Yes, here is another similarity between the models. In mine atoms and atomic particles are comprised of solid particles that spin (fermions) within the aether.
When I think of solid particles making up the atomic particles, I imagine "solid" to imply "infinitely dense". Nothing can be infinitely dense in my model because gravity, which is characterized by the action process of inflow and out flow of wave energy, wouldn't seem to be compatible with infinite density. Where you describe spinning "solid" particles, I describe high density "spots" occurring at the point of convergence of waves traversing the medium of space. The atomic particles are composed of (say) millions and millions of tiny wave convergences within the tiny but finite space occupied by the atomic particle. It is this particle space that I say has stability because the wave energy density within it is so much greater than the wave density surrounding it. When a directionally inflowing wave arrives at the particle space, its progress is slowed significantly by the increase in density. The wave impact works its way through the particle space and flows out of the particle space spherically because of the distributing effect that is caused as its energy proceeds through millions of waves it encounters while moving within the particle space.
This creates an aether vortex which is the part of both atoms and fermions that we perceive.
The "aether vortex" of your model would be motion of the particle space relative to the wave energy sources in the surrounding space, in my model. "Field" (gravitational field) is the directional wave energy nature of the medium at all points, and I call that the "gradient" of the medium of space. The gradient is the result of the relative masses and their respective distances, since they are the directional wave energy sources of the wave energy traversing the medium of space.
All matter by its spin produces outgoing waves in the aether.
When I think of the physical spin of a solid particle, it doesn't happen in my model, and as I mentioned that there are no solid particles, but instead stable particle spaces representing complex converging wave patterns. These standing wave patterns spin relative to each other, and this "spin" is a physical motion that can be depicted as revolution on different axises, not the spin of angular momentum of the standard model, by the way
These outgoing wave troughs is where electrons reside surrounding the atom.
In my model, the electrons, protons, and neutrons (all particles) are differentiated by the number of high density spots they have at a given "field" density environment. A stable configuration of converging wave energy can occur only at specific internal wave energy densities; each particle type has it respective operative internal density. The densities between the stable densities are unstable configurations and don't survive. As the particles form in the extreme density of the big bang arena's initial expansion, only the stable configurations can survive because the unstable particles rapidly decay into stable particles, releasing the excess wave energy into the medium of space. The nature of the particles that exist evolves as the density of the environment declines, and eventually we get to the mix of stable particle densities we are now observing in nature, giving us the sub atomic particles was know and love.
This outflow causes a lower pressure aether volume within the vortex, like the low pressure of a storm vortex. This low pressure causes the continuous influx/ inflow of the surrounding aether field. This continuous aether inflow is the cause of gravity. It would be like a mixing bowl where the egg beaters continuously pushes the liquid away from the beaters and the backflow from the bowl keeps moving toward the vortex center. The outflow would have waves to it, the inflow would be just a difference-in-pressure flow.
We are on the same page in regard to the cause of gravity being a differential between the low pressure and high pressure flows, with the differences between us being the differences in how we describe how those flows come about.
So in both models matter would have an inflow and outflow. In your model there are inflowing and outflowing gravity waves, in mine there are outflowing waves and an inflowing field.
Yes, and the discussion of field differentiates our two views.
Although I have not specified any particular speed, in my model the speed of the out-moving waves would likely be much less than the speed of light, and the inflow would be the same to maintain an unchanging pressure differential.
This is where a discussion of photons and light would be appropriate. Photons are unique particles in my model. All particles have a wave-particle nature, but the photon is unique because it gets all of its inflowing wave energy from the direction of motion, while slower particles get gravitational wave energy inflow from all directions. It is the net directional gravitation wave energy inflow that determines the particle's path through the medium of space. The direction of photons is solely influenced by inflow from the forward motion, and so they go straight relative to the motion of heavier particles, but curve relative to the energy density gradient coming from the forward direction.
This is another strong similarity between the models; photons are waves. In mine they are EM waves which are aether pressure waves;
Do aether pressure waves expand spherically through the aether?
the wave crest is the higher pressure, and the wave trough a lower pressure. Photons would not be real particles in my model. When EM waves accordingly hit a detector, the energy of the waves are absorbed by the atoms within the detester. If the energy is high enough the increased intensity of the vortex spin can cause an electron to energetically leave the atom. If so the electron is conducted within the detector indicating an electron has been detected. We interpret that to mean a photon has been absorbed and detected.
These differences in mechanics grow out of the differences in how and what we describe, but the overriding factor is that energy is conserved. Our definition of what constitutes energy in various circumstances my differ, but in my model I would phrase it by saying "wave energy" is conserved, and everything is composed of wave energy traversing the medium of space.
This also seems quite similar to an explanation I would give concerning relative changes in the speed of light and the passage of time. I haven't considered gravity in this context but agree it would be influenced.
There is room for discussion on this topic as we sort out the specifics of our respective models. Thank you for the discussion so far, and maybe it will continue as time permits.