History of Elegant Reasonism

The Original Systems Review

The original systems review did not start out with the intention of accomplishing unification. We were reviewing impact dynamics across the Sol System.

History Circa 1900

The historical context of Einstein’s original papers on Special and General Relativity in 1905 and again in 1916 were written in a world consumed with issues surrounding the constancy values for the speed of light. At the time, everyone pretty much believed in the existence of a luminiferous aether, described as a perfectly clear, perfectly viscous material that contained everything. Two investigators at Case-Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio proposed an experiment to detect the luminiferous aether  using an interferometer and absolutely everyone expected their experiment to find it. It didn’t. The MichelsonMorley Interferometer Experiment showed that the speed of light was the same in all directions and it never varied. Their equipment is still on display at the University to this day. That experiment was called “the most important failure in science” at the time. Despite its failure at finding the aether it was perceived as a success for proving the constancy in the speed of light. The critical insight no one pursued had to do with the system producing the photon did so at that constant speed. So great were these discussions that they consumed the mind of one patent clerk: Albert Einstein. The point here is that Einstein was not thinking about unification when he wrote his papers. He was thinking about the constancy of the speed of light. To be fair, McGowen had the benefit all these various scenarios during the development of The Emergence Model where unification was the predicate priority. This author seriously doubts The Emergence Model insights could have been gained absent the work of countless people throughout history, including Michelson-Morley, Einstein, Lorentz and a host of others acknowledged here.

Moment of Inspiration c. 2005

The model of the Universe conceived by Einstein, beginning in 1905, was absolutely 100% logically correct and absolutely brilliant. Furthermore therein too lay the strategic clue needed to gain the precipice of unification. Relativistic thinking was born, but thinking back on the context of that genesis inspired by his genius we are reminded that what drove his contemplation at the time was this constancy problem and a fundamental belief that we were describing reality directly rather than an interpretive model of it. Almost everyone had committed The “Langer Epistemological Error”. Everyone believed that we would uncover the linkages unifying physics later. That somewhere in all that we would find the mechanisms which would allow us to fully couple reference frames. That somehow we would see a way to use a single geometric basis point for all real objects in every frame. Yet despite the absolutely incredible successes we have enjoyed since that time did anyone, including this author (until this series), ever in their wildest imaginations entertain any idea suggesting the final solutions would come from somewhere else. Yet they did. Neither Einstein’s original model, M2, nor the modern interpretation of it, M1, will ever unify physics. Neither of those models will ever fully couple any reference frame and neither will they ever enjoy being able to use a single geometric basis point. The reason for this observation are derived from critical analysis of the fundamental constructs of the logically correct model. Those logically correct models were not designed for unification. Those logically correct models were designed to reconcile the constancy of the speed of light, and they do that quite well. However, that has nothing necessarily to do with comprehensive mechanics of the Universe. Strategically at issue were the core constructs employed by those EIMs resulting in the spacetime-mass interface. The central problem/challenge there is that nothing real can transition that interface without first conversion to energy and it is exactly that philosophical implementation which precludes the use of a real geometric basis point in all reference frames for all real objects in that frame. We have been dancing around that issue for over 100 years now and many would like to pretend it is a non-issue. The issue is a clue however to the logical nature of the model it supports. It’s not that its wrong, it just does not close to unification. M5 does.

Reality is unified and it does not need our understanding. Our cognition is for us. The Emergence Model was designed specifically with unification as a priority in advance of all other considerations. All the fundamental forces had to have a unified and common explanation for their emergence. Every reference frame was required to be scale invariant. The fundamental core constructs and abstractions of the model had to be fodder enabling all other concepts be derived. As we contemplate such requirements they may seem so daunting as to be insufferably impossible. The blockbuster insight came when it was realized that what Einstein had done was “logically correct”. Having decades experience working in Systems Engineering the author quickly realized that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. As it happens that is the case not just with Einstein’s original work but all the subsequent work since that time. What that enabled was consideration to build the investigative tool now called Translation Matrices by this series and the body of work they represent.

 

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.

 

Unification was the priority developing The Emergence Model and the process in doing so required rigor and diligence focused on time tested Systems Engineering principles. Those principles required an investigation into the logical views of the various physical systems under consideration. These principles recognize that any given physical system can have multiple logical views of the same system. That actual physical configurations may exist manifesting the same logical construct. There may exist multiple manners in which a given “perception” may manifest. They required a systems review of the abstractions employed at the most fundamental levels. More importantly they required acknowledgment of the fact that “abstractions” insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered details.

The systems review that followed resulted in this series. It also enabled a several years long test of intervening net new science to see if that net new completely unanticipated science could easily integrate or merge with The Emergence Model and it met that challenge with ease and in every case did not thing but grow stronger. The point here is about priority of consideration. Even that priority was reverse engineered. M1 is by all measure the most successful interpretive model of the Universe the world has ever seen or enjoyed, including M5 exactly because M5 is only nascent and has yet to prove itself. However, if the years long reviews are any indication then it is growing rapidly and poised to outstrip and outdistance M1. One may question what physics has anything to do with epistemological discussions about philosophies of knowledge? The answer is this: Those fundamental systems reviews (of models) into what it was we thought we knew produced insights that are both foundational and systemic to absolutely everything humanity has ever accomplished, without exception.

Field Work

The original systems review suggested frequent field trips to verify different expected results or reinterpretations of evidence already established under existing EIMs. To that end SolREI Field Team 01 was established and equipped for these missions.

 

Inspiration Brings Slow Deep Realization Instantiating Value

Developing Elegant Reasonism took more than a decade of R&D. It certainly did not happen overnight. What happens after the ‘Ah Ha!’ moments come and go, it slowly dawned on us that the source of value instantiating the global economy and global enterprise is about to be mode shifted into alignment with the unified Universe and at the will, discretion, and mercy of those wielding Elegant Reasonism. The SolREI company can not pick winners and losers in this shift. What we must do is to provide an even playing field so that everyone has an equal opportunity to register here, learn, and if they would like to engage these precepts in revenue generating activities to secure a commercial license to do so. Beyond that there is little we can do as we are few and the rest of the world will need to come to grips with these implications.

 

 

Shop Now

 

 

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification