On a Theory of Space
We may start with Space as the archetypal Shunya, whether i wan to divide it into multipolar vorticular fields of force equilibria, or motion field equilbria of a vorticular nature or not( where a pole in fact refers to that unreal entity called also a centre or a point of centrality, rather than a distinguished straight line relationship between two such centres!)

The concepts of materiality of space start with a conjugation into a boundary between my inner experience and my outer experience. Such a boundary is immaterial but serves to define a material experience in an otherwise indistinguishable continuum. It allows me to differentiate continuaa, and to perceive a notion related to continuaa which is extension.

Extension as Descartes eventually came to use it is a subtle concept enabling perceptible things to be in their positions in space according to my perception and distinguishing of them, and indeed my naming of them by a process of comparison. It is my ability to establish or define an immaterial boundary that gives extension its subtlety. Wherever i define a boundary to some perceeption of some quality or essence or experience of magnitude, that discretization of my continuaa allows extension to populate space with entities that are bounded and thus quantifiable.

The discretization of extensive experiences and the boundaries that entail this discretization enable contiguity, continuity, and discretenes to be identifiable concepts. Armed with these i may proceed to a more complex concept which at the last i may call materiality, but which is a convenience to mask the complexity and indeed tautology of experiences, extensivenessesm magnitudesm and quantities that now are laid out before me as Ideas or Forms in the Socratic and Platonic sense.

/the distinction of materiality, ill defined as it is , leads swiftly to another equally ill defined conception of immateriality, which latterly has come to be called synonymously "Spirit" or Essence. Proceeding by the man made "rules" of "logic" or grammar, such a description may not be allowed to mix in any way. Thus in Descartes time and beyond, much time was wasted in defending this "silly " rule and in maintaining gods independence from his creation, if you so will.

However, different cultures did not pin their very lives to such arcane rules, but allowed all things to be mixed as willed according to a Yin Yang polar continuum structure which neve achieved absoluteness, as in western Philosophical/theosophical debate. Thus allowing a more calm approach to the foibles of Natural "Law" behaviours.

The Euclidean approach to Philosophy of Socrates and {lato, The Newtonian Principles of Astrological metaphysics and his co commitant Philosophy of quantity as expressed in the Methid of Fluents, plus his Praxis of Natural Philosophy, all combined to produce a guideline for wesern industrial revolutionary Thinkers and inventors which gave them extraordinary technical abilities but misalligned them to Natural Law. It requires Ed Lorenz Aperiodic behavioural Theories to bring Western Metaphysical theory into line with the Easern Yin Yang theoretical Structures.

In the meantime, materiality and Spirituality have been divorced where they ought not to be in the west, whereas in the east They are one and the same in the polar description of existential experience.

Where Newton mislead the west is in dismissing fluids from consideration in his definition of the quantity of matter. This decision which i now call a mistake, was forced upon him by the medieval beliefs of the church at the time, but was not the case in enlightened Arabia. Where Alchemical 'Lore" was open.
Consequently, though electric and magnetic phenomenon were discussed as fluididc behaviours, they were divorced from matter in Newtons philosophy of Quantity and the quantities of motion.
Newton did discuss fluid mechanics, but only as some adjunct to his corpuscular definition of matter, which is extremely ill formed, but accepted everywhere as axiomatic.

We can address the matter today in some detail and with some confidence of improving the descriptions of matter.

The first metaphysical principle must be(by your leave):

the only goal of this endeavour is to construct a model that faithfully represents what is empirical and observable.

To what use that model may be put discoursively or in rhetorical discourse is not my concern, but misrepresentations of the model are my business to correct.

Should someone construct a similar model, identicality must be determined by comparison to empirical data. If both faithfully represent empirical data as it is known then both models(or all models which fulfill this condition) are deemed identical.The inner workings are of little account to the effocacy of the model, but individual users of the models may express a preference.

Now supposing the inner workings to be the model of the workings of space is not allowed, unless and until observable and empirical data of such inner workings may be presentable.

Thus Hypothesis, based on the models is not allowed, but hypothesis based on phenomenom and empirical data is ,
Recasting of te models, no matter how inconvenient is always allowed, with the aim of obsoleting the former model by the latter.

The duty then of the model maker is to defend the model against misrepresentation, but not necessarily to promote the new model beyond postulation to such as think they may be authorities. Should they reject the new wine, saying the old is better, this should come as no surprise, but whatever advantage the new model gives its creator should be exploited in the presence of the young, that they may be given access to the better way.

Should the old guard seek to destroy such advances and opportunities the creator of the new, improved model is advised to seek employment and living elsewhere, where his " magic " may be a[[reciated. In any case, the lesson of history is that empires are required to change the status quo, or many satisfied customers of your service. Secrets are manytimes necessary to intrigue.

The proposed model of space is simple and observable:
Space will consist in extensive magnitudes that are motile and perceivable as motile, bounded, extensive rigid and fluid. Each of these attributes will be tautologically dependent on the other as far as the processes of the perceiver are concerned, and the perceiver is aware of a fractal relationship of levels and scales and conjugations between itself and that which is not itself, the whole being termed in synthesis and in discourse as Shunya.

Accordingly, when Newton excludes fluids from his model of matter he set himself upon a different course to the one which is proposed here!
Keeping it simple
By conjugation Shunya is percieved as "me" and everything not "me". Me is a primitive undefined concept at present, but its meaning is subject to the reader.
Shunya is now going to be conjugated in an alternative way that cuts across and convolutes with the initial conjugation, but which is wholly dependent on it, that is "I" conjugate Shunya again into rigid and fluid.
I and me are identified as having the same referrent in these 2 cojugations.
Now i may through the Logos, Kairos, Sunthemata Sumbola Processes begin to develop and assign attributes and characterisitics by these convoluted conjugation processes.

My second conjugation thereby acquires the notion of extension, boundarisation, relative motions, centres of rotationasl motion, relative kinematic disitinctions, Relative intensities, and relative sensory representations, etc..

Conjugating rigid and fluid again with these additional distinctions i develop a fractal, scale free attribution of propeties and behaviours etc, a ontiguous and causal attribution of motion transformation, etc, and a sensory mesh distinction and representation of continual transformations. At the last i may adopt and adapt "Panta Rhei", the conception that everything flows.

This concept is important in my subsequent and dependent conjugation processes as i establish my scale metrons to quantify all thes qualitive experiences of magnitude. Later, i will deploy magnitude to cover the internal "m3" and so substantially change its apparent and undefined meaning for the reader.

The purpose of my study is as Newton put it , to by reason and experiment exposit the behaviours and workings of my experiential continuum, and the best model to do this with is with a fluid model.

The almost ideal introductory fluid is Water, because the notions of fluid dynamics can be developed in this medium. In particular, its phase transformations admirably indicate that Everything flows "forwards" as well as "Backwards"

Now , observing water i can make 2 conjugations : one is that water flows as a "body" which i will define as a voluminous stream.
The second is that water flows as an oscillator or undulator, which i will define as a consequence of coupled boundary conditions.

Now conjugating just to the notion of water or fluid motion i have to state fluid motion is an adjugation of bodily motion in a "stream" AND undulatory motion within a bounded condition.

This simple statement is the fundamental synthesisi of Fluid motion

fluid motion is an adjugation of bodily motion in a "stream" AND undulatory motion within a bounded condition.

One cannot fully describe fluid motoions without the 2 "components" being presented, whatever additional properties of fluids are attributed.

i may now complexify the analysis of fluid flow Phenomenon using the Newtonian Method of Fluents and the Principles of Astrology(Mathematica!)
By concentrating on flow elements called streamlines i can track differential bodily fluid flows. BUT, and this is where the simple synthesis principle above highlights a shortfall in experimental practice, i have to also add the boundary conditions of each streamline to describe its undulatory characterisitics!

Thus a complex flow should be analysed by some tool or method that quantifies both these aspects. bodily stream motion And undulatory stream boundary motion.

I am going to point out that the streamlines sysnthesise "extensively", that is within a given volume you combine all the streams for the volume description. but the boundary conditions on each stream synthesise 'intensively" that is by a process of constructive and destructive combination the internal flow characteristics of an internal "test" volume are described.

The combined , superposed results of both processes hopefully model closely the actual flow phenomenon on which they are based.

I also want to draw attention to in passing, that the boundary conditions of the streamline are sufficient , and in effect the complexities of motion internal to the stream line do nt need to be known in detail.

Issues of what may be happening in a streamline at one scale are addressed by using an iterative model , a fractal modeling concept that changes the scale of measurement in a related , almost self similar way.

Also in passing, The use of this fluid dynamic model in modelling Electromagnetic phenomenon must transfer fully, so that electromagnetism is not a "wave" Phenomenon but a Streamline AND a wave Phenomenon. The ignoring of the bodily motion of space in Electromagnetism is the cause of its present difficulties. Historically this was due , in part to the collapse in confidence in an " aether" medium.

While an Aether medium may lack certain experimental evidence, it nevertheless does not negate its role in the modeling process, which does not require the reader to decide on what is real or not, merely on whether the model fulfill its analytical and synthetical purpose of accurately expositing the phenomenon. In addition, if an analogical mechanism is found to function similarly to the observed phenomenon, this validates the modelling method, but dues not make any comment on "reality". What is "Real" at the end of the day is a personal subjective decision.


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