Substance, as th collection of all my perceptions of my interaction with space has an analogous structure to space which I call SpaceMatter. Thus SpaceMatter is a construct for a reality I know , philosophically , only by the models I construct, my conjugates of a much greater " reality".

This substance is a primitive for me, in that it is presented to me by my unconscious processes, and I respond to that presentation by attaching signal response markers unconsciously at first, controlled by entities and events in my environment, but later as a pass along the developmental track of dependence, independence, interdependence and finally intra dependence , I Have opportunity to shape my own conscious response and to some extent my unconscious response.

Thus the concept of SpaceMatter, as a perceptual response to more primitive and largely unconscious interactions with my environmenti is a model of something! Something, not Nothing, I can only " know" through my experiential continuum of interactions with it, and the model making that I perform as a responsive process to and of those interactions.

The question that arises is how best to present this point of view?

The answer is to follow the superstructure of Euclid in his Stoikeia.

This structure has long been admired, and is in fact a model testament to the Pythagorean school of philosophy and self development. However it is also clear that Euclid was a master pedagogue among master pedagogues! This work has survived in its form for at least as long as the Hebrew Tanakh, and only the Vedic Hymnaries written in Sanskrit have a longer history of continuous use.

However the superstructure of The Stoikeia is based on the myths of Ishtar and Horus, a powerful myth of destruction and reconstruction in every detail. Thus we must understnd that the Zstoikeia are written backwards. They represent the wisdom of centuries of analysis , reducing the experience down to the final "absurdity" of the seemeia, which then become the signal, the sign, the indication, the point at which we begin to synthesise.

The common method is therefore to begin with definitions of terms. These definitions are really exclamations of observed distinctions, when a process of comparison is utilised. Such a process is simply comparing, contrasting, and concluding by distinguishing with language, that is defining a word for each distinction.

The synthesis process is therefore not random. It is a reconstruction process which is therefore guided by a goal, or target form. However, unless one has been fastidious in documenting all the links and relationships as the analysis and deconstruction takes place, it is more difficult to synthesise the original from the jig saw of pieces or elements!

Quite often pieces may go back together in several different ways that give uprising insight into the structure and behaviour of the original, perhaps completely unobserved in the nalysis stage!

The degrees of freedom experienced in the synthesis stage can never fail to impress the philosopher of the ultimate design imperatives, and lead to the conclusion that the original was intelligently designed. These conclusions are internal belief responses which are subjective. The fact that I can only ever build a model means I am prone to see my reflection in the model building process as some external intelligent agency!

The nature of our experience , and mine in particular is fractal. And thus I naturally see. Self similarity at all scales, or rather almost self similarity. How I decide to respond to that tautological limitation is my subjective choice, but now I am aware of it I can in fact respond in both ways or all ways as it suits.

However, the Euclidean superstructure is about consistent, systematic synthesis, and that discipline does mean that being fast and loose about terms, terminology and perspectives is not encouraged.

I start with SpaceMatter as a fluid, which means that it is in continuous relative rotational motion with every arbitrary point within itself. This relative rotational motion is distinguishable into regions and sub regions in relative rotational motion to each other at the level at which the regions are denied or distinguished.. Thus to use modern Terminology devised by Benoit Mandelbrot, the SpaceMatter has a scale or level free self similarity for relative rotational regions. That is space matter is a dynamic fractal structure based on spheroidal regions of relative rotational subregions

The concept of an almost self similar Spaciometry has lifted the limitation on human conscious ability to apprehend the structures around us, and in us and of us.

Within these dynamic fractal structures are perceptual experiences we call " waves" or undulations. These are perceptions of the relative rotational states of the regions and sub regions, and how they change dynamically. These are perceived by a number of sensory network systems within the structure of the body that I perceive and deine as an independent " self".

Thus tautologically, the self perceives itself by perceiving and distinguishing the " wave" interactions in the fractal dynamics of a fractal SpaceMatter, based on the spaciometric structure of the dynamic " sphere".

Conceptually as a visual model I cn perceive SpaceMatter as a dynamic system of spheres within spheres and external to spheres. These spheres dynamically interact in many ways, some of which we perceive as wave motion interactions, others as transformation interactions , others as structurally dynamic interactions such as collisions, with deformations or explosions, but essentially being perceivable as being in dynamic stability, or dynamic instability , including explosively dynamic instabilities.

In many cases relative dynamic stabilities are described as static stabilities or equilibria . This is in fact one terminology that is misleading . It is best to remember and mark all things perceived as being in dynamic equilibrium of one type or another.

An extremely important class of interactions between these fractal regions in dynamic spheroidal relative rotation is the transformation interactions which change the regions mutual radii or the mutual relative rates of rotations. These 2 changes in space matter correspond to electric behaviours and magnetic behaviours respectively.

The spheroidal regions do transform by their interactions. The transformational forms are best described by trochoidal superstructures. Thus it is better to assume a spheroid dynamic with trochoidal relationships to model the interactions between spheroidal regions. However the collision interactions do also give direct relationship constraints as radii and spin rates are altered.

The property of reflection becomes interesting in this model because the trochoidal interaction for reflection could presumably result in destruction of the incident regions, due to rotation interactions if they are "frictional" at ay scale.

The definition of density reveals that 2 kinds of rotational behaviours are required: spiralling in toward the regional centre , and spiralling out from a regional centre. These represent behaviours of contraction and expansion, ith contraction representing SpaceMatter becoming relatively denser, while expansion represents SpaceMatter becoming relatively lighter or having levity.

Density is defined as that measure which compares 2 regions of SpaceMatter by a subjective concept called Volume, synthesised from fundamental concepts of dynamic motions of seemeia in fixed relative relationships, that is fixed degrees of relative freedom. I will define these separately.

So if 2 regions of space are compared by volume , density is the ratio of volumes required to establish the same dynamic relationship of the regions with a common environment or to establish contrra dynamic relationships between themselves in that common environment.

It is my fundamental conjecture, that models based on the formulary for trochoids with many connections of radii are the ultimate Grassmann manifold for SpaceMatter. That these connections are rotation ally and radially dynamic is fundamentally asserted, and that such a manifold will exhibit both simple and complex ratios as invariants of well known dynamics.

The fact that contraction and expansion are properties of this SpaceMatter manifold means that an observer somehow relative to an environment in this SpaceMatter manifold will be able to model common physical ideas and dynamics by proportional relationships that exist within this species of manifold.

When I describe it as a Grasmann manifold this is in honour of his general method of analyss not of his fantastic lineal Algebra. We will need both Hamilton and Clifford, especially in the form of Diracs work to make sense of this proposal.

Let E be a scalar function that gives electric potential at evry point in space. Thus P = E(x,y,z) where x,y,z are radian parameters, representing 3 orthogonal directions a sphere is allowed to roll in . These directions are fixed relative to each other to avoid gimbal lock.

Let B be a twistor with phase components in each of these directions, which represent the frequency of the twistor in these directions

B = ( B_{x}, B_{y}, B_{z})

These 2 fields are now combined into a quaternion container.

Z = ( P,B)

Then the model for electromagnetism is

Z = exp(Z) + exp(Z/t^2) + n* (C – real(C))

where t is the scalar parameter for the quaternion, and C is some constant quaternion.

A fractal generator is needed to animate these behaviours.