A New Complete Theory Of Modern Physics And A Revamped Mathematical-physics Compared To An Alchemical Newtonian Physics

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: Newton’ equations of motion have been the cornerstone of physics for 350 years and are a useful alchemist’s quick-fix to understand motion but by resting on a complex absolute they have prevented the development of theoretical modern physics over the last hundred years and so Newtonian physics has become an unchanging religion. Religions forbid change to the central doctrine and this has, I believe, impeded the growth of modern physics and the organisation upon which it is based. The only way to properly view the worth of Newtonian physics is relative to a developed theoretical modern physics which has now been done and provides the organisation that has been missing and that is sorely needed in the social sciences to produce social engineering that can define and reach society’s long-term goals. The philosophy of science is currently based on measurement and this paper points out that relativity requires absolutes and theory as well.

Keywords: Newtonian physics; relativity; organisation; mathematical-physics; absolutes

“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)

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

For a number of years I had papers rejected by physics’ journals and I came to the conclusion that physics, somewhat complicit with their long-term journals were acting as a closed-shop, protecting a religion-like view of Newtonian physics that seems to have grown over 350 years. Now I have published a number of papers using a bottom-up organisation style that contrasts with physics’ [and Homo sapiens’] top-down thinking [that is fraught with speculation] that is needed to expand the alchemical basis of Newtonian physics that has prevented physics being able to expand into a useful theory of modern physics [that was apparently shut down 100 years ago]. I needed to derive a theory of modern physics to see why physics was unable to progress and remained restricted to measurement and ‘peer review’. This has been done and I find that Newton’s laws are alchemical in being the mental equivalent of throwing everything into a pot to see what happens. ‘Isaac Newton devoted considerably more of his writing to the study of alchemy (see Isaac Newton’s occult studies) than he did to either optics or physics.’ (Wikipedia, Alchemy, Medieval Europe). The equations of motion turned out to be so simple and useful that it became a religion and physics became a club called Newtonian physics that no one dare challenge from fear of exclusion.

This paper suggests using Newtonian physics in everyday use because it works in spite of being alchemical and gives an acceptable result but cannot be relied on to do more than superficially explain motion. Unfortunately, it’s use has unnecessarily complicated physics and as an example, chemistry is a logical outgrowth from both alchemy and physics, but chemistry accepted organisation and has become a rigorous science unlike physics that uses organisation implicitly [but not explicitly] even though organisation is desperately needed for social engineering to manage society. Hence, having derived a possibly complete theoretical physics I can now point out the pitfalls of using Newtonian physics and examples are Einstein’s postulating curved-space and not recognising the universe’s use of local gravity and Newton’s law of gravitation [that Newton admitted was an ‘inspired guess’] that can easily be derived with this theory albeit recognising the mathematical pitfalls of ignoring orthogonality.

Newtonian physics has a cosy relationship with mathematics because, apparently, both are incomplete and the need for mathematical-physics is shown by the equation [showing equality] F=ma where F is the force applied by someone, m is the mass, a is the resultant acceleration and the = is an equality that is being unfortunately used as a relativity of a concept and context that are completely independent of each other. Notice the italics because our mind is communicating with the universe and force requires intent unlike energy. Not surprisingly, this points to the necessity of an extension of mathematical-physics into handling orthogonal relationships [that I call the mathematics of concept-context] that is the basis of the mind and neuroscience [1, 2, 5] that is based on the creation equation of a pre-universe [concept plus context is nothing [3, 4]] to our universe [energy plus organisation is nothing].

Newtonian Physics the First Law

Several centuries ago, the race was on to find a usable description of the motion of particles and Newton’s laws won the day and became the cornerstone of Newtonian physics that seems to have produced a religion that cannot be questioned. Over this great amount of time, 350 years since it’s inception, physics apparently stopped progress because the description was alchemical and not based on absolutes which seems to have led to a simple universe being enshrined and described with unnecessary complexity by generations of physicists building on an unstable foundation. Hence a new simple description is offered that allows Newton’s laws to be shown to be part of a logical physics derived from the bottom up using organisation.

The three laws are firstly, a body remains at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force, secondly F=ma and thirdly, action and reaction are equal and opposite.

Thus, the first law says that a body stays at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by a force and I have wondered [as have others from Galileo] about all these particles wandering around unconnected with anything. The answer is that firstly, particles have matter waves [de Broglie waves] and secondly, speed is actually the architectural fabric behind the working of the universe [5] because there are only two states that are possible and they are firstly constant motion that is the stable state and secondly, acceleration that is it’s relativity. So, acceleration is the concept [zero to infinity] and the constant speed becomes the context because simplifying the number of particles to those that are reasonably permanent [according to this theory] defines their function:

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]

The function of these particles is obviously different for each and speed is used to define this difference. The creation equation of our universe is energy plus organisation is nothing [see below], and all of the above particles are composed of energy and organisation held apart by the logic of an accelerating space which is produced [or required] by quantum gravity, below.

Given this array of speeds, is there anything particularly important about any of them? Each of the particles can travel in a speed band, particles from zero to the speed of light, but not quite to the speed of light because there is an asymptote and, I believe, that neutrinos travel in this [naturally] forbidden zone. The speed of light [and organisation] is fixed and an absolute because eliminating the relativity of the creation equation by dividing by the dimensions [energy, organisation, distance and time] distance divided by time is the speed for all energy and organisation. Notice that in local gravity, the gravitational effect is organisational [LIGO findings] whereas the [non-local] parabolic gravity is universe wide [provided by a mother universe based on concept plus context is nothing [3, 4], below.

The Second Law

The universe appears to be controlled by acceleration, because all of the velocity fields are full, and this suggests that gravity controls everything in the universe as an accounting, but as above, appearances can be deceptive because, I believe that the second law is incomplete as shown by the third law that action requires reaction and the equation F=ma only considers half of the story in a universe based on relativity. So, F=ma has, to my mind, two probable derivations, firstly that the impulse [force multiplied by time] applied produces a change in momentum which is equivalent to the equation F=ma or secondly, Galileo’s experiments [rolling balls] showed that F=mg where g is the acceleration due to our gravity and Newton generalised it to F=ma, which is at least in line with Francis Bacon’s edict to measure. Unfortunately, in a universe that is based on relativity these derivations ignore that relativity but the universe [as an organisation] needs a mathematical-physics relativity as a way into its construction.

F=ma is an alchemical statement because firstly, it gives an adequate result by creating a relativity between the observer and the universe and has nothing to do with the physical because force contains the intent of the measurer whereas energy contains no intent. This is an important distinction because interrogating the universe requires a relativity of a question held in the mind [1, 5] and the affordance of the reply is, I believe, the level of the emotional response in the brain [2] because any interaction must involve the creation equation. An example is the effect of decreasing the flow of particles in the double slit experiment,’the double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman called it “a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics”. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics].’ (Wikipedia, Double-slit experiment) [6] See below, that the question [the purpose of the experiment] changes as the flow changes which is the point of the experiment.

Secondly, F=ma is an equation [an equality] if m is a fundamental particle and does not contain organisation explicitly, but this theory uses organisation explicitly in the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] and mass is energy plus organisation where these two statements are [quantum mechanical] realities where energy and organisation are orthogonal and independent. Clearly, the energy and organisation are held apart by the acceleration in firstly, the quantum time absolute [(energy plus organisation)/time, [1, 5]] where, as time increases mass increases and secondly, that acceleration is required for the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] to exist.

Thirdly, I am not saying that Newton’s approach is wrong. It could have been based on Galileo’s experiments [measuring] and a theory produced [as it possibly was] as I am advocating, but it is incomplete as this paper shows and hides [explicit] organisation that is crucial to social engineering in the humanities as well as understanding the physical. Fourthly, physics cannot be a science without absolutes that must be available on which to make comparisons and judgements. Measurement and peer review are poor substitutes for a complete theory, as I believe that this is and hope that it clears up the befuddlement that come across over the Big Bang, dark energy, dark matter etc. Fifthly, Einstein’s equation E=mc(squared) is often cited as the ‘greatest’ equation and bears closer inspection because mass could (a) be simplified [mass is energy plus organisation in this theory] and (b) the orthogonality considered. Substituting for mass in Einstein’s equation gives the orthogonality, as expected, E plus O multiplied by c(squared)/(c(squared)-1) is nothing. This is extremely close to the creation equation, so, E=mc(squared) is valid in both theories, see below.

Planck’s Constant

‘The constant was postulated by Max Planck in 1900 as a proportionality constant needed to explain experimental black-body radiation. Planck later referred to the constant as the “quantum of action”. . . . E=hf . . . In 1923, Louis de Broglie generalized the Planck–Einstein relation by postulating that the Planck constant represents the proportionality between the momentum and the quantum wavelength of not just the photon, but the quantum wavelength of any particle. This was confirmed by experiments soon after-ward.’ (Wikipedia, Planck constant) ‘Following up on de Broglie’s ideas, physicist Peter Debye made an offhand comment that if particles behaved as waves, they should satisfy some sort of wave equation. Inspired by Debye’s remark, Erin Schrodinger decided to find a proper three-dimensional wave equation for the electron. . . The de Broglie hypothesis and the existence of matter waves has been confirmed for other elementary particles, neutral atoms and even molecules have been shown to be wave-like.’ (Wikipedia, Matter wave)

So, Schrodinger set up a field that contains matter and it could be said that particles coalesce out of the field and I have called this field organisation [7]. ‘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) Schrodinger’s universal wave is now considered to be a wave-packet and more confined but according to this theory organisation is built into the fabric of the universe along with energy through the creation equation.

From the experimental equation E=hf where E is energy, h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of light, above, and the identity that speed of a wave is c which is the product of wavelength times frequency and ‘in 1923, Louis de Broglie generalized the Planck–Einstein relation by postulating that the Planck constant represents the proportionality between the momentum and the quantum wavelength of not just the photon, but the quantum wavelength of any particle. This was confirmed by experiments soon afterward. This holds throughout the quantum theory, including electrodynamics. The de Broglie wavelength of the particle is given by lambda = h/p where p denotes the linear momentum of a particle, such as a photon, or any other elementary particle.’ (Wikipedia, Planck constant) If p=mc for a wave then E=mc(squared) and using the orthogonal equation mass is energy plus organisation then E plus O multiplied by c(squared)/(c(squared)-1) is nothing, where O is organisation. Thus, the Plank-Einstein equation is derivable from the creation equation and these terms describe the organisation behind physics that physics describes implicitly and needs to be used explicitly. This theory states that organisation is 50% of the Big Bang and from above E plus O multiplied by c(squared)/(c(squared)-1) is nothing is extremely close to the creation equation.

Clearly, from the investigation of subatomic particles that have short lives and can be represented by only a handful [5] of permanent particles, there must be many organisations within the particles. The same equation [E=hf] is used throughout the reality of wave-particle even though the universe recognises them [the wave and particle] as being independent [orthogonal]. Einstein [I believe] was given the Nobel prize for declaring them to be two forms of energy, when clearly, they are examples of the relativity upon which the universe is built and this orthogonality must be recognised by physics. Note that the reality [wave-particle] apparently has two different speeds [particle and wave] and two wave speeds [de Broglie and wave]

Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

It is often said how well mathematics describes physics or the physical world is mathematical whereas this theory says that it appears true because both physics and mathematics are incomplete and that is because Newtonian physics uses energy only and mathematics considers numbers only. Building houses and universes requires orthogonal elements [bricks and non-bricks] so there is a complete mathematical-physics that requires elements to be orthogonal and to have different units. For example, you can’t build a house out of numbers because they are different but similar whereas bricks and no-bricks are required to make a house that you can live in.

‘The uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the product of the accuracy of certain related pairs of measurements on a quantum system, such as position, x, and momentum. Such paired-variables are known as complementary variables or canonically conjugate variables. . . . . The quintessentially quantum mechanical uncertainty principle comes in many forms other than position–momentum. The energy–time relationship is widely used to relate quantum state lifetime to measured energy widths but its formal derivation is fraught with confusing issues about the nature of time.’ (Wikipedia, Uncertainty principle) This lack of understanding is because physics considers space-time to be the dimensions on which our universe is built, however, in this theory, I consider the dimensions to be energy, organisation, distance and time where the dimensions are orthogonal and completely independent.

Clearly, to build a universe we need orthogonal [independent] building blocks and the requirement to measure both exactly is impossible for logical reasons, and goes to the basis of relativity. A reality is two representations of the universe as ‘real’ on the one hand and as an organisation [8] on the other. Exactly as in the two-slit experiment we can view our surroundings as ‘real’ or organisational and an organisation can never be bounded as you can always add more members. Sum and difference [mathematical] happen in the physical whereas [mathematical] multiplication is relativity and division is removing relativity [see Archimedes and the bath tub]. For example, our view of the universe is quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by distance], quantum time [(energy plus organisation) divided by time] and a constant speed of light and organisation [distance divided by time]. [1, 5]

The Loose-Ends of Relativity

What is physics doing to itself by ‘standing on the shoulders’ of alchemical guesses? Truth must come from the very beginning [4] and be derivable everywhere and physics has placed itself in an impossible situation. As an example Einstein’s law that E=mc(squared) is the relationship that holds in the physical that requires mass [m] to be a fundamental unit [of mass], E energy and c is the speed of light. This is simple to use and alchemical because it works without us knowing why it works. So using universal relativity let us define organisation as the relativity so that energy plus organisation is zero and now that we can use algebra [if we are correct that organisation exists and that mass is energy plus organisation] we find that E plus O multiplied by c(squared)/(c(squared)-1) is nothing. This shows that Einstein’s equation is hiding another organisation and that organisation is shown by the requirement that for energy plus organisation is zero to exist then the space must be expanding [for mass to exist]. This simplifies the Big Bang as matter is created from nothing [not energy] and the space must be expanding [without dark energy] and this is in line with quantum time [above] where (energy plus organisation)/time requires an expanding space [energy plus organisation] as time passes. Needless to say, more truth is available when starting earlier [4] that gives a clearer and more simple description of the birth of the universe and even going further back to the pre-universe to answer dark matter and why universes, galaxies, planetary systems as well as atoms use parabolic gravity to stop the ‘clumping’ of matter and positive and negative charges sticking together.

Physics appears to be content to become a religion based on an alchemical set of laws that allows largely unfettered spectacular guesses, such as dark energy, dark matter, white holes etc. sponsored by the traditional top-down thinking of the animals and not a well-thought out scientific theory.

The Third Law

The third law [action and reaction are equal and opposite] is often described as the weight of the body and the reaction of the table holding it up. Fair enough, that is correct, but so is everything else in the universe that is derived from it because it expresses the [one and only] basis for the universe, and that is relativity. A relativity in physics must have a physical presence [to be useful] and that must be a concept and context that are orthogonal [to be different], comprise nothing [to be simple] and exist in an accelerating space to keep them apart [to be something]. This is the reality of quantum mechanics where the orthogonals of wave and particle, energy and organisation etc. are kept separate [by speed in the particle array [5] and acceleration in the latter [6]] even though everything is composed of matter [energy and organisation being the creation equation] they can be counted as separate. This separation of nothing seems to be common and universal, as below, but it is matter composed of energy and organisation.

‘Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire universe. The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum. The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10−9 joules (10−2 ergs), or ~5 Ge per cubic meter. However, in quantum electrodynamics, consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggests a much larger value of 10113 joules per cubic meter. This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem or, colloquially, the “vacuum catastrophe”.’ (Wikipedia, Vacuum energy) Concept and context could well be the fore-runners or components of vacuum energy [that physics accepts] and calls it ‘energy’ because physics has no other concept as it does not use organisation explicitly.

Concept and context are likely to form spontaneously [from nothing as concept plus context is nothing] and further form some sort of “vacuum energy” from energy plus organisation is nothing that form and are eliminated. Firstly, they must be eliminated because there is no acceleration to keep them apart and to form a Big Bang scenario and secondly, “vacuum energy” is all that you can call it if organisation is not recognised. It must be a feat to visualise energy forming on it’s own but then the Big Bang is also visualised as energy when, in general, energy can only be visualised as the state of a particle. Clearly, the term “vacuum matter” should be used instead of “vacuum energy”.

The third law is one dimensional and the particles are taken to bounce off each other so that momentum is conserved, but particles in our universe come in different types where billiard balls bounce off each other, sticky things stick together, massive particles attract other uncharged particles and charged particles are either attracted or repelled depending on their charges. Under gravitation, two masses attract and stick together whereas a positive [proton] and negative [electron] never do [as would be expected and presumably stay that way because the requisite neutrino is missing]. There has to be a physical instruction to form two dimensional planetary systems or atoms and I have found just such an instruction in parabolic ‘gravity’ [3, 4] as the overall directive to form parabolic motion and it is the key to realising that the gravity of Newton and Einstein is local only and parabolic ‘gravity’ obviates the need for the dark matter postulate.

Parabolic ‘gravity’ is not an attraction, but a built-in restriction from a previous fractal that means that it is a restriction on the whole universe and acts instantaneously over the whole universe [as a restriction] which is necessary for the accounting to always be at the lowest level [for repeatability, principle of least action]. Parabolic ‘gravity’ [concept] has a context [parabolic effect] that is similar to the context afforded by the relativity of gravity. Note that quantum gravity (E plus O)/d [1, 5] is the ‘gravity effect’ of a body that attracts another body that becomes Newton’s law of gravitation:

attraction is (E1 plus O1)/d multiplied by [relativity] (E2 plus O2)/d [as E and O are orthogonal]

and

attraction is (E1 x E2)/d (squared) plus (O1 x O2)/d (squared) [as E and O are orthogonal]

where mass is E plus O. Einstein added ‘curved space’ to double Newton’s result that gave the correct answer but ‘curved space’ is organisational and represents the curved path of the planet. I believe that the gravitational attraction [Newton] and the curved path [Einstein] are the two halves of a [local] conservative system with a total gravity of zero. Similarly, every galaxy is local and the total is zero and secondly, the [planetary] radius moves so that acceleration equals the attraction [centripetal equals centrifugal force].

The atom is based on the same form with stronger forces supplied by the electric charges derived from the proton and electron. Notice that the electron and proton cannot combine because the necessary neutrino is so unresponsive and the parabolic ‘gravity’ forces them into orbit [versus stuck together] with the wave [orthogonality] attached to the electron forming standing waves around it’s orbit. ‘Each orbital in an atom can hold a maximum of two electrons, and these electrons must have opposite spins. This is a fundamental aspect of the electronic structure of atoms and plays a crucial role in determining the chemical behaviour of elements.’ (TutorChase) These two electrons are considered to have different ‘spin’, but it seems more intuitive to think of them as standing waves containing one or two waves. In other words, physics defines ‘spin’ of the electrons instead of accepting the property of standing waves, which adds complexity, where the standing wave embraces the orbit and number in the orbit.

What is Quantum Mechanics?

See the following paper [7, 8]: A Complete Universal Field Theory For Our Universe Built From Nothing Using Only Organisation currently unpublished. Quantum mechanics appears to be a concept that physics uses for the context of a field that it doesn’t understand and that field is possibly the organisation that is not included in Newtonian physics. This theory assumes that organisation is everywhere because it is shown explicitly in the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing].

Mathematical Physics

‘The Journal of Mathematical Physics defines the field as “the application of mathematics to problems in physics and the development of mathematical methods suitable for such applications and for the formulation of physical theories”’ (Wikipedia, Mathematical physics) This definition is fraught and typifies the thinking of Homo sapiens as top-down and not based on any absolute. I hesitate to use the word nothing because nothing has a specific meaning and a better description of Homo sapiens’ thinking is that it uses only half of a relativity and so, is fraught [if not meaningless] in a relativistic universe and further, the one and only thing that exists in our universe is relativity [that is built from nothing] and that our universe is built on relativity and nothing exists that is not relative to something else.

This relativity can be called entanglement and has been shown experimentally to be universal, ‘quantum entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally with photons, electrons, top quarks and even small diamonds.’ (Wikipedia, Quantum entanglement). If this describes contextual behaviour, the conceptual might be described by ‘the experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units)’. (Wikipedia, Double-slit experiment) This suggests that concept and context are related [orthogonal] through the creation equation concept plus context is nothing leading to our universe energy plus organisation is nothing.

It seems that mathematics uses the operations: sum, subtract, multiplication and division in daily life but uses the latter two without realising their use in the physical which is not the same as mathematics uses them. In other words, mathematics is a discovery of Homo sapiens that has been derived as an offshoot of physical necessity. The dimensions of our universe must come from the creation equations energy [E] plus organisation [O] is nothing [being an offshoot of concept plus context is nothing], where energy and organisation can only exist in an accelerating space [restriction], so distance [d] and time [t] also become dimensions. Removing the relativity gives quantum gravity [(E and O)/d] and the attraction [of two masses] is the sum of the products (E1xE2)/d(squared)+(O1xO2)/d(squared). Notice that the first term is Newton’s contribution and the second term is Einstein’s contribution that gives the correct answer [Eddington’s experiment] and that the product of two orthogonal quantities is the relativity that is nothing [being independent]. Thus, firstly, the net local gravity is zero relative to the so-called dark matter ‘gravity’ [3] and secondly, the derivation above is simple but requires the use of orthogonality which is only found in an improved mathematical-physics..

Note firstly, that Einstein’s work was based on Newtonian physics and his space-time theory may not be general, but local, with a total effect being zero and this leads to the total over the universe being zero [as it must be if energy plus organisation is nothing]. Secondly, that Newton’s law of gravitation was an ‘inspired guess and has never been derived in 350 years in spite of being the backbone of Newtonian physics and thirdly, this example shows that mathematics cannot adequately describe the physical. In other words, mathematics has been built on the equality of things [their number] whereas mathematical-physics uses a restriction that it must [in part] be based on the orthogonality of the constructive properties and nature of the building blocks of the universe.

Current mathematical-physics as used in Newtonian physics is essentially a one-to-one correspondence because both were products of the mind and use top-down organisation which gives an infinite number of possibilities of being wrong, for example dark energy and dark matter which is supposed to be around 20 times the visible matter. According to this theory, the dark energy that is supposedly accelerating the universe is that the equation of quantum time demands an accelerating space, as below, and the dark matter postulate is possibly explained by the parabolic ‘gravity’ that comes from an earlier pre-universe and fits the requirement that it affect particles and not photons. It seems that, like perpetual motion machines, energy must be seeping in from the pre-universe but not the huge amount of energy envisaged by physics because mass is simply created in an expanding space. This is a functional reason [speed of particle versus speed of light] because in this theory they have the same composition because mass is energy plus organisation.

Another example of removing relativity is quantum time [(E and O)/t] where at time near zero problems occur and as the expression is an absolute [constant] a vast mass is created [which means that a vast number of nothings must split into mass] called cosmic inflation. Note that the Big Bang says that energy is created [on it’s own] which then requires the formation of matter and anti-matter to be explained away. The last division is d/t which must be a constant and it is the speed of light [for all energy and organisation]. These three absolutes [(E and O)/d, (E and O)/t and d/t] are the concepts [that we see] that build our universe together with the contexts of speed that define the players [particles, neutrinos, light [including organisation] and the infinite speed of parabolic ‘gravity’]. Mathematics is a product of the mind whereas mathematical-physics is how the physical works and the mind works on the principle of the original universe using what I call the mathematics of concept-context [2]. This mathematics [of concept-context] is also used in this universe and we call it literature because it is built on concepts [of the story and the people] and their interactions [context] and also in the lives of animals and ourselves in society [as social science]. In fact, a society can be considered to be a manifestation of the creation equation of the energy [of people and production] and the organisation of society.

Notice that this requirement of a new mathematical-physics [that is fundamentally different to mathematics] and the further assumptions that would be necessary to be made to accommodate quantum mechanics on top of the alchemical basis of Newtonian physics probably shows why physics is reluctant to not change and that reluctance seems to have possibly emanated from the 1927 Solvay conference.

Heisenberg commented:

“Through the possibility of exchange between the representatives of different lines of research, this conference has contributed extraordinarily to the clarification of the physical foundations of the quantum theory. It forms, so to speak, the outward completion of the quantum theory.” (Wikipedia, Solvay conference)

The phrase ‘the outward completion of the quantum theory’ seems strange when quantum mechanics has yielded so many benefits over the last 100 years but no theory of modern physics. Perhaps it was decided to retreat to the measurement form of physics as proposed by Francis Bacon, though there is evidence that the directive was shortened to delete theory. ‘So in the process of discovering a scientific law we are moving from the particular to the general, a process known as induction; whereas in applying the law once we have got it we move from the general to the particular, a process known as deduction’. (The Story of Philosophy, Bryan Magee, p76) Perhaps the decision to postpone a theory of modern physics was prudent considering the alchemical nature of Newtonian physics and the lack of a usable mathematical physics and it seems that the above bringing of gravity together with quantum mechanics is what is desired in a complete field [7] built on organisation, that produces the particles, seems to have produced a serviceable theory of modern physics, which possibly is this theory [8].

Neuroscience and Governance

It might seem strange to see a section on neuroscience and governance when this paper is complaining of the lack of relativity in physics, but physics, as a concept, must have a context and that context affects every discipline because everything is connected to the physical even if it is just the fractal nature. Firstly, the complexity of physics, because it was not built on the simplest creation equation, affects it’s truth because truth must start at the beginning [4] and secondly, physics lacks contextual relevance to other disciplines, in this case organisation [which is the basis of social science], and that is the reason for these diverse examples. Physics is about the physical and everything is based on the physical because the simple creation equation forms a fractal so that even the social sciences are based on the physical. The creation equation contains organisation explicitly whereas physics uses organisation implicitly and is therefore incomplete! So, as an example let’s consider the function of the brain as a concept [mind] and it’s context [society].

The mind is very simple, firstly because it is based on relativity [as concepts] and secondly, uses a context that is the creation equation [concept plus context is nothing], and for that reason cannot be understood by Newtonian physics [which lacks formal organisation]. The concept of a mind is used universally as a contextual vote for the myriad cells that comprise the body because the cells are small [weak cell wall] and have precise functions. Thus consciousness could be defined by the ability [in the simplest way] to measure the conditions afforded by the world outside of the cell with the aim to react to it. Notice that the mind [concept] has a context that aligns with relativity itself and that is the setting of future goals that represents the relativity of the past, present and future and is built mathematically into Life [9] and the organisation of survival of the fittest is built on the fear of pain.

The basic problem with our societies today is lack of goals to aim for in the future and this entails getting enough exercise, eating the correct food, deselecting those with genetic and personality problems etc. with the aim of improving the members of society. For example, I have read that 60% of men suffer from baldness, whereas females do not have this problem. Presumably this problem is caused by sexual selection and could easily be overcome by selection [10]. Adam Smith [economics] suggested that what was good for the individual is good for the country [a fractal based on the simple creation equation] and this forms half of a positive feedback if the governance is constructive. Say what you will of Adolf Hitler, but he tried to improve the German people [until he started a war] and we need to do the same by using voluntary selection.

Whilst the fractal nature of the voter and cells supports the state and body, the reverse is often fraught when the politicians and leaders benefit themselves at the expense of the voters and the mind is swayed by propaganda, drugs, miss-information, marketing and all the other ways that it can be distracted from it’s job of supporting the cells etc. As an example, physics was so relieved at finding a workable theory of motion that it has changed it into a religion that [apparently] cannot be changed in spite of the damage that is being done to society in general. This connection between the mind and society uses the creation equation [energy plus organisation is nothing] continually because the government and Churches use monumental buildings, uniforms, Bibles, anthems and hymns etc. that, when viewed or recognised are converted to emotional energy in the viewer that creates a real [emotional energy] sense of awe, belonging, oneness etc. ‘What is surely the most striking feature of the brain is that all its higher processes – thinking, seeing, hearing, and so on – happen right at the surface, in the 4mm-thick sheath of the cerebral cortex.’ (The Body, Bill Bryson, p 72)

The creation equation is the working of the mind because re-reading the memories [stored input from the senses] produces energy, the magnitudes of which can be compared to make a decision. Affordances are the working of the creation equation [what the organisation affords us] that the mind uses to correlate the information flowing from the senses. ‘The eyes send a hundred billion signals to the brain every second. But that’s only part of the story. When you “see” something, only 10 per cent of the information comes from the optic nerve. . . . the biggest part of seeing isn’t receiving visual images, it’s making sense of them. (p 64) Notice that making sense is based on how you view the physical and social world and the degree of intellect is determined by the correctness of the theory put forward by the senses and physicists are hampered by Newtonian physics and need this better interpretation. The brain is crucial to our success in the world and ‘what is surely most curious and extraordinary about our brain is how unnecessary it is. To survive on Earth, you don’t need to be able to write music or engage in philosophy – you really only need to be able to out-think a quadruped’. (p 60) ‘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.’ (p58) Thus we have the capacity and this theory’s software to greatly enhance our thinking without the laziness and risks of Artificial Intelligence.

Conclusion and Prediction

Newtonian physics is alchemical and simple yet complicated in being built on impulse or Galileo’s experiments and one has to marvel that it has brought technology so far but, and it is a big but, the lack of organisation [as shown in this derivation] has produced a world that needs Noah’s flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah to rid the world of overly entitled selfish people that the lack of a disciplined social engineering [from organisation] has produced. If there is another dark age, I think that it would be physics’ fault because physics has hidden the organisation that lies behind the physical and society and reminds me of the saying ‘”for want of a nail” that is a proverb, having numerous variations over several centuries, reminding that seemingly unimportant acts or omissions can have grave and unforeseen consequences through a domino effect.’ (Wikipedia, For want of a nail)

There is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics in the schoolroom and broader society but to turn it into a religion over 350 years is a sin against society for the want of organisation and ‘ Social Engineering: Using Social Science to Improve Ourselves and Society’ [10]. This is the crisis point where a stupid Homo sapiens becomes a model citizen [Homo completus] with population controls, selection and the organisation to stop wars that even today are occurring.

References:

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

2. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25, doi: 1 0.18689/ijcaa-s1-014

3. . 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
4. . 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-s3-0161. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020- 00265-x (darrylpenney.com)
5. 2. Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25, doi: 1 0.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
6. . 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
7. . 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
8. Penney D. The Organisational Universe. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2023; 5(1): 210- 216. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000140A
9. Penney D. Exploring Numberland. Int J Cosmol Astro Astrophys, 2022; S1(1): 13-18, doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-s1-013
10. 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

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

by Darryl Penney

Abstract: physics is supposed to help us understand the physical but Newtonian physics has been built on alchemy with measurement, guesses and generalisations using an inappropriate and incomplete mathematics that hides it’s incompleteness, so, mathematical physics must be based on and derived from the mathematics of concept-context to describe the start of the universe, cosmic inflation and why the the universe appears to be accelerating. Using bottom-up organisation brings a simple explanation to the times and places that physics admits that it cannot reach and together with the present incomplete physics makes a complete science by adding the absolutes of quantum gravity and quantum time to explain gravity and universal expansion. Everything can be derived from the concept of relativity including a complete gravity, a believable growth of the universe and a definition of quantum mechanics that makes a mockery of dark energy, dark matter, matter-antimatter asymmetry etc. and shows a needed clarity of thought in science.

Keywords: Big Bang; cosmic inflation; acceleration of the universe; relativity; mathematical physics; mathematics of concept-context; quantum mechanics

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

Everything must be relative to something else if we are to have a universe created from nothing, which simplifies the creation that firstly, introduces two mathematics, the first being the mathematics of the similar [what we call mathematics] and the mathematics of the dissimilar or orthogonal [mathematics of concept-context] which, being dissimilar can be used in building and is the basis of literature [concept plus context is nothing] which is the general statement of building stories, buildings, universes etc. and specific for our universe is energy plus organisation is nothing. Also, it will be shown that our universe must expand continually and thus we require two more simple dimensions time and distance.

This paper upgrades a previous paper [Why Solving Cosmic Inflation Could Change Your Mind, [1]] and better explains the cross-linking of the entities that comprise our universe with the possibility of convincing physics that our society needs the explicit organisation [that is currently implicit in Newtonian physics] which it lacks that is firstly, blocking a theory of modern physics [and has done so for the last 100 years] and secondly, obscuring the formal organisation that creates social engineering that allows us to place social science [and the future of society] on the scientific basis of a competent social science. This is important in moving Homo sapiens to a new level [Homo completus] that is better able to manage this world and crucial to this endeavour is to increase the mental powers of Homo sapiens by using the creation equation [concept plus context is nothing] that actually forms the basis of neuroscience and thinking [2, 3]

The paper Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020-00265-x has been redacted [and can be found on (darrylpenney.com)] because someone objected to it for the very same reasons that were stated in the first sentence [of the paper] and this shows sciences’ animosity to change. The paper is important because it published the basis of quantum mechanics in neuroscience as an out-growth of organisation as will be shown below [and the disclaimer]. Physics has created a religious-like belief and a resistance to change in what is called Newtonian physics based on a misrepresentation of Francis Bacon’s edit to measure.

Setting the Stage

Relativity requires considering the [evolved] design of our universe as absolutes, firstly, the speed of light [concept] around which everything [length, mass and time according to Einstein] changes to maintain the constant speed of light to any observer [as found by the Michelson-Morley experiment]. This is important because the factors used in the working are strictly determined by their speed [according to this theory, [4]].

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]

The derivation of this context, is based on the time taken to effect the organisational change of hundreds of types of unstable particles and this will be crucial to the derivation of the acceleration of the universe, below. Secondly, the context of the gravitation that emerges from the various factors listed in [5, 6] which is the parabolic gravity that originated in a previous fractal, the overall acceleration below, the local [together equal to zero] gravity of Newton and Einstein and acceleration-de-acceleration of bodies [together equal to zero] . Our universe appears to have evolved from a general form [based on concept plus context is nothing] from whence non-local [parabolic] gravity originated and applies to our universe that is derived from energy plus organisation is nothing.

If everything in the universe is relative to everything else the universe could be considered to be an organisation [by definition of an organisation], whereas history and the present day physics [and society in general] considers the earth and universe to be ‘real’ including the untold billions of stars etc. This can be reconciled by considering reality to be a space with the ends being orthogonal and an example is the wave-particle duality. The wave and particle are currently considered to be two forms of energy [by physics] whereas this theory considers them to be orthogonal [independent] and the way that the physical keeps them independent is to assign speed limits to them. This led to the context [above] that specified the particle by speed. If the time to reassemble themselves is ignored physics has to have [as it does] hundreds of particles in its array of subatomic particles instead of the simplification above.

Physics seems to prefer considering the complicated over the simple and that is possibly why it has come to such grief, for example, as above, physics considers that waves and particles are variants of energy and cannot see the organisation that must be behind the different roles for them to have to play the different parts that this theory unravels. The organisation needs to be able to distinguish wave and particle, which it does with speed, but physics determines which by the type of experiment [that it uses]. That is the importance of the two-slit experiment, that the universe [as an organisation] sees the experiment changing from measuring waves to particles [through the decreasing frequency of particles] and swaps to the orthogonality at the other end of the reality [of the wave-particle].

The universe was initially considered to be slowing it’s expansion from the big Bang but now it appears to be expanding [from experimental observation] and to explain this [with top-down mystification] dark energy has been suggested and [physicists presumably agreed among themselves] that is the cause of the expansion [pushing everything apart]. The purpose of this paper is to suggest a simple means of expansion that is in addition and in line with the logical previous suggestion [1,2] that it was a logical necessity [restriction] and that restriction can now be removed.

The Double-slit Experiment

‘The double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics. Richard Feynman called it “a phenomenon which is impossible […] to explain in any classical way, and which has in it the heart of quantum mechanics. In reality, it contains the only mystery [of quantum mechanics]. . . A simple do-it-at-home illustration of the quantum eraser phenomenon was given in an article in Scientific American. If one sets polarizers before each slit with their axes orthogonal to each other, the interference pattern will be eliminated. The polarizers can be considered as introducing which-path information to each beam. Introducing a third polarizer in front of the detector with an axis of 45° relative to the other polarizers “erases” this information, allowing the interference pattern to reappear. This can also be accounted for by considering the light to be a classical wave, and also when using circular polarizers and single photons. Implementations of the polarizers using entangled photon pairs have no classical explanation.’ (Wikipedia, Double-slit experiment)

‘The wave-particle duality relation, also called the Englert–Greenberger–Yasin duality relation, or the Englert–Greenberger relation, relates the visibility, V

of interference fringes with the definiteness, or distinguishability,D

of the photons’ paths in quantum optics. Although it is treated as a single relation, it actually involves two separate relations, which mathematically look very similar. The predictability P

which expresses the degree of probability with which path of the particle can be correctly guessed, and the distinguishability D

which is the degree to which one can experimentally acquire information about the path of the particle, are measures of the particle information, while the visibility of the fringes V

is a measure of the wave information. The relations shows that they are inversely related, as one goes up, the other goes down. Fringes are visible over a wide range of distinguishability.’ (Wikipedia, wave-particle duality relation) ‘Other atomic-scale entities, such as electrons, are found to exhibit the same behavior when fired towards a double slit. Additionally, the detection of individual discrete impacts is observed to be inherently probabilistic, which is inexplicable using classical mechanics. The experiment can be done with entities much larger than electrons and photons, although it becomes more difficult as size increases. The largest entities for which the double-slit experiment has been performed were molecules that each comprised 2000 atoms (whose total mass was 25,000 atomic mass units).’ (Wikipedia, Double-slit experiment)

The Mathematics of Apples and Oranges

The universe is changing continually through it’s relativity and as an organisation every part of the universe must be entangled [with every other part] and in our universe the entanglement is gravity in it’s various forms and a simple example is the law of universal gravitation [which is a guess on physic’s part] that is the mathematical multiplication of the quantum gravities, below. Notice that I say ‘ mathematical multiplication’ because in our simple fractal [from a simple creation equation] universe we must expect multiple uses. Mathematics is based on similarity and we use multiplication and division to handle lot-quantities whereas they are [physically] concerned with enabling relativity and removing relativity. Notice that I have introduced the mathematics of concept-context [5] for the handling of orthogonality as used in building and neuroscience [2, 3] and in particular, I call this an entanglement, whereas physicists acknowledge the [quantum] entanglement of new pairs.

It is often said that you can’t compare apples and oranges but you can using relativity and indeed, physics must use a mathematics that embraces concept and context if it not to risk being incomplete, which appears to have happened. So, we can create a relativity of two mathematics, firstly, using the number of each and the sameness of each to add [or otherwise] using the current mathematics, secondly, separate the differences [that are orthogonal: independent and entangled] and for each difference use the mathematics of concept-context to add to the sameness. All that we have done is create a reality with sameness at one end and difference at the other for each difference and that is adding apples and oranges. In other words, the idea of a reality bounded by two orthogonalities [in mathematical physics] is the same as we see in nature [our reality] and this is a crucial point of similarity in a system that describes nature. It is not found in physics, which uses mathematics that is based on equality.

Compare this with local gravity, where we add the attraction of the sun and planet [Newton] with the [acceleration of the] curved path [Einstein] of the planet and the total is correct as found by Eddington and the total [local] gravity is the sum of the two gravities that are conceptual [Newton] and the contextual [Einstein] and the important part is that they are equal and opposite and the total effect is zero just as the effect of an acceleration is balanced by the deceleration [Newton’s law of motion]. Notice that the only persistent effect [in our fractal is the parabolic gravity that is part of the previous fractal [5, 6]]. Just as the creation equation creates a universe from nothing, so, gravity is created in the same way. Newton’s law of motion [that action and reaction are equal and opposite] means that the effect of internal accelerations are conserved universe-wide and this simplifies the accounting of gravity. Thus the parabolic gravity over the whole universe, is part of the fabric of the universe, has immediate effect [infinite speed] and the problem arises because physics is incomplete, physicists are floundering and coming up with dark energy, dark matter etc.

Given that the dimensions of energy and organisation are augmented by time and distance in an accelerating space [so that the creation equation continues to exist] the universe, that we see, can be pictured as having the relativity removed by mathematical division giving: (energy plus organisation)/distance, (energy plus organisation)/time and distance/time [2]. The first is quantum gravity that is a context because distance is a context and is covered in [5, 6], the last is the speed of light and is an absolute and the one and only speed [in a vacuum] of a wave and presumably the maximum speed of organisation [and information] [4]. The middle term has been considered before [1] but it can now be extended to such an extent that it needs this paper because time is a concept and thus involves little ‘wriggle-room’ and possibly needs a new factor which as a context of time.

The Philosophy of Everything

I believe that philosophy is a science of reasoning [14] that is based on the absolutes of truth [5, 6] that must start at the beginning and the beginning of parabolic gravity came from another fractal [that could be a mother-fractal that has hived us off as a possibility]. The easy way out is to say that a God created us for His/Her amusement and this view has been in writing for thousands of years [Bible] but an anomaly keeps cropping-up with a concept called perpetual-motion machines that seem to have a fascination for some people and seem to need an external source of power to keep them going. The latest offering in the internet being a set of springs and a rotating flywheel. The same question is asked about our universe and the answer is that our universe is a possibility only if there is a mother universe pumping energy in.

We have found that Newton/Einstein gravity is equal and opposite [in the mathematics of concept-context], likewise ‘action and reaction is equal and opposite’ [Newton], the acceleration of the universe is minimal [below], everything comes from nothing except a feed-in that [like the perpetual motion machine] pumps in enough gravity [a logic] to create the impetus [or reason to form circular motion through the parabolic gravity [logic]] of atoms, planets, solar systems, galaxies and even the universe. This is a logical reason for the universe being created to house a population that has a reality of competent independent worthwhile citizens versus the orthogonality of a God that knows everything that you do and think and even requires your hopes and dreams [prayers]. What the Church has done the public servants are now doing [exercising the power of total control and no responsibility [of Kings etc.]] and increasing taxation to enforce more laws, more public servants and more restrictions whereas social science needs social engineering that requires the organisation that physics rejects to adequately manage a complex world.

Mathematical-physics

The remaining factor (energy plus organisation)/time is an absolute that we can use to view the functioning of the universe providing that we realise that it is not an equation [as we currently know it] but a member of the mathematics of concept-context [which currently has no formal rules] so I must take some liberties with the discussion. In some past papers I was interested in the subject of mathematical-physics as applied to physics and found that physics had no interest in discussing the appropriateness of using mathematics in physics. The reason is now clear that physicists are so misunderstanding of both physics and mathematics that they have made the alchemistic hodge-podge that is called Newtonian physics into a ‘truth’ that is Biblical in form and function [a complete universe of their own].

The structure of both mathematics and physics becomes clear because we can now compare them with the mathematics of concept-context as an absolute. This statement shows the structure of science in general is that a science only exists if it contains absolutes and firstly shows the

in-adequateness of physics on relying on measurement alone and secondly, the incompleteness of mathematics in ignoring orthogonality and thirdly, we can now define mathematical-physics as a combination of mathematics and the physics of apples and oranges. Newton’s law of universal gravitation has never been derived [that I know of and was acknowledged as an inspired guess by Newton], so from above the relativity [multiplication] of two masses [sameness] is the product of their quantum gravities [(energy plus organisation)/separation] and as energy and organisation are completely independent we must multiply the relevant parts [mass is energy plus organisation]:

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

because mass is the sum of energy and organisation where energy and organisation are equal and opposite and while organisation might seem strange to have a gravity it is necessary as the universe can be viewed as an organisation [compared with ‘real’] in it’s reality. This is the correct answer according to Eddington’s experiment and is effectively the combination of Newton’s attraction and Einstein’s curved path [not curved space-time] locally.

The Reality of Mathematical Physics

Looking at Pythagoras’ theorem, as a truth and being complete [6], the relativity relationship between two points [and separation] is, as above, the mathematical multiplication is pointA/separation times pointB/separation which is similar to Newton’s law of gravitation and adding a third point C, Pythagoras’ theorem becomes the relativity of itself [point C (squared)] is equal to the sum of the [orthogonal] relativities squared [6]. We have a dilemma when I say that mass = energy plus organisation, whereas physics declares mass to be a fundamental property and Einstein found the E=mc (squared). The dilemma is resolved if we say that physics is wrong, Einstein is correct and that I am correct that an acceleration is creating mass from the building blocks of energy and organisation [4, 5] and that the acceleration effect is the subject of this paper below. Clearly Einstein’s equation is correct [by experiment] but when compared to mass = energy plus organisation the speed of light (squared) appears for dimensions and relativity.

I find that the curating of Newtonian physics as a truth [when it is not, being based on measurement and generalisation] is disconcerting that someone outside of physics has to fix this omission so that the missing part [organisation] can be used in the social sciences. It appears that mathematics has also neglected relativity and is based on counting the sameness of things [numbers] whilst ignoring the difference of [of apples and oranges]. This leads to a reality of mathematical physics being composed [the sum] of mathematics [sameness at one end of reality] and a mathematics at the other end [differences] and is another example of relativity. Mathematics, I believe, was curated to be a product of the mind only. If there is a relativity [in the reality], there must be entanglement, so let’s consider a possible candidate in Euler’s equation that has mathematical beauty.

‘Euler’s identity is often cited as an example of deep mathematical beauty. Three of the basic arithmetic operations occur exactly once each: addition, multiplication, and exponentiation. The identity also links five fundamental mathematical constants:

• The number 0, the additive identity
• The number 1, the multiplicative identity
• The number pi (pi = 3.14159…), the fundamental circle constant
• The number e (e = 2.71828…), also known as Euler’s number, which occurs widely in mathematical analysis
• The number i, the imaginary unit

i2=?1

• The equation is often given in the form of an expression set equal to zero, which is common practice in several areas of mathematics.
• Stanford University mathematics professor Keith Devlin has said, “like a Shakespearean sonnet that captures the very essence of love, or a painting that brings out the beauty of the human form that is far more than just skin deep, Euler’s equation reaches down into the very depths of existence”.’ (Wikipedia, Euler’s identity, mathematical beauty)

Our universe can be considered to be a reality with an organisation on one side and the [orthogonal] ‘real’ universe and world on the other [the ‘real’ world as conceived by the mind of Homo sapiens] the elements [of that consideration] are exact [as would be expected]. Consider the ‘attempt to resolve Zeno’s paradox by insisting that the sum of this infinite series 1/2+1/4+1/8+… is equal to 1.’ (The Maths Book, Clifford A. Pickover, p 46) ‘The number e … is the limit value of the expression (1+1/n) raised to the nth power, when n increases indefinitely.’ (p 166) ‘The arctan function in trigonometry can be expressed by arctan(x)=x-x/3+x/5-x/7+…. Using the arctan series, the series for pi/4 is obtained by setting x=1.’ (p 110)

‘So, Euler’s equation is an exact relationship, in the limit, of a number of limits and that is presumably why it surfaces in traditional mathematics.

So, if we replace 1 with e to the power 0, we get a clearer picture:

(e to the power (i times pi) + e to the power 0) = 0

and . . . . it can be seen that there is an orthogonality between the powers of e . . . . Thus, this could represent a sphere [through pi], the complex sphere [being the inverse of the sphere, relativity] centred at 0 and/or the surface of a sphere in Euclidean space. . . . . there is only one mathematics that we have found from bottom-up, and that is the mathematics of concept/context of which traditional mathematics is a special case. Thus, the equation is not some artefact of some advanced civilisation, but, I believe, shows the inadequacy of the recognition of orthogonality in traditional mathematical physics.’ [13] Thus Euler’s equation could be considered to reside at either end of the reality that describes the universe as an organisation and/or a ‘real’ universe depending on the measurer and that either/or is the effect of relativity that lies behind so-called quantum mechanics.

The Measurer’s Mind

The long-standing enigma posed by the Michelson-Morley experiment that the speed of light is constant to any measurer, no matter what their motion replaced the aether theory with Einstein’s special theory. [‘The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the propagation of light and gravity.’ (Wikipedia, Aether)] This meant that the physical was in communication with every person continually and the concept of a ‘real’ universe was enigmatic and an explanation had to wait for this theory that the universe could be an organisation where an organisation is a communication device and necessary to understand how the universe communicates with the mind.

This seems to be an appropriate place to say that I have never seen a definition of ‘quantum mechanics’ and the closest is possibly the quotation above, that ‘the double-slit experiment (and its variations) has become a classic for its clarity in expressing the central puzzles of quantum mechanics’. This so-called ‘clarity’ is not clear at all and a definition could be that quantum mechanics is the affordance offered by the organisational universe to the question in the observers’ mind [or experiment] as to questioning the surrounding organisation and that affordance must be one of two appropriate orthogonals [the relativity] such as wave or particle. Note that this definition is appropriate within this theory because firstly, it is based on a creation equation for the universe [2], secondly, the creation equation is a reality between wave [energy] and particle [organisation], thirdly, wave and particle are orthogonal and completely separate [but necessarily entangled within the reality], fourth, the mind of the measurer [or experiment] must be informed by an affordance that is an emotional energy [commensurate with the organisation measured and an expression of the creation equation], fifth, the question must align with the organisation to activate an answer, the magnitude of which is the appropriateness of the enquiry, and six, the universe is organisational because a ‘real’ universe can’t answer questions.

Notice that this definition is very similar to that used by the mind because the mind uses the same principle of the creation equation. The mind uses the affordance offered by the organisational universe [or re-reading stored input] to the question in the observers’ mind [as to the organisation] and the measure of that affordance is the mathematical value of the energy [affordance] commensurate to the applicability of the organisation to the question used to make the decision of which is the better of two concepts [3]. To simplify this context of thinking, ‘when we communicate we have to have a question in mind [requirement of an affordance, [2]] to get an answer, for example, in a shop we ask ‘Do you sell soap?’ and the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’ but the demeanour is bright if there are many varieties and hesitant if they have little soap [and this translates into emotional energy]. This relativity is the basis of the mind, where on asking a question of the organisation of the environment the answer [as an emotional energy] is commensurate to the suitability of the organisation to the question.’ [14]

Quantum Time

Quantum time [(energy plus organisation)/time] is an absolute, as above, where energy plus organisation is nothing [creation equation] and as an aid to appreciating the properties of this simple statement consider the logic of the half-truth [7] which simply states that if something is logically possible it may be used:

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 particle that produces a form of gravity and must have a corresponding de-accelerating particle [Newton’s law], 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 to waves if it occurs too fast to be accountable. Notice that in this section we will change the possibility of ‘alternating true-false’ [of the wave-particle in physics] to the two orthogonalities being held apart. The importance of the orthogonalities is that they create another dimension that allows matter to exist in the form mass is energy plus organisation where we know that energy plus organisation is nothing [creation equation]. Thus, all the matter in the universe is nothing, which simplifies the concept of the billions of suns and galaxies that physics finds so interesting. It can then be stated that the formation [of the stars] contains the information of our being here to ask the question of ‘What are the stars doing?’. Thus, the universe in it’s [apparent] vastness is nothing but information and possibilities, and that thought is truly shocking to those that think that the universe is ‘real’, as has been considered throughout history.

When energy [concept] and organisation [context] separate at time zero, from above, the reorganisation of the organisation of the particle take time [the basis of simplifying the subatomic-particles, [4]] and as the absolute is a constant, at near time zero, for the equation to balance a chain-reaction in the [comparatively] slowly forming (energy plus organisation) must occur. In other words, the equation is time sensitive and to maintain the balance a huge number of matter particles [matter is energy plus organisation] must appear [near time zero] and this could align with the central core of the Big Bang Theory [that a vast amount of energy was created [and energy is matter given that physics ignores organisation]]. Notice also that as time always increases the amount of matter (energy plus organisation) must increase and this is [or could be considered to be] an acceleration of the space that is the universe that keeps the creation equation in existence. Notice that this concept of acceleration is internal [versus the universe’s space accelerating [1]], simple, small and constant.

The accelerating universe allows all of the new particles to continue to exist and notice that this version of the Big Bang produces firstly, particles [not just energy] and secondly, these particles are similar [to each other] and not some condensation of energy that would produce the particles and anti-particles as suggested by physics [baryon asymmetry]. Thirdly, the equation of the quantum time absolute requires the creation of additional matter as time passes and that simple acceleration ensures that the creation equation continues to exist. This is truly a satisfying simplification.

The Big Bang Theory According to Wikipedia

The above needs to be compared to the standard theory [as a relativity] for comparison and the following quotations from Wikipedia fits nicely with the above. ‘Existing theories of physics cannot tell us about the moment of the Big Bang. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using only general relativity yields a gravitational singularity with infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past but the meaning of this extrapolation in the context of the Big Bang is unclear.’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) This clearly states the basic problem underlying physics that measurement and implicit [local] organisation is incomplete and needs an overall [non-local] theory to understand physics completely. Hopefully this paper might supply a framework to theoretical modern physics.

‘The Big Bang is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature. Various cosmological models based on the Big Bang concept explain a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, and large-scale structure. The uniformity of the universe, known as the horizon and flatness problems, is explained through cosmic inflation: a phase of accelerated expansion during the earliest stages. A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted.’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) Notice that this theory combines the Big Bang and Steady State theories for infinite growth.

‘Extrapolating this cosmic expansion backward in time using the known laws of physics, the models describe a extraordinarily hot and dense primordial universe. Physics lacks a widely accepted theory [that] can model the earliest conditions of the Big Bang.[ As the universe expanded, it cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms.] These primordial elements—mostly hydrogen, with some helium and lithium then coalesced under the force of gravity aided by dark matter, forming early stars and galaxies. Measurements of the redshifts of supernovae indicate that the the expansion of the universe is accelerating, an observation attributed to a concept called dark energy.’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) Notice from above that the postulation of dark energy [acceleration] and dark matter [parabolic gravity] are not necessary.

‘There remain aspects of the observed universe that are not yet adequately explained by the Big Bang models. These include the unequal abundances of matter and antimatter known as baryon asymmetry, the detailed nature of dark matter surrounding galaxies, and the origin of the dark energy. In the current universe, luminous matter, the stars, planets, and so on makes up less than 5% of the density. Dark matter accounts for 27% and dark energy the remaining 68%. At some point, an unknown reaction called baryogenesis violated the conservation of baryon number, leading to a very small excess of quarks and leptons over antiquarks and antileptons—of the order of one part in 30 million. This resulted in the predominance of matter over antimatter in the present universe.’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) Again not needed as it is simpler to have one type of organisation.

‘After about 10?11 seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle accelerators. At about 10?6 seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons. The small excess of quarks over antiquarks led to a small excess of baryons over antibaryons. The temperature was no longer high enough to create either new proton–antiproton or neutron–antineutron pairs. A mass annihilation immediately followed, leaving just one in 108 of the original matter particles and none of their antiparticles. A similar process happened at about 1 second for electrons and positrons. After these annihilations, the remaining protons, neutrons and electrons were no longer moving relativistically and the energy density of the universe was dominated by photons (with a minor contribution from neutrinos).’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) Notice that this theory describes quarks as organisational [can’t be separated] and gluons are not needed.

‘The four possible types of matter are known as cold dark matter (CDM), warm dark matter, hot dark matter, and baryonic matter. The best measurements available, from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), show that the data is well-fit by a Lamda-CDM model in which dark matter is assumed to be cold. This CDM is estimated to make up about 23% of the matter/energy of the universe, while baryonic matter makes up about 4.6%. Dark energy in its simplest formulation is modeled by a cosmological constant term in Einstein field equations of general relativity, but its composition and mechanism are unknown. More generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the Standard Model of particle physics continue to be investigated both through observation and theory. All of this cosmic evolution after the inflationary epoch can be rigorously described and modeled by the lambda-CDM model of cosmology, which uses the independent frameworks of quantum mechanics and general relativity. There are no easily testable models that would describe the situation prior to approximately 10?15 seconds. Understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics.’ (Wikipedia, Big Bang) Notice that dark matter is not needed in this theory nor a cosmological constant term.

What a lovely story of the creation built on top-down guesses, dark energy, dark matter and no explanation of why it happened! This theory merely says that it is possible, that it could be produced from nothing and has to have a Big Bang start [of mass that is composed of energy and organisation] and the Steady State maintenance [of the acceleration] provided that energy and organisation are orthogonal to form the building blocks and kept apart by acceleration. Notice that the pre-universe provides parabolic gravity [5] to start the circular motion and prevent contact of the positive and negative particles. This logic of circular motion [parabolic gravity] is the only reason that atoms form and so create Life.

Conclusion and Prediction

Considering that ‘understanding this earliest of eras in the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics’ together with dark matter, dark energy, baryon asymmetry etc. along with the inability to derive a theoretical modern physics etc. in the last 100 years shows that physics is in deep trouble and because organisation is not explicit, physics is causing havoc in society and jeopardising the future of mankind. These are strong words, but unfortunately true and Homo sapiens needs to increase it’s intellect [3], introduce social engineering [9, 10, 11], understand itself [8] and embrace an organisational universe [12] and include it into physics along with using the mathematics of concept-context and building mathematical physics as above.

It is easy to see why physics accepts Newtonian physics as an alchemical simple solution with mathematic measurement, but surely the time has come to accept the offer of formal organisation [the creation equation], relativity, bottom-up organisation and a newly formatted mathematical physics that eliminates the enigmas and propagandist musings [8] associated with cosmology. Surely it is time to stop wasting resources with evermore intricate and expensive experiments seeking final understanding that can be done theoretically and to stop titillating the media with top-down fantastical musings.

References:

1. 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

2. Can Affordances Save Civilisation?, Mind & Society,20(1), 107-110. doi:10.1007/s11299-020- 00265-x (darrylpenney.com)
3. . Penney D. A Penny for your Thoughts. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys, 2022; S1(1):19-25, doi: 1 0.18689/ijcaa-s1-014
4. , 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
5. . 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
6. . 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
7. . The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (darrylpenney.com)
8. . 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
9. . 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
10. . 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
11. . 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
12. . Penney D. The Organisational Universe. Int J Cosmol Astron Astrophys. 2023; 5(1): 210- 216. doi: 10.18689/ijcaa-1000140
13. . The Principle of Relativity, The Creation and Euler’s Equation Explained.(darrylpenney.com)

14. A New Complete Bottom-up Scientific Language With Verifiable Answers To Build Truth And Sense Into Everyone’s Communication (unpublished]

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

The Standard Particle Physics Model Becomes The Theory Of Everything

Abstract: this paper accesses a new way of thinking by adding relativity and bottom-up organisation to the top-down thinking of Homo sapiens in regard to the problems of the standard model of particle physics to make it more understandable. This new way of thinking changes ‘why we think that the neutrinos act in such a bizarre fashion’ into an appreciation of the elegance of the organisation behind the universe that Newtonian physics has always feared, but with the extensions proposed by this model, a complete modern physics emerges that could be called The Theory Of Everything. Theoretical modern physics was ‘shut-down’ a hundred years ago, I believe, because quantum mechanics became too bizarre on top of the ‘inspired guesses’ upon which much of physics has been built and this theory appears to have no unexplained enigmas and provides explanations for the ‘inspired guesses’ that physics has been using for hundreds of years that had been un-derivable using physic’s limited understanding. So, here is the opportunity to use the power of relativity and bottom-up organisation to rebuild science using absolutes for comparison instead of measurement.

Keywords: theory of everything; relativity; particle physics; neutrinos; standard model; creation equation; orthogonality.

‘If we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists’ (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History Of Time, p 209)

Preamble

Issac Newton was an alchemist [which lacks the organisation of chemistry] that is the mixing of ingredients together to attempt to obtain a desired result and Newton [possibly] took Galileo’s experimental results [F=mg] and generalised them to Newton’s laws of motion [F=ma] where F is force [governed by intention], m is mass [a combination of energy and organisation], a is a general acceleration and g is the local acceleration due to gravity. It works, but no one understands why it works! Physics and our scientific society is using a guess and the lack of bottom-up physical organisation makes the position of Homo sapiens suspect and is the reason why the world is in danger of over-population, global warming etc. Homo sapiens used technology to leave the organisation of survival of the fittest with the vague notion of improving things without understanding how the physical works and an example is given here of the hundred plus sub-atomic particles that have been found and classified, but not understood..

Preface

A new theory of relativity and bottom-up organisation has been published [1] and particle physics, cosmology, quantum mechanics etc. are hive-offs from a physics that, I believe has been hibernating for the last hundred years when Newtonian physics could not understand modern physics and left physicists floundering and retreating into measurement. Unfortunately, this left the newer disciplines on shaky ground and to bring sense to modern physics is to challenge physics, which is difficult to do because physics is a ‘club’ built on agreement, not the physical, and that process is called ‘peer review’. In effect, physicists vote by acclamation, on what is admissible, and not on what is physical because physics does not recognise relativity. For example, Einstein’s special theory of relativity was based on the Michelson-Morley experiment that the speed of light was constant to observers, irrespective of the observer’s motion and concentrates on the effect to the measurers and not on the relativity which is the difference between the speed of a particle and light which we shall see defines a particle and light.

It will be shown that relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is its form and that needs a 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 of yourself. 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.

That physics dislikes organisation and ignores it creates a very serious problem that physics does not seen to realise and the result has been that modern physics theory has been asleep for a hundred years and Newtonian physics, gravitation etc. are based on ‘inspired guesses’.

Galileo’s law of motion was possibly generalised by Newton and the reason that it does not work properly [at extremes] is because it is different [more complicated] to the absolute that this model uses, which is, energy plus organisation is nothing [1]. This becomes energy/organisation=i(squared), where ‘i’ is the square root of (-1) compared to F/ma=1 and this is the point where Newtonian physics departs from the physical and disregards relativity. The similarity is obvious, but the physical requires the use of energy [not force] because force requires a determination of ‘how much’ and depends on the measurer, ‘ma’ is an organisation and ‘i squared’, I believe, signifies a relativity that must always exist [both states (of ‘i’) are ‘imaginary’ without measuring relativity].

Restrictions and Logic

The universe is a fractal generated by the [general] creation equation [concept plus context is nothing] through concepts and contexts [1] and a fractal has special properties in being generated by a simple equation that implies simplicity and similarity. Firstly, the universe’s space must be accelerating so that the elements of the creation equation [energy and organisation] never logically meet and the ratio of the dimensions must be considered to be absolutes to remove relativity [1]. Secondly, the speed of light is an absolute and constant to any measurer and so the acceleration [of the universe] is a hyperbola that produces initial cosmic inflation [2] and continual [latterly very small] acceleration. Thirdly, quantum gravity is similarly a hyperbola and extends from the gravity of the stars to the organisation of the atom [1, 3]. Notice that hyperbolae are necessary because reality must have continuity [otherwise magic or chaos can happen] and be unbounded [through asymptotes] because the universe is an organisation [6, 14].

Quantum mechanics remains an enigma [physics says use, but don’t try to understand] and cannot be understood top-down because it derives from the bottom-up creation equation along with relativity [1]. Life gains consciousness by measuring [a requirement of affordances] and the creation equation forms the basis of thought in the brain [5] to produce the mind. According to this model, the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is trying to measure an orthogonality [independent with entanglement] exactly, which would destroy the logic [independence] of orthogonality that has built the universe.

Inertia

The concept of inertia has been around for a long time [since the ancient Greeks] and according to Wikipedia little progress has been made in resolving what it is, and yet it forms the cornerstone of Homo sapiens’ concept of force that requires an intention to change the situation. Many people have postulated that our laws of physics work with constant speeds [Galileo, Einstein etc.] and state the law of conservation of energy [local, physics] versus the accelerating universe [required for existence] where the energy is increasing [as is the organisation in a bigger universe]. Thus, planetary motion [circular] is simple and the attraction of gravity must equal and exactly overcome the inertia of the motion to create a stable planetary situation and this radius is a natural restriction [that the attraction of gravity and inertia of matter be the same]. The 3 body-problem contains organisation [as strange attractors] and acceleration generates ‘gravity’ that needs to be incorporated into the relativity of the surroundings.

‘Newton’s original ideas of “innate resistive force” were ultimately problematic for a variety of reasons, and thus most physicists no longer think in these terms. As no alternate mechanism has been readily accepted, and it is now generally accepted that there may not be one that we can know, the term “inertia” has come to mean simply the phenomenon itself, rather than any inherent mechanism.’ (Wikipedia, Inertia) Thus, we see physics using top-down thinking [with it’s infinite possibilities of being wrong] that treats inertia as a concept, whereas this theory includes a context [with the surroundings] and the essence of that context is the all-pervading entanglement of the organisation and the obvious answer is [a part of] gravity. This entanglement is that required to define an organisation, but there is another entanglement that is required by relativity, for example, hot and cold are relative, but take one away and the other becomes meaningless.

With bottom-up organisation we can be assured that there is only one answer, and that expands our mental software capability hugely [and our thinking [5]]. So, the entanglement of the creation equation is telling us that the universe is an organisation because every point in an organisation must be in communication with every other part [by definition]. Hence we have to expand the logic of yes/no to a higher level [logic of the half-truth [15]] and consider the particle [photon, proton etc.] to be composed of energy and organisation together in the one particle. If this is the case, what causes the different particles to be different and the answer must be their speed?

So, what is inertia? It appears that within an organisation a local situation can be dealt with locally, but something that involves the total organisation must be considered [as an entity] by the board. We use the same word [inertia] for businesses and institutions that have an increased inertia as the size of the organisation increases and as our universe is a simple fractal [from a simple creation equation] we should expect a similar outcome. Finally, a question has arisen in history about the assumed equality of gravitational inertia and mass inertia and it can be seen from this that they are one and the same.

Organisation of the Universe

Consider the quotation from Wikipedia: ‘although the Standard Model is believed to be theoretically self-consistent and has demonstrated some success in providing experimental predictions, it leaves some physical phenomena unexplained and so falls short of being a complete theory of fundamental interactions. For example, it does not fully explain why there is more matter than anti-matter, incorporate the full theory of gravitation as described by general relativity, or account for the universe’s accelerating expansion as possibly described by dark energy. The model does not contain any viable dark matter particle that possesses all of the required properties deduced from observational cosmology. It also does not incorporate neutrino oscillations and their non-zero masses.’

The question of ‘Why there is more matter than antimatter?’ is peculiar to the Big Bang theory of creation and comes from the postulation that pure energy erupted and coalesced into all manner of matter and antimatter, but this theory uses the creation equation that produces a fractal with only one type of organisation [as we find] and that is the simplest situation [Occam’s razor or principle of least action] and there is no reason to consider anti-matter unless we create both at the same time.

Newton considered the ‘steady state’ planetary motion and the simple attraction while Einstein added ‘curved’ space as two aspects of gravity that gave the correct magnitude according to Eddington’s measurements [twice the attraction] and to obtain this result he must have used an ‘inspired guess’. The postulated ‘curved’ space is top-down thinking because the dimensions used in this theory are energy, organisation, time and distance which form two relativities [concept-context] where energy and time are concepts and organisation and distance are context and are simple because distance divided by time is a constant [for all light (energy and organisation)]. Thus space-time might appear to have significance but it is the division that removes the relativity.

Gravity is the effect of three factors, firstly a concept which is the acceleration as can be seen in elevators, expanding universe, orbits and rotation of the planet and secondly, the context is the relativity [attraction] of two bodies as the [mathematical] product of quantum gravity [the division of the sum of energy plus organisation by the separation [1]] which produces the derivation of Newton’s law of gravitation [‘an inspired guess’ by Newton] that is derived for the first time in [1] and yet we have been using it for hundreds of years! Note that quantum gravity is [effectively] zero in the stars but organisational as the separation decreases [possibly quarks]. Thirdly, as the restriction that defines an organisation (universe)]. Note the multiplication [relativity] and division [excluding relativity] are available for use in mathematics but are an integral part of the physical.

‘The universe’s accelerating expansion as possibly described by dark energy’ is readily explained by the logical restriction [not dark energy] of the continual existence of the creation equation [1], above and consequently there is no need for a ‘dark matter particle’. Remember that the universe is an organisation [context] and not ‘real’ [concept]

The Special Case of the Neutrino

We need to consider that the speed of light is an absolute [constant to a measurer, [1]] and that means that a particle has a speed that is always less than the speed of light and this is the relativity between energy and particles to keep them apart at all times and to recognise them organisationally because they are composed of the same things physically [energy and organisation], but have different roles to play in the overall organisation of the universe [see Einstein’s special relativity]. The ratios of the dimensions create the form of the universe [1], thus, the universe can account for particles and energy as concepts, even though they are basically the same [composed of energy and organisation] but what about the ‘leftover bits’ that are called neutrinos? Logically, neutrons are a means to an end and the neutron is useful in the nucleus but must decay to the more useful protons and neutrons outside of the nucleus. Neutrinos were discovered as the need to ‘hide’ and ‘dispose of’, much like modern garbage, the ‘bits’ that were not necessary to the functioning of everything and this was effectively done by them being nonreactive, but they must be taken into account [for gravity]. What logical speed could they have to differentiate them from organisation [classic particle] and energy [classic photon]? This is important because there is (apparently) no other way to differentiate the third type of particle because the continuum is apparently complete from zero to the speed of light.

In other words, and making it as simple as possible, physicists use their mind-brain to differentiate between photons and particles because they call them energy and particles, but they are the same thing because that is the wave-particle duality and the difference is their speed. Everything is composed of energy and organisation as an orthogonality within each particle because they are entangled, but independent, so, the ‘standard particle model’ becomes the ‘standard speed model’. In other words, ‘they concluded that it was not necessary to try to understand, for example, why light behaved sometimes like a particle and sometimes like a wave. For them, there was no profound hidden reality in the mathematical formulas. This is what is now called the Copenhagen interpretation.’ (Our Cosmic Origins, Armand Delsemme, p 256) This is not correct because the ‘profound hidden reality’ is the creation equation but it is correct, that the wave-particle duality is a half-truth [15] and that ‘quantum theory, although exact, is still incomplete’ (p 256) by showing entanglement [relativity]. This is the moment when it is realised that modern physics should not be based on energy [alone] and so keeping what we call particles and energy separate, but the speed is what separates them in the accounting of the organisational solution in which we live. This is the important point [context] in the concept of Einstein’s special theory of relativity which expanded the obscure notion that the speed of light was constant to any observer [Michelson-Morley experiment] and this effect [same speed to any observer] is explained in this theory. In other words, Einstein used the result [of the Michelson-Morley experiment] whereas I’m explaining why it occurred.

I want to make it clear that, in this model, the universe creates two things [for relativity] such as energy and organisation [with the restriction of acceleration], or photons and particles with the restriction of speed because they are created out of nothing and they need restrictions to ensure that they continue to exist. This is another variant of the logic of the half-truth, below, where true-false is held open logically, by shimmer [wave-particles], acceleration [universe] or speed [particles] because the speed of light is an absolute and everything is relative to the absolutes. This agrees with the relativity of everything [context] and the form of the universe is the lack of relativity formed by the ratios of relatives. In other words, we view a universe composed of restrictions because that is the only way that we can view relativities and this is similar to Socrates problem [of judgement, loyalty etc.] that we [ourselves] must impose restrictions [consider the question to obtain affordances]. Thus, a model of the particles can be made by comparing them to the photon’s speed [an absolute] instead of the standard model’s strange assemblage.

Let’s look at the logic of the half-truth [ true, false, true and false at different times, chaos] and that seems to consider all possibilities, but ‘ true and false at the same time’ is not ‘chaos’ if true and false ‘shimmer’ so fast, from one to the other that it makes no difference to the final result. This ‘shimmer’ is, I believe, the wave-particle duality that we see in the macroscopic [‘Davisson and Thomson were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1937 for experimental verification of wave property of electrons by diffraction experiments’ (Wikipedia)] and is, I believe, the structure of the photon and the source of de Broglie’s waves in matter [similarity in a fractal]. So, how does the universe make the neutrino different to the particle and photon speed-wise? Notice that there is an ‘asymptotic gap’ as the speed of a particle approaches the speed of light that is always empty because it is an asymptote. If the ‘leftover bits’ were stored just below the speed of light, the problem would be solved. ‘Out of sight, out of mind’, but still contribute to gravity.

Consider that ‘ne

/ utrinos typically pass through normal matter unimpeded and undetected. Weak interactions create neutrinos in one of three leptonic flavours: electron neutrinos, muon neutrinos or tau neutrinos, in association with the corresponding charged lepton. Although neutrinos were long believed to be massless, it is now known that there are three discrete neutrino masses with different tiny values, but they do not correspond uniquely to the three flavors. A neutrino created with a specific flavor has an associated specific quantum superposition of all three mass states. As a result, neutrinos oscillate between different flavors in flight. For example, an electron neutrino produced in a beta decay reaction may interact in a distant detector as a muon or tau neutrino.’ (Wikipedia, Neutrino) This seems to agree with the proposition that I put forward, that they travel near the speed of light, but why do they change form?

Spin

‘Why’ is not used extensively in physics because physics neglects relativity and relativity provides the ‘spring-board’ to answering that question. Physics uses top-down human thought to imagine what particle do, and not what the physical does, so, the universe, in it’s necessarily simple form could use the gap in the asymptote to accommodate the neutrinos left over from reactions in an ‘out of sight, out of mind’ way. Is this possibility justified, and what does physics say about it? ‘Louis de Broglie postulated the wave nature of electrons and suggested that all matter has wave properties. This concept is known as the de Broglie hypothesis, an example of wave–particle duality’. (Wikipedia) ‘Bohr model or Rutherford–Bohr model, presented by Niels Bohr and Ernest Rutherford in 1913, is a system consisting of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by orbiting electrons—similar to the structure of the Solar System, but with attraction provided by electrostatic forces in place of gravity.’ (Wikipedia) ‘Spin has some peculiar properties that distinguish it from orbital angular momenta’. (Wikipedia, Spin (physics), Quantum number) ‘For photons, spin is the quantum-mechanical counterpart of the polarization of light; for electrons, the spin has no classical counterpart’. (Wikipedia, Spin (physics)) ‘The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle which states that two or more identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state within a quantum system simultaneously. . . . Fermions include elementary particles such as quarks, electrons and neutrinos.’ (Wikipeda, Pauli exclusion principle)

Clearly, spin is useful in physics, but, to my mind it is misleading and complicated and I would like to go back to the Bohr atom and think of de Broglie waves defining the energy of each orbit and instead of considering two ‘spins’ to explain the Pauli exclusion principle, I prefer the wave-particle approach that the electron in orbit has the energy corresponding to the associated standing wave and further, that a standing wave contains a relativity that allows two standing waves to occupy the space of one, and that seems a better explanation for two electrons to occupy the same orbit. I say this because two waves, in different directions, seems similar to two ‘spins’ [and is a simpler concept and does not require a ‘law’].

The Trinity

The view through this model allows an explanation of the apparently unusual behaviour of the three types of neutrinos in that they change between themselves. The same logic of the half-truth, as above, allows them to appear as three particles, but one at a time, presumably because there is no way that they could appear as three separate particles because there is only one [simplest logical] available speed channel. Thus, it is logically possible and necessary that they ‘shimmer’ between themselves, and it shows the same mechanism as the wave-particle duality as would be expected in a fractal. No doubt this ‘shimmer’ of different particles was disconcerting to observers, but logically, it has to be [for simplicity], and being in an asymptote makes ‘shimmer’ easy because the three types of neutrinos differ in mass and are otherwise similar, then being close to the speed of a photon and its mass required to be practically zero, the speed determines the particle, which is in line with what I am saying [that only one channel exists no matter the flavour]. In other words, their momentum [mass times speed] as a measure of their energy is the multiplicand of a particular speed [close to the speed of light] and necessarily tiny mass, so it is again, the speed that is the decider of the particle. No wonder that physics has had difficulty measuring their masses! The logic behind the above is simply, that it works, and requires the simplest operation [energy and organisation-wise].

The Elegance of Organisation

Consider the quotation, ‘information remains bewildering, partly because it crops up in different guises in so many scientific fields.’ This wariness of organisation defines Newtonian physics and is possibly the reason for it’s consideration of energy on its own, but organisation is necessary because, as the quotation says, it is in everything and also in an extended science because it is the essence of emotion to ourselves through affordances as well as the description of neutrinos with it’s elegance in the use of speed to delineate the particles. Of course, the true elegance is the creation equation that generates the universe that shows the relationship clearly. In other words, organisation need not be feared when it is understood, even though it appears difficult at first sight and it has a beauty that is shown by this consideration of neutrinos. Consequently, the magnitude of the importance [concept] and the involvement [context], that can be engendered by a change of software [in the mind-brain] indicates the need to delineate a new Homo, not only because of the promise that a new way of thinking produces, but as a goal to work towards [due to relativity [4]]. For example, consider the benefits that have accrued to us through technology [materials engineering] and that social engineering [7] is equal in size and waiting to be discovered, and, more to the point, might save our civilisation from the unregulated application of technology that is causing problems.

Dealing With Infinity

The universe is necessarily a simple place [fractal, similarity] and is based on hyperbolae because they combine simplicity with continuity [necessary for reality] and they contain the ability to handle infinities [that are needed in an organisation for growth, if need be] that need to be understood as necessary for organisations and not the dreaded infinities of mathematics and the case of neutrinos highlights that the universe is comfortable with infinity and that it is our use of mathematics that is causing the problem because mathematics has problems. Organisation has a ‘gravitational’ effect [as well as energy] and also has an ‘inertia’ in time [as well as in distance, above] so that any change in organisation takes time and, in a fractal, the same could apply to the subatomic particles, but as physics dislikes organisation and concentrates on energy [classical particles], it tends to ‘find’ [splits off] particles that may not really be particles, but ‘transitions’, and as such, do they deserve recognition as particles?

Consider ‘the W bosons have a magnetic moment, but the Z has none. All three of these particles are very short-lived, with a half-life of about 3×10−25 s. Their experimental discovery was pivotal in establishing what is now called the Standard Model of particle physics.’ (Wikipedia) ‘The muon is an unstable subatomic particle with a mean lifetime of 2.2 μs, much longer than many other subatomic particles. As with the decay of the non-elementary neutron (with a lifetime around 15 minutes), muon decay is slow (by subatomic standards) because the decay is mediated only by the weak interaction (rather than the more powerful strong interaction or electromagnetic interaction)’ (Wikipedia, Muon) Tau leptons have a lifetime of 2.9×10−1 s and a mass of 1776.86 MeV/c2 (compared to 105.66 MeV/c2 for muons and 0.511 MeV/c2 for electrons). Since their interactions are very similar to those of the electron, a tau can be thought of as a much heavier version of the electron.’ (Wikipedia, Tau (particle)) Further, ‘only first-generation (up and down) quarks occur commonly in nature. Heavier quarks can only be created in high-energy collisions (such as in those involving cosmic rays), and decay quickly.’ (Wikipedia, Quark, overview) Further, ‘the very-short-lived hadrons, however, which number 200 or more, decay via the strong force. This force is so strong that it allows the particles to live only for about the time it takes light to cross the particle; the particles decay almost as soon as they are created.’ (Britannica, Subatomic particles) Notice that organisation solves this need for ‘forces’ and ‘gluons’ and generalises the problems by using contexts instead of just concepts.

Quantum gravity [energy plus organisation divided by separation] is a hyperbola approaching zero as the separation of two pieces of matter becomes infinitely large and organisation at the other end [zero separation] with the quarks and their fractional charges. Clearly, quarks could be considered to be organisation, especially as they strenuously resist being on their own and form a separate subgroup within the standard particle model. In other words, if there is no movement between two ‘things’, they are not particles, but an organisation, such as the quarks appear to be. Clearly, as we see in a fractal, an organisation is a number of things that work together, hence the neutron is not a particle but a ‘transporter’ of quarks until it is in the nucleus.

Another example lies in the currently held view of the discontinuity at the so-called Big Bang with its cosmic inflation problem and an increasing dark energy accelerating the universe versus this model which is a fractal model where the acceleration of the space from time zero is extremely large [hyperbola with time] and thus contains the concept of cosmic inflation together with the continued expansion [acceleration] of the universe. Any concept of infinity must be tempered with the time element of the ‘inertia’ of logic, space, time and organisation because an organisation considers possibilities not probabilities and we did pass through the creation unharmed.

The Theory of Everything

My aim is to extend Newtonian physics and, at the same time suggest a simplification to the standard particle model which appears to be a ‘dog’s breakfast’ of particles and predictions, and that might be what specialists want, but the rest of us deserves a rational approach and the standard model could do with a little revision and I suggest the following:

Concept: everything is relative and energy plus organisation is nothing is in everything, so this is a table of operations categorised by the organisation of speed [tier one] and lifetime, energy etc. [tier two], the necessary acceleration of the universe produces the interconnectedness in everything [that affects everything as gravity], internally as quantum gravity [(energy plus organisation) divided by separation relative to something else] and entanglement [relativity].

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 [infinite speed]

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

Any suggestion of gravity waves or gravity particles presupposes finite speeds which are not allowable because there must be a defined uniqueness [cannot be two different answers in a given situation] in an organisation and is the reason behind the logic of the half-truth [15]. Perhaps it is easiest to think of gravity as a product of relativity [concept in a fractal] and the quantum gravity as the context, but however we consider it, it’s speed of action must be fast enough to keep the organisation unique. I believe that there is good reason to believe that the universe is an organisation [6, 14] and astronomy doesn’t help by looking farther and farther back through stronger telescopes and finding more stars at greater distances, but are those stars really there, or are they the stars that had to be there if the universe was constructed of the minimum energy [principle of least action] for us to be here 13 billion years later? The fractal nature of the universe is size independent [there is nothing to compare our universe with] and coming from nothing it could be minute.

Conclusion and Prediction

Physics is a ‘basket case’ without legs to run by being based on measurement [Francis Bacon], the ‘clubbiness’ of peer review excludes the grasping of the new concepts of relativity and bottom-up organisation resulting in a weak brain whose top-down thinking [from poor organisation] ‘closed-down’ theoretical modern physics a hundred years ago. This theory explains the enigmas and gives reason to why the speed of light is constant to any measurer [the instigator of Einstein’s special theory] as well as cosmic inflation, derives the law of gravitation, explains emotion [affordances], organisation etc. and is a logical extension and ‘fixer-upper’ of the ‘inspired guesses’ of Newton, Einstein, Born, Pauli and many others and allows the introduction of [basic contextual] new ideas [which is logically impossible in cloistered disciplines]. As an example, the reference [1] has been challenged as ‘risky’, dangerous and an ‘opinion piece’ in spite of it clearly saying so in the first sentence, so, the essence of the paper] is included below because it’s [breath-taking] elegance is extended here.

It could be said that physics is the handmaiden of science and also to social science [because it often includes fundamental physics, for example neuroscience [1], goals, thinking and emotion [4, 5], addiction [16, 17] etc.] and a necessarily important part of this theory is organisation and how it pertains to society and our well-being [7, 8, 9, 10, 11] and further to enable Homo sapiens to survive the transition [12, 13] to a Homo completus [that has been called the Second Coming [18]] without another Dark Age [where we appear to be heading]. The counter-part to materials engineering [arising from measuring physics] is social engineering [from a social science with absolutes] that is needed to make the so-called science that we use into real sciences that are based on absolutes for the simple reason that measurement will fill in the gaps [context] but never lead to theories and theories are the software of the brain and directly increase intellect [5, 18] and are particularly simple and similar in a fractal.

The Form Of The Universe

The following important section appeared in the October issue, 2020, of Mind and Society [Can Affordances Save Civilisation?] as an opinion piece deriving the affordances that are fundamental in recognising the organisation in the mind-brain, the creation of emotion and leading to the functioning of the mind. However, it has been questioned as whether it is scientific because it challenges both the scientific method and scientific principle [see disclaimer]. The following excerpts are vital to the derivation of this theory and to make access easier because original papers can be difficult [and I am reminded of reading Lorentz’ original paper on the Lorentz contraction many years ago].

Relativity is the functioning of the universe and a lack of relativity is the form of the universe and a lack of relativity is easily created [and our understanding of the universe] by the ratios of the dimensions [energy (E), organisation (O), time (t) and length (l)] created by expansion . The five absolutes are firstly, the sum of energy and organisation is always zero [from the creation equation energy plus organisation is nothing], secondly, energy and organisation are necessarily created as infill to balance the necessary acceleration [for the creation equation to exist] of the universe [E/t+O/t, all volume], thirdly, the constant speed of light [with respect to any measurer] is l/t (all E and O) and fourthly, quantum gravity is E/l+O/l (all t).

Other orthogonalities [independent, but entangled] are created that operate similarly to the absolutes, such as that the speed of a particle and the speed of a photon must not be the same [Einstein’s special theory of relativity] and Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, below, that tests the orthogonality of the creation equation and the dimensions. It is also important to note that other entities are products of the space, such as gravity, entanglement and logic from the creation equation and do not have speed restrictions such as the speed of energy and organisation. This theory explains cosmic inflation as well as predicting its form because the speed of energy and organisation is constant [an absolute] within the space and thus the form is hyperbolic explaining cosmic inflation at very small time and the accelerating universe for all time, decreasing, but never zero.

Gravitation [in one dimension] is the [mathematical] product of the two [quantum gravity] absolutes [where mathematics is built on multiplication (relativity) and division (removing relativity)]:

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

Notice the product of the absolutes, so that the universe records our measurement, and that the ‘inverse square law’, as it is usually described, is inappropriate [one mass, charge etc. can not exist] and is actually derived from the absolutes and relativity and the ‘plus’ in the creation equation stands for all relationships [physical, logical, orthogonality etc.] between two entities.

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

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

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

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

So, Newtonian physics is a creation of the mind and has nothing to do with the physical [except that it uses the absolute force/mass = acceleration] until this general mathematical physics is used and then it can be seen that additional information is created from measuring organisation. For example Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity shows that there is a simple relationship between mass, length and time, but this is incomplete because the above says that energy, organisation, length and time are simply related through the ratios that destroy relativity [note that mass is energy plus organisation for completeness]. Einstein was looking at the relativistic changes, and clearly, organisation must be included, whereas the absolutes looks at the things that don’t change [invariants of the universe]. Notice that we have just extended Einstein’s special theory of relativity and also that information [concept] is necessarily constrained to the speed of light, something that has been a conjecture, also, Einstein’s theory shows the orthogonality of the speed of light and mass and what happens as in Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle when challenges to the fundamental structure of the universe are attempted. It is also important to realise that the dimensions are independent, but entangled organisationally.

Measuring organisation such as beauty, music, religion, buildings and parades etc. creates energy that we release as laughter, in extreme cases [good joke], dance energy [foot-tapping] or just feeling emotional energy of appreciation [Mona Lisa painting possibly due to the golden triangle ratios] due to the affordances that convert the organisation of the surroundings [given the measurer’s questioning] to emotional energy in the mind-brain that allows for decision making via the mathematics of concept-context. Thus, social engineering is necessarily orthogonal to material engineering and is the key to controlling our civilisation and preventing a (so far) inevitable break-down. Newtonian physics is convenient for us in our world, but does not consider the physical host that we live within [as parasites], and it behoves all good parasites to understand and consider the health of their host, for to kill their host is to die as well.

“New Think” [concept] is a new complete way of thinking [5] that uses the simplicity and ease of use of top-down traditional Newtonian physics with the bottom-up of the creation equation, relativity and the restrictions and a general mathematical physics [context] that creates a description of everything. This is not the ‘law’ of everything that requires peer review, it is literally everything and raises our thinking to a new level because a complete physics generates a social engineering [orthogonal to technology] that, in a fractal, offers improvements in personal, group and country involvement.

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

15. The Logic Of The Half-truth And Plato’s Cave (darrylpenney.com)

16. Affordances Create The Mind, But Society And The Universe Are The Software (an unpublished paper)

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)