Bang To Bang

magnetized neutron accreting black hole

“The” Universe Steady State Bang to Bang

Elegant Reasonism tackles the age old question concerning how what we perceive to be the realm in which we exist with relative ease. The issue is wrapping one’s thinking around what all of this really means and how to employ it. Feel free to peruse around. This website is intended to facilitate your comprehension. This article will very briefly describe the mechanisms which allow Elegant Reasonism to describe the entire Universe “Bang to Bang”. If you are reading this article and expect it to describe this subject in the context of status quo thinking, then you do not understand Elegant Reasonism, and we strongly suggest you study it.

Insights here must be assimilated in cognizant context of the process and framework developing them, otherwise the reader will encounter them out of context.

NOTE: What you find here is not in context of status quo thinking modeling reality. Effective communications takes place only when a common foundation is achieved and here that likely requires some work on your part. Insights must be delivered in context of the process that developed them. Do not expect what follows to be in context of what you think you know, for that must be mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe. If you need to Reset Expectations there are more than a few articles here to get you started. The expectation to find unification inside established institutionalized domains of discourse is metaphorically tantamount to throwing cross ties in front of the train your are riding on. Such a circumstance would not end well.



Mode Shifting The Big Bang

There are many cases establishing evidence supporting the assertion that a “Big Bang” occurred. That’s not the issue. The issue is characterizing how it occurred and why while doing so in the context of an interpretive model that closes to unification. Cosmology itself must recognize many of the same issues as all the other sciences (e.g. Langer Epistemology Errors). Today the only such model is M5. Under The Emergence ModelBang” is one of the expected Event Types along the Energy Signature Taxonomy and it should be noted that ‘big’ is not the only intensity available for investigation. This insight suggests a new ‘collision class’ (e.g. Event) of astronomical phenomena.

Providing a simple explanation of the Big Bang in context of M5 is relatively straight forward and simple to the point of elegance. The real challenge is doing so in a manner that helps you the reader “mode shift” your thinking so that you comprehend the issues manifested because of M1 thinking so that M5 is clearly illuminated, and that likely requires more than a few paradigm shifts to occur. Before we get into all that, let’s point out that the Lambda CDM (Cold Dark Matter) model presents a good case for the “event” actually transpiring. What it does not do a great job of is explaining how it occurred in the context of a model which closes to unification, and it cannot do that because the Lambda CDM model is itself based on M1 thinking. The issue then is mode shifting that discussion into an M5 context. Because the Lambda CDM model makes the case it does, and because that case is in general backed up by the WMAP survey data, we are going to accept prima facie that such an event took place.

Systems Reviews

The company is working to get as much information from the original systems review integrated into this website as is possible. All readers are encouraged to perform something of an internal and personal systems review into what it is you think you know and why that is so. The inventor of Elegant Reasonism had to do that same thing, and it took 15 years to complete. We hope that what we provide here will help you accomplish that in a fraction of that time. First review the general information provided here about Elegant Reasonism. This would include the various interpretive models, their respective constructs, paradigms, abstractions, etc. You must comprehend the concepts associated with interpretive model encapsulation, context, such that when we refer to M1, M2, …, M5, you know what we are talking about. Please feel free to make use of the User Library as needed. That’s why it’s here. Presuming you have accomplished that, we can proceed.

A Few Basic Observations

(M5) All mass is architectural mass resulting from the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance. Please pay special attention to the word ‘all‘ and the implications of its use in that sentence. When we say all here, we mean all mass from individual MBPs to the largest super-massive black hole ever discovered, as well as everything in between. While the Event Horizon of a black hole is so strong that not even light (e.g. photons) can escape it, that does not necessarily mean that gravity at that point is “infinite”. Let’s pause for a bit to explore this in the context of M5, because gravity there is different than its counterpart conceptions defined by M1. M1 based gravity manifests as a phenomena caused by (intense) mass warping spacetime. Spacetime in M5 does not exist, and gravity is a function of the action density associated with a graviton field. Gravitons in M5 are responsible for the phenomena we call gravity. We must also recognize several other points, many of which are the result of Severance in context of action associated with the Event Horizon. The Event Horizon of a black hole  essentially is saturated per unit area with gravitons whose action takes place with energy nearing Severance for all architectures of mass except other gravitons. The result is that, again in M5, there is a minimum Schwarzschild radius but there is no maximum, and M5 expects that black holes to grow. Ironically that is exactly what we find in nature through astronomy. So for the sake of argument, let’s take these as prima facie and see if there are other issues relative to the Big Bang which M5 handles and other models fail.

Hubble Constant Mode Shifts

Concept Sieve EMCS01 Concept 0074 Hubble Constant mode shifts into alignment with the unified Universe.

Short List of a few Terms Mode Shifted by the original systems review

  • Age of the unified Universe (what is inside our particle horizon is significantly older than traditionally held – plenty of time for BX442 to have formed)
  • Architectures of Mass
  • Black Holes (and their event horizons)
  • ‘c’ (as a term, mode shifts to mean Severance)
  • Dimensional space
  • Electromagnetism
  • Energy
  • Entanglement, limited by Severance
  • Force
  • Galactic acceleration (due to Graviton pole reversal at anchor distance)
  • Geometric Basis
  • Gravity
  • Hubble’s red and blue shift
  • Infinite Compression (e.g. convergence vector) (and its corollary of rapid expansion e.g. emergence vector)
  • Inflationary Theory
  • Interferometers
  • Lambda CDM
  • Mass
  • Most Basic Particles (MBP) (e.g. source of dimensional nature of matter, not space)
  • Reference Frames (and the ability to fully couple, which requires geometric basis)
  • Relativity
  • Size of the unified Universe (larger than the mode shifted size of our particle horizon)
  • Source of Epistemological Truth (here it is the unified Universe)
  • Space (mode shifts to dimensionless nothing)
  • The Speed of Light (mode shifts to local frame result of electronphoton system centripetal force suffering Severance resulting in a common velocity vector)
  • Strong Nuclear Force
  • Weak Nuclear Force
  • WMAP
  • z-factor (mode shifts to mean what Hubble originally intended – he is, here, vindicated)

The Entanglement Gradient

The entanglement gradient meets the requirements demanded from unificationElegant Reasonism and its rules along with the realm of c’s along both the emergence vector and the convergence vector. Every seemingly incongruous detail has, so far, successfully been mode shifted and reconciled, without exception. We invite critical scrutiny so long as it is constructive. The entire entanglement gradient is a derivative of the intrinsic nature of MBPs under The Emergence Model across all energy signatures everywhere we have looked in the Sol System, and well beyond.  So far everything seems to dovetail.  The point here is not about some small aspect of any particular or given domain of discourse or detail set, it is about the holistic compendium of every aspect of philosophy and science. The quest for unification must cleanly articulate how everything real is made manifest no matter how restful it may be.


Black Holes are often called ‘singularities’ exactly because the mathematics associated with them stops making any sense below the event horizon. A mathematical singularity is where such break downs occur, and that is exactly why black holes are often associated with that term. While the M5 mathematics does not break down, there are many ‘known unknowns’ particularly in the specific detailed characterization of the physical properties of MBPs, Severance and the Fundamental Entanglement Function. More research is needed, but we know enough to characterize Black Holes as nothing more than saturated graviton architectures. There is one very key distinction and it systemically relates all the way back to that first sentence regarding these few basic observations. Specifically that last phrase “limited by Severance” and the first word ‘All’, which by definition includes Black Holes. Albeit extremely high energy, there is some Severance value associated with every such object, and we must accept that again, because it is part of the core cogent description of this particular interpretive model.


But what does that mean? What it means is that such objects subjected to exceptionally high energies will in fact suffer catastrophic Severance. Such an event would result in a mirth of MBPs being released. Everyone of which would instantly begin following their intrinsic nature. Intrinsic nature which manifests the Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance. That is to say the entire process would start all over again. Now let’s compare that to what we see in evidence from astronomy. We see supermassive Black Holes accelerating away from all other high mass objects with ever increasing Rapidity (e.g. Beta, v/c). Oh, guess what?  Since in M5 space is dimensionless nothing and spacetime does not exist, there are no limits on velocity. They can be as high as needed and certainly high enough to manifest the needed energy for colliding Black Holes to create an event whose energies exceeded the Severance value for all objects in the frame. Again, let’s take these issues as prima facie for a moment. What about that galactic acceleration? Can we explain that in M5? That answer is also yes.


Gravity in M5 is a function of the work performed by the intrinsic action of the architectures of mass defined to be the real objects we refer to as gravitons. As we review the various mathematics of Knot Theory, String Theory, and other areas, we note the subject of ‘convergence’ being illustrated by Euler‘s Functions, notably his Beta and Gamma Functions. Without getting into too much detail here, these issues become important when we realize in M5 that everything real is some configuration of MBPs, which explains the affinity and manifestation of ‘convergence’. Then we start looking over Euler’s functions, and we realize the issues he raises regarding ‘polar residues’. Essentially the vast majority of such configurations have some form of polar residue associated with them. In the case of electromagnetism these issues are relatively easy to discern. Not until we realize that gravitons are also polarized but instead of ‘charge’ they are ‘high mass’ and ‘low mass’ poles. The gravitons anchors itself to higher mass objects and the opposite pole seeks out other masses and pulls it toward its anchor. Setting aside all of the local issues in order to stay on topic relative to galactic acceleration, we observe that at some far distant location in a galaxy’s graviton field, its action per unit area, may be slight but it “sees” the mass behind it easier that its anchoring end does, and the result is a ‘pole swap’. The resulting graviton field seeks its own anchor. Another observation is that this occurrence presents “like poles” to all other such galaxies. Just like in every other case, “like poles” repel each other. Here, that results in the gravitational acceleration away from each other, and that is exactly what we find in nature. When we inventory the supermassive Black Holes achieving ever higher rapidity rates, we realize that they are essentially setting up a condition where “our Universe” is only a tiny fraction of an unfathomably huge real Universe. In this context our Universe is essentially spawning itself to use a biological reference.


Now, wait just a minute! What about the M1 version of the Big Bang, inflationary theory, WMAP, the MichelsonMorley experiment, Hubble, and many others? Does all of this take them into account as well? The short answer is “Yes, it does”, and here’s how. First realize the M5 definition of space means it has no influence over anything. The implication is that the only thing that can influence anything are the real objects that are “architectural mass” configured by the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance. It  is in that last bit, “limited by Severance“, that is the key here. The speed of light is always the same exactly because the photon-electron value for Severance is the same. What changes are frequencies and energies. The inflationary theory was created in the first place in order to rationalize Hubble‘s empirical data that showed galactic acceleration resulted in superluminal (e.g. faster than the speed of light) recession. Predominant thinking then said “since the rules say nothing can go faster than light, it must be space that is expanding that fast causing those results”. M5 simply vindicates Hubble. He was correct in the first place. Since we can explain the constancy of the speed of light due to Severance constancy, limitations of some logically correct construct of spacetime is no longer needed, and that vindicates Hubble. Then when we look around in the historical record for velocities, we find a term called Beta used to mean “Rapidity“, which is v/c. That term was predominant circa 1900. Guess what? Every single particle accelerator on Earth aligns its beam path using Rapidity. Why is that we ask rhetorically? The answer to all of this is that M1 is logically correct but it does not, nor will it ever, unify physics. Rapidity rules ultimate velocity in M5 , and that is perfectly consistent with what Hubble found. Now set aside all of those types of questions for a moment and let’s focus on Hubble’s data. We observe these objects receding at incredible red shifted velocities. Now imagine the highest red shift value ever measured. Now imagine far off in the distant real Universe an object on a direct collision vector in the opposite direction with an even greater Rapidity.  Are you starting to connect the dots on how the Big Bang manifests itself in M5?

Statistical Circles in WMAP

Let’s look even further at the data. Let’s review WMAP. Let’s look at the latest statistical analysis of the WMAP data. There is discussion there about statistically derived “circles” in the data that make no sense in M1. However, they make absolute perfect sense in M5 when we realize that if there are two objects in an Event Frame that one of them may have been dragging a somewhat removed partner along with it. That is to say the Event Frame had more than two objects in the frame and one of them was following the one in front of it. When the first two collided, spilling their mirth, that last object penetrated the mirth creating those ‘circles’ we find in the data today. Suddenly the WMAP data confirms M5‘s point of view.

“Our” Universe is Not “The” unified Universe

The implication of those statistical circles is akin and analogous to the Shoemaker-Levy Nine objects which struck Jupiter years back. The initial Bang which created the mirth that became our portion of the unified Universe (e.g. inside the particle horizon) was penetrated by subsequent objects in trail of the objects participating in the initial Event Frame. The direct implication is that objects and material lay beyond the particle horizon and the implication is that “our” portion of the unified Universe is not “the” entire unified Universe because those objects in trail had to have come from somewhere. When we look around inside our particle horizon today we find galaxies accelerating away from one another holistically consistent with this body of work suggesting that the cycle is repeating itself cyclically not just here but all over the unified Universe. All that is, is unknowably large and ancient in the extreme. In fact, mode shifting just our portion of the unified Universe finds that this segment is much older and more vast and not by a little.


As part of our original systems review, I contacted the WMAP team which turned out to be only weeks before they disbanded each going their separate ways. At the time they were winding down and preparing to complete all of their work and they were busy. So at the outset I need to give a huge thank you to the WMAP team for even taking my correspondence. When asked what initiated the Big Bang, the answer I got back was: “quantum fluctuations in finite regions of space”. Perhaps they were so busy they gave me an answer they didn’t think I’d understand so I would go away. If that were the case it didn’t work. I don’t buy that answer and here’s why. Under M1 or M2, the Big Bang is said to have created (e.g. made manifest) space and time. If that were true then prior to the event those things would not exist much less be capable of motion at any scale. Then we must recognize that absent time, there is no motion. Consequently that answer fails prima facie review. The problem with that answer from that team means we really do not have any official answer, and that drove me into the review that ultimately became this summary.


What is interesting about what the JWST is discovering (e.g. new to science) is that it is completely consistent with unification. The degree to which The Emergence Model agrees is pretty awesome. Readers here should be keenly aware that none of the articles linked below have been mode shifted. They are written from the entrenched point of view of M1. Mode shifting them quickly reveals language usage differences, definitional changes, and conclusions that are holistically consistent with this website.

JWST In Unification’s Wake

The first insight from the above list, as pointed out already, is that those articles are written essentially from the M1 EIM’s precipice and that EIM does not, nor will it ever close to unification. A couple of quick points from the hind sight precipice:

  • Einstein - Hubble meeting
    Einstein looking through Hubble’s instrument

    The Emergence Model closes to unification.

    • (M5) The nature of the Big Bang event is different here than traditionally characterized, but results in an ability to describe the unified Universe Bang to Bang (this page).
    • (M5) The above list of articles rampantly commits too many Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) to count. The statement “The Universe” is erroneous and presumes that what is inside our particle horizon is the only one. What is inside our particle horizon is “our” portion of the unified Universe. The statistical circles suggest a vast tapestry of other Big Bang events elsewhere in ‘the’ unified Universe. The question on the table is the degree to which these different events overlap to present something akin to a continuum. Potentially there are large gaps between them, creating something an asynchronous relationship. Supermassive Blackholes inside our particle horizon racing off at high z-factors (see bullet below) are in fact racing off at cosmological superluminal velocities. Which is heresy to those whose worldview is made manifest by M1. Under M5 makes perfect sense however and it sets up the next bang situation. Point being that these circumstances must be mode shifted to accurately articulate.  Readers here should take special note that when we say here “the unified Universe”, we mean everything real, inclusive of everything beyond our particle horizon. Inside our particle horizon is “our portion of the unified Universe” and does not constitute “the universe”. You will also note that in that context we also tend to capitalize the first letter in Universe to denote that circumstance.
    • (M5) The term ‘c’ mode shifts its definition such that here refers to the process of Severance, which in the case of the electron-photon system produces the velocity of light in a local frame as measured by all interferometer experiments ever conducted. The velocity of light doesn’t change but why it’s true does. Consequently the term Rapidity (e.g. Concept Sieve EMCS01: Concept 0168) is properly read here to mean ‘velocity over Severance‘ and in context of how Einstein defined mass makes perfect common sense.
    • (M5) The problem Einstein sought to reconcile with his original papers was the constancy for the speed of light as measured by interferometer experiments, most notable of which at the time was the MichelsonMorley Interferometer Experiment which attempted to detect the luminifrous aether (and failed to do so). Albert Einstein’s EIM M2, committing LEEs as he did so, explained that constancy as a function of how spacetime was constructed. It should be noted that M1 commits the same LEEs as M2. The EIM M5 construes that constancy as a function of Severance resulting from the intrinsic nature of MBPs. The resulting velocity is the same but why its true is defined differently and the systemic implications are exceedingly profound.
    • Concept Sieve EMCS01 Concept 0074 Hubble Constant mode shifts.
    • The unified Universe is unfathomably ancient and large, both answers to their extensiveness lay beyond our particle horizon. Within the particle horizon there is ample time for material transfer from supernovas to the Earth (see Pallasites).

Intrinsic Nature of MBPs

When we look at the first few instances of M5‘s Big Bang, what we find is nothing more than MBPs following their intrinsic nature manifesting the Fundamental Entanglement Function limited by Severance. They form strings, knots, and larger constituencies of architectural mass. That same intrinsic nature leads very naturally into Knot Theory based on the M5 definition. It is a natural consequence of the MBP’s nature and character. What is truly epic is the realization that this is happening all over the real Universe very far removed from our particle horizon. We will never know how big the actual Universe really is. We cannot know exactly because it lay beyond the particle horizon. However, we can look at those ‘circles’ in the WMAP data and know that it is in fact out there. We just can’t get to it because the particle horizon is by definition the maximum distance any signal can reach. If no signal can get that far, then the topic is moot.

Taking individual MBPs as a system, whose intrinsic nature we derive The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance, instantiates everything real as some configuration of these constructs. The clear implication then is that, in The Emergence Model, everything real is some system or system of systems and that requires systems thinking in order to deal with in a situationally aware manner.

Mode Shifting LIGO

But what about LIGO? LIGO measured gravity waves. The M1 description of gravity waves has to do with ripples in spacetime. The M5 description has to do with ripples in waves of gravitons. We remind you that M1 not only does not unify physics it never will exactly because the spacetime-mass interface precludes it. M5 does unify physics as a matter of priority and definition. When we look at the three stages of Black Hole collisions reported by LIGO, we find their descriptions of inward spiral, merger, and ringdown analogous to M5’s EFPS4, EFPS5, and EFPS6. Every experiment ever conducted regarding relativity can be mode shifted and illuminated in a similar fashion as what has been simplistically articulated above.

Modern Astronomical Evidence Illustrates the Cycle

Most importantly is that taking the above paragraphs holistically we are able then to not only describe the manifestation of the Big Bang but why it happened. We can then observe from astronomy the inventory of supermassive Black Holes escaping the known Universe with ever increasing Rapidity to start the entire process all over again somewhere else. When we realize these concepts and place them squarely in the grip of Elegant Reasonism, we suddenly realize that we can describe the entire Universe “Bang to Bang” and ours cannot be the only one. Where as M1 leaves us with many questions about geometric basis points, fully coupled reference frames, M5 leaves us with but a single question. That question is “where did the MBPs come from?” We don’t know and hold them as an M5 Known Unknown. I leave that to others to fathom.


If you take two magnets and place like poles facing each other they will naturally repel each other. However, that is only true if they are close enough for the magnetic fields to instantiate that force. Move them away from each other and those magnets will cease to influence each other. Consequently we fully expect the same forces between galaxies to cease acceleration for all the same reasons at some distance. The question is what that distance may be is currently up for grabs.


Shop Now

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #EIM #Unification #BigBang #WMAP #InflationaryTheory #Rapidity #BlackHoles #BangToBang #JWST #Glactic #Acceleration