A Complete Universal Field Theory For Our Universe Built From Nothing Using Only Organisation

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: the universe is [literally] as simple as possible but physics is too complicated and can’t understand it because physics has curated itself into a religion based on an alchemical Newtonian Physics. Theoretical modern physics is the physical basis to everything in a fractal universe that evolved from a simple creation equation and provides the absolutes that a true science must have to compare and to define a space. A universal field of organisation applies to everything whether physical, chemical or social and describes everything as a science including goals with the aim of transforming Homo sapiens to a Homo completus for a stable long-term society that enhances the planet.

Keywords: universal field theory; organisation; science; gravity; Newtonian physics; social science

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 [that is 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.

Preface

‘In physics, a unified field theory is a type of field theory that allows all fundamental and elementary particlest to be written in terms of a single type of field. According to modern discoveries in physics, forces are not transmitted directly between interacting objects but instead are described and interpreted by intermediary entities called fields. Furthermore, according to quantum field theory, particles are themselves the quanta of fields. . . . . Unified field theory attempts to organize these fields into a single mathematical structure. For over a century, unified field theory has remained an open line of research.’ (Wikipedia, Unified field theory) In this theory there is one field that unquestionably satisfies the question of firstly, a ‘single type of field’ and that is a contextual field which is orthogonal to secondly, a concept that ‘particles are themselves the quanta of fields’ that are thirdly, a ‘single mathematical structure’ that requires orthogonality in mathematical-physics and fourthly, all pervasive because the field is generated from the creation equation concept plus context is nothing and in particular [for our universe] energy plus organisation is nothing. Fifthly, the necessary requirement of an infinite speed of gravity and logic [for minimums or principle of least action] does not require a postulation but is a requirement of a previous organisation.

‘Theoretical physicists have not yet formulated a widely accepted, consistent theory that combines general relativity and quantum mechanics to form a theory of everything. Trying to combine the graviton with the strong and electroweak interactions leads to fundamental difficulties and the resulting theory is not renormalizable. The incompatibility of the two theories remains an outstanding problem in the field of physics.’ (Wikipedia, Unified field theory, Current status) Thus in our universe, according to the theory presented here, the field becomes organisation [still a context] and this leads to a problem in physics because organisation is not used explicitly and that, I believe, would make it impossible [for physics] to answer this problem that physics is finding intractable. The basic problem is that physics has been badly constructed and is incapable of higher level theorising because, I believe, that Newtonian physics is alchemical [based on measurement and generalisations] and cannot be extended to a theory of modern physics without rebuilding from a simple beginning as proposed by this theory.

In essence, physics has taken a partial truth [Newtonian physics] and tried to make it a religious truth that must not be questioned or queried in any way [from fear of exclusion]. For example, I saw in the news that CERN is going to build a bigger particle accelerator and this shows that physic’s reliance on measurement [that could be a misappreciation of Francis Bacon’s edict of measurement-only] is inappropriate in the light of the fact that more short term high-energy particles will be discovered, but to what end? The simplification presented here is sufficient to show that velocity forms the structure in the organisation of the universe [5] and that physics is incomplete [without explicit organisation] and persists in looking to measure more to try to understand better when the appropriate tool is theory that is the organisation [context] of the measurements that cannot be accessed because of the club-like and religious-like structure of physics. “Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house.” Henri Poincare (1854 – 1951)

What is Gravity?

In this theory, relativity [concept-context] generates parabolic gravity and a further fractal [our universe] generates local gravity in several forms, being, an implied acceleration [from quantum-time], local gravitational attraction [Newton] and it’s orthogonal path [Einstein] and local interactions [action and reaction from Newton’s laws of motion] which, in the latter are local and equal to zero [1, 2]. Parabolic gravity arises from a previous fractal firstly, is thus intrinsic to the whole universe [and solves the problem of instantaneous speed of propagation that is needed for the reproduction of actions [in physics, the principle of least action]]. Secondly, I believe, is causing the added gravitational effect that physics attributes to a postulated dark energy that has the strange property that it affects matter [particles that show organisation] but not photons [particles that show energy]. This strange behaviour is [organisationally as concept-context] reconciled simply in [1, 2 and below] and given that matter and photons have the same basic structure [which is energy plus organisation] how does the universe [as the postulated dark matter] differentiate between them?

The differentiation is effected in three ways, firstly, that they are kept apart logically by the requirement that the energy and organisation are under constant acceleration [to never meet [1, 14]] and secondly, that matter and energy are always kept apart by the requirement that they have different speeds [and can never have the same speed [5]]. Thirdly, in the previous universe the parabolic effect only affects concept [particles] and not context [photons] which leads to the very necessary requirement to form planetary motion in planets, atoms and galaxies etc. [1, 2]. When particles are considered, they must come together [attract] or repel [planets or charges] which leads to a gas-like universe and there must be an instruction to create our planetary systems, galaxies and atoms and I believe that the parabolic effect serves this purpose and puts a parabolic requirement on the motion of particles. This doesn’t affect photons [that are energy particles] because we can see the stars [apart from the lensing effect of local gravity] clearly compared to a white haze [if light moved parabolically at all times]. Notice also that the acceleration of the stars possibly reduces the temperature of the earth by keeping the night sky dark [Olber’s paradox].

The measurement and the necessity of a postulated dark matter is correct because physicists are competent in measurement but are let down by the structure of the so-called science of physics in that physics is constructed top-down instead of the more sensible bottom-up approach that is used in this paper. It suffices to say that there are an infinite number of ways of being wrong using top-down thinking, whilst bottom-up produces a unique way of thinking that is reproducible [2] and forms a scientific language that is common to all people [6]. Physics attempts this by ‘peer review’ where the members actually vote on whether a theory is ‘correct’ or not without any absolutes to make any decision accountable. This is akin to playing-children following a leader’s decision and physic’s leaders were principally Newton and Einstein who have achieved celebrity status, presumably because they dared to attack the [apparent, but is not] central accounting [gravity].

Gravity appears to be involved in the accounting of the universe, as can be seen from Newton’s law of motion [F=ma where F is force, m is mass and a is acceleration] which possibly came from Galileo’ experiments that F=mg where g is the acceleration due to gravity. As an example, using this theory for comparison and as an absolute, force F includes the measurer’s intention, whereas the physical uses ‘blind’ [no measurer’s interaction, affordances] energy, the equal equation [=] is inappropriate because physical relationships are based on orthogonality because, to put it simply, you can’t build something from the same things, you need the relativity of two different [orthogonal] things like bricks and air [not-bricks]. This defines mathematical physics, that it uses orthogonals, not similarities as in mathematics [1, 7]. Also, the universe cannot decide an either-or situation unless the two things are [strictly] different, which is being orthogonal. Mass is energy plus organisation and considering the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] mass is only apparent if energy and organisation are held apart by acceleration [[10], quantum time [8]] so that they are logically separate and the final term is acceleration in the formula. This simple exposure of the problems arising from the overly complex equation of motion indicates the frail base that physics uses [7] that should be based on absolutes to call itself a science and the only absolute in this theory is relativity and in particular concept plus context is nothing.

Nuts and Bolts of the Universe

It would be sensible to consider that gravity is involved in the accounting [construction [concept]] and working [context]] of the universe but, as above, gravity is localised and complete within local limits [Newton-Einstein and action-reaction] and the overall gravity [parabolic effect] I believe, comes from outside of the universe and is a restriction. So, if gravity is not the accounting within the universe, what is? There must be a structure [concept] that forms the universe as a context and I suggest that that structure is ‘speed’ [in general] which might be hard to believe as physics is building ever-bigger and more-expensive particle accelerators to find more and more particles. In the standard model of particle physics the chart is a gruesome affair listing a couple of hundred particles with most being changelings that have very short lifetimes [that I attribute to a time component in the redistribution of organisation within the particle] that could also be an explanation for the [limiting of the] cosmic inflation in the Big Bang theory [8, 9]. Thus, simplifying the number of particles to those that are reasonably permanent [according to this theory, [5]]:

Context: plus [tier 1]: quarks up and down [no speed]

proton, electron [less than light speed]

neutrinos assorted [near light speed]

photon [light speed]

gravity [speed of light locally, infinite speed non-locally]

Plus [tier 2]: bosons, muons, taus, neutrons and other quarks etc. [organisation changelings]

Thus, we see a rigorous structure that frames the organisation of all of the players in the functioning of the universe, but there is another division [relativity] that is necessary in the formation of atoms that are the basis of chemistry and so physics and chemistry are linked and describe Life [as atoms].

It is necessary that simple universes [as above] exist as preludes to our universe [based on the physics] but to become more interesting a new form has to be created and while we can expect the logical creation equation concept plus context is nothing to form our pre-universe, the next fractal [energy plus organisation is nothing] may contain restrictions such as a parabolic gravity that is necessary for our universe to logically exist. A further fractal could contain a particle, such as the neutron that is unstable and decays into two particles that must act in a different way to gravity, [being stronger at shorter separations] but similar by being part of a fractal. In other words, a reality is created that contains an orthogonality at the ends composed of positive and negative charges that mirror the creation equation by firstly using the unavailability of neutrinos instead of the acceleration [to retain existence as speed and acceleration have been used] and secondly to use the parabolic effect [not being a gravity now but a logic and an effect on charges as it is a restriction on the whole universe] to form atoms. Thus, a neutron must be unstable and form electrons, protons and a strange bit that is left over that is disposed of by it being nonreactive and [partially] wave-like which is [presumably] tucked into a convenient unused space in the asymptote of speed [5].

This parabolic effect of curvature in the attraction is the logic that tells particles what to do when approaching another particle and produces the bias to the parabolic to form orbits not contact. Clearly parabolic gravity is a universe-wide restriction that forces both planetary systems and atoms to form. Relativity says that the two particles [proton and electron] must be orthogonal [to be building blocks], only two for simplicity and never come together [under normal conditions]. This latter restriction is accomplished by the logic of the parabolic effect that only works on particles [not on energy, as afforded by the dark matter postulated by physics] and with the neutrinos being so nonreactive it is unlikely to be present to form a neutron [which is unstable anyway]. Thus, the Bohr atom, that is so successful as a representation [of this, and I believe that Bohr was given the Nobel prize for this observation] is modelled on the planetary system [presumably because of fractal similarity]. As a context, the electrons form shells that are based on standing matter waves requiring various set energies.

A logical aberration that two electrons reside in each orbit, ‘in quantum mechanics, the Pauli exclusion principle . . . . states that two or more identical particles with half-integer spins (i.e. fermions) cannot simultaneously occupy the same quantum state within a system that obeys the laws of quantum mechanics.’ (Wikipedia, Pauli exclusion principle) Thus spin is postulated but the logic is that two waves can be accommodated as standing waves. Notice that physics does not use logic explicitly but uses laws and principles that are concepts [inter-constructionist] instead of the inter-connectiveness of organisation [context]. The atom has to fit together with every component having a reality with end points being orthogonal to present the essence of quantum mechanics which is the decision of which orthogonality is required to be shown [to the measurer]. Notice that firstly, the decision [as a flip-flop, often illustrated by the two-slit experiment] must be made by the measurer and sometimes called the ‘crux of quantum mechanics’, but is completely different to other aspects of [what is lumped together as] quantum mechanics.

This can be seen as the orbits of the particle [electron] must also satisfy the reality of its wave construction 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) If the completeness of all of these logical requirements seem complicated it must be remembered that the universe is a possibility not a probability that comes from the simplistic notion of a ‘real’ universe [that is the orthogonal]. For thousands of years we have imagined and used a simple ‘real’ universe and this paper attempts to describe the orthogonal of that reality, the ‘nuts and bolts’ of the theory of modern physics. In other words, our universe is built on organisation [with energy being the anti-organisation building-block] with restrictions formed from previous universes that forms a universal field and clearly physics uses the ‘wrong end of the stick [reality]’.

Life Forms a Relativity

It appears that the lighter elements were produced in the creation of the universe and the formation of stars etc. were needed to produce the heavier elements and the conditions under which Life could form. So the four major [from above, charge and acceleration are possibilities] dimensions [energy, organisation, distance and time] produce matter [energy plus organisation] that allows Life to exist and consciousness produces another fractal reality that views the universe as ‘real’ versus organisational. This is an important point because the recognition of universal relativity requires firstly, forward planning [as a forward relativity [4]] that provides a goal for society and is the very point [lack of goals] that can be made about the failure of our societies, secondly, a reality is composed of two orthogonal entities [a relativity], one at each end that are independent but entangled. Thirdly, this reality [orthogonality] is necessary to build a structure from a house to a universe because a difference is needed in at least two elements, fourthly, the independence creates a new mathematics of the physical [mathematical-physics] that is not the same as mathematics [that uses equality] but uses orthogonality as well. For example, attractive gravity [Newton, concept] must be equal to the effect that it produces [curved path, Einstein, context] and the [local] total is nothing in effect [orbital constant-speed motion], the total gravity is the sum of both orthogonalities [which is the sum of Newton-and-Einstein’s effect [1, 10]]:

relativity [attraction] is the sum of (energy1 multiplied by energy2) divided by the separation (squared) plus the (organisation1 multiplied by organisation2] divided by the separation (squared)

Notice that our universe is structured on firstly, the concept of speed [above] that leads to the context, secondly, the parabolic effect, thirdly the atom and fourthly, planetary systems that constitute the universe and the commonality is organisation [concept] and the organisation within these four elements [context]. Chemistry is simply the organisation of adding an extra proton, but the context of this [number of elements] is to allow Life to use matter and energy to organise itself. Thus matter, which physics believes is fundamental, is composed as a reality of energy plus organisation where energy and organisation are orthogonal and entangled and this statement is a restatement [as would be expected] of the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing with the restriction of an accelerating space to keep them apart.

The principle effect of a fractal is similarity and physics begat material engineering that begat technology that set us on the path of civilisation. Social science is not a science, and is crippled in the same way that physics is crippled [no absolutes], and is orthogonal to physics in that it deals with people and has begat nothing but a civilisation largely plagued by wars and misery. In similarity, it should have begat social engineering that would lead us to a managed stable world-wide set of communities, but it has not because physics recognises organisation only implicitly in an old alchemical Newtonian physics. Physics needs a theoretical modern physics that includes organisation explicitly, but has been stymied by not being able to extend Newtonian physics because of it’s underlying rejection of organisation. At this stage it is becoming obvious that physics has missed-the-boat on something important and it is not hard to guess that it is organisation. The clubbiness in curating a religion around Newtonian physics means that an outsider has to set-the-story-straight, as seems to have happened.

Deriving Einstein’s Equation

I saw on the internet that Einstein’s equation E=mc(squared) [where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light], was very difficult to derive which does not surprise me because both physics and mathematics are incomplete. Yet the equation is simply an identity very close to Newton’s equation F=ma [where F is the force applied, m is mass and a is the acceleration] that seems to work in the normal world quite possibly because it was generalised from Galileo’s experimental F=mg, where g is the acceleration due to our gravity]. If we replace the force F [which has intent] with E which is general [and has no intent] and secondly, replace the general acceleration ‘a’ with c(squared) because firstly, the square is an acceleration [per time squared] and secondly, the only constant speed available [from zero to infinity] is ‘c’ because speed is the architecture of the universe [above]. By using energy plus organisation is mass, the orthogonality becomes E plus O multiplied by c(squared)/(c(squared)-1) is nothing which is extremely close to the creation equation, so, E=mc(squared) is valid in both theories [7]. That the ‘square is an acceleration’ seems to explain why the square occurs so frequently firstly, the parabolic motion [y=x(squared) assigned to relativity [3] now explained by the parabolic effect] and secondly, Pythagoras’ theorem of the relativity of points/lines [2].

The Organisation of Life

Coulomb’s law is similar to Newton’s law so curvature [the necessary parabolic effect acting on all particles] produces atoms in the same form as planetary systems and then galaxies [1]. Life uses the same similarity in building molecules, cells, organs and complete animals all based on organisation [concept], but constrained by organisation [context]. The animals use an organisation that we call survival of the fittest that is essentially the same as the physical organisation described above because relativity requires forward planning [in future time] and that is written into nature as the Fibonacci series [4]. Homo sapiens’ application of technology introduced a new and untried organisation that has allowed indiscriminate breeding of lesser quality humans that are possibly destroying societies as is the top-down thinking and lack of goals because the internet news suggests that around 40% of our youngest workers are mentally fragile as a warning for the future. This theory uses thinking [social engineering [11, 12]] based on bottom-up absolutes to create an organisation that should provide a long-term stable society.

Social science is not currently a science because it does not have organisational absolutes [that do not change] that everything can be referenced against, and this is especially important in considering Socrates’ questions that are not built on absolutes. I believe that the best that we can do under these circumstances is to follow the established practices of the animals where broadly applicable. The animal’s behaviour is contextual in it’s being and conceptual by being based on the survival of the fittest and this suggests that these contexts and concepts are similar to the creation equation [as would be expected in a fractal] and further, Adam Smith [economics] suggested that what is good for the individual is good for the country and this fractal is, I believe, half of a very important organisational positive feedback that we can access if we use a sensible governance, below. The organisation of Life is survival of the fittest and our society has used the same organisation in forming a social contract between the rich/powerful and the masses as governance.

This social contract is with us today [as it has always been] as a ruler [with public servants], dictator or so-called democracy, the latter firstly, using a generous pension system to prompt leaders to step down [before they do too much damage] and secondly, by popular acclamation. Thus, the social contract has historically been a modification of the herd system [which improves the herd by excluding [to some extent] inferior males] and a return to survival of the fittest by removing the least-fit males in armies but culminating today in the unwise practice of elected public servants sending the best men to be possibly killed [and not letting nature select]. In essence the social contract improves the population because the best of the workers move into the elite and the worst of the elite move into the more dangerous worker group with the hope that the less-fit are weeded out [before breeding]. Numerous attempts to upset this selection process have been made by individuals and groups to secure power for themselves, such as the Catholic Church stressing helping the needy and fostering unrestricted breeding, the Communists wanting to give the workers total power and women voting in elections for environmental candidates.

The Catholic Church has attained great power by championing the weak, sick and needy while, at the same time, has aligned itself with the ruling parties and this has occurred because both Church and government use awe, propaganda and emotion etc. to keep their adherents docile and believing in their rightful power. The rulers create a nation by using these effects and the creation equation obliges where the organisation of beauty, elegance, flags, Bibles, Church services and buildings, monumental works such as pyramids to the motorcade of politician’s cars etc. create emotional energy in the viewer [13] and even build crowd-hysteria. Using the creation equation in this way allows an addiction to build that is not abated by habituation

The Quirks of Our Society

Clearly, our society evolved from that of the animals and the basis of the improvement in any species is the organisation of removing the least fit [by not successfully breeding] to improve the gene-pool in the herd. The dominant male protects females from the attentions of less desirable males and allows access to food areas and the females retain the genetic variability. At long last technology allows us to do the same thing using organisation [social engineering, [12]]. On occasion a pair of males [related] can overwhelm the dominant male and this becomes the norm with armies and the herd system stays the same [in a fractal] but entails smaller households that lose the selection [for improvement] and the gene pool further degenerates as politicians call the best of the youngest to fight their wars which further diminishes the [mental] resolve of the population. There are numerous ways to better the population and one is given in [12] as a means of improving the population voluntarily using technology and social engineering. Social engineering is the application of organisation to a true social science and is the mirror image of the technology that has fuelled our modern world.

The herd system could be called a democracy because the females can drift away to other herds if they feel like it, but people tend to have baggage, businesses, family etc. and the resulting democracy of the ancient Greeks was very restrictive and necessarily centred around a forum due to a lack of communication, so ‘fifth-century [B.C.] was quite different from the society that Plato imagined in The Republic. It was a democracy of sorts, though only about 10 per cent of the population could vote. Women and slaves, for example, were automatically excluded. But citizens were equal before the law, and there was an elaborate lottery system to make sure that everyone had a fair chance of influencing political decisions.’ (A Little History Of Philosophy, Nigel Warburton, p 6) ‘In a direct democracy, the people have the direct authority to deliberate and decide legislation. In a representative democracy, the people choose governing officials through elections to do so. . . . . In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship was initially restricted to an elite class, which was later extended to all adult citizens. In most modern democracies, this was achieved through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20^th centuries. (Wikipedia, Democracy) Things began to go wrong over the last century and are beyond the scope of this paper except for reference to the damage caused by physics that appears to have [inadvertently] withheld the theoretical modern physics and the social engineering that, in its absence, has endangered the world.

Neuroscience

The mind is extremely important in the evolution of animals and ourselves and in the governance of the individual and society which is the very structure of society and yet the formal aspects of organisation are ignored. Society is in a parlous position worldwide unless we use social engineering to mould it and that requires organisation as its base. Similarly, the mind-body is linked to the physical through the two creation equations, firstly through the affordances [energy plus organisation is nothing] and secondly through the organisation of the concepts and context [concept plus context is nothing] within the brain. [11] Needless to say, unless we recognise the universal field of organisation and use it, we lack control and Homo sapiens’ future must be in doubt.

Conclusion and Prediction

This paper posits organisation, formalised by linking it to the creation, as being the underlying field that embraces everything in our simple fractal universe as would be expected from such a simple creation equation and is what is required in the quotation in the preface. In other words, the universe and everything in it is the creation from nothing using organisation and that is the universal field that physics has been seeking. Once organisation is identified as being similar [orthogonal] to energy as a concept, it can be handled similarly and simply and this appears to provide completeness to physics [as theoretical modern physics], mathematics [as mathematical-physics], social science [organisation and social engineering], neuroscience [mathematics of concept-context] etc. as concepts by providing absolutes but also to the context as a simple unified contextual field. Whilst this unified context is applicable, the concept behind the success of this theory is the exactitude [that [the concept of] organisation affords] in providing an algebraic path to an answer [4] for humanity in the widest sense.

Considering that physics makes laws of observable processes without wondering ‘why?’ the processes are occurring, quantum computing seems to rest on the premise that every option is available in the quantum world and a machine can be built to interrogate the universe to get an answer. As I believe that quantum mechanics is organisation, organisation is a field and the creation equation lists organisation as the only option to energy, is quantum computing actually this organisational field that I have used through the mind? The correctness of my assertion [that there is a universal field] is enhanced by this field providing the reason that algebra is so successful [as a mathematical tool] and the reason is buried deep in this physical organisation that we must ask a specific question [the answer] of the universe for it to deliver the answer [as an organisational affordance]. This shows that, as mentioned before, that the organisation of the environment [to the question held in the mind] is translated, through the creation equation, into emotional energy in the brain that allows the mind to function [as a comparison of affordances] [14]. It could be that expending energy could transmit organisation to the mind as an organisational affordance that could be the reason behind quantum computing in this theory [as a relativity]. As an everyday example, women seem to find it easy to pick up the organisation of the line dancers around them, without actually remembering the dance, although it could be that it is their smaller statue and 20% smaller [faster-acting] brain that helps them to copy others quickly enough.

This example shows a relativity of discovery [whether true or not] and reminds me that quantum computing must have an organisational basis or become an enigma that jeopardises this theory. Do we need quantum computing? Can our brain do similar if we use an expectation? Consider the derivation of theoretical modern physics, of which this paper is one of many [of my papers on the subject], and these papers are the organisation created by holding the question of ‘organisation as a relativity of energy’ in my brain. In other words, I simply used algebra by letting ‘x’ be ‘organisation’ and algebra is simply talking to the universe directly.

The derivation of this theory is simple [in a fractal] and yet it requires a creative mind and much more can be done using this software and bottom-up organisation because ‘the human brain is estimated to hold something in the order of 200 exabytes of information, roughly equal to “the entire digital content of today’s world”, according to Nature Neuroscience.’ (The Body, Bill Bryson, p 58) We have neglected the power of organisation and its outcome [social engineering] to our detriment and yet our brain is capable of much more if we use it to our advantage [11]. This organisational field requires future goals [as an embedded absolute] and can, I believe, lead us out of Homo sapiens’ combative role of survival of the fittest to a planned stable society [Homo completus] without the genetic, mental and personality problems that beset life today.

References:

1. Penney D. A Complete Theory Of Gravitation, Theoretical Modern Physics And A New Mathematics Of Concept-context That Replaces The Alchemy Of Physics And Is The Context To The Theory Of Everything Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2025; S3(1): 43-50, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s3-017

2. Penney D. 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. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2025; S3(1): 33-42, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s3-016

3. . Penney D. A New Complete Theory Of Modern Physics And A Revamped Mathematical-physics Compared To An Alchemical Newtonian Physics Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2025; S3(1): 59-66, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s3-019
4. . Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013
5. . 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
6. . A New Complete Bottom-up Scientific Language With Verifiable Answers To Build Truth And Sense Into Everyone’s Communication (unpublished)
7. . Penney D. A New Complete Theory Of Modern Physics And A Revamped Mathematical-physics Compared To An Alchemical Newtonian Physics Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2025; S3(1): 59-66, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s3-019
8. . Penney D. The Big Bang Is Explained Using A Mathematical Physics Derived From The Mathematics Of Concept-context That Describes Cosmic Inflation And The Acceleration Of The Universe From Time Zero. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2025; S3(1): 51-58. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s3-018
9. . 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
10. . Penney D. Understanding Everything Means Understanding Nothing. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 7-12, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-012
11. . Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25, doi: 1 0.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
12. . 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
13. . 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
14. . Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020- 00265-x (darrylpenney.com)