Pythagoras’ Theorem, Worm-holes, The Universe And Why Fermat’s Last Theorem Must Be True

by

Abstract: understanding Pythagoras’ theorem is to understand the universe because it is a statement of the relativity that must occur for the universe to exist, the mode of measurement that we need to use as parasites and is a point where the musings of science meets the bottom-up organisation of the physical universe and this allows fundamental physics to be restarted and social engineering to emerge that we may be able to use to save civilisation. Two sets of dimensions, with the relativity of the square in Pythagoras’ theorem, the gravity equation and Born’s rule suggests a universe that knows our every thought and action and creates us as we create the universe.

Keywords: Pythagoras’ theorem; fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; law of gravitation; social engineering; creation equation; Born’s rule; “New Think”; general mathematical physics

Preface

Pythagoras’ theorem is taught in schools as an example of the elegance of geometry and mathematics and yet it contains features that are not, I believe, being realised. Firstly, there is an emotion in Pythagoras’ theorem, similar to that found in the golden triangle, the Mona Lisa painting, religion, parades, buildings etc. because of the organisation attached to it. Secondly, understanding the theorem allows us to understand the construction of the universe because everything is similar in a fractal and thirdly, Pythagoras’ theorem is a linchpin, where the ‘armchair musings’ of science actually joins the physical structure of the universe. We evolved from the animals and have the same limited consciousness that puts our environment in danger and we need an improved consciousness that transforms the mind and allows us to properly view the universe, our place in it and to manage our civilisation sensibly forever. This new view has been hidden because physics is incomplete and it shows that technology has a ‘mirror image’ [orthogonality] that I call social engineering that we could use to control civilisation and perhaps save the planet from our excesses.

The Aim

Pythagoras’ theorem is that the square on the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares on the other two sides containing a right angle and there are many ways to prove this, but I want to answer the question of ‘why squares?’ and the answer, I believe shows the basis of the universe, which is relativity and measurement. Currently the answer to ‘why squares?’ is to say ‘that’s the way it is’, but that is top-down thinking. Relativity creates an equation that creates a fractal and we, as parasites, use the resulting universe and environment as a host, but using the consciousness of the animals, we are killing the host and ourselves and we need to change our way of thinking to include the host. The ‘why squares?’ is the point where our top-down scientific ‘armchair musings’ meet the physical and, if we answer that question, we understand literally everything: how the mind-brain works, what is emotion, understanding quantum mechanics, finding quantum gravity, discovering that social engineering exists and how to access it, and maybe using it to save civilisation etc. At that point we gain a new consciousness, perhaps become Homo sapiens sapiens and live happily ever after regaling each other with tales of the bumbling Homo sapiens with their out of control population, global warming, wars, murder, jails etc..

Pythagoras. Theorem

‘The theorem has been given numerous proofs – possibly the most for any mathematical theorem. They are very diverse, including both geometric proofs and algebraic proofs, with some dating back thousands of years. The theorem can be generalized in various ways, including higher-dimensional spaces, to spaces that are not Euclidean, to objects that are not right triangles, and indeed, to objects that are not triangles at all, but n-dimensional solids. The Pythagorean theorem has attracted interest outside mathematics as a symbol of mathematical abstruseness, mystique, or intellectual power; popular references in literature, plays, musicals, songs, stamps and cartoons abound.’ (Wikipedia, Pythagorean theorem) Clearly, this theorem is fundamental in some way, and the ‘squares’ are the mechanism of measurement that is fundamental to the workings of the universe, and the right angle generates an orthogonality that is the basis of the generation of the universe.

‘This theorem may have more known proofs than any other . . . the book The Pythagorean Proposition contains 370 proofs.’ (Internet) With having so many proofs and being so general, is there more to the theorem than we suspect? I believe that it shows the entanglement of the fundamental building blocks of the universe, describes what the universe really is, and the section Form of the Universe, below, derives fundamental physics, the orthogonality behind Pythagoras’ equation and also derives social engineering that brings together all of the social sciences and will hopefully help with today’s problems of over-population. Fundamental physics never ‘got off the ground’ before being ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago because it could not explain quantum mechanics, gravity etc. that are described in the aforementioned section, and that was, I believe, because physics does not access the physical. This new approach explains, I believe, all of the enigmas that abound in Newtonian physics because it considers the physical, at the most fundamental level.

The universe is based on relativity because it originated from nothing, and if it did not and was created from energy [Big Bang] or by God, then logic would ‘fly out the window’ and this paper would be pointless. Physics says that the law of conservation of energy is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed, then relativity says that the orthogonal [independent yet entangled] to energy must be called something and I will call it a general ‘organisation’, and thus, I call this simple equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] the creation equation because it generates a fractal that produces the physical universe which functions on relativity and the form of the universe is defined by a lack of relativity that can be described simply by the ratios of relatives and is derived from first principles, below. In other words, when the organisation in the creation equation is ignored, that is, put constant, the law of conservation of energy emerges and that shows that physics is incomplete. Notice that a ‘law’ in physics is generally agreed to exist, but cannot be proven and that is one of physic’s weaknesses, whereas this paper derives everything from first principles and doesn’t need man-made laws. In addition, a fractal built on words indicates a new type of mathematics that I call the mathematics of concept-context.

Life in a Fractal Universe

The creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] only exists if the two parts do not meet, and this requirement is met with an expanding universe, which we have. In other words, energy and organisation are independent, orthogonal and entangled, which also means that they are at right angles in the Cartesian coordinate system, and further are entangled [together] at the origin. To measure two things that are independent requires a ‘third party’ and we can measure with our mind-brain to provide that ‘third party’. The physical universe only exists when both energy and organisation are minima, otherwise logic disappears [becomes magic], and that situation we call Occam’s razor for organisation and the principle of least action for energy. Our mind-brain is the ‘third party’ and we use mathematics to measure orthogonals because mathematics is a special case of the mathematics of concept-context. Notice that, in the physical, there is entanglement at the origin [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle describes the problems associated with this case] whereas a measurement by the mind-brain forces a relativity on the independent entities, in this case, the sides of the triangle containing the right angle.

Hence, if we wish to measure orthogonals, we can, but only through the mind-brain and this leads to the ‘square law’ for Born’s rule and the ‘inverse square law’ for gravity. In other words, measuring creates a relativity between the thing being measured and the measurer. This created a furore in physics over a hundred years ago, not the fact that the speed of light was found to be constant [Michelson-Morley experiment], but that it was constant to the mind/brain of the measurer at all times, no matter how they were moving. Further, this showed that the universe was not the ‘real’ concept that fitted man’s notion but this problem can be handled by creating the relativity of an everyday top-down view and a bottom-up view that is needed by the specialist fundamental physics researcher. This is the new way of thinking that must be used [“New Think”] if we want to retain Newtonian physics and add the physical.

The question of the type of universe in which we live incites a remembrance of the problems with the question of the earth being the centre of the solar system, or Darwin’s proposal that we evolved from the animals, a surmise that is still being rejected by some people, so a little easing into the explanation might be warranted. The creation equation above, generates a fractal and a property of a fractal is that everything is similar, simply because the equation is simple and the construction of the universe is thus, the same as the construction of Pythagoras’ theorem, as are the families, businesses and governments in the world around us. However, “New Think” allows traditional top-down thinkers to think what is convenient, but the physical has to be based on a different set of rules and a relativity joins the two. Pythagoras’ theorem is a linchpin that joins the two and can be a bridge of understanding, but consider that ‘coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalition collectives than as individuals. . . . Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human desire to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally. No one is behaving either ethically or scientifically who doesn’t make the best case possible for rival theories with which one disagrees.’ (This Idea Is Brilliant, Editor John Brockman, John Tooby, p 499)

So, in addition to this problem, ‘most of the misunderstandings regarding science and religion result from faulty definitions of religions’ (Homo Deus, Yuval Noah Harari, p 210) is the common view and both share the view that the universe is ‘real’, which I maintain is incorrect and that religion is actually based on the physical. Both religions and governments create emotion in their adherents by using organisation in the form of uniforms, parades, monumental buildings, laws, bibles, hymns etc. to produce emotion in the mind-brain of the general public. Hence, and for other reasons, religions, governments, science etc. do not take kindly to drastic changes of view and the construction of the universe is one of them. Einstein believed in a ‘real’ world and used constructions [curved space] and postulates [Michelson-Morley experiment] to try to ‘bend’ Newtonian physics into modern physics. I believe that it can only be done as I suggest in this paper.

The Linchpin of Science and the Physical

A fractal is simple and is the expansion of the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] that leads to the absolutes, but we must use, what I call, the mathematics of concept-context, below. A simple example of the generation of a fractal is the concept of “New Think”, which is a new way of thinking, and that consists of a concept [“New Think”] and a context of general mathematical physics. A difficulty is that I am using a word equation instead of numbers, as in traditional mathematics, which suggests that the mathematics of concept-context is more general. This also highlights the incompleteness of the elements of science [mathematics, physics, philosophy etc.] and suggests that there is a need for “New Think”.

However, I’m not interested in the theorem and its 130 plus proofs because I want to concentrate on the two sides that contain the right angle. In Cartesian coordinates these lines are independent and the value [length] of the lines is the minimum, in the physical, according to Occam’s razor [organisation] and the principle of least action [energy] and that they must be minimal for a simple unique answer to the operation of the universe. Now, if I measure those lines, one at a time, there is a correspondence [context] between my mind and the line and between the line and my mind that forms two relativities, that is the same, in a fractal, as we find in the physical in the law of gravitation. This is saying that the line has an ability to comprehend that my mind is measuring it, which is a little strange, so, lets digress to examine this.

The Michelson-Morley experiment says that the speed of light is the same to a measurer, no matter what the measurer is doing, whether they be moving at a constant velocity or accelerating. In other words, to the measurer’s mind. The speed [an absolute that has no relativity because its a ratio] of light is entangled with my mind-brain, just as the line is entangled with the measurer’s mind-brain. Similarly, consider the explanation and derivation of the law of gravity that two masses [energy] attract each other and they attract each other with a force given by the absolute [energy/length plus organisation/length]. In other words, each mass measures the effect of the other mass. This is the reason for the square, that every measurment must have a relativity and if we measure something, it measures that it has been measured, and that contributes to the overall system’s solution of what is happening within the system. The fact that the distance apart (of the masses) is part of the absolute [the ratio destroys relativity] produces the inverse square law. As an example of how physics views the above, bearing in mind that physics has never derived the law of gravity, its contribution is that ‘it turns out that in anything other than three dimensions, problems quickly arise with inverse square forces.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 210)

Thus, a measurement, both physically and by the mind requires a reciprocity [relativity] and, I believe that that is why the squares appear in Pythagoras’ theorem, but they only appear on the hypotenuse when the angle is a right angle, which is Pythagoras’ theorem. The squares express the fact that a measurement is the product [relativity] of the measurement by the mind-brain and that of the line, mass etc. that is being measured. In other words, the organisation, that is the universe records every measurement made by a person [the thought] and absorbs it into the organisation of itself, and that could be though of as, that God is the universe!

Worm-holes and Dimensions

Mankind likes to dream ‘impossible dreams’ such as worm-holes in space that get around the speed of light and allow fast communication between galaxies, but worm-holes in a non-absolute [the speed of light is an absolute] are possible and Pythagoras’ theorem is one of them in mathematics. In other words, energy, organisation, distance and time are relatives, but speed is not, so, as the speed that is being measured increases, the relatives must change so that the speed of light is never exceeded [Einstein’s special theory of relativity]. That people had to change their concept of a ‘real’ world was the basic problem and “New Think” attempts to salve this problem. Relativity is prevalent in literature and most stories are built on love and hate, good and evil etc., but physics has difficulty with the idea. Another worm-hole might be the work of Kaluza who ‘rewrote Einstein’s equations of general relativity in five dimensions . . . contained within them the regular four-dimensional equations of relativity, plus an extra bit which turned out to be precisely the equations of electromagnetism.’ ( p 206) ‘With this seeming science fiction fantasy begins one of the most curious episodes in the history of space.’ (p 206) Curious, yes, with lots of curled up dimensions, but has physics got it wrong again?

Being in an association with other people distorts things so that there is often a tendency for agreement with other members that leads to the detriment of the examination of the subject, as above. An example is the brain that forms an organisation with every cell in the body, but evolution controls the efficiency of the mind-brain through survival of the fittest, whereas physics is a product of the mind and has been able to ignore reality. An example is that fundamental physics ‘shut down’ a hundred years ago whilst technology and materials engineering blossomed, albeit without the controls of the social science that I am proposing is part of fundamental physics. An example is the sequence: Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein’s special theory of relativity, Kaluza’ five dimensions up to ‘the picture that has emerged over the past decade is thus of an eleven-dimensional universe, with four extant, or large, dimensions (three of space and one of time), and seven microscopic space dimensions all rolled up into some tiny geometric form’. ( p 211)

Physics seems to think that using dimensions will explain the universe and they are correct, but I suggest that they have the wrong dimensions. But firstly I have to say that I believe that the derivation that I am giving is correct and I cite the derivation of the law of gravity and Born’s rule as two supporting examples that have perplexed physics and that the derivation of them uses the dimensions. Physics has great trouble with dimensions because it appears that it took much discussion before the amalgamation of four dimensions was recognised. Here is another wormhole to the physical, in that a dimension is an orthogonality, where an orthogonality is the creation of two entities entangled at the origin and those entities are independent and only exist with a restriction that keeps them independent if they are physical, such as an expanding universe. In other words, I equate dimensions with orthogonality and they can be time, distance, energy, organisation etc.

The derivation [Form of the Universe] below uses two sets of dimensions that have been somewhat recognised by physics, but have been left as an an enigma. “‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (see below) The universe is created from an orthogonality of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.”

Further, energy and organisation [of energy as a particle] satisfy the wave-particle duality that in a fractal, shows the construction of the photon [shimmer of wave and particle]. If physics can accept ‘curled up’ dimensions that are too small to be measured, then I believe that the photon consist of the wave-particle shimmer of the logic that both energy and organisation [particle] are possible and necessarily too rapid to be measured [otherwise they might disturb the minimum]. Also, the equation E=mc2 can be used to convert energy to mass, but physically it shows another wormhole because mass is the organisation of energy, and it thus becomes obvious why quarks are not found singly. I believe that quarks are an organisational solution of entities that produce particles and that is why they are not found alone. Science has been the refuge of the specialist, who naturally has an interest in certain subjects, but the orthogonality of generalists and specialists is real and important and underlies this paper. As an example, Fermat’s last theorem is grounded in the physical.

Finally, I repeat from above, ‘with this seeming science fiction fantasy begins one of the most curious episodes in the history of space’ (p 206), why do Kaluza’s equations fit so well in five dimensions? Considering that if organisation is ignored, the law of conservation of energy appears from the creation equation, so, ignoring organisation, as a relativity and including energy as a dimension, Kaluza’s equations might make sense!

Conclusion: Pythagoras’ theorem shows that science is built on the creation equation, but science is restricted because it does not understand relativity and uses top-down ‘armchair’ thinking that produces ‘laws’ by popular appeal [peer review] that are only ‘aspects’ of the creation equation. When the creation equation is believed, in a religious sense, fundamental physics ‘falls into place’, social engineering appears that can make social studies into a science, and religion [concept] takes its place in civilisation as a necessary context of ethics .

Prediction (relative to the conclusion): if we use the creation equation we can derive everything because everything came from the creation equation. If we use part of it, we are like children playing, and we are children! We have inherited 3,000 million years of evolution and think like the animals, because we are animal-like, only a little better as time passes. Farming caused us to lose the control organisation of survival of the fittest and we need to find a new set of controls that work because we are killing our host, the environment. The necessary control is to be found in the organisation of the creation equation, obviously, and when physics has been made complete, social engineering appears, which is the orthogonal and the control to technology and brings the social sciences under the umbrella of science.

Overview: humanity is like the proverbial lemmings heading for destruction through over-population. This is the behaviour of animals that are controlled by the organisation of the food supply and we are no different because we are destroying our civilisation and environment by over-population. We need a new way of thinking and doing, and I suggest “New Think” that uses the sideways relativity as well as the vertical relativity of organisation and the various restrictions and truths that Life indicates. In other words, “New Think” is the concept and general mathematical physics is the context and can be used in our existing brain simply by understanding it, then we have a different consciousness to the animals and stand a chance of attaining a ‘Heaven on Earth’ by ourselves.

‘In number theory, Fermat’s Last Theorem (sometimes called Fermat‘s conjecture, especially in older texts) states that no three positive integers a, b, and c satisfy the equation a n + b n = c n for any integer value of n greater than 2.’ (Internet) If it is true for n=2, a right angle exists and the above becomes true that a single unique minimum is required for both energy and organisation [Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and that proves that Fermat’s Last Theorem is true and also shows why a general interconnected mathematical physics is necessary.

The Form Of The Universe

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation equals zero, (1+(-1))=0], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created to balance the necessary expansion [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, gravity [so called quantum gravity] is E/l+O/l (all t). The law of gravitation is:

E(mass1)/l times (for relativity) E(mass2)/l plus O(mass1)/l times (for relativity) O(mass2)/l

Notice that the ‘inverse square law’, as it is usually described, is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘+’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, restrictive, use etc.] between two entities. Further, ‘today physicists feel confident that this set – gravity, electromagnetism, the weak force, and the strong force – represent the full complement of our physical universe. But what really began to excite them was the idea that all four might be just different aspects of a single overarching force – a kind of unifying super-force.’ (The Pearly Gates Of Cyberspace, Margaret Wertheim, p 211) This refers to the quantum gravity above, which is a single absolute, not a force and, I believe, explains everything from quarks to gravity. Electromagnetism is similar to the macroscopic wave-particle duality expressed as wave [energy] and particle [organisation] alternating.

‘As with the Schrodinger equation itself, we still have no fundamental way of deriving Born’s rule.’ (Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 41) This is not surprising because Born’s rule requires the same derivation as the law of gravitation. ‘If the amplitude of an electron wavefunction at x is 1 (in some units), and at y it is 2, then repeated experiments to determine the electron’s position will find it at y four times (2×2) more often than at x…. How did Born know this? He didn’t. Again, he “guessed”’. (p 41). In every oscillation between a wave and particle [wave-particle duality], the particle has to reappear somewhere, and it appears with a probability dependant on the square of the amplitude of the wave because, as quantum gravity [absolute (4)] varies inversely as the separation, relativity requires the inverse square law [or the square law, in this case] and there is obviously relativity between the wave and particle.

‘Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle…. This restriction on precise knowledge does not apply to all pairs of quantum properties. It applies only to some, which are said to be “conjugate variables”. Position and momentum are conjugate variables, and so are energy and time (although the uncertainty relationship between them is subtly different from that between position and momentum) … I have never found an intuitive explanation of what makes two variables conjugate’. (p 150) The universe is created from an orthogonality [independent, but entangled at the origin] of energy [momentum] and organisation [position] and trying to measure an orthogonality [measuring each exactly is the same as between the two] is logically impossible because it is a restriction on the creation equation [independence]. Energy and time, along with organisation, volume and length are dimensions and must be orthogonal so that ratios can uniquely define absolutes.

Fifthly, the role of Occam’s razor and the principle of least action is crucial to the understanding of the functioning of the universe and the latter asks ‘why does light travel in a straight line?’. Newton’s laws of motion say that a photon must travel in a straight line otherwise the laws do not work and so misses out on vital information and is, again, ‘up in the air’. I believe that the answer is that there has to be a unique answer and the only unique answer in every case is the minimum and the organisation that belongs to the minimum energy is the most efficient organisation. I can say this with conviction because if either energy or organisation were not at a minimum, there would be two solutions at the same time and this would cause chaos in the functioning of the universe. This last sentence questions whether our universe is “real”, although derived from nothing is a bit of a difficulty, but then, what or where do we expect it to come from and suggests that it is an organisational solution based on possibilities created by measurement [such as Pythagoras’ theorem]?

If there is a creation equation, as I propose, the universe must be a fractal and everything in it must conform to certain simple rules. Adam Smith was the first to realise this in Economics, where an ‘invisible hand’ works so that what is good for the individual, is good for the economy. Clearly everything shows this form of the universe in its use and as an example, let’s look at Euler’s equation, which is claimed by Mathematics as the enigmatic relationship between the fundamental mathematical quantities pi, e, i, 1 and 0, though what 1 has to do with the others appears a little strange. However, as a description of the physical universe, it makes more sense because it determines the form of the universe [(e to the power i times pi +1) = 0 can be written (e to the power i times pi + e to the power 0) = 0, which is an expression of orthogonality and describes an expanding [e, simple interest expansion] sphere [pi] from 0 symmetrical [i] through the centre]. This ‘subsuming’ is the expected result in a fractal and Euler’s equation appears enigmatic because of the appearance of ‘i’ [the square root of ‘-1’], but it’s appearance becomes obvious due to relativity. Consider the quotation “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers – one involving the square root of -1, which is not something that has a physical meaning” (p 53). I am drawing attention to it because it shows the current confused thinking of physics, in that ‘i’ is an operator from quantum gravity [E/l+O/l for all t] because relativity is shown by ‘1’ and ‘-1’ from the inverse square law and that must be generated by ‘i’ and that is why “wavefunctions generally contain ‘imaginary’ numbers” because ‘i’ [and every number] is not only a number [concept], but also an organisation [context] and quantum gravity is the ‘spread’ from the atom [quarks] to gravity [in galaxies]. In other words, ‘i’ is imaginary, and does not exist, because relativity always exists and not because it does not make sense in mathematics.

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical until general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s ‘special theory of relativity’ and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture. Newton’s laws of motion, Einstein’s theory and Maxwell’s equations all hide organisation and that obscures the picture, for example, magnetism is an organisation that registers the relativity between a charged particle and the measurer as can be seen by its odd behaviour [sign depends on direction, magnitude on speed]. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios]. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well. This is a truth that we should seriously consider acting upon because “new Think” is based on truths.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal, group and country involvement.

Conclusion: saving our civilisation would be a great feat because it would be the first in history to do so, and social engineering is the key, but it needs “New Think” and the romance of an Indiana Jones to put it into effect before it is too late. It is not hard because in a fractal, as Adam Smith [“invisible hand” in economics] found, the individual, family, business, country etc. all work the same way, but people hate change, and the reason is that, I believe, at the moment, it is a ‘leap of faith’, whereas with social engineering, it is logical.

References: no references are given as everything has been derived from first principles.