There has been a move away from maxwells space model based on vortices to a string or spring model concocted as if it conveyed Faradays theory of lines of force. This is not the case. Faraday was at a loss to comprehend these clear lines .Maxwell put forward the most consistent theoretical description. No one could understand it, so another description was devised which was "incorrect" ie lacked essential details, but gave the right answer. This analogous model is important, but it is only a simpler model f the intricacies of the electromagnetic Fields.
This video however has made clear one important element I did not know about the transport of electric current, the displacement current or Field!
I lost all my letters to and From Nassim Haramein about his work, but i do recall writing to him giving him what i knew or suspected or even speculated. Right or wrong i do recall speculating about the space time manifold. I was in the middle of pesach and i recall saying the string or string oscillator theory was too limiting, Un fact the Matzos bread i was eating was a better candidate, a sprung mattress was a better candidate. Then i thought about bees in a beehive and the honeycomb structure of the hive a a model finishing with a jar of marbles as possibly the best model!
I have moved on through my own expository and discovery research, and now have bubbles on my mind! But these bubbles are toroidal , almost spherical, beadlike. These beads contain a helical vortex through the centre.
Although it was speculative on my part it is consistent with the thinking of others i have found. What i hope to demonstrate is that there is nothing new under the sun, but old ideas have become misunderstood and lost. Technologies now exist to do the detailed iterative processes to create accurate models. We just need to bring the ideas into the modern form, where that is applicable, and the modern form into the older formulations where that is necessary.
The issue for me, and this goes back to Justus Grassmann and Kant, the subject of geometry was constructed to be about plane figures, when it has always been about space. Justus Grassmann applied a Dialectic argument to this false notion of geometry and found fault with it, under the name of Euclid wrongly. However, his analysis and conclusions were false due to the premise he started from. I have found this most dissatisfying. However his son Hermann corrected this notion of geometry to the geometry of the Raum, Space. I call it Spaciometry, and this i think has saved me from needles false starts, and given me kinship with Herrmann.
Where Justus did make an advance is in his analytical olution to the problem. In this he foreshadowed the developing group and ring theoretical approaches to athematics. Herrmann hoowever was the true architect of th Grassmann contribution, distinguishing the work of his father with his own developments and insight and independent analysis. Herrmann's re analysisi of his fathers topic, revealed what everyone else had missed and lead to the Analytical combinatorial Method exposited in the Ausdehnungslehere 1844. The 1862 version is mainly a rewrite of this done by his brother Robert in collaboration, but steered heavily toward roberts goals rather than Hermanns.
By and large geometry was formulated as a subject division between the death of Newton and the rise of Kant and Gauss. Therefore in Newtons day there was no geometry, there was only mechanics and the classics. Thus Newtons Principia was a substantial departure from classical education, developing the notion of a subject called Mathematics. Descartes Geometrie was perhaps the only "geometrical" text extant in newtons time, but it is and was a work of Algebra. Prussian philosophers had constructed a subject for the universitât called axiomatic geometry and it was this that was drawn down into the Prussian primary education in the Humboldt reforms, after itself being reformulated by teachers like Justus Grassmann.
There can be little doubt that Newtons Principia influenced the axiomatic movement in geometry and tmathematics, but some "geometers "resisted this algebraisation of "geometry" or mechanics because it represented a blinding of the eyes, a shift from plain visual apprehension and intuition, and frankly a hands on demonstrative and dynamic civility, to a sparse, still meditative and dialectic ( logic) style. There was no real advantage to the style in the early days of Descartes and de Fermat, it was purely fashionable to lay abed and reason the construction of God's universe. A few minor successes were all it took to ensure Descartes celebrity, and his business acumen did the rest. Descartes had to make a living, and it had to be a comfortable one. The very structure of "geometry" had to wait for Wallis and Newton to propound, and this was done not under the subject title, but scattered throughout works on classical texts.
Newton and his contemporaries therefore did not think in terms of plane geometry but in terms of mechanics, and thus 3d space. They thought spaciometrically.
I have had cause to think spaciometrically since I felt the constraints of my geometrical education, which was ostensibly Euclidean, but really some concocted set of notions termed "geometry". This was the problem. A field of study was advanced only to spawn some subfields of study purporting to be introductions to the initial field. Thus geometry was spawned purporting to be the precursor or introduction to mechanics of the Heavens! Such spawned subjects should in fact be examined to see if they were introductory. Because so many different opinions prevailed about which principles were truly necessary and a basis for Mechanics, some sought to set out clear principles for judgement, and these were the axles or axioms of there approach. This was clearly a copy of Newton s presentation in hs Principia. Descartes adopted a discursive approach running hither and thither as the fancy or the algebra took him. Thes who had read classics and particularly the Stoikeioon would recognise immediately the source of Newton’s style! However newtons axioms were far more extensive tan Euclid's Aitemae, and certain scholars tried to read Newton into Euclid, creating axioms where there are none!
Thus the "axioms of geometry" for the most part were poorly concocted, and Grassmann and Gauss both realised this and sought to correct it, Gauss through his protege Riemann, Grassmann by his own dialectical analysis.
Dialectics was and s a philosophical style of discourse. Taking any two subjects one compares, contrasts and concludes and recommends. This discourse usefully employed philosophical reasoning which came to be partitioned into logical argumentation especially in synthesising the parts discovered by analytical proportioning. Thus the whole procedure of dialectics involved analysis by setting up bounded terminology and looking at the relational process in those new terms. When a satisfactory analysis has been achieve, them the next part is the synthesis of ths new notation into a whole. This new whole is tested against real experience and modified accordingly.
Newton synthesised the Principia from years of precise exacting mechanical and alchemical analysis and research. His first definition of matter however deliberately obscures his by then vast secret knowledge of matter!
In lumping matter into one blob he followed mechanical rules not alchemical, but many of his Lammas actually come from his analysis of the stated aspect of the lrmma by his method of fluents. The difference between Neton's method of fluents and Leibniz differential geometry, is that newtons method was a philosophical conduction of the mind to these infinitesimal scales, while Leibniz used a limit approach based on setting differentials to zero. Because of this he could not understand how Newton came up with the crucial binomial series expansion.
In the principal, Newton notes his experimentation of the mechanics of orbits had taken him to a spaciometric analysis of circular dynamics. In his experiments he determined 3 necessary forces, centrifugal, centripetal and tangential. Without all three circular motion cannot be adequately explained.
The usual interpretation of Neton's laws of motion suffers from a revisionist approach. For Newton all motion in the heavens was ordained by god to be elliptical, as Kepler had discovered with much tedious experimentation. Fortunately, Newton enjoyed much calculation, and like Wallis cultivated the mental ability to calculate rapidly, systematically and accurately. Newton therefore analyses the elliptical curve into 3 components: the radial parameters, the tangential parameters and the third is the force parameters that act in these radial directions. His first 2 laws simply explain this situation, while his 3rd law warns of the inherent complexities of it. The 4 th law reveals his sim, the equilibrium system of forces he calls inertia.
With these and other observations and definitions of celerity motive and measures of quantity, Newton constructs through mechanical principles alone, but with the insight of his method of fluents, a geometrical model by which to exposit the motion of every object. The tangent force is a crucial force in the system because as one drops down the scal to motion on the earths surface, these great celestial motions appear ,by his fluent method to become equal with a right line. And fractally, the same rule applies to smaller scale curves with greater curvature.
Mechanically also a radial force that is centripetal is absolutely necessary to describe any curvature, but a radial force which is centrifugal is required initiate and balance the whole equilibrium.
That forces are involved in this curved motion is experientialy clear, and thus axiomatically described. What is not clear is the structural arrangement in ths force equilibrium and this Newton sets out as his axioms. These axioms are clear to him and by them he can adequately explain and quantify motion and forces.
In the equilibrium elliptical state planets appear to move effortlessly, as if there motion is set rather than ordained. By explaining the force system Newton reveals the instantaneous attention of agents of God to the motions of his creation! Apparently French philosophers like Laplace and Lagrange, felt it was unnecessary to ascribe any involvement of God. The motion could be seen as the resultant of the interplay of these forces which were quite mechanical! Lagrange in particular introduced the calculus of variation to further push gods out of the picture! The variations were given to principles of least action or maximal conditions.
With such philosophies the French hoped to rid themselves of centuries of catholic dogma and propaganda, and advance in the new technological age!
So what we face is classical Astrological principles. traceable back to Babylonian methods of recording and calculating planetary and stellar positions in their seasons, which dominated the Sumerian culture to the extent that these principles were employed in commerce, in politics,in technology, in land survey and assignment, in personal and public decision making… which became known as the astrologers art and the calculations and combinations as the Gematria. This Gematria became the distinctive mark of the Pythagorean Mathematikos, a graduate of the Pythagorean schools, and through egyptian and Platonic influences came to be confused with land survey or geometry, and with Mechanics. Whereupon through religious and imperial useage the confusion and separation became marked , resulting in a notion of a subject called Geometry distinct from general Astrological principles.
With such a division in mind French scholars and philosophers were able to recast astrological principles as Celestial Mechanics, distinguishing geometry as a precursor, and Astrology as an Irrational Science!. That Astrology has led to both Mechanics and Geometry and from Geometry through Euclid to Algebraic expression of the same Gematria and to Arithmetical devices, is without doubt, in my opinion. Thus when an innovator like Newton, based on a deep appreciation of the classical mind, recasts the same into mathematical principles, along the line of Euclid's many works and those other greek scholars and philosophers, it is no mean feat. It is also no wonder that he was difficult to apprehend, let alone comprehend by most other men variously and vicariously employed in other pursuits and dalliances!
His true students De Moivre and Cotes provide us with a window into his enlightened but riven "soul".
Action at a distance, is Newtons considered opinion after years of exhaustive investigation in which he could not perceive or divine the active principles any further. That Faraday should denote this action as being somehow associated to the lines of electric and magnetic force is an insight that escaped Newton because he saw no lines only metallic and fractal vegetation in space. The simple experiment of iron filings, though known, did not inspire a thought of lines, because these were clearly forces. And neither did Faraday perceive these lines as anything but indications. It was maxwell that sought to construct a fractal pattern of vorticular gears that would explain both the lines and the currents that flow associated with the lines. In his pattern one may easily see the sacred geometry constructions, and the fractal vegetation patterns of Newtons experiments with Mercury.
Newton mentions lodestone in passing, but only as a metaphor for the mysterious action he later calls gravity. Hooke was the only scientist of Newton's day who even bothered to quantify magnetic force. Thus Newton clearly had no clue as to what gravity might potentially be, nor the significance of Electra and Magnes in his quest for active principles.