Albert Einstein, his theories and field equations are logically correct

While the path to this proposition is straight forward, and status quo thinking is required to agree with it, in a mature information sciences context the implications of this logically correct proposition become significantly more important than the historical evidence may otherwise suggest. This previous sentence is exactly correct because something can be logically correct yet remain physically different. When we fully comprehend the implications of Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs), abstractions and their usage, we come face to face with some hard realities. Such errors occur when we mistake abstractions for actual reality. The trick is to know when and if you are making them.

P1.0: Recognition

What Albert Einstein created through his body of work is absolutely 100% logically correct, and therein lay the strategic clue needed in order to gain the precipice of unification.


We humans employ abstractions in everything we do, every day. Humans commit Langer Epistemology Errors (LEEs) naturally every day.

Neils Bohr abstractions
Neils Bohr on abstractions


Human physiology predisposes civilization to commission of LEEs.



Knowing vs Understanding and wielding philosophy and science in a manner illuminates and illustrates the path to an epistemology consistent with the unified Universe.


Elegant Reasonism is a net new epistemology supported by an analytical framework which seeks truth as a function of the unified Universe as a philosophical predicate priority consideration entering science and as a utility process produced the first fully compliant Encapsulated Interpretive Model (EIM) to close to unification. This means that those wielding Elegant Reasonism can ask questions that status quo thinkers can not even fathom.

Insights Required for Recogntion

  1. Abstraction Inventory:
    1. Action
    2. Architecture
    3. Arm
    4. Basis
    5. Character
    6. Construct
    7. Converge / Convergence
    8. Dimension(s)
    9. Distance
    10. Electric
    11. Electromagnetism
    12. Energy
    13. Entanglement
    14. Epistemology
      1. Constructivism
      2. Elegant Reasonism
      3. Empiricism
      4. Rationalism
      5. Scientific Epistemology (e.g. Empiricism)
    15. Force
    16. Frame of Reference
    17. Frequency
    18. Geometry
      1. Discontinuity / Discontinuous
      2. Geometric Map
      3. Topology
    19. Gravity
    20. Instantiate
    21. Interface
    22. Langer Epistemology Errors
    23. Light
    24. Logic / Logical
    25. Magnetism
    26. Mass
    27. Mathematics
      1. Constant
      2. Equation / Formula
      3. Parameter
      4. Variable
    28. Moment
    29. Nature
    30. Object
    31. “Of”
    32. Phenomena
    33. Philosophy / Philosophical
    34. Photon
    35. Power
    36. Property
    37. Real & Reality
    38. Relation / Relations / Relationship
    39. Science
    40. Space
    41. Speed
    42. Symbol / Symbolism
    43. Time
    44. Vector
    45. Velocity
    46. Warp
    47. Work
  2. We must remember that historically the problem which Albert Einstein was attempting to solve or reconcile was not unification. The scientific community, at the time, was consumed with the MichelsonMorely Interferometer experiments which had failed to detect the Luminiferous Aether which everyone thought existed. That situation is what Einstein was attempting to reconcile with his various papers. What no one on Earth recognized were the epistemological implications of mistaking abstractions for actual reality and that that is something Susanne K Langer would not quantify and codify until 1948. Then too we have the historical fact that the International Council on Systems Engeering (INCOSE) was not created until 1990. No experimental investigator, anywhere on Earth, recognized the epistemological implications related to commission of these types of errors until SOLREI INC file its application for Elegant Reasonism in 2019 and it was published by the USPTO 26Nov2020 and it was announced via Press Release contemporaneously.
  3. Circa 2020 humanity has experiments and their results confirming the logical correctness of Special and General Relativity spanning from 1905 through to the present day.
    1. 100% of all those experiments may be mode shifted.
  4. 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.
      1. This fact precludes employing a common geometric basis point for all real objects in the same reference frame, and
      2. consequently precludes fully coupling all reference frames such that all fundamental forces in those frames can be described relative to one another.
    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.
  5. 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 <– Convergence
        2. Gamma Function  <– Polar Residue Emergence
      2.  Geometry
        1. Basis Points
        2. Topology
          1. Basis
          2. Geometric Maps (The Emergence Model insights suggest The Fundamental Entanglement Function, limited by Severance configures MBPs into complex, discontinuous, Architectures of Mass which can be completely described by geometric maps employing a single basis point with any reference frame Event or Local in their intrinsic nature.)
          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.
  6. All historical experiments are:
    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.
  7. 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

P2.0: Illumination

One factor supporting this proposition is that the original systems review dovetails with the unified Universe held litmus. There is a requirement of accomplishing unification which was never realized until well after the benchmark had been done and it is holistic in nature. The phrase “unification of physics” significantly misses the point of unification. Unifying a single discipline of science is necessary but wholly insufficient to accomplish unification. When the entire unified Universe can be characterized Bang to Bang, one must be able also characterize everything real from the same genesis. Unification is not a single equation, tweak, or update to historical theories. Unification is a tapestry that must describe how everything real is made manifest no matter how restful. That means that credible evidence chains must exist for all real relationships, spanning all scales, across the entire entanglement gradient. Consequently unification must instantiate everything real and because of that the ‘of physics’ point has been dropped from all articulation of what it is we accomplished. It is also why we state: “Unification is a tapestry a great deal larger than any single domain of discourse, detail set, or discipline.”

Supporting Concepts

Supporting Propositions

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

Supporting Thought Experiments

Proposition-0002 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Please click the paragraph title for the FAQs page for this proposition.

P3.0: Analysis

The process and methods worked through the various analytical layers of Translation Matrices to produce the insights listed above in the recognition phase of the original systems review. Links to those materials are listed above for your review. In total there are over 3,500 pages of materials, equations, concepts, thought experiments, and other propositions all of which dove tail back here.


(M5) The issue behind this proposition is essentially one of philosophical recognition of the implications around commission of Langer Epistemology Errors regarding a logically correct EIM. In this particular case those EIMs are: M1, M2, and M3, because they all employ the same core constructs originally developed by Albert Einstein, though mass is treated differently in each as discussed by Dr. Lev B Okun. When we realize that under these EIMs nothing real can transition the spacetime-mass interface we are forced to realize that is the reason no reference frame under them may employ a common geometric basis point as is required by all valid geometries. That single fact relegates those EIMs into the realm of the logical rather than the physical. Furthermore when we begin to drill into the reasons behind the inability of those same EIMs from being able to fully couple all reference frames we run headlong into the same interface issues and for all the same reasons.

We then must holistically integrate Susanne K Langer‘s body of work with the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge. Then we must take into consideration the philosophical discussion presented by Richard P Feynman in his above video but here we immerse that discussion in the context of Elegant Reasonism and the criteria for unification.

(M5) When we realize the logical nature of the traditional EIMs we are liberated beyond measure because it means we are free to investigate other EIMs which do not employ the same constructs manifesting the limitations (e.g. factors inhibiting accomplishing unification). It was that motivation which culminated in the definition for Elegant Reasonism on the White Paper cover. Recognizing the logical correctness of those earlier EIMs does not denegrate them, indeed it elevates them and makes them powerful tools which can leverage and exploit investigations in new, innovative ways. We now also have M4 to surround and immerse investigative concepts and paradigms. So long as we do not forget that we are employing abstractions and we stay on the model side of reflecting the unified Universe.

Shop Now!

#ElegantReasonism #EmergenceModel #M5 #M6 #Unification #Gravity #Matter #ArchitecturalMass #Graviton #MBP #Entanglement #SpeedOfEntanglement
#BellInequality #FundamentalEntanglementFunction #FEF #Severance #Proposition0002



%d bloggers like this: