The Shunya field exists as space in our experience. Since the definition of the Shunya field is dynamical this means that to be consistent our experience of space will need to be dynamical.

Now the particular dynamics I have chosen are the electro magneto dynamics. I have further characterised these as mechanical dynamics of rotational relative motion and as expansive through rarefaction and contractive through condensation.

Now each of these classes of description are empirically observable, including many other attributes before mentioned such as fractality and regionalisation and ceaseless motion or change. The aim in a theory of everything is to develop a consistent account of everything on the basis of a hypothesis ( reasonable guess) or an observable phenomenon. Newton aimed to build a philosophy on observables and that is my position. Hypothesis is not rejected but really plays the role of a best guess at what to look for in order to observe.

The empirical Shunya field has to be able to be identified by each of the foregoing list of attributes

The shunya field is the electromagnetic field as space. Thus it is not an add on or add in to space and matter. I cannot discuss a boundary to the field, but I can observe regions of the field. By definition electromagnetic fifields exist in every region.. Are these fields in relative rotational motion?

Relative to the region I may detect a varying signal of electromagnetism throughout the electromagnetic spectrum. We do not bother to look, but if we did we would find ths fluctuation just as we have with the WMAP data. Within any region we will find electromagnetic field behaviours consisten with a rotational field of electromagnetism.

Does this rotational field rarefying and condense?

Again we do not bother to look, but if we did we would find that the most intense electromagnet field tend to associated with dense objects and the areas around these denser regions tend to be rarefied, these regions are in dynamic motion providing a ghost-like and convection like flow of electromagnetic expansion and contraction.

The tendency of the electromagnetic field to drop dowm the electromagnetic spectrum is also indicative of condensation of the shunya field. Thus as the ield condenses it tend to pass through the gamma , x ray and uv part of the spectrum headin down through the visible spectrum toward the infra red microwave and radio spectra. This condensation of the field has become so familiar that it is hadly linked to the formation of dense space called matter, instead it is viewed as a property of matter and not matter itself. In the shunya fiekd theory this distinction is removed and matter will be defined precisely by its electromagnetic spectra.

The Densest matter therfore will be below the radio wave spectra and will only be visible by its interaction with the visible part of the spectra which represents the more expansive parts of the shunya field, the rarefaction of it.

Now the mechanical aspects of the electromagnetic field need to be explored in detail.

In the Shunya field there are at least 2 components in different directions of space and volume , as measures of the Shunya field. Currently we have established a tool to sequence position as a relative concept and to apply volume as another concept. We are able to measure spectrum displacements in this sequential way and determine the concepts of speed and it's cognate time. We also have through the system of reference frames the subjective concept of local reference frame and personal/ subjective reference frame. within the latter, the conception of relative orientstion..

The mechanical behaviour of the Shunya field can be described in terms of these measures and in a relative sense at least the field appears to have 2 aspects a condensing rotational motion of the shunyafield and a rotating expanding motion. These motions are regionalise and fractal , and observable at all scales.mconsequently it appears that the Shunya field is multi polar, with both large scale and small scale polarity behaviours. The Shunya field is not uniform but regionalised.

The fractal nature of the measured field means that behaviour is almost similar at all scales, and a particular behaviour in a particular region will be observable in a sub or super region if not immediately in neighbouring regions.

The old theoretical model making habits are not used in this theory. Uniformity is not a starting condition. Scale dependent and scale free behaviours are the starting mix.

Uniformity is also replaced by the notion of continuity, but continuity is framed within the fractal paradigm. Thus cantor dust is an example of the fractal distribution or disposition of continuity at the iteration level n where the remnants have uniform continuity. Clearly this continuity and uniformity is lost as we move to iteration level n+1, but is restored to the iteration level n+1 by our assignment of it . This is the principle of exhaustion: everything is continuous unless and until it is not!

There is no fundamental difference between competing TOE, if all are empirically based. It is only when a theory is based on a hypothesis that ths accord is no longer possible. Thus the corpuscular theory and the field theories are analogues. They model the same observables. When Newton objected to Huygens Undulatory theory it was on the grounds that it posited occult mechanisms. The observable behaviour was posited on an observable behaviour, but the medium could be explained by a corpuscular theory, making an unobserved ether an occult suggestion. However as Young observed a particulate mechanicle explanation had insurmountable problems of momentum. The very nature of corpuscles would have to be changed to accommodate these defects and an ether seemed to provide a satisfactory solution. Even at this early stage light as an immaterial corpuscle was a possibility, but the motion of ass was so well embedded that it created obstacles for those who allied themselves to the concept

Faradays careful and copious experimental data was the first body of evidence to support an immaterial matter concept, but no one was willing to take that step because they were all confused by the noion of mass. So it is the nation of mass that I explore next in thevshunya field.

The mechanical description of the Shunya field provides a multipolar system of vorticular fields disposed in a dynamic fractal pattern as space..there are 2 sorts of vortices contracting and expanding. Of these sorts a further distinction exists: contraction that occurs clockface wise or antinclockface wise. The left hand rule is a mnemonic for clockfaced rotation and the right hand rule for anti clockfaced rotation. Few realise that Maxwell held these ideas about the faraday fields. He in fact was not alone in proposing vorticularity. However, the mathematics was extremely difficult,mand a quaternion system of calculation was eagerly adopted by him. From this system he was able to derive his equations, and then to add the term that made the difference: the free force couple! His equation worked in predicting all the effects of Faradays experiments, but implied there was a moment couple free to act anywhere in space. This meant that electric fields and magnetic fields were everywhere in space, according to his theoretical model. This did not fit with hs initial vorticular model, so he did nt develop it further. The equations themselves seemed to give the whole picture. But the picture they painted relied on electric and magnetic fields being united as an electromagnetic field, and for moment couples to be transmitted at the speed of light.

It was Einstein that concluded these moment couples could be thought of as massless electrons and thus as particles of light, which he called the photon.

Thus a field theory was transformed ack into a corpuscular theory, but mass, the problem, was simply excluded. In fact Einstein excluded mass in all his calculations. Mass was something added in later. Mass in fact ruined the incredible symmetry of the equations! Although Einstein knew mass was problematic he did not know how to get around it. His famous rest energy equation gave him license to move to the energy paradigm that most theoretical physicists use today. . But what is energy? He could only justify energy in terms of mass, and that was mass in motion, and it only added up if the maximum speed in the Lagrangian he used was the speed of light. He therefore posited it as a law of nature,mand thus everything became relative to the constant speed of light.meindteins relativity is relativity to the speed of light.mthe relativity of the observer is secondary but a necessary aspect of the calculus.

The problem that Einsteinmcould not fathom is due to Newton and his collaborators in the corpuscular theory. But it requires Grassmanns analysis to bring it out into the open.

The Ausdehnungs Lehrer is really a theoery about making theoretical models in physics and Mevhanics. The 1862 version was heavily influenced by Robert Grassmnn, and aimed at the mathematical audience, but herrmann's 1844 book was about an analytical method to develop theoretical models for the Kinematics and the mechanics of space using proper geometrical ideas put in place in the primary schools of Stetin by his father Justus. Now Jakob Steiner was the greatest geometer to come out of Stetin, so one would have thought he would have masterminded this project, but in fact it was Justus Grassmann

Grassmann replaced the then grundsätze of Prussian geometrical theory, with something more constructive and intuitive at the same time. Very much a precursor to Kleins Transformational geometry, grassmann took out the demands for intellectual proof, which would be beyond 7 to 8 year olds and replaced it with dynamic constructive evidence. In this way any child could demonstrate the fundamental ideas of geometry and comprehend theorems based on them. They could also demonstrate theorems based on them even though they could not give the logical or syllogistic form of the proof.

This made geometry dynamic and more interesting. Before or at least in the formal setting geometry was static. The images did not matter, the logical axioms demonstrated the theorems, not the diagrams or the process of construction. In this sense it is odd for Russell to use this critique of Grassmanns to make his own attack on geometry complaining about the reliance on diagrams by Euclid! This claim has been shown to be false. Euclid did not rely on a particular diagram, but rather on the relationships and properties of the forms and conditions and clear deductions from them whether syllogistic or conditional..

This was the heart of Euclid, the teaching of philosophical thinking , not geometry! The Stoikeioon is important in the platonic academy because it taught philosophy through Plato's theory of Forms/Idead. Grassmann's criticism of Euclidean geometry is therefore misplaced. Euclid aught philosophy in preparation of those who wished to become Astrologers. Similarly Grassmann wished to teach dynamic differential geometry in preparation of those who were to become the future Prussian scientists and technologists.

Grassmann's analysis went deep. He realised that we perceive things in different modes. In one mde we see a continuous line, in another we see a line discretised into lengths. In yet another mode we see the line pointing out a direction. These 3 mdes he realised described the identical same thing. Thus to say the line is analogically is misleading. The line in question is a form that enables identity between the 3 modes! Thus grassmann rather than separating the three processes in notation argued for a single combinatorial notation that carried all the identity attributes! This powerful idea meant that the continuous and the discrete could be set as identities, the continuous as algebraic in form, the discrete as combinatorial in form.

As revolutionary and non Euclidean as this is portrayed it is in fact highly Euclidean, and the substance of books 2 and7 in the Stoikeioon.

Let us see this principle in application with regard to mass.

We have before us a continuous mass of matter. Because it has form it is in fact not a magnitude only but also a quantity of that continuos magnitude. Algebraically let us call it M which represents a continuos magnitude of variable quantity.

Now the same mass is perceived as a collection of particles. My mode of perception has changed but the mass has not. In order to use this mode I switch to the Euclidean arithmoi for steros arithmos. These are patterns of units applicable to a solid mass which being a quantity of magnitude can be represented by some mosaic of metrons thought of as units(an arithmos).

In this form and according to Euclid book 7 we can factorise it into 3 commensurate factors called meke, plates, and bathos, length, width and depth. This we define as the bulk or volume of the mass. However this does not change unless the scale size of the metron changes. However, this is all visual, and it is clear that the mass draws a different weight depending on the substance of which it is made. Newton chose to define a mechanical mass. That is a mass that drew weight. To account for this he introduced the notion of density.

Where did density come from? It derives from the description of measuring differences by weight. This was a common enough standard and one that was trusted. The density of crops were measured in this way. Weighing was a measure of the quality and density of a substance. The bulk of a substance was an estimate by eye or by volume measure. The weight density for a fixed volume or measure was used to judge the whole crop yield which may be counted in sacks .

Clearly a sack of corn could be weighed to find its density. All the sacks could be weighed and a precise density for thr whole crop given, but in fact this was not done. A few samples were taken as the standard density and the result multiplied by the bulk , the number of sacks.

http://dictionary.infoplease.com/troy-weight

http://www.dozenalsociety.org.uk/history/poundhist.html

Newton and his colleagues used this agricultural method to define dynamic mass, the quantity of matter!

A continuous mass was thus identified with a bulk and a unit density conjuncted together.

For Newton this was so obvious he hardly discusses matter anymore. Part of this response was due to the occult notions of the Alchemists, and a law against multiplying the Kings gold. Keeping it simple and above board avoided a lot of problems. It also obscured mass in a tautological identity . Later philosophers confused a measure or a quantity of measurement with the matter that was being measured. Newton did not. The matter being measured was continuous or particulate, but it was measured by the same dynamic mechanics of a balance. This was the quantity of matter measurement. Others called it the mass measurement and felt it defined mass, when it only defined a method of measurement.

So Newton established an identity between an algebraically continuous quantity As a MEASURE, and 2 discretized measures volume and density. Thus his notation superseded his underlying concepts, and the algebraic measure became the concept of mass. This logically meant that the concept of density was the fundamental nature of mass and what was density?

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1701-25-mint-reports.html

Algebraically you run into a tautology , but procedurally you weigh a standard volume first to determine density.

http://www.assayone.com/fire-assaying.html

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1701-25-mint-reports/newton-rate.html

http://www.pierre-marteau.com/editions/1701-25-mint-reports/report-1702-07-17.html

http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/prism.php?id=94&loc=27&sr=26

http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCurrency/CurrencyIntros/Intro1702Assay.html

The underlying corpuscular theory of density was the count of the number of particles in a standard volume. So the validity of density rested on observation, being able to count each particle or corpuscle. It was enough to work out a valid way to count all the particles. This was the ultimate check. In practice for large particle collections they were weighed or assayed. The assay of a material was complex and time consuming, but it was the ultimate foundation on which density measurements were built. Density measurement was a balance against a standard substance, usually water.

In mass therefore we have no definition of matter beyond the corpuscular theory, which supports a tautological notion of density, while portraying a fractal identification with a continuous notion of mass

The Shunya field does the same sort of thing, but this time explicitly and carefully and using observable fields not corpuscles. The observed behaviour of these fields is also incorporated. The measure, the quantity of matter is not the first measure, and the measure the density of matter is replaced by the measure the density of the fractal field structures. Assay is still fundamental but this time it is the assay of electromagnetic spectra in a standard volume.