Abstract: I have inserted a bottom-up ‘floor’ under science to place the concepts in context by suggesting that our universe is a probability space and using the dimensions of that space to provide context. Examples are given as to why the universe is predominately matter, not anti-matter, the reason that the speed of light is a constant for all energies, why and how light moves in a vacuum and the logic/quantum/gravity description of our universe suggests that inflation occurred due to a simple relativisation of the dimensions that are related through the Lorentz transformation, provides an explanation of why the universe is expanding at a constant rate, how Feynman’s approach to quantum mechanics was right for the wrong reasons and the suggestion that (a+b)=1 is the fifth dimension and the ‘face of God’ and shows the relativisation that is the mechanics behind the working of the universe. The creation of Dark Energy is a natural process and a large quantity of it may be necessary for the continuance of life and the basic equations are given that determine the how and the why of the Law of Conservation of Energy. It is shown that the principle behind quantum mechanics leads to evolution, business, society etc. Our simple probability space universe has a measurement/entanglement duality and Life has created/evolved a concept/context duality super-world of the mind that uses the mathematics of concepts.

I believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment proves that our universe is a probability space and I have defined the multiverse and found that we are ‘abstractions’ that evolved because we could in this universe and that a probability of existence space always exists between 0 and 1 and from its dimensions (three space, time passing and (a +/and b)=1 for measurement/observers a, b, as an illustration) can be seen the mathematics of concepts. A probability space is the basis of quantum mechanics, that everything is possible, if it is possible, and measurement by an iterative process or mind/brain makes it determinant to the measurer. In other words, a probability space must try all combinations, which means that something must be indeterminate until an iteration or mind/brain forces it to be the thing that the measurer requires. That is the reason that a photon is a wave or particle when we measure it, because our mind/brain interprets the outcome of an experiment in one of those ways, and further (a +/and b)=1 has been used to show that the fifth dimension is both a measurement/entanglement or a concept/context duality depending on the measurer.

 

The fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1) shows that CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) of measurement/observers a and b must have entanglement and no solution except for one absolute, which, from the Michelson-Morley experiment is the speed of light in vacuo because the space/universe relativises all observers to see it as a constant and a maximum speed for energy (logic is infinitely fast). The reason that all of the dimensions of a frame of reference change (length, time, mass etc.) as the frame approaches the speed of light with respect to the observer’s frame is because Occam’s razor (a simple solution of the mathematics of concepts) suggests that a ‘simple’ solution is more likely, and it is simpler (logically) to relativise all of the dimensions, and this appears to be the case, in that the Lorentz transformation is used in space, mass and time relativity. This simplification will be seen to be basic to the inflation process and the constancy of the speed of light. Notice that everything in the universe is energy in various forms/states and ‘over-arches’ the dimensions and is both part of, and not part of the dimensions.

 

In our probability universe, the creation/destruction of particle pairs is continuous (energy of a vacuum) and they have an infinitely small probability of being 1 (certainty), but being so many, occasionally form a certainty of formation of a new possibility of existence universe (Big Bang). Notice that a particle/anti-particle pair is produced that (should) be complementary/identical and lead to the creation of a matter universe and an anti-matter universe, that are separate, but logically linked, and this simplifies the fact of why we live in a matter universe (whilst the anti-matter universe is distinct), except for any ‘splitting’ forced on matter within this universe. This statement may answer the question, ‘the antimatter content is less than a hundredth of a per cent; otherwise one would see gamma rays resulting from matter-antimatter annihilations. The observed universe consists almost exclusively of matter.’ (the infinite cosmos: questions from the frontiers of cosmology, Joseph Silk, p 117)

 

No energy moves into the new universe, only the logic of certainty of the creation of a probability space and the total energy in all universes is zero, and remains so, as do angular momentum and electric charges, and the speed of propagation of logic/entanglement must be instantaneous in a probability space. ‘Inflationary cosmology justifies, and indeed predicts, that the universe has zero energy, but it also tells us something quite new: the universe began when both its gravitational energy and kinetic energy were arbitrarily close to zero.’ (p 136)

 

As a solid basis, the Michelson-Morley experiment’s relativisation indicates/proves that our universe is a probability space and the relativisation of the dimensions shows the reason why the bizarre effects of relativity are not bizarre at all (also see chapter 71). In other words, the effect of the Michelson-Morley experiment trivialises the reasons behind relativity, and we have reached a point, by using a bottom-up approach, where we can answer many of the ‘whys’ of science and life. When it is realized that our universe is a probability space, the fifth dimension (a +/and b)=1 places concept and context at our disposal and provides the ‘why’ because that is the context of the concept.

 

The sum of the values at every point in a mathematical probability space (always) sum to 1, but it could be 0 (to match the above), which is the sum of the energy, angular momentum, electric charge etc. in our (energy) universe. The universe forms at some temperature, that I will call ‘cold’ and when this space forms, logic/context (of entanglement (a+b)) is instantaneously present, because that is a property of a probability space, leaving the measurement/concepts behind because this energy component moves only at a maximum/absolute speed of light. Remember that everything is ‘cold’ and as the logic/context moves ‘out’ infinitely fast from the ‘point’ of creation another ‘effect’ is taking place.

 

I am putting a ‘floor’ to the Big Bang’ and have to move into the current theory, which is, ‘there are now three pieces of evidence for the Big Bang theory that attest to an origin remote in time and emanating from an incredibly dense and hot state’. (p 106) It is not my aim to challenge the theory, only to add to the understanding, and I will carry the above a little further, remembering that the logic is moving out at t=0. Notice that the Big Bang is a property of the space and, within the constraints of the multiverse is a natural occurrence and quantum mechanics starts ‘testing’/doing-its-job and creates energy (‘free’ energy moves away, by necessity, to form a balancing potential) within the ‘point’ of creation.

 

A digression is necessary because ‘for most practical purposes quantum theory does not hold much relevance for the study of the large-scale structure of the universe because quantum theory applies to the description of nature on microscopic scales.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 131) This would appear to be the general consensus of opinion, but the principle of relativisation appears to be applicable to all scales because it is a function of the field/space. A simple example will show the independence of scale: the Michelson-Morley experiment shows that relativisation of the (macroscopic) observers occurs when investigating the speed of photons and that it is a product of the dimensions/universe (a+b)=1=(a+c), b=c for observers.

 

Another example is the Feynman method of the solution of the double/single slit experiment with light and a rational explanation based on the dimensions of our universe. ‘In the 1940s Richard Feynman had a startling insight regarding the difference between the quantum and Newtonian worlds…. The pattern we find when we fire molecules with both slits open is not the sum of the patterns we find when we run the experiment twice, once with just one slit open, and once with only the other open. Instead, when both slits are open we find a series of light and dark bands, the latter being regions in which no particle lands.’ (p 74)

 

‘Feynman realized … that particles take every possible path connecting those points. This, Feynman asserted, is what makes quantum physics different from Newtonian physics. The situation at both slits matters because, rather than following a single definite path, particles take every path, and they take them all simultaneously…. Feynman formulated a mathematical expression – the Feynman sum over histories – that reflects this idea and reproduces all the laws of quantum physics. In Feyman’s theory the mathematics and physical picture are different from that of the original formulation of quantum physics, but the predictions are the same.’ (p 75)

 

“In the double slit experiment Feynman’s ideas mean the particles take paths that go through only one slit or only the other; paths that thread through the first slit, back out through the second slit, and then through the first again; paths that visit the restaurant that serves that great curried shrimp ….. It might sound nutty, but for the purposes of most fundamental physics done today … Feynman’s formulation has proved more useful than the original one.’  (p 75)

 

Looking at the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement it is literally obvious that Feynman’s formulation was correct because entanglement (context) links every point, measurement (concept) is available for every point and provides the probability that is necessary in a probability space all instantaneously. Feynman’s formulation is a mathematics of concepts that links probabilities and entanglement of energy together and in doing so, was necessarily correct, even if he didn’t know why. The simplicity, above, of quantum mechanical probabilities is, to my mind a proof that our universe is a probability space.

 

The question of ‘why?’ needs to arise from the concepts and contexts of the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 and given measurement, entanglement, logic, absolute, lack of absolutes, mathematics of concepts, relativisation etc. it becomes a possibility that (a +/and b)=1 is the ‘face’ of God, as the Churches teach that God knows everything and controls everything and (a+b)=1 is a surprising source of knowledge, and, as mentioned before offers (literally) everything in the ‘theatre’ of space-time. In fact, in human history, all knowledge, that is not space-time, has come (top-down) from the fifth dimension and placing the fifth dimension bottom-up will help solve the social problems that we are facing on this planet, and the reason for this is that science, and I should say, our ‘particular’ brand of science, using mathematics is (fortuitously) aligned with the mathematics of concepts and organization.

 

This last sentence is an example of, what I call, chaos, both correct and not correct at the same time, from the Logic of the Half-truth, below, because it gives the impression that mathematics fortuitously gave us the ‘success’/scope of science/technology, but it is not the limitations of mathematics, it is the organizational ‘strength’ of science, derived from their (fortuitous) use of the organizational method that has led to its power and alludes/leads-into the prediction below. The sentence is both correct and not correct, as it stands and needs more attractors/concepts, and it will be seen that every ‘decision’ must present (and retain) the attractors/concepts used to make that decision so that its relevance can be relied upon, and perhaps improved. It will become apparent that the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics (for example) leads to evolution, organization, society etc. and the context of that concept is relevance/relativity.

 

As an example of the ‘principle’ of quantum mechanics leading to evolution, organization, society etc., ‘’microbes, fungi, and invertebrates in the soil are constantly busy, either by preying on one another, or consuming organic matter.’ (Trees, Truffles, and Beasts: How Forests Function, Maser, Claridge and Trappe, p 43) This is an example of the concept, but what of the context? ‘Bettongs, potoroos, wallabies, and eucalypts; voles, squirrels, deer, and firs – the first groups is Australian, the second North American. Despite their striking differences and locations on opposites of the Earth, each group interacts with truffles and tree-truffle relationships in much the same way.’ (p 75) This is the context, and further, it is parallel evolution, and becomes a ‘proof’, as much as decisional logic can be a proof.

 

This leads in to our definition of democracy that the majority ‘wins’ (concept) is insufficient unless that group is more knowledgeable on the subject of the vote (context) and this leads to Plato’s ‘democracy’ (chapter 67) and we start to realize that Selection of the Best (mathematics) is flawed and is leading us into Armageddon. We must live in a probability space because questing (concept) within context requires an iteration or mind/brain to decide a decision and act on it and I can only make a prediction that this will result in a general theory of organization.

 

In other words, every concept/measurement must have a logic/context/relativity (duality) with every other concept and that relativity can only be expressed as a probability/possibility and is called quantum-mechanics/probability-space. The super-world, of our minds, builds on this and has made mistakes, just as it has done with the Survival of the Best, and uses a time interval and requires that a particular relativity extend over time, and that is a distortion, and secondly, a decision does not (usually) contain the deriving concept/context so that its relevance can be checked as time passes, except in the case of science, where people are continually trying to re-build science to new (assigned) absolutes (the exception ‘proves’ the rule).

 

Now, from before, a small space has been created and perhaps the creation of energy came as a result of probability-‘testing’ uncertainty by quantum mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle that says that energy/time and momentum/position form part of inequalities and inequalities ‘shield’ chaos as mentioned in the Logic of the Half-truth, see later, and in this case, the illogic of measurement is shielded because of the finite measuring devices (photons, speed of light etc.) available to us. In world P, (literally) everything is energy from the Big Bang, so the Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle becomes, for simplicity, energy/time and energy/space, but these are the dimensions and there should be another relationship for symmetry and we find that the energy terms cancel and that space divided by time [speed] is a constant for all energies of a photon.

 

This indicates that for all free energies there is a constant (absolute) speed in vacuo, and the use of the dimensions simplifies and completes the uncertainty relationships into two uncertainties and one certainty/absolute. Furthermore, the concept of energy in world P is meaningless because everything is energy and changing all the time so we have had to use world O terms and that requires a mind/brain.

 

The Law of Conservation of Energy allows negative energy to be created as potential energy to balance any creation of positive energy and the two uncertainty principles were the cause of the start of the Big Bang, then relativisation joined in. ‘One requirement any law of nature must satisfy is that it dictates that the energy of an isolated body surrounded by empty space is positive, which means that one has to do work to assemble the body. That’s because if the energy of an isolated body were negative, it could be created in a state of motion so that its negative energy was exactly balanced by the positive energy due to its motion…. Empty space would therefore be unstable.’ (The Grand Design, Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, p 179).

 

A conceptual difference of (negative) gravity and (positive) ‘other’ energies could be thought of as one and the same (a measurement/logic duality), but independent, as has been shown, so, if the five dimensions are linked together, by a common factor, as above, (the Lorentz transformations), the creation of energy by splitting, relativises space and time and that solves the inflation problem. In other words, the Big Whoosh of energy separation creates time and space through the dimensions of the probability space at a rate that depends on the amount of energy created and should not be restricted by the speed of light, which occurs for ‘constant’ energy transfers. This effect would be natural and in a similar manner, provides the means of travel, I believe, for photons/free-energy, and that means of travel is a logical means, and that answers the puzzle of how a photon moves!

 

I have read that inflation was an increase in space and not an increase in the speed of light, as some writers promote, but using the Lorentz transformation (equally) affecting energy, time and space, it is still a leap of faith (from top-down) and does answer ‘how it occurred’, whereas the above, using the dimensions, including the fifth dimension, tells ‘how and why it occurred’. I believe that this again supports my insistence that our universe is a probability space.

 

It seems strange that a speed should be an absolute in a probability space that has ‘time passing’ as the time dimension and we know that energy must relativise continually. Time interval is world (our) O unit and books have been written over millennia trying to measure it, so looking more closely at energy/distance/time-passing, all are linked by a common relationship of the Lorentz transformation, and it becomes apparent that the speed of electromagnetic radiation is a ratio of the dimensions, not distance travelled divided by a time interval, and I believe that that forms the basis of the absolute speed that is always independent of the energy of the photon and is the ‘why’.

 

‘The puzzle that baffled a previous generation of astronomers, of why the universe should be flat, exactly balanced on the knife-edge between runaway expansion and precipitate collapse. The resolution of that puzzle turned out to be a completely new idea, the idea of inflation.’ (The Universe a Biography, John Gribbin, p 124) The idea/theory of inflation was necessary to explain the data, but the basis and reason why inflation is natural is simply explained above, and results in the relativisation by a common factor (Lorentz, through the requirement of simplicity).

 

An interesting point is that it is commonly considered that the galaxies are moving outward due to the momentum imparted by the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, but an alternative explanation is more ‘definitive’, and by that I mean that the outward momentum tells us little and leads to questions, such as ‘is the universe speeding up, remaining constant or slowing down its rate of expansion?’. However, if we use the above, that the dimensions show that the speed of light is constant and that there is no reason that a lower restriction should be placed on the energy of the photons because their motion is a logic of the space and the spread of energy can be infinitesimally small.  In other words, logic produces the motion and there is no limit to how small the quantum can get.

 

This ‘no minimum’ is logically important because there can be no singularity that, as the original photons, from the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh spread out, and are still doing so at considerably lower energy [cosmological red-shift], they are creating space at a constant rate. This increase in space forces the galaxies to move outward to preserve the Law of Conservation of Energy. In other words, space increases and that forces the other dimensions (and energy) to increase by the same amount [Lorentz factor] and as the speed of electromagnetic radiation is constant, the expansion of the massive galaxies should be constant. However, the other factor, energy has to increase as well, by the same proportion, and, as below, dark energy, as a component of space, might be necessary for balance within the system.

 

This derivation shows that there is more information available using the dimensions, but on the other hand, as we saw with Newton’s world O units, they provided simplicity at a ‘price’, and, as above, another form of simplicity can be seen from the dimensions that I have called the mathematics of concepts. The quotation continues ‘I expect that a resolution of the puzzle of the cosmological constant will also turn out to be something completely new, that nobody has yet imagined’ (p 124) The cosmological constant, for completeness, may turn out be too ‘simple’, as is shown for the gravity/kinetic energy relationships, as given below, and the expansion above, and concepts cannot be simplified without losing logic/context and, for example, dark energy is probably necessary for survival (for at least two reasons) [stability and balance]. In other words, simplicity/exactitude is ‘nice’ and is the ‘reason’ that we invented mathematics, but the ‘real’ world contains the indeterminacy of quantum-mechanics/probability-space and we have to accept that any simplification of logic invites a singularity. The logic of a probability space must be instantaneous, but we can approximate using the mathematics of concepts because the super-world of the mind is not a probability space, although it is based on a probability space, reality and evolution.

 

In a probability space P, the value at any point is indeterminate until measured, but when measured, that point becomes determinate [to the measurer at that time] because the possibility/probability is known (at that point), whilst the super-world O is different and it is different because it contains our reality, and our reality is that we, or more precisely, Life has survived with that reality. World O units are space-time, where time is an interval, and that interval is essential to work out speed because we need to keep a ‘buffer zone’ between ourselves and a predator. We use to have to (literally) run into something for a predator/prey situation to occur, but in the Cambrian, we evolved lensed eyes and an enlarged mind/brain developed/evolved the sixth dimension of forward-planning that is vital in these situations.

 

The basis of the sixth dimension (forward-planning) is the Mathematics-of-the-Mind/mathematics-of-concepts and we have limited entanglement (limited to our reality, what we know and what we have learned from other organisms) and not universal entanglement as in a probability space. For example, we have a common reality with everything around us that we can experience, and a separate reality in the immune system for bacteria etc. that we cannot see/feel.

 

To repeat, I believe that the Big Bang or perhaps more accurately, a Big Whoosh, was a runaway creation or splitting of nothing into a positive part and a negative part of (only) the energy concepts over a very small period of time and I will quote, and compare to ‘the universe begins to expand at an exponential rate. Indeed, the universe continued to expand exponentially as long as the inflation field was the dominant source of energy density. This phase of inflation began when the universe was about 10x-36 seconds old. This energy eventually decays away (by design) and inflation ends by about 10x-35 seconds. This enormous kinetic energy turns into heat, and we are now again in the conventional hot Big Bang phase, initially dominated by radiation and relativistic particles.’ (The Infinite Cosmos, Joseph Silk, p 116) This quotation, according to the above, is a little strange, as there is no ‘inflation field’, only creation of space/time in a perfectly natural way by the creation of energy (balanced by potential energy) and this depends on the rate of creation of energy and ‘exponential’ is not an apt term. Inflation could be thought of as a ‘normal curve’ and slowed when energy creation slowed, but it is a natural process whenever energy is created (not transferred). Also, the momentum of the galaxies is due to the creation of space.

 

This opens the thought (again) that quantum mechanics is thought of as a factor of the very small, but if we consider the measurement/logic of quantum mechanics, it is the same as the concept/context of evolution (or business, or society etc.), and it is the ‘questing’ that lies behind each that is the basic principle, and I have said before that it is simpler/more-probable to have one principle than two (Occam’s razor) and thus the same principle lies behind organizations of all types. The ‘inflation field’, above, is not something that applies between 10x-36 and 10x-35 seconds to explain the effects of the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh, I believe that relativisation is also quantum mechanical, universe-wide, maintains the conservation of energy and allows/makes photons move because logically they have to move (kinetic energy) and conceptually/measurementally, energy creates space/time, and thus creates a constant speed, as above.

 

The Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh is a natural outcome of relativisation acting with the licence of quantum mechanics to explore possibilities, and this answers some of the question, ‘why and how the Big Bang occurred!’, but we again/always run into the multiverse question that if the Big Bang wasn’t big enough, there would not be a big enough universe and we wouldn’t be here. In fact, we are here because we can be here and make a living out of being here and the Life around us answers the question of whether this particular universe can support life. However, the simplicity of the ratio of the dimensions suggests that the speed of light might be a ‘true’ absolute in every universe.

 

This leads to another digression, ‘at the same time, in science we have to be particularly cautious about “why” questions. When we ask, ‘Why?’ we usually mean “How?” …. “Why” implicitly suggests purpose, and when we try to understand the solar system in scientific terms, we do not generally ascribe purpose to it. (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p143) However, the above does ‘ascribe purpose’ because a probability of existence space does just that! It ‘ascribes purpose/probability’ and only ‘actors’ such as we, can answer the questions of logic, and logic is part of a probability space, and in particular, a super-world O. It would be a poor probability space that doesn’t examine every possible possibility and this leads to the ‘why’ of quantum mechanics because ‘as long as no one is watching, anything goes’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 153) This is the contextual ‘proof’ to the Michelson-Morley’s conceptual proof that we live in a probability of existence universe with the possibility of change and Life evolved through making changes (Theory of Everything).

 

A (simple mathematical) probability space answers the question ‘what is the probability of something (singular) happening at each point (measurement, a and b), and entanglement ((a+b)=1)?’. Our super-world O is not a simple mathematical probability space and I have wondered many times about measurement/entanglement, singular, as above, and concept/context as the ‘plural’/mathematics-of-concepts and this jibes/agrees with the description of the fifth dimension CEM (mathematics of concepts/entanglement/measurement) and that there is an ‘intermingling’ of two distinct ‘worlds’ (O and P).

 

In other words, I wondered whether the three parts of CEM were necessary, and I now realize that ‘yes’, they are necessary because the mathematics of concepts is a ‘plural’/more-complicated use of the probability space and requires not just a measurement at each point, but the measurement of concepts at each point, and requires a mind-brain to formulate/’hold’ those concepts in a new space that is far more than a simple mathematical probability space. Iteration is the measurement process in a simple probability space. It will be shown in the future that the terms ‘one-dimensional’ and ‘two-dimensional’ can be used.

 

Again, in other words, just as the cells of organisms are limited in size by the strength (and that evolution cannot ‘go back’ (Rule of Life)) of the cellular membrane, they entered into an agreement to become multi-cellular organisms (placebo/nocebo contract) to produce an iteration-producing mind/brain where the mind is a new ‘space’/concept where the context is the mathematics of concepts. This makes sense (to me) because for years I called the mathematics of concepts, the Mathematics of the Mind and derived it, not from the dimensions, but by using the Logic of the Half-truth (true, false, true some of the time and false the rest of the time and true and false at the same time) to isolate chaos. Once I examined the fifth dimension, I could ‘see’/recognise the mathematics of concepts within (a +/and b)=1.

 

When humans took control (Survival of the Best (mathematics (a special case of the mathematics of concepts)), 10,000 years ago, they lost reality [we are still moving to a new reality] and we now find that the world is heading for Armageddon and, I believe, requires Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to be able to ‘(hopefully) fix it’. This sequence is the Theory of Everything and shows the progression of the logic-of-repetition/mind-brain/consciousness/ mathematics/mathematics-of-concepts and each stage becomes part of the evolution of the bio-computer/evolution. This answers the question ‘why are we here?’ and that answer is (1) that we can evolve out of the multiverse, and (2) that we evolved through iteration to the mind/brain because we could, and we have done just that, but (3) we (life and the predator/prey situation) set up our own sixth dimension of forward planning and evolved a super-world (O).

 

We can ‘slide’ the fifth dimension under science as a bottom-up context because science has been discovered and reported in a top-down manner, mainly because, I believe, we think that we exist. A simple example was the thought that the sun rotated around the earth, and was found to be wrong, and a current one is that we actually exist because it is ‘obvious’ that we exist (I think, therefore I am). In a universe that ‘exists’, or that we think exists, the Michelson-Morley experiment would create an enigma and yet that enigma is the principal postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity and people tolerate that postulate! Taking this to its logical conclusion, both the Special Theory of Relativity and Fynman’s view of quantum mechanics are regularly used, but are based on ‘crazy stuff’ unless our universe is viewed/acknowledged as a probability space containing a super-probability-world O.

 

The world has got itself into an Armageddon situation by using concepts without (sufficient) context being applied and not assigning absolutes in the ‘best’ way, and our world is starting to appear as a closed system that cannot absorb our excesses and we are being forced to find a better way. In other words, we evolved with Survival of the Fittest, used Survival of the Best (mathematics) to bring on Armageddon and we need to use the absolute (setting limits) of Survival of the Best (mathematics of concepts) to help get out of it. Note that an absolute (from dimension five) must be set (Plato’s problem) to give us a ‘target’ through forward-planning (sixth dimension) to try to avert Armageddon. Science does this, but politics does not. This abrupt change from cosmology to politics etc. is possible because, as above, I am using the dimensions and they, literally, define (and include) everything.

 

The above paragraph demands a prediction, and it is, that all of the above, based on the dimensions will allow us to define a general-form/science-of-organization, based on the mathematics of concepts, that we can apply, as suggested above, that will be able to solve the world’s problems, and if we so wish, stabilise population and put evolution ‘back on track’. That is the ‘how’/concept and the answer to the ‘how’/context is that all organizations/systems are based on the dimensions of the space that contains them, and we are using the most fundamental dimensions. The ‘why’ is, if we don’t set absolutes, and adhere to them, chaos will/is-coming in the form of global warming, over-population etc.

 

It has just been announced that two research establishments recorded the ‘gravity waves’ from the collision/coalescence of two black holes over a billion years ago and they concluded that transmission occurred at the speed of light. This ‘gravity wave’ is a change in the gravity energy, as recorded in the ‘concept/measurement’ equation (below) that is propagated at the speed of light and supports the above derivations. The much more interesting conjecture of the ‘context/logic’ equation (below) and its effect on the conservation of energy came and went (instantaneously) over a billion years ago. I will repeat that science is satisfied to discover the ‘gravity wave energy’, and being an energy, travels at the speed of light and have ignored the logic of gravity.

 

Dark energy is a property of ‘space’, and so, ‘our suggestion of a flat universe, 70 percent of the energy of which should be contained in empty space. Recall that such energy would produce a cosmological constant, leading to a repulsive force that would then exist throughout all space and that would dominate the expansion of the universe, causing its expansion to speed up, not slow down.’ (a universe from nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 80) As above, this may be a little simplistic/strange because the ‘driver’ is not the dark energy, but is a product of space and needed for balancing energy.

 

‘Because the cosmological constant is a property of space itself, the amount of this kind of dark energy in every cubic centimetre of space stays the same as the universe expands, whereas the density of matter (light and dark) goes down as the universe expands.’ The Universe: a biography, John Gribbin, p 118) ‘It is mostly dark energy that holds the universe together today; but, seemingly paradoxically, if the acceleration of the expansion continues, it is also dark energy that will ultimately blow the universe apart.’ (p 123) Again, I cannot agree.

 

Bearing in mind that all (or a workable amount of) energy has a gravity/logic component and I am assuming that relativisation is controlled by the conservation of energy that must remain constant (at zero), it means that there has to be continual adjustments to the total energy and that can be done through changing the energy of the photons (Pound-Rebka). However, a much larger ‘sink’ of energy is available through the dark energy (70%) and that would serve as a more ‘secure’ organizational-choice/requirement because there could be abrupt changes to the energy of light that may lead to the extinction of life, especially when bacteria evolved in a reducing atmosphere and their ability to repair damage caused by high energy light/particles to DNA is still with us today. The multiverse and the size of this factor suggest that a much larger dark matter sink would be preferable/probable/necessary.

 

Conclusion: our universe is a natural progression of a particular (out of the multiverse) probability space defined by space-time and (a+b)=1 that defines/evolved the mathematics of concepts (when life evolved), shows the duality of measurement/logic and concept/context (in the universe and in the super-world O) and the lack of an absolute except for the speed of light that relativises the dimensions as a particle approaches that speed, and also for the conservation of energy etc. In other words, relativisation and inflation are the same thing and going on around us continually as energy creates time and space in order to prevent a logical and physical singularity. The Theory of Everything describes everything in the universe as context/concept of energy (from our point of view, relativity) that formed from space in the Big-Bang/Big-Whoosh and its context marries the concept of Conservation of Energy, which is:

 

Concept/measurement: 0 = kinetic (energy)+ gravity (energy) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at the speed of photons in vacuo as a maximum.

 

Context/logic: 0 = kinetic + gravity (logic) + mass + dark matter + dark energy + photon energy + chemical etc. acting at an infinite speed.

 

where gravity is always negative and all the other energies are positive.

 

The logic of gravity ‘flashes’ around keeping track of the logic components of all the states of energy and relativises them. However, in practice we simplify and we make mistakes by not taking enough terms into consideration (the opposite of the aim of mathematics/physics) and that is leading the world into Armageddon. I have addressed Plato’s problem of defining an absolute previously and, hopefully, the ideas above show how necessary is the mathematics of concepts to the social sciences.

 

References: (1) this chapter (72) follows and adds to chapter (71): The Logic/Quantum/Gravity Description of the Universe Applied to the Why and the How of the Theory of Relativity Leads to the Realization that Relativisation is the Basic Mechanism of Our Universe and Showing Why Science is Successful and Politics is Not

 

(2) all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on   http://darrylpenney.com  if required.