Gravity Constructs

Instantiating Gravity

NOTE: This and all thought experiments are subject to the critical situationally aware thinking required in order to establish vital context necessary to properly mode shift this discussion. 

This thought experiment text is under active development here integrating material from the original systems review. Please bear with us as we get this material online.

Studying the insights instantiating gravity are as old as life on our planet but here we want to take those studies, spindle them, and compare them in juxtaposed opposition made manifest by Elegant Reasonism. Readers here should note that we generally argue that there should be a 5th general developmental level to Jean Piaget‘s Theory of Cognitive Development that integrates more advanced concepts associated with Elegant Reasonism‘s ability to discern logical positioning of abstractions our human physiology intrinsically provides our brains. Part of the driving factors there are embodied through information sciences discipline of Systems Engineering which recognizes that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different. The critical insight there is that just because something is logically correct that unless it also closes to unification there are deficiencies in that thinking which are obfuscating perception of the unified Universe. The point being that human physiology does not perceive directly all that is. The Central Nervous System (CNS) provides our Brains abstractions across all Brodmann Areas in order to relate to the realm in which we exist. Many of these issues were discussed by Susanne K Langer in 1948.

The distinctions between philosophical and scientific cognition of the mechanisms instantiating gravity are of vital import as we reconcile individual paradigm shifts pursuing many modern investigations. This particular thought experiment is interesting not necessarily because of the of the constructs involved but the relationships between the various constructs which have historically been ignored. Geometric basis points, for example. The spacetime-mass interface for another example. A full and proper investigation into all of this which employs all recognized Encapsulated Interpretative Models (EIMs) would fill several libraries and so the best we can hope for here is to tee up fodder for contemplation so that readers get the general idea of construct relationships in order to improve critical situationally awareness thinking.

What investigators need to remember is that looking over the set of EIMs which instantiate POI/Ns across any investigation, much less this one, that your entire mode of thinking about that particular paradigm must shift EIM to EIM. That’s one reason that function within the utility process is named as it is.

Gravity is one of those phenomena that is not directly perceptible. What we humans perceive are the results of gravity’s existence rather than the mechanism directly. Gravity is instantiated in a different manner by each of the recognized EIMs. Elegant Reasonism employs a plurality of these models in order to illuminate to illustration the distinctions necessary to characterize investigator’s chosen set of Paradigm’s of Intererst/Nature (POI/N). Investigators will be interested in the core construct distinctions, delta shifts in answers to standard root cause analysis questions and more. ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) standard practitioners. Many individuals do not yet recognize the epistemological shifts in the modes of thinking enabled by Elegant Reasonism. A major factor obfuscating recognition of these issues is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs.

Richard P Feynman briefly discussed in his 1950s lectures theory distinctions and used gravity as an example.


Epistemologically Elegant Reasonism enables perception of these various factors in context of the unified Universe, where it seeks ultimate truth, through its utility process and technologies. At a high level Elegant Reasonism enables capabilities which did not exist in Feynman’s time. Over the course of the last century information sciences was born and is now more fully coming of age. The Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK), which did not exist in any formal manner prior to 1990, is also now considerably more mature.


Original System Review Notes

The original systems review notes observe that the answers to standard root cause analysis questions change as a function of EIM instantiation. For example if you ask why Newton’s laws are true the answer will change depending on the EIM mode of thinking involved. M1 entrenched thinkers might cite some math formula. That same answer under M5 might simply be referred to the cogent description of the EIM, likely to be M5.

P1.0: Recognition

The featured image for this page above depicts the traditional M1 & M2 relationships between mass and spacetime. The issue is not that gravity exists because we all know it does. The question is how is it instantiated. That is to say what are the distinctions on the 2D Articulation Layer EIM to EIM across the plurality of EIMs employed characterizing that instantiation. Logically this depiction is correct, presuming the context for asking those questions remain within the encapsulation of those EIMs. What gets elevated through the process of Elegant Reasonism is that we must ask questions not visiable within M1 or M2 because we are required by the process to employ a plurality of EIMs in our investigation. Strategically at issue here is that neither M1 nor M2 close to unification but M5 does. We must be able to successfully navigate the Process Decision Checkpoint Flowchart (PDCF) as we execute the General Process Flow for Elegant Reasonism.

Insights Required for Recogntion

Because humans generally perceive the results of gravity rather than direct perception of the mechanisms instanting it discussions about it tend to be abstractly logical in their nature.

  1. All EIMs employing spacetime are intrinsically logical in their nature. This includes M1, M2, and presumably M3.
  2. Real objects require real instantiation.
    1. The very real implication here is an ability to discern virtual environments from real environments.
      1. Does the scenario under discussion hold up against the holistic unified Universe?
      2. Does the scenario employ constructs which are fully compliant and close to unification?
    2. It is necessary but wholly insufficient to be logically correct, it must also close to unification, and if it does not then there is a problem with your interpretation of the scenario. In which case the scenario must be mode shifted.
  3. Unification criteria demands:
    1. Common geometric basis point for all real objects in all reference frames.
    2. Every reference frame must be fully coupled (e.g. all fundamental forces simply characterized and relative to one another through all permutations).
    3. Evidence Chains must link and/or tie out to the unified Universe no matter how restful the linkage may be.

Abstraction {preliminary example} Inventory

    1. Abstraction
    2. Basic
    3. Basis
    4. Construct
    5. Dimensions
      1. Dynamics
      2. Geometric Basis
      3. Instantiation in the real world
      4. Mathematics
      5. Matrices
      6. Tensors
      7. Topology
    6. Entanglement
    7. Equality
    8. Foundational
    9. Fundamental
    10. Game Theory
    11. Inequality
    12. Interfaces
    13. Logic & Logic Traps
    14. Logical-vs-Physical
    15. Mathematics
      1. Differentiation
      2. Integration
      3. Knot Theory
      4. Matrix Mathematics (e.g. Tensor Mathematics)
      5. Topology
    16. Object
    17. Paradigm
    18. Paradigm Stacks
    19. Philosophy
      1. Axiology – philosophy of value derivation
      2. Epistemology – philosophy of knowledge
      3. Ontology – philosophy of being
      4. Science – philosophy of nature
      5. Supervienience – philosophy of relations between sets of properties or sets of facts
    20. Real
    21. Relationships
    22. Severance
    23. Space
    24. Symbology
    25. Systemic Influence
    26. Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK)
    27. Tensor Mathematics
    28. Thermodynamics
    29. Time

Historical Constructs by EIM

All EIMs employing the spacetime construct (e.g. M1, M2, & M3) are fundamentally logical in nature supported by a different physical view instantiating them (e.g. M6 via M4).

      1. Nothing real may transit the spacetime-mass interface without first conversion to energy.
      2. A historical interpretive review of the abstractions involved and their various implications suggest commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).
      3. Systems Engineering precepts, practices, processes and the SEBoK (linked below) demonstrate requirements and data gathering techniques under conditions where some set of circumstances create situations that may be logically correct yet remain physically different.

Major Domains of Discourse by EIM

Domains of Discourse include but are not limited to:

    1. EIMs: M1, M2, M4, M5, M6
      1. Core constructs and their original manifestation/creation contexts
    2. Science of Mathematics
      1. Euler’s Concepts Relative to String Theory, Convergence, Polar Residue Emergence as a Phenomena
        1. Beta Function
        2. Gamma Function
      2.  Geometry
        1. Basis Points
        2. Topology
          1. Basis
          2. Geometric Maps
          3. Knot Theory
    3. Astrophysics
      1. Reference Frames
        1. Intertial Frames and their geometric basis
      2. Spacetime (systems review)
    4. Physics
      1. General & Special Relativity
      2. Recognition that under M5 Gravitons are polarized by High Mass-Low Mass interaction areas in full holistic context of The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance.

Historical Experiments

    1. Logically correct,
    2. May be mode shifted into alignment with M5 consistent with Elegant Reasonism processes & methods,
    3. Mode Shifting the traditional view of the Big Bang, along with the WMAP project as well as its data, re-positions the Lambda CDM model in context of The Emergence Model dismantles the Inflationary Theory and yields The Emergence Model‘s Bang to Bang perspective.

SolREI’s Original Systems Review

    1. Mode Shifts the constant ‘c’:
      1. Under M1 is defined as ‘the speed of light
      2. Under M5 is defined as ‘the velocity of a photon produced by a system in an Event Frame predominantly described under EFPS1 at the threshold of Severance.’
        1. Cosmologically this results in Spectroscopic Red & Blue Shifts reporting actual Geodesic Photon Rapidity (e.g. Concept 168) under EMCS01.
      3. Mode Shifting ‘c’ in this manner fundamentally disintermediates conceiving spacetime as a physical construct and further substantiates M1 commission of LEEs.
    2. The original systems review found this proposition dovetailed with The Emergence Model reflecting the unified Universe held litmus.

Reference Materials

All of the reference materials below are augmented by the User Library on this system. The acknowledgements page also serves direct links to biographical folders in that library. Also linked and integrated are pages for:

Original Systems Review Notes

ORCID References will include the same as those listed below. WorldCat will also include these manuscripts.

Network Resources

Historical References

Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical or any of the the User LIbrary reference materials by modern information sciences standards. That would constitute ‘moving the goal post’ and is generally prohibited by Elegant Reasonism. The idea here is to present the thinking, at the time, by that original author. Where this specifically comes into affect is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs); which to make this point salient was first quantified by Susanne K Langer in 1948 and codified by SolREI INC. Another facet of unraveling historical points of view relative to requirements of unification are both logical and physical views in context both Systems Engineering and of LEEs. Subsequent to this contextual update in our thinking we are then required to employ critical situational awareness thinking that something may be logically correct yet remain physically different.

We can not solve problems using the same thinking we used when we created them.“, ~ Albert Einstein

The idea here is to list and link specific documentation also generally available from the User Library here so that readers may have instant access to the materials. If there are references to specific pages within PDF linkages then supply the specific page reference in the link so the system will turn directly to that page number. For example adding ?fb3d-page=3 to the URL listed below turns that electronic document to page 3.

  • https://www.solrei.co/3d-flip-book/relativity/?fb3d-page=3


P2.0: Illumination

Illuminating the various EIMs and construct manifestations (e.g. instantiation for those constructs) and the philosophical nature recognized entering science we must recognize the fundamental validity of assertions being asserted. This requires us to ask and answer some very difficult questions relative to and respective of the perspectives established by each EIM within a fully compliant and valid 2D Articulation Frame in preparation of the next phase of the process & methods leveraging fully compliant Translation Matrices.

Enabling the Translation Matrices for effective mode shifting such an investigation requires full comprehension of all abstractions as they are instantiated by all employed EIMs. The essential distinction between traditional EIMs of M1 and M2 and the EIM closing to unification selected here (M5) finds the traditional scenario warping spacetime by mass to create the phenomena gravity whereas under M5 it is a function of the graviton construct’s architectural mass interaction between all real objects in the Event Frame.

Supporting Concepts

Supporting Propositions

The proposition here is supported by, but not limited to, those propositions listed below:

Supporting Thought Experiments

Illumination FAQs

This section should link to the FAQs page for this particular concept or proposition page and should detail the most common questions about it. The idea being that someone might want to simply read those Q&As rather than wade through the detail here and putting those on their own page allows this page to be more concise.

P3.0: Analysis

Significant R&D needs to be performed to gain a better understanding of how configurations of knots in knot theory manifest/instantiate properties and phenomena through architectures of mass. What we know at the moment is that the cogent description of M5 is fully compliant and closes to unification, but that does not answer every question. In fact it may raise many questions, but then science is often that way.

P3.9 Development of Final Treatise

Essentially Treatise must mode shift or otherwise effectively reconcile:

  • the spacetime-mass interface for all real objects
  • common geometric basis point
  • fully couple all reference frames
  • mode shift the warping of spacetime by mass under M1 to graviton behavior under M5


Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac tincidunt vitae semper quis. Elementum nibh tellus molestie nunc non. Placerat duis ultricies lacus sed turpis tincidunt id aliquet. Ultrices vitae auctor eu augue ut. Sed euismod nisi porta lorem. Ut eu sem integer vitae justo. Mi proin sed libero enim sed faucibus. Integer malesuada nunc vel risus commodo. Quam id leo in vitae turpis massa sed elementum tempus. Pulvinar proin gravida hendrerit lectus a. Et magnis dis parturient montes. Hendrerit gravida rutrum quisque non. In metus vulputate eu scelerisque felis imperdiet proin fermentum. Sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac habitasse platea.

Nulla aliquet enim tortor at. At quis risus sed vulputate odio. Erat imperdiet sed euismod nisi porta lorem. Volutpat lacus laoreet non curabitur gravida arcu. In hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel facilisis. Facilisi cras fermentum odio eu feugiat. Sed egestas egestas fringilla phasellus faucibus scelerisque eleifend donec pretium. Viverra maecenas accumsan lacus vel. Fringilla ut morbi tincidunt augue. Diam in arcu cursus euismod quis viverra. Scelerisque fermentum dui faucibus in ornare quam viverra orci sagittis. Sed lectus vestibulum mattis ullamcorper velit sed ullamcorper. Fermentum leo vel orci porta non pulvinar neque. In hac habitasse platea dictumst vestibulum rhoncus est pellentesque elit. Ac placerat vestibulum lectus mauris ultrices eros. Lorem sed risus ultricies tristique nulla aliquet enim. Dignissim sodales ut eu sem integer vitae justo.


Shop Now!

Wherever possible merchandise products specific to the topic being presented should be those linked or identified in the product shopping area.


#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #TE-0066 #InstantiatingGravity #Gravity



%d bloggers like this: