electromagnetic spectrumElectromagnetic Spectrum

Speed of Light Confusion

Interferometer experiments have measured, with increasing precision over the last 100 years, not just the speed of light but that that speed does not vary. Strategically at issue is why that is true. Those reasons differ by Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM). Currently EIMs M0, M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, are recognized and M7 is held in reserve status for reasons that will become clear in the fullness of time. EIMs M1 and M2, essentially have the same foundational constructs but under different rules limit the velocity of light as a function of the dimensional aspects of one of those constructs (e.g. spacetime). EIMs M5 and M6 do not employ such a construct and so do not experience those limitations. The velocity there is a function of the systems producing the particle, in this case light (e.g. photons). The architecture of photons constitutes electromagnetic radiation. It should be noted here that EIM M4, is an emulator EIM. By setting certain factors within M5 neutral it may allow M5 or M6 to emulate M1 or M2. Because all local reference frames essentially employ the same constructs the velocity of light is always the same. Where these distinctions come into full relevance is at cosmological scales where M5 and M6 vindicate E.P. Hubble and simultaneously dismantle the inflationary theory. It should also be noted that the constant ‘c’ mode shifts its definition across these EIMs. Under M1 and M2 it refers to the speed of light and under M5 and M6 refers to the limiting factor for entanglement called Severance. When this happens the concept of Rapidity is fundamentally redefined and becomes the governing factor velocity over Severance (See Rapidity in EMCS01: Concept 0168. When these issues are understood the array of equations across science employing the constant ‘c’ quite suddenly make a great deal more common sense.

The constancy of those measurements have been some of the most powerfully influential measurements and experiments in human history. The MichelsonMorley interferometer Experiment attempting to detect the ‘luminiferous aether’ about 1887 (though a similar experiment was conducted in 1880-81 by Michelson in Potsdam) failed using wave patterns of light. Everyone believed that the experiment would detect the luminiferous aether because everyone believed that construct to be real. The experiment failed and to Richard Feynman’s point it does not matter how smart you are, nor how elegant your thinking is, if it does not agree with experiment – it’s wrong. The MichelsonMorley interferometer Experiment was the most successful ‘failure’ in experimental physics. Some argue it still is. These circumstances provided the fodder for Albert Einstein‘s contemplations leading to his body of work beginning in 1905. His body of work is brilliant by any measure. Over the intervening years since those times to present day much has been learned and gained by civilization. Salient here is that information sciences, industry, and technologies were invented, matured into what some might argue is pre-adolescence. Those folks get no argument from us.  Systems Engineering, a branch of information sciences, is represented by a professional organization called the International Council on Systems Engineering or (INCOSE) was only formed in 1990. A particularly poignant insight from information sciences are distinctions between logical systems and physical systems because something can be logically correct and yet remain physically different. Part of the point in this history are the motivating factors driving Einstein’s considerations in developing Relativity. Those factors were largely the experimental results of those interferometers. The other side of that same coin is the point that what Einstein was NOT working on when he developed Relativity was unification. The key recognition in all of this is that what Einstein developed was absolutely 100% logically correct and therein lay the strategic clue necessary to gain the precipice of unification.

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions

Investigative Clues

Which is more important science or philosophy? If you said science then you likely do not understand that science is a philosophy, just of a particular type with different tools and codified methods. So, you now are forced to capitulate and say philosophy, but of science. That exercise is critical thinking at work and it is relevant to this entire discussion. Let’s try a different exercise. What do all traditional epistemologies have in common? Answer: they are all ensnared and otherwise entrenched with human physiology. So, what we’re all human right? True, but there is an intrinsic issue with that observation and it is one Susanne K Langer wrote about in 1948 some seven years before Einstein’s death in 1955. It is truly a shame he did not read her book before he passed. If he had he may have invented Elegant Reasonism on the spot. Langer recognized that mistaking abstractions for actual reality is a fatal epistemological error and that insight only becomes to the forefront in context of what Niels Bohr said in the above quote. Take that insight and immerse it within Systems Engineering and you are liberated beyond measure because now you realize that there may be more than one logical representation of the same physical system (e.g. reality). Do not make the mistake of believing this means there are multiple physical realities. That is a mistake for another time.

Major news outlets and press offices of major research institutions from Forbes, to CERN, to Nature, to AAAS, have all published articles about particles potentially going faster than the speed of light. {See references below.} The reason for that is pretty straight forward. Every time such claims arise ‘the laws’ {of physics} are cited. There are particles that potentially hold that promise and when we back up and look at the various articles we see a common thread. That common thread is that 100% of all the people involved in these various discussions have committed Langer Epistemology Errors, and that includes the organizations that published these articles and those listed below for reference. At issue are the implications of commission of Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs.

About now you are likely wondering what philosophy has to do with physics and if you understood the implications of the question about priorities you would immediately say ‘everything’. If you are now perplexed or bristling then you may very well be entrenched in status quo thinking. Hang on Buckwheat because we’re about to go on a sleigh ride of epic proportions. 99.99% of physicists believe they work directly with the real world. They’re wrong. They work with philosophical instantiations of abstractions our human physiology provides about the real world. They do not directly work with quarks, leptons, electrons, and photons. What they work with are abstractions of those real constructs which we assign various labels called quarks, leptons, electrons, and photons to reflect physical phenomena which in turn are described by other abstractions. Our mathematics is replete with such abstractions, the mechanics of which routinely handle with great precision. The implication of all this is very subtle. So subtle that it has ensnared humanity for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. The construct of spacetime is a logical construct exactly because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy but that did not stop Schrodinger from writing his Spacetime Structure treatise. Drop back a minute and consider the algorithms used in modern computer games. Those games employ actual mathematical equations but they ignore the values which need to be there to the degree they want to exhibit reality or fantasy.

Bell Inequality Tests Did Not ‘Glitch’

Bell Inequality experiments like the one linked by the title immediately above have in the intervening years been characterized as having glitches in their systems because of declaratory statements like “nothing can go faster than the speed of light”. They back those statements up with Interferometer data. All of which by the way is M1 based. Such ardent defenders of status quo thinking miscalculated on several fronts. Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) and LEEs Empiricism Trap being chief among those miscalculations.

The implications of the above results are consistent with expectations from The Emergence Model and demonstrate a speed of entanglement potentially orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light. These same results are evident in Edwin P Hubble‘s data, galactic acceleration rates, and other z-factor measurements. Simultaneous with mode shifting these domains of discourse is the dismantling of limits and associated theories such as the inflationary theory which under M5 is considered a dead concept exactly because rapid expansion can not reconcile infinite compression in the face of black hole growth. What was logically correct as a declaration under M1 have no purchase under M5. Mode shifting those environments both illuminates and illustrates the challenges we face going forward. So before you run off making declaratory statements make sure your shoes are on the correct feet. For these and many more reasons we mode shifted the Baloney Detection Kit. Lead discussions transformationally. Critical stituationally awareness thinking is required at all times executing the utility process, enabling the framework in support of the epistemology which together holistically are Elegant Reasonism.

Normalizing these various factors in a fully compliant context of Elegant Reasonism will find the unified Universe is unfathomably vast and ancient in the extreme. Logic artifacts disappear. Concept compression issues evaporate. There is ample time for grand design sprial galaxies to have formed in exactly the places where both the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope find them to be. The expecation is that life is natural, expected, common, across the unified Universe. Mode shifting those factors finds reconciliation between the Drake Equation and the Fermi Paradox.  We don’t see interstellar craft zooming about because there is in reality no spacetime as it is a logical construct not a physical one. We also find supernova ejecta material of all sizes out in the intervening distances that no deflector could ever hope to move at high rapidities in time to avoid. Travel then, under M5, would be slow, multi-generational, and would require extremely precise predictive navigation. Consequently the answer to Fermi’s question is: they’re very likely right where they evolved. Flipping that insight on its head a bit finds that the best opportunity to interact across such distances are opportunities like that discussed in our article: Promima B when Scholz’s Star passed by our solar system some 70,000 years ago.  Said another way; the Earth is our starship. These concepts will conspire to fire the imaginations of future science fiction authors as well as scientists.

Elegant Reasonism Reconciles Confusion about ‘c’

The speed of light, commonly referred to by its mathematical constant ‘c’, is an empirically derived value based on countless experiments. Stereo-typically these experiment are conducted using devices called interferometers. The most famous was the MichelsonMorley interferometer Experiment. The device these gentlemen fabricated was beautifully crafted and logically correct in every manner, but it really was not intended to determine the speed of light. Everyone at the time believed there was a ‘medium’ to the Universe called the ‘luminiferous aether’ and that is the construct they were trying to detect. The entire scientific community surmised that the aether would influence the speed of light and therefore they crafted the most sensitive device they could because they wanted to see those influences. They failed wondrously. It has been called the most successful failure in science. That experiment was conducted in the waning years of the 19th century. Only a few years later that experiment was on every scientist mind, including one Albert Einstein. The details of who said what are all in our User Library and available to anyone who registers with us. Our interpretation of what that experiment accomplished was illumination of the logical nature of their thinking and to which Einstein added an incremental precipice from a different angle.

Einstein‘s rationale was flawless, except for one small detail. He committed a Langer Epistemology Error. To be fair, no one on Earth even knew what those were at the time. It would be decades later that Langer even wrote her book describing the problem and challenges. Even then it was about art not science, and so it went completely overlooked until our research uncovered it and we used it as part of our patent filings. So strong was his argument that the rest of humanity essentially went down the same proverbial path, making the same error as we did so. Wait a minute you say, we have mountains of experimental data proving this or that about what Einstein said and wrote about. Even the MichelsonMorley interferometer Experiment showed the precision of the speed of light. Many others have confirmed and improved upon that precision with great accuracy. Not wishing to commit LEEs ourselves we impose processes & methods to eliminate them to the degree we can and then we impose an analytical framework underneath those approaches and we must never forget the philosophical implications and predicates governing our considerations. today we call all of that Elegant Reasonism.

Eye exam machine
Eye exam machine

Once we recognize the implications of LEEs we must then recognize the implications of the criteria influencing our interpretation relative to and respective of this particular investigation and we do that through Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) of which, at the moment, we have eight recognized EIMs: M0 – M7, and only a few of those are needed for this high level discussion here. Think of EIMs as the device used by doctors to determine eyeglass prescriptions. EIMs change the way we perceive what we see as we look. The Brain and Central Nervous System (CNS) then convert those signals into abstractions in order for humans to relate to the real world in which we are immersed.

So, the situation is that we have a plurality of EIMs, and credible experimental results all producing the same set of insights and conditions. That sameness is so constant that we establish a ‘physical constant’ label ‘c’ to represent the velocity of light. When we churn all of that through Elegant Reasonism ‘c’ mode shifts from M1 use of it to represent the speed of light and to M5‘s use of it to represent a concept called Severance. M5 recognized that photons go the speed they do because of the system producing them not because of some externally imposed limitation. Systems which always produce the same results.

Einstein - Hubble meeting
Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument

Why is light from every source perceived at the same velocity? Simple, every source employs the same mechanics. Ah but far away galaxies have been show to be receding at velocities in apparent contradiction to Einstein’s rationale. Many decades later, a group of scientists led by Alan Guth at MIT rationalized that (under M1 rules) spacetime itself had to be inflating must be responsible for those ‘appearances’ and that they were not actually moving that fast. Ultimately this was labeled the z-factor. All of these scientists were forced into this rationalization exactly because 100% had committed Langer Epistemology Errors. The recently launched James Web Space Telescope recently found a star some 12.9 billion light years from Earth with an apparant z-factor of 6.2.

How does Elegant Reasonism Reconcile velocity?

The first problem has already been addressed in that we recognize what LEEs are and the implications of them. Dr Lev B Okun demonstrated that Einstein thought mass was invariant and predominant thinking today holds it variant. Dr Okun tells that story in his article The Concept of Mass. In any case if you write all that down, then encapsulate it all so we can refer to it simply it creates what we call the Encapsulated Interpretative Model (EIM)M1‘. What we find is perfect logical correctness of internal thinking. Therein, however also lay the strategic clue to reconciling the basic issue here. That thinking is internal to that logically correct model, not the actual real unified Universe, because make no mistake: the actual real Universe is unified even if how we think about it is not. Because everyone had essentially committed LEEs, and had done so for over 100 years, we were familial with its failings, but we ignored them. The SolREI company did not ignore them. We saw they for what they were: elements of a logic trap. M1 not only does not unify physics, it will never unify physics exactly because its core abstractions preclude unification. Specifically the spacetime-mass interface precludes unification.

Elegant Reasonism did not tweak M1 to get M5, it completely replaced it; paradigm by paradigm, abstract by abstract. If you have read this far you are likely thinking this is all horse pucky, but if you start clicking links here and reading those and their links, you will come to slow recognition that we are correct and the framework we have created may be duplicated worldwide (under license of course).

Logical Constructs

Elegant Reasonism recognizes that there may be more than one logical view of the same physical system. Consequently the intellectual property asset created a framework demanding a plurality of encapsulated interpretive models be employed and required that at least one of them close to unification. We provided M5 in the patent filing exactly because of this requirement so everyone else could benefit from our insights. Because each model establishes its own internal context we needed a manner in which to change modes of though regarding the various issues. Elegant Reasonism calls this contextual shifting “mode shifting“.

Mode Shifting ‘c’ between M1 and M5

M1 holds that the speed of light is an intrinsic part of a metaphorical fabric called spacetime. Logically that makes perfect sense. Perfect except that it does not allow for the closure to the unification of physics, but that was not the problem Einstein was working on when he proposed it. Hence the relative ease with which that particular LEE trap was set. Let me be perfectly clear. All of humanity fell in to that same trap. So, don’t be too quick to cast blame because you and I are all in that same boat. We all fell prey to that particular LEE.

So the rationalization within M1 goes something like this: Taking the velocity of ‘c’ to equal 1, and each of the previous dimensions of space also equal to one, we find that we cannot move through space without also moving through time. We thus have a common construct called ‘spacetime’. Through this equivalence then equate ‘c’ in the famous mass-energy transformation equation to spacetime. The primary issue though is that mass must be converted to energy in any transformation crossing the spacetime-mass interface, and that precludes unification. For one it prevents the use of a common geometric basis point. For another it precludes fully coupling reference frames. This is why quantum gravity has been as elusive as it has been. That quest is tantamount to looking for a penny in the corner of a round room. You will never see the corner. M1 and M2 both manifest gravity as phenomena that results from mass warping ‘spacetime’. However, it is never explained how that warping occurs at the spacetime-mass interface. Neither are components like stress, tension, or shear explained exclusively of the construct of spacetime. Spacetime is a logical construct, not a real physical object with its own intrinsic nature that can be independently characterized. When we try, the description starts sounding like that luminiferous aether Michelson and Morley failed to detect (and for the same reasons e.g. the corner did not exist).

M5 has a completely different basis. The cogent description for M5 defines ‘Space’ as dimensionless nothing. As we all intrinsically know, nothing cannot influence something. That is a philosophical discussion and goes all the way back to the beginning of this article, but here it remains true. Which too reinforces the holistic point being made that unification criteria must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. Photons are emitted from their parent electron system due to centripetal force exerted through entanglement on that system. These are nested systems and are highly complex. Simple quanta discussions just don’t make that particular cut.  Photons all have the same speed (e.g. velocity) because they all have the same Severance value. There is no dimensional limitation imposed on them. Consequently that 6.2 z-factor for the star Earendel which NASA illustrated by the James Webb Space Telescope recently actually demonstrates its recession velocity. Any competent systems review will find that circa 1900 there was another term used to convey velocity over the speed of light was called at that time: Rapidity or Beta (Latex formula). Ultimate velocity in M5 is governed by Latex formula, not ‘c‘. And when we inventory astronomical and cosmological objects we find a great many of them hold very high rapidities. Another coincidental little tidbit implying that M5 is the correct view, besides the fact that it unifies physics, is the beams inside particle accelerators are all aligned using that value. Rhetorically why do you suppose that’s true? Cosmological velocities are governed by Rapidity (e.g. EMCS01 Concept 0168) not M1 rules. The mode shifted definition of Rapidity reads velocity over Severance and is denoted by the italicized Greek letter for Beta Latex formula. There are many other issues stemming from this that will ripple across science. Least of which are how we measure distances, the actual age of the unified Universe, our particle horizon, the actual size of our portion of the unified Universe and a great deal more. So much more that there is a new class of Events which emerged from our systems review we call “collision class” Events. In essence they are ‘mini-bangs’ and the existing astronomical database is replete with them. In the full holistic context of everything we are putting on the network we feel there is more than enough evidence to credibly vindicate our work. We tried in vain to alert the powers that were in charge prior to the launch of the JWST in an effort to conduct a systems review to see what implications might be reconciled prior to launch and deployment but there was too much momentum for that to take place. We are where we are and we have what we have. The challenge now is to determine the best course of action going forward.

Historical Reivew

But if there is no dimensional limitation imposed on them wouldn’t the MichelsonMorley interferometer Experiment have had different results? Short answer is no and it is no because the local Severance values were all the same. Does that imply that cosmological velocities might not be the same. Yes, as a matter of fact it does. Enter one Edwin Hubble to the discussion. Elegant Reasonism vindicates Hubble (pictured above with Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument). Hubble was correct and so was his data set.

The more traditional discussions, based, on M1 or M2, get into elaborate discussions of the expansion or inflation of spacetime, or associate fluid type properties to spacetime, the more it becomes similar to the original luminiferous aether Michelson & Morley failed to find. When we collect the various issues with earlier models and then work those issues through mode shifting into M5 we suddenly discover that we can describe the entire Universe “Bang to Bang“. There is a parting thought here and to set this thought up we so often use this video of Richard Feynman discussing knowing vs understanding that you may be sick of it by now but it bears repeating – often:


We now have the tools to distinguish theory A from theory B by holding the unified Universe litmus through Elegant Reasonism.


Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology supported by a utility process employing an analytical framework which together seek truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and which produced the first fully compliant EIM closing to unification: The Emergence Model. We have opened the discussion on why M1 and M2 are logical constructs rather than representations on physical reality. In short nothing real can transit the spacetime-mass interface created by those EIM’s core constructs and that hard cold fact mandates that consideration. The systems review already conducted initiates the reintegration of philosophy and science with unification criteria as a predicate priority consideration exactly for these reasons.


(M5) Mode shifting the velocity discussion into The Emergence Model vindicates Hubble, eliminates logically imposed limits by replacing the reason for the constancy to the system producing the particles rather than externally imposed dimensions of a logically correct construct which does not, nor can it, close to unification. Quite suddenly we find a need to perform a systems review of all the WMAP data and inventory high z-factor objects and Hubble‘s data for red and blue shifted objects. Objects like Laniakea become aftermath structures with great detail which we can study with new insights. Rapidity becomes the ruler of velocity with Hubble’s metrics cluing us in on values. All force is the work instantiated by the action of dynamic complex composite architectures of mass. Those architectures manifest the particular forces observed. Even recently some scientists purport to have discovered a fifth fundamental force and if so it does not phase M5 in the slightest since it simply means that a new architecture has been identified. The path forward is clear and Elegant Reasonism will illuminate it and we can then mode shift what it is we think we already know on to the new path.


Please accept YouTube cookies to play this video. By accepting you will be accessing content from YouTube, a service provided by an external third party.

YouTube privacy policy

If you accept this notice, your choice will be saved and the page will refresh.


Also see:











Shop Now


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #M5 #JWST #Earendel #GRB090423 #CollisionClass #Astronomy #Astrophysics #Supernova #BigBang #WMAP #Superluminal


By Charles McGowen

Charles C McGowen is a strategic business consultant. He studied Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University '76-'78. IBM hired him early in '79 where he worked until 2003. He is now Chairman & CEO of SolREI, Inc. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2439-1707