matter:
You can have matter made from a another galaxy or from the previous cycle of the galaxy, there is no difference as the length/diameter ratio of the prisms usually differs. Matter like this actually exists as Type II Cepheids stars. Another form are Quasars as they are pulsars from matter different then the host galaxy. They burn into neutrinos which decay into CL nodes causing a tube of CL space made from its matter. If such a tube connects two globular cluster the quasar effect ccures as light hydrogen will pass through the curled tube emitting RF signals. A large Cepheid can also create those CL bubbles if it decays with a supernova or pulsar.
Pillars_of_Creation could be CL space from couple of pulsars that left their galaxy clusters and while burning they created this CL space mixture. It looks very much like the Antanae Galaxies "dust" which is according to BSM mixed CL space - but in that case it a galaxy merger. CL space of different matter does not mix well and will cause many GSS which causes therefor many "galactic redshifts".

Anyway, what happens is, that matter in foreign CL space will function suboptimal as the energy exchange between the electrons and the foreign CL space is not perfect. So, it is very likely to assume that chemical bonds will not be perfect, certain energy transfers between electrons and the CL space will also suffer. I think you could even see a signature of that in a spectral analysis.

In the case of antimatter in a matter galaxy or vise versa things get complicated. It could be, that it is optically not possible to see that something is anti-matter an a matter galaxy. If this matter however comes in contact with matter and after a certain temperature, they start to disintegrate heavly. The antimatter will not have a proper Coulomb field in a matter galaxy and much lower input energies will be enough for the helical cord of the proton shell to break.
Please note that according to BSM, we will never be able to generate anti-matter in a particle accelerator and those particles DESY and other labs produce have a different explanation. Their lifetime will never exceed 1 second much while real antimatter is as stable as matter. Only Supermassive Black Holes can form matter in certain phases of galaxy evolution and the matter/antimatter bit is very much down at the beginning of this process. We likely have left handing on the small ones and right on the large while it opposite in the antimatter case. The matter-antimatter reaction never causes fundamental particles to disappear, only high level structures get destroyed.

As I see it currently, when a anti-matter asteroid disintegrates we will see something like this: 2009_Jupiter_impact_event. The matter disintegrates into anti-matter CL space and at the same time normal matter disintegrates into CL space of the host galaxy due the enormous amount of energy released (E=mc²). As the angles of the TP fields are not compatible, a photon will loose its boundary condition of the magnetic wave (Chapter 2), therefore it disintegrates into undirected EM waves and Zero Point energy. The CL space of this will be highly irregular and behavior in it very weird. Without some numeric simulation it is hard to say how stuff will work in there, but very bad I would say. Chemical bindings could become brittle for example.

So to answer your last question if intergalactic travel is possible: it depends on the galaxy you are going to and it is hard to say with certainty, if the suboptimal quantum effects would kill a human being for example. We are very complex but yet quite robust, but if for example a absolute necessary enzyme stops working, you are screwed. I guess, that you will be compatible with some but not all other galaxies and you should better stay out of antimatter ones

I asked Stoyan about this, if my analysis of this makes but have got an answer yet.