Thanks guys!
Kram1032 I cannot say I looked into the x2 papers you referenced. They are quite detailed and I have not the time to get to grips with them yet, but basically the geometric algebra approach is welcome.
The mathematics is not so important at this stage, though. The fundamental data is what I am revisiting. So for example the gauge theory of gravity hopes to explain how gravity works by gauge transfers. This is a way of saying forget gravity think about gauges. Newton more or less said I do not know what gravity is, by which he meant he had no credible mechanism to explain its action at a distance.
Newton's concept of motive required corpuscles to transmit its causative agency. Thus absolute empty space defeated his model of transmission. He did attempt to establish a fluid dynamic model of transmission but got bogged down and confused by the complexity.
The concepts of Faraday and Maxwell of spheres of influence restored the Gilbertian magnetic philosophy to its previous position before Newtons ideas held sway. Newton had concepts of aether, and acknowledged the magnetic philosophy, but his astrologer acolytes down played these concepts and bigged up his Mathematics! In that sense he allowed them to establish his philosphical ideal praxis over the extant mostly Cartesian methods of reasoning.
I have to say he was wrong on several fronts and in details, but used his position to enforce his view. Genius no matter how great does not give the individual right to domineer, which Newton is known to have done in later life.
So we return to what I called Gilbert's Plasma, because it was one distinct version of the many aether theories. It had the advantage of demonstrating a field effect empirically.
We cannot have gauge theories without these empirical fields to originate and absorb the gauge transfers. The geometry of these fields is therefore very important.
So now we have to question the assertion of absolute space and the assertion of atomic matter sitting in and moving through absolute empty space. The very definition of Mass is Newtonian , that is, the common Teutonic meaning has been adhered to the Newtonian Measure: quantity of matter! We move, cleverly from geometry to mechanics and physics of the space around us, to which must be applied several metrics which depend on not just one sensory system but many . For each sensory system and for combinations of them we have to define metrics or units of measurement, and these units are linked to our geometrical notions of space.
Thus geometric algebra offers a promise of a more consistent approach to mathematical modelling, and that is why I have researched and am researching Grassmans analytical and synthetical methods.
Which brings us to Hermanns paper, which I have again looked at cursorily.
http://www.youtube.com/v/y&rel=1&fs=1&hd=1Such papers I give less time to unless they contain some fundamental analysis of the issues, which are what is mass and what is charge, and what is going on in Thompsons experimental set up?
You will note from the video link a quote which differs remarkably from what is generally taught and trumpeted in academia. Thompsons own corpuscular theory is available to read. Thompson thought in terms of a particle that carried charge. This particle was invisible and its effect only was visible in the gas in the accelerator tube and in the fluorescent material at the end of the manipulation tube.
So we have a presentiment of a particle, that is a bias toward a particle explanation, a selected anode " barrel" whose role is discounted, the presence of a noble gas to exude the excited material which showed filamentary behaviour usually described as ray behaviour and diffraction in a magnetic field with dispersion and deflection in an electric field.
The analysis assumes mass and assumes charge and calculates a ratio based on those assumptions.
It is a brilliant set up and demonstration, but it does not demonstrate the existence of a particle that is a point charge in and of itself. That version has been manufactured and taught to us by various groups of researchers and scientists each with their own agenda.
It shows that even at this late stage the wave theory or undulatory theory of light and matter was still not persuasive enough to inform the thinking of all scientists and chemists. In particular chemists were biased toward particles by the theory of Dalton and Mendleyev even though light now played a major role in assay techniques.
I think the research you two are doing is really valuable , and a great contribution to the thread. I hope you will continue to contribute and others will join in with their research.
Thanks again
• Newtons " motive" as a force I later came to understand not as a cause of acceleration but a type of centripetal force that is quantifiable by a weighing balance.