Red Herring

But Why Does This Not Attain Unification? Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Now that unification has been accomplished we can look back and use hindsight to ask better questions regarding what kept us from seeing all this in the first place. To that end these and other frequently asked questions (FAQs) are enlightening. The questions here are general questions. Specific insights on major areas across the global economy and enterprise are called: Red Herrings.

It must be said that our asking these questions in this manner may not be fair because we already know status quo thinkers can not answer them. However, remember that unification was not our original goal nor objective. We stumbled into it by compete accident. In fact we had accomplished unification years before we recognized it in our own data. So if you think you are going to tweak some single aspect within any specific domain of discourse or even worse within a constituent detail set we have two words: think again. Accomplishing unification was hard. It took us 17 years of dedicated R&D to accomplish and at great personal cost. However, we will be the last to stomp on entrepreneurial thinking. Go for it. We wish you all the best. In the meantime however you may want to embrace the larger tapestry of Elegant Reasonism and see what we had to do in order to accomplish The Emergence Model.

Also Reference:

and other Resources.

Totality Attained?

Remember; unification demands we integrate everything real. It means you must be able to describe how everything real is made manifest by your thinking. Everything real encompasses far more factors than any single domain of discourse or detail set.

Q: Can you transit the spacetime-mass interface with anything real?
A: No. Nothing real can transit this interface exactly due to the relationships laid down by a fairly famous equation (See Lev B Okun‘s article The Concept of Mass). Holistically understand all of the linked material on the Elegant Reasonism page here.

Q: You think you attained unification because you removed some facet of status quo thinking from an inane area of astrophysics or physics?
A: Removal of any concept increases the distance between your thinking and unification. Unification is about bringing concepts together not removing them.

Q: Can your thinking survive the analytical rigor and discipline of Elegant Reasonism?
A: Elegant Reasonism is the utility process supporting the epistemology of the same name which produced The Emergence Model. See our press release entitled: Unification Accomplished. What most miss in their thinking are the implications of commissions of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs).

Q: What are the issues with the various discussions online about why electric circuits work? By that same token what are the issues with theories like the Electric Wave Theory?
A: Part of the answer requires an understanding of the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) which allows critically situationally aware thinking to distinguish between logical systems and physical systems. Failure to comprehend these points will inevitably ensnare and otherwise shackle one within a logic trap (See LEE’s empiricism trap). Another factor which inhibits information sciences from perceiving many similar problems is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors or LEEs. When Richard Feynman gave the lecture below in 1950 information science was nascent and INCOSE the professional organization representing Systems Engineers was fourty years off in the future (INCOSE was formed in 1990). However, this lecture penetrates many of these issues and Feynman did a fabulous job here. The dangerous aspect of not realizing or recognizing the implications of LEE commissions is situational awareness of whether or not you are mired inside a logic trap. The point that Feynman makes below about philosophy is exactly on point here. Philosophy does matter and that is exactly why Elegant Reasonism is an epistemology supported by a utility process employing an analytical framwork which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science.



Q: Are the Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs) M5 and M6 which holistically are The Emergence Model the only way to accomplish unification?
A: The SolREI company‘s position on this suggests that there may in fact be other ways to think about unification. Remember, Elegant Reasonism is a philosophy of knowledge supported by a utility process which integrates ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS) Standards. Our point is that the process rules demand and require at least one EIM employed in any given investigation to be fully compliant and conform to what we call the realm of c’s (one of which is ‘close’ as in ‘close to unification’). Those rules do not say you must use M5 or M6, only that one of those EIMs accomplish unification to industry accepted standards. When we all recognize that point we then realize that if any other EIM is in fact developed then Elegant Reasonism only becomes stronger and more powerful than it already is. Consequently the company fully encourages entrepreneurs to develop such incremental EIMs if they so choose. Our only caution is that it took us 17 years to develop Elegant Reasonism. Be sure of what you ask for, you might get it. The good news is that you would only be questing an incrementally accepted EIM and you would not have to recreate the entire process used to perform that investigation, SolREI already delivered that to civilization for exactly that purpose.


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.


Einstein Has Been Empirically Proven Correct

Absolutely correct and that’s one reason Albert Einstein has a dedicated people page under our Acknowledgements page along with Susanne K Langer and Lev B Okun. The constructs Einstein developed in 1905 and again in 1916 are absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed to simultaneously reconcile Langer Epistemology Errors, reunite philosophy and science consistent with the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBok) and accomplish unification. Albert Einstein was not wrong. It’s just that he was [only] logically correct. Having said that it is not fair to judge Einstein on that level exactly for the reason that he was not attempting to accomplish unification with his papers. The problem that he was attempting to solve was the constancy associated with the speed of light in the wake of the failure associated with the MichelsonMorely Interferometer Experiment. The essential mistake every human on Sol_03-Earth has made is commission of Langer Epistemology Errors.

Q: Einstein’s theories have been experimentally demonstrated empirically consistent with science; how could any other conclusion exist?
A: 2,000 years ago the field of study we know today as science was called ‘the philosophy of nature’. As the domain of discourse we call information sciences produced the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) matured so has our understanding of logical views of physical systems. The mistake absolutely everyone on Sol_03-Earth made was commission of LEEs in context of a logically correct point of view (e.g. Einstein‘s M2 view to be precise).  We now know that something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. Logically correct experiments, conducted in a logically correct manner, immersed in logically correct Encapsulated Interpretive Models (EIMs), will produce logically correct results AND that has absolutely nothing necessarily to do with anything beyond the logical correctness underwhich all of that was conducted, rationalized, and constructed. The operative word there is necessarily. Reconciliation of the issues requires philosophical reinterpretation for all the reasons Richard Feynman cites in the above video. It is for these reasons that Elegant Reasonism represents a new epistemological approach. It is for these reasons that Elegant Reasonism Rules demand and require a plurality of EIMs be employed in any given investigation. One we don’t want to commit LEEs per established processes and methods and we want to execute against interpretive standards so that everyone else who wants to may duplicate everything consistent with established peer review guidelines.

So the short answer is that all of those experiments conducted and to which we hold in such high esteem are in fact logically correct, but while that observation is necessary it is insufficient to gain the precipice of unification. 100% of the conduct, instrumentality, logic, critically situationally aware thinking, data, information, and results must all be holistically compliant with everything required in order to accomplish unification. Since, as of circa 2021, that work has yet to be done, we all have a great deal of work to do mode shifting all of that material.

Q: Which academic institution spawned all of this?
A: Elegant Reasonism was spawned in the pool of global enterprise and economics (e.g. business enterprise). Also worthy of note is that when Einstein published his papers on Special and General Relativity he was not employed as an academic. He was in fact a patent clerk at that time. Only later was he employed in academics. Consequently it is more appropriate to think of him as an entrepreneur than a professor, even though later he became that. Unification was accomplished by SOLREI INC.

The Big Bang

Think you have accomplished unification? Ok, philosophically consider then:

Q: Why did the Big Bang happen and can you perform industry standard root cause analysis on that answer?
A: We did. See Bang to Bang.

Q: Why are galaxies accelerating away from one another and is your answer to that holistically consistent with every other concept of unification along the entanglement gradient both from an emergent vector as well as a convergence vector?
A: These are real issues and the manifestation of the Big Bang in your answer must also reconcile many other factors such as the statistical circles noted in the WMAP data. Galactic acceleration under The Emergence Model is due to Graviton pole reversal at distance from its anchor point. See Bang to Bang. Another issue is reconciling the Lambda CDM model in your thinking. You must also philosophically reconcile objects noted in the Hubble Ultra Deep Field Imaging project like BX442. That galaxy should not be where it is at the maturity level it obviously depicts, yet it exists. Simultaneously one must also reconcile the Inflationary Theory relative to all noted incongruity and be able to reflect evidence chains to everything real no matter how restful in nature it may be. The Inflationary Theory depends on reconciliation of an emergence vector (along the entanglement gradient) concept called ‘rapid expansion’. The corollary of that vector along the entanglement gradient is the convergence vector concept of ‘infinite compression’. At odds with that dependency is Black Hole growth. Specifically infinite compression must exist in nature if the Inflationary Theory is to survive and that growth can not be reconciled against these issues. Therefore the emergence/convergence corollaries do not work, therefore infinite compression does not exist in nature; which dismantles the Inflationary Theory. We argue that The Emergence Model view expressed Bang to Bang accomplishes 100% of these issues. Even if someone beat their head on a wall long enough to accomplish that feat, they are still faced with restfully providing evidence chains to everything else real and The Emergence Model already does that. Now, having said that we don’t want to fall into Feynman’s Myan Astronomer allegory. We exit that allegory exactly by pointing out that Elegant Reasonism does not demand or require use specifically of The Emergence Model , only that at least one EIM close to unification in any given investigation. Furthermore the process requires a plurality of EIMs be employed exactly for the reasons of illumination and illustration. It just so happens that The Emergence Model does close to unification. It also just happens to be the first such EIM to do so. It does not mean that in the future there might not be more such EIMs which close and in that eventuality Elegant Reasonism will rise, integrate those new EIMs and become stronger in the process. So we are not declaring The Emergence Model supreme. We are simply pointing out that it happens to be fully compliant. If you can find another EIM, a better EIM, then go for it.

Q: Unification means linking the fundamental forces of nature!! We can relate gravity to electromagnetism by removing complications of charge and mass!
A: Sorry but we have to call bullshit. WTF does “remove complications” mean exactly and holistically, including all systemic implications? First of all we must recognize that 100% of those terms are abstractions and we must comprehend the implications of that cognitive fact. Abstractions tend to insulate and isolate higher ordered ideas from lower ordered detail. Something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. “Complication removal” only serves to help your logic, not the physical underpinnings of the unified Universe. Even then we must then re-ask every question in this list.



Historical References

Any discussion of the manifestation of real objects must necessarily mention the historical perceptions on the medium around those objects and we must acknowledge a very long list of historical investigators without whose work none of this would have been possible.

Students and investigators should note that it is not fair to judge any of these historical references 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




Shop Now!




#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #Unification #InUnificationsWake #RedHerrings #Theory #WaveTheory #Duality #Electromagnetism

%d bloggers like this: