The SFTOE a fractal field theory defining fractal phenomenal density.

The fractal paradigm applied to the Shunya field theory is crucial. The theory is analogous to the corpuscular theory but does not base itself on corpuscles, so the corpuscularity of certain aspects of space have to be accounted for in the notion of a field.

The notion of a field derives from the notion of a sphere. The field is theoretically or presupposition ally a sphere of influence. The question abour the cylindrical nature of a magnetic field around a copper wire is answered by a union of interacting spheres. However, the actual nature of the fields is imagined according to the physical evidence and demonstrations. What was demonstrated was very strange indeed , but what could be picked out were the oscillatory nature of aspects of the field, especially when Faraday demonstrated his mercury motor.

Maxwell initially imagined a field of vortices in exploring the data, and attempting to derive a formulation . These were vortices in the field surrounding matter! His formulation, given this circularity and sphericality assumed in this ether led to his famous set of equations for the 2 fields combined. The consequence of this was that a bold step was needed to make it work, and that was the realisation that the rotational couple, the driving force for the assumed rotation was free in space. This means that the couple always appears in the equations without local coordinates, and in fact can be placed in any coordinate position. To determine that this was a wave phenomenon was a bit of a guess, and required empirical evidence.

Two investigators Lodge and Hertz understood the equations, perhaps better than Maxwell, who was still thinking in terms of vortices and was troubled by the sign of the fields somehow being indeterminate. His initial enthusiasm for and adoption of quaternions was replaced by a growing dissatisfaction with their mercurial complexity, and he rewrote the formulation in several different ways including the newly formulated Vector method of Gibbs. In so doing he cc
Hanged his naive starting point of a field of vortices to the less visual normal vector notion of Gibbs for an area vector, thus losing his imaginative leap in the banality of mathematical notation.

It was Lodge who first noticed the wave like pattern of the electrical spark patterns between a parallel pair of conductors. This agreed with the mathematical formulation which required a free force couple vector in space to balance the equations. A force couple would oscillate in a circular fashion or appear to oscillate, but to expect it to look like a wave is in fact a great presupposition, and it was down to Lodges experimental set up that he drew that conclusion.

Hertz on the other hand set up a ring which clearly exhibited that an oscillating current was expected by magnetic induction. maxwells equations have 2 forms: the electric and the magnetic, and both forms are symmetrical in the mathematics, but out of phase, which was why the sign was such a problem! Hertz was expecting a magnetic force couple to affect his wire loop and to produce a spark across a gap showing a current had been generated. Using this device he mapped out the sphere of influence of the magnetic "wave", as it so easily came to be called and seemingly confirmed a wave like transmission of magnetism in the ether. Similarly Oersted and others were able to confirm the same. The electric transmission in fact not been demonstrated to my current knowledge. It was inferred from the formulation and the apparatus.

The crucial aspect is that a fractal field of vortices was crucial to the development of the field equations, but this was buried by the mathematics! Also the debate about waves and particles was not decided by the success of Maxwells equations because strange " rays" of electricity were found by Crookes, and determined to be the theoretical electron by Thompson, who bowed to the name suggested by an Irishman named Boyle.

The fact that Lorentz had worked out using Maxwells equations the properties of a particle he called the electron, a negatively charged electric " carrier pigeon" just prior to JJ Thompsons announcement shows the intense progress in this field of electricity, with many theories being generated and many being superseded, apparently. To the victor belongs the spoils, and so those who demonstrated empirical evidence were given free range to determine the theoretical underpinnings. Thompson came up with a modified version of the corpuscular theory making an atom into a kind of plumb pudding!

Thus the same formulation explained both a wave transport of magnetism and a particle transport of electric rays. The only connection was that moving electrons generated magnetic fields, and this was as far as they could think up until Bohr and Einstein. We still have not rationalised the wave transport with the particle transport of the "electromagnetic " radio spectrum.

This type of discovery has hardly slowed down in pace. Entrepreneurs also upset the scientific community by capitalising pragmatically on research instruments, skewing the search for knowledge and theoretical consistency away towards technological and commercial advantage. Suddenly a new breed of patrons grew up, made fabulously wealthy by commercial success and willing to buy scientific research and development.

The litter of theories and scientific investigation without proper scrutiny became a source for entrepreneurs to try and find new , un missed angles in a very profitable market place. Academia had lost its controlling hand, and commerce began to produce proprietary technologies based on secret researches. It was the advent of the war that gave government the power to seize and utilise these innovations. Governments also set up their own national scientific research programmes especially when they found or that science in the commercial sector was not necessarily good science or technology!

Government requirements lead to a reinvigoration of the Academic authority over science and the re establishment of universities as major research centres with large funding against which commerce could not compete in general. Today a better collaboration between academia and commerce is strived for, and large multinational companies do release non commercially sensitive research data into the academic realm as well as benefiting from academic research. The patent law has had a crucial role to play in facilitating this.

In the patent office, there are many patent applications for wierd or wonderful inventions, submitted along with complete or indicated alternative theoretical descriptions. Many of these theoretical models are treated sceptically by academia because the lone inventor is a maverick, or because they upset the scientific consensus. The description of working prototypes that the inventor hoped would validate a theory or bring fame and fortune, litter the patent office archives. Some will be taken up in secret when the patent runs out, but many are simply ignored because they are outdated, non commercial or to out of field, but what they show is that the understanding of the electric field and the magnetic field is incomplete in academia, and in our culture. There are many phenomenon that the current models do not explain!. Thus the current model is a work in progress , but hardtorevolutionise or shift even with a working prototype!

Currently, we have particles zipping about all over the place, generating magnetic fields if they have mass and charge, but no mass electrons, called photons are pure particles of field! Einstein created this pure field particle to explain photo synthesis.mclearly something odd is proposed here. There is no moving electron to generate a magnetic field thus Einstein created a virtual electron to explain this field particle: because it is like an electron it generates a magnetic field hey presto we have a massless electromagnetic field behaving like a particle.

The photon was another mathematical trick , just like the theoretical electron. No one was able to accept the wave or Undulatory theory of maxwells equations because they applied not just to magnetic fields but to particles.

If Thompson had not found a particle as he thought, if Lorentz had not anticipated a particle and called it the electron, which by the way he got it wrong initially until pascal corrected him, a particle and a wave would not have been interpolated into fundamental atomic structure. A field would have been an external appendage to matter.

What I am proposing as the Shunya field is simply to quit resisting the obvious and to allow matter to be a field.

The Shuna field thus is a theory of Everything with so called matter being condensing fields, and so called radiation being rarefying fields. However, the complex structures require a further notion introduced by Benoit Mandelbrot, that of fractal geometric structure. The paradigm of a uniform anything is broken in theoretical development. One should start from a fractal space.

The Shunya field is a fractal space, and therefore has a fractal substructure around poles in the space that are in dynamic relative and rotational motion.

The Shunya field has to be discretised into st least 2 fields that act contra to each other in every given direction, and in superposition of every centre of rotational symmetry . In addition every centre of rotational symmetry upon becoming coincident with another is still distinguishable in its action on its relative space or field. The notion that coincidence means identity or collinearity or coplanarity for that matter is rejected for what it is, a mental convenience. Existence cannot be equated to none existence, and thus conservation of existence underpins all field notions.

What difference does fractal non uniformity make?

Existence cannot be equated to none existence, and thus conservation of existence underpins all field notions

Firstly every point in a reference frame can be assigned a behaviour. This is achieved through fully discretising each reference point. Then the distinction labels act as a local reference frame of directions with unit length in those directions . Within these frames other frames can be discretised And thus any direction and position approached by this fractal labelling conjuncted with continuous measurement along those labeled directions.
Now the measurements can be automated and controlled by the labels. This then enables a procedural sequence to be specified which an automatic device can follow.

By this device a programme can be written to describe any motion. Similarly this device can record any motion. The creation of these fractalised data sets enables massive comparisons to be made by the sequence process, and these comparisons reveal the laws of fractal sequence. It is these laws of fractal sequence that are of fundamental interest for they resemble the laws of nature in the form of outcome and in the simplicity found at each fractal level.

Constructing the data sets in this way, rather than in the old uniform data reading method reveals the complexities of the processes of natural phenomenon in a structured way as opposed to a statistical way.. It is the structured way that chimes with our own mental apprehension of reality.

The fractal structure emphasises that we can only model what occurs naturally, and make predictions only where the model reveals periodic measurement processes. Such periodic processes will be based on closed loop motions ad may vary in ways we have loop models for, like conic sectional and spiral motions. But the most fundamental motions are the aperiodic ones , which though unpredictable account for observed behaviours at all scales.

Ed Lorenz aperiodic laws, producing the butterfly effect could underpin field behaviours, explaining what drives rarefaction and condensation in the Shunya field. At present I posit 2 contra fields, which because of the nature of fractals never unmix, nor simply coalesce into a dynamic equilibrium, but rather aperiodically revolve and evolve within each other across the widest spectrum of fractal scales. These scales and behaviours are reflected in the spectral displays we see and measure through spectroscopy nd crystallography, and that is why these to assay methods underlie the theoretical quantity measures to be defined in the quantitative Shunya field theory which is a fractal field theory.
http://www.fractalforums.com/images-showcase-(rate-my-fractal)/mandelbrot-safari/300/?topicseen

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s