[cpu68 (OP)]

What is the mass of one of thee particles?

I have no such estimates

[alancalverd]

Not a very scientific hypothesis, then.

Do let us know when you have done the arithmetic.

[Colin2B]

What is the mass of one of thee particles?

shouldn’t that be “thy particles”?

[cpu68 (OP)]

Perhaps particles much faster than photons are related to the cosmical model.

[Origin]

Perhaps particles much faster than photons are also related to the supercosmical model,

More likely, actually MUCH more likely is that particles faster than photons do not exist.

[cpu68 (OP)]

More likely, actually MUCH more likely is that particles faster than photons do not exist.

If we accept two models of subquark particles, galactical and cosmical, then the hypothesis about the existence of particles faster than photons seems to be justified.

[Origin]

If we accept three models of subquark particles, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical, then the hypothesis about the existence of particles faster than photons seems to be justified.

But there's no reason to accept, "three models of subquark particles, galactical, cosmical and supercosmical", therefore your hypothesis is based on nothing and can be dismissed. 

[Kryptid]

Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?

[alancalverd]

Who needs evidence?

Science used to be about facts and tests, but nowadays it's all about models, and if the predictions are wrong it's not the fault of the model but  "factors beyond our control".

Are you a Denier?

[cpu68 (OP)]

Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?

There would be evidence, you just have to look for them, although the empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities

[Bored chemist]

empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities

So... no evidence then.
Why not just say so?

[Kryptid]

Do you have any evidence at all to support your model?

There would be evidence, you just have to look for them, although the empirical test of these three models, as I said, seems to be beyond the reach of current technical abilities

If there is currently no evidence, then why should we believe that it is correct?

[cpu68 (OP)]

If there is currently no evidence, then why should we believe that it is correct?

A strong argument in favor of the galactic model, followed by the cosmic model, is the Bohr-style model of the atom based on the planetary system. Among other things, Comte's theory of science implies the assumption that physics can draw models from astronomy. If a planetary system has proven to be a useful model, so should a galaxy. It was just a matter of what the galactic model might look like.

[Kryptid]

A strong argument in favor of the galactic model, followed by the cosmic and supercosmic model, is the Bohr-style model of the atom based on the planetary system.

It's not a strong argument. The planetary model of the atom was incorrect. Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the way that planets orbit the Sun.

Among other things, Comte's theory of science implies the assumption that physics can draw models from astronomy. If a planetary system has proven to be a useful model, so should a galaxy. It was just a matter of what the galactic model might look like.

That doesn't imply that electrons are made up of quadrillions of smaller particles.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black star (black hole, see paragraph 10) at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles.

[Kryptid]

Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black star (black hole, see paragraph 10) at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles.

Why should we assume that?

[cpu68 (OP)]

Why should we assume that?

Because the supermassive black star (black hole) in the center of the galaxy occupies a distinguished place and can be said to be the main object in the galaxy

[Kryptid]

Why should we assume that?

Because the supermassive black star (black hole) in the center of the galaxy occupies a distinguished place and can be said to be the main object in the galaxy

That doesn't sound like a good reason to assume that such logic also applies to particles.

[cpu68 (OP)]

Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles (In the new version of the text, I abandoned the concept of a black star and a black hyperstar).

[Origin]

Main particle from the galactical model will correspond to a supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy. Perhaps quarks are made of such particles (In the new version of the text, I abandoned the concept of a black star and a black hyperstar).

You're not making any sense.