Hi James
A nice essay, but one of two parts. I'm pleased to be able to agree entirely with the first part as it's wholly equivalent to the core concept of the Discrete Field Model, which is a releif after the frustration of all our blog discussions, and it's nice to see some maths applied to it. You'll see Don Limuti also has the same basis, and it's consistent with Edwin, Willard, Georgina etc.
This is very important as 'dissident' theories are notorious for being disparate. Each new theory in the same vein can add exponentially to the power and influence of it, so one day mainstream may take notice and Stokes (he was the first) will get the credit he deserved.
The second part I think went off in another seemingly unrelated and unfalsified direction, which you already know I'm not a strong supporter of, but I always keep an open mind, and do indeed have a slightly consistent theory about imprinting on particles pre- reionisation not being completely wiped, which i've mentioned in strings here(or was it a blog string?).
Anyway, well done, and do keep developing it, but it would be nice to see if we can stay co-ordinated.
I look forward to your comments on mine, though I gather it's too crammed with wide 'evidence' rather than expounding the core concept. Let me know what you think.
Alan;
Ref spirals; You'll find the black hole form in my essay is a Tokamak, which is a toroid with intrinsic rotation, and scaleable from atomic to above super massive, in fact I recently posted a paper which also applied it to universes! This has twin continuous counter rotating helixes, around the torus body, very analageous to archimedes screws, but unfalsifiable at that scale of course. I do however have a photo of one at Stellar mass scale (Chandra IR Core of crab Nebula). I hope that may encourage you.
Besr regards
peter