A Complete Truth Is Needed To See The First Moments Of The Creation To Explain Dark Matter, Dark Energy, The Multiverse, Cosmology And Modern Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: universities currently use a dangerously naive view of truth because Homo sapiens does not recognise the organisation behind truth and tends to use propaganda [11] and so science desperately needs a new theory to curate those truths. This theory combines relativity, bottom-up organisation and anti-ageing that promises an enhanced intellect, extended life expectancy and creates an opportunity for retired successful workers to provide the goals and guidance that society needs to survive. Truth is currently restricted to top-down guesses and misses the uniqueness of bottom-up derivations which is causing our civilisation to flounder for the want of goals. A derivation is given of physics’ experimental finding that 95% of matter in the universe is ‘dark’ and doesn’t attract light and this theory expands the accounting of gravity even though the masses [of particles and photons] are similarly composed and possibly curates an ultimate truth that will allow Homo sapiens to move on.

Keywords: truth; dark matter; dark energy; gravity; absolutes; organisation; creation equation

Truth [concept] has no enigmas [context] and the more fundamental the solution [concept], the more far-reaching the effect [context]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Satire VI, lines 347–348) It may be translated as “Who will watch the watchmen?”

Preface

Philosophy is not a science, nor are the ‘sciences’ that have been torn from it, although physics comes close, but not close enough because it’s principles [scientific method [measurement] and scientific principle [peer review]] are products of the Renaissance commonly attributed to Sir Francis Bacon (1597). For example, physics has been unable to modernise itself to consider modern theoretical physics and has [effectively] suppressed a modern theory for the last 100 years probably because the law of gravitation and laws of motion were ‘inspired guesses’ by Newton and have never been derived [until now [1, 2]]. Quantum mechanics [organisation] and the fact that the speed of light was constant to every measurer [indicating a contributing organisational universe, Michelson-Morley experiment] were evidently considered a ‘step too far’ and, in my opinion, needed to wait for this complete theory [1, 19] to supply the correct context and mindset.

At present our society is anarchic, Homo sapiens would be laughable if it were not so dangerous and we have to press-on to a more competent version [Homo completus], so a disclaimer is necessary because physics is extremely reluctant to, I believe, ‘fiddle’ with Newtonian physics that [magically] works in the macro [at least].

Disclaimer: the subject matter of this paper is new but must be classed as an opinion-piece and cannot be classified as scientific [not being based on past peer acceptance] and is theoretical [not based on the scientific method [measurement]] and it’s use may conflict with peer acceptance. Secondly, the paper is, in truth, scientific because (1) it is based on absolutes [as it must for comparisons to be made], and (2) on the simplest absolutes [unlike Newtonian physics that is based on the more complicated force equals mass times acceleration]. Thirdly, mistakes [contextual] may occur because I am a generalist, whereas a specialist is a specialist [conceptual] in a subject and would not be expected to make mistakes. This state of affairs is relativity and cannot be eliminated.

It would be nice to have an infallible God to guide us and perhaps we do [through Bibles, visions, dreams, voices etc.], but otherwise we need to ‘curate’ a [hopefully] infallible watcher to watch over us and that would require firstly, a group [democracy], secondly, where men and women [being orthogonal] can agree on a course of action, thirdly, they are intellectually enhanced through learning, long lived, interested etc., fourthly, can show themselves to be superior morally [have reached old age] and not beholden to anyone in power [retired], fifth, not unduly influenced by the ‘pleasures of the flesh’ and other hormonal inducements of evolution such as ‘procreate and the devil take the hindmost’, sixth, an extant organisation that can be persuaded to participate, seventh, are not paid [being successful], eighth, communicate quickly [being world-wide], ninth, possibly have a some past influence with the universities, government, research etc., tenth, are self-funded through anti-ageing etc. A ‘tall’ order, but, can we accomplish this with minimal change to existing organisations? Whilst one would argue that society benefits, so too do benefits accrue to members of this group [that are essentially the context to the universities’ conceptual ordering [of disciplines]] and aim to live longer healthy mentally enriched lives as indicated below [possibly the University of the Third Age].

Seeking Truth

‘“AI [artificial intelligence] is the pivotal technology that will allow us to meet the pressing challenges that confront us, including overcoming disease, poverty, environmental degradation and all of our human frailties. We have a moral imperative to realize this promise of new technologies.”’ (Nexus, Yuval Noah Harari, p xx) This is a prime example of expanding technology [concepts] to try to fix the problems that technology has created and the answer is not more technology but to incorporate formal organisation into existing technology, or even to improve our thinking. More specifically, formal organisation does not currently exist because it requires a linking of the dimensions [1] and in particular, the properties of the creation equation that seems to be beyond Homo sapiens’ capacity because the one current contribution to formal organisation is Occam’s razor [‘the simplest way is usually the best’].

The physics’ hierarchy [I believe] closed-down theoretical modern physics [100 years ago] because an un-understood quantum mechanics was just too un-nerving on top of Newton’s ‘guesses’, but consider the ‘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’. ((Beyond Weird, Phillip Ball, p 150) Notice that the ‘subtly different’ is explained [I believe] because the dimensions of our universe are [in this theory] energy and time [concepts] and organisation and distance [contexts]’ and are not ‘subtly different’, but are totally different [orthogonal yet entangled].

Physics could be considered to be a product of the Renaissance [because Issac Newton was also an alchemist that used guesses] and is built on the concept of measurement that was a definite [but slight] improvement on the ‘armchair’ musings of the ancient Greeks. ‘The Baconian method is the investigative method developed by Francis Bacon, one of the founders of modern science, and thus a first formulation of a modern scientific method. . . . . He argues in the Novum Organum that our only hope for building true knowledge is through this careful method. Old knowledge-building methods were often not based in facts, but on broad, ill-proven deductions and metaphysical conjecture. (Wikipedia, Baconian method) Thus, the so-called ‘modern scientific method’ is based on measurement and ‘peer review’ as a measure of it’s acceptance and [taken to extremes] science becomes a series of measurements that contain the possibility of something strange happening between the measurements and the example given above [Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle] shows this possibility of difficulties at the boundaries [of smallness]. Another example is the ‘inexact’ nature of boundaries [4] that shows that the universe is an organisation [6, 14] because [I believe] that set boundaries are an indication of a ‘real’ world [as has always been assumed by religion etc]. On the other hand, a theory that combines everything is enticing and available [19].

Consider, ‘the naive view argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but also wise. . . . This view posits that in sufficient quantities information leads to truth, and truth in turn leads to both power and wisdom. Ignorance, in contrast, seems to lead nowhere. . . . While we are never completely safe from error, in most cases more information means greater accuracy.’ (Nexus, Yuval Noah Harari, p xv) Unfortunately, in the case of Newtonian physics, the complexity of including the measurer’s intention [using force instead of energy] in the motion equation overlays an [implicit] organisation [in contrast to an explicit organisation in this theory] and adds complexity to the understanding [6, 14, 19]]. Thus, as above, measurement cannot give a complete picture and the problem lies not with the paucity of measurement, but the omission of organisation and context.

What is a Half-truth?

‘The naive view of information is perhaps most succinctly captured in Google’s mission statement “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”’ (p xviii] and this follows and extends the measurement concept of physics. However, in a relativistic fractal universe two results are necessary, firstly, the measurements are discrete and separate [concepts] and secondly, what is the relationship between the measurements [context, theory]? This is the problem of the half-truth that it consists of two independent but entangled parts [concept and context]. If this theory is a good fit with reality it should be able to explain this apparent enigma and it can because the statement contains an inherent relativity where the entanglement occurs at a different time, space or logic to the independence. In other words, a particle [and the universe] is composed of energy and organisation separated by acceleration [logically] but not effectively [as we think of it] separated [by time and space]. Thus the universe is possibly an organisation [like a mathematical theorem, [6, 14]] composed of logic and possibilities that we see as acceleration [gravity] and this explains why the laws of physics exist [and contain acceleration [19]]. A simple example is shown in Descartes’ Cartesian coordinate representation of orthogonality [separating the independent X-Y contributions in mathematics] where the entanglement is the origin [(0,0)] and this will be considered below as Pythagoras’ theorem. Physics uses a general infinite wave equation that collapses upon measurement whereas this theory uses the property of an organisation to answer a question, such as ‘Do you sell soap?’ will elicit a yes-no, but asking ‘How do I clean clothes?’ is complex [and cannot be answered by yes/no].

Thus, the naive view of information leads to a ‘truth’ that is considered adequate world-wide but somehow our society is heading for destruction [global warming, wars, over-consumption etc.], so, it could be that this ‘truth’ is not true-enough! The missing part is [I believe] organisation [concept] as well as a software [organisational context] and the [possible] fact that physics has ignored theoretical modern physics [concept] for the last 100 years has been considered above [concerning implicit organisation]. Modern physics has continued as measurement [concept] without the underlying context [the creation equation] that provides the necessary [fundamental] linking [19]]. This context [of the software] is probably best illustrated as a parable that your mobile phone is a telephone, but by paying for the connection, the [comparatively] humble phone gains access to the world’s information via the internet. Turning on the power of the sim card is similar to using the power of this theory that changes the functioning [software] of the brain [5] and the functionality can be further enhanced [over time] by anti-ageing [13, 18, anti-ageing.org] below.

Thus, age is intellect [we came into this world with a minimal mind] and age is the key through experiences and learning that is physically represented by the concepts held in the brain and the contexts that make the mind. Old people should mentor the young and anti-ageing [anti-ageing.org] is the key to a longer, intellectually stimulating, respected, useful place in society. An example is that 25 extra years [that I have possibly gained] is one-half of one’s [present] working life and is an under-utilised asset for the individual and the country especially considering the relatively youthful idiots [Dunning-Kruger effect] that we elect as so-called leaders. One can agree with Plato’s desire for philosophers to rule as they should know and promote what is good for individual and country [feedback situation, [7, 8, 9]] but academics seek refuge in academia, so, who should be the leader?

This is saying no more than what has always been the practice, until recently, that age and experience should be revered, respected and consulted and hence the aged are particularly suited to provide the pro/con information that a true democracy must use to make an informed decision. The day-to-day running can be left with [but not to] a small number of politicians and public servants but not the balance of any question that is currently the social contract [does the rich or poor benefit?]. This is similar in structure to our so-called ‘democracy’ but underlain with a social engineering logic that places restrictions on a burgeoning bureaucracy.

Stupidity or Malice?

Yuval Noah Harari [Nexus] has good words to say about science, perhaps too good because it is well known that definitive views do not come from academia. ‘These key curation institutions were not the universities. Many of the most important leaders of the scientific revolution were not university professors. . . . held no academic positions. . . . scientists had to trust information published by colleagues in distant lands. . . . the lead question the editors asked was not “How many people would pay to read this?” but “What proof is there that this is true?”. The criterion of proof is the scientific principle that it be based on previous publications.’ (p 102) The universities are the hand-maidens of science and form a production-line of scientists, each of which is imbued with the teachings of the past resting on the shoulders of the past intellectual giants [according to the scientific principle that work must cite previous work]. This is restated in the quotation and ‘a church typically told people to trust it because it possessed the absolute truth, in the form of an infallible holy book. A scientific institution, in contrast, gained authority because it had strong self-correcting mechanisms that exposed and rectified the errors of the institution itself.’ (p 103) Unfortunately, this building on the past becomes a liability if new work undermines the accepted past work and Newtonian physics is a ‘house of cards’ in being built on guesses that arise out of Newton apparently generalising Galileo’s work on gravity [rolling balls].

What if someone in the past got it wrong? Newton’s F=ma and the law of gravitation were ‘inspired’ guesses [albeit based on Galileo, Kepler etc. observations] and Einstein’s introduction of ‘curved’ space [possibly] likewise [according to this theory where time and space are simple]. ‘In other words, the scientific revolution was launched by the discovery of ignorance’ (p 103) and apparently carried on in ignorance to this day! It could be said that this recent discovery [this theory] of this ignorance might be the start of a new chapter in the evolution of Homo sapiens. Considering the ramifications of recognising the software behind this theory [goals], it could be time to define a Homo completus that is organised [this theory], knowledgeable [socially engineered], using true democracy-driven goals to allow us to live in harmony with neighbours [marketing areas] and the environment [12]. In other words, getting rid of the annoyances of war, poverty, sickness, public servant’s laws and all the other blights that Homo sapiens bring on itself.

Science [and Homo sapiens] have gone some way in creating a ‘non-truthful’ science compared to the ‘truthful’ religions that are based on an infallible and unchanging authority. ‘Religions like Judaism,Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism propose that their ideas and rules were established by an infallible superhuman authority, and are therefore free from all possibility of error, and should never be questioned or changed by fallible humans.’ (p 71) For example, I have written a paper entitled ‘Is This The Long-awaited Next Testament To The Bible Derived Organisationally Without Propaganda From Nothing? (an unpublished paper)] [18] that surprisingly does not mention any religious figures. The reason for the omission of religious figures is simple in that they are not needed because I used the creation equation as the ‘ infallible superhuman authority’!

Snap! At the snap of the fingers science’s problems have disappeared and like recognising the time/organisation delay of [changing] particles [as posited in The Standard Particle Physics Becomes The Theory of Everything [19] it will take much time and energy to change science’s tune. In other words, the current decidedly dodgy scientific means [method and principle] becomes a complete truth, where both complete and truth can now be ‘part and parcel’ [actually meaning necessary and sufficient] of science if based on the creation equation. In particular, physics can ‘let go of the reins’ holding back theoretical modern physics and especially welcome would be the application of organisational absolutes into social science making it a real science and capable of solving humanities problems [7, 8, 9].

What is an Experiment?

Physics is based on measurement [Francis Bacon, scientific method ] and measurement is a value of energy that is the result of an organisation [an experiment asks an organisational question] that returns different values as results and those results are interpreted by the mind. Then consider that if the senses of an animal see a hole and the mind asks ‘Will it hide me?’ the relativity between animal and hole is the creation equation and the organisation is translated into emotional energy that is the magnitude of the measurement representing how well the hole fits the requirement of hiding. These two cases seem similar and in this theory they are [mathematically] similar because the creation equation generates a fractal that affects and effects everything and the difference is simply between the implicit [physics] and explicit [this theory] use of organisation. Implicit involves top-down guesswork whereas explicit involves the uniqueness of derivation from bottom-up postulation.

The elegance that is apparent in this theory is simply the recognition of relativity, it’s logical universality and it’s creation from nothing. The derivation of everything is possible from this one assumption [relativity, [19]] and allows the bulwarks of physics [law of gravitation, law of motion, inertia etc.] to be derived [below]. The question becomes ‘can we derive everything, or is measurement necessary?’. In other words, does physics need measurement and theory to be complete and to thus know truth? If theory is considered to be the context of physics, the concept is each measurement and they must be orthogonal then using only measurement shows that physics is incomplete. So, an experiment should be not only based on experiment, but should be incorporated into theory and not, as is the current trend, rely on measurement alone which invokes a half-truth. The enormity of the problem becomes apparent when physics tells us that 95% of matter in the universe is ‘dark’, whereas the truth appears that their appreciation of gravity might be to blame and just as incomplete as the explanation of the Big Bang!

An Example of the Half-truth

This theory suggests that a particle is a combination of energy and organisation held together yet also apart by the logic of acceleration [in an accelerated space]. Everything is accelerating [within particles and space] and is affected by additional applied accelerations to provide an accounting [gravity] that is transmitted as inertia to the surroundings. In other words, every particle has an innate affinity [quantum gravity, [1]], with the restriction that there must be two or more particles and the relativity is the [mathematical] multiplicand to give the law of gravitation. This quantum gravity of each particle, the [internal] energy and organisation being [always] zero, the entanglement with every particle in the universe [an organisation] and the concept of [mathematical] multiplication between each particle is as simple as possible where the value of each is quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided [mathematically] by separation] is a simple accounting. Clearly this shows [what we call] an organisation and there are two accountings [energy and organisation] and does not need the concept of ‘curved space’ [Einstein, an organisation] for the correct answer [see Eddington’ experiment].

It should be realised that the concept of quantum gravity is strange in being so simple, but we are within a simple fractal and quantum gravity is an absolute of a particle and is just as relevant [and simple] as density is the absolute of mass and volume for each element. Thus the relativity of two masses is the law of gravitation and their relativity is the [mathematical] multiplication of their quantum gravities and there is no need for ‘inspired guesses’ when truth [as a context] is used, where truth is the context [organisation] that physics does not include explicitly. Hence, it becomes obvious that physics needs theory and measurement to make a theory that can be tested by the emergence of enigmas and this shows the problems that physics has currently and this is reinforced by the example of a complete gravity below.

In other words, we should not expect that certain things are unknowable because they are outside of the theory that we use, for example Newtonian physics uses organisation implicitly whereas this theory uses it explicitly and it’s use aligns with algebra [setting ‘x’ as the exact answer] and the question required by an organisation [the affordances] and firstly, appears to give better answers than Newtonian physics and secondly, all questions appear to be answered. If enigmas appear, we clearly need a better theory. We don’t really understand energy and organisation, but they work and this theory can be extended to include the new field of social engineering to control society. The current enigma that suggests that this theory is an improvement on Newtonian physics [and allows us to understand Newtonian physics] is the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment that the speed of light is constant to every measurer irrespective of their motion which says that the universe is personalised to each person. But, how can this be if not an organisation?

A ‘real’ universe has fixed values whereas an organisation is ‘rubbery’ and needs to expand at the ‘edges’ [4] and we can appreciate that another relativity [(energy plus organisation) divided by time] is a concept and simple and shows the cosmic inflation [2] that affected the universe with a hyperbola that has baffled physics [near time zero]. I picture the universe as similar to a geometry theorem that in asking sensible questions of points [concepts] and lines [contexts] mathematical truths [relativities] are revealed. For example, the creation of relativity [as squares] in our fractal space of a single point [a concept] is shown as Pythagoras’ theorem [context] which is the relativity of 2 lengths [and origin] that are orthogonal [at 90 degrees], entangled [third point, origin] that show that the relationship is squares of the context [separation] that possibly explains the squares that we find so commonly in physics [Born’s rule, parabolic paths under gravity, Pythagoras’ theorem etc.]. In other words, a point (a) with coordinates (b, c) can be described as [distance from the origin] a squared equals b squared plus c squared. ‘In number theory, Fermat’s Last Theorem states that no three positive integers a, b and c satisfy the equation a (power n) + b (power n) equals c (power n) for any integer value of n greater than 2. The cases n= 1 and n=2 have been known since antiquity to have infinitely many solutions’ (Wikipedia, Fermat’s Last Theorem) Hence, we can use Pythagoras’ theorem with confidence [the contextual proof of the theorem is it’s necessary uniqueness] and the distance of the point from the origin [which equals the hypotenuse, concept] shows the relativity of two points [including origin, context] is the sum of the squares always and gives the equation [as a restriction of the creation equation] :

a concept is equal to the sum of the squares of it’s orthogonal contexts at any point

So, let’s apply this new way of looking at Pythagoras’ theorem to ‘the Born rule is a postulate of quantum mechanics that gives the probability that a measurement of a quantum system will yield a given result. In one commonly used application, it states that the probability density for finding a particle at a given position is proportional to the square of the amplitude of the system’s wavefunction at that position. It was formulated and published by German physicist Max Born in July, 1926.’ (Wikipedia, Born rule) Notice that Born’s rule is based on observational evidence [postulate, context] and we need to incorporate it into this theory [concept] using the above.

Explaining Quantum Mechanics

Everything to date has been derived bottom-up from the creation equation, but Born’s rule is measurement based and has led to the enigmatic finding of particles on the [classical physics] wrong side of an energy barrier, or more prosaically, why twisted copper wires conduct electricity when their surfaces contain the insulative oxide. [effectively a metal-insulator-metal (MIM) diode] (Wikipedia, Tunnel diode) The current theory is that ‘tunneling is a consequence of the wave nature of matter, where the quantum wave function describes the state of a particle or other physical system, and wave equations such as the Schrodinger equation describe their behavior’. Also,’the probability of transmission of a wave packet through a barrier decreases exponentially with the barrier height, the barrier width, and the tunneling particle’s mass, so tunneling is seen most prominently in low-mass particles such as electrons or protons tunneling through microscopically narrow barriers.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum tunneling) How can this complexity be derived from the simple creation equation, and the answer is that it (probably) cannot without measurement?

The Big Bang theory of how the universe started is not a complete theory and this theory describes the possibility much better by including a product that I call organisation which physics does not [explicitly] recognise. I do not dispute that quantum mechanics exists, but I call it organisation and physics says ‘don’t try to understand it, just use it’. An example is the wave-particle duality and the question is ‘does anyone really believe that a particle is also a wave?’ or is it two [orthogonal] aspects that we can understand and is it much different to saying that a particle is a combination of energy and organisation in two parts – a minima of energy and organisation [as a particle] and a speed [kinetic energy and organisation] and can be any possibility [half-truth, unless restricted].

The current theory of tunnelling appears to be that the wave–particle duality is oscillating between wave and particle because ‘matter waves are a central part of the theory of quantum mechanics, being half of wave-particle duality. At all scales where measurements have been practical, matter exhibits wave-like behavior.’ (Wikipedia, Matter waves) The wave-like property presumably provides the opportunity [or explanation] for the particle to be realised as appearing according to the Born rule on the wrong side of an energy barrier. This theory considers entanglement, organisation, the fractal nature and the logic of the half-truth to explain why these particles are appearing according to Born’s rule and explains that Born’s rule can be explained differently [that particles do not see an energy barrier at all because energy is a concept that belongs to a higher fractal, see below]. This theory considers true and false to consist of physical, logical and social aspects that produce [15]:

true, false, alternating true-false, our-other universe, chaos, restrictions, fractal-social engineering

where our-other universe is black holes etc., chaos is no sensible answer [magic], restrictions such as an accelerating space that produces gravity etc., fractal is the simplicity-similarity due to the creation equation, social engineering is the requirements of evolution whilst alternating true-false is what is possible that does not influence the outcome such as the changing of particles if it occurs too fast to be accountable.

Thus, the enigmatic occurrence of tunnelling could result from two aspects firstly, the equation above [a concept is equal to the sum of the squares of it’s orthogonal contexts at any point] which is Born’s rule and is a restriction on an early fractal that does not contain particles composed of energy and organisation and secondly, the variability of aspects of a particle [half-truth]. This explanation is similar to the one presented below for dark matter [as would be expected in a fractal].

Dark Matter and Dark Energy

‘In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is a proposed form of energy that affects the universe on the largest scales. Its primary effect is to drive the the accelerating expansion of the universe.’ (Wikipedia, Dark energy) There are two aspects, firstly, the necessary accelerating expansion of the universe is, according to this theory, simply a restriction on the existence of the creation equation [as an organisation] that can only exist in an accelerating space [else might annihilate] which means an organisation’s [not ‘real’] existence [as has been mentioned before]. Secondly, any effect [if it exists] of dark energy on the expansion is in a lower fractal where matter [energy and organisation] do not exist and there may be interactions as below.

‘In astronomy, dark matter is a hypothetical form of matter that does not interact with light or other electromagnetic radiation. Dark matter is implied by gravitational effects which cannot be explained by general relativity unless more matter is present than can be observed. Such effects occur in the context of formation and evolution of galaxies, gravitational lensing, the observable universe‘s current structure, mass position in galactic collisions, the motion of galaxies within galaxy clusters, and cosmic microwave background anisotropies. In the standard lambda-CDM model of cosmology, the mass-energy content of the universe is 5% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter, and 68.2% a form of energy known as dark energy. Thus, dark matter constitutes 85% of the total mass, while dark energy and dark matter constitute 95% of the total mass–energy content.’ (Wikipedia, Dark matter)

The explanation of dark matter is probably organisational and not describable in current physics because, unfortunately, whilst waiting for a new theory, physics has turned itself into a religion [Newtonian physics] that is based on ‘inspired’ guesses, peer review and measurement as a Bible [of physical guesses] and discourages alternate thinking and has downgraded the hope of creating a theoretical modern physics for the last 100 years. One has to [somewhat] sympathise with physics’ dilemma because technology is rapidly changing the world and yet science has little knowledge of organisation and is increasingly beset with enigmas, such as gravitation that Newtonian physics treats as attraction, Einstein added acceleration and of [a misaligned organisation] ‘curved’ space. In physics, this enforced deformity [of not recognising organisation] postulates dark energy and dark matter in order to align an old incomplete theory with what we see with modern measurements and clearly the pressure is growing to find [or recognise] a complete theory of modern physics.

I vaguely remember that Bertrand Russell was interested in nested sets and whether the nested set shared the same properties and this lack of an absolute [which he tried to find in his monumental book] makes a decision logically impossible. It could be the case here, where the creation equation is a special case of the more general structure-building concept plus context is nothing and in that universe concepts bounced around like billiard balls and needed restrictions to control them. The creation equation provides that restriction in the form of relativity, that there must always be two points, one a point and the other another called the origin which leads to Born’s rule, above. In the more complicated case of two particles, the origin is replaced by the new particle to make a relativity and the law of gravity comes into effect as the product [mathematical multiplication] of the quantum gravities [plus the original parabolic restriction [context of concepts, see below].

The unifying regulation such as Born’s rule supplies [to form proto-atoms] which produced a parody of gravity [parabola, that y = x (squared)] that was crucial in the next step which was the formation of atoms. In other words, the organisation of our universe required parabolic paths [proto-gravity] that formed the atoms [perhaps presupposing positive and negative where opposites attract]. In our universe atoms come together because neutrinos are so non-reactive and this non-reactiveness becomes a restriction on our universe but notice that we need a replacement to gravity [y = x (squared)] on the atomic level that is constant unlike the quantum gravity. In other words, our universe contains a sophisticated gravity [quantum gravity] but still retains the original proto-gravity from prior fractals.

Instead of considering sets [that are not based on physical absolutes], we should consider organisations and that gives us the flexibility of relativity as to whether the sub-organisation has some rules that are the same or different to the principal organisation, so, harking back to the derivation of Born’s rule above, the parabola is the necessary context of a concept [of solid atoms]. The next step [in the logical fractal] is that this concept becomes the concept-context of our universe and the derivation of this theory [of everything [19]]. This suggests that there is no dark matter and no new mass that must be found to coincide with measurement, but a further addition to the theory of what is gravity must be made [which amends [19] in a small way] which is the parabolic restriction [y = x (squared)].

The derivation [above] is completely general [and I have previously wondered why so many equations exhibit this form [containing the square]] and it says that in the later set [our universe] matter is the particle [a concept] whereas the photon is a context in the earlier fractal but is subject to quantum gravity [an attraction] in our fractal. Thus we have the enigma that so-called dark matter does not affect light and that is why this theory needs measurement [concept] and theory [context]. In other words, gravity is composed of firstly, the attraction of energy and organisation [quantum gravity], secondly the gravity from any accelerations, and thirdly, Born’s rule on the mass only [concept] from prior requirements. This shows the problem [see disclaimer] that generalists and specialists must work together to avoid the logic of the half truth and I can’t go any further until I know more about the measurements used in the figures quoted above. See below for a more concise description.

The Ultimate Society Built on Truth

An organisation [such as our fractal universe] must have goals [from relativity, [4]] but there have always been problems associated with implementing them and Plato saw philosophers as ideal leaders, democracy was restricted with the ancient Greeks, the strong have always imposed their will on the weak and we use a so-called democracy that is a replay of the social contract that has always been with us where the social contract is an informal agreement that those in power [rich and powerful] provide the basic needs and sustenance of the poor in return for their labour [or in armies]. Clearly, this has been happening in every group with the connivance of religions to help the weak, meek, sick, disabled etc. with succour. Unfortunately, this desire to retain the less able [people] runs counter to their swift removal in nature and counter to good sense but emotions intervene and our society not only keeps the disadvantaged, the government allows them to breed and so keep poor genes and poor practices rampant. An acceptable method is suggested in [7] and it’s consideration is an extension of intellect that is part of any new software of the mind-brain.

Thus, any governance should firstly, improve the gene pool, the software [this theory], the mental condition, the upbringing of children, education etc. of the general population and this can be done by fostering a new improved group of retirees that live longer and could be considered to be a currently hidden and unused asset that has traditionally been an important respected part of society. Self-funded retirees are generally successful in life [superior to pensioners], underutilised in society, knowledgeable, enthusiastic and fit the profile of those able to provide unfettered advice to voters, that is especially important in a truly democratic vote. In return, anti-ageing [anti-ageing.org] can provide [possibly] decades of extra useful years. Secondly, removing the disadvantaged in a timely, considerate [using voluntary incentives] and acceptable way is not difficult [7]. Thirdly, the age-old confrontation of the social contract [the orthogonality of men/women and rich/poor] largely disappears in a true democracy that is possible using modern communication hardware with advice offered by a respected [and interested] group such as the University of the Third Age.

The Force of Redaction

Why would anyone want to forcibly remove an [‘opinion piece’] paper from publication [after several years]? To try to destroy it, or to draw attention to it? Especially as the paper categorically states that it it an ‘opinion piece’, is new and not scientific. It is undeniable that the paper casts a spotlight on the problems of technology [based on physics] and has been ignored by the science community. Our technological world has brought us so far and yet created so many problems that it threatens our very existence with overpopulation and mismanagement. So, let us look a some of the effects of these papers [2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] arising from [1].

1. The paper [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?] posits that we cannot save civilisation unless we understand truth, which is the essence of this paper and can only be uniquely defined from bottom-up organisation.
2. Truth is only possible if absolutes are established.
3. A relativistic world [defined by dimensions] can only be viewed by removing relativity by [mathematical] division.
4. The existence of [mathematical] division is the removal of relativity as the parable of Archimedes bath-tub signifies.
5. The existence of [mathematical] multiplication is the formation of relativity and explains the form of Newton’s law of gravitation as the product of the quantum gravity of two bodies.
6. The absolutes of truth define the organisation of the universe [1, 19] and are quantum [contextual] gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation], growth [(energy plus organisation) divided by time] and the speed of propagation of (energy plus organisation) as distance divided by time for all energy and organisation.
7. Cosmic inflation is simply explained by the simple behaviour of time near time zero.
8. The context of organisation is time dependent and explains the multitude of subatomic particles, the problems associated with [mathematical] time singularities etc.
9. Organisation is [formally] introduced at the most fundamental level of the creation equation. (10) The concept of algebra [as a mathematical operation] is explained as possible [in a fractal] because it uses the question behind the concept of measurement [that an organisation only works on a yes/no basis to a specific question]. (11) Inertia is explained as the entanglement of particles with the surroundings through acceleration (gravity) [19]. (12) Consciousness involves the use of the creation equation by measurement and that same function is apparent in every animal throughout evolution [5]. (13) The mind is the comparison of the energy of the affordances [afforded by the surroundings] to the measurement asked [5]. (14) Emotion is the energy afforded by viewing the surrounding organisation [1]. (15) Social engineering requires organisational absolutes to become a social science [7]. (16) The above that possibly explains the dark matter and dark energy that baffles physics. (17) and so on.

Deriving the Faces of Gravity

The best truth must use the most fundamental derivation [in general] and this theory attempts just that and forms a comparison with the decision, that seems to have general approval with physicists, that 95% of the mass/energy in the universe is ‘dark’ and affects matter, but not light. Physics’ interpretation of fundamentals is built on ‘inspired’ guesses [laws of gravity, motion etc.] because those guesses work, but no one knows why, but because they are outside of the definition of science they seem to be acceptable to use. One has to wonder at the intelligence of Homo sapiens, but then, this theory is hoping to improve thinking to a level that creates a stable society, so, for what it is worth, the following puts together a few observations already made above, but more succinctly.

We need a clearer definition of the ‘multiverse’ that is bandied about as alternate worlds like the ‘pages in a book’ with no explanation of how one goes from one page to another ‘page’. This is an example of the logic of the half-truth [multiverse, concept] without the context of moving from one to another ‘page’ and this incompleteness stymies understanding in the same way that Newtonian physics does [with the alchemistic principle [which has no understanding]]. The organisational unfolding of the fractal equation is the context [of the concept of the multiverse] and provides clarity of thought as is shown in the following with the multiverse being not ‘pages’ in a book but creating a ‘stack of pages’ [to define the present space] with choice at each stage and the previous results affecting the present [nested organisation]. The question that we ask of the universe [an organisation] ‘solidifies’ the lowest energy-organisation possibility [a function of an organisation], for example, the sky shows the stars that we see above that would have had to exist if we are to exist in the present day, but perhaps haven’t really existed and don’t need to exist because we, ourselves, are possibilities.

(A) A theory has to have a sensible beginning without elephants, turtles etc. that support a ‘real’ planet, and the simplest build is from nothing.

(B) The building blocks must be orthogonal and simple and from within literature we see concepts and context are the basis of every story, so, from (A) concept plus context is nothing and they only exists in a accelerating frame of reference [to keep concept and context apart logically] and I call the product of the acceleration space gravity that acts throughout the space for all time, but may be insignificant after a long time [hyperbola below].

(C) This [concept plus context is nothing] can only exist with time and distance as dimensions [for the acceleration] and near time zero, removing relativity [by mathematical division to create absolutes] creates a cosmic inflation of the space, increases space [and time] gravity and produces an evenness that results in the universe’s expansion near time zero in line with ‘WMAP image of the (extremely tiny) anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation.’ (Wikipedia, Anisotropy).

(D1) The expansion of concept and context is variable [hyperbola], time related and creates space, and concepts could be called points and the distance between those points called separation.

(D2) The separation [between the points] could bestraight lines [according to the principle of minimum action] and they would satisfy the equation concept equals context (squared) using Pythagoras’ theorem [derived above using the restriction of the creation equation]. This fits well with the experimental observations of Born’s rule [above]. Notice that this equation [concept equals context (squared)] shows that points move in parabolic paths [which has nothing to do with gravity] that form atoms because motion is undefined [unlike acceleration] and relativity requires that a context be defined. I call this parabolic gravity that is a restriction on the overall space [to define the interaction [separation of the points]] and produces the same path [that results from gravity in a later fractal [law of gravity, product of quantum gravity, the minimalist requirement] as with the motion of two bodies [distance gravity]].This required path could be the source of physics’ dark matter’s gravitational effect [that I call] parabola gravity. This is a critical point [in physics understanding] that parabolic gravity acts on points [concept] and not context [as it is a context] and photons [even having the same composition as masses] are a context in a later fractal]. Notice that the [contextual] square is the [mathematical] multiplication that is the relativity of the concepts [points] whilst squaring a concept or point has no meaning [producing the requirement of an equation].

(E1) Our universe is a fractal derived from this simple general equation [concept plus context is nothing] and we can specialise this equation to use for particles [instead of points] as a concept [physics considers our universe to result from the Big Bang energy, corresponding to the condensation into subatomic particles]. The particles require a movement organisation [to become particles not points, context] which is a parabolic path [under parabolic gravity] that leads to the ability to create atoms. The particles then ‘condense’ from energy and organisation as a concept have continuous values from zero to infinity and a reality that is continuous over this range].

(E2) The corresponding context is a general term that I call organisation because an organisation is a communication [context] that replies to a question where the question is simple, unique and must be held in the measurer’s mind when asked [see quotation in [1]]. When the concept becomes a body, not a point the context becomes parabolic instead of a straight line [Born’s rule versus Pythagoras’ theorem]. This is similar to setting ‘x’ in algebra as the solution [as would be allowed and expected in a fractal]. Notice that we use the reinvented creation equation [concept plus context is nothing] in this fractal because it is used for literature and the construction of the mind-brain [5].

(F) Our universe uses the dimensions of energy, organisation, distance and time and the equation energy plus organisation is nothingfrom which can be derived [by eliminating relativity by using the [mathematical operation that we call division] that produces three effects [1].

(F1a) Distance gravity [(energy plus organisation)/[mathematically divided by]separation] is the concept gravity experienced by a particle [and the rest of the universe] and is the relativity of two particles and is Newton’s law of gravitation [as the product [mathematical multiplication] of two distance gravities] and derived in [1] and is a context [between two bodies]. This is the gravity experienced by a photon and measured by Eddington and is [according to this theory] the sum of the relativities of the masses and organisations [not Einstein’s ‘curved space’].

(F1b) Quantum gravity is a context gravity associated with distance gravity that has the form [(energy plus organisation)/[mathematically divided by]distance] that shows that away from other bodies the attraction [distance gravity] is nearly zero [large distance] whilst at small distances [inside the nucleus] the quarks are organisational and can’t be separated from each other. Notice that quantum gravity, when considered as a concept, has a context that shows the gradation from [nearly] zero gravity to organisation and this context is not the same as the logical entanglement that arises from relativity and this so-called quantum entanglement has been shown by physical experiment [another physics’ enigma, explained by the creation equation].

(F1c) Time [space] gravity [(energy plus organisation)/time] is a hyperbola [1] creating cosmic inflation [where energy and organisation growth is extremely large near time zero [because the expression is an absolute]] and decreasing to [currently] just above zero [after 13 billion years]. Matter [according to this theory] is a combination of energy and organisation held together as a low value of (energy versus organisation) [kept logically separate by acceleration] that increased enormously and that presumably changed space gravity.

(F2) Constant speed of propagation of energy and organisation isdistance/time. Notice that distance is a context and time is a concept [both] being continuous from zero to infinity that are relative in a simple way so that distance divided by time is a constant speed of energy and organisation and answers the enigma of the Michelson-Morley experiment [same speed relative to the measurer].

So, gravity appears to consist of three parts [time-space acceleration, parabolic logic and quantum-distance organisation] and goes some way toward explaining physics’ dilemma [the magnitude and disparity of dark versus light attraction] and explains why acceleration is accountable [as F=ma] in Newton’s equations of motion and the notion of constant velocity [or rest] is unaccountable and is a home for the laws of physics throughout the universe [postulated according to Galileo, Einstein etc.]. Parabolic gravity [concept] is apparently Born’s rule and the context may be the ability [concept] of enabling [context] particles to form atoms even as the neutron is unstable and leads to the formation of charged particles that work in the same way [or form] and bolster the parabolic gravity. That gravity and charges act similarly is to be expected in a fractal.

The robustness of this theory is undeniable, for example, mass is (energy plus organisation) that is a constant and dividing by time is cosmic inflation at time zero [hyperbola]. Quantum gravity is (energy plus organisation) divided by separation and the relativity is summing the product [multiplication] of the energy part and the organisational part giving twice Newton’s value in line with Eddington’s experimental results with light and not needing Einstein’s postulation of ‘curved’ space. Hopefully this approach will allow Homo sapiens to morph into Homo completus.

Conclusion and Prediction

Science has been left without the organisation [of this theory] because physics relied on a limited outdated curated truth that measurement is sufficient and not that it is only necessary [according to Francis Bacon]. This lack of organisation has left social science emasculated and our world in jeopardy. Measurement is concept and needs theory as the context to avoid the pitfalls of the logic of the half-truth and the number of the enigmas found in a theory is a measure of the truth in the theory. The time has come to repair this oversight [based on Newton’s guesses] that has suppressed theoretical modern physics [and the all-important organisation for the rest of science] and perhaps explains why perhaps some physicists are possibly promoting discussion on this theory. Newtonian physics is user friendly but not not lead anywhere contextually and this complete theory is not just an extension of it but a complete rewriting to extract volition as organisation.

Every memory in the mind has been necessarily changed and compressed as it is being stored and the software that affects the interpretation of the context [affordances] in the working of the brain is compromised because the understanding [truth] of bottom-up [unique] thinking is not used and an undefinable number of guesses can be made but cannot be relied to give the correct answer, and without the correct answer we are open to mistakes and falsehoods. The paper [1] examines the context [instead of the concepts of measurement] of science, which must be based on absolutes [that do not change] as a reference point and the universe [physical] must be viewed around the absolutes [F] above. The stubbornness of physics [with regard to organisation] spills over into the social sciences and allows discord that is putting civilisation at risk of collapse, war etc. so why not empower [by their own desire] the older retirees to mentor the universities to help the universities overcome their inertia [19] and reinvent their role to produce superior graduates because Homo completus needs a sensible moral code as a goal for social engineering.

This paper is about truth and the truth is that Homo sapiens still thinks like the animals [top-down], physics is scared silly because they have inherited a dodgy situation and academia is a refuge from the world where you can just teach what you were taught. If I can see further, it is not standing on the shoulders of giant’s guesses, but because I dared do something different and presumably I have increased my intellect because, I believe that the mind-brain is built on this theory and the software is necessarily changed [5, 19]. Science is currently a club that excludes outsiders, requiring the same way of thinking, built on measurement and stifling discussion whilst not being a proper science that must be built on absolutes for comparison. As has been excruciatingly indicated above, academics should not hold the reins of humanity’s future and it needs the old [mentally and contextually improved] successful retirees to be a significant part of social engineering that the Dunning-Kruger personality types will try to infiltrate [similar to politicians]. This paper, I believe, redresses this situation by using bottom-up absolutes and organisation that is vital for the social sciences to apply an effective social engineering to attain the necessary goals for Homo sapiens.

References: 1. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x (darrylpenney.com)

2. Penney D. Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):1-6. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-011

3. Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
4. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013
5. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
6. Penney D. Organising Organisation. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2023; S2(1): 26-32, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

7. Penney D. Social Engineering: Using Social Science to Improve Ourselves and Society. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1):1-6, doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-001
8. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Concepts behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 7-13. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-002
9. Penney D. Social Engineering: The Context behind The E.U., U.S., China and Australia. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 14-21. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-003
10. Penney D. The Changing Face Of Australian Governance Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2023; S1(1): 22-27. doi:10.18689/mjbss-s1-004
11. Penney D. Propaganda: A Relativity Used By The Other Side. Madridge J Behav Soc Sci. 2024; 6(1): 107-114. doi:10.18689/mjbss-1000118
12. Towards A New Religion And Peace On Earth (an unpublished paper) 188
13. Do We Need To Die? (an unpublished paper) 189
14. Penney D. The Organisational Universe. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2023; 5(1): 210- 216. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000140

17. Cry! Tears Of Great Joy! Organisation Is Finally At Hand! (an unpublished paper)
18. Is This The Long-awaited Next Testament To The Bible Derived Organisationally Without Propaganda From Nothing? (an unpublished paper)
19. Penney D. The Standard Particle Physics Becomes The Theory of Everything. Int J Phys Stud Res. 2024; 6(2): 122-129. doi; 10.18689/ijpsr-1000121