Charge

The first model was a fluid that inhabited matter. In those days fluid meant anything that flowed. Thus matter meant anything that was rigid.

Terms have changed, but the matter fluid distinction remains to separate mass from charge.

The fluid was posited as suffusing a rigid, crystalline( later model) framework. In designing the model 2 fluids were posited leaving a neutral framework. The fluids created the equilibrium witnessed in electrostatic phenomena, but they were not part of the framework or mass, they were in addition to it.

The problem was that rubbing a material created 2 effects of 2 sorts, that is 4 sorts . The material was important, but discounted in the final theorising. Amber the original Electra and glass, rubbed by polishing cloths. In both cases the polishing created repulsion effects in the same material , but the different materials would attract.

At this early stage, the ache my laws forebad investigations into these " occult" phenomena, and so the chemical reactions of alchemy were not linked to these electrostatic effects. The materials had to be discounted to avoid accusation of alchemy. Matter became this rigid framework and electrostatic fluids were occult essences that invoked spiritual models , usually devil or daemon smilies.

When researchers began to call the fluids charge, it was not a revision of matter, the rigid framework, it was an additional essence carried by or within the framework having no contributing factor to the framework, but eventually allowed to define the structural, geometrical or architectural arrangements of the framework. Charge implied a field of invisible forces acting in a radial and dynamic way the same way Newton described for gravity, but "of course" it was in no way gravity, that would be preposterous.mgravity was an effect of the mass of the rigid framework was it not?

Time and custom had deified certain Newtonian principles which were only ever Lemmae and definitions, in short Newton's bes model he could come up with, but still only an approximation of reality , a human model of a divine mechanics.

This kind of " due deference" meant that empirical data was ignored for a long time.,it meant that chemistry which developed a more complex view of matter, particularly in reaction dynamics built its model on physical principles, but physics did not immediately refine its principles on the basis of chemical empirical ism until it was much later, and too late to dismantle a framework of explanation providing thousands with jobs status and engaging life goals.

The conception of matter as a framework inhabited by invisible force fields received a dent when Michelson and Morely found supposedly no evidence of an aether. The consequence of this was to develop a " mathematical" model of physical interactions. This made certain theoretical extremes constituents of everyday physics, obscuring empirical contradictory data. However it gave Einstein the freedom to redefine matter as an energy identity, and Aether as a Lagrangian constraint. What Einstein did not do was redefine charge. No one except Maxwell understood charge as inherent in any force field. However Maxwell felt that electric and magnetic fields as a Faraday conceived them were the fundamental fields of all nature and must relate to gravity.He could not proceed however without radically redefining mass. His prediction was that mass , the quantity of framework matter was related to the dynamic electromagnetic field, in a similar way to Einstein. However, he derived the mass directly from the magnetic flux intensities. It was entirely feasible that the rigid framework was not a rigid matter at all! However, it had to be some configuration of the generally accepted Aether.

The missing mathematical paradigm for einsteins bold recasting of physics was the fractal paradigm. Because the fractal nature of experience was repulsed by physicists in favour of nice uniform particles, the very nature of particles or corpuscles, no matter how soft or elastic meant that the jump from particles to electromagnetic patterning would be resisted stubbornly unto this dy.

Matter is not structured ultimately according to any model. But if I model matter it must not be in the context of space and matter,mbecause I have thn to model space. For this reason all western models assume space is empty of matter, that is space encloses matter like a container without bounds. This dualistic conjugation of experience into nothing containing something is an absurdity we have accepted far too long.

My experience is that of conjugating everything into something in the foreground and the rest in he background. This is the ontological experience of Shunya. From this experience I have built the Shunya Field theory within the fields in he background is every equilibrium force I need to describe charge as a fundamental contributor to the foreground Spaciometry I call " matter" . The dynamics of this force background means I can explain all motions as foreground experiences of 3 background forces.myhe centripetal, the centrifugal and the orthogonal tangential.. The consequence of this triumvirate is that motions in the foreground all move trochoidally as if constrained by gigantic vortices or cones. This vorticular foreground motion is a consequence of these ther background forces in dynamic equilibrium.

Very simply, but profoundly indeed, charge is the motion in and of a spherical force field.
Force being that kinaesthetic experience of this motion as it excites first the skin sensory mesh as pressure and ultimately the musculoskeletal sensory mesh as strain. The excitement of these meshes can be symbolically modelled by dynamic forms experienced as intensities in the visual auditory kinaesthetic representational systems. He notion of field while still potent is better expressed as a fractal regional disposition of related intensities. Thus a musical note including all its overtones is a field. Thus objects that display resonance with a musical tone display the notion of charge in a fuller sense than the unexplained and inexplicable physics definition.

The relation to charge and to mass is in this guise: that the fractal regions possessesing these vorticular structures at any scale represent the density of space within any imagined volume. The nature of the vorticular interactions within a volume reflect the dipole lines commonly associated with electromagnetic interactions and misleadingly described as lines of force. Dipole lines do not correspond with lines of force. They represent the dipole orientation to competing centripetal, centrifugal and tangential forces. Consequently the dipole lines reveal the effect of the vortices on di polar, dielectric,diamagnetic materials which are themselves fractal structure of vortices,

Thus charge is not an add on to materials defining architectural arrangements, charge is not different to matter and thus mass, charge is the paradigm shift in the theory of matter, the corpuscular theory that was not accepted and relegated to the position of an onlooker.

Charge is the fundamental description of the Newtonian triumvirate of centripetal, centrifugal and tangential force fields in dynamic equilibrium. From it, by means of the fractal paradigm we derive the structures , the architecture and the densities and intensities we experience as matter.

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