Apollo Program

Apollo & Optics

Can you simultaneously explain reflection, refraction, the two-slit experiment, rainbows, photon geodesics through spacetime, black hole growth, rapid expansion, infinite compression, what happened before the Big Bang and where our little part of the Universe is headed all at the same time? Our original systems review did just that. Let’s merge the two moon images above for just a moment in our imaginations and simplistically mode shift the discussion. What does the Apollo space program have in common with all of the concepts above? The mode shifted answer to that question is: Severance across an Event Frame.

These short videos were taken on a clear day, with clouds below the aircraft so that only the atmosphere we were in and our star Sol was above us (including the intervening space {across the relevant portion of the entanglement gradient}). At the center of what pilots call a ‘glory’ is the shadow of our aircraft. Why is it circular? Because the photon source is spherical (e.g. Sol). Why do the colors separate from the spectrum? Because Event Frame energies for those frequencies result in different Severance values for those photon architectures. If the aircraft’s shadow were removed, resolution were increased what would each of those spectral colors display? they would each display an image of Sol. What is happening here? Photons leaving Sol entangle with our aircraft and because they remain in EFPS2 depart striking the cloud relative to and respective of their frequency and architecture to produce the glory. Exactly the same set of circumstances takes place in a two-slit experiment. Photons which transition through the sequence: EFPS3, EFPS4, EFPS5, EFPS6, and EFPS7 are absorbed by our aircraft and that’s why its shadow is in the center of the glory.


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.


What single sentence explains 100% of these phenomena? That single sentence is below but it is directly from a single cogent paragraph defining The Emergence Model’s EIM M5. That single sentence is:  The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures MBPs into complex composite architectures of mass which interact in an Event Frame relative to and respective of their various specific configurations generally construed to follow Knot Theory.

Do you know why electrons emit photons? Some might begin citing electrons droping quantum levels in atomic shells and complex Schrodinger equations. Simplistically electrons emit photons due to the centripetal force exerted on them through The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. That’s why free electron lasers work. That’s why synchrotron radiation exists. There are no atomic nuclei involved in those latter examples and so there are no quantum orbitals involved. Only when we shake out the chaos of logical systems through systems engineering protocols and mode shift these subjects is clarity afforded.

Looking at the image above we can simplistically employ mode shifted language to what the different Apollo missions performed. All Event Frames are predominantly characterized by one of seven phase steps which generally characterize predominant action at that time (e.g. action displacement index) between the relative and respective real objects made manifest by their architectures of mass. Apollo 13 for example remained in EFPS2 around the Moon to return to Earth. Apollo administrators executed what they called a slingshot around the Moon, but the results were the same. Missions which landed on the Moon sequenced appropriately and respectively through other Event Frame Phase Steps as a function of their mission parameters. Part of the point here is that the language used to describe aircraft glories, the Apollo missions, reflection, refraction, two-slit experiments, etc. is not different under The Emergence Model. The same cogent paragraph defining The Emergence Model’s EIM M5 applies across the entire entanglement gradient. In hindsight of accomplishing unification, we should expect no less. In short unification demands credible manifestation of everything real be made manifest across the entire entanglement gradient regardless of the consideration vector being emergent or convergent.

This article has a positive perspective in terms of its tone and manner. We have no great desire to present the negative side, although if we look at the utility process, framework and epistemology that is Elegant Reasonism we can clearly see that one of the outcomes is illuminating why other EIMs do not close to unification and consequently can not employ common geometric basis points or fully couple all reference frames. That situation is just as true for our aircraft performing that glory experiment as it was for all Apollo missions and every two-slit experiment ever conducted. The same set of circumstances explains absorption spectra, and pretty much every experiment we considered during our original systems review across EMCS01, EMCS02, and our Thought Experiments. Part of the issue is that unification must be a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science. The reason is simple. One must have a means to discern multiple simultaneously congruent experiments which all have the same consequences and agree with experiment and the litmus test must be the unified Universe not congruence to an EIM which can not close to unification (which is what we have been doing).



#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #Apollo #TwoSlitExperiment #Spacetime #Entanglement #Severance #BellExperiments #BigBang #Glory #Aircraft #Experiment


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