Abstract: ‘why things happen’ is bottom-up, and ‘how things happen’ is top-down and the former allows a greater level of understanding than the latter and this understanding is attained through the null space, orthogonality, fractal and probability spaces using organizational physics to show physics in its fullness. ‘Everyday’ logic has finally found a home and definition in organizational physics and the mathematics of concepts, as it must, as they are based on the dimensions and a simple coherent theory of creation is proposed that leads to the removal of the multitude of postulates and enigmas that have traditionally bedevilled physics. Little disturbance is necessary as both physics and mathematics are special cases of what is presented here. Creation is described as the Big Whoosh that shows the independence/orthogonality of Church and physics and that neither can influence the other, in theory. The universe grew out of five dimensions and the mathematics of concepts, based on them, is the means for us to become symbionts with our host/planet instead of stressing it. Examples are given of language, using the Michelson-Morley (apparent) enigma, dark energy accounting, CMB (cosmic background radiation) inflating the universe, why the speed of light is constant and how the speed of gravity/organization is infinite. Free-will/choice in the form of virtual/orthogonal particles is ubiquitous, diffraction is explained as part of the gravity/binding-energy hyperbola (quantum gravity), proof/derivation of Newton’s formula for the force of gravitation, general mathematics, ‘everyday’ logic becomes (1 and (-1))=0 and the realization that this derivation must be the Theory of Everything represented by the equation (1+(-1))=0

Physics has traditionally tried to answer the question of ‘how things happen’ and theorists have been discouraged from asking the question of ‘why things happen’, presumably because the Church provided a reason for Creation and a reality to Life that became inadvisable to dispute. If there was to be no discussion on Creation, then physics was forced into a top-down, restricted research model that led to the acceptance of Newtonian physics. On the other hand, our senses have had 3,000 million years to evolve a reality that we can (literally) live and compete within and thus, it is difficult to define what is real and what is not real. Reality must be continuous and complete otherwise magic happens that disturbs that reality and we may find ourselves being something’s dinner because we can’t plan against it. Newtonian physics assumed this reality that we made for ourselves and has made an attempt to measure and explain how the universe worked based on the units that Life evolved from the survival of the fittest, namely, speed of attack and safe distance.

Physics evolved over a long time, necessarily top down, and so, Newtonian physics has necessarily been presented in this format and its ability to describe nature accurately/adequately is becoming increasingly difficult. Basically, there are two spaces/worlds, our world (O) and the physical world (P). The decision on the type of space that we inhabit must be made because physics is becoming warped by continuing to believe that our universe is real in terms of us (O) and no other option has been put forward for (P). Unfortunately, Newton’s ideas have proved to be a little ‘hit/miss’ in the modern world, and so, I am putting forward a general theory that contains Newtonian physics as a special case that, I believe, works far better for modern physics.

Organizational physics is a new theory that builds on, and extends the existing physics, and seamlessly integrates and expands physics (and mathematics) with a simple concept of orthogonality that is a philosophical necessity to decision-making, and we, as part of Life, have been using it, literally forever, without realizing its fundamental physical significance. This shows the basic problem that Newtonian physics has built on, and that is, that only the energy half of the problem is presented/considered with bits of organization, in the form of postulates and common sense appended when required. Organizational physics can be viewed as, firstly, reorganising physics and mathematics into a complete package, and secondly, basing both on a postulate-free basis by showing that they can be derived from (literally) nothing, thirdly, knowing that physics and mathematics are based solidly and completely on the dimensions of our universe, and fourthly, extending the mathematics of concepts into the social sciences, politics and beyond.

This decision-making combines a fractal building of the universe together with the properties of a probability space as a prop to allow us to ‘see’ the real universe that is hidden from us, as, I believe, empty space, or more accurately, null space. Using this ‘trick’, we can trace the universe back in time to the creation and are left with the orthogonal/independent alternative decision that creation was natural or required God. In other words, the question of whether nature or God created the universe is a matter of personal faith and nothing that physics discovers can ever influence the position of God in the universe because of the orthogonality/independence of the two. That simple statement puts a very long-running problem between the Church and physics, finally to rest.

The value of this new approach is that it shows that Newtonian physics has subsumed organization and left a considerable number of enigmas in its wake and my approach, I believe, fixes this problem. Newtonian physics can be viewed as an attempt to ‘solidify’ physics into a worldwide method in the same way that religion did over centuries, and modern physics has shown that Newtonian fundamental physics needs updating/rewriting. The question is, how to update physics and mathematics without causing problems, and the answer is readily apparent because both physics and mathematics are special cases contained in this theory and nothing need change, except at the edges. The edges are the very small [quantum mechanics] and the very large [relativity] and this difficulty has been known for a century, and in addition, quantum-gravity can now join these extremes with a simple expression [y=1/x]. Not only is our knowledge of physics expanded and the enigmas abolished, mathematics is extended to the social sciences through the mathematics of concepts and provides a basis to solve the world’s organizational problems. As an indication/’proof’ of this, let me say that the universe uses (only) five dimensions to successfully create the whole universe and so, surely we can use the same basic methods to organize ourselves and save our planet.

In other words, if a universe, including Life, can be developed from five dimensions, and Life evolved as a parasite within this universe by hijacking and expanding, for its own ends, the dimensions, until it endangers its host, the planet, why can’t we, by understanding the means by which we evolved, use this same knowledge to evolve ourselves a step further and become symbiotic with our host planet. Evolving a symbiosis could be considered the long-term goal of a parasite, considering that the parasite is dependent on its host. So, we need to change the workable ‘survival of the fittest’ to a new form that I call the ‘survival of the best’. We have currently changed the reality of survival of the fittest to an unstable reality by adding empathy [letting the unfit live/breed] that has always been the anti-thesis of survival of the fittest, and we have now produced a threat to our host by our excess numbers. Organizational physics is the study of the organization of mathematics and physics and stands shoulder to shoulder [orthogonally] with our present picture of physics and mathematics, but has been subsumed by using world O thinking/units. Using world P units/organization to align our aims with the host’s wellbeing is a possible/necessary evolution that has to be made to our social organization, and I believe that the mathematics of concepts is the key by replacing competition with cooperation.

Competition and cooperation are world O words that could be called opposites by most people and this underscores why the mathematics of concepts and orthogonality are so important. Opposites are independent, just as orthogonals are, but the mathematics of concepts links the two through context and this flows on [Mandrake effect] from world P’s measurement/entanglement [universal measurement requires entanglement]. Orthogonality is used to denote the independence of concepts that form the basis of the mathematics of concepts and naturally require the concepts to be unique in their meaning. Dictionaries specialize in stating the alternate uses to which words might be put and I often try to do the opposite by using two different words to better define a thought. If we only use unique concepts, it is the context that is important to provide the organization and that provides the strength of the mathematics of concepts. Thus, language shows the same deficiencies that are inherent in physics and mathematics because orthogonality is fundamental and written in the fifth dimension [(a+b)=1].

Organizational physics has been there from the beginning, ‘the idea that matter is composed of large numbers of minute particles is a surprisingly old one. It seems to have appeared first with the speculations, around 400 BC, of the Greek Philosopher Leucippus and his student Democritus, and the word atom comes directly from the Greek word atoma, which means indivisible. (The Material World, Rodney Cotterill, p 25) This result is the answer to the organizational question of ‘how small can you go and still obtain the unique minimum workable organizational solution?’. The minimum concept is orthogonality and the minimum context is two, and this is shown as (a+b)=1, and this equation is the fifth dimension. Orthogonality could be thought of as combining the contextual organizational atom with the conceptual physical energy atom and this shows the fundamental nature of measurement/entanglement, concept/context and orthogonality, and in geometric terms, is orthogonalizing, or changing a line to a plane, and, in doing so, vastly increases the scope of Newtonian physics. There will always be alternatives (orthogonalities) because there are no absolutes, as Plato lamented, except for the three factors below, derived from the dimensions, so, our present aim could be visualized as an orthogonalization of Newtonian physics and organizational physics, whereas mathematics is a special case of general mathematics.

This distinction between orthogonalization and special case is crucial to a proper understanding of what has to be done to align science and mathematics with the bottom-up requirements of the fifth dimension. To turn a top-down approach to a bottom-up requires detaching our current views and re-anchoring them on the most fundamental aspect of our space and that is the dimensions. Currently, physics is based on the Newtonian concept of energy with no regard for organization that can only have arisen if one considers the universe to be real and in line with the Church’s teachings of the time. Mathematics is different because it evolved from the counting of sheep etc. and has been anchored deliberately on the resultant number line to ensure uniqueness, as is required when counting sheep etc. What I am proposing is a mathematics based on the dimensions instead of sheep, and this requires that the traditional mathematics becomes, obviously, a subspace/special-case.

In addition, current logic is a mishmash of special cases and this can be seen from an examination of logic in chapter 75 where it is considered in a top-down sense and it is only now that I realize that the organizational physics that is needed to put physics on a solid base must also provide a solid footing for logic. In other words, our universe is only logical when aligned with the dimensions of our universe! This statement is, I believe, at least to me, profoundly shocking, because it is so simple and suddenly logic is firmly based on the dimensions and becomes a logical part of physics. Immediately, it is obvious that logic must be divided, as I am attempting to do with physics, into an orthogonalization of organizational/physical/world-P logic and formal/traditional-mathematics/world-O logic. The former becomes organizational physics and the latter is part of general mathematics.

These properties can be derived from a mathematical probability space that has the dimensions of three space, time passing and (a +/and b)=1 for measurement/recorders a and b, for simplicity from chapter 85, ‘if we quest the dimensions, we find three constant relationships: energy to time for all space, energy to space for all time and space to time for all energies because all of the dimensions change by the Lorentz contraction [for simplicity]. The first appears to suggest conservation of energy over time, the second that space has a set energy and that the creation of space creates energy, as is commonly thought, and could be the mechanism that forces matter/galaxies with its negative potential energy to move outwards as space is created [and vice versa]. The third relationship shows that all (free) energy, in the form of photons must have a constant speed, relative to the measurer, and this is the Michelson-Morley result (for all motions). These relationships are necessary quests in a measurement space and the second relationship, that space has a set energy and that the creation of space creates energy suggests a reason for dark energy to exist. “Dark energy is everywhere – a property of space itself – whereas dark matter occurs in blobs in the vicinity of galaxies.” (Star – Craving Mad, Fred Watson, p 256)’

This paragraph shows how our thinking will have to change because, firstly, the universe has been given definition as a fractal/probability representation/orthogonality of a null space with the three properties above [total energy is always zero, speed of light is constant and dark energy is the ‘balancing item’ demanded by the other two requirements]. Secondly, orthogonality is dimension 1.5 that is acted upon by the mind/brain, dimension 2, to endeavour to change physics and mathematics, dimension 1, using the mathematics of concepts into dimension 2. In other words, the aim of this paper is to turn the logical ‘line’ of physics into the ‘plane’ of organizational-physics/traditional-physics to reap the benefits by using a ‘leap-forward’ by Life in evolving a mind/brain that can use a sixth dimension [forward-planning], and by so doing, moves traditional physics from dimension 1 to dimension 2.

Notice that the expansion of the universe is fractal, based on the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 and (literally) everything is fractal and ‘fractals are not limited to geometric patterns, but can also describe processes in time. Fractal patterns with various degrees of self-similarity have been rendered or studied in images, structures and sounds and found in nature, technology, art, and law. Fractals are of particular relevance in the field of chaos theory, since the graphs of most chaotic processes are fractal.’ (Wikipedia, Fractal) That energy is equivalent to (a+b)=1 and organization is equivalent to (a and b)=1 is obvious in derivation as everything is energy or organization. This shows that everything (energy/organization) can be expressed in terms of measurement/entanglement and this answers the (apparent) Michelson-Morley enigma that everyones’ mind/brain measures the speed of light as being the same speed regardless of their relative speeds/acceleration. Remember that the speed of light is an absolute, from above, and our space/universe relativises the measurer so that the speed of light remains constant with respect to the measurer. This is the enigma that ‘bugged’ me for decades and forms the basis of organizational physics. We are subordinate to the constant speed of light and that creates the strange effects that relativity has brought to the forefront of modern physics.

Consider the important concept of nothing. The only thing that nothing can do is orthogonalize into two parts that we can call positive energy and negative energy and these can stay separate or join together (again) to become nothing. From chapter 90, ‘a null space shows orthogonality (1 + (-1)), fractalization (1 + (-1)) and a measuring/probability space (0 + (1 + (-1)))=0 at the same time and is my licence to proceed as I have done. The null space and the fractal spaces are simple, but the probability space is more complicated because it contains two parts, firstly, that the sum of all parts is constant, which was simply explained as being the sum of all possible zeros is zero. Secondly, a probability space is a measuring space because every point must contribute to the sum, and this simple statement leads to the question “how are alternatives presented to the point to determine what the value is?” Newtonian physics “glosses” over this point by saying that “things come together to be in the lowest state of energy”. But what tells the point/reaction that something is the lowest energy? I believe that all choices are presented and these choices are orthogonal/virtual particles, as have been discussed, below. Newtonian physics is correct in that the lowest energy is used, but the reason is an organizatioal necessity to keep the total energy (law of conservation, see below) always zero.’

Revisiting this paragraph, Newtonian physics postulates that the lowest energy relation/reaction will be used, whereas organizational physics says that the lowest energy relation/reaction must be used, otherwise a logical singularity in the energy accounting will occur. But how is the lowest relation/reaction processed? In chapter 90, it was found that virtual/orthogonal particles exist and are shown to exist by experiment, and as each particle is composed of equal amounts of positive and negative energy, the organizational part presumably presents the orthogonalities in ascending order of energy/fractal starting at the lowest, zero, as ascending/fractal orthogonals [Newtonian physics uses a postulate]. Further, as everything in the universe has started as nothing, predating the first orthogonality of nothing and God, can there be any postulates? This would put physics on a similar footing as mathematics in trying to be unique without postulates/enigmas, but both do not realize that they are not fundamental.

To show the state of physics, let’s look at the law of conservation of energy that is one of the most basic laws assumed/postulated in Newtonian physics. It is apparently true because I have heard it quoted, as we all have as, ‘energy cannot be created nor destroyed’, ‘the total energy is constant and is thus equal to that created in the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe is due to momentum’, and from Wikipedia ‘in physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.’

I believe that energy is being created all the time as dark energy as the universe/space expands with the constant speed of electromagnetic radiation that is the CMB as quested from the dimensions, above. Wikipedia says that ‘the cosmic microwave background is the electromagnetic radiation left over from the time of recombination in Big Bang cosmology. In older literature, the CMB is also variously known as cosmic microwave background radiation or “relic radiation”. The CMB is a cosmic background radiation that is fundamental to observational cosmology because it is the oldest light in the universe, dating to the epoch of recombination.’

As an example of the concept/context of the mind/brain that uses orthogonality as a basis of the mathematics of concepts, I should point out that the fifth dimension (a+b)=1 is true for all a and b, not just measurement/observer. The working of our mind/brain uses this fact, and thus, the concept that the CMB must be linked to a context for orthogonality. This is the ‘trick’/Mandrake-effect that we are using, so what is that context? The context is the expansion of the universe because the increase in space caused by the CMB creates the dark energy that is the energy of space and is the balancing item in the accounting of the fact that the total energy is zero. The gain in negative potential energy of the photons of the CMB etc. must be balanced by the positive energy of everything in the universe as stated by the dimensions, given that the energy of space is constant, from above, alternatively, the CMB creates space and the potential energy of the galaxies must increase by expanding outwards to balance the dark energy that is created, and a balace occurs. I believe that this is a far better option/interpretation than using the residual momentum of the Big Bang.

So, to solve this enigma that energy is being created [positive and negative], and yet not created [total zero], requires a simple organizational solution that, according to the Big Whoosh that started from an orthogonality in null space, the total energy remains, and always will remain, at zero and this requires that the amount of positive and negative energy increase or decrease together. So, I can view a null space, where each particle contains equal energy and organization, through a probability/fractal space and this concept presents the context of virtual/orthogonal choices/particles that are (literally) everywhere, even inside and part of elementary particles because, I believe they are the manifestation of choice. Consider, from chapter 90, ‘“a Herculean effort … to try to calculate the fundamental properties of protons and neutrons …. Three quarks contained therein, but there is also a lot of other stuff. In particular, virtual particles reflecting the particles and fields that convey the strong force between quarks are popping in and out of existence all the time…. when we try to estimate how much they might contribute to the mass of the proton, we find that the quarks themselves provide very little of the total mass and that the fields created by these particles contribute most of the energy that goes into the proton’s rest energy and hence, its rest mass.” (A Universe from Nothing, Lawrence M. Krauss, p 69) These fields could be the negative-energy/logic/organization/entanglement of the binding energy that necessarily generates two orthogonal energies, that taken together make up the rest-mass, and that fits with what I am proposing. Further, higher orthogonalities need higher mass/energy to contend with more energetic reactions and that is the reason for the large masses of some particles.’ Thus, the use of the conservation of energy concept is fraught with difficulties from the creation of energy from nothing, and that these two energies are fundamantally different in application.

Similarly, with gravity, from chapter 90, ‘this paragraph contains the apparent enigma that the effect of gravity is instantaneous over the whole universe, in spite of Einstein’s assetion that the speed of light is a maximum. I have pointed out, from the dimensions that the speed of transmission of energy (photon) is a maximum/constant of the speed of light, but the universe can only exist/work if the speed of gravity is instantaneous and this requirement led me to consider the universe as a probability space. Actually, the starting point was the concept of reality, but a mathematical probability space does cater for an instantaneous gravity, but there is another possibility, and that is the null space. The case that is presented here, is observable only because a probability/fractal space is a higher orthogonality of our space, that is a null space, and contains the same properties. In other words, there is no difference between each point and all points in a null space , except that we cannot picture it unless we expand it into orthogonalities that we can picture. This statement that our universe is a null space is true, I believe, but we will have to change the Newtonian concept of a ‘real’ universe to one that may be difficult to accept.’

To put this simply, fractalization is the splitting of something into two necessarily independent parts [orthogonalization], but fractalization is half of an orthogonality itself, and the other half I have taken to be a probability space. There are three factors at play here, firstly, the physical part of a probability space, (a+b)=1, where a and b are energy measurement/recorders, secondly, the organizational part in (a and b)=1, namely, organizational measurement and entanglement of a and b, and thirdly, the generalness of a and b that allows the parasites (us) that evolved within the physical universe to consider a and b to be concept and context. This is the basis of the mathematics of concepts, where a mind/brain usurps the physical ability to measure things and uses it to measure concepts/context. The reason that this use of concept/context evolved is that the predator/prey situation of the survival of the fittest forced Life to create, for its own use, a sixth dimension, that of forward planning.
.
To give some more examples, I would be safe in saying that most people think that they live in a real world, but the orthogonality of the splitting of nothing into two parts implies that the universe was natural or prompted by God. Thus, the creation of our universe can be created by two independent means and thus there can never, ever, be any question that physics and religion have anything to do with each other. The question then becomes, ‘is anything, that is created from nothing, real?’. The answer, of course, is the same as that for the conservation of energy, above, that reality can exist to us over a continuous and complete segment if it helps us survive, using whatever energy is available and different forms of life exist around us [extremophiles]. Another example is that we use our mind/brain to make decisions without realizing that orthogonality, the basis of the universe, has been converted into a tool for us in thinking concepts/context.

Another example of a long-running problem/enigma is the shining of light through a single and double slit and the effect has defied explanation for 350 years. Isaac Newton worked on it and must have known that it refuted his first law of motion that a particle remains in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force. Admittedly, the light was not isolated, but the effect on the light was so marked that it couldn’t be the effect of gravity, or could it be related to gravity? This ‘force’ that he could not account for is, I believe, organizational and as has been shown in chapter 90, is in the form of attraction that is general from the binding energy of the nucleus to the gravitational attraction of the galaxies and is in the form of a hyperbola and the strength is dependent on the separation [quantum gravity, y=1/x].

This single slit effect is known as diffraction where the light rays are bent into a semi-circular wavefront as they pass through the slit. The effect is apparently caused by the attraction of the photons with the aperture and is an attraction that is like gravity, but stronger, and the effect is greatest closer to the aperture, as one would expect. This aligns with the concept of a hyperbolic shaped graph of attraction versus separation that was described for binding in the nucleus to gravity at distance (chapter 90). Diffraction is a (somewhat) midway point between the two and is not due to the energy/energy part, but the energy/organization [entanglement] part. This example opens a window into the thinking of Newtonian physics, whereas, the three effects, binding, gravity and diffraction, are negative organizational energy and the three concepts are linked (contextually on the same graph), Newtonian physics treats everything as one type of energy. Now, binding energy and gravity have very definite reasons to be where/why they are, but diffraction is (apparently) a complete enigma and is unrelated conceptually, but it is related contextually, by being on the same graph. In other words, the attraction of all energy is a hyperbola with distance, and diffraction is necessary, even though it has no conceptual reason for being, except for simplicity.

This predominantly organizational entanglement between the light and the aperture produces diffraction, but, firstly, every piece of positive and negative energy must be considered separately because there is an accounting of both, but being equal, the organizational measurement is accounted by the entanglement and secondly, every element of energy attracts every other element of energy, otherwise the accounting would not balance. Thus, Einstein’s equation E=mc2 is not correct as a concept, it is contextually stunted because it does not consider all energy, as above, it should be an equivalence relation because energy and mass are states of energy, but it does service for the conversion of world O units between mass and energy. Again, what we use/recognize as a simple relation/equation is fraught with difficulties that need to be kept in mind when using it and shows that we need organizational physics to separate and keep separate the concepts that are used.

It has been said, with regard to quantum mechanics, that the observer influences the experiment and this may be so, because measurement/entanglement occurs with every measurement in a probability space through the fifth dimension [(a +/and b)=1]. However, there is another entanglement in the comprehension of measurement, whether it is mathematics, physics, mathematics of concepts etc. because it is the entanglement of the parasite with the host and influences the interpretation of the measurement. In effect, the mathematics of concepts requires that a mind/brain be used before a decision in mathematics can be made and that mathematics as well as physics etc., glosses over the effect of the observer. From chapter 81, ‘The Math Book, by Clifford A. Pickover, p 284) gives the five Peano’ Axioms as a basis of arithmetic, and certain things appeared to be missing, such as the mind/brain to determine elegance of content, forward planning (dimension 6), the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance), so keeping these four quantities: elegance, forward-planning, questing and relevance in mind, I will return to them via the dimensions and the properties of a probability space.’

These four search/measurement axioms might seem sensible and straight-forward and can perhaps be thought of as a product of top-down thinking, but that would be wrong, in this case, because they are more robust by being derived bottom-up through the properties of the space. These axioms are general for any parasite and when combined with the mathematics of concepts, provide the link that the mind/brain needs to produce organizational solutions/answers that are most pertinent to any question, and I have called this, general mathematics (see chapter 87). I say this with confidence because everything has been derived, and further, all the logic that has been used, has been derived from (literally) nothing.

The statement from the last sentence provides another example of why organizational physics is necessary/relevant and provides an answer to the quest of ‘what is logic?’ I have always considered formal logic to be ‘logical’ and form part of mathematics, but mathematicians seem to have difficulty relating to it and relegate it to philosophy. In view of my comments here, I believe that I am correct because formal logic, like everyday logic seems to be looking for a home and I believe that I have found one in organizational physics for ‘everyday’ logic, and formal logic should move to mathematics. This leaves philosophy with the important task of defining the ‘survival of the best’.

Surely the only ‘real’ logic is that that we find in our universe even though it appears enigmatic, and yet, how can we consider enigmas as logical as is happening in Newtonian physics? As an example, the speed of light is seen by all observers to be the same speed, irrespective of their motion [and this effect has been verified by Michelson-Morley] and cannot be rationalized except by considering our universe to be/viewed-as a probability/measuring space. This finally puts to rest the problem that I had with the multitude of answers for logic, as shown in chapter 75. I will not reproduce them here, but will be content with the rationale of ‘everyday’ logic being organizational physics and thus, for the social sciences, part of the Theory of Everything, below, and represented by the equation (1 and (-1))=0. I am pleased that this simplicity shows that the four search axioms, above, are relevant [elegance, forward-planning, questing and relevance], through being derived bottom-up and, thus, are part of the Theory of Everything.

As another example, from chapter 90, ‘consider that “Newton’s law of universal gravitation states that a particle attracts every other particle in the universe using a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. This is a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning. It is a part of classical mechanics and was formulated in Newton’s work Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (‘”the Principia”’), first published on 5 July 1687.” (Wikipedia, Newton’s law of universal gravitation)’

‘I find it difficult to believe that the Universal Law of Gravitation is based on “a general physical law derived from empirical observations by what Isaac Newton called inductive reasoning”! However, this inductive reasoning that was derived from empirical observations must be so, because firstly, Newtonian physics considers positive and negative energy to be the same, when they are better/can-only-be considered as opposites, and different fundamentally as energy and organization, secondly, the negative energy of gravity is independent and completely hidden from/in Newtonian physics, and thirdly, the use of the name Universal Law of Gravitation is a little grandiose/far-reaching considering Newtonian physics’ lack of appreciation of, what I believe is, the true organizational nature of the attraction that is simple and continuous from elementary particles to the furtherest galaxies.’

‘Fourthly, should I shall take the Universal Law of Gravitation as a postulate, for simplicity, because if Newtonian physics is unable to give a proof of the law of gravity, can/should I provide a proof based on the fact that binding/gravity is necessarily purely organizational (negative) energy that is independent of (positive) energy? The proof would be informative and indicitive of a change in thinking that quantum mechanics and relativity have brought to the fore, so, through the mathematics of concepts, that everything is related orthogonally, the requirements of the principle of Occam’s razor and the simplicity of the relation y=1/x indicates that this relation is probably true. This proof may sound a little strange, but the orthogonality that we have seen in quantum mechanics and relativity limits provability when compared to the preciseness of mathematics, and so, we must welcome the indeterminate into our thinking.’ I thought that this long quotation on gravity is necessary considering the importance of quantum gravity and how it is a large part of organizational physics.

As another example, Einstein was accused of postulating and not proving suppositions, as his peers did, and in particular, [rightly] postulated/accepted the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment that every measurer sees the speed of light as the same and this formed the basis of his theory of relativity. This assumption is taking an awesome liberty with traditional physics, that every measuring mind/brain sees the speed of light to be the same, no matter how they are moving! This only makes sense in/through a probability space that has dimensions that require the speed of light to be an absolute and forces the measurer to relativise to it. So, it could be said that physics accepts many postulates/enigmas if the general consensus of physicists agree. This top-down approach is fraught with possible problems/errors in understanding and, I believe, that a bottom-up approach is more sensible along the lines presented here.

I have spent considerable time putting forward the case that our universe uses only 5 dimensions and Life uses six and throughout the discussion of elementary particles, orthogonality is the sole factor of determination, which, of course, leads to the fractalization of the universe. Physics seems to act as if its sole job is to measure the ‘how’ things work and ignore the ‘why?’, and the type of space that we live in is the key to understanding. The measurement/recorder [a and b] has led to concept/context and now, technology/mass-extinction through what I have called the Mandrake effect and it is time to change the way we act in our role of parasites. The aim of a parasite is not to harm the host, and thus, the ultimate goal must be to organize ourselves to do that and the means is the mathematics of concepts because there is nothing else as it is all encompassing and the (special case) mathematics has failed to deliver solutions. However, a and b are open-ended, and if we need new concepts and contexts, such as technology and control, the means is there in the mathematics of concepts, and further, we know that the concept of survival of the best is possible to attain if we provide the context.

Conclusion: suddenly, I realized that the above is the Theory of Everything because it starts from nothing and so, requires no postulates or assumptions and is based on nothing (literally), but the mathematical/philosophical concepts of orthogonality producing a fractal and probability space seems to fit our physical universe so well that I am confident there are no enigmas or other unexplainable happenings. The equation is (1+(-1))=0 because it represents the null space, orthogonality, fractal and probability/measuring spaces and we can comprehend it, when put in this form.

After all, the concept of a probability space is fairly recent, the idea of a fractal is recent and it seems to form the basis of our universe, whilst orthogonality is so simple that it has always been used by life in every decision and never questioned, so, it appears that it is time to fix/change long held views. In fact, orthogonality is simply the (formalized) act of decision and a probability space is simply a measuring space, so, to produce a context that could be as big as a universe, we need only the concept of fractalization (splitting), measurement (probability space), orthogonalization (independence/decision) and a null space to provide something to split, measure and decide. This sequence mirrors the growth of life that adds complexity through the evolution of a mind/brain that uses the generalness of a and b, and further, Life has used the measurement/recorder a and b in a new form that has evolved over the last several hundred years, called technology, but as yet, without the proper/adequate control. For example, instant messaging is a real problem and phone companies appear to be fostering it with their policies of providing an unlimited number of free calls/texts.

Finally, I believe that the abandonment of ‘survival of the fittest’ for an imperfect ‘survival of the best’ is causing an extinction event and the answer is in the measurement/entanglement, concept/context and technology/control and the problem is entanglement/context/control not keeping pace with measurement/concept/technology because of greed, empathy and lack of control. So, who will fix this?

References: all quotations are fully referenced in the body and earlier chapters can be found on darrylpenney.com if required.

Chapter 85: General Mathematics, the Three Fundamental Quests, the Law of Conservation of Energy and its Strange Effect on the Theory of Relativity, a Number of Enigmas are Explained, Creating a New Evolution Using Plato’s Politics and Developing the Concept of the ‘Second Coming’

Chapter 90: Organizational Physics Replaces Mathematical Physics with Fundamental Extensions in Mathematics and Physics

Subtitle: the Equation of the Multiverse is (1+(-1))=0, the Big-Whoosh/Big-Bang is the Natural Orthogonality of a Null Space into a Fractal and Probability Universe, Proof that the Speed of Gravity is Instantaneous, How Conservation of Energy Works, Orthogonal/virtual Particles in a Vacuum, Mind-space, the Mathematics of Concepts, Doublet and Triplet Elementary Particles are Orthogonal, Why there is Little Antimatter in the Universe, Extending the Law of Gravitation to Include Nuclear Bonding, Proof of Newton’s Law of Gravity, Why Inertial Mass is Different to Gravitational Mass, Our Universe as Part of the Multiverse, Faith and Physics are Orthogonal/independent and the Need to Extend Mathematics, Physics etc.

 

Chapter 81: Parasites in Probability Space, General Mathematics, Logic, Measurement, Organization, the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space, Life as a Possible Sixth Dimension, the Why of Godel’s Incompleteness Theorems and the Goal of Explaining Everything by a Single, Elegant, Unified Equation is Attained.

Chapter 87: The Problems with Science and Mathematics, Local Entanglement, the Pauli Exclusion Principle, General Mathematics/organization, a Call to Expand Mathematics and a Proof of Completeness of General Mathematics/organization.

Chapter 75: The Nature of Life and Logic, Newton Laws of Motion, Reflection and Diffraction