I believe I can see an analogy between my conception of SpaceMatter and modern consensus physics..
Space matter is analogous to the concept of a neutron considered as a fluid substance. There are 2 types of neutron, the neutron and the anti neutron. What distinguishes them is the clockwise direction of spin for a fluid element. Now a clockwise spin is really a relative rotation dependent on the orientation of the spin axis in the observers reference frame. Thus clockwise is really indistinguishable from counter clockwise in a single axis.
Where a distinction can be made is if the rotation is spiralMthus a counterclockwise inward spiral is different to a counterclockwise outward spiral. Thus two observers can distinguish the same spinning object by the inward spin toward the axis of spin. This inward spiral i call the anti of the outward spiral.
Let us consider the neutron fluid element as the inward spiral, then the outward fluid spiral will be the anti neutron.,
The structure of the neutron fluid element will be a vorticular shell structure in which the fluid is spiralling inward. External to this structure is a surface shell of fluid that moves with great internal rotational velocity. It drives the inward spiral which necessarily compresses the fluid until equilibrium is reaced.mthis equilibrium is dynamic and can be considered as a blance of pressures,mor an entrapment of motive, or a storage of energy,mor some other concept of inward spiralling fluid motion.
Now normal vortex theory states that vortices form around regions of low pressure,nbut this has now been shown to be too simplistic. Vortices are in fact dynamic structures of counter shell motions, that is sheets of fluid motion that form bubbles. Bubbles within bubbles creating this dynamism by the surface dynamics of thes bubble shells.
To fully describe a vortex phenomenon we have to use the high rotational shell motion versus it's slower denser or more ponderous core motion. This is the concept of high pressures vortex walls forming around low pressure centres. The pressure reading we are using to make these assertions are kinetic or stagnation pressures as opposed to fluid static or normal to low pressures.
The slower moving core will have a lower impact pressure,,but also will have a higher hydrostatic pressure than the rotating wall of fluid. Thus we see in a spinning bucket that the higher hydrostatic pressure forces the spinning fluid up the bucket wall. This is not to be confused with centripetal and centrifugal force. These Newtonian force concepts are explanatory only of the resolved actual source of motive which certainly involves hydrostatic pressure as well as rotational shear motives from the bucket.
So here we consider motive as segwaying into to regions of vorticular motion, the outer shell of vey fast or high energy rotational inward motion moves into a motive region of slower or lower energy rotational motion. There may be a central region of zero motion characterising balance rotational motive. This is where the difference between motive, corpus motion or celerity is demonstrated, a corpus may have zero celerity but contain very high motive. This motive moreover is not incompressible, so it may stack up to immense proportions. What creates a motive imbalance and thus a restructuring of the system is what is explored in high energy physics, radioactive decay, cold fusion nd numerous other phenomena of change in elemental substances..
In order to be algebraic, elemental substances are iterated into what chemically seems like a pure state, and then these pure states are given a unit of relative density, based on the unit that is easiest to standardise. So at one time it was the levity of hydrogen, then Oxygen was used, but nowadays a particular isotope of carbon is used. Relative densities are carefully chosen to not disturb the existing paradigms too much.
This algebraic notation used in chemistry is just another notation for rhetorically describing proportions and combinations of these units. Because we are using at the base a mosaic of regular units, we can consider the prime " number" proportions, that is those Arithmoi, or mosaics which are unique in terms of exact divisibility using the Euclidean Algorithm. The question is do the elements follow the prime number decomposition of the space time manifold?
As a result of this question it was noted that reactivity seemed to follow a modulo 8 cyclic group pattern.
So let's return to the anti neutron in which the fluid is spiralling out. Again the motive in ward may be high, but the fluid is moving slowly from the centre but speeding up to the boundary. Now there will be a skin of high energy high motion fluid which surrounds the anti neutron. This skin however I'll tend to expand to higher and higher energy motions. This substance will basically decay away into the surrounding fluid, energising the surrounding fluid and driving the Nutron formation as well as influencing the anti neutron behaviour around it tending to drive the anti neutron substance to rarefaction. In doing this it will power the formation of the neutron substance which will gather together by the opposite interaction with the antineutron substance . The inward spiral of the neutron will tend to draw neutrons together, but the outward spiral of the antineutron will tend to push antineutrons apart while energising the structures of neutrons. These will then tend to pull themselves together more eagerly..
The concept of magnetic behaviour I want to associate to the behaviour of neutrons and anti neutrons . The shell of these structures I want to associate with electric behaviour.
The shell of an antineutron contains the most active electric behaviour, but it spreads this high energy fluid throughout its environment enhancing the shells of neutrons. Thus motive fom the anti neutron, as source transfers to the neutron as sink. The arrangement of these structures defines the material behaviours of spatial forms or regions fractally combined.
When neutrons are dominant the material will demonstrate magnetic rope like behaviour. Surrounding this rope is a fast stream of shell fluid running along the neutron trail like rails. The fast shell material is actually anti neutrons expanding rapidly past the neutrons and radiating away from the neutrino globally. The formation of neutron rails is a product of the interaction between the shells of the expanding fluid elements shells of the anti neutron, driven by thebutwardly spiralling core, and the shells of the inwardly spiralling core of the neutrons.
Within these shells vorticular structures are evident. These vorticular structures or eddys in the shells behave like dancing vortices, and exhibit varing spiral orientations as well as inward and outward spiral behaviours. Thus a shell vortex for an anti neutron or even a less active neutron may orbit a more powerful neutron core. A powerful anti neutron core is shedding these types of vortices in its expanding she'll at tremendous rate. The size and type of vortex may characterise it as a shell vortex or as a shell neutron! For an energetic antineutron the fluid element shell may be emitted like huge coronal mas ejections of vorticular forms. Some of these ejections may in fact give birth to neutron vorticular structures.
How does this specifically relate to consensus physics, with protons and electrons and neutrons, all electric and magnetic particles?
First you need to realise that electromagnetic theory says nothing about particles. When Maxwellmconceived it, he thought in terms of fluids. Eventually he refined his equations 22 I think , in terms of fluid behaviours for carrying strain or transmitting strain. He considers stress centres and stress flows for given uniform structures which are collections of vortices, idles of them. What he isvablebtonsay about them in general is very little. He demonstrates only that such a structure can transmit strain from one part o another, whether by stress flows beyween the vortices or strain interactions amongst the vortices.
Heaviide in fact reviewed thevworkmvery carefully, something few have done. Upon review he redacted the formulary o the now famous 4 equations.. These he felt were teh only useful relationships in nearly 100 years of study of phenomena of electric and magnetic behaviour. These 4 formulae are und mental to lucid mechanics. Flowsbthroughnorbroundva surface obey these 4 laws..
Are there 2 fluids in fluid mechanics? Normally a single medium is chosen. But in the viscosity and turbulence experiments 2 fluid media are used. That is when one fluid induces vortices in another by flowing by each other..
Apparently Maxwell added a displacement current in a circuit to account for current flow into a capacitor, this in fact represented a plumbed system with a water tank. The flow in the pipes had to balance the flow into and out of he water tank. Thus the system of equations contained the oscillating tank system. The sudden discharge of which should generate a strain in the surrounding fluid field, that should translate into a strain pulse outside the capacitor/ water tank. Thus the stress in the system, the flow in the pipes creates a strain in the surrounding fluid field. No stress in the plumbed system equates to no strain in the surrounding fluid.
Maxwell was principally concerned with the transmission of strain through a medium under stress. It therefore was not important which material medium it was. By choosing a fluid medium he chose the most challenging behavioural system. That he reduced it to considerations of stress and strain, and the transmission of these through a fluid medium is a remarkable insight. What is even more remarkable is Heviside reducing these formulae to 4 , 2 dealing with boundary conditions and 2 dealing with the stress strain relationship. The stress is usually considered as the flow in the " pipes", while the strain is the change in the medium around the pipes usually described by 2 parameters, electric tension and magnetic tension. The parameters have several labels, reflecting different units of measurement.
Apparently maxwell felt some aspect of flow or stress was missing, and he empirically experimented to determine what that was. He realised it was the stress or flow in the capacitor. Because the capacitor was like a tank the notion of a current flow or stress is not intuitive. Instead a volume change in the amount of flowing fluid in the tank seems more appropriate. Thus a volume change in the amount of stressing fluid is introduced into the formula for current flow. For it to make unit sense the volume change has to be divided by time.
This missing element made a huge theoretical difference. Change in volume is a clear strain indicator, but it is also an indicator of source or sink. Thus, to preserve or conserve energy and matter a cyclical flow pattern is demanded. With the battery considered as an long lived source, the only way for the flow to continue is if a discharge event happens. The sudden release of strain in any material generates so called shock waves, and these strain waves propagate through the medium at a characteristic speed. Thus his prediction of propagating "waves" of electric and magnetic tension.
By identifying the capacitor as a store for this fluid stress, he also identified to Hertz the form of the detector, a capacitor tuned to the strain limit of these strain "waves" or rather undulatory strain disturbances. A capacitor near its limit would be pushed into discharge by a small oscillation. This amplifies in effect what is a small event into a visible or palpable larger event. It took Hertz some considerable time to find the correct air gap for his capacitors, but it isbhisvdoggedness that empirically confirmed one of Maxwells predictions for oscillating stress or current flows. Remarkably, Lodge was on the verge of confirming a similar phenomenon in parallel oscillations in parallel wires a given distance apart..
While I have explained the displacement current in terms of a pipe system, faraday actually used an alternating current in a wire looped capacitor
Now normally parallel wires are used to define electric force to define an electric charge. Then they were used to define a magnetic force to define an electric charge, and finally they were used to define a property called capacitance in terms of electric charge stored between them. Of course this is tautological. Anyone seriously studying these early definitions is immediately aware of this, but very quickly whisked away or even slapped down into the certainty of consensus electromagnetic units.
Because no one will look at this tautology, nor even discuss its implications much fundamental confusion is endemic in the subject.. The tautology, and tautology in general is not wrong, as earlier logicians propounded, and shamed people by in ad hominem attacks, it is in fact to be expected at the foundation of any knowledge base. Tautology is a linguistic difficulty, not a phenomenological one. The same set up will often define several dependant, and thus proportional distinctions. It is the proportionality in tautological systems that makes the distinction.
Thus to define blue I might specify a cloudless sky at mid dsy. This would make a blue sky on a cloudy day , or at a different part of the day not blue!. In fact we factor out these other elements of the definition once we have the experience of blue. We factor them out because the different experiences are inherently proportional. To attempt to define blue linguistically would lead to a linguistic tautology in some of the defining elements. The fact that once we have the experience of blue we can factor ot clouds and times reveals that to get hung up on tautologies is non productive, even counter productive.
So returning to Motive in fluids we can see that by considering fluids Maxwell establishes an experience which allowed him to home in on the fundamental principles of stress imparting strain to a fluid. We then find Heaviside fundamentally reacting these to deal with stress and strain in a fluid circuit containing a capacitor, and finally realising that capacitance is a fundamental determiner of transmission of signals. But because these signals are detected by capacitors it is clear that the behaviour of capacitors is key to understanding the nature of electric strain and magnetic strain. This strain is ambient, it propagates, and thus the question is what propagates in a wire! . The answer, according to Maxwell is the stressor we call current.
But a propagating strain can induce a flow of whatever is in the wire, immediately then that flow creates a strain signal! The system is recursive and self or mutually impinging. One , understandably cannot exist without the other, but cause and effect are mutually dependent.
The only way we make linguistic sense of this is by explanatory sequence. In experience we make sense of t by the multiple sensory stimuli the process induces.
To describe this as fractal is inadequate, but along the right track. It is right because fractal is about almost self similarity in any or every sensory path. It is inadequate because fractal I'd very visually and auditoria lily based at the moment. These systems, being physical, are very kinaesthetically based. By extending the notion of fractal to kinaesthetic, dynamic experience , we approach an almost mystical, full body consciousness experience of the sublime.
Thus to have started with motive and ended with Consciousness shows the remarkable nature of the fluid paradigm.
The remaining issue is hoe the two neutron : neutron and anti neutron mutually support each other in a way that creates all this dynamic synthesis and destruction with a periodical sequences of "stability".