Chapter 122: Saving the World – The Fourth Step – Creating a New Species

(1): It is said that everyone loves a conspiracy, but they definitely do not like one that they do not understand and the Facebook entry ‘Saving the World’ is doing the correct thing in recycling etc., but there must be extreme frustration that nothing is being done to limit population. This ‘undefined conspiracy’ is widespread [a truth], for example, physics is incomplete so that fundamental physics has been ‘shut down’ [reference below] for a hundred years because Einstein added organisation [curvature of space] to gravity. The organisation of Facebook is a new phenomenon that generates an emotional energy [in its users, see below] and is ideal to disperse knowledge that a truth is keeping from us, and that truth [from evolution] is that the established maintain the status quo and it is up to the young to form new species and do new things.

(2): Of the (nearly) a million members on ‘Saving the World’, there must be a few that are prepared to learn a new way of thinking [the hardest maths is (1+(-1))=0] to actually make ‘Saving the World’ a reality by limiting population through economic means. If there is interest, I will, as a first step, put up the logic that simply derives Newton’s law of gravitation and Coulomb’s law of electric charges. This is simply done using the new method and is beyond Newtonian physics because neither Newton, Einstein nor anyone else could derive it. This new form of logic leads to another ‘undefined conspiracy’ that is as fundamental as quantum mechanics and relativity.

(3): The generalist is an organisational necessity in a modern world that is needed to balance the technology and the specialists that are, by their unrestrained actions, destroying the world, and the prime example is unrestrained population growth. This second truth explains, I believe, the conspicuous absence of the universities in solving the current problems of the world and as an example of the ignorance of organisation on Wikipedia check out ‘top-down and bottom-up organisation’ where they lament the lack of knowledge of this basic entry. A new means of communication [context] is needed and has appeared recently as Facebook that allows information, such as I am proposing, to be widely shared with like-minded interested people, on the website and that becomes a true democracy, with (internal) voting, and provides a pressure group that influences politics. The concept of the pressure group would be ‘saving the world’ by the means that I am proposing if the determination is there.

(4): I am using Facebook in an attempt to present a scientific paper to a concerned and interested public because its message has left academia hopelessly inept. This is not to say that the paper is simple, but it does require a change in thinking that academia cannot apparently consider and works towards placing the power of government in an interested group’s hands in a true democracy. A ‘rallying call’ is that much stronger if it contains a plan and especially, for the first time ever, a believable bottom-up plan. Check out darrylpenney.com for its application to physics etc. As no one appears to have objected, I’ll put up the theory behind orthogonality tomorrow.

(5): I have sent the paper ‘Saving the World – The First Step – The Mechanics of Decision – When Economics Embraces Philosophy and Dumps Physics’ to the Australian Journal of Business and Economic Studies, but I can reproduce an extract of an example contained therein that explains the dangers that we face from misinformed government and why we need to act. ‘In his 1972 classic, Victims of Groupthink, the psychologist Irvin Janis …. explored the decision making that went into both the Bay of Pigs invasion and the Cuban missile crisis …. after the fiasco, Kennedy ordered an enquiry …. recommended changes to the decision making process …. participants were to speak not only as specialists in their area of expertise, but as generalists, with a licence to question anything.’ (p 195) Clearly, as above, specialists cannot act as generalists and the proposed solution was flawed. The ramifications of this example are appalling because a so-called superpower initiated a fiasco because its decision-making was deficient and the solution to that poor decision-making, that specialists act as generalists breaks an absolute truth that is in the same league as quantum mechanics and relativity. How can civilisation be repaired if basic truths are misunderstood?

6 (a): In the beginning there was nothing (0) and it is a property of orthogonality to make two independent things, but entangled [at the origin], such as (1) and (-1) [first fractal] and that forces the second fractal (1+(-1))=0 [this equation I call the creation equation because it yields the form of the universe] and it’s orthogonal is the logic of the half-truth [true, false, both true and false simultaneously] that yields ‘physical choice’ [shimmer presents opportunities for a reaction through the wave/particle duality] that leads to the working of the universe [‘a single particle could seemingly span a field as would a wave, a paradox still eluding satisfactory explanation’ Wikipedia, Elementary particle]. Life employs a mind/brain to make better choices based on the structure of the probability equation [mathematics of concept/context] in the brain as well as thought [(-1), organisation] from the burning of a simple sugar [(1), glucose]. That is the answer to the above, but with a ‘twist’ because Life uses a probability space [(a+b)=1] that is similar to the measuring space [(1+(-1))=0], but allows all concepts a, b to be considered.

Notice that the creation equation exits only if (1) and (-1) are kept apart and this logic requires an expanding universe, which we have [Big Bang], and this expansion produces the dimensions of space-time, energy and organisation The equation also says that everything is relative to something else, with no exceptions, except that ratios naturally become absolutes and they are the conservation of (total) energy/organisation [energy/time], constant speed of light [distance/time], dark energy [energy/space] and gravity [energy/separation] and this becomes the principle of relativity in a measuring space [and replaces the present one that the laws of physics are the same in constantly moving frames]. The absolutes produce stability – the first leads to Occam’s razor and the principle of least action, the second to the constant [to the measurer, Michelson-Morley] speed of light, the third to the infill energy/organisation [dark energy] to balance the expanding energy/organisation of the universe and the fourth to gravity.

The limitations of Newtonian physics have made gravity an enigma for a long time and I believe, it is not an attraction [Newton], not ‘bent’ space that introduced organisation and shut down modern physics for a hundred years [Einstein, deflection of a photon by a solar mass], but simply an absolute [energy-organisation/distance], where all matter is composed of energy and organisation and the doubling effect that Einstein (eventually) found is due to relativity where:

Attraction equals E(1)/d times E(2)/d plus O(1)/d times O(2)/d where E is energy, O is organisation and d is the separation of two masses (1) and (2).

This leads to twice the Newtonian value where only energy is considered and is in line with Einstein’s finding. Notice that this is the first time that Newton’s law of gravitation has been derived because Newton used an ‘inspired reasoning’ [Robert Hooke maintained that it was stolen from him] and Einstein used an ‘analogy’. Clearly, this explanation shows that the inverse-square law has nothing to do with it!

We now understand gravity completely in that it’s effect has and will always be constant, it cannot exist except between two objects [relativity], its value depends only on the total amount of energy/organisation and the separation and shimmer [from particle to wave] has no effect because two terms are involved as a sum. Also, the equation E=mc2 is misleading because mass and energy are the same thing and the equation is a conversion of the units that we have assigned, but what is not so obvious is that all of energy/mass and all of organisation contribute equally [relativity]. It was accepted in Newton’s time that mass had an attraction and in Einstein’s time that energy [photon] had the same attraction, but the fact that organisation had an attraction [curved space] and gave the correct experimental answer was a ‘step too far’ and fundamental physics closed down.

This enigma is a result of the short-comings of Newtonian physics, and it is not an enigma when it is realised that energy and organisation are ‘two sides of the same coin’ and further, that this complexity is a mathematical physics solution because the first orthogonality [energy/organisation] produces a second where, in part, organisation gives gravity [organisation] and energy [of gravity] through the absolute. To maintain the condition that universe is expanding [(1) and (-1) kept separate] gravity must be a solution and be non-zero because a zero gravity produces random walk, which, in the limit, is not stable. The “e” in Euler’s equation determines a constantly growing universe [“e” is the driver in compounded interest].

From above, the statement that ‘the absolutes produce stability’ needs expansion, firstly, ‘the absolutes produce stability’ is, of course, true because they define the structure of the universe, secondly, ‘Occam’s razor and the principle of least action’ are an organisational requirement that only the simplest and least energetic response is possible if the organisation is to have unique answers. In other words, the universe does measures organisation and the measurement requires that the lowest energy be used [first absolute]. Thirdly, the requirement that all of energy/mass, length and time obey the Lorentz contraction together is an organisational requirement in that it is simpler that all change proportionately than to list an order of change.

Fourthly, compare the treatment of organisation in Newtonian physics where organisation is allowed upon experiment or peer review. The English philosopher, Francis Bacon was correct that physics must be based on experiment because [repeatable] experiment is a truth, but we can also use the long-term effects of evolution as truths [an experiment] and ‘thought’ experiments based on the absolutes and their logic. ‘The general idea of the importance and possibility of a sceptical methodology makes Bacon the father of the scientific method’. (Wikipedia) For example, ‘in loco parentis’ passes from parent to offspring and not visa versa as the major religions demand. Peer review is a half-truth that is true only for specialist subjects and false for general subjects because specialists think differently to generalists [relativity] plus two truths are violated [relativity, and evolution (the established resist change)]. Notice the ‘thread’ that I am using is not the usual [ancient Greeks to Newton to Einstein to the Snow White effect], but a different successful thread [ancient Greeks to Bacon (experimental truth) to this theory (absolutes, experimental truths and evolutionary truths)]

Fifthly, the principle of relativity, stated above could also be called the principle of orthogonality because they are relative to each other and everything contains elements that are either the same or independent to something else and it is the orthogonals that form the basis of the mathematics of concept/context that is immediately apparent from the probability equation.

Coulomb’s law for charges is similar in form to Newton’ law, and many people must have, like I, wondered about this, and both are, [inappropriately as it turns out] associated with the inverse square law [a single mass, charge or magnetic pole cannot exit]. A simple explanation is to use the fractalness that the neutron [mass] is a special case of energy [photon] and orthogonates to a proton, electron and a neutrino and that Newton’s law describes the mass attraction, whilst Coulomb’s law describes the charge attraction. Obviously they must be equivalent, apart from sign and magnitude.