The theory of matter can now be radically rethought.
The corpuscular theory was developed on the basis of mechanical principles such as the divisibility of extensive magnitudes, and the empirical microscopic observations of corpuscles! Added to this was the long held philosophy of atomism and dynamic flow in unpredictable courses except in a crowd. The corpuscular assumptions, backed by the triumph of mechanical technology based on mechanical principles meant that a satisfactory explanatory model was soon seen in the corpuscular theory. Given also the powerful belief and reliance on intuition, this intuitively obvious model was soon embedded in an unchallengeable position in the popular psyche.
Not that it went unchallenged, because Huygens felt that it did not provide the correct assumptions to explain the behaviour of light. It was Thomas Young who eventually placed light on a different material footing when he clearly demonstrated tht the wave or Undulatory theory alone could account for issues like the lack of damage to the eye from exploding particles, and the focal apparatus within the eye being due to lense action not eyeball adjustment. His single and double slit experiments were the clincher, especially in the light of Faradays field hypothesis. It followed after his evidence, that Maxwell unified electric and magnetic fields into related phenomenon that relied upon an Undulatory wave mechanic. William Kiingdon Clifford also attempted to demonstrate an Undulatory theory.
The supposed and expected ether was a foregone conclusion but because it apparently did not exist, no move to radically alter the corpuscular theory. In fact there was a return to old intuitive certainties and particles were looked for with eagerness and anticipation of a fundamental particle. The splitting of the atom moreover confirmed the radical theory of Albert Einstein, who was a rampant corpusculrist. The notion of a field was developed into the more accessible notion of potential which though similar in act removed corporeality from the field and placed it in the particle! Action at a distance was then explained in terms of various force carrying particles which supposedly provided theoretical explanation for interactions locally and none locally. The field then became explained in terms of particles moving in space.
Not surprisingly this model fails at the quantum level, where distances are too tiny for action at a distance. Thus a whole zoo of particles emerges to explain these quanum interactions!.
The replacement of the field by particles of interaction has created the quantum divide between the so called 4 forces.bsuch corpusculrist exists even in the uantum probability descriptions of thes " particle" behaviours.
The solution is simple but radicle. Fields exist but particles do not!
This is not saying that particulate behaviours do not exist, but that our fundamental paradigm shift is away from particulate matter to fields as the basis of matter.
This I call the Shunya field, and it currently consists in the empirical electromagnetic fields. Gravity is not included because it , like matter is a derived consequence of this Shunya field, as are the strong and weak nuclear fields. To see this clearly the notion of charge has to be apprehended as a field effect in a region within the field. Thus charge isr the field acting on itself regionally . This tautology provides the perfect basis for establishing the factal foundation of all reality, with each scale perception creating a boundary for each region and sub region, boundaries which are as mythical as they are perceptible!
It is what I accept that undergirds what I expect in my experimental continuum
The Shunya field exists as space and is in ceaseless relativistic dynamical rotational motion.
This has to be accepted as requiring a fundamental observer which brings its unique reference system within the Shunya field and thereby reifies it as described. Thus acceptance of this reality is acceptance of the role of precisely this observer.
The conception of a reference frame system unfolds in this reality as a freedom of construction of an uncountable number of "points of view" in which th observer is able to deploy a sophisticated and subjective measuring system that creates fractal measures iteratively and is itself subject to fractal entrainment. Thus a recursive feedback and feed forward cybernetic ism will characterise all empirical measurements and observations by this observer as part of the accepted role.
These sophisticated sensory meshes that inhere thes points of view, audition and proprioception are unconsciously deterministic in mechanically deep ways, which are analogous to computational platforms the observer possesses in its array of tools for measurement and recording and storing measurement, comparisons and distinctions.
Fundamental to the subjective and unconsciously determined process is the process of conjugation with its counterpart adjugation. These 2 fundamental processes form the envelopes for the analytical and synthetically approaches to interaction with the Shunya field.
The fundamental conjugation of the Shunya field by the observer is into a sequence of 2 conjugate regions. This sequence is iterated unconsciously and proprioceptively to provide a proprioceptive map of Shunya in which multiple regional forms are experienced as magnitudes within a proportionscape. This iterative process is driven by and drives the ceaseless motion experience of Shunya.
Part of the observers conjugation processing develops conscious and unconscious sequential processes that record, mark, distinguish sequences of process in a process sequence that is itself self referencing and self organising. Particular processes over time have developed notational tools that encode this sequential processing as reference sequences in alternative representational systems using the undergirding sensory mesh networks. For the purpose of this theory I will restrict the observer to a system derived through the Greek Imperial collation of the worlds knowledge and wisdom as devised by Euclid. This to be an analogous model for all other encoding systems derived in other imperial civilisations.
In the Euclidean system both the rhetoric and the notation are of significance with the notation taking on a supporting role to the rhetoric. Thus oral languages precede and are complemented by graphical and kinaesthetic communication forms. To concentrate on the graphical encoding of rhetorical support notation has perhaps been one of the greatest acts of denaturing apprehension and comprehension that human intellect has engaged in! The lauding of denatured encoded information has in itself created stultified areas of " knowledge".
The Euclidean Rhetorical graphical notation system has been refined to produce a literary graphical version often called Algebra, and a particular scripted version often called Arithmetic. These versions are analogues that derive much from each other recursively, but the root foundation is the Euclidean rhetorical graphical system with Indian Vedic ganita sutras appended by the Arabic Imperial system
Thus far i have sketched out the broad foundations of the theory and the theoretical tools, and the fundamental processes of the theory. The details found within the outlined traditions provide the basis for 2 distinct sequences, that of intensive and recursive conjugation often called sequential analysis and hiding from view the consequent fractalisation of the Shunya field, and thus the dependent logarithmic structure of the measurements of the Shunya field; and secondly that of extensive and repeated adjugation often called synthesis which tends to be the inverse or converse of the analysis sequence, but which has great constructional freedom due to sequential option choices that present as degrees of freedom in the synthesis process. Such degrees of freedom do not present in the analytical process because such a process is constrained by the very process of conjugation. This exhibits as a Lagrangian det of constraints on analysis of a system.
However some variation in the degrees of freedom of the analytical process is usually encoded by analysing dynamic situations. Such situations provide some level of variation in the analytical product, but as a super sequence of the analytical process it again applie more general constraints on the process. This behaviour is still fractal but it is usuall called extension.
Thus the fractal paradigm has a continuous variation of scale indicated by intensive magnitudes as the scale decreases in metron size, and extensive magnitudes as the scale increases in metron size. The preferred structure of this type of fractal continuum is the logarithmic arrangement characterised as the p-adic polynomial systems. These are particular fractal tools that encapsulate intensive and extensive magnitudes and which are generally ascribed to the Vedic traditions including the Upanishads commentsries on the Vedic traditions.
The notion of continuous is an important philosophical tool enabling an expectation of endless analysis and recombinant synthesis. But it also contextualises the unavoidable discretization of the analytical process and enables synthesis constraints to be more precisely established. Thus if in synthesis a piece does not seem to fit continuously then such a piece is set aside until a place is found for it. This constraint makes for smooth objects with perfect fit, whereas in reality this may not have been the case for the analysed object! Careful notation in the analytical process is therefore necessary to provide authentic recombination. However, in certain design circles the smoothness of continuity is shown to enhance desirable properties. In this case resynthesised objects are claimed to be " improved" or " enhanced", but the jury is out on the butterfly effects of such improvements in the whole ecosystem.
The fractal paradigm and the discretization of magnitudes are a fundamental plank of the Shunya field TOE. By them I may now pass on to the Grassmannian reworking of the Euclidean rhetorical graphical system, avoiding centuries og muddled searching for this self same thing we have in principle laid out before us in The works of the Grassmann Family and in particular in Hermann's work.
That this is of fundamental importance is easy to demonstrate now, after all these years of research, but I will refer the reader to my blog posts from the beginning for a detailed account. It should be known that every successful theory in physics relies on some form or version of the Hamilton Grassmann Mevhanics especially Schroedingers wave equation and Diracs variational form of it. However despite the fearsome reputation of these formulae and equations they are not to be aggrandised beyond the enveloping rhetoric. At the end of the day it is all a load of spherical Balls! Lol!