Elegant Reasonism, Part 02: Introduction to Mode Shifting with Notes by SOLREI

Elegant Reasonism Part 02: Introduction To Mode Shifting Patent Pending 16405134 - USPTO Published 20200372376

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, constitute an electronic communication within the scope of the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, 18 USCA 2510. This communication may contain nonpublic, confidential, or legally privileged information intended for the sole use of the designated recipient(s). The unlawful interception, use or disclosure of such information is strictly prohibited pursuant to 18 USCA 2511 and any applicable laws. If you are not the intended recipient, if you received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately. Life Space Matters is a registered trademark of SolREI, Inc. H2Orbit is a trademark of SolREI, Inc.

This presentation is a general, basic, introduction to mode shifting. Mode shifting is the capability and capacity to recognize how and why patterns in one EIM shift in another EIM. Pattern shifts are not recognizable from within an EIM due to encapsulation and Langer Epistemology Errors. They only become illuminated and illustrated through the tools and processes employed by Elegant Reasonism.

Notice This presentation is hyperlinked to SolREI, Inc’s primary website. The links herein will resolve only for registered users there. Registration is free. Once users are logged into our website, all hyperlinks in this presentation will resolve to their relative and respective landing pages. All other users will receive a standardized message concerning restricted content and reminding them to register. Simply register and log in to bypass that restriction message. 

Visit https://www.solrei.co



Ask about eligibility for VIP status



Review this presentation and click highlighted links as appropriate

Abstract Status quo thinking circa 2020 (and earlier) can not close to unification. That hard cold fact is actually not the issue. The issue is why that situation is true, and reconciliation of that situation is a great deal more complicated than anyone would care for. There are two distinct types of investigations and they really only differ in the types of questions asked and the intent of the results; however, we should strive not to confuse the two quests. Mode shifting traditional/historical information into alignment with the unified Universe employing a fully compliant encapsulated interpretive model (EIM) constitutes one type of investigation. The other type seeks out net new EIMs not yet discovered. In this presentation we focus on the former type investigation as a means to illuminate the most common type of investigation and to provide a basic understanding for those wishing to pursue the latter type. Subsequent presentations are so themed. What follows is a basic discussion mode shifting EIMs M1 and M5. We will briefly distinguish M1 from M2 but leave M2 for another time since it is not in predominant use. Our focus here is M1 to M5 and back again. The objective is to be able to mode shift these models at will, dynamically, in order to apply critical situational awareness thinking.

Two issues become gating factors on Chart 06 in this presentation: Abstraction usage and Langer Epistemology Errors. Abstractions have a tendency to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. When we mistake abstractions for actual reality is what happens we we commit Langer Epistemology Errors. These factors conspire together to create the conditions humanity has been struggling with for thousands of years. One of the design points of Elegant Reasonism is to inventory all abstractions and their relationships within EIMs in order to assure that such errors are not made. The tools and processes are such that constant review seeks to hold the unified Universe distinct and litmus. The point is to constantly be and employ critical situational awareness thinking in holistic context of Elegant Reasonism’s insights and to not commit Langer Epistemology Errors in order to illustrate and illuminate the unified Universe.

Problem/Challenge/Path

 Problem Since status

quo thinking can not accomplish unification, subsequently aspects of the unified Universe are obfuscated for business enterprise worldwide thus wasting significant capital, lost opportunity, time, and expending precious resources on equipment designed to chase red herrings.

 Challenge Statement Status quo thinkers

& littoral thinkers are unwittingly committing Langer Epistemology Errors which affects all professional organizations, peer groups, and peer reviewed efforts. Because they fail to perceive the mechanics of the shackles ensnaring them they fail to recognize the opportunity which usually means they also fail to perceive the competitive threat it represents (e.g. they will never see the threat until its too late).

 Alternatives 1) Stand Pat/Deny,

2) Look for external expert, 3) Embrace Elegant Reasonism & Explore Introspectively

 Choice No: 3

 Rationale The USPTO

published Elegant Reasonism on Nov 26 th, 2020 uncorking a genie which will never return to its bottle & the game is afoot

Critical situationally aware thinking will discern pattern Elegant Reasonism delivers Systemic insight

shifts which can only be dynamically reconciled through mode shifting

unification, empowering & enabling ever greater resolution and better EIM derived thinking

integration is vital spanning value & supply chains across all economic sectors of the global economy

 Next Steps Engage and embrace Secure commercial

https://www.solrei.co. https://www.solrei.co. Engage for systems review if necessary.

usage license from SOLREI, INC

 Owners Global

enterprise, government, academia, R&D, and individuals employing Elegant Reasonism for commercial gain

SOLREI INC executive management employs this framework in its problem reconciliation approach. Problem statements are limited to one cogent sentence. The challenges that problem statement holds for business enterprise is limited to two cogent statements. All problems facing executive management must present three alternatives, even if you think solving it is obvious. This forces the business to consider options that may be out of the box thinking, orthogonal, or non-sequitur. Executives at SOLREI may be the ones completing this framework but they have to answer to stakeholders and others so choice selection is anything but easy. This is especially true when the choices are difficult. Everyone is expected to rationalize the choice made and limit the reasons to five to six bullets of a single cogent sentence or phrase. Fewer is better, but must cover both pros and cons of the decision in support of the decision made. Once the choice is rationalized everyone must consider what next steps must be taken. Executive managers will then want to know who owns actions associated with reconciling this problem to resolution. Some company will not allow employees to talk to executive management without first having completed a similar framework under these rules. 4

The Investigation This mode shifting exercise is intended to exemplify illuminating and illustrating pattern distinctions between the core constructs of the M1 and M5 encapsulated interpretive models. The challenge here is that for some of the traditional status quo constructs there are no definitions available, (which was one of the issues inciting the systems review accomplishing unification). Those experiencing this presentation should know this presentation is not that original systems review. Here we are simply interested in mode shifting paradigms associated with the core constructs of two encapsulated interpretive models (EIMs); M1 and M5. M5. That is to say that the EIM core constructs become the Paradigms Of Interest/N nterest/Nature (POI/N) being investigated. 

This presentation is not a systems review, nor does it mode shift M1 in its entirety



This presentation acts as fodder for discussion assisting cognition of effectiveness metrics associated with mode shifting basic constructs of these two specific EIMs at basis levels



This presentation does not mode shift 100% of all aspects concerning these two EIMs. Rather it focuses on the core constructs (basis) of the models in an attempt to illuminate and illustrate critical situationally aware thinking required in order to accomplish effective mode shifting.



The reader/audience should be cognizant that status quo/traditional thinking does not accomplish unification. They likely have questions about why that situation is true.



Chart 06 in this presentation will hang readers/audience in a loop on the left hand side (next chart) if they are not cognizant of Langer Epistemology Errors. Errors.

This brief investigation is not a full systems review. We are not exploring ‘in-depth’ the various subjects presented. We are going to exercise the process at a high level and illustrate M1 and M5 for comparative purposes.

Elegant Reasonism Decision Checkpoint Flowchart & The Generalized Process Flow

Chart 8 is the generalized process flow. Chart 6 is the decision checkpoint flow chart. Think of chart 6 as navigation gates on your journey toward unification relative to and respective of your particular investigation.

Process Decision Checkpoint Flow Unified Thinking?

Yes

Recognition

Illumination

Analysis

No No

Abstraction Inventory

Langer Yes Epistemology Errors?

Working with Abstractions or Reality? Reality

Mode Shift Effectively? Yes

Yes

No Develop Holistic Insights

Yes Abstractions

You are likely committing Langer Epistemology Errors

Realm of C’s Compliant?

Translation Matrices Effective? No Improve

No Investigation Effective? Yes

Unified Treatise

Executives and managers might be first inclined to skip investigative reviews of these checkpoints but SOLREI INC encourages transformational leaders to participate in order to make sure they are aligned with the problem solving relative to their business operations. The holistic team (e.g. everyone in the company) should be on the same proverbial page. Understanding the details behind these checkpoints will provide that situational awareness. Click pause and study the last several charts if you need to. Also know that the PDF presentation file has each of these flow chart steps hyperlinked back into SOLREI INC’s website for further detail. Managers should recognize that status quo thinkers will likely get hung up on the left hand side of this chart. It is important everyone comprehend the implications of mistaking abstractions for reality holds for the business. Business planers, and others, will likely be familiar with the c’s of business plans. They are words like coherent, cogent, cohesive, etc. Here, those words are included but they also include ‘close’ (to unification) and many others. Click the link there to explore how the realm of the c’s illuminates your ability to illustrate how your business gains alignment with the unified Universe.

The Framework Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology, supported by an analtical framework, which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Let’s see how that works by following the generalized process flow and framework steps to enable mode shifting the basic constructs of M1 to M5 and back again. We can then explore a few insights that result. The objective here is to improve critical situational awareness thinking relative to highly systemic constructs and concepts. Recognize – We must first comprehend the problem or challenge Illuminate – We must then illuminate all aspects of the investigation Analyze – We may then perform a holistic analysis seeking insights Only then may we Develop a Treatise that culminates in alignment with the unified Universe. The product Treatise is so aligned.

Elegant Reasonism’s framework employs essentially three phases: Recognize, Illuminate, and Analyze. Development of a holistic Treatise is crafted in full compliance and alignment with the unified Universe as a function of that analysis. Langer Epistemology Errors have been obfuscating the path forward for centuries. They occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. Systems Engineering principles allow us to employ logical views of physical systems. What Albert Einstein created with his papers was a logically correct construct, but it will never close to unification. It will not because its core constructs conspire to preclude that accomplishment.

Everything discussed on the previous chart is in the top layer here and made available for analytic rigor. Assumptions, logic, and even belief systems associated with given patterns and paradigms are all made available to the analytic stack. ● There are a number of decisions needing to be made assessing the status of any given investigation consistent with ISO 9001 QMS standards and guidelines. The next chart illustrates the decision checkpoint flowchart. Here we simply describe the general activities associated with each phase of an investigation. ● Many of the details behind each bullet point here are found externally to Elegant Reasonism as they are industry standard quality processes or business process re-engineering defined. All are essentially grounded in scientific principles and practices. Remember, empiricism is here considered a subset epistemology. ● Also note that we must be able to mode shift not just the domain of discourse being investigated but the metrics and QMS standards as well. It serves no purpose if the metrics are mired in thinking that can not close to unification. We must listen to what the unified Universe is telling us through core messaging (Note: The phrase ‘core messaging’ here is fully consistent with marketing management principles and business communications.)

Elegant Reasonism - Recognition -

You can not fix something if you do not recognize that it is broken. See as you look. Can you accomplish unification? If you can not, do you even understand why that is true?

Bodies of Work/Historical Review 



The website employed by SolREI SolREI contains a comprehensive User Library and maintains an Acknowledgments page which together represent the primary set of materials reviewed during our systems review circa 2004 – 2019.

Albert Einstein 

Special & General Relativity



“We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them” them”



“If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its life believing it is stupid” stupid”



Access to this material is reserved for registered users of our system for positive authentication and non-repudiation purposes.



The User Library contains public domain information but imposes a Collected Works copyright.



Web design is intended to be available for backlink cross reference as exemplified by this presentation (e.g. the links on this page).

Susanne K Langer 

Philosophy and its taxonomy



Langer Epistemology Errors



Mistaking abstractions for reality is a fatal flaw in epistemology

Lev B Okun 

The Concept of Mass



Foundation Distinguishing M1 & M2



“Einstein did not believe mass was variant” variant”

The company website has a more complete Acknowledgments page, but here we focus on three key individuals whose contributions were essential in the development of Elegant Reasonism. It should be noted that unification would almost certainly not have been accomplished absent the Internet and the willingness of others to share information. In alphabetical order key influencers are: ● Albert Einstein - While General and Special Relativity are central contributions, so too were his insights and discussions surrounding their inspiration. Specifically discussions earlier concerning the luminiferous aether as well as his letter to Lincoln Barnett concerning how to consider mass. ● Susanne K Langer Historically, Charles C McGowen recognized the same epistemology errors noted by Langer during the original systems review. He could not accept he was the first to note such errors and in performing research discovered Langer’s 1948 work. He named the errors after her to honor who she was and her body of work. Candidly he was relieved because she articulated the issues with a great deal more eloquence than he ever could and that is a view he holds to this day. Ironically one of the central issues allowing the accomplishment of unification was appreciation of art, which was Langer’s motive and area of focus at the time. Equally ironic is that her work also provides linkage and Evidence Chains from the core constructs of The Emergence Model, through inorganic/organic, through biology, through Brodmann Areas and their relationship to the CNS in humans which links this domain of discourse back to the unified Universe. ● Lev B Okun was a Russian particle physicist by training and profession, but he also was concerned with education and content detail. He was singularly focused on historical accuracy and the source of perceptions. His article “The Concept of Mass” was central to the insights which separated M1 from M2 resulting in the encapsulated interpretive model taxonomy illustrated on Chart 14 of this presentation. 11

Abstraction Inventory EIM abstraction inventory in this exercise is necessary but insufficient to fully enable mode shifting. We must also take note of associated rules. Process Decision Checkpoint Flow looping results in ‘concept emergence’ manifesting M5 (from original systems review).

M1 

M5 (in hindsight) Space, Time, Mass, Energy & rule set 



Something vs Nothing Thought Experiment

Space, Time, Mass, Energy & rule set 

Something vs Nothing Thought Experiment – [Systems Engineering Precepts!]



In M1, ‘nothing’ does not exist



In M5, ‘nothing’ is a valid concept



All constructs considered real (e.g. rampant commission of LEEs)



Space is defined as dimensionless nothing



Initiates concept of ‘something’ culminating in the concept of the Most Basic Particle (MBP (MBP)) where everything real is a derivative of its intrinsic nature and resulting in The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance and reconciles wave-particle duality issues via architecture

If first three dimensions are “of space” render clarity in how they manifest real objects ‘in space’ across the spacetimemass interface maintaining a valid geometric basis point for both spacetime and that object simultaneously 



The Concept of Mass and a historical review of the respective bodies of work discussed therein



Interferometer Experiments (speed of light) 

Michelson-Morley Experiment



Luminiferous Aether (Historical Review)



Bell Inequality Experiments



Anthropogenic alignment of computer controlled telescopes



Particle Accelerator Beam Alignment & Rapidity*

Interferometer data mode shifts to limits of the systems performing emissions (vs limitations of dimension) (e.g. speed of light is a function of Severance of the relative and respective systems of architecture involved) *‘c’ mode shifts now defines Severance – Synchrotron Radiation linked centripetal force. Mode shifted accomplishing unification – graviton emerges – Euler’s Beta & Gamma Functions tie convergence to Knot Theory



Mass associated with ‘something’ (e.g. MBPs) MBPs) consistent with Einstein’s view of The Concept of Mass now in context of MBPs



Energy mode shifts to ‘an ability’ [of dynamic luminally {e.g. Rapidity - β} kinetic architectures of mass] to instantiate work and ‘force’ is that work so instantiated



Time mode shifts to an action displacement index



Dimensional limitations dismantled consequently reinstating E.P. Hubble’s cosmological Red/Blue Shift data status and Rapidity (e.g. β=v/c) regains status for cosmological velocity. Importantly Rapidity noted in quantum mechanics at superluminal velocities. Bell Inequality Tests debunked debunkers. Universe mode shifts volume becoming ancient in extreme. NOTE: Rapidity presence in chart 12 by Einstein.



Black Hole Inventory and analysis (Historical)



Inflationary Theory (Historical Development)



Big Bang variants & links to quantum mechanics



The Manhattan Project (Historical Review)



Action per unit area emerges as important factor



Nucleosynthesis, Stellar Fusion, Supernovae



Energy Signature taxonomy emerges from systems review – Black Holes grow...



Particle Horizon issues prompt WMAP review



The Event Frame and Local Frames emerge from systems review

These insights are the result of an Elegant Reasonism based systems review and are not simple declarations. That systems review is covered elsewhere in greater detail. This same systems review produced the M5 cogent description depicted on Chart 9. Relative to Einstein’s historically documented beliefs M5 is closer to M2 than M1, holding mass as invariant. The speed of light ‘limitation’ mode shifts from a dimensionally imposed limitation to that of the system producing it in context of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Atomic electron emissions mode shift those systems in context of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Everything real is a system or system of systems operating under these same rules. Two-slit experiments and the phenomena called ‘glories’ (by pilots) mode shift to find the separation of photon frequency (e.g. colors, and wave patterns) a function of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. This insight validates interferometer experiments (i.e. Michelson-Morley Experiment), vindicates Edwin P Hubble (e.g. Red & Blue shift data/experiments), establishes Rapidity for cosmological velocities, and explains synchrotron radiation, and why every particle accelerator on Earth uses Rapidity for beam alignment. Mode shifting a single photon’s architecture through these various situations is fascinating and suggests that in addition to its electric and magnetic components that there is also a dark matter component reconciling polarity dynamics as well as the relationship between constituents within the composite architecture and explaining associated dynamics.

M2 Represents Einstein’s Views

(M5) It should be noted how Einstein defines mass here. The holistic insights developed mode shifting these constructs ripple across science. Know that ‘c’ mode shifts becoming Severance and that v/c is the definition of Rapidity. Rapidity is fundamentally redefined by this mode shift, becoming velocity over Severance. The mode shifted definition then becomes mass equals rest mass over the square root of 1 minus Rapidity squared. The familiar curve we traditionally associate with limits becomes a curve now associated with Severance in holistic context herein. The ability (e.g. Energy) of architectural mass then is limited by the square of Severance. Read in this way, these mode shifted insights provide incredible insights regarding critical situational awareness thinking. Einstein’s point here then reinforces the M5 view of the intrinsic nature of MBPs as invariant mass.

For McGowen, it took Dr. Lev B Okun’s article entitled The Concept of Mass before he comprehended the implications of distinctions between how Einstein is popularly perceived and what he actually believed. McGowen will leave to historical sociological/anthropological scholars pursuit of why and how that came to be so prevalent and predominant sociologically. That is not our concern here. Here we simply note what he believed based on his own words and writings. ● Albert Einstein - did not believe mass was variant. Anyone claiming otherwise is not familiar with history. ● Modern predominant (e.g. status quo) thinking does believe that mass is variant, yet they attribute such beliefs to Einstein (which is patently false). ● The distinctions between how mass is treated within an encapsulation were determined by McGowen to be great enough to warrant an enumeration of models rather than an iteration of what had been employed as M1. Consequently that is the central distinction between M1 and M2. ● It should also be strategically noted here that when The Emergence Model (e.g. holistic view of M5 & M6) dismantle velocities associated with M1, M2, and M3 what is realized is that cosmological velocities are mode shifted toward something called Rapidity. Rapidity is defined as v/c, where velocity v is over what is defined traditionally as the speed of light c. That variable c in The Emergence Model is mode shifted to mean Severance. Consequently when we look back at what Einstein originally wrote we realize he is using Rapidity squared in his equations and he is inherently integrating Severance into his discussions. He was so close to the truth. So close. Read properly then Rapidity is velocity over Severance; which then explains too EFPS1 cascades and why interferometer experiments report evidence as they do. It also reconciles Edwin Hubble’s data with experimental evidence throughout history. And this insight reconciles cosmological z-factors and eliminates the inflationary theory. The unified Universe is 13 unfathomably ancient and larger than our particle horizon.

We must strive to eliminate Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) from our thinking exactly for these reasons. Langer’s critical situational awareness thinking and contributions to philosophy are unprecedented in any age. 

Her insights not only lay critical foundations for Elegant Reasonism, they couple perception to the unified Universe. The body of her work then couples too subjects as restful (e.g. REST Architecture) as art appreciation. These insights are neither trivial nor trite.



These insights fundamentally define encapsulation boundaries and the ability to perceive and demand new questions be asked as we engage the unified Universe.

Susanne K Langer is the first American woman to be recognized both popularly and professionally as a philosopher. Her 1948 work captured with eloquence the circumstances and implications of mistaking abstractions for reality. Langer Epistemology Errors are as a result named in her honor. ● These concepts are redefining the science of Knowledge Management in context of Elegant Reasonism. ● They are central to Elegant Reasonism epistemologically. ● These concepts are vital to review of evidence chain linkages epistemologically across Translation Matrices analytical rigor and discipline. ● They are central to comprehend relative to effectiveness of mode shifting through the generalized process flow and the consequential decision checkpoints that one ultimately must encounter on their way to developing a holistic Treatise fully compliant with the unified Universe.

POI/N: Basis & Forces Generally these types of arguments are a function of EIM Systems Review development and not one for investigative purposes. We place them here primarily in recognition of the maturity level regarding adoption of Elegant Reasonism and its Emergence Model.

M5 (in hindsight)

● Basis

● Basis (derived as a function of Something vs Nothing Thought Experiment) • Failure to recognize spacetime as a logical construct leads to a myriad of “rat holes” and incongruous contemplations (i.e. Multiverse, rationalization of inability to wield geometric basis points, etc.) • Relationships (e.g. relatedness) not well defined in terms of engineering structural factors relative to and respectful of historical constructs like the luminiferous aether (e.g. distinct from) Also see: In Unification’s Wake, Part 4: Relatedness

● Forces • Forces are phenomena that must be described relative to other forces (e.g. in context of one another). The traditional failure to accomplish unification has been the inability to fully couple all forces in this manner.

• Since dimensionless nothing can not influence anything real the only relevant discussion then are the real objects in the frame. • This insight then demands increased attention on ‘Architectures of Mass’ which yields specific discussions, derived as a function of Knot Theory, about density, saturation, MBP states, and other factors which may affect derivative insights. Quantum Rotors are such an example. • The concept of the MBP yields concept affinity with M2, not M1 (e.g. mass is invariant) ● Force, all force, is the work instantiated by the intrinsic action of dynamic, kinetic, architectures of mass configured by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance derived from the intrinsic nature of MBPs. Defined in this way all reference frames are fully coupled. • Any MBP may act as the geometric basis for any frame of reference • The 800 lb gorilla in the room is what those architectures of mass actually look like • Because we do not know much about such architectures of mass there are also aspects we can not as yet define. Ferreting out such details requires R&D which SOLREI INC has already proposed to the National Science Foundation and may constitute the single largest computing opportunity humanity will ever face.

The Quest for Unification demands that certain capabilities be made manifest. One is a common geometric basis point. The other is that all reference frames be fully coupled. The latter may not be accomplished unless the former is satisfied. Because nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface without 1 st conversion to energy we are forced to consign such constructs to the realm of logic and conclude they are not real (e.g. physical) constructs. It should be noted here that M5 is the logical view of The Emergence Model and the Langer Epistemology Error ‘gate’ depicted on Chart 7 of this presentation helps to keep us from making Langer Epistemology Errors even in our unified contemplations. All forces, in M5, are unified as a function of architectures of mass under The Emergence Model and in the process we also have full reconciliation of geometric basis within all reference frames. M5 therefore accomplishes unification. * Remember: In Elegant Reasonism traditional epistemologies are subsets statistically weighted as a function of their ability to holistically derive and otherwise accomplish unification. Unification in Elegant Reasonism is a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

asdf

POI/N: Reference Frames Mode shifting the basics between M1 and M5 find certain paradigms of interest needing special attention between the two EIMs.

M5 (in hindsight)

● Nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface without 1st converting to energy

● Two types of reference frames emerge:

● Dimensions ‘of space’ demand • Geometric basis • Establishment of the spacetime-mass interface ●Inertial Frames different rule set

• Event Frames • are iostropic but may be nested and may nest Local Frames • Describe all interaction relative to and respective of all real systems • Is scale invariant • Recognizes nesting both higher order and lower ordered Event Frames

• Standard Reference Frame • Inertial Reference frame where all real objects have same moment of inertia • There are distinctions here between M1 and M2 in how relativistic parameters like momentum and inertia are handled relative to mass. M1 presumes mass is variant and M2 presumes mass is invariant. See also Dr. Lev B Okun’s article: The Concept of Mass

• Nested frames may describe constructs with greater resolution • Maybe used in combination with M4 to explore EIM distinctions • Local Frames • Employ internal geometric basis points and reference no other frame • Isolated from external interactions of any type • May holistically have a vector only perceivable from a higher ordered Event Frame • May contain internally nested Event Frames ● The geometric basis of any frame may be assigned to an MBP or set of them (e.g. configuration)

Emergence Model insights from the original systems review find awe inspiring insights from the WMAP program and its data. A ‘particle horizon’ is generally construed to mean the furthest point in which any signal (e.g. information) may ever reach us (e.g. humans on Earth). There are both direct and indirect forms of signals, flags, semaphores, etc. Analysis (e.g. evidence review) must take this into account and do so in context of critical situationally aware thinking relative to and respective of mode shifted insights. Holistically then, the WMAP data, finds ‘statistical ciricles’ in the data that can only be explained through the Bang to Bang article on SOLREI INC’s website. In this holistic context then we might characterize ‘our’ universe is a Local Frame within an Event Frame of ‘the’ Universe. It might also be said that our Universe is an Event Frame characterized relative to and respective of the Event Frame characterizing ‘The’ unified Universe. The existence of those ‘statistical circles’ in the WMAP data suggest the latter is a more appropriate characgterization.

* Remember: In Elegant Reasonism traditional epistemologies are subsets statistically weighted as a function of their ability to holistically derive and otherwise accomplish unification. Unification in Elegant Reasonism is a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

We must employ critical situationally aware thinking to such discussions and we must be careful in how we parse abstractions in addition to not committing Langer Epistemology Errors. SOLREI INC recommends careful review of Dr. Lev B Okun’s article The Concept of Mass in order to distinguish M1 from M2 in your contemplations. Mode Shifting then into M5 we find that we must shift our focus away from the medium of reference frames and onto the real objects described therein. M5 holds that everything real in any frame is a system or system of systems (e.g. some configuration of MBPs or set/sets of them)

POI/N: Velocity Mode shifting the basics between M1 and M5 find certain paradigms of interest needing special attention between the two EIMs.

M5 (in hindsight) • Velocity • Newtonian (e.g. M0) • Relativistic • Rule Set (experimentally derived) {e.g. Empiricism}

• Velocity • The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance • All local speeds are a function exactly because everything real is a configuration of the same basic configurations of MBPs governed by the same two core processes derived from the same intrinsic nature of MBPs. • The term ‘c’ mode shifts and changes definitions in the process. The constant is reassigned to Severance, which produces photons at the experimentally {e.g. Empiricism *} consistently measured local speed. • Relativistic velocities are a function of Rapidity (e.g. β, Beta, v/c). Properly read then Rapidity is Velocity over Severance. Rapidity then governs cosmological velocities, thus vindicating Edwin P Hubble. • Mode Shifting any real systems exceeding Severance constitutes a State 2 MBP or set of them (e.g. constitutes system configuration failure).

Interferometer experiments notoriously produce the same value for the speed of light so much so that tradition assigned that velocity to the constant ‘c’. We may see that constant applied by Albert Einstein on Chart 13 in his definition of mass. In M5: - everything real is a system or system of systems - Mode Shifting ‘c’ such that it is reassigned as Severance produces insights into the systems producing photons as a function of Severance yields the insight that it is the system’s consistent failure as a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs producing that constancy and not some externally imposed dimensional limitation. - The infamous ‘curve’ associated with the speed of light mode shifts to exhibit the boundary limits of Severance relative to and respective of architectures of mass. For example, A cosmological photon measured by Hubble is either red or blue shifted and measured by him. In that act of measurement the inbound photon suffers Severance producing the results captured by the experiment. Until that act transpires (e.g. the Event) the photon is in a Local Frame which may be considered nested within the Event Frame of the experiment. That act transpires through EFPS5, moves through EFPS6 to normalize the energies and finally into EFPS7 to render the endurance phase of the experiment producing the articulated results. * Remember: In Elegant Reasonism traditional epistemologies are subsets statistically weighted as a function of their ability to holistically derive and otherwise accomplish unification. Unification in Elegant Reasonism is a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.

Looking then at this chart we find a deeper level of investigation of just what transpires when a Hubble Shifted photon enters any given experiment. That is to say a photon whose velocity vector exceeds Severance by some multiple. Whether it is Red or Blue shifted is essentially a function derived during EFP6 of the Event Frame. That is the experiment configuration’s normalization of having received the inbound photon. The other consideration then is how we configure the Event Frame and nest subset frames be they other Event Frames or Local Frames and their relative and respective predominant phase steps which the master Event Frame seeks to reconcile.

POI/N: The Medium Historically the medium of the universe was referred to as the luminiferous aether. It was defined as a perfectly viscous fluid in which everything real resided. The modern era defined the medium as a four dimensional spacetime. The Emergence Model holds it as dimensionless nothing.

The Something 



The notion 

vs Nothing Thought Experiment considered these various characterizations relative to the ability to reflect a unified Universe.

The concept of ‘nothing’ does not exist in EIMs employing spacetime, because spacetime itself is considered there real. Since nothing can not manifest something we are forced to conclude that the Big Bang was something not nothing. Either something exists or it does not. In manifesting the unified Universe we must simultaneously reflect three dimensional reality and time.

that quantum fluctuations in finite space made manifest the Big Bang fails critical situational awareness thinking:

Time must exist in order for fluctuations to occur, therefore the Big Bang did not create time and in that instance how could it have also created space if nothing could move because time did not exist? These and many more are logic artifacts of EIMs employing these constructs. We would also observe that this attempt separates quantum mechanics as somehow more special which immediately fails unification requirements.

The Emergence Model

holds the medium as dimensionless nothing. This definition immediately places 100% of the burden on the something real in the frame and not the medium of the frame to make manifest everything real in the frame. Subdividing everything real ultimately yields the concept of the Most Basic Particle (MBP). (MBP). Observing that the MBP must possess an intrinsic nature we are forced to ascribe to that nature a fundamental build function and a failure mode of configuration constructs. We must also observe that such configurations must be able to form higher ordered architectures and that those architectures must make manifest 100% of physical properties and phenomena witnessed in nature. 

Our focus must shift away from the medium and onto the real objects in the reference frame



Structure equals properties and properties infer intrinsic structure

All existing 

EIMs have philosophically known unknowns. Known unknowns beyond the 2 nd derivative particle horizon (PH) will remain so

WMAP constitutes the particle horizon and the statistical circles detected within that data set constitute a 2 nd derivative PH ‘flag’

All EIMs ponder the source of their core constructs.

The Michelson–Morley experiment was an attempt to detect the existence of the luminiferous aether, a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of light waves. The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by American physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley at what is now Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, and published in November of the same year. The experiment was a dismal failure because nothing they did affected their measurement of the speed of light. Albert Einstein, only a few years later in 1905, posited that time could be considered a fourth dimension of space and taking the speed of light as a unit of one we couple these concepts together into a fabric of spacetime. None of these contemplations quested unification. They were working on issues regarding the speed of light.

POI/N: Vacuum

The phrase abstraction inventory does not do justice to the depth of issues surrounding the medium, historically referred to as the luminiferous aether, and modern predominant thinking (e.g. M1) calls spacetime. Any comprehensive such discussion is beyond the scope of both this chart and this presentation.

M5 (in hindsight)

● Vacuum

● Vacuum • Real constructs within the EIM M1 include • In ‘our’ Universe a perfect vacuum is hard to find. Even interstellar space has particles we spacetime and we must consider manifestation of can measure and many more we can not. matter as energy instantiating manifolds of spacetime • A perfectly ideal vacuum is the absence of all MBPs into matter. In this context the concept of ‘nothing’ does not exist in M1. It is therefore inappropriate to • A local frame so defined has no geometric basis since in M5 space is defined as classify any reference frame as having nothing in it. In dimensionless nothing and therefore may only be contemplated logically as a function this context a perfect vacuum would have an of its boundaries made manifest by something real. isotropically smooth lattice exclusively of spacetime ● Event Frame Permittivity (e.g. the electric constant) with zero energy. • vacuum permittivity (e.g. the electric constant) • vacuum permeability (e.g. the magnetic constant)

• The permittivity of the Event Frame ● Event Frame Permeability (e.g. the magnetic constant) • The permeability of the Event Frame

Any comprehensive systems review in this area of investigation will have to consider the core constructs across the spectrum of EIMs. The various patterns of constants, constructs, phenomena, both logical and physical will need to be addressed while simultaneously seeking to eliminate Langer Epistemology Errors. It should be patently obvious that any such treatment of these issues on a single chart or in this presentation is beyond the scope here. One key insight mode shifting the Vacuum POI/N is the term itself. Ironically vacuum has a tendency to be interpreted in M1 as ‘nothing’, yet the concept of nothing in that EIM does not exist exactly because we must account for the core constructs of the EIM, of which spacetime and energy are constituents. There are constants not discussed on this chart which in a more full discussion would be addressed. A few examples of other such topics are: • Zero Point Energy | Casimere Effect | Planck Constant | Reduced Planck Constant | Hubble Constant | etc., etc., • Mode shifting such concepts as Quantum Vacuum Plasma Thruster (QVPT Drive) become interesting Elegant Reasonism exercises One technique employed by Elegant Reasonism is metaphorically referred to as a ‘sieve’. Concept sieves, or equation sieves, are sets of POI/N or equations that must be simultaneously addressed as part of a given investigation. Enabling that investigation’s ability to mode shift means enabling such sieves to mode shift. Some of the pattern distinction changes EIM to EIM are evident even in the short lists above.

The larger tapestry only becomes apparent when we recognize M1’s impositions placed upon us. Only when we recognize the logical nature and are not committing Langer Epistemology Errors are our minds freed enough to contemplate that larger tapestry of considerations. Then, and only then, may we recognize and group epistemological detail sets representing pattern areas within EIMs relative to and respective of their various evidence chains.

POI/N: Matter Mode shifting what constitutes matter EIM to EIM can be a daunting task. These few examples portray a tiny fraction of these characterizations for illustrative purposes. They are neither complete nor comprehensive. Matter, in M5, is the MBP or configuration sets of them. What constitutes matter in M1 begins to get more and more tricky the closer to core constructs of the EIM we get.

M5 (in hindsight)

● Manifolds of spacetime made manifest by energy. • The spacetime-mass interface is therefore obfuscated in context of complex manifolds/concepts like Hilbert Spaces, or Minkowski Spaces. ● No commong geometric basis point for all real objects in any given reference frame ● Can not fully couple any reference frame ● Nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface without 1st conversion to energy ● The inability to accomplish unification under M1 leads to incongruous thinking/constructs (e.g. Multiverse, Parallel Universes, Time Travel, etc.)

● The Emergence Model holds that all matter (e.g. everything real) is a derivative of the intrinsic nature of MBPs including the basic build process which is limited by the other which is the failure mode process. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures MBPs into architectures of mass manifesting everything real. The MBP construed as a system implies then that everything real is a system or system of systems. • The intrinsic nature of MBPs is construed to follow Knot Theory • Configurations of MBPs forming or making manifest complex composite architectures of mass are the basis of all matter. Such configurations have associated saturation and density characteristics. Any MBP, or set of them, may act as the geometric basis of any frame. • Dark matter is made manifest by saturated configurations affected by a relatively few other configurations as a result. It possesses exactly the same energy as every other configuration of MBPs. • It is also possible that constituents within complex composite configurations are also ‘dark’ (e.g. saturated) and form vital functions within that architecture. Configurations are also said to have ‘densities’ (e.g. MBPs per unit area). ● Mode shifting focus away from the medium and onto what is in it finds complex what previously were considered complexities of ‘space’ are now complexities of ‘configurations of MBPs’ forming manifolds of configurations. Such configurations must be consistent with the definitions of core construct’s intrinsic nature within any given EIM. ● Time is an action displacement index for interacting configurations of complex composite architectures of mass and Severance is responsible for its consistency. Both are derivatives of the intrinsic nature of MBPs (e.g. matter). Because action is always positive, so too is the arrow of time.

Describing what matter is in M1 is a great deal more complicated than it is in M5 when we are forced to deal with abstraction lower ordered detail. Remembering that such detail is systemic forces us to recognize those details in higher ordered constructs as a function of that systemic nature. Looking then at this chart we find a deeper level of investigation of just what transpires when a Hubble Shifted photon enters any given experiment. That is to say a photon whose velocity vector exceeds Severance by some multiple. Whether it is Red or Blue shifted is essentially a function derived during EFP6 of the Event Frame. That is the experiment configuration’s normalization of having received the inbound photon. The other consideration then is how we configure the Event Frame and nest subset frames be they other Event Frames or Local Frames and their relative and respective predominant phase steps which the master Event Frame seeks to reconcile.

Paradigms Ah Ha’s! The experience of Recognition Phase ‘Ah Ha!’ moments can be very powerful to experience in terms of paradigm shifts and their associated emotional coping skills. McGowen describes such events as ineffable and it will be different for each individual. Such moments can be as much with the paradigms of interest/nature as they are with how a given EIM manifests it. 



Basics 

Left most column of the 2D Articulation Layer of Translation Matrices is where particular constructs are articulated. This paradigm of interest is interrogated every bit as much down through the analytic stack. Paradigms should be as EIM neutral as possible.



Manifestation in the model to paradigm intersections is: 

Encapsulated relative to and respective of each EIM



100% of relationships of this paradigm to other paradigms, within EIM encapsulation, must be declared, establish base line patterns 

Pattern recognition may then be employed by the holistic Translation Matrices



Evidence Chains will prove investigation’s insight objectives and goals

May be organized into detail sets as a function of epistemological R&D 

Differing detail sets may be parsed as needed to subdivide detail sets. Such subdivisions stereo-typically form ‘sieves’, sometimes referred to as equation sieves or concept sieves. Such sieves help to explore what it is we think we know and mode shift it into alignment with the unified Universe. Unknown areas within Translation Matrices may often be completed using this technique.



Logic Propositions emerge as Thought Experiments are conducted and mode shifting becomes confirmed for the team

Remember, always, that paradigms employ abstractions too! Be wary of Langer Epistemology Errors lurking as constituents within larger composite abstractions. Higgs Fields are likely an example of such as organizations of constituents resonate one view while constituents resonate consistent with their architecture. Protons and Neutrons are another example where the differences between the constituent quarks and parent particle mass is likely comprised of Preonic configurations damping quark constructs and representing the parent character and nature.

Paradigms of interest or of nature are those chosen relative to a particular systems review or investigation to meet a specific set of goals or objectives. All associated abstractions must be inventoried and declared across the set of EIMs employed by investigators. For example mode shifting ‘space’ might seem simple and straight forward given the definition of M5 but we can not stop there because of Pattern Recognition requirements. We must also mode shift vacuum permittivity and permissiveness. These two sets of investigations establish other constants in M1 that are fundamental to many conversations and concepts. Mode shifting them into M5: shifts our focus away from the medium and to the real configurations in the Event Frame. Performing that work we realize that we must also consider what we do and do not know about the intrinsic nature of MBPs, The Fundamental Entanglement Function, and Severance all extrapolated up through the entire spectrum of real objects made manifest by them. Configuration saturation and density relative to structure analysis. Concepts like resonance, stress, tension, and other aspects all come into play as does the full range of thermodynamics. Mode shifting space is not for the feint of heart for these reasons. These tasks consumed a large portion of an 828 page manuscript outlining SOLREI INC’s original systems review.

Recognition Phase Ah Ha’s! The experience of Recognition Phase ‘Ah Ha!’ moments can be very powerful to experience in terms of paradigm shifts and their associated emotional coping skills. McGowen describes such events as ineffable and it will be different for each individual. 



Focus of contemplation mode shifts away from the medium and onto the something in it establishing valid geometric basis 

Space is dimensionless nothing, therefore has no influence over anything real



Structure (e.g. architecture) equals [physical] properties and physical properties infer intrinsic architecture [of mass]

Intrinsic nature of MBPs must derive every other concept and construct with simultaneous truth spanning science 

1st derivative of the intrinsic nature of MBPs is: The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance 

Configures MBPs into complex, discontinuous, composite architectures of mass in context of Knot Theory



MBPs taken individually as a system, means everything real is a system or system of systems demanding Systems Engineering processes, practices, methods, and requirements gathering techniques be employed



 

This fundamentally redefines Rapidity (e.g. β) to mean velocity over Severance. 



In this context MBPs are considered Fractal Initiators and everything real is therefore ‘a Fractal’

‘c’ mode shifts assignment away from tradition to mean Severance with rippling affect across science 



Consequently everything real is some configuration formed in this way

This insight redefines Hubble’s body of work and our earlier interpretations of WMAP data

Thermodynamics mode shifts action as a function of architectures of mass in context of the intrinsic nature of MBPs

Black Holes grow 

Because they grow the concept of infinite compression can not be reconciled in nature 

Infinite Compression is the corollary of Rapid Expansion. If Infinite compression does not exist in nature then neither does rapid expansion (of spacetime). 



The Inflationary Theory therefore is a logical, not physical, concept encapsulated by all EIMs employing the spacetime construct.

This demands the basic systems review mode shift the Big Bang

Elegant Reasonism - Illuminate -

The illumination phase is where many will encounter profound “Ah Ha!” moments, maybe for the first time. Many paradigm shifts occur here in this phase or part of the process. Be prepared for out of the box thinking. Work to make sure that critical situational awareness thinking is applied. Loop chart 6 as often as is required. Verify and validate the nuances of historical perspectives.

M1: Variant Mass EIM M1 is the EIM in predominant use circa 2020. M1, M2, and M3 all employ the same fundamental core constructs. The spacetime-mass interface, by definition, converts any real object transiting to energy, thus precluding unification. It is for this reason so many experiments produce the results they do. Despite this M1 is the most successful EIM in history to date, especially in light that M5 has yet to be embraced, and that M1 is the basis for mode shifting into M5 makes it even more valuable. The opportunity now is to mode shift what it is we think we know from M1 and its cousins from their successes, into alignment with the unified Universe. 

M1 employs: space & time in a four dimensional spacetime, mass, energy, and a rule set which establishes dimensionally imposed limits on velocity and such that mass is considered variant



This presentation is not a systems review 

Historically mass variance can be traced back to Wolfgang Pauli’s work and not Einstein (See The Concept of Mass, Mass, by Dr. Lev B Okun) Okun)



Elegant Reasonism demands encapsulation (e.g. quantification, codification, enumeration, and iteration) exactly to inhibit and otherwise preclude “scope creep” which occurs when we ‘tweak’ facets and factors. No declared EIM may be so modified, it may only be iterated into a newly declared EIM iteration.



Moving inertia, momentum, etc. into the variance of mass obfuscates underlying mechanics



M2 forces consideration independently of such factors

The Emergence Model’s M5 The Emergence Model’s logical view (M5) logically draws its basis from Most Basic Particles (MBPs). (MBPs). MBPs are the quintessential integer, and it is through their “intrinsic nature” all other concepts are derived. It is the MBP in M5 which manifests the three dimensions associated with all real objects not space. M5 is centrally characterized by two processes so derived; “The Fundamental Entanglement Function” which is limited by the other, Severance. The Fundamental Entanglement Function, the ‘build’ process, entangles MBPs into all configurations of “architectural mass” generally envisioned to follow Knot Theory, including dark matter within any given Event Frame. Severance, as an independent process, is ‘the failure mode’ of any given configuration of MBPs and represents the limits of architectural mass to remain intact specifically due to the intrinsic nature of constituent MBPs. MBPs. Space in M5 is dimensionless nothing. Force, all force, is the work instantiated through the Intrinsic Action of configurations of MBPs forming architectural mass. Architecture of relative and respective constructs so configured determines physical properties which manifest. Time is an “action displacement index” of the relative and respective architectural masses in the frame. Energy is the ability of relative and relevant architectural mass to do that work.

The Emergence Model is holistically comprised of two interpretive models which we will distinguish on subsequent charts from one another and explain why there are two of them. Right now just know they are M5 and M6. M6 is a later discussion. We will spend the majority of our time with M5 because that model has more precise language and capability. ● What you are reading here is the product of reverse engineering seventeen years of research effort. We did not sit down and just write this paragraph. ● The concept of the MBP along took some five years to evolve and develop, and that work continues to improve. ● The Emergence Model was provided as a part of the application filed by SOLREI INC exactly because Elegant Reasonism requires employment of at least one encapsulated interpretive model which closes to unification. Any critical review of this single paragraph illustrates and illuminates the hard cold fact that this description does in fact close to unification. • The task of mode shifting all other concepts may be undertaken using only this paragraph. The company continues to work to get content from our original systems review integrated into our website. Once that material is there it will be made available. ● The company is producing materials, like this presentation, to help others to comprehend and understand implications so that they do not have to commit to decades long efforts and can simply build on what we have already accomplished. SOLREI leadership can think of no greater satisfaction than to have others exploit these insights on behalf of civilization. 25

Mode Shifting Each Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) has a unique manner in which to manifest paradigms of interest, or of nature, herein referred to as a reflection of the unified Universe. Each relative and respective such reflection has a pattern of relationships within that EIM between its constituents. Such patterns are generally unique EIM to EIM and each pattern, more often than not, also requires a fundamental shift in the manner in which we humans must think about that pattern. The process of pattern recognition, cognition, and application of these patterns EIM to EIM is referred to as Mode Shifting. 



Mode Shifting is enabled through Translation Matrices 

Intrinsic nature of Translation Matrices is three dimensional & may articulate four (using AI they may ‘be’ four)



May be in manuscript format while remaining true to their intrinsic nature

Concept definitions may change EIM to EIM 

Quantified & Codified in tools like the ISO 9001 Unification Tool



Pattern relationships may differ EIM to EIM



Encapsulation precludes any EIM from perceiving, much less describing, any other EIM



Translation Matrices layering allows EIM to EIM analytical comparisons & juxtapositions



Mode Shifting should be deployed transformationally (See In Unification’s Wake, Part 5: Business Impact) Impact) in context of knowledge management sciences.

Enabling Mode Shifting For this exercise we are selecting M1 and M5 for our investigation. The seven recognized EIMs are: M0: Newtonian

2D Articulation Layer

Pn1

M1: Modern variant mass M2: Einstein’s Invariant Mass

ISO 9001 Unification Tool

2D Articulation

Pn2

Context & Source Model Integrity Analysis

M3: PV of M1 or M2

Pn3

Paradigm Statistics

M4: M5 emulating M1 or M2 Pn4

M5: LV of The Emergence Model M6: PV of The Emergence Model

M2M ↔ Paradigms

Logic Calculus Reality Validation

Bayesian Analytics Heuristics

M7: Reserved We must not confuse material from other EIMs or we must include them in our investigation.

Metacognitive Analytics Six Sigma Analytic Stack (e.g. 3D Layering) *

* Analytic Stack may be implemented logically or physically as appropriate

Elegant Reasonism encapsulates fundamental thinking critically into seven recognized interpretive models (of the Universe) and requires any given investigation or systems review to employ at least one which closes to unification. So as the generalized process is completed, what becomes illuminated and illustrated are not just insights about the unified Universe, but why previous thinking failed to see those insights. Education roadmaps are intrinsically built as a result. Knowledge management can then come into its own for HR skill development purposes. The justification and rationalization for actions the business takes are an innate result of formal treatment of Elegant Reasonism. We should point out that Elegant Reasonism does not have to be employed in formal treatment or fullest extent every single time it is used. All practitioners are encouraged to keep everything as simple as possible. Quick whiteboard or chalk board discussions may be all that are needed. However, if fully compliant ISO 9001 QMS standards or industry standard quality programs are required then the framework can accommodate that treatment as well.

Mode Shifting Space & Time Mass is traditionally defined as a function of ‘what happens’ to some real object. Mode shifting the concept of mass from M1 to M5 shifts that traditional approach to a more complex expectation, but yielding greater insights into and across interactions within given reference frames.

M1 



M5 First three dimensions are ‘of space’ 

Manifolds of space manifest real objects



No geometric basis point



Tensor mathematics operate against spacetime

Intrinsic nature of MBPs: Manifests The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance which then:



Follow Knot Theory



Any MBP or set of them may act as geometric basis point of any Event Frame or Local Frame 

Why ‘the arrow of time’ is always positive is not clear

Space, Time, and Energy are considered real constructs 



On paper time is bi-directional 



First three dimensions are ‘of MBPs’



Time is added to the first three dimensions of space forming the spacetime construct 



Stress, tension, and other engineering metrics are not well defined

Rapid Expansion is said to exist yet its corollary ‘infinite compression’ can not be reconciled given black hole growth noted in that inventory. Thus we must relegate the Inflationary Theory to realm of logical constructs.

Stress, Tension, and other engineering metrics are a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs & resulting configurations of them

Time is an action displacement index of real objects in any Event or Local frame 

Action is always positive clarifying time’s arrow



Consistency and constancy is a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs manifesting architectures configured by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance



Tensor mathematics operate against real systems or systems of systems that are configurations of MBPs



Space, by definition, is dimensionless nothing 

Rendering it irrelevant in all contemplation

Mode Shifting Mass Mass is traditionally defined as a function of ‘what happens’ to some real object. Mode shifting the concept of mass from M1 to M5 shifts that traditional approach to a more complex expectation, but yielding greater insights into and across interactions within given reference frames.

M1 

M5 Terms commonly distinguish ‘m’ and ‘M’ to identify rest mass from inertial mass (NOTE: detailed discussions distinguishing M1 from M2 are beyond the scope of this presentation.) 

See Chart 15 for the source of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance which configures MBPs into everything real. 

The intrinsic nature of MBPs, by definition, entangle with at most two other MBPs each. The result forms lines or strings manifesting an affinity for String Theory.



Complex composite architectures of configurations of MBPs then follow Knot Theory



MBPs mode shift to fractal initiators in context of Knot Theory

See Dr. Lev Okun’s, The Concept of Mass



Inertial vs Gravitational Mass



Newtonian Mass (e.g. M0 Mass)



Inertial Mass



Relativistic Mass



The relationship between mass of any type and the constructs considered to be real are, at best, unclear 

Manifolds of spacetime



Spacetime-mass interface 



Stress, Tension, etc spanning the interface are not defined by tensors, nor can they be defined as they too, by definition convert to energy transiting the interface

Geometric basis points must fully couple all real objects in every reference frame and this necessarily includes spacetime



Terms mode shift from ‘m’ to iℂm to represent the complex composite architecture that mass reflects 



Any MBP or set of them (e.g. configurations) may act as the geometric basis point in the Event Frame or a Local Frame

M5 holds Einstein’s original (e.g. M2) M2) view that is better to only introduce rest mass and that other attributes must be handled external to the architecture. 

This isolates discussions involving the intrinsic nature of MBPs from those of the Event Frame (e.g. it separates intrinsic nature of individuals from Events involving configurations of them). [Analogous to the individual vs its culture/society]

Mode Shifting Energy Energy is one of those traditionally liberally defined quantities in science. Part of the challenge is that humans have an tendency to ‘move the goal posts’ by defining energy to fit the needs of its usage, which is no definition at all. Abstraction inventory rules state that once quantified and codified, enumerated definitions may not be changed, only iterated. There is no special carve out for this abstraction or any other. Each different definition therefore requires a different iteration identification reference. This in turn requires the entire instance of the base EIM to also be iterated. The point here is that only one enumerated and iterated EIM instance is allowed and that single definition must be systemically applied everywhere within the EIM. No changes are allowed for that instance. We must therefore chose the iteration instance carefully.



The potential to do work or produce heat.



The capacity of a physical system to do work



The quantitative property that must be transferred to an object in order to perform work on, or to heat, the object



Energy is the ability of relative and relevant architectural mass to do the work instantiating any force, including heat. See POI/N: Basis & Forces 

Thermodynamics therefore is understood as a function of action relative to and respective of complex composite architectures of mass in context of the intrinsic nature of MBPs.



All energy characterizes the ability of architectures of mass to do work as a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs

Mode shifting energy is best illuminated in M5 by a thought experiment of a single MBP in a local frame. MBPs are said to possess three states, each of which might be characterized as an ‘energy level’, but this state essentially determines that MBPs ability to entangle. The intrinsic nature of MBPs is that states tend to normalize via interaction, including entanglement, all of which is limited by Severance. MBPs in a local frame at a given state will remain in that state until they are encountered in an Event Frame. The states are enumerated zero, one, and two. State 0 MBPs possesses no energy and are generally construed not to entangle. MBPs in state 1 possesses energy sufficient to entangle with other MBPs. State 2 MBPs possess energy exceeding Severance for all entanglement possibility. By definition, Most Basic Particles (MBPs) can not be further divided and consequently suffer no further Severance. Presuming science defines an MBP in a certain manner, any further refinement or insight will only improve the resolution of the essential definition of what constitutes an MBP. Such a circumstance would not change the essential definition of MBPs relative to M5. Under these circumstances such a state 2 MBP may possess incredible energies which may easily penetrate other configurations. The Big Bang, as envisioned by M5, would have created many such state 2 MBPs and they are one source of energy in the unified Universe. All of this constitutes an area of intense interest for continued research and contemplation.

Illumination Phase Ah Ha’s! Once we begin populating Translation Matrices, knowing that the analytical stack lay before us as a challenge, forces certain thought processes to drive our questioning techniques. We start looking for different answers, not just asking different questions. Our expectations change and we are suddenly faced with deeper comprehension of why unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration. 

Gravity mode shifts from a phenomena resulting from mass warping spacetime to a force instantiated by the work performed through the intrinsic action of the graviton’s architecture. 

Knot Theory yeilds insights of ‘rope segments’ derived as a function of the intrinsic nature of MBPs in context of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance 



Yields insights leading back to Euler’s Beta and Gamma functions including ‘convergence’ and ‘pole residue’ 

Implications drive critical situational awareness thinking re: intrinsic nature systemically inherited



Demands Information Sciences approach to various considerations



Representational State Transfer (REST Architecture)

Properties of matter become a function of architectural entanglement density and saturation. Dark Matter becomes explained in this context.

Gravitons are polarized along high mass – low mass axis, and at distance there is more mass behind them than in front of them and their poles at that point reverse. It is for this reason galaxies accelerate away from each other.

The Big Bang mode shifts fundamental constructs of M1 into the realm of M5 

Multiple super-massive Black Holes converge with vectors exceeding Severance for all real objects in the Event Frame 

Such objects defined by M5 are reduced back to MBPs which then follow their intrinsic nature



Explains statistical circles discovered in the WMAP data (Think ‘Shoemaker-Levy 9’)



 

Object Oriented relationships



Establishes a single type of everything real (e.g. matter) and only one type of energy, both consistent with M5 



Consistent with Laniakea Supercluster findings, Hubble’s body of work, Black Hole inventory, etc….

Allows precipice perceiving the unified Universe Bang to Bang

Infinities almost, but not quite, eliminated as many concepts become finite under Severance

Elegant Reasonism - Analyze -

The analytical stack of Translation Matrices is a fantastically insightful place. It is there that EIMs will either survive or be eviscerated in that milieu of rigorously disciplined critically situationally aware thinking is applied.

POI/N: Encapsulation Part of the barrier to entry accomplishing unification has been the belief that tweaking existing models will allow access to the precipice witnessing how everything comes together. That belief is a false premise exactly because Langer Epistemology Errors trick us all into believing we are interpreting reality directly when in fact we are employing abstractions of it. Elegant Reasonism requires us to inventory the abstractions involved with a given investigation and to declare the relationships they have with other EIM constructs. We must then juxtapose several EIMs, one of which must be fully compliant and close to unification, unification, in the 2D Articulation Layer. Layer. Only then are we poised to subject the entire holistic set of juxtapositions to standards based analytical rigor and discipline. The ability to enable pattern shifting sufficient enough to allow us to switch our thinking from EIM to EIM is called herein: Mode Shifting. Shifting. 

Once declared, enumerated EIMs may only be iterated, never changed. 

Investigations then reference (for example): M1.nnnn where ‘nnnn’ specifies specific iteration of the EIM, in this case M1. Systemic nature of abstractions demands this rule.



Penetration of encapsulation boundaries from within any given EIM is prohibited. Such penetration is the exclusive domain of Translation Matrices analytics.



Formal treatment employs industry standard QMS processes and metrics

The critical situationally aware thinking demanded then is that in the process of performing historical reviews and inventorying abstractions we must recognize the affinity each has relative to and respective of specific encapsulated interpretive models. This will be an iterative process, recursively flowing through the generalized process flow in context of the decision checkpoint flowchart.

Implications - Scientific Skepticism Part of the historical review produces a myrid of works by various notable authors. One example is The Demon Haunted World, by Carl Sagan. Sagan. 

Normal skepticism employed by professional scientists must employ critical situational awareness thinking in fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism.



Scientists must recognize the deep implications which Langer Epistemology Errors hold for the traditional skepticism framework. 



We must now recognize the implications human physiology holds for traditional epistemologies. epistemologies.

Unification as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. science. 

Scientific theories that are simultaneously true may now be discerned on the basis of unification in holistic context of Elegant Reasonism



Phenomena emergence becomes an R&D quest



The 800 lb gorilla in the room is phenomena and properties as a function of architectures of mass.

Reference Frame Litmus Test The Emergence Model establishes two types of reference frames: 

The Event Frame: Frame: Scale invariant, isotropic, interacting real systems across various phase steps (e.g. EFPS1, EFPS1, EFPS2, EFPS2, EFPS3, EFPS3, EFPS4, EFPS4, EFPS5, EFPS5, EFPS6, EFPS6, EFPS7). EFPS7). Event Frames may be nested and may contain Local Frames. 



Interacting real objects within an Event Frame implies an Energy Signature Taxonomy across Event Frame Phase Steps.

Local Frames: Frames: Scale invariant, isotropic, real objects interacting exclusively within its own architecture. No external interactions between real systems, including vectors.

The Energy Signature Taxonomy suggests we should expect to find ‘collision class’ objects within the astronomical body of data and in fact we do see such objects currently classified in the scientific record as nebula/novae type phenomena, but their specific recoil ejecta suggests clues supporting this insight. Some such objects might also be considered ‘mini-Bangs’ (e.g. NGC6302 or Ant Nebula) consistent with the article Bang to Bang. Bang. Held litmus, the unified Universe confirms Elegant Reasonism based review of The Emergence Model’s Energy Signature Taxonomy.

NGC 6302

NGC 7009

NGC 6537

NGC 5189

NGC 2359

Ant Nebula

Mode Shifted Insights Once Translation Matrices can rudimentally mode shift the selected EIMs their distinctions may be illuminated and illustrated. The core constructs of all EIMs are highly systemic and flow up through everything real and must be reconciled relative to and respective of their individual contexts. Once that precipice of unification has been gained you will see clues that have been there all along as you look. What you see will be forever changed when you look.



No geometric basis point for spacetime can be defined



Nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without conversion to energy



Minimally three distinct realms of calculation: Newtonian, Quantum Mechanical, and Relativistic



Nothing can go faster than the speed of light. Limit derived by interferometer experiments and confirmed by other experiments. Term ‘c’, for this value, established as a constant for these reasons.



Mass is variant



Particle accelerator beams are aligned using Rapidity.



Bell Inequality Tests leaving clues



Neutrinos leaving clues



Einstein did NOT believe mass was variant



Dimensional nature of reality is a derivation of the intrinsic nature of MBPs, MBPs, not space. The MBP is the geometric basis



The term ‘c’ mode shifts and is reassigned to Severance  100% of historical experiments mode shift †



The Emergence Model rules are also so derived

Electron emission of photons due to centripetal force in EFPS1 and exemplifies Severance in Local Frames and localized Event Frames Edwin Hubble’s original data/experiments mode shift such that Rapidity (e.g. β or Beta is v/c) rules cosmological velocity †

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures MBPs into everything real. 

Complex composite architectures of configurations of MBPs following Knot Theory



MBPs mode shift to fractal initiators in context of Knot Theory

Because ‘space’ mode shifts into dimensional nothing 100% of constructs must also mode shift into dynamic, often kinetic, complex composite architectures of mass

† Held litmus, the unified Universe confirms.

Analysis Phase Ah Ha’s! Pt 1 The ‘Ah Ha!’ continuum during the original systems review was almost constant in terms of revelations that didn’t just happen once in awhile, in many cases they streamed insights and not just from one area but spanning philosophy and science. They indeed reunited philosophy and science once again. Historical roots of science were vindicated as well as use of modern methods. 

Analysis of Einstein’s Coefficients of Emissions finds Severance not in those traditional equations but in the equations reducing to produce them. When we look at ‘those’ equations we find mathematical reduction eliminating ‘c’ from the equations producing the final coefficients. They reduce in the unified Universe exactly because the electron is in EFPS1 cascading toward Severance emitting the photon.



Analysis of Synchrotron Radiation finds photon emission from electrons due to centripetal force. That centripetal force is the electromagnetic entanglement in such devices cascading through EFPS1 toward Severance. It is this revelation linking quantum mechanics with higher orders of contemplation fully coupling the Event Frame under M5. M5. This revelation led to critical situational awareness thinking which then led to unification. Event Frames became fully coupled across all forces in context of relative and respective action of architectures of mass interacting to produce work instantiating those forces in the Event Frame. 

Subatomic shell transitions in chemistry are then quantum mechanical entanglement shifts within complex composite architectures of mass across orders of complexity in respective and relative constituent architectures of atoms.



Reflection, Refraction, and other physical properties may all be mode shifted in holistic context of Elegant Reasonism



The wave-particle duality of photons mode shifts to be the result of complex composite architectures interacting in context of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Rather than thinking of a point mass, think dandelion. Think photons entangling with the sides in two-slit experiments and swinging to their destinations as a function of these processes while the main architecture delivers the particle nature of the photon. This simultaneously explains two-slit experiments and the ‘glory’ witnessed by pilots. pilots. 

Mode shifting entanglement experiments is a complex undertaking but must be inclusive of frequency (and frequency arm), gravitational influences, photon architecture, detector architecture, bell inequalities present/not present, and The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance both holistically and specifically across the Event Frame. This means complete articulation not just for the master Event Frame but all nested frames both Event and Locally focused.

Analysis Phase Ah Ha’s! Pt 2 Analysis produced an ‘Ah Ha!’ laminate reinforcing and solidifying our approach. What I mean by that is that the data and thinking dovetailed but so did the process and epistemology against that data. So much so that we wondered if we were not creating a self-deluding environment. On review we found Elegant Reasonism to be self-clarifying and reinforcing of new insights. So much so that the process even supports pursuits of net new fully compliant EIMs. 

The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance, a derivative of the intrinsic nature of MBPs, configures MBPs into complex composite discontinuous architecture of mass following Knot Theory. 

Entanglement density and saturation don’t just explain concepts like dark matter as saturated constructs, it establishes a fundamental awareness that some constituents of normal matter may also be saturated constructs and in that revelation we have mechanisms to explain relationships intrinsic to electromagnetic phenomena (e.g. 90 degree offset). This insight means that photons potentially have constituents that are electric, magnetic, and dark (e.g. saturated) and that latter component is the glue binding the other two. This is why gravitons only affect the frequency arm of photons and why photons trace out geodesics and why Jacobi Fields act as they do.



Mode Shifting The Standard Model of Particle Physics to become The Emergence Model of Particle Physics finds Gravitons responsible for gravity not warped spacetime. There is a whole R&D effort needed on these architectures.



M5/M6 defines a region between recognizable subatomic particles (by virtue of their size and stability) and individual MBPs herein as Preons. Preons. Their longevity in any given configuration is a function of [potentially] destructive resonance relative to and respective of their individual complex composite architecture of mass. Virtual particles are defined in M5 in this manner. 

Preons explain the differences between the sum of individual Quarks and the mass of their parent particle and why Quarks are never found in nature unbound. Preons dampen constituent MBP configurations such that they remain below Severance levels within the configuration. Unbound, results in destructive resonance instantly dismantles them.



Destructive resonance then explains matter / antimatter relationships, instantly reducing constructs into Preonic configurations or releasing individual MBPs into the Event Frame.



Complex composite architectures configuring constituent MBPs interacting [as a function of those architectures] within a configured lattice (e.g. entangled phonon lattice matrix) explains the Higgs Mechanism.



Regression analysis across the analytical stack of Translation Matrices then positions Thermodynamics in context of action across permutations of relative and respective configurations of architectures of mass interacting in a given Event Frame.

Analysis Phase Ah Ha’s! Pt 3 What absolutely gobsmacked McGowen was not just a whole bunch of detail sets within epistemology unified – everything did, and this is no better exemplified than with the statistical circles found earlier in the WMAP data.



McGowen has spent considerable time in the information technology industry working with systems spanning the entire spectrum of technology. Without getting into any specifics part of the point here is that legislation can be codified such that “natural people” are precluded from some given action or behavior. If you see that [in codified legislation], it likely means a computer is doing it and that’s compliant with the statute so long as the results only manifest in a flag saying “Hey go look at….” with no underlying detail. This indirect positioning of signals is analogous to those statistical circles in the WMAP data. 

The particle horizon is the furthest point from which any signal may be received from anywhere in the Universe



The development effort and associated analysis needed to produce the Bang to Bang article recognized the implications of indirect signaling in the form of those statistical circles in the WMAP data. Shoemaker-Levy 9 is the label given by astronomers witnessing nine gravitationally locked but independent objects merging with Jupiter a number of years ago. It was in that moment that McGowen realized those statistical circles could be explained by not two supermassive black holes in the Event Frame but three or more with the latter leaving those circles in its wake as it penetrated the mirth of the initial Event. The dynamics of the Event left Laniakea as a clue.



The bigger ‘Ah Ha!’ moment comes into full play when we realize that this characterization would have to occurring potentially into infinity (one of the few infinities remaining {or maybe a new class of them} in all the philosophical ponderings).



This means that when we look at our Cosmos today we find supermassive black holes (surrounded by very large galaxies) speeding off with exceedingly high Rapidity into the unknown unified Universe. Potentially setting all this up all over again. There is no way to know how many times this has already happened, or will happen in the future. Time is an action displacement index in M5. This cycle may repeat recursively.

The philosophical 800 lb gorilla in the room is the question of where MBPs came from. That question though is like asking how M1’s Big Bang fluctuated if time and space weren’t created until afterwards. Maybe there is another EIM with better answers...

Analysis Phase Ah Ha’s! Pt 4 What absolutely gobsmacked McGowen was not just a whole bunch of [particular] detail sets unified (e.g. parameters within an EIM) – absolutely everything unified, and this is no better exemplified than with the statistical circles found earlier in the WMAP data. 



“The” unified Universe, technically, is defined as ‘all there is’. The problem with that definition is that it is inclusive of everything beyond our particle horizon as well as everything inside it. This revelation becomes salient when we realize the implications of the statistical circles in the WMAP data in context of the Bang to Bang page on SolREI’s website. 

‘The’ unified Universe includes absolutely everything real regardless of where it is



‘Our’ unified Universe is that real part of everything that is, but within our particle horizon (because what lay beyond is for all practical purposes irrelevant {such issues would be illuminated in the metacognitive layer of Translation Matrices})



The question then becomes how old (ancient) is ‘the’ unified Universe vs ‘our’ unified Universe (e.g. how long ago did ‘our bang’ transpire?)



Q: Could a civilization tagging along with such a supermassive black hole, in a Big Bang level Event Frame, survive? A: Not likely due to the initial Event wave of state 2 MBPs emitted. Any such civilization would have to vector away from such a location and seek refuge within a stable system elsewhere (or survive long enough to find such a place)



Our unified Universe grows exceedingly ancient. Certainly enough to eliminate concept compression issues (e.g. allow enough time for Grand Design Spiral Galaxies like BX442 to have formed). Z-Factors associated with expansion of spacetime in M1 are mode shifted to red shifted objects in M5 accelerating away at cosmological rapidity consistent with the Bang to Bang page. ‘The’ unified Universe grows ancient in the extreme.

Beyond cosmological linkage, unification requires and demands that the process, however ‘RESTFUL’ (e.g. Representational State Transfer aligned), must also have credible paths to manifest everything real. Elegant Reasonism does that and with every new EIM closing to unification that power will only get stronger and more credible.

Elegant Reasonism - A Discussion About Metrics -

Remember the E in EIM means encapsulated, and that applies to metrics as much as it does content of an investigation. Make sure your metrics are appropriate for the circumstances of application. Critical situational awareness thinking is vital.

Metrics Metrics employed in the standard manner will ultimately and likely fall prey to Langer Epistemology Errors. Metrics must be viewed through the holistic lens of Elegant Reasonism. 

Metrics employed specifically inside an encapsulated EIM likely apply exclusively there.



Metrics employed within a given analytical layer of Translation Matrices must be compliant with the standards of that layer. They may be horizontal or vertical (or integrated) but they must be consistent with the standards expected of that analytical layer.



Metrics applied in one EIM must be equally applied by all EIMs, and as such must be unbiased relative to a particular EIM.



EIM internal (e.g. encapsulated) metrics concerning the quality of pattern relationships may be equally applied



All metrics dealing with the analytical nature of Translation Matrices must be holistically normalized in context of the unified Universe.

The first fully compliant EIM is The Emergence Model, but it is not necessarily the last. Remember, the unified Universe is always held distinct, unique, and litmus. We never cross the line asserting that The Emergence Model is ‘the’ unified Universe; rather we articulate that The Emergence Model reflects the unified Universe. This may be a fine distinction but we take this position so that we minimize the chance of committing Langer Epistemology Errors. From a quality standpoint it is always better to have multiple fully compliant EIMs engaged on Chart 18 to maximize that reflection and resolution detail.

While it is necessary to have EIM quality metrics we must recognize that the very nature of encapsulation precludes penetrating those defined boundaries. If, for example, we impose metrics associated with the Realm of C’s, one of which is closure, then we must recognize that M1, for example, will never close exactly because its fundamental core constructs preclude it. They do because nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface. So because a given experiment publishes a Sigma Value, for example, we must then ask if that value was derived as a function of internals to (likely M1) a particular EIM or was it holistically derived as a function of Elegant Reasonism? The answer to that question will be telling.

Elegant Reasonism - Treatise -

Developing a fully compliant Elegant Reasonism Treatise means that the investigation has successfully navigated Charts 6, 8, and 18. That you are now ready to develop and present the holistic insights that result.

A Few Holistic Insights Mode Shifting M1 to M5 reveals a myrid of insights spanning science. The list here is in no way comprehensive but is representative of a few epic and profound implications of accomplishing unification through this exercise. 



Dismantles M1’s limitations regarding the speed of light and mode shifts to find Severance responsible for its constancy and architecture being responsible for wave-particle duality resulting from The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. Rapidity becomes predominant factor for velocity in M5. 

Rapidity responsible for quantum mechanical velocities in context of discontinuous architectures of mass



Complex composite architectures of mass span all scales isotropically: Single MBP to Supermassive Black Holes



Everything real is a system or system of systems governed by the intrinsic nature of Most Basic Particles (MBPs)

The unified Universe is unfathomably vast and exists well beyond our particle horizon 



Statistical Circles in WMAP support a mode shifted conclusion made in Bang to Bang (e.g. the unified Universe exists well beyond our particle horizon and is also discontinuous within M5)

The unified Universe is unfathomably ancient 

Mode shifting estimates on the age of ‘the Universe’ illuminate holistic age in the extreme and within our particle horizon potentially an order of magnitude greater than traditional estimates. This insight eliminates concept compression issues with examples like BX442



The portion of the unified Universe reflected by WMAP only represents that inside our particle horizon, and that portion is larger than we previously calculated (potentially an order of magnitude or more greater)



Establishes a new class of astronomical phenomena in the form of mini-bangs (e.g. collision class objects exhibiting that portion of the energy signature taxonomy)



Being able to reflect the unified Universe Bang to Bang: Bang: 

Is only a first step – unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single discipline of science, philosophy is unified….



Now requires a comprehensive systems review to mode shift what it is we think we know across the body of science and all domains of discourse

Some Surprises Elegant Reasonism prevailed in every test put to it so far. 

Everything real is a system or system of systems 

The implications are that everything real is subject to The Fundamental Entanglement Function, Function, limited by Severance 

Including Black Holes, the implication is that even they are subject to Severance (albeit very high)



Super massive Black Holes racing away at incredible velocities supports the Bang to Bang insight



Statistical circles in the WMAP data supports the Bang to Bang insight



Constructs like Lanaikea are consistent with expected remnants with Bang to Bang insight



“The” unified Universe exists in the unfathomably vast regions well beyond the particle horizon of “our” Universe



The potential that Venus, Earth, and Mars all held oceans, only Earth’s remains (and it may be temporary as a function of temperature) 

Is consistent with the apparent shooting gallery we find Earth in, to the present moment



Suggests an implication that Earth’s ocean has been replenished, consistent with ELE frequencies 



Where the energy signature taxonomy seems consistent with Events spanning all scales

That unification necessarily requires a tapestry inclusive of all that is, not just a single discipline of science 

Once the Bang to Bang precipice had been gained it became clear that there had to be an affinity to manifest everything real 

Susanne K Langer’s body of work links symbology, philosophy, and art appreciation



Ludwig Von Mises’ body of work links Human Action and Economics



Benoit Mandelbrot’s body of work, especially The Fractal Geometry of Nature has great affinity with M5/M6



Affinities exist for: 



Astrominerology, Cosmochemistry, Supernova nucleosynthesis, etc.

The holistic affinity Elegant Reasonism has for finding truth as a function of the unified Universe was candidly very surprising….

Development of Treatise The ability to gain a perspective on unification allows humanity to see the unified Universe as if through new eyes. Our focus shifts away from the medium of the reference frame and onto what is in it. Philosophy is integrated, for the first time, relative to and respective of the unified Universe in order to discern truth. Traditional status quo thinking, successful as it has been, now offers the means to leverage what it is we think we know in mode shifting that knowledge into alignment with the unified Universe through similar exercises and systems reviews. 

Eliminates Langer Epistemology Errors and the implications they cause



Concept compression issues (as a function of traditional Big Bang thinking) eliminated



Elegant Reasonism represents an adaptable, flexible, and standards based manner in which to integrate the requirements of unification and future encapsulated interpretive models which may be developed



The unified Universe then becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth always held distinct & litmus



Traditional epistemologies are integral but statistically weighted relative to and respective of their ability to reflect the unified Universe



ISO 9001 QMS standards, Six Sigma, Baldrige, etc. integrated but must also be mode shifted



Root Cause Analysis must isotropically penetrate all scales



Encapsulation drives EIM boundaries, enumeration, iteration, and inventory practices

Ah Ha’s! No one, anywhere, was more surprised that these processes, methods, would accomplish unification than McGowen. So much so, that unification was not even recognized until some three years after it had been accomplished. And even then McGowen sat for hours in stunned silence just staring at the body of work producing it in a state of denial and then shear terror at the enormity of it all. 

All the pieces dovetail into place fundamentally accomplishing unification and all we are is inextricable part of unified reality



Unification is a tapestry greater than any single discipline of science



The Emergence Model is capable of describing both inorganic and organic matter via the discontinuous nature of Knot Theory relative to the intrinsic nature of MBPs deriving The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance



Leads to critical situational awareness thinking, that under the right conditions, architectures of mass are frangible



Produces within the Event Frame a taxonomy of energy signatures spanning phase steps characterizing predominant interactions between relative and respective real systems and systems of systems

Being capable of describing the unified Universe Bang to Bang fundamentally demands unification not just of science but absolutely every philosophical contemplation and science (hence the rigorous analytics associated with Elegant Reasonism). 

That linkages between philosophical areas and the unified Universe can be characterized as RESTFUL (e.g. in context of REST Architectures from information sciences).



Eliminating Langer Epistemology Errors suggests we employ the term ‘reflect’ more than the term ‘describe’



Recognizing the affinity stellar nucleosynthesis burning layers have to chemical compositions of minerals gave critical insights into implications of supernova dynamics and to the ejecta they produce. Those insights coupled holistically to reveal a unified Universe populated not just with the illuminated phenomena we witness through astronomy but objects that we can’t see as well. 

There is no such thing as darkness, only the absence of light. There is no such thing as cold, only the absence of action (e.g. heat). And in this holistic awareness we find reconciliation of two long held propositions: The Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox. Noodle on it awhile and you will gain that precipice employing the holistic concepts herein. The quest for unification may be over, but now the real work begins….

The Tapestry of Unification Tapestries are wonderfully full of scenes provoking thoughts connecting realms which heretofore seemed unrelated. Trying to understand our place in the unified Universe is no less a diverse scene.



That we must explicitly demand geometric basis for our geometry is telling of our time



That we have information science concepts, constructs, practices, processes, and methods which help us to discern requirements and then to anthropogenically manifest systems to deal with those factors is testimony to our inquisitive nature



That we have Quality Management Systems Standards seeking to reduce and eliminate errors to parts per billion is testimony to our perseverance



Traditional epistemologies mired and shackled by previous successes must now endure a larger crucible, one capable of perceiving and engaging the unified Universe if they are to endure



And as Susanne K Langer so poignantly pointed out in 1948, with these new insights comes a whole new world of questions we must ask and answer

The Flammarion wood carving circa 1888

Summary Implications While the quest for unification is over humanity has much work to do still. Elegant Reasonism humbles our arrogance a bit. Not only are we not the center of ‘our’ Universe, neither are we the center of ‘the’ unified Universe. Life is likely replete throughout all of them and as the old language says we are in that image. All of it is. We are a part of that, intrinsically so. We can not escape it, nor it us. 

The single largest computing opportunity humanity will ever have revolves around implications concerning architectures of mass. What are they? How do configuration changes manifest properties? More R&D into the intrinsic nature of MBPs discerned through experiments must be performed.



Axiology is mode shifted such that value derivation is a function of the unified Universe 



The implications for free market economies is immense (See In Unification’s Wake Pt 5) 5)

Mode shifting perceptions of astronomical sciences reconciles the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox elevating how precious our biosphere actually is (in the extreme). We can not take Earth for granted any longer. We must grow into the solar system and leverage resources – together, under Constitutionally protected liberty and freedom. Elegant Reasonism and its insights are a product of exactly that environment and for those reasons. It is not likely Elegant Reasonism could ever have been bureaucratically mandated. And that is something humanity should take dear and precious account of. 

See One Pilgrim’s Wish for Earth. Earth.

Executive Implications When the USPTO published Elegant Reasonism the proverbial genie was released from its bottle never to return. There is nothing any of us can ever do to put it back again. The game is now afoot and nothing can stop it. Government and Business leaders would do well to heed the insights articulated In Unification’s Wake, Part 5: Business Implications. Implications. 

Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology, supported by an analytical framework, which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Elegant Reasonism, through The Emergence Model, accomplishes unification and in doing so establishes a requirement to also provide clear linkage of everything else real through a system analogous to REpresentational State Transfer (REST) in information science. In many ways Elegant Reasonism reunited philosophy and science. 



The implications here are beyond any single area of contemplation. Unification demands reconciliation of absolutely everything real and if one can not accomplish that then you have not achieved unification in any real sense.  Focus on a single area of contemplation, to the exclusion of everything else, is a complete waste of one’s time in life. You have one life. Use it judiciously. Live!

Langer Epistemology Errors metaphorically represent ‘a gate’ ensnaring the innocent with logically correct empirical abstractions which preclude recognizing the holistic tapestry of unification. Being on the inside of this gate precludes the precipice bearing witness to all that is. The core message then is that if you are on the inside, believing in the correctness of your views and you can not accomplish unification, then you are missing data and insights. Only you can determine whether or not those missing elements are of any import. What we can say here is that those missing elements are the final rungs gaining the precipice of unification.

Elegant Reasonism Part 02: Introduction To Mode Shifting Patent Pending 16405134 - USPTO Published 20200372376

This presentation is a complete internal review of the implications of The Elegance of Reason. From this presentation will come the external presentation version. The Elegance of Reason, ISBN 9780977229239. We need to be clear: this presentation was never intended to be about “a book”. It's was intended to be about the concepts developed by that manuscript, and the implications of those concepts relative to the business model of the SolREI Company. Once you've understood the concepts we developed – then you will begin to understand something of our analytic capabilities and general wherewithal. You will too likely know a great deal more than you think you do about a great many other issues. The least of which is starflight. NOTE: The speaker may want to relate the “Columbus' Egg” problem. Depends on the audience and the purpose of the presentation. The point isn't whether or not they see the final answer – it's that we figured it out in the first place and that's the value we bring to the table. We were the ones that figured that out before anyone else did and that's something they need to wrestle with. This isn't a discussion of “command”, it is a discussion of “Knowledge Management” within an engaged “Consulting” arena, to drive objectives of change, to leverage our current situation and circumstances to enable and empower an enduring future through strategic sustainability. The SolREI Company likes impossible challenges. We know that together – we can do this.