The galaxy model for the atom is just that- it
says atoms are identical to galaxies; just smaller.
This means that electrons correspond to galactic arms,
and are not ‘fundamental’ or ‘point’ at all, but are
in fact composed of a hundred million stars with
planetary systems. It’s just that these suns and
planets are made from the next atoms down. Sub-atoms.
These sub-atoms are much too small to interact
with our light, so they are invisible to us. But, they interact
gravitationally with us. Electrons and other sub-atomic
atomic parts are all made from various configurations
of this finer matter. This finer matter or electron
matter or dark matter, if you will, is everywhere in Space
like an ocean, and like an ocean it possesses currents and
tides and vortices. It is vortices of these sub-atoms that
carry a galaxy’s stars around and form the ‘black
hole’ at its center. Regular matter can’t spin nearly as
fast as these vortices of sub-atoms do at their centers
and it gets split up and shot away as jets when it gets in
too close.
Call it dark matter.
Call it electron matter.
Call it sub-atomic matter.
It is matter at the next level down
in this atom/galaxy fractal Universe, and
it plays a huge part in how our matter behaves.
The idea of a fractal universe is very appealing, but unfortunately the forces that be decided otherwise. And that includes a fractal spinning. There are similarities. But they don’t extend very deep or far.
It’s true, as the OP asserts, that a galaxy has a vaguely similar shape as that of a monoparticle. But that’s about where the similarity ends. A sub-atomic monoparticle (electron, positron, neutrino) has no particles within, nor discernible constructs. The polyparticles such as a proton or a nucleus are made of lesser “almost particles” meshed into a single blob but in three dimensions. Galaxies are universally “flat spirals”. All isolated (non-molecule-fixed) particles have a degree of spin. But an atom sometimes does and sometimes doesn’t, depending on its environment. And molecules seldom have spin. Then everything else above the level of a molecule (the tremendous amount of chemical and biological structures) almost never have spin for more than a brief moment. That is until you get up to planetary structures which almost always have spin, “orbit”.
The general rule for spin;
To ensure spin, one has to ensure that the size of the whole is much greater than the size of any component within. Once that is established, spin can’t really be avoided.
The universe “as a whole” would qualify for spin if and only if it has a viable perimeter and thus a center. A large, somewhat isolated “local universe” such as it seems we live in would qualify and can have spin if it is extremely separated from other similar local universes, which might be the case. I haven’t entirely analyzed astrophysics for purity of thought yet. But some things can be easily discerned.
The fallacious Big Bang theory would assert that our local universe has a perimeter and thus a size and center. But justifying any spin would be tough. But then justifying the theory at all has been impossible. The best resolve might be that some extremely large black holes eventually collided head on (rather than the ones we see that have a decaying orbit around each other). If they accept a collision as their “Big Bang”, it would then make since and actually be unavoidable that our local universe would have spin.
So spin is very common, but it has limits and requirements which don’t exist below the sub-atomic level and are rare between the sub-atomic and planetary scale. But then become common again above the planetary scale, yet are still dependent on relative environment.
Why can’t smaller things spin?
Or are there no smaller things than
sub-atomic particles?
If sub-atomic particles were made from
matter that was very, very much smaller than
ours, that matter would be invisible to us; only
interacting with us gravitationally.
So, that’s why you don’t see it spin.
In case anybody is genuinely wondering how feasible this idea is, I’ll answer:
It’s already proven that all electrons are perfectly identical. All photons are as well, and I’m pretty sure the same is true of protons and neutrons. Not identical as far as we can see, not identical by all measurements we’ve made so far but maybe different by some variable or on some level we haven’t measured, perfectly identical.
Think about that. Think about that deeply. Think about why that might be a problem for this idea. If you think carefully, I think you’ll see that it blows this idea out of the water.
That’s it. It takes quite a long chain of definitional logic to see that there is no opportunity for any smaller particles, but it is all logically provable. The electron, positron, and neutrino are the fundamental monoparticles (negative, positive, and neutral respectively).
Presuming that “A is A” and “existence requires affect”, leaves no alternative. The other sub-atomic particles are polyparticles formed of smaller, “almost-particles” along with all of the affectance (mass) that forms between them and keeps them together (what physics calls “gluon particles”, although not actual particles). An atom’s nucleus is actually a single polyparticle made of what could have been protons if they weren’t trapped, “glued together”. What they call “quarks” are actually just positron-wannabes “glued together”. But I should admit that I haven’t actually created a proton yet, so I am speaking a little early.
Each inner almost-particle is not really totally free to spin, but on the other hand, it cannot merely be completely rotation free either. What it does is compensate for disturbances which often requires a spin, a reverse spin, a tumble, and so on. But it isn’t really like a larger bowling ball spinning.
A subatomic particle is constantly reforming itself from its ambient field and it merely reforms itself a little more in one direction than in another, thus producing what could be “called” a spin, rotation, or even migration. Gravitation is caused merely by particles reforming themselves instant by instant closer to the stronger surrounding mass field (because it is more dense), thus migrating or “gravitating”. There is no actual “pulling gravitation force”/“attraction”. Such is merely an aberrant appearance and resultant effect.
So even sub-atomic particles are not always literally spinning, but always changing with some degree of spin involved. The spin could never be absolute zero.
Yeah that “could be” if you don’t know any better.
Actually the fundamental particles are formed of extremely smaller “wavelets” that are, in effect, trying to get through to the other side of the gathering of wavelets. The particle is merely a cluster of such wavelets that crowded into a self-sustaining traffic jam, much like cars on a highway after an accident. The cars are merely trying to go on their way, as are the wavelets. But each car slows the cars behind it (and around it) just as each wavelet slows the ones behind it (and around it). Thus the form of the traffic jam hangs around much, much longer than any of the cars or wavelets. A particle is merely an “EM traffic jam”.
As each tiny little wavelet finally gets through the jam, another enters the jam. So the jam appears as a super thick concentration of EM wavelets = “mass”. A “mass field” (gravity field) is actually made of EM wavelets so distributed as to yield zero over all EM potential, but extremely numerous and crowded changes in EM potential on an extremely small level. The changing rate and distribution of the EM potential is what creates all fields.
This all relates to the speed of radiant EM, which determines the size of all things. Radiant EM absolutely must travel at a specific speed. Logic dictates that as an immutable fact (regardless of any observations for or against the notion). Those wavelets that I was talking about, before delayed in a traffic jam, travel at that speed. When they form a traffic jam, that traffic jam ends up with a very specific size relating to the EM propagation speed. That is why all electrons, or positrons, or neutrinos are the same size (of their type).
We can measure how quickly an EM wave passes a particle and thus know its size relative to that EM propagation speed. And we also know (and can logically prove) that a larger EM wave travels at almost exactly the same speed as a smaller EM wave (actually just a tiny hair faster, being necessarily of a lower frequency). And the “wavelets” that I had just mentioned are ultra small compared to even the tiny gamma ray EM wave.
Because we can know how fast the gamma ray propagates, we can deduce how fast the smallest EM wave propagates. The smallest possible EM wavelets are what creates the smallest possible particle. And we can calculate what size of particle forms due to that speed.
Then because we know that any larger EM wave will not substantially change in propagation speed from the smaller ones, we know that a larger fundamental particle, merely from larger waves, could never form. It would violate the “speed-to-size” ratio. But much slower traveling entities, like the fundamental monoparticles, can form much larger polyparticles. We can then compare the size of those polyparticles to the EM propagation speed and even if we didn’t know that the polyparticles were “poly”, we could have guessed it merely due to the polyparticle’s size in relation to the propagation speed of large EM waves.
It is the fact that EM waves don’t really change their propagation speed with their size and they are what create monoparticles, that lets us know that no smaller monoparticle is physically possible.
But do realize that I am speaking of “stable”, self-sustaining particles, not a forming or dissipating particle-like entity that only exists for nanoseconds. Extremely short lived “particles” (if you want to call them that), can be much smaller. They are actually just short lived “traffic jams” that cannot sustain the form and volume of the traffic jam such as to be self-sustaining. In reality there are always such minuscule traffic jams within the main traffic jam that appear then disappear. Any high density mass field (such as in the Sun) will cause every size of traffic jam of EM wavelets. Only specific sizes are self-sustaining.
That whole story can be detailed out to an extreme, but until I get a much larger computer and a much better programmer and/or mathematician (well above average), it isn’t likely that I am ever going to be able to give you actual SI unit translated numbers to go along with the provable logic.
James- really- you only believe in one spectrum
of emr, right? (I believe in smaller and
smaller spectra that match the vibrations of
the smaller and smaller matter scales.')
Now, your ‘wavelets’; how do they work? If you
only believe in one size emr spectrum, high
frequency means high energy. How, in your scenario,
do you get ‘wavelets’, and what part of the emr spectrum
do they come from?
James, I think you are saying the same thing with your
‘wavelets’ as I am saying with sub-atoms- there is a
smaller scale of complexity making up these sub-atomic particles.
Except, you are saying it very generally, while I am pointing to
a re-occurrence of the same set-up as ours, with matter and emr
and everything, at each smaller size level- and not only being used to
structure atomic parts, but also everywhere in Space at the same
density as our galaxies are everywhere in Space.
What is unsettling is, that complexity at each level is the
same. Which means it never ends. There is
no smallest because smaller is smaller.
My understanding was derived from RM:AO wherein what you call the EMR has a range from zero to infinity. And that is the range that I was referring to. Are you saying that you believe in a spectrum below zero and above infinity?
And RM:AO does not presume EMR nor does it have need for testimony of it (except for verification). It derives it from absolute logic. The EMR of RM:AO (referred to as “Affectance Propagation”) is mathematically derived and cannot, not exist exactly as derived. It just so happens that what Science calls “EMR” is basically that same thing, with just a little less understanding of it.
I’m talking about radiation that
comes off electrons that we haven’t even detected yet
because it is so high frequency, but at the same time so
low in energy per photon.
So am I, except they aren’t really “photons” per se.
I call them “wavelets”, extremely small obscure waves that are far below our ability to detect or measure except by deducing that they have to be there due to the pure logic of existence and the behavior of the things that we can measure.
