Asking The Right Questions

Website Updates! — Please pardon our mess. Construction activities are underway.

There is no end to possible questions that could be asked here. The intent is to ask but a few of those that might act as fodder for your thinking about the broader questions. Often too the situation is not asking the right questions but old questions in the right way, and by that I mean in context of the unified Universe.

Patreons: what questions would you ask?

_________________

Q: Are there questions which can be answered using Elegant Reasonism that can not be answered any other way?
A: Until everyone is operating within the same context, yes, absolutely. Perhaps just as important as new answers what we have done also explains why what we knew previously is true. Newton’s Laws are a great example of that. You know that they are true because of empirical experiment, but why are they true in a fully compliant context of the EIM you employ? That rule set requires the use of all constructs considered to be real in context of recognized EIMs.

_________________

Q: Can you provide examples of questions that Elegant Reasonism answers better?
A: Sure. Some are listed below. Others are in FAQs pages scattered around the website in support of various pages. A few others might be:

Explain why a common real geometric basis point can not be used for all constructs considered real – especially including spacetime. Rhetorically can any geometry be valid (e.g. reflect a real system vs a logical system) absent a credible basis? That being the case then explain why spacetime is a real system rather than a logical system.
In what realm can any geometric object exist absent a real basis in reality?
If nothing can go faster than the speed of light then why are we allowed to employ multiples of that term in equations?
Explain why Grand Design Spiral Galaxies, which take some 11 billion years to form, can be found so far away that there is not enough time since the big bang for them to exist as they obviously do.
Explain why black holes grow.
Why do black holes have mathematical singularities?
Arguably this list might never end…

_________________

Q: If there are there questions currently puzzling status quo thinking modeling reality that are easily answered by Elegant Reasonism, why don’t you just provide the answers?
A: Because the answer will be perceived out of context and consequently meaningless to status quo thinkers modeling reality.

_________________

Q: Why do some people struggle understanding Elegant Reasonism?
A: Most expect the essential interpretative context to be the same, and it is not. Never present Elegant Reasonism derived insights absent the means by which they were developed else they will be taken out of context.

_________________

Q: Does this impact mathematics?
A: We argue it does not, but confusion arises because people expect the interpretative context to be the same and it is not model to model. Consequently relationships and patterns vary by model; which prevents and precludes transference of values and calculations model to model. Linkage, statistics, and other means of analytical proof are handled via the process and framework.

_________________

Q: Why are you correct?
A: Because what we did closes to unification and you can independently validate what we did.

_________________

Q: Are there immediate business impacts that need to be addressed?
A:Yes. See: In Unification’s Wake, Part 05: Business Impact.

_________________

Q: Is Elegant Reasonism really hard to understand?
A: No. It is simple to the point of elegance and that’s why it is named as it is. The problem in comprehension are the preconceived paradigms preexisting between everyone’s ears and only they can change them.

New knowledge must be assimilated by learners and they must desire to comprehend the material. All we can do is help facilitate that assimilation.

_________________

Q: Is The Emergence Model really hard to understand?
A: We don’t think so.

_________________

Q: What are the major features of The Emergence Model?
A: The major features of The Emergence Model are:

The Emergence Model is comprised of two EIMs that characterize two views one logical (M5) and one real (M6). M5 is instantiated by M6, and M6 must instantiate M5 both of which must reflect reality.
The Emergence Model is centrally represented by a single construct referred to as a Most Basic Particle (MBP) whose intrinsic nature:
- derives The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance which configures MBPs into all architectures of mass manifesting everything real. This includes atomic architectures, all configurations spanning the entire entanglement gradient in both emergent and convergent vectors.
- Severance is ultimately responsible for the frangibility of all architectural mass which ultimately made manifest the Bang to Bang perspective.
- Makes manifest The Emergence Model of Particle Physics as articulated both by the Atomic Architecture and Entanglement Gradient webpages here.
Event Frames which are reference frames of interacting permutations of architectural mass characterized by one of seven recognized epicenters of action:
- EFPS1, EFPS2, EFPS3, EFPS4, EFPS5, EFPS6, and EFPS7.
Local Frames which might be characterized as an Event Frame completely surrounded by space, as defined under The Emergence Model, and only interacts with its own constructs.

_________________

Q: If you closed to unification why aren’t you building star ships and Jetson’s flying cars?
A: Because under the first fully compliant, standards based, model closing to unification the types of vehicles we all wanted and dreamed about are just that: fantasy. Reality doesn’t instantiate capabilities necessary for such vehicles in those manners. At this early juncture it is not clear if such vehicles can or can not be created. Civilization’s knowledge of the unified Universe is highly nascent at the moment.

We do have products available for immediate purchase that instantiate what we did.

_________________

Q: Is time travel possible?
A: Not under The Emergence Model which happens to coincide with all documented, standards based, experience. The arrow of time is positive in all cases.

_________________

Q: Why is the arrow of time always positive (e.g. why is time travel not possible)?
A: Under The Emergence Model (which does close to unification) time is defined as an action displacement index and action is always positive. Currently there are no other models closing to unification. So, the most correct answer here is that The Emergence Model does not allow for such capability. At some future date a model might be created which does (and also closes to unification) but that model does not currently exist.

_________________

Q: Isn’t NASA already working on warp drive?
A: What they work on and what they actually accomplish are two different subjects, but the short answer is: no they are not, not even if they think they are.

_________________

Q: I thought CERN had touched a parallel universe or had reason to believe they exist?
A: We are not responsible for CERN’s interpretation of their experiments. What we can definitively say is that the models being employed there do not close to unification and consequently all results are highly susceptible for misinterpretation. The same is also true of experiments around the world whose thinking underpinning those efforts does not close to unification (e.g. they have not been mode shifted).

_________________

Q: Will humanity ever develop warp drive or hyperspace?
A: Those concepts are based on models which will never close to unification and are relegated to the pile of logical constructs (e.g. not real).

_________________

Q: Does this mean humanity will never be able to travel to the stars?
A: It does not necessarily mean that. It does mean that the methods employed will be vastly different than what has been envisioned in movies and shows.

_________________

Q: How big is the unified Universe?
A: Data in the WMAP data suggests the unified Universe is larger than we will ever be able to measure (e.g. larger than our particle horizon).

_________________

Q: Does this break the speed of light barrier?
A: Yes. One test conducted in 1988 that was previously considered flawed in some way (which could never be proven) suggests the light barrier is essentially an illusion created by systems in a local frame. The cosmological velocity of light has been measured using red and blue doppler shifts (see Edwin P Hubble’s body of work) for many decades.

_________________

Q: Why are all interferometer experiments reporting the same value for the speed of light?
A: Because all such devices are made of the same system constructs which can only produce light at that velocity (e.g. electron-photon systems).

_________________

Q: Does this mean Albert Einstein was wrong?
A: No Einstein was not wrong. Einstein was then and remains now absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification.

_________________

Q: If interstellar travel using concepts like warp drive or hyperspace are not possible under this model, then what is the US Navy chasing off the coast? The DOD says they don’t know what they are!
A: The probability is that those devices were created not by the DOD but the DOE using technologies discovered and developed during the Manhattan Project.

_________________

Q: Why will status quo thinking modeling reality “never” accomplish unification?
A: Because nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy as governed by an equation needing no introduction here. That hard cold fact is exactly what is inhibiting employment of a common geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame of reference. It is that same issue precluding fully coupling those same real objects in those same reference frames. The issue is philosophical not scientific.

_________________

Q: Won’t science discover a way around status quo problems and accomplish unification?
A: No, science in isolation is not the answer and it is not because it is possible to have multiple scientific theories which are all logically correct, have all the consequences the same, and which agree with experiment and under such conditions science can not (alone) distinguish which theory is the correct theory. Here is Richard Feynman discussing this problem in the 1950’s.

_________________

Q: What other ways of interstellar travel are there then?
A: Scholz’s star passed by our star system some 70,000 years ago. The idea is if appropriate facilities had existed in extreme orbits of that system at perihelion relative to and respective of our system could potentially execute transfer from that system’s gravity well to our gravity well.

_________________

Q: Why is it improbable that aliens did not leap from Scholz’s star to our system and that is the source of aliens?
A: There are no aliens walking around on the streets. No alien bodies in our cemetaries. No concrete proof, empirical or otherwise, this scenario happened. There is no data to support the idea.

_________________

Q: How much does it cost to learn about Elegant Reasonism?
A: Basic information is available free in the form of articles posted on this website. Our Patreon members have greater access to materials.

_________________

Q: Why is it taking SOLREI INC so long to fully develop the website supporting Elegant Reasonism?
A: In brief, consider that some scientific papers take years to develop. What we undertook requires integration through mode shifting of 100% of every paper, book, patent, concept, etc., to completely dovetail. The best we can hope for is to provide enough material that everyone else comprehends, embraces, and helps us to revolutionize civilization going forward. The more support we receive through Patreon, investors, and business operations the more efficiently and effectively we can accomplish the mission.

___________________________________