Biosphere Safety

Anyone with a smidgen of common sense and familiar with The Talladega Report will understand our motivation for wishing nuclear remediation capabilities. That experience was in one sense motivated us through the original systems review in order to see if unification offered a credible path to reconciling what struck us as an egregious problem. Nothing like holding a Geiger counter reading 6.5 rads/hr to get one’s adrenaline running and I can speak to that from first hand experience. All jokes about glowing suddenly cease being funny and concern over long term tissue damage take front and center attention. My lower legs and feet may never be the same. Not looking to blame anyone here. We all did what we had to do to win that war. It’s just that some of us are still fighting it and don’t know that. Enough whining. Let’s focus on what to do about these situations around the world. What is, is.

The Silver Insight

It is worth repeating recursively that insights here need to be understood in full context of the utility process, framework, and epistemology that developed them. If you do not have that interpretative basis in order to justify them then they will make absolutely no sense to you. They will appear as a fish out of water. Einstein once said something to the affect of “Everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree it will live its life believing it is stupid”.

• The actual real Universe is unified regardless of what you think.
• While there may be a more precise EIM out there, today we have The Emergence Model and therein lay opportunity, especially in light of the fact that any subsequent EIM developed which also is fully compliant closing to unification only makes the utility process, framework, and epistemology that much more powerful.
  • Under M5, everything real is some configuration of MBPs made manifest by The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance and that has very real implications:
    • Everything real is some complex composite construct whose architecture of mass is subject to Severance and that means under the right circumstances is: Frangible
    • Everything real is a system or system of systems
    • M5 propositions suggest structure equals properties and properties infer intrinsic structure
    • The intrinsic nature of core constructs of M5 present conditions where innate processes are derived and are isotropic across all scales (e.g. they are scale invariant)
    • Employed in this manner the unified Universe is suddenly characterized Bang to Bang
    • Such complex architectures of mass are subject to their structural nature:
      • Phase resonances can be constructive or destructive and that latter case explains antimatter.
      • Knot Theory constructs are subject to entanglement densities and saturation for given architectures and that explains the interaction differences between what is perceived as normal matter vs dark matter. That same insight eliminates all other forms of energy and the definitions for the term energy is simplified under Occam’s Razor.
• Taking then complex constructs what we need to accomplish is the isolation of particular constituent constructs within in order to instantiate Severance. What did we just say? We just said we need to be able to break individual elemental bonds between atoms. If we take radioactive isotopes and subject them to managed Severance fields which target specific bond architectures then it might be possible to execute controlled nuclear remediation for contaminated areas.

There are many reasons such a capability is important. Cleaning up after nuclear accidents might be just one of many reasons. Mode shifting these environments enables insights available in no other manner. One of the issues we see as paramount in understanding how to accomplish this is better understanding of the various architectures of mass which would need to be influenced by such fields. Before anyone jumps up saying molecular bonds, or nuclear fission, or blue fish, or green monkeys, etc. etc. we first need to recognize how these different constructs mode shift between M1, M2, and M5. Simplistically what would be involved with developing this idea are specifically the constituent architectures of mass associated with molecular and elemental bonds, plus the fundamental forces of nature made manifest by the various EIMs. The objective would be to find those architectures and then subject them to appropriate fields necessary for them to succumb to Severance. The implication is controlled nuclear fission and that’s a pretty tall order. The question on the table is can we do this? One thing we can guarantee is that if you can not perceive the detailed architectures you will never be able to engage them in this manner.

Power

M5 dismantles many previously held beliefs about phenomena and behaviors. The spacetime-mass interface is rendered toothless, for example, because both space and time are redefined under the EIM M5. What that means though is that all 400+ equations of EMCS01, all physical properties under EMCS02, and all the issues of thermodynamics of EMCS03 must be mode shifted. Our original systems review dealt with many of these issues and found a credible path through in order to accomplish unification. Not until we reconcile Einstein (e.g. M2) with Hubble‘s body of work and mode shift the speed of light to Severance do we fully understand the implications as to the source of power we have been witnessing all these years. Ultimately the source of power is a function of the configurations of MBPs forming complex composite architectures of mass. It is those architectures which bind up and instantiate that power. We need to be exceedingly careful in how we relieve that pressure lest it wreak havoc on the surroundings. I can think of several instances where that has happened. Some intentionally and others not so much.  The point here is all this warrants extreme caution in how we proceed. MBPs, individually, have three states; no energy, enough to entangle, and too much energy to entangle. They are respectively enumerated as states 0, 1, and 2. State 2 MBPs can be generated any number of ways and they are always dangerous to everything real. It’s not that they have too much energy to entangle as much as they will impart Severance energies to structures already configured and nothing can stop them except interacting with enough other structures to transfer some of that energy. In that way State 2 MBPs become State 1 MBPs.

Quantum rotors, and other structures comprising complex composite architectures can store incredible amounts of energy. Structures can withstand energies that exceed Severance for other architectures. Where those values are is a function of the architectures involved within the Event Frame and circumstances of their interactions. What we are looking for here is the ability to resonate specific constructs to resonance in order to remove particular elemental bonds of isotopes in order to facilitate nuclear decay chain sequencing. Not in a gross way as what happens in a nuclear explosion but with a scalpel. The idea is to create managed Severance fields which resonate with the a particular isotope’s elemental bond specifically to facilitate nuclear decay to neutral elements and then turn the field off. The question is – how do we do that? The hope and thought is that if the fields resonate consistent with the particular construct we are after that it won’t adversely affect the other constructs in the Event Frame. However, that is a hope and we deperately hope it isn’t wishful thinking.

Why Should You Trust M5?

The short answer is we don’t care if you do or do not. The hard cold fact is that it closes to unification in a fully compliant manner. If someone at some point creates an incremental EIM that is better than M5 then we think that’s fabulous! Go for it. On the day that happens it will only serve to make Elegant Reasonism stronger, not weaker. Elegant Reasonism is the process used to develop the EIM M5. Someone creating some incremental EIM beyond those currently recognized helps us all. In the interim we have M5 and Elegant Reasonism Rules state that at least one EIM must be employed by investigators, and today that means The Emergence Model such as it is. Developing a new EIM will inevitably employ use of the process in order to accomplish that and that means those subsequent EIMs are derivatives of this process. Consequently we don’t care if anyone wants to spend their time in such pursuits. All their effort accomplishes is strengthening what we have already done. So, we’re all in to support that. Do it.

Investigators will find that our original systems review notes are online. Our concept sieves are as well. We still have a great deal of work to do getting material from our original systems review into the network presence but we make strides in that regard everyday. Because you don’t see something online does not mean we do not have it. It simply means we are still working network content. Most pages link back to electronic content of the original notes and you may review the source material in that manner.

• Concept Sieves
  • EMCS01 – Original Systems Review
  • EMCS02 – Physical Properties
  • EMCS03 – Thermodynamics
• Properties (See EMCS02)
• Propositions
• Thought Experiments

For example, Property 0045: Magnetic Moment concepts mode shift but there is a great deal more R&D to accomplish.

Structural Severance

When you first look at Elegant Reasonism and more specifically at The Emergence Model, you should come away with an appreciation of structure. From the list of Emergence Model propositions so derived we have Proposition 0017 and Proposition 0149 (among others) which respectively state: Structure equals properties and properties infer intrinsic structure. Any student of chemistry will immediately recognize those points. Mechanical Engineers will likely remember from school exercises where they had to build structures from straws, popsicle sticks, toothpicks, or other small items with the learning objective of demonstrating how the structures they built exceeded the individual strengths of the constituent item. The point here is that while individual MBPs have Severance as a function of their intrinsic nature, structures comprised of them will experience Severance as a function of that particular structure. Finding that value is likely going to be a challenge.

We somewhat have the cart before the horse here because we really need to understand what is driving the parameters any R&D program would need to follow. Traditional reference frames are not going to cut it. We need reference frames that can employ common geometric basis points and fully couple all real objects in every frame. That requirement demands reference frames derived from The Emergence Model. Simplistically this means understanding the nature of interactions in context of each EIM employed in the ensuing investigation and the distinctions each possesses.

This challenge is more difficult than it might seem and a great deal of R&D is needed. What we are discussing here is like taking a complex bridge made of trusses and Severing single trusses in the structure through resonance. The manner and means of accomplishing that will be a matter of R&D. Accomplishing these capabilities would revolutionize the nuclear energy industry and render our biosphere safe from past mistakes. The effort to establish these capabilities will mean that those who have come before us and those who died in the process of correcting the issues they were dealing with will not have died in vain.

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #NuclearDecay #DecayChain #Radioactive #AlphaRadiation #BetaRadiation #GammaRadiation #Moderator #Particle