Chapter 98: The Principle of Relativity, the Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the universe is a simple place, but to view it requires the use of ‘distorting’ lenses [probability/fractal spaces] that define the Principle of Relativity that is composed of orthogonality and three absolutes derived from the dimensions and these ‘tools of creation’ are required for us to define a creation event. The creation event is repeated throughout the universe because a fractal space is based on repeatability and appears complicated to us in the same way that the Mandelbrot series is both (apparently) complicated yet generated simply. Our universe appears similar, and as an example, Euler’s enigmatic equation can be expressed as a statement of orthogonality [mathematical, concept] and physically as a description of the creation of the universe [physical, context] in line with absolute mathematical physics being a composite of traditional mathematics [concept] and Newtonian physics [context] because everything in the universe is orthogonal. Traditional mathematics and Newtonian physics, are useful workable theories, but are incomplete and, on their own, misleading and a rethink is necessary and is presented as a (necessarily) overarching energy/organizational orthogonality that simplifies our view of our universe. In other words, mathematics and physics are not separate disciplines [Principle of Relativity] and require two viewpoints [specialist and generalist] with organizational physics supplying the bottom-up [correct logic], the four search axioms that link the mind/brain with the physical universe and finally, the simplification advice that was given to Stephen Hawking is to use the appropriate orthogonality.

‘In 2007, Swedish-American cosmologist Max Tegmark published scientific and popular articles on the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis (MUH) that states that our physical reality is a mathematical structure and that our universe is not just described by mathematics – it is mathematics.’ The Math Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 516) Firstly, this quotation is in the same vein as Newtonian physics and wrong for the same reason, and that reason is that it violates orthogonality and, I believe that the whole universe is built on orthogonality. Orthogonality is the physical ‘force’ that derives the universe and the Principle of Relativity is the mind/brain’s concept of orthogonality tempered by three absolutes derived from the dimensions due to the effect of the probability/fractal spaces that must be used to view it.

Secondly, I believe that the statement that ‘many modern theories, like quantum mechanics and relativity, can defy intuition’ (p 516) is not true when viewed through the appropriate spaces, but these theories are enigmas when considered in terms of Newtonian physics and an incomplete theory will return enigmas until viewed through the appropriate space in the appropriate way. Thirdly, it is appropriate to ask ‘what is our universe?’, as above, because our universe is not what we assume and the Michelson-Morley experiment [that the speed of light is the same to all observers no matter how they are moving] shows that this is true and leads to the Special Theory of Relativity that showed bizarre effects [that energy/mass, length and time changed to ensure (the logical effect) that the speed of light did remain constant to every viewer].

From chapter 97: in a probability/fractal space, the Principle of Relativity is that everything is relative to something else (1+(-1))=0, except for the conservation of total energy, the speed of electromagnetic waves in a vacuum and the increase in energy/organization per unit of newly created space [dark energy]. It would be nice and convenient to have the universe that Newtonian physics assumes that we have, but it is not so, and I believe that we have to look through an orthogonality of a fractal and probability space that turns quantum mechanics probabilistic, imposes a constant speed of light to each viewer and so on. Newtonian physics uses the units of speed and distance that we evolved for the predator/prey situation and that reality breaks down as we look closer at nature.

This principle can be stated with confidence because it will be derived bottom-up from (literally) nothing, including the dimensions and at the same time solve the enigma of Euler’s equation by placing it in its proper context. The Big Bang is a ‘creation myth’ based on the fact that the vast majority of stars are receding from us [Doppler red shift] and assumes that all of the energy was created at a point and the momentum has carried us to where we are today. This picture/guess explains the facts, as seen, but it will be seen that the Big Whoosh is a better and more logical explanation that is tied into the fractal ‘shape’ of the universe and does not have singularities.

In other words, our universe is not and cannot be solely mathematics, it must contain something else to satisfy relativity, and that is organizational physics, which is ‘everyday’ logic derived bottom-up using the dimensions of a probability/fractal space because our thinking must involve the bottom-up physical, if it is to be correct. Traditional mathematics does not really contain logic, it passes formal logic to philosophy and ‘everyday’ logic, that has no fixed/immutable basis, to Newtonian physics, that is based on energy only [limited organization] and thus breaks the Principle of Relativity. Traditional mathematics is based on the counting of sheep, and as such, has little to do with the working of the universe. As an example, Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity is based on the Michelson-Morley experiment that the speed of light is the same to all observers [irrespective of their motion], which is an enigma in Newtonian physics, but correct in the definition above.

In other words, referring to the quotation above, it is apparent that the enigma is neither within relativity nor quantum mechanics, but in the ‘lens’ we use to view them, and that ‘lens’ is twofold, firstly, in using Newtonian physics and traditional mathematics, whereas we should be using an absolute/‘new’ physics and mathematics that are based on the bottom-up derivation of the dimensions. Traditional mathematics is based on the counting of sheep and Newtonian physics on a top-down guess made 350 years ago and I believe that the time has come to redress this situation and that can be done with minimum disturbance through the use of orthogonality, that is (literally) the true basis to everything.

Secondly, the Big Whoosh [a more appropriate description of the Big Bang] is based on the Principle of Relativity and that relativity emerged from (literally) nothing [null space]. Nothing has the property that it is simple and can split into two independent parts (1+(-1))=0 and this equation is also the equation of a fractal and a probability space, and the latter space is a measuring space (a+b)=1 for all measurements a and recorders b. Thus, the ‘lens’ that I will use is a fractal/probability [orthogonality] that takes notice of the relativity between (literally) everything and by doing that, we see a mathematics that is different to, and contains traditional mathematics as a special case. Indeed traditional mathematics suffers from the same lack of relativity by design even though, continuing the above quotation, ‘”we all live in a gigantic mathematical object – one that is more elaborate than a dodecahedron, and probably also more complex than objects with intimidating names like Calabi-Yua manifolds, tensor bundles, and Hilbert spaces, which appear in today’s most advanced theories.”’ (p 516) This quotation is given as suggesting that the universe is thought to be complicated, but it is exceedingly simple, as below, but physicists and mathematicians tend to complicate things unnecessarily (Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!).

If I say that the universe was created by the concept (1+(-1))=0, orthogonality says there must be a context, and that is (1 and (-1))=0, and this is (literally) forbidden in traditional mathematics and barely tolerated in modern/Newtonian physics and an example is the prediction of antimatter [Dirac]. If I overuse the word ‘literally’ it is because the universe tolerates no exceptions, because an exception is a singularity and an organizational solution must have only one solution [as everything is energy, any discrepancy negates the logic of the conservation of total energy, an absolute]. This comes about because relativity demands that energy [1] has an equally important partner that we could call organization [-1]

These two equations are saying, in common terms that the physical energy and the organizational/logic (together), are created at the Big Whoosh, as would be expected. These two equations are an orthogonality in that they are, just as 1 and (-1) are, independent and opposite and are a simpler form of Cartesian coordinates because the plane between the orthogonals is not used and an example is the wave/particle duality/orthogonality, the electron/proton duality/orthogonality etc. Another example that has perplexed physicists for centuries and can be explained simply by orthogonality is the difference between gravitational mass and inertial mass [gravitational between the planets and inertial tangential to the motion] and they have the same value [for logical reasons], but operate orthogonaly/independently and are thus fundamentally different/independant because inertia is (literally) energy and gravity is (literally) organizational/logic [energy versus quantum gravity orthogonalization].

From above, mathematicians consider the universe to be complex, as do physicists, ‘second, any model that describes the whole universe in detail would be much too complicated mathematically for us to be able to calculate exact predictions. One therefore has to make simplifying assumptions and approximations – and even then, the problem of extracting predictions remains a formidable one.’ (A Brief History of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 137) So, returning to the initial quotation, ‘our universe is not just described by mathematics – it is mathematics’ was shown to be not true and further, orthogonality states that there should be an orthogonal to mathematics.

Hence, keeping it simple, if mathematics is a concept, it follows that physics is the context [and orthogonal] and the universe is not only mathematical, but also physical and a description in mathematics is also described in the physical world and this is what the quotation above, I believe, was trying to say [that the universe is mathematical and physical, which is the Principle of Relativity]. Everything in the universe, including the creation, is an orthogonality of the form (1+(-1))=0 and further that as a fractal, the form of the universe can be seen repeatedly throughout mathematical physics. These logical/physical truths form the basis of our thinking and so our thoughts should/must be based on the correct interpretation of the physical universe and I call this organizational-physics/everyday-logic.

It could be said that I have complicated the view of our universe with the ‘lenses’, but the question of absolute time and relative time obviously occurs when the only means of communicating is via a constant slow speed of light when we, by necessity, open out a null space. This slow constant speed of light causes/produces modern Newtonian physics, whereas the space/’lens’ that we must look through [organizationally/logically] is a probability/fractal space because the conservation of (total) energy must be constantly monitored to avoid a singularity [logic requires one solution]. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics reflects this because certainty only occurs if all possibilities are considered [Feynman’s histories, mathematics of concept/context, Occams’ razor].

The Principle of Relativity is necessarily complicated by the effects of the ‘lens’ and so require the ‘tools of creation’ [the three absolutes and orthogonality, chapter 97], but the essence of the principle is the equation (1+(-1))=0 that generates the creation bottom-up. However, we can be led astray when the answer is ‘staring us in the face’, so, I will use Euler’s equation to illustrate firstly, that our universe is fractal everywhere, and secondly, that Euler’s equation also tells us about the physics of creation.

This last sentence is simply saying that the universe is a fractal generated by (1+(-1))=1 and a fractal may look complicated to us [Mandelbrot pictures], but it is derived from a simple expression and is repetitive throughout its form and that is why I say that the universe is simple even though the quotations suggest otherwise. Fractals generate ‘apparent’ complexity, so consider Euler’s equation that has perplexed traditional mathematics for centuries:

(e to the power i times pi + 1) = 0, where e is Euler’s constant, i is the square root of minus 1 and pi is a circle constant.

‘Harvard mathematician Benjamin Pierce said that “we cannot understand [the formula], and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.”’ (The Math Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 166) Euler’s equation is testament to the above that there is no mathematics without physics [Principle of Relativity], and indeed, (literally) everything is linked to mathematical physics, and that is itself linked to philosophy because everything is linked together [fractal]. I believe that Euler’s equation is a mathematical/physical description of the form/context of the universe and must be an orthogonal equation of the form (1+(-1))=0.

Firstly, as above, the probability space that we use to view the universe must be used because it is a simple space that allows instantaneous control/accounting of the conservation of (total) energy [an absolute]. Thus, (a+b)=1 [definition of a probability space] that defines a probability space, for all a and b enables the parasite [Life] that evolved to produce a mind/brain that uses concept/context [in the plane between the orthogonals] instead of the physical measurement/entanglement [orthogonal axes only]. This use of the ‘plane between the orthogonals’ greatly enhances the range of our concept/context thinking and separates our mind/brain from the measurement/entanglement [(1+(-1))=1] of the physical (chapter 81).

When we expand/open a null space out to view it [(1+(-1))=0], we necessarily have to view it through a space that accommodates an infinitely fast measurement/accountability to prevent a singularity occurring in the conservation of (total) energy [(1+(-1))=0] and to keep this equation stable, the space must be continually expanding and the simplest situation is a sphere, because every point is moving away from every other. The equation of fractal expansion is also [(1+(-1))=0] and this fractalness is apparent in the stars and the doublets and triplets in the sub atomic particles.

If our universe is a fractal, parts will repeat throughout the universe. Euler’s equation, on Wikipedia, is apparent in a number of (somewhat) unrelated mathematical fields and appears to be fractal, and so, the equation must be relevant at all expansions, and in particular, we should see it at the creation. As above, everything must be mathematical (conceptual) and physical (contextual) [Principle of Relativity], so, Euler’s equation is also physical with a physical interaction of its components. Now, Euler’s equation is written above in mathematical notation, simply because that suited Euler, but we must write it in physical notation and that notation is of the form (1+(-1))=0.

First a digression that traditional physics and mathematics are built on the usage of the units of the predator/prey situation that moulded us [distance and speed of attack], and similarly, counting is useful for counting sheep, but the number line is not simple. As an example, the counting of sheep requires a number line, whereas the Principle of Relativity suggests that (1) generates the realization that there exists the opposite (-1), so that (1+(-1))=0. This simple formula has invoked no great mathematical interest in the past, but it is the key to the simple physics that produced the universe! Likewise, the necessity of viewing our universe through a probability/fractal space has allowed our mind/brain to evolve complex concepts and context because of the generality of a and b in the fifth dimension [energy] (a+b)=1.

Having stated that the ‘new’ mathematical physics is a creation of our mind/brain and not part of the physical universe, we have to join the two with four ‘search’ axioms. 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, the measurement of each numeral (questing) and the relationship between numerals (relevance). See chapter 81: the Four Axioms of Measurement that Link the Mind/brain to Mathematics and the Dimensions of a Probability Space. These four ‘search axioms’ are relevance and questing, that are powered by both energy and physical opportunity/organization, forward planning that Life has had to evolve as part of the predator/prey situation and elegance/beauty, that I believe evolved as a sexual selection based on the ‘resonance’ with the mathematical Golden triangle ratio of (a+b). This reason is a little speculative, but it does link the enigmatic elegance/beauty to the mathematical base, and in particular, the general form of the probability space (see chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works).

I have not described the dimensions because they do not exist until energy [in our words] and organization [in our words] are created by God or chance and (1+(-1))=0 can only exist under one condition, and that is, if 1 and (-1) are kept separate and this is the reason, I believe, that the universe must be continually expanding. If the initial conditions require an expansion, a fractal will necessarily continue it. The restrictions to the Principle of Relativity are caused by the interaction of the dimensions and the slow light speed creates space and dark energy is created to balance the conservation of energy. In other words, the three restrictions are all needed, both energy-wise and organizationally, to be in balance to keep the equation viable.

This three-way physical/organizational/orthogonal solution defines the form of the universe as an entity with the requirement that the universe must continually expand and this contextual view is a representation of the planetary system or pendulum that causes changes between potential and kinetic energy. Whilst the general form of the universe is expansion, the same form (of expansion) forms the matter of the universe and creates stable islands (atoms) due to orthogonality and the consequence of the wave/particle duality (Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!).

At the instant of separation of the orthogonals 1 and (-1), distance (x, y, and z) and time passing are created and all are orthogonal and created by the necessary expansion. Now I can explain the restrictions to the Principle of Relativity by taking ratios of firstly, energy/time othogonalities for all space is the Law of Conservation of Total Energy [total energy = 0 always], secondly, energy/space othogonalities for all time is the creation of dark energy [to balance the expansion], thirdly, distance/time othogonalities for all energy is the speed of light. It should be noted that for all energy, no matter how small, the photon exists to carry it, and this leads into the idea that the universe is constantly expanding via the cosmic microwave background, and will do so forever. This is the concept of the creation in the context of word description and this should be able to be expressed in mathematical/physical terms as Euler’s equation.

Looking through a fractal space and as Euler’s equation is true [above] and exists throughout mathematics [Wikipedia, fractal], so Euler’s equation must describe some aspect of the creation of the universe.

The question of why these three exceptions to the Principle of Relativity are constants, and they have to be constants, is not something that can be answered by Newtonian physics because Newtonian physics is incomplete and does not consider organization. This leads to the real enigma of the Special Theory of Relativity and why relativity is thought to be ‘beyond our ken’ and I want to point out several points even to the extent of ‘flogging a dead horse’. Why do mass, length and time all change as the speed of light is approached? This, I believe is the ‘strangeness’ that has caused the enigma of relativity and the answer is simple! Mass [inertial and gravitational] is a form of energy [energy and organizational energy] and energy, length/distance and time passing are the dimensions and they are all there is that can change because there is nothing else that can change to stop the speed of light being exceeded!

The speed of light is an absolute measure/condition of physical energy, but not of organizational energy because a measuring space must have an infinite speed of transmission of information to preserve the ratio of energy to time for all space. In other words, if the accounting is not correct at all times, an organizational singularity occurs and produces a logical chaos that cannot be corrected/restored. An organizational solution is just as valid as a physical solution and the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, the speed of light etc. for example is, I believe, only due to us looking through a probability space.

I find that the true beauty of the creation is the orthogonality of the physical and the organization seen through the absolutes in the Principle of Relativity and how they involve and answer the enigma called Occam’s razor that is an organizational/logic ‘theorem’ that cannot be handled by traditional mathematics because traditional mathematics is a special ‘exact’ case of the mathematics of concepts/context. Occam’s razor says that the simplest solution is probably the best solution and the fractal space presents choice in the fractal sense that the lowest fractal is presented first [virtual/orthogonal choices/particles] and this ‘marries’ with the logical exactitude of the conservation of energy requirement. Also, that all of the dimensions should change together because that is organizationally simpler than that one in particular should change. Physically, this is what we find occurs in nature [Theory of Relativity].

The question of choice is extremely important and traditionally Newtonian physics says that choice is determined solely by an energy gradient, whereas the proposal of virtual/orthogonal possible particles that I am putting forward [and exist in experiment] solves these problems with no energy problems and provides for the lowest energy as a starter. Also, the formation of virtual/orthogonal particles is no different to the mechanism that caused the Big Whoosh, however, if they are not used, recombine to nothing. Choice (in Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice), was shown to be part of orthogonality and no separate choice was necessary because the simplicity of orthogonality and its limited effect, of being either/or means that it is automatically accountable. Choice for Life’s mind/brain is an orthogonality because the mind/brain is based in its construction, its form and operating system on orthogonality and this provides a simple solution to ‘how does the brain think? Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought describes the brain as an orthogonalty of energy and organization, and, if energy is supplied to the brain, the result is organization/thought. Of course, everything is orthogonal, but the simplicity of supplying energy to output thought is so simple and shows the reciprocal relationship between energy and organization, but, of course, the brain had to evolve a means of gaining efficient thought through evolution.

It is apparent that (literally) everything is an orthogonality and orthogonality powers/produces the physical universe and everything in it. However, the universe is a ‘closed book’ unless we use a mind/brain to join the orthogonalities and work in the plane between those orthogonalities and to do this requires the mathematics of concept/context and this requires a decision of what choice is made, not just an either/or situation as with orthogonalities. Choice requires considering and comparing a number of contexts for a particular concept and the logical way is to assign numerical probabilities to outcomes to gauge the ‘best’ outcome. The predator/prey situation is why the mind/brain evolved and that is why Newtonian physics uses speed, distance and time interval as its basis. It is clear that the mathematics of concept/context handles organizational probabilities and is the way to attain an organizational symbiosis with our neighbours and our environment.

Thus, it requires a mind/brain to understand and work the mathematics of concept/context, to question creation and choose the most probable theory, so returning to Euler’s equation, consider the quotation, ‘One of the most amazing mathematical relationships ever discovered, e to the power (i times pi) + 1 = 0, which unites the five most important symbols of mathematics: 1, 0, pi, e and i (the square root of –1). Harvard mathematician Benjamin Pierce said that “’we cannot understand [the formula], and we don’t know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth.” Several surveys among mathematicians have placed this formula at the top of the list for the most beautiful formula in mathematics.’ (The Maths Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 166)

The beauty, lack of understanding and enigmatic strangeness of this formula reminds me of the evidence of alien artefacts in recent motion pictures but an all encompassing mathematics does now exist and can be seen in the dimensions of a probability space (a+b)=1, as above, and I call it the mathematics of concepts/context because it shows the orthogonal relationship between a and b, where a and b are measurement/record and (a+b)/(a and b) is the orthogonal relationship between them. Life has built on this relationship to make a mathematics of concept/context, and recently, technology/control, telephone/communication, computer/information and so on, without realizing the interconnectedness of these concepts/contexts and how that interconnectedness requires/produces a ‘new’ mathematical physics that explains, I believe, (literally) everything.

Quantum mechanics and relativity cause problems in the physical world because fractals breaks down in the organizational solution where the universe is faced with measuring rods that are finite and the speed of light is fixed etc. However, fractalization of (total) energy/organization appears to become photon-energy/frequency or photon-energy/wave-packet as a mathematical fractilization that continually gets smaller (to the infinitely small) but larger to form particles. There comes a point, like the atom, or quarks etc. when there is a relationship between the orthogonals as we delve smaller and smaller and that relationship is set by a and b. Thus, I believe, that Euler’s equation is one of the relations that link the mathematical/physical/logical constants.

From the quotation above, I believe that the following is correct: ‘unites the five most important symbols of mathematics: 1, 0, pi, e and i (the square root of –1)’ but at first sight there is nothing particularly important about 1, but the others, I believe represent the creation in essence and in form. However, 1 is special because even though Zeno’s paradox has always struck me as being a bit silly, it keeps reoccurring in the text books. ‘One modern tendency is to attempt to resolve Zeno’s paradox by insisting that the sum of this infinite series 1/2+1/4+1/8+… is equal to 1.’ (p 46) ‘The number e … is the limit value of the expression (1+1/n) raised to the nth power, when n increases indefinitely.’ (p 166) ‘The arctan function in trigonometry can be expressed by arctan(x)=x-x/3+x/5-x/7+…. Using the arctan series, the series for pi/4 is obtained by setting x=1.’ (p 110)

So, Euler’s equation is an exact relationship, in the limit, of a number of limits and that is presumably why it surfaces in traditional mathematics.

So, if we replace 1 with e to the power 0, we get a clearer picture:

(e to the power (i times pi) + e to the power 0) = 0

and comparing it to the physical expression (1+(-1))=0, it can be seen that there is an orthogonality between the powers of e, and they are i times pi and 0. Thus, this could represent a sphere [through pi], the complex sphere [being the inverse of the sphere] centred at 0 or/and the surface of a sphere in Euclidean space-time, below.

Is this description too fanciful? I don’t think so, because there is only one mathematic that we have found from bottom-up, and that is the mathematics of concept/context of which traditional mathematics is a special case. Thus, the equation is not some artefact of some advanced civilization, but, I believe, shows the inadequacy of the recognition of orthogonality in traditional mathematical physics. Euler’s equation, the orthogonality (1+(-1))=0, looking through a probability/fractal space, the absolute/‘new’ physics and mathematics etc. seems to answer all the enigmas.

So, can we give meaning, in the physical sense to Euler’s equation from top-down? Stephen Hawking is worried about singularities in the Big Bang theory of creation and the inability of physics to handle them. The Big Whoosh does not contain an initial singularity and has no end because it goes on forever as a fractal, whereas, the Big Crunch and Big Bang both contain singularities. I am not going to attempt to reconcile Stephen Hawking’s musings (A Brief History Of Time, Stephen W. Hawking, p 138) with the above, but he does say that ‘only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities’ and further, ‘to avoid the technical difficulties with Feynman’s sum over histories, one must use imaginary time’ (p 134). I am merely pointing out that imaginary time is a concept that is used in modern traditional physics, and further, ‘a space-time in which events have imaginary values of the time coordinate is said to be Euclidean, after the ancient Greek Euclid, who founded the study of geometry of two-dimensional surfaces. What we now call Euclidean space-time is very similar except that it has four dimensions instead of two.’ (p 134)

Euler’s equation appears to say firstly, that it is exact because there is no possibility of dispute in its operation or exactitude, secondly, that i [square root of –1] and pi are orthogonal to 0 makes sense in the form of non-existence before 0 [but no singularity] and circular/spherical expansion from a point after time 0, where time and space are linked through the expansion inherent in (1+(-1))=1. This is a simplistic guess/explanation, but in-line with the physics of the mathematical expression. Also, this equation orthogonates to (1+(-1))=0 and (1 and (-1))=0 and this shows the relationship between the physical and the logical, so, there are physical orthogonalities between 0 and pi and between 0 and i [square root of –1] in a directional sense, but also between pi and i [square root of –1] in a logical sense.

This might seem trivial, but it does support my contention that everything is orthogonal and this leads directly to the absolute mathematical physics of which traditional mathematics and physics are special cases.

Conclusion: the above is suggesting that traditional mathematics and physics are incomplete because they are misaligned and too simple and the time has come to rectify that by adding the four search axioms, bottom-up organizational physics and the mathematics of concept/context to make absolute/general mathematical physics and prevent the enigmas that presently abound. The orthogonal structure, that I suggest, does not change the traditional use of mathematical physics unless a more complete picture is needed, in which case, the appropriate structure can be used.

In other words, mathematics and physics are not separate disciplines [Principle of Relativity] and require two viewpoints [specialist and generalist] with organizational physics supplying the bottom-up [correct logic], the four search axioms that link the mind/brain with the physical universe and finally, the simplification advice that was given to Stephen Hawking is to use the appropriate orthogonality, lowest first, for the highest concept/context.

The ‘elephant in the room’, or should I say planet, is organization and the mathematics of concept/context has the solution to all the problems that can be thrown at it, but it is so transparent that it requires men and women with good intensions. Euler’s equation was enigmatic and complicated until it was looked at in the correct way and turned out to be simple in the extreme and the same can be done for the planet, if the will is applied.

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

Chapter 78: Love, Beauty, Ecstasy, the Golden Ratio and the Reason that Sexual Selection Works

Chapter 97: You Asked For A Simple Theory, Stephen Hawking, So, Enjoy It!

Chapter 94: Why Newtonian Physics Needs Choice

Subtitle: Defining Choice Within a ‘New’ Philosophy, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Resolved, the Physics of Choice Creates Atoms Through the Wave/particle Duality/shimmer, Mind/thought is the Organizational Orthogonality of the Brain’s Energy Consumption, Orthogonality defines the dimensions, How the Voting System Effects Housing Affordability and How to Fix It Through Rational Choices

Chapter 95: The Organization and Software behind the Mind and Abstract Thought

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.