Re: Fractal Foundations of mathematics: Axioms notions and the set FS as a model

The problem with force is it is non specific, even today. Newton defined a measure he called vis which was a differential form of Hooke's law. Hookes law is specific to springs, but force is a more general vector type.

The metaphysics of acceleration required a cause Newton called motive. This, like celerity entered a body to hasten it. But when Boyle et al. studied fluids they found a motive disbursed throughout the material they called pressure. The concept of pressure and motive are identical, but the measure of pressure was counterbalancing: a force against the area it acted upon against a pressure and the area it acted on.

It is clear that pressure is a more specific notion than force, being MULTI directional and appreciated by its action on a surface. This in fact closely matches Newtons description of an action on a body that produces a vectored acceleration. The notion of pressure is a better more satisfying notion than force. We can accommodate the so called four forces into it.

If we have a pressure, we really do not know the cause. It could be an electric motive, or a magnetic motive a mechanical motive( including gravity and gas pressures) , a nuclear weak or a nuclear strong motive, not forgetting a thermodynamic motive, that is heat pressure(temperature) and expansive contractive motive.

Since we do not know the distinguished motive we put them all in to the equations. Effectively they are weighted pressure terms, their proportional effect either guessed or discounted. In this way we determine a weight for the action of each motive by approximation and judgement of the observed behaviour.

What are we looking at in terms of pressure? It seems to be a kind of weighted mixture of motives,which we have distinguished into 4. They act radially , but seem to have a vectored maximal for the electric and magnetic motives. Others seem to be uni vectored but environmentally determined. Others seem to have their own innate vector action, and all are susceptible to scale, except the electromagnetic(fluid dynamic) descriptions.

Is Pressure a vector?

We find it difficult to apply the notion of a vector to a multioriented magnitude. We tend to call them scalar potential fields. Theirs is a theory of conservative fields that defines this precisely, but essentially it is simple. If something is everywhere and in every direction then it is a potential scalar field. We cannot vectorise it. our notion of vector as a line label does not apply and is misleading. However, in spaciometry i have called these types of fields compass multivector networks, and written a few posts on the topic. These are the basic or fundamental seemeioon algebra, that is a Grassmann point A;gebra.

So i am going to be looking at how a Grassmann point algebra compares with a conservative field theory. These types of fields rings or groups are looked at as topological spaces in which the usual way to measure is to use the real number measuring tape and pythagoras theorem. However more unusual "metrics", rules of measuring, can be invented to help by analogous reasoning in other areas of comparison or specification.

P = α pe + β pm + γps + δpw + ζ pl + θ pt + μ pi + ς pd


Which is electric, magnetic strong weak, lever, thermal inertial and deformation pressures weighted.

Now we are accustomed to thinking in terms of gravitational pressure, but i have deliberately left this out of the general pressure notion except in the sense of a balanced lever or a mechanical "force".

The fact that things fall with acceleration is unexplained. or inexplicable out of context, but within the context of a general pressure notion "gravity" may be interpreted.

Why do we include the others? Each one creates spatial motion of acceleration, some damped. Gravity therefore obscures the effects of each of these others. It also obscure the fact that at least 3 other pressures could be used to define relative density and so mass as a product concept of relative density and volume.

I seem able to characterise pressures by their internal source and external action. Some pressure self actuate by an internal source or potential which cannot be located no matter how narrowly we search: others are activated by an external system or medium directing these internal pressures by boundaries and passing between boundaries in the most curious ways.

We have to acknowledge, as in the case of boiling water, our environment feeds into our local measurements. Gravity as it is used is a catch all because all our science has been defined against an assumed global characterisitic, and so in universal contexts we need to account for it. It is merely an accounting correction which we may be able to eliminate by more strictly defining these others

The empirical data suggests that pressure acts radially and spherically.

It is not possible to isolate a spherical action from a radial one, nor should we fall into that mistake. Therefore , using newtons resolution of his reference frame, my model must contain radial vectors and circular arc vectors or twistors acting in the surface of an expanding sphere. This is the fundamental structure from which I can resolve a tangential vector! In fact in 3d it will be a tangentially expanding circular plane which provides tangential vectors to the spherical surface relative to a given point, but also arc twistors in that circular plane. These can be resolved into tangential vectors to the circular plane in the plane

A spherical pressure thereby exhibits a fractal functional relationship in detailing its likely vector structure. However this vector structure is not realised until a test particle is placed in a pressure surface, so the description is Potential! Because it is not a vector it is called a scalar potential, but this is not explained clearly, rather it is obscured behind symbolic relationships. Probably because no one really understood what it meant rhetorically, they could just give examples in definition.

For a scalar potently to be useful it must be measurable. So a scalar potential exists in a topological space.

A simple topological space is an inelastic line. Now if I have another line that is elastic, I can compare the 2 and consequently recognise deformation. The elastic line is a topological space, but it is dynamic, which means I cannot describe its measured behaviour except relative to an Inelastic line. This means my visual sense is relying on my kinaesthetic sense to describe and distinguish an observed behaviour. If I did not make this comparison I would not be able to measure reliably, because I would be unaware of the elastic nature of my Metron.

Given this, I may now define a scalar potential for the elastic Metron. By making points on the elastic topological space I can refer to the extension of the Metron under different kinaesthetic pressures by noting the displacement of the distinguished points on to the inelastic space as a ratio. The inelastic ratio data is a scalar potential. It is a "measurement" associated with a point. Given the elastic Metron, and the correct kinaesthetic pressure I can read off a scalar definition by comparing distinguished points against the inelastic scale and noting the assigned ratio. We forget that all measurements are in fact ratios normalised.

Of course the inelastic line has its own orientation and so I have turned a potential reading into a representational vector in the elastic line. The vector is in the elastic line because I can orient this extended piece of elastic in any orientation on the surface of a sphere with the radius given by the topology of the in elastic line. It is the elastic line that has realised the vector potential of the topology.

For a pressure we realise the vector potential of a topological space by placing a surface that is translatable and orient able in it. The topological measure in the space is given by some function of the coordinate frame established appropriately in the space to provide a Metron, and in addition a Pythagoras rule for trianglesl

The Pythagoras rule is fundamental to our apprehension of how straight lines behave in space. It is not so much that it gives us a metric as it gives us a relationship between 3 points in a plane that is universally true for straight lines. The Euclidean notion of a good line goes beyond it bing straight. It defines a difficult but supporting concept that is a plane. While points can be defined by the first 2 given, a plane can be defined only by dual points and only then can a straight line of dual points be defined. Thus a straight line implies some plane and 3 dual points connected by straight lines specify it.

Of course dual points imply intersecting spherical surfaces, which is the fundamental superstructure or Hupostasis of Eudoxian and Euclidean ideas/ forms.

So now these forms or spaces can be specified by some reference frame. And some function based on this reference frame can specify a scalar potential in that space.

I have just used an example of Hookes law, let me now use an example of an inverse square law.

Specifying in polar coordinates makes this relatively simple. The scalar potential is (1/r^2 ,€) if the reference points are ( r,€). This is in the plane.

How do we now turn this circular potential into a vector field? We use newtons reference frame and resolve into vectors using newtons parallelogram rule, avoiding the mistake of giving primacy to the tangent. The tangent is a resolved vector in Newtons framework..

So now let us apply it to a spherical pressure potential.

The nature of potential is spherical so I can expect to see changes in potential radially therefore I can draw a vector radially to indicate a direction of potential change. Now I have a choice ofndrawingnanvector whose magnitude is the potential at the point or a vector which indicates the potential difference.

Placing an object in such a field of Vectors allows us to use the resolution of vectors . Thus we find that circular twistors counteract but tangent vectors do not for a spherical curved object. The material resists by Twistorque forces that cancel, leaving the tangent force( derived) to combine with the normal forces to push the shape or attract the shape. The force vectors for the potential field act as if the body was enclosing or embedding the field within its volume. Thus we have to calculate the overall effect of a pressure field on a body from all the pressure effects, not just from the surface pressure effects.

Because of the spherical potential field the pressure vectors will act on a spherical surface differently to a flat planar surface.mthe resolution of the vector fields will be different.

Now, so far I have only considered the lever effect of a pressure field. There are other pressures within a pressure field. I need to know the potential field for the electric and magnetic pressures within a general pressure field. In addition the resistive or reaction pressures themselves differentiate the electric and magnetic pressure effects. Triboelectric and tribomagnetic pressures are resultants of a general pressure field. The other contributory pressures also require their potential idles so thir effect cn be considered.

Anyone of these many component pressures acting through a body surface, and throughout its volume could compound to effect the dynamic stability of the combined system. The potential to rotate a body is therefore always present, and overwhelmingly so. The naturally resultant motion on any object under pressure would therefore be to follow an arbitrary trochoidal path. "Damping" of rotation or forcing of rotation may lead to a smaller or larger radius of curvature to the resultant motion.

The ballistic description of motion often incorrectly identifies the resultant motion of a missile as parabolic. It is in fact elliptic, because the object would return to its starting point if not impeded. A missile would have to exceed the escape velocity of the earth to get anywhere near being parabolic. However, it is the collective experience of these elliptical paths, more generally trochoidal paths, that we call gravity.

As I have hinted at, these general trochoidal paths are the resultants of a spherical potential pressure field consisting in many components.

The notion of a potential field from which we compose a vector field should not obscure the fact that these are topological models of a dynamic experience! In this the very topology is dynamic. It is exactly saying that Hookes law is dependent on the substance in which it is applied, and for how long that substance remains stable in its configuration, and in its position!

A pressure field varies dynamically. In fact from studying weather we know that we have to conceive of a system of pressure fields in dynamic relationships, and at different scales and levels all fractally entrained. The most energetic of these systems we call turbulence.

Turbulence is a matter of energy driving rotational regional motions a at all scales with fractal damping mechanisms back feeding through the complex system resulting in diffusion, dissipation and transformation.

The deformation of space matter involved in these turbulent conditions reveal the application of fractal damping, or inertia in maintaining some form of regionalised structure at each scale. We can only account for this by means of conservative actions. Conservative actions allow forces to react, dynamic situations to be in static equilibrium, inertial actions to be proposed, momenta to be maintained and opposite or contra actions in general to be expected?

How we frame our conservation laws defines our models of spacematter interactions, but in general it is reasonable to divide any magnitude into 2 contra magnitudes thus for any pressure field there is an anti pressure field. How that exhibits itself to our senses is not defined by conservation laws, but by experience.

When a spherical pressure potential acts on an area or in a volume it produces twistorque vectors as well as radial vectors. The acceleration radially is a(r)_r, the acceleration vorticularly is @(r)_r which indicates that the combined motion is a funcyion which is dependent on the vectors and the radial distance from the source of the pressure potential .

The resultant force for a given volume with crossesction A will be RAm+TAm where R is the radial accelerative motive. and T i the twistor accelerative motive when resolved and summed. This is for a given radial with a surface neighbourhood on the sphere with Area A, small enough to be approximated by the tangent circle at that radial.

The twistorque forces are usually not accounted for. If they are they are set to zero, implying perfectly elastic materials circilarly but perfectly rigid radially and tangentially! Since this can hardly be the general case, we should expect twistor vectors to be non zero and there to be net twistorque related to the viscosity of the medium under pressure and the wave propogation properties of the medium as a function of that viscosity as a tensile medium.

Finally the torque of the vorticular forces must be a function of the energy required to conserve matter in that action with that viscosity. The model is therefore fractally complex

PAm = RAm + TAm

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.

http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/12/25/mr-faradays-most-excellent-experimental-researches-in-electricity-1831/
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/serial?id=philtransactions
Some research tools for Faraday in order to compare his work and Ed Leedskanlins.

http://www.livius.org/gi-gr/greeks/philosophers.html
http://www.thebigview.com/greeks/index.html

The third law of motion captures all that is essential in a philosophical analysis of mans interaction with space as mused and philosophised by numerous Greek philosophers and those that learned from them . In particular Herakleitos defined what later came to be called physics and mechanics in his concepts of Phusis and Rhea. These were taken to be primordial substances by the time of the Pythagorean schools, and the perpetual motion of reality was in this way enshrined in later Greek philosophical analyses and syntheses as a consequence of oppositional motions and states.

This concept of contra motions and states guided all natural( ie " of the goddess Natura or Phusis and Harmonia, muses of ancient Greek mythology), that is to complete the though, all Natural Philosophy including Epicurean and other schools of thought.

Newton defines Action loosely in the opening chapter of the Principia in a general discussion of his method , approach, sources and innovative definitions. It is clear that Newton was an assiduous experimentalist of an exacting nature, seeking principles that harmonise seemingly disparate areas of mechanics , and doing so sets out his method of metaphysical philosophy by which he structured his Astrological Principles, usually translated as Mathematical Principles.

Thus he lays out for consideration many philosophical principles that an Astrologer might employ to come to a version of God's Truth in so far as it may be known by man. Underpinning this is the ad infinitum philosophies of Zeno and Parmenides as the later Greek philosophers absorbed them into an iterative process of analysis and synthesis. This Newton experienced as a dynamic fluidity which he called The Method Of Fluents. The third law of motion therefore has a great universal sweep from the minuscule, some say infinitesimal or Quantum, through the everyday, to the celestial grandeur, some say infinite or cosmological.

This sweeping movement through scale is at once acknowledged and ignored! It took Mandelbrot to point out that scale has to be factored in recursively into every formulation. The tendency was and still is to find exact and exacting solutions to clearly interdependent formulations. This tendency swept so called chaos monsters under the carpet. Ed Lorenz showed that we can not do that anymore. This fractal, iterative and recursive( almost self similar ) tautology was refused by certain Western schools of philosophy, but embraced by eastern philosophies. The point here is that it is embraced by Newton, and presented in a form palatable to western religious Credos.

Of course Newton's principa was a worldwide success, bought by all philosophers of merit in the West and in the East, and understood according to the local philosophical schools of thought. Thus many Eastern philosophies after Newton had a take or point of view on what he had to say to Astrologers. Many recognised the source of his ideas, something his own peers were unable or unwilling to do.

The final aspect of the third law, as investigated by De Moivre was the probabilistic and or statistical nature of its application to complex mechanical situations. It was Maxwell who laid this aspect out in the now standard form s for statistical Mechnics.

With this considerable metaphysical and theoretical and statistical framework it became possible to tackle the issue of action at a distance enshrined at the centre of these principles, but not at all. Understood by Newton. The third law covers action at a distance but Newton was never willing to say how! Frankly he did not know how magnetism did what it did. I have explained that Newton placed magnetism tentatively at the heart of his celestial motive model. He was not being revolutionary. His was the respected conclusion of Gilbert. Boyle also wrote speculatively about this action between the celestial bodies. However Boyle and other Alchemists including Newton were constrained in exploring this openly due to British Laws against Alchemy and religious Law against Occultism.

Both Boyle and Newton through his Principles helped to get this law repealed so that the floodgates opened all the research into magnetism which included an associated effect called by Gilbert Electra magnetism , could flood out. However it was Faraday that stimulated a greater interest in what he calls electric Tension, on the back of many magical curios from European researchers and astrologers who had to make a living by patronage, very much likeable researchers and Academics before them.

Across Europe the interest in magnetism and electric magnetism grew and spread into the Americas, but it was Faraday who took a leading role in this development publishing thousands of experiments in the Royal society publications that went all around the world by the British Empire postal system, and stimulated interest and involvement, bringing to light what previously was done in this subject by others, published in their scientific societies but left to languish as occult knowledge!

This greater openness and transparency and eagerness to share led to the Newtonian Frameworks being applied to this growing subject just as Newton suggested it should. It was a revelation to see that Newtons force laws when applied to electric forces took the same kind of universal form as he had suggested for the magnetic forces between planets, commonly called Gravity because no magnets of suitable size or power could be envisaged, and magnets only attracted "Irom" it was thought. Plus Newton was not prepared to publicly back a magnetic gravity without empirical and experimental demonstration. As I said, he did not know enough to be able to do this, plus collision between corpuscles was the hot favourite in his time. La Sage spent a lifetime advancing that proposition and nearly demonstrating it, but the opinion now is that he failed to account for all empirical data. Newton, in order to preserve his work and theoris from reputational Harm had to box very cleverly. There were no end of theories that have been proposed and lost to antiquity, or fallen out of fashion, or thought to be obsolete. This would have been an unacceptable outcome for Newton, after all he had devoted his life to his theoretical pursuits. It would be inconceivable to stand before God nd admit to getting it wrong! That as a devout Christian of Protestant persuasions he could never knowingly do! We measure his devotion by what he gave up while at Cambridge, and apart from wine women and song, he gve up countless hours of sleep to pursue the correct account of all observations far into the night.

Faradays electric tension, and then Leydens Electric Current in a wire were all new groundbreaking insights into matter and it's substantive behaviours. Those who read Newton would know that his definition of Matter in the principles was now untenable. However no one thought to revise his definitions until Einstein! This was because the third law was so useful no one wanted or deigned to harm it, instead they just copied it, fitting it to situations as they saw fit, ignorant of the whole connectedness of Newton's principles for Astrologers. In fact, even after a century of applying them, many still wanted to gain fame by proving them wrong. This lead to a vigorous defence of long established and valued principles that tended to squash any innovation.

The corpuscular theory of matter had been rewritten by JJ Thompson to introduce particles distinguished by Charge. It was revised again by Rutherford and Bohr. Einstein did not agree with some of the implications behind the revisions because none of them were willing to address the logical problem of the concept of mass. The concept of mass was so enshrined in every formula that it was taken for granted. Many false arguments ensued because everyone thought they new what mass was. Nobody returned to Newton to revise the definition of mass according to the new corpuscukar theory because it was thought to be the same in aggregate. Einstein demonstrated that that was possibly a wrong assumption in a wacky theory he had . In epoch of this revision of the corpuscular theory experimenters were finding that mass was possibly due to magnetism! Experimental measurement were showing an increase in mass with an increased strength of magnetic field. Before this could be developed Einstein wrote his papers in 1905 and everyone abandoned their theories and began to verify Einstein's by the experimental method. Einsteins reputation began to grow, but he was still not uncritically accepted, because his synthesis of others research by logical deduction was counter intuitive. Those who later came to support his theories did so by force of experimental data.

When the second world war broke out scientists were marshaled into corps to fight the enemy. One curious result to do with radioactive elements drove the research from that point on. Hahn had found that there was a missing energy in accounting for radioactive decay. When the accounting was done it seemed to equal Einsteins rest energy theory! This put Einstein in Lead position and forced everyone to review the definition of mass.But also the propaganda machine could use him to cover their secret work while appearing transparent. His prestige was used to influence policy while distrusting his allegiance to the secret goal of atomic weaponry. The establishment used anything and anyone to further their aims. This included using his name to justify a radicle revision of the cu;ture of scientific collaboration. During the war the aether and the spacetime descriptions separated vitriolically, an attitude still rife today.

In late 1938, while on the winter walk on which they solved the meaning of Hahn's experimental results and introduced the idea that would be called atomic fission, Lise Meitner and Otto Robert Frisch made direct use of Einstein's equation to help them understand the quantitative energetics of the reaction which overcame the "surface tension-like" forces holding the nucleus together, and allowed the fission fragments to separate to a configuration from which their charges could force them into an energetic "fission"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers.

After the very public demonstration of huge energies released from nuclear fission after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the equation E = mc2 became directly linked in the public eye with the power and peril of nuclear weapons. The equation was featured as early as page 2 of the Smyth Report, the official 1945 release by the US government on the development of the atomic bomb, and by 1946 the equation was linked closely enough with Einstein's work that the cover of Time magazine prominently featured a picture of Einstein next to an image of a mushroom cloud emblazoned with the equation.[65] Einstein himself had only a minor role in the Manhattan Project: he had cosigned a letter to the U.S. President in 1939 urging funding for research into atomic energy, warning that an atomic bomb was theoretically possible. The letter persuaded Roosevelt to devote a significant portion of the wartime budget to atomic research. Without a security clearance, Einstein's only scientific contribution was an analysis of an isotope separation method in theoretical terms. It was inconsequential, on account of Einstein not being given sufficient information (for security reasons) to fully work on the problem.[66]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence

The above Wikipedia article does a good job of highlighting the distinctions between mass and matter, but only because it ignores the clear historical meaning given by Newton to Mass in his formulation. However it clearly illustrates ow scientists subtly rework the meaning of terms to preserve valued formulae. This is mostly done by peer review so as to maintain the financial advantages of the status quo. It is then ruthlessly defended!

Newton's third law has underpinned all of this scientific analysis, but the present gatekeepers have a definite motive to keep newton out of the financial picture/

My point here is that we should not seek validation by such scientific cabals, rather by applying Newton's Principles like Ed Leedskalnin and many others we should make our own devices and technologies for our own personal benefit and those who wish to participate with us in a collaborative effort. The internet makes this an incresingly viable thing to do, and the genii must not be allowed to be put back in the bag!

Newton's Principia Mathematica are a Astrological and Celestial Mechanics that encompasses all we want to know about Electromagnatism and Quantum Mechanics, as well as rock moving mechanics!

Gravity as the back EMF in an electromagnetic field.

Randy Powell and prior to him Marko Rodin, claim that there is a force or energy or spirit or all three and more combined that principally emanates from a specific point in the centre of an ABHA torus coil or a so called Rodin coil. This they call an aetheron field. I would identify this with a spinning electromagnetic field emanating as a helical jet. But more interestingly they claim the sequencing indictes a backdraft which they identify or at least Randy does, with so called gravity. This backdraft I identify as a back electro motive field .

The question is would this hang together under the current Maxwellian electromagnetic laws, and would it give the signature very very small measurements associated with a gravitational force field in our solar system?

Secondly, would back EMF align itself vectorially orthogonally to both the electric and magnetic fields?

If it does it restores my original conception of the Shunya field as 3 orthogonal motions on any given region, but in this case one would be rotational and therefore magnetic by definition, one lineal and therefore electric by definition and the other possibly lineal but tangential making it an instantaneously varying electric motion which would be rotational but not overtly magnetic because the force would appear as minuscule! This is what we may call gravity.

When looked at in this way, it becomes clear that Newtons Principia are not in fact laws of gravity, they are in fact laws of electrodynamical motion. The refusal to accept Newtons centrifugal force or magnetic analogy as clues for further research, and his definition of the quantity of matter as inadequate by default, as Newton clearly states it, is the reason why we have obscured this obvious and natural link between the force field laws.

As I have surmised throughout this blog, the definition of mass and therefore matter was obscured and obscuring, and was wrongly left unrevised in science because prejudicial lay alchemy was thought to be the work of the devil by religious leaders who like the king craved the ubstance of gold and silver.

We have a chance now to properly define matter in terms of the Shunya field theory, and I invite anyone to criticise and extend my ideas in line with empirical, tautological data.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/10/17/essential-guide-to-the-eu-chapter-2/
Sir Robert Boyle is also not to be forgotten in his pioneering efforts on developing the Electrodynamical universe theory and in working to free alchemical enquiry into it in the British Dominions.