With the proviso that for our purpose the field and free (optical) space are one and the same and that they both signify a storage place for energy, let me begin my discourse by presenting a subjective construct and then, if spurred by the readers, amplify the matter at hand and elaborate on it as the case demands it.

I enter at once upon the argument by saying that the general nature of free (optical) space is that of a neutral electromagnetic field; a field where electrically charged particles, due to strong magnetic forces, behave as though they have no charge. A field that we can easily imagine to consist of an infinite number of electromagnetic point-sources processing time and/or space, processing all lengths of time and/or space; a field whose electromagnetic energy is the product of a mutual interaction between electric forces and fields and magnetic forces and fields.

What we have then is an existing system, which we call universe, characterized by an ongoing electromagnetic process for the expansion of time and for the extension of space. The linear and non-linear projections of the electromagnetic field as intended in my work, and as specified in my thread «Would this be the electromagnetic make-up of space?», are in my opinion a grand step towards a major understanding of the laws of nature.

Give me leave now to penetrate, or at least to try to penetrate, a bit deeper into these laws. Give me leave to introduce the three janus-faced physical properties of nature, here they are:

energy ↔ mass

inertia ↔ gravitation

space ↔ matter

I shall now specify a point which is, one might say, of minor import. I have called my theorem «the principle of similitude» because what we are about to see, hopefully through a debate with questions and answers on both sides, shows no equivalence as such, only a projection characterized by its own modified size. To satisfy the mathematically trained mind, I shall herewith recall the transformation of similitude. In rectangular coordinates, I can and will write:

xʹ= kx, yʹ= ky

where k is the ratio of similitude. Seen this way, the striking similarity of energy and mass, inertia and gravitation, and finally, space and matter points in the direction of an unmistakable existence of two aspects of the same thing in all of these three physical properties. More precisely, and to be consistent with the theory herein advanced;

energy,

inertia, and

spaceare the pristine form of the electromagnetic wave which moves at the speed of light in a world where time is not and all is space. Their respective complements, that is:

mass,

gravitation, and

matterare the aggregate form of the electromagnetic wave now a particle and as such no longer part of free space, but just a local member of a world where space is not and all is time. Actually, I don’t know how things stand out there in the «space-world» and what a photon could say if it could tell its story. I do know though that here in our «time-world» space exists in small amounts or better still in little bits, very tiny bits indeed.

With the precise intent to help understand the enunciated theorem, I shall mention here, as an example, the so-called «energy-mass equivalence». Let me first pass on to you some Merriam-Webster and

www.dictionary.com [nofollow] word definitions.

The adjective <equivalent>

Merriam-Webster: (i) equal in force, amount, or value; also: equal in area or volume, but not superposable. (ii) corresponding or virtually identical especially in effect or function.

www.dictionary.com [nofollow]: (i) equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc. (ii) corresponding in position, function, etc.

The noun <equivalence>

Merriam-Webster: (i) the state or property of being equivalent. (ii) a presentation of terms as equivalent.

www.dictionary.com [nofollow]: (i) the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, or significance etc. (ii) an instance of this; an equivalent.

I shall now entreat my readers to forgive me if I say that the above definitions are not even close to describing the relationship between energy and mass. Energy in free space is what today’s Science calls

*dark energy* which is negative in character as indeed suggested by more than one distinguished physicist (see Paul Dirac and the like). Energy of free space, that is: loose energy runs counter to mass which is a quantity of energy contracted in, or trapped by, matter. The first one pushes out the second one pulls in. A big difference, a very big difference.

With reference to the mass-energy equivalence or better still the mass-energy similitude, the same thing may be said of inertia-gravitation and space-matter, since here too we are looking at the same thing under two different conditions.

With reference to inertia, I must briefly recall:

1) Henry Cavendish’s experiment with which he established, over two hundred years ago, that two mass-less point-sources run away from each other at a composite velocity of 6.67x10

^{−9} metres per second, each contributing a velocity of 3.335x10

^{−9} metres per second and each contributing to the repulsion of each other, or to the space extension existing in-between. The velocity of 3.335x10

^{−9} corresponds to the slope 1/c where “c” is the speed of light; and

2) the second axiom of the theory herein expounded which states: time and space have their origin in each and every electromagnetic point-source in free space as well as in matter.

Given (1) and (2), and forced to sacrifice quality to quantity, I shall say that inertia is caused by the existing electromagnetic process which in creating lengths of space generates pure energy. Inertia, then, is the equilibrium state of an extending system where the equilibrium is obtained by repulsive forces; namely, two neightbouring points slope from each other at a finite speed. I can and will now state that the extending electromagnetic field surrounding an object in free space is the sole agent that provides and warrants the inertia of that object.

As for gravitation, we find that a particle in the process of materializing takes with it what I have called a

*magnetic substance*. It is indeed this magnetic subtance housed in the core of the nucleus that irradiates expanding waves and generates a force field whose lines of force are directed inward towards the said core. Inertia and gravitation, then, possess the same extending and/or expanding process in both cases orchestrated by an electromagnetic point-source processing space and/or time. The distinction between the two is marked by a

*magnetic substance* which in itself would make no difference of a sort, while in the aggregate gives rise to an attractive «force of gravity».

With reference to space, the acceptance of our second axiom; that is, the acceptance that time and/or space are created everywhere and everywhen implies that space itself is being extended continually and isotropically. This means that each and every electromagnetic point-source embedded in this space are the pivot point, or better still the focus of the system where we find maximum equilibrium.

To answer the question: what is matter? I must first argue that with the advent of a mass-carrying particle materializing in our dimension of time the magnetic substance interacts with itself and/or with the field to form a time-processing unit which is usually called atom. I shall, then, postulate that the most elementary atom known as hydrogen atom is the product of the field interacting with a magnetic substance vibrating at its highest energy level. These vibrations in their process of expansion will start to generate lengths of time which constitute mass. All lengths of time, or wavelengths are what is commonly called mass. Matter, therefore, is a space volume where the energy-content (mass) has been contracted by the mutual attraction exercised by the magnetic substances contained within the nucleus of the atom. Within the atom and within ponderable matter, we would, then, have the same expanding electromagnetic process encountered in free space only much more compacted; that is, the wavelengths all along the expansion are shortened by the atomic arrangement.

I don’t know whether or not the message got through yet. What I am saying is that in all three instances herein argued, we are looking at the wave extending (pushing out) in free space which I have earlier defined the «space-world»; and we are looking at the wave trapped by, or contracted in matter (pulling in) in the stationary world which I have earlier defined the «time-world». We cannot then speak of equivalence. The two things may be said to be similar not equivalent. The equality sign in mathematics in sacrosanct, there is no flexibility in it. A number, a function, or a quantity either it is or it is not equal to another number, another function, or another quantity. And if it is not equal there is no equivalence in-between the two period.

As I have clearly shown, after projection is enforced there is a change of sign. Negative energy becomes energy with the positive property of mass, inertia with its repulsive/negative properties becomes gravitation which is an attractive force, and space with its negative expanding nature becomes matter which has a positive character.

To round off for the closing and in putting the final touch to the above similitude, I should say that a more befitting name for it would be <dynamic similitude> with which it is implied that geometric and kinematic similitude have already been met. The suggested dynamic similitude is therefore restricted to the wave and its diminished size after projection. Whereas the professed equivalence must be abandoned because of the substantial difference in number and physical function between extending waves in free space (nowadays called rest energy) and expanding, but contracted waves in matter (nowadays called rest mass).