Why The Universe Is Accelerating And What Is Gravity – A New Theory

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the acceleration of the universe is an enigma to us, but a new model suggests that an accelerating space is necessary for the creation equation of our fractal universe to exist and that the acceleration generates gravity, which shows that we also need a new view of relativity as well as a reappraisal of the dark matter and dark energy that are currently thought to be the major generators of gravity. This view restructures fundamental physics and generates a social engineering that together account for both energy and emotional energy and thus, a complete physics as well as social engineering being the means to control technology. The model also suggests that Life might be necessary for the universe to become aware, that we may have already found extraterrestrial life, unification is just the creation equation and that the ‘speed’ of gravity is a product of the space.

Keywords: unification, gravity, fractal universe; relativity; quantum mechanics; social engineering; creation equation

Preamble

This paper is an opinion piece that has been built up from first principles and is not ‘scientific’ because science has been built over a long time using top-down musings that are accepted by the science community through peer review, but does that agreement make it correct?

‘All science is a search for unification.‘ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 118)

Unfortunately ‘top-down’ is an organisationally poor way to unify and in particular, gravity has been a long-time problem in unifying physics, but now gravity is easy to integrate because the need for the universe to accelerate is a restriction on the creation equation and a requirement for existing. So, because our space is accelerating and Galileo’s experiments show that force per unit of mass is a constant, called the acceleration due to gravity, we have a force acting on us, but what do we know about it?

Unification is beckoning, but unification must begin at the bottom to be complete, and science has yet to learn this lesson, for example, fundamental physics was ‘closed down’ a hundred years ago and quantum mechanics became ‘use, but don’t try to understand’. Science has become ‘pockets’ of specialists [concepts], doing their own thing, but the unification [context] that is needed to bring them together is lacking. For example, our civilisation is destroying itself, possibly because social engineering, as part of fundamental physics is ignored and not implemented, and this is because fundamental physics is firstly, neglected, and secondly, incomplete.

The scientific community has a problem that the visible universe is not only expanding, it is accelerating, which has been hard to justify, prior to this paper, and a possible reason behind the acceleration needs our thinking to change, because we think top-down, like the animals, and we have to include bottom-up, because physics is mired in the past and not well suited to a modern world. I can cite the ancient Greeks and the continuation of their influence for millennia, and Newtonian physics imposed the same problems a hundred years ago with the inability of (so called) fundamental physics to describe the physical. Physics measures the physical top-down, but does not understand fundamental physics because it does not access the physical even though it thinks that it does.

Science is big business in a modern technological world, but what if science was created on the wrong basis? Shock! Horror! Many people would have to re-educate themselves and they might find themselves pushed out by younger colleagues versed in the new physics. This happens in nature when the young move into new, more rewarding niches and produce new species and leave the old to linger on, hence it is a ‘truth’ that we often have to live with. Even worse, the incompleteness of fundamental physics hides social science and the opportunity to manage our civilisation, so, we need to ask contextual questions, such as, ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’ because the universe needs Life to become aware of its own existence. The universe could be god-like by using its vast size and entanglement, and both the universe and physics need to pass on the best means for their offspring to succeed because that is a truth behind evolution and could be as simple as a new way of thinking that can be quickly learned. This new model could be the way to a sustainable future for the planet by showing that social engineering can place restraints on technology that is currently blighting civilisation with uncontrolled population growth.

This paper suggests a fresh approach by considering a simple model of the universe [from the bottom-up] and that model explains many current enigmas by deriving fundamental physics and fundamental social engineering from the creation equation of the fractal that generates our universe. In particular, firstly, gravity comes into being as an absolute which defines the strength of it’s action [always one dimensional] that could be called quantum gravity because secondly, it applies from the atomic forces to the gravity in the galaxies, and thirdly, the accelerating space defines its form [in two dimensions] and that the form of the attraction results in Kepler’s laws.

The Problems

Considering the universe, ‘today, according to NASA’s satellite estimates, it consists of the following:

Dark energy:72 per cent.

Dark matter: 23 per cent.

The matter we know (including light): 4.6 per cent.’ (The Universe in Your Hand, Christophe Galfard, p 340)

‘According to Oort, dark matter’s visible effects are only indirect, through gravity: dark matter cannot be seen, but it bends spacetime like ordinary matter, even though ordinary matter it most certainly is not.’ (p 329)

Further, ‘Rubin correctly reasoned that some form of dark matter must lie in these far-out regions, well beyond the visible edge of each spiral galaxy. . . . We now call these mysterious zones “dark matter haloes”. (Astrophysics for People in a Hurry, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, p 81)

Considering dark energy, ‘the universe in recent decades was discovered to wield a mysterious pressure that issues forth from the vacuum of space and that acts opposite cosmic gravity. Not only that, this “negative gravity” will ultimately win the tug-of-war, as it forces the cosmic expansion to accelerate exponentially into the future’. (p 94)

Two problems will occur to the reader, firstly, just as the particle-wave duality is forced on us by the form of the universe, so is the specialist-generalist duality that shows that generalists and specialists must work together because their mind-brains use somewhat different software [orthogonal] that doesn’t ‘mesh’ together. This is a generalist paper that uses an array of disciplines to state it’s case and I can only go so far because I don’t have the depth of knowledge that a specialist has. Secondly, the distinction of top-down versus bottom-up may not be readily apparent, but it is organisationally crucial apart from forming an orthogonality. These two problems come about because fundamental physics and social engineering are entangled in the creation equation of our fractal universe and Life is an integral part, so much so that we have to ask ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’. If this sounds strange, consider that the universe only exists if someone is there to measure it because it is constructed out of orthogonalities [independent dimensions] that must always remain independent and unknowable until Life appears.

Apparently, the gravity equation has never been derived, but was ‘inspire guessed’ by Newton and Einstein used an analogy and that, I believe, forms a tenuous base to define astrophysics. This new model simply derives the gravity equation that equates with experiment, see below, further, “negative gravity” is being used to try to explain the simple fact that our fractal universe can only exist in an accelerating space, energy and matter are intrinsically different [orthogonal through speed, yet entangled] and dark matter possibly arises from the incompleteness of physics [organisation]. Thus, the problem is not the construction of the universe, because it has existed for a long time, but our interpretation of it and this requires a new way of thinking that will become apparent. Consequently, this paper is necessarily generalist, seeking to unify gravity with the other forces, which is a problem that seems to have defied physics, and proposes that our universe is a fractal generated by a simple equation that necessarily unifies everything, see below.

Negative Gravity

‘In 1998, two independent teams studying such distant supernovae published their results. . . . Both teams found out that about 5 billion years ago, after more than 8 billion years of normal behaviour, the universe’s expansion started to accelerate. The scientific community was shocked.’ (The Universe in Your Hand, Christophe Galfard, p 339) There is nothing shocking about this result except that the current theory is somewhat wrong, and in fact, this was discovered a hundred years ago when ‘Hubble and Slipher found that the red shift gets bigger the further away from us a galaxy is located and that, furthermore, the effect is the same in all directions. . . Obviously, if the universe is expanding now it must have been more compressed in the past.’ (The Goldilocks Enigma, Paul Davies, p 22) Unfortunately, the second part of the quotation led to the Big Bang theory, which, I believe is not justified on that evidence and Paul Davies admits to more engaging possibilities and I suggest that ‘the big bang was the explosion of space, not an explosion in space.‘ (p 28) is closer to that which I am suggesting. However, the ‘explosion in space’ is a result of the proposition that ‘energy does not force an expansion, logic requires the expansion’ and is a restriction that is required for the creation equation to exist, see below. Further, whilst I agree with the quotation in principle, I see no theoretical reason for any sudden change in the acceleration, as they state

Thus, the ‘negative gravity’ that is postulated above, is not needed and is merely a symptom of trying to describe fundamental physics [and fundamental social engineering] using concepts from Newtonian physics that do not apply. Einstein was blamed for making assumptions, but he had no alternative as he was ‘grounded’ in Newtonian physics as he tried to describe the effects of this model. For example, ‘curved space’ is, possibly, synonymous with organisation, see below, and the equating of the effects of gravity and ‘curved space’ to twice Newton’s result is (to be generous) audacious, although correct [in experiment]. The real problem is the description used in physics that is not constructed on a base that allows bottom-up surety. For example, the ‘rubber sheet’ analogy of gravitational attraction shows ‘curved space’, but curved space is a form of space that is everywhere distorted by acceleration. This model is constructed from the bottom-up and seems to adequately describe everything.

Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity

To explain orthogonality, and as an example of how easy this model makes understanding, let’s look at Einstein’s special theory of relativity, which is based on the mathematical consequences of the Michelson-Morley experiment [outlined below as the third absolute] that showed that the speed of light is constant to any observer,no matter what their motion. Clearly, if relativity is destroyed by division and the form of the universe is built on the absolutes, everything else, time, length, mass and now organisation must change. This is the point, that the absolutes have to be considered absolute and the value of the dimensions must change, albeit keeping their orthogonality, and so, I repeat, the values of time, length, mass and energy must change. In other words, physics is using dimensions inappropriately, see below. It would have saved a lot of the incredulity if this could have been pointed out, but of course that was not possible until now. Even now, I should point out that the universe only exists because of the absolutes, which are, it must be admitted, decidedly strange [to us] and that is why Newtonian physics cannot be used for the physical

This result is showing that if the speed of a mass equals the speed of light, chaos occurs because of the restriction that the creation equation contains orthogonal elements disappears and they become indistinguishable. In other words, the universe is constructed from orthogonals, and if two things that are supposed to be independent [different], become the same, accountability [absolute five] is lost and chaos reigns. This suggests that the ‘real’ world is not real, but is a mathematical-physical-logical solution built on orthogonalities and as much as we would like the universe to be as we want it to be, it is not. For example, Newtonian physics is a simple convenient version of what I am suggesting below, based on the absolute of force divided by mass is a constant [acceleration due to gravity] and Galileo was thought to have experimented with balls and inclined planes and to have established this proposition, which, I will show, is a restriction on the creation equation..

The general form can be seen by the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle [that position and speed cannot be measured exactly] is given below and is the attempt to violate the restriction that organisation [position] and energy [speed] must remain independent. This is important because it is the logical construction of the universe, and further, energy and time are two of the dimensions and all dimensions must be orthogonal [independent yet entangled], below. Physics appears to have great difficulty with dimensions because ‘in physics and mathematics, the dimension of a mathematical space (or object) is informally [my emphasis] defined as the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify any point within it.’ (Wikipedia, Dimensions) Notice that firstly, I am using two sets of dimensions [space-time and energy-organisation] and secondly, the use of ‘coordinates’ in the quotation assumes orthogonality and thirdly, the measurer stands outside of the structure of the universe [that is, not orthogonal]. The definition that I am using might be that ‘ the dimensions of an organisation are the minimum number of components of the orthogonalities needed to describe it. For example, the dimensions of our universe are energy, organisation, length, time, speed [of matter versus light], acceleration [of the space] and other restrictions to the physical, such as Occam’s razor and the principle of least action..

The Creation Equation

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 [Form of the Universe]. 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 could be 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 does not 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 and further, I am assuming that the universe arose out of nothing and this equation is somewhat in line with the Big Bang theory.

Notice that the creation equation only exists under the restriction that all space is expanding to keep the two parts separate, and this does not include constantly expanding, but requires acceleration becausethe radials must also accelerate. In other words, the space that is created by the fractal ‘word’ creation equation is one that requires everything to be accelerating with respect to everything else, that is, the energy and organisation must be kept separate in the photon, subatomic particles, atoms etc. in a logical sense. This does not mean that particles cannot meet and interact, as they clearly do, but that the logic [the orthogonal of a restriction] is appeased by the space accelerating. It should be remembered, from above, that the universe exists based on the division of the dimensions and not on the dimensions as we tend to assume, further, Newtonian physics is actually built on a contrived absolute [force divided by mass is a constant, for both gravitational and inertial masses] and that is why it works! Force is a measurer’s concept, not a physical property.

Gravity

I have always realised the truth of the thought experiment by Einstein that inside a lift, when the rope breaks, gravity disappears, but I have never seen the relevance of it till now, and only when it is acknowledged that everything is based on relativity does it make sense, because it could be that relativity [the converse or corollary] demands that if gravity disappears under acceleration in the lift-elevator, then the acceleration of the space produces gravity in the universe. This is important because physics seems to assume the existence of forces etc. and measures them, whereas, I believe that we should try to understand what causes these forces and this is the rationality behind “New Think” [concept] and general mathematical physics [context]. Hence, does the acceleration of the universe create the attraction of gravity between energy and organisation?

This seems to be an absurd proposition that energy and organisation should have an attraction between themselves, simply because I have difficulty in visualising how the universe calculates the amount. But, we are considering concepts and contexts and an entanglement between them and the answer [that they both have an attraction] is solved in a surprising way. Notice that Einstein assumed that energy in the form of a photon was affected by gravity and that was a ‘step too far’ because it requires answering the question above. So, let’s see.

Let’s look at calculus. I have always thought that calculus seemed too simple to be true, and that something is making it simple if I only knew what it was. Similarly, the motion of the planets seems contrived because it is so simple, but then, everything to do with the universe is simple [absolute five]. [Possibly these are wormholes to the physical.] The universe is built on orthogonalities that are independent, so no part acknowledges any other part, until Life occurs because Life is not orthogonal and the concept of the universe evolves with Life. So, it could be asked, ‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’. The universe could be the all-seeing, all-knowing God of the Old Testament, it could be a super-computer that knows everything because an organisational solution requires knowing everything, or perhaps it is mechanistic. The property of a fractal is similarity, simplicity and symmetry, so it is small wonder that cosmology and religion are similar.

Using cosmology is necessary because measurement requires a ‘square’ for the relativity of the measurer and the universe to effect a measurement at all times. Examples are: the gravity equation and Born’s rule, below, Pythagoras’ theorem, E=mc2, Fermat’s last theorem is a triviality that takes number theory 200 pages of modern mathematics to prove. As an example, E=mi2 on the photon [the creation equation] where E is energy, m is mass and i is the square root of -1, and using the third absolute that the measurement of the speed of a photon is c [the speed of light], E=mc2 off the photon. The square, I believe, is the portion that the universe registers as an increase in the organisation of the surroundings due to the measurement and relative to the measurement.

Physics has been pursued top-down throughout history and it’s results are like a starry sky with points of light that are unconnected because they were derived top-down and not bottom-up. Consider Einstein’s equation [E=mc2] that is usually taken to be the relation between energy and mass, even though they are (effectively) the same thing, so, it appears to be a ‘units converter’. By that I mean that a bit of missing mass can be converted from mass units to energy units, which is useful, but what does the equation mean? Firstly, it is not an equation, but a statement of orthogonality. Secondly, consider the creation equation [E=mi2], which is the wave-particle shimmer on the photon, and E=mc2 off the photon because the photon has speed c to the observer [always] and c2 because the universe has to be taken into account for the measurement. The creation equation is important, so, what does the rest of the equation [E=mx2] mean, given that speed [c] and position [x] are orthogonal [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle]? Being orthogonal, they can be put to different uses, so consider the following analysis of E=mx2. Thirdly, the equation ‘=’ is used for simplicity, and, as Einstein’s special theory shows, the magnitude of the dimensions change, but not the orthogonality.

The measurement of a position somewhere in the universe is x and measuring that position is x2 and the acceleration is constant [2 being the second derivative], so a description of the measurement of that point is E=mx2, which is what that point will do in space-time [x, y, z, t] under measurement. Notice that this is the equation of a parabola, and given the necessity of the relativity of another mass at some other point, when measured, our point x will orbit the other mass [and vice versa]. This is Newton’s or Kepler’s laws of motion in two or three spacial dimensions. The attraction is given in one dimension as the law of gravity [product of the absolutes of mass divided by separation plus the product of the absolutes of organization divided by separation], see below.

In other words, if we measure a point in space, it will try to orbit something, or, at least be attracted to something, according to absolute four [quantum gravity]. Gravity is both an attraction, in one dimension, and an expression of the acceleration of being [at a position] in an accelerating universe. In other words, if you are in an accelerating universe, you experience gravity and the effect of the lift-elevator is weightlessness when your position’s acceleration matches the universe’s acceleration. Then why does this effect happen anywhere around the earth and not just in the direction of expansion? Presumably because the closeness of the earth overrides other factors, bearing in mind that the required acceleration starts off very small, but, by continual acceleration over billions of years, it may become noticeable. Notice also, that absolute two is the infill energy to (presumably) balance the acceleration and is the source of a ‘steady state’ production of matter etc.

Further, Newton considered that gravity affected mass, Einstein included energy [photon] and I am using organisation instead of ‘curved space’, but the simple derivation includes anything [concept] that is at the position x. Such simplicity! Is this true? Well it does answer the enigma of why a more dense object hits the ground at the same time as a less dense object and that answers the question of why gravitational mass is identical to inertial mass. Possibly there is no such thing as gravitational mass, but only one mass [inertial] because what we call gravitational mass is a position! This explains why the stars, planets etc. seek to be attracted to each other, to attempt to move to effect E=mx2 for the measurement, also, it explains why Einstein’s ‘curved space’ turned out to be exactly equal to Newton’s gravitation [and so be twice the value], whereas I say that it is due to the energy plus organisation at a point [two concepts]. Notice also, that the speed of gravity is instantaneous and is a property of the space [as are logic, Occam’s razor and the principle of least action] and does not travel at the speed of light, and further, if there are gravity waves, gravitons or anything else that potters along at the speed of light they must be energy-organisation.

This last sentence needs justifying. Given that energy and organisation are not simple to calculate, Newton considered mass, Einstein added the photon and I am suggesting organisation, the measurement of a point shows celestial mechanics, then the sum of all points is needed to define the universe and that needs to be done instantaneously for absolute five to always be correct. Consider the space E=mx2 that acts everywhere, has two restrictions, firstly E=mi2 [creation equation, and Heisenberg’s uncertainty restriction] which already acts under the restriction of constant acceleration, and E=mc2, which represents the orthogonality shown in Einstein’s special theory of relativity, that mass and energy [photon] are orthogonal as to speed. Then the space that we need, for instantaneous change of the internals at each point, similar to the effects found in energy [mass], length and time [and organisation] is a probability space with the general equation [(a+b)=1], which is part of the set of [the orthogonality] the creation equation [energy plus organisation equals zero] QED. This also explains why quantum mechanics is similar to probability theory.

The Living Universe

Life is presumably very important to the universe because Life might bring life to the universe by producing a third-party that can measure the orthogonalities that are the form of the universe. In fact, ‘are we the children of the universe, or its parents?’ because we share every measurement with the universe, by necessity, because the organisation of the measurement becomes an affordance that inserts an equivalent amount of energy into the measurer as is added to the environment. In other words, the universe comes alive because Life is a ‘channel’ out of orthogonality for the universe. If survival of the fittest lies behind evolution, a ‘truth’ is that parents try to make their progeny the fittest that they can to succeed and not abandon them as physics appears to have done, however, it is important that evolution shows that most parents assist their offspring [truth], but some do not.

Evolution can be viewed as survival of the fittest, but it’s orthogonal is equally true that the less fit find a niche and stay there. Physics appears to want to pursue a measuring niche by saying ‘use quantum mechanics, but don’t try to understand it’. I believe that this paper shows that quantum mechanics is simple, and further, that gravity is simple, but it requires a new way of thinking that includes the actual physical, not a top-down attempt using Newtonian physics. I call this new way of thinking “New Think” as a concept and general mathematical physics as a context that uses Newtonian physics [top-down], this theory [bottom-up] with relativity and the logic containing the restrictions, with general truths from evolution.

Conclusion: given NASA’s breakdown of gravitational effects, organisation could be dark matter and the infill energy aligns with dark energy, but if the acceleration is the effect of gravity, I think that a re-think is needed. So, perhaps I should let the ‘dust settle’ and see what develops over time with gravity and what cosmology wants to do with the possibility that the universe is God, super-computer or mechanistic. However, it is interesting that this model predicts an accelerating universe [as a restriction], that the magnitude of gravity is a result of the lack of relativity [absolute] and is constant, as are the orthogonalities, no matter how the dimensions change in value [absolute], the model derives Kepler’s laws of planetary motion, and gravity affects whatever is at the point measured, further, the creation equation generates a probability space in the mathematics of concept-context that proves that gravity is a property of the space.

Prediction: physics is clearly not wanting to engage in fundamental physics and, as this theory shows, it is even less likely to be interested in social engineering because, I think, the basis behind fundamental physics can be ignored and still function, as it has been for the last hundred years, but social science, is definitely a ‘spanner in the works’ of this thinking because it is a necessary control on technology that is destroying our civilisation by it’s absence. Hence the mantle may have to pass to astrophysics that seems to contain a substantial dollop of cosmology. The size and age of the universe, together with the question that this model poses through orthogonality [‘is Life the parent or the child of the universe?’] possibly means that history, in the eyes of religion, may have had a helping hand by an extraterrestrial in the form of God [as the universe]. Considering the precarious state of the world at the moment, a belief in relativity means a goal is necessary and this model supplies the social engineering and a new way of thinking to perhaps attain that goal.

Unification

Given that ‘All science is a search for unification.‘ it must be appreciated that if science is to be broken up into specialties for ease of working, it creates a need for context and this is shown at the lowest level in the creation equation as the mathematics of concept-context. The same could be said of physics, that only someone outside of physics can recognise the dimensions within physics, bearing in mind that it does not access the physical, and it is only through the creation equation that the dimensions can be fully recognised as orthogonalities, not coordinates. Thus, the creation equation is the unification of everything, and being a fractal, everything that it generates must be simple, symmetric and similar.

An appreciation of orthogonality in the dimensions leads to the mathematics of concept-context to determine relativity because considering gravity, firstly the magnitude [of gravity] from the absolute [a lack of relativity], secondly the form [celestial mechanics] due to the acceleration of space [a restriction] and thirdly, the quantum-gravity [extreme] aspect of the creation equation. The quarks are not found alone and this could be because they are an organisation [an entity], whilst, on the other hand, in the galaxies, they are [what we see as] energy. The mathematics of concept-context assigns affordances [energy associated with the organisation measured] and that is how, I believe that the mind-brain operates, using the creation equation and a new way of thinking is afforded by a complete physics.

A complete physics is the convenience of Newtonian physics coupled with the completeness of this derivation, recognising restrictions and the resulting logic to build a mind-brain [by changing the software] capable of using the social engineering [within the creation equation] on our society and ourselves to create a future that is symbiotic with the planet. This has been done before in Christianity that changed the savagery of the times into a ‘softer’ modern society. However, is the universe helping by playing God? A God that Life created? Relativity demands a plan that is similar to religion, and religion is the context of the concept of ethics and social engineering is the means to make it happen. We have the duty to make it happen [in loco parentis], but we have to make it happen and soon.

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], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [relativity 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).

Other orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic from the creation equation and from the organisational solution and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of light and organisation.

The universe is a ‘word’ equation that is generated by concepts and contexts by life, energy and organisation in the physical from the creation equation to produce unique answers that require a partnership between Life and the universe through the measurement of the physical through a third party [to overcome orthogonality]. Thus, in an accelerating space [needed for the creation equation to logically exist], gravity is generated and in two or more dimensions, any point x, is measured as x2 [the relativity of the measurer and the universe] which could be viewed as a parabola y= x2, with speed 2x and constant acceleration 2, which shows that anything [energy or organisation] at x will orbit another anything [for relativity, Kepler’s laws]. Notice that everything at that point attracts [energy and organisation] and is the reason for the enigma that all weights fall at the same rate. [Galileo held that two masses with different weights (one dimension, absolute four), when let go, the accelerating space produces the same path for each]

Gravitation [in one dimension] is the product of the two absolutes:

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

Notice the product of the absolutes, so that the universe records our measurement, and 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.

‘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 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?

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 [except that it uses the absolute force/mass = acceleration] 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, also, Einstein’s theory shows the orthogonality of the speed of light and mass and what happens as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when challenges to the fundamental structure of the universe are attempted. 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] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context. 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.

“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.

It is a property of a fractal that everything is simple, symmetrical and similar and Life enables the universe that is built on orthogonalities to discover itself through Life and be similar to the Christian God that is everywhere and knows everything because the universe has to be part of every measurement, but we need social engineering to determine the ethics [concept] to be used in religion [context] to derive an aim for civilisation.

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