A Simple Description of Light.
What would I tell an open minded person on light and color? I would have to pick him up where he is and make a conclusion that tells him something. We humans, by our sense organs and our thinking, look from the outside on those spherical, tiny atoms, which were always there before us, atoms. Yes, these atoms made our universe. We are creatures, created somehow, but the creator for us seekers-of-truth is not generously divine, but tiny incomprehensibly tiny, incomprehensibly numerous and in itself atomic-bomb-like mighty, incomprehensibly vast and powerful.
It is frightening how many mistakes are made in the cognitive process. Both, Hubble and Einstein were only seemingly clear thinkers. Hubble, vain, managed to call a "natural law", "Hubble's Law", which claims that redshift equals speeding away from us. "Away from us" should be a forbidden concept in relativistic theory in the first place. Then, if light is on its way for billions of years in a cosmos of gasses and dust, there may be other reasons than acceleration for light turning red. It is a pleasure to get this field so clearly thought out by The Final Theory. The wave stretching image has no place in describing the phenomenon of light. If a medium such as air or ether were to transport light, it would have to get tired, it could not last for billions of years. But light changes color when filtered, not when it hisses away from us! White light gets red by a plastic sheet. So what is light? As I understand from Mark McCutcheon's discussion, light consists of bundled electrons that propagate at the speed of light; thanks to their property that they always and forever expand. Successive electron clusters push each other through space, all of which arise when shaken off by too fast vibrating atoms. The term frequency of light does not describe something wavelike, but denotes the number of electron clusters released into space per second. Red light consists of fewer and larger clusters than violet at the other end of the visible area. So what is light? The true physical nature of light can be described by expansion theory. Poetic: Light is a swarm of electrons longing for its subatomic home. It is certainly not an immaterial wave carried by an immaterial medium that can vanish when it collides with other immaterial waves out of sync.
2017. 12. 13
In Portugal alone in a hotel at the beach. For the first time the famous morning fog, I cannot see the other end of the beach. Nevertheless, the surfers are already in the water, all in costume. AFFILIATION. That's the cue, people are looking for affiliation when they swim, not just while they read or listen, it is always about affiliation. They scan others' thoughts for sentences for signals of their affiliations. If I talk to you and no words, which could fit your sphere, are dropped, I fall immediately through the net. From there on what I say is uninteresting, at most subject to hostility, but even for this certain keywords must first be in the air. It is part of communicating that one must reduce the surplus of the incoming, and the most common method is to focus on what comes from one's own corner. Belonging decides on understanding. The signs are wetsuits, hairstyle, tattoos, flags and keywords, everything the ancestral primate already used.
The world-formula has no lobby. In order to feel affiliation with the final questions of humanity, you have to be on a long path of questioning, on which the main questions appear only after years. Then you should not have been hijacked on the way by the system. Few have the courage and the financial resources to make it through. Only at the end of the tunnel comes understanding of the weight of the search for a theory of everything.
Then, finally, to recognize that and how someone has solved the problem, is again a hurdle. Because inevitably there fall words that the affiliation scanner wants to sort out. Nevertheless one should think, there would be a few thousand reader/thinkers world-wide, which would understand the new theory. Among those, there would be a few who practice the new understanding fully aware that they participate in something, which can happen only once in human history. That would be the membership group with which we could be among our peers. There are innumerable Scientists who profess the search for the world formula to be close to their hearts, but their built-in affiliation scanner prevents them from getting convinced when the time has come.
At the turn of the millennium one of us has scrutinized our entire scientific heritage and discovered that you only have to go one step behind the usual approach to realize what drives everything. Mark McCutcheon, a Canadian living in Australia, has managed "The Final Theory", his book is a millennium event. He has done what we have been striving for generations: It is riddled, the world puzzle! What is behind everything that has been caused so obviously? Anyone who thinks rationally and can follow clear sentences must understand, it is done, once and for all, the theory of everything is found. For me, a source of joy, but I wonder in what time we live finding an alternative world view so hopelessly underestimated. The fact is, I do not know of a single comrade willing to follow correct theorizing.
I also wonder what would happen if everything would be different, if the world understood what a great instrument a valid, self-consistent theory of everything is. Are we missing the Golden Age?
The vision of a future that will never take place: a world of reason.
"The world formula finally found!" Cheers in all universities. "Spread the word, the world has been explained! How could we even live without the knowledge of causation on all levels small and large scale? How was it possible to handle electricity and still have ideas of charge in mind? These are shamanic Stone Age notions of a burden that have done their duty for some discoveries, but have stood in the way of understanding what electricity, light, and gravity are really. Let us go the new way and rearrange all scientific disciplines according to the criteria of a unifying basic theory! The reward will be terrific, a new truth has arisen, the longed-for age of reason has begun! " That is how the bells should sound everywhere.
Here are a few of the key insights of the new worldview:
Atoms are not like solar systems, which could not defend their globular shape, planetoide electrons would easily be thrown off track. Atoms have parabolic bouncing electrons. Gravitation is not a mysterious force that defies measurement, not traction, but a domino effect of expanding atoms that push each other. Gravitational waves are just a misunderstanding. Waves need a medium to carry them. What kind of medium should be the carrier medium in the vacuum of space? Also, light has never been wavy, light consists of clocked electron beams and has mass and inertia. Electrons are the building blocks of the universe, they expand like light. There is no dark matter. That was just a miscalculation. The moon does not circle us like we don’t circle the sun, which we see rising and setting. Now I imagine these insights would reach the critical mass socially, everywhere where education is an issue, the data available would be re-understood from this new perspective. Suddenly there would be affiliation, exchange of ideas, we-feeling all over the world. While I cannot believe that this has not happened long ago, I have my doubts whether it would open the longed-for Golden Age. Expansionist theory would be preached at every training college. Newton and Einstein would only be a topic for historians, for psychopathy researchers. The system would have the power to enforce World theory. Everywhere, power centers would hold huge celebrations in honor of Mark McCutcheons world theory. Policemen sat on the school bench and revised their atomic model. In the social sciences, medical results would come to light. Every child would know why the magnet button sticks to the fridge door and does not fall to the floor. All sorts of religion would seem to fear the new knowledge, or they would have to find ways to overcome their body-mind model. The last time the church felt similarly under fire, when better telescopes shot the Earth out of the center of the universe, she invented the Inquisition to fight the new insights.
The new truth would certainly bring a new intolerance against those who remained behind. Both sides would vigorously defend themselves, social unrest, inquisition would be the result. Above all, it is to be expected that only the corporate powers would benefit from the new insights. The untrained would be hung once more. Everything put on balance, this new enlightenment as a new creed does not seem so desirable to me. This important human right to experience the truth has a bitter aftertaste in the current still largely totalitarian religious environment. Perhaps it is good fate that the tunnel that leads to the understanding of the world theory is so tedious and long that only a few enjoy the achievements. I'll probably have to put up with the fact that I'll never belong to a club that has the theory of everything on its flag. I can live with that, lucky that I understand what I think. Maybe it's just a matter of keeping the secret for descendants who also want to mature. I feel being in good company with the enlighteners of all times, all of whom wrote their messages in a gruesome, narrow-minded environment. Ecce homo.
Appendix: Expansion for everyday life - an attempt in simple pictures.
Before breakfast, the moon is pale and glassy, the day begins. I think how the geometry of growing, moving bodies explains what I see. Expansion theory describes the causation of what we perceive and also scientifically capture in a completely unfamiliar way. It builds on the idea that in the background of all things there is a kind of increase in size that can be unveiled by geometry. So when I look at the moon as a supporter of expansion theory, I'm not attracted to Newton's appeal, but to a whole new set of thoughts. So: the moon is racing past the earth, in the rushing noise he would have to be smaller and smaller, which he compensates for by his "growth in size", the expansion. He goes down for me because earth is expanding wildly and pushing me so high that the moon gets under the horizon, while the earth is still spinning, which adds to the first effect. When he reappears, the moon has hurried so far that he would be small like a star. But he still appears the same size, because on both sides we have to calculate expansion and relative speed. (The Earth expands six times faster than the Moon, depending on the radius.) That's how I imagine expansion and transfer the idea to all orbiting and parabolic phenomena. Always two bodies grow towards each other, each one has its own speed and direction relative to the other. To do this, the two speeds and the respective growth must fit together so that they can no longer get away from each other. Body A is moving steadily in the direction, it has been hit into (not in a circle), according to its radius it would lock onto the other body B, if it did not have its direction and pace. Body B as well, does not really fly in a circle, but in the direction given to it, as a geometrical system, as a result of the geometric consequence-effects, appears a spin around each other. This explains whirlpools and orbits.
For the time being incomprehensible to my friends, the imperceptible growth in size, which creates all the orbital effects, but runs counter to their everyday persistence beliefs and needs. For us, who are made of this ever-growing stuff, the realization that everything is expanding is an intellectual achievement that one has to be prepared to, and that requires the geometry of growing, relatively moving bodies. I admit that the expansionist description of the Earth-Moon relationship is a bit cumbersome compared to the simple ball-swing concept, which unfortunately is untenable.
The idea of expansion transferred into my everyday life could be: My pen, the pen is hard, because it grows against me, not because it is made of hard plastic. That would be a pleonasm. Overnight, the pen did not wait idly on the bed for me, who grew a millionth every second, it would then be small and away from my senses. It expanded with me instead and the space between us equally expanded so the pen turns up where I put it in the evening. No wonder our senses filter out this way of thinking and suggest the simple consistency. But we are here on the way to the Theory of Everything and cannot afford the hallucinations and the intellectual patchwork with forces and energies. We must take the trouble to consider this inconceivable background, to calculate, from which then all effects and the assumed energies of real life itself turn out to be simple geometry. No wonder that this effort does not make a big splash among my contemporaries, they would rather translate the expansion idea back into their familiar worldviews. But if I had to answer the question, whether the new worldview is suitable for everyday use, whether we could live without the numerous flops in our basic assumptions: Obviously, this is not to be expected and not necessarily to be desired.
Electrons Are Matter-Making Matter.
I have not answered your letter, because I did not want to bother you with our attempts to sort out our positions, Roland Tremblay and me. We exchanged many arguments along Expansion Theory.
One point, which I wanted you to read is about electrons being one step further from our atomic realm than atoms, which in their turn are creations of a realm behind them. So the description of electrons is even to a higher degree strange to our physics.
Atoms in their turn depend on the préexisting electrons like we do on atoms. No wonder they have properties which seem uncomprehensible in our observable universe, properties that excede our range of perception and logic. Could it be, that size, distance and before-after-relationships of whatsoever do not mean anything in a true understanding of electrons? In our perspective, electrons are speeding through undescribable vast spaces, forming an ocean of electromagnetic phenomena like crisscrossing ripples on a pond, forming atoms and parts of them as well as galaxies and clusters of them. They expand through space and time untouchable, unaltered, undestroyable, uncompressible, for uncountable "lightyears", truely unimaginable. They spread from a lightsource endlessly through space, forming an ever growing bubble. Such properties, which we can barely understand, are not sufficient to describe the essence of electrons. They are in such an awsome way préexisting even to atoms, that any kind of model becomes inapropriate by force. I dare an assumption: for an electron the whole universe is at plain view, it is its body. Time and space are a kind of crossover-side effect, not part of an electrons definition. Atoms from the electrons perspective are just statistics like fractals on the output sheet of a calcularor.
All I know about electrons, I know thanks to you, Mark. They make partial orbits around big expanding bodies. We understand, that half of an electron's diameter is one millionth every first second, when bouncing within an atom. As the only constituent of the atom and because it shows lensing, momentum etc, you call the electron matter. But it is not quite matter, it is matter-making matter. Am I touching a theoretical detail: the two step strangeness of electrons gives space for imagination. The art of forming clusters is something very essential in the electron's world. Such clusters must be beautiful rounded ornaments like those structures people can build with magnetized metal balls. Endlessly many such regular figures are possible with only one kind of ball. Such ornamental clusters might show the possibilities electrons have when forming regular clusters as in light or when forming subatomic particles. Would such a property of the matter-making matter explain anything new? I understand with great satisfaction, how the space within the atom is strange to us creatures formed by those ball shaped preexisting forms, but in what manner are the prerequisites of atoms strange and undeductale to the atom itself? I am sorry for the introspective language here, its serves to sort out the two step objecive. Are electrons matter, very speedy matter? It is may be nothing but an immature question in my head: matter is what appears when the slowly expanding atomic surfaces become statistics and thus create the atomic realm. Could it be that people reject emotionally that you include those untouchable things like light into the definition of matter? Even Roland Tremblay who has followed you all the way, deviates in his view on electrons. He ends up in struggling with strangely vibrating undetectable New Age electrons.
As you say, it is the birthright of mankind to have access to the true understanding of the world we live in. This aspect of your theory has revitalized my sense of justice. Since the Declaration of Human Rights in 1789 the struggle goes on, that we live in an understandable world and thus have potentially access to the truth. Human right fighters are trying to install a supplement to the human rights declaration. They are more on a political crusade, they fight for truth in case of totalitarian injustice. They shoud fight for the more general birthright, but maybe their more pressing topic can help the general case.
In my case, dear Mark, you have reached the goal, the legacy of enligtenment has reached a new starting point. If I have to die, it will not be so hard, I'll be glad to have encountered the solution, the Final Theory, in German "Welttheorie", before it was too late. I'll be 80 in January, which gives a certain perspective on the theme. It is not too late to say thank you to you, your book has given my life a twist, that lets me enjoy the physical world in a much deeper sense than I could have expected before. Thank you Mark.
yours sincerely Fred
Addendum to Matter Making Matter.
People do not like that, in their fundamental belief, even light should no longer be purely spiritual, but matter with inertia. However, light is not really material in the understanding of people today. This does not change the ingenious approach of MM, who in his expansion theory very succinctly sets light equal to matter. In search of the reasons why his theory disapproves, I would like to pacify this didactic point. Light is one of the precursor forms possible in subatomic space. Perhaps the minds would rather open, if the term matter in the strict sense were limited only to atomic matter. Light moves forward at the speed of light; Matter less fast. You do not experience the inertia of light like stone. That arouses rejection, perhaps rightly so? Light symbolism, especially among Catholics, where the popes have appropriated the sun gods insignia, is the essence of light near the Holy Spirit. There is the idea that light is just a bunch of self-propelled lumps of matter, not suitable at all, a real nuisance.
Expanding Matter as Popular Belief
By Fred Weidmann
The “Theory of Expanding Matter” must become public thought. In the long run this is unavoidable, because expanding matter is what this universe is made of. Once this discovery has been made, there is no way back, it will make its way into our everyday thinking, or else we exclude ourselves of the one and only chance to demystify the wonders of this world.
Anyway, it does not hurt to rethink a few things: How did I feel, wandering among magnets, light bulbs, bouncing balls and solid objects, not understanding what so ever? Since I have adopted the idea of expanding matter, I started healing in the field of intellectual self-esteem. I was trapped in a surrealist play where the actors were not physical characters, but strange subjects from some meta-language. Invented “energies” acted upon invented theoretical entities, leading to weird observations, held possible by circular argument and various other argumentative tricks. Now after meeting Mark McCutcheon’s theory of expanding matter, I can finally hop off the rat wheel. I imagine matter not sitting there passively being tossed around by some immaterial energies, but expanding in order to exist. I try to see things with eyes expanding in synchronicity with everything else in my universe.
In this thought experiment you my reader are expanding too. In order not to experience active matter mushrooming over you, you have to be made of the same expanding matter as mother earth herself. You will feel her pressure from underneath, not a pull, as you had thought before, your weight. She is your space elevator taking up speed. She is catching up with your landing gear after you have jumped. You are not falling, you just experience weightless floating in space until the solid surface of our planet has caught up with you. And that is not all, as you expand and push in all directions too. If you want to understand this interaction physically, you will have no choice, there is only McCutcheon’s beautiful Expansion Theory that can give you the comprehensive answer.
Our brain squeezes - it seems - our perceptions to fit our beliefs. Many of our so called facts originate in a misinterpretation of what we observe. This is surprising, because our senses and organs must make no mistakes in dealing with the physical reality, or else we would not survive. Why there is no culture that has made this discovery? Why has there never been a shaman who checked how “falling” things were floating stressless? The misunderstanding is fundamental, of the kind that we see the sun moving across the sky, when in fact it is we turning around the sun. Like this relativistic twist has become a symbol of enlightened thinking in the past, I hope, the inevitable basic fact of expanding electrons and matter makes its way into the hearts and thinking of the scientific community and of every reasonable human. The benefits are surprising. I am proud to live in the time when Mark McCutcheon with his “The Final Theory” overthrew the many flawed inherited attempts to explain our world.
Munich, Germany, August 3, 2016
Dear Mr. McCutcheon,
I am with your Final Theory since 2011. Lately, I looked up your name at your publisher's site and found your work overgrown with standard theoretical books. I wonder what happened to your thought line. Instead of a world that feels ashamed for not having discovered the nature of their improper thinking, I find people who have inherited their ideas defending them. I am a social scientist (Dr. rer.pol.), who turned into an artist after years of research on human misunderstanding. As a painter one gets used to being misunderstood, I think. But since I try to convince people that there is an alternative to the standard view of physics, which comes without mistakes nor lies, there is no one left, who tries to understand. Artists are weird people with freaky ideas.
Before I present my question, I have to tell you, that I feel very privileged to live in the times when The Final Theory was discovered. I am amazed where it was hiding, the new Paradigma. And I am enthousiastic about your theory and its implications. Not to forget to tell you how I enjoy your writing.
My first question is of course general, where do I find what has happened within your theory since 2010, there must be people flying high on your wings. Secondly, my concern in human understanding is linked to your theory of light and color, offering premisses to an implicite theory of perception and communication. If our senses are devices for catching material light-clusters instead of wave recognition, then we are connected to the physical reality more directly than anybody assumes in social sciences. Misunderstanding and lies would appear as superfluous games on top of a very reliable physical truth on which we survive. Is there anybody working along this line?
Thank you in advance, I hope this letter finds you in good health and circumstances.
I am so glad, to read that I don't have to worry about your reception of opposing thoughts.
Because of the extended break in our correspondence I reread thoroughly your "New Age Physics" and I feel, I should be less discouraging in my attitude. Looks like I am extremely materialistic compared to your tolerance towards esoteric topics. I am reluctant to follow you there, as there is enough mind-matter to consider by simply trying to come up to Mark McCutcheon's -MM's- physics.
Our basic difference is that I am totally satisfied with MM's theory and that I am convinced that where he ends his argument the object of any inquiry ends there too. In other words, if the argument ends at the level of all equally expanding electrons, it means, the de facto physical world ends there too. There is simply nothing left to excavate beyound that point. I found my peace with this ending and I adore the simplicity and elegance of MM's conclusions.
This leaves a vast field of topics unrelated and even useless in our quest for the final truth. But how could I mind if somebody has questions there. Why is that so, since when is it so, who gave the rules, is there a universal metronome, are we living in a world where only electrons are left like in a pool where only sharks are left, because they ate all the fish? May be we can apply a kind of Darwinistic evolution model to physics where the most aggressive type of electron is the winner in a cruel process that eliminates everything slower or smaller than them until this final state is reached, where nothing can exist but this expanding electron. Nothing parallel nothing inferior left, just one explainable universe!
There is also a premis that I share with MM, I guess: It makes no sense to give rules to the world that gives us the rules. This puts the lid on the pot of my thinking. MM took so much pain to explain how the inner space of atoms is different from ours and he makes shure we understand that we depend on deductive guesswork when we talk about the realm that creates ours. The rules are strict, no measurement possible by our logic, not by lack of tools. Speculating about the essence of electrons is even more daring, after all we dare to apply our logic to the constituents of what constitutes our atoms. We go one step further back from the measurable into the makers of the kitchen that cooks us.
If Expansion Theory is the proper description of all physical reality, then I can imagine something unspoken so far within the atom. If there is a nucleus in the atom, we have a few thousand electrons pushing against each other with the explosive power of their expansion creating a nuclear cluster of thousands of growing electron diameters in its radius. Whatever clusters there are within an atom, they must add up to thousands of light speeds at their outer edge. Imagine a lonely electron flying by at its relatively slow speed of light, it can only bounce off, being kicked off by the much faster clusters endlessly. By our logic it can never go on a complete orbit because the difference of expansion speeds is in the thousands. Does this describe what MM means? If so, and if you can agree, how can you imagine spaces like a solar system within an atom? I am aware of my reasoning with features common to our atomic realm, which might not apply to the electrons' realm, being too crude a model, but it makes a decent ending in harmony with MM's theory. Does it? And would this mean, the universe is not shy to produce speeds that are many thousand times light speed if it is confined within the atom? And as electrons do not know where they are, within or outside of atoms, they do behave always the same: they expand and they cluster if conditions force them. This leads me to believe that we observe and measure the speed of light and other electromagnetic phenomena yet another crossover effect, not of atoms but of their constituents. A twostep crossover event that looks like ripples on a pond!
As I am on a quest for explaining the ways of perception and image making of the living, I have written more about the illusions that appear when dealing with the physical world. Too much text here. After all I want to answer your letter and what you call New Age facts. Congratulations to you and your friend Mark for making the step into hypnotherapy out of office work. I imagine that by the time you have treated 50 people you have a solid clientele to start your own business. I have never experienced being hypnotized, I mind giving my life and my senses into the hands of anybody - my post war hang up. But I have read and experienced a lot which goes that way mainly through psychedelic adventures. I was 30 in 1968 with tight connections to Harvard University when the LSD hype was at its highest. No doubt, it is absolutely rewarding to have access to the possibilities of the mind, especially if you want to make your own competent contributions in that scene. And I enjoy your effort of giving New Age a new expansionist language. The problem with that scene is, that you can not argue with people who believe in things they have seen or preconceived so strongly, but which are clealy untenable full of multiple biasses. They will continue with their astrological blabla and their magic energies even after having understood that their beliefs are untenable. The same shock that we experience with the reception of Expansion Theory I get when I come on New Age territory.
An episode from Switzerland: It is relatively easy to convince somebody that we are not attracted by gravity, but pushed from underneath when we feel our weight. This is a partial success of reasonable thinking. But if the same person gets a sneeze, he does not cure it with what you expect of such a thinker, he takes a mirror and a sacred candle and fights the maledictions that must have caused his sneeze. And in his eyes it works, the proove is, the sneeze is gone after having deflected ten evel neighbors who bewitched him by jalousy. On the surface these Swiss aborigines are modern organic food eaters, but in their heart they are closer to stone age than we think and it harms society. The same I can say about the Balinese demons, they harm the people absolutely unnecessarily.
I am still under shock of what you write about the fate of MM's book and theory, it's a tragedy and a chance for us. I am preparing a new homepage with many texts in our field of interest, hoping to have some impact that way.
Best regards Fred
Dear Roland, I wrote this discussion a week ago, but because of problems on the income-side, I have not sent you so far. It emphasizes a point which MM does not stress much in his book. But for me, thinking of a way to describe the ways of human communication and understanding, it means a lot. Also I try to convince you that it is risky to attach anything to the Final Theory and its assumptions. After all you try to argue that it misses essential points connected to non-material realities similar to “energies”. You believe in God, that makes all the difference. I have met thinkers who tried to harmonize that legacy with science, but I always felt, it was their weakest point. Could you argue me into that belief? It would make me(us) much less marginal in a world that moves towards the evangelicals.
Best wishes Fred
2017-06-17 Letter to Roland Tremblay
When I tried to fall asleep last night, I thought about electrons being even much stranger than the inner characteristics of the atoms, which in their turn depend on the préexisting electrons like we do on atoms. No wonder they might have properties which don't make sense in our observable universe, properties that can easily look paradoxical from our range of perception and logic. I propose the thought, that space, distance and before-after-relationships of whatsoever do not mean anything for electrons. In our perspective, electrons are speeding through undescribable vast spaces, forming an ocean of electromagnetic phenomena, forming atoms and parts of them as well as galaxies and clusters of them. They pace through space untouchable, unaltered, undestroyable, intact for uncountable lightyears. They spread from a light source endlessly through time being an ever growing bubble. Such strange properties, which we can hardly understand, are by far not sufficient to describe the essence of electrons. They are in such an awesome way préexisting that any kind of model becomes inapropriate by force. I dare an animistic deduction: for an electron the whole universe is at plain view, it is its body. Time and space are a kind of crossover-side effect, not part of an electrons world.
All that can be, it is in the properties of the electron. Why invent neutrinos, if the definition of the electron can carry everything even spiritual aspects of us humans. To be closer to the Final Theory, couldn't you pack the Final element, the definition of the electron, with all your New Age-spiritual needs? Can electrons really vibrate, if vibration is the side effect of machinegun-like surface contact of freely expanding electrons? Vibration is wavelike and needs a carrying medium, electrons don't know any medium.
We know more about electrons, we know that they make partial orbits around big expanding bodies, so MM calls them matter. We know - thanks to MM - that for any atom half of an electron's diameter is one millionth a second. Again as the only constituent of the atom, MM calls the electron matter. It is not matter, it is making matter. I dare say. There could hide an interesting finesse, which would allow us to talk about non-material properties of electrons. The art of forming clusters is something very essential in the electrons. Such clusters must be beautiful rounded ornaments like those structures people can build with magnetized metal balls. Endlessly many such regular figures are possible with only one kind of ball, showing the possibilities of clusters for electrons.