How sure are we that black hole is not a product of a massive gravity implosion that rips a hole into the fabric of 3D/4D dimensional space in which light and everything else got sucks out to another side?

My imagination runs wild like a horse in the wild today, and so today it’s all about black hole and infinity and Calculus. To tell the truth, I’m not at all great in math, and so Calculus is so out there for me. Furthermore, I have not been back to school for ages, and so I might be a thousand miles away from the right answer when I’m trying to do a complicated math problem such as a hard Algebraic problem and so forth. Still, I’m a carefree person sometimes, and today is that day when I don’t care if I’m right or wrong.

According to the YouTube video right after the break, a black hole is formed because of the massive gravitational collapse of a dead star. Personally, I like to say a massive gravitational implosion because it sounds cooler! Anyway, the video right after the break explains how black hole forms in detail.

Today, I imagine that because of massive collapse or implosion of dense gravitational strength which, in my opinion, allows the core of a dead star not really was squashed into nothingness but was pushed so hard that it stretched and ripped a hole of our 3D/4D spatial space — thus pushing and ejecting the core of the dead star through another spatial dimension. This way, as if you can imagine that a hypersonic plane got punctured with a massive hole and thus anything got closer to the hole would get eject and suck out of the plane. The hypersonic plane is the container or the fabric of our 3D/4D spatial dimension and the outside is a bigger dimension that imprisons our 3D/4D spatial dimension.

Why black hole is always round like a circle and not a square? You know, if you push a ball through a massive piece of easy to be ripped tissue, you could probably create a square or a weird shape of the hole in the tissue right? Here comes the part of infinity and Calculus — hence circle.

Since Calculus was probably started by the ancient mathematics geniuses who were hypnotized by trying to work with a circle or whatever was more meaningful than a circle that led to their wonderment of infinity. Since a circle isn’t a straight line, in Calculus, I guess we could imagine a circle is a composite of infinitely small straight lines that form a circle in an orderly connected directional position. Hence infinity’s involvement since we don’t really know curve that well and have to use our imagination of using a straight line with infinity to form a circle. I guess, through infinity, a constant of the unknown, we find changes in infinitely small intervals. (My interval meaning isn’t a mathematical one but merely a point!) — So I guess Calculus is about finding the meaning of the change!

What has Calculus got to do with a black hole? In my opinion, a ball rips through a massive tissue isn’t the same as a massive collapse or implosion of gravity. According to the book “Infinite Powers: How Calculus Reveals the Secrets of Universe” by Steven Strogatz, and here I quote:

Mathematically, circles embody change without change. A point moving around the circumference of a circle changes direction without ever changing its distance from a center. It’s a minimal form of change, a way to change and curve in the slightest way possible. And, of course, circles are symmetrical. If you rotate a circle about its center, it looks unchanged. That rotational symmetry may be why circles are so ubiquitous. Whenever some aspect of nature doesn’t care about direction, circles are bound to appear. Consider what happens when a raindrop hits a puddle: tiny ripples expand outward from the point of impact. Because they spread equally fast in all directions and because they started at a single point, the ripples have to be circles. Symmetry demands it.

Thus my thinking is that since symmetry demands it, whenever something in nature which doesn’t care about the direction like the implosion of gravity — in our case the black hole — a circle must be formed in space that is so black as a black hole! As I mentioned above, the core of the dead star was collapsed and imploded so hard by gravity thus I think it probably got ejected through the ripped 3D/4D spatial dimension. Like a hypersonic plane that got a massive hole, anything near the hole would get ejected out to the other side. Whatever on the other side must be so exotic and our super special black hole makes things so impossible that even light cannot escape the grasp of the black hole.

Can Historical Memories Shape A Future?

Can historical memories shape a future? In my opinion, historical memories could play a great role in shaping the direction of a future even though on the surface we may not see such things happen. For an example, the horrific revenge of the Soviet Union against Germany as Soviet Union troops entered Germany when the Nazi continuedly retreated as the WWII winded down. This pushed Germany to fight the Soviet Union harder and preferred to surrender to the allies.

The Soviet Union’s behavior right after WWII is a great example of why the Soviet Union lost the cold war according to Dr. Citino. If I remembered correctly he said something as such in the YouTube video above. I guess if he is right on this perspective of history, we have a lesson to learn here!

I guess the lesson of history in the context of this blog post is that a careless single victory in the present doesn’t mean much if it could cause long term pain in the future! For an example, we have multiple nuclear powers in the world as we speak, but if any one of them uses nuclear weapons carelessly, this could lead to a future that would not be very favorable for such a power.

I wonder, could Japan be closer to the United States and prevent China historic rise if the United States had won WWII against Japan without nuking Japan? In the video right after the break, Parag Khanna suggests that Japan’s heavied investments into China had contributed today stronger China!

Perhaps, I’m reading into things that simply aren’t there, but I have a feeling that Japan does want China to be quite strong to hedge against the United States. Perhaps, they fear the will of using nuclear weapons by the United States. I don’t see any reason for the United States to ever nuke Japan again. but I feel that Japan may have a long memory of it being nuked by the United States. Sure, it’s outrageous to think that Japan is unfaithful to the United States since it’s still a very close ally to the United States. Nonetheless, I’m sure there must be a thinking out there like this, and so we can’t just totally ignore the possibility!

In summary, I think a victor should not be as ruthless as Genghis Khan or the Soviet Union, because such a ruthless victor would not be able to win the respect of the surrendered power! On the surface, the surrendered power may acquiesce to the demands of the victor, but inside the surrendered power could have a feeling of long term ill will. I think today nuclear powers should not use their nuclear weapons carelessly no matter how precise and strategic their nuclear weapons could become because I think such powerful weapons could create unending hatred of one people or power to another!

How To Fix A Corrupt Country?

I stumbled on a Quora’s question “How do you fix a corrupt country?” and so I decided to give my two cents on Quora in regards to how I think such a country could fix its problems.  Well, I will quote myself fully right after the break.  Nonetheless, you can also visit Quora for this specific answer too, but you may have to go through countless other answers that were given to this same question.

Here I quote myself:

When a country is being weakened by a weak leadership or a weak governance structure — having both would be a disaster — such a country needs to find a way to exert law and order so everyone in the country could recognize a corruptive behavior isn’t acceptable. When people are actually supportive of a measure against such corruptive behavior, the government could slowly gather strength through the recruitment of a strong leadership to carry out the enforcement of rules and regulations to curb the corruptions.

I think many forms of corruption could be very subtle too, and so corruptive agents could actually thrive in almost all governments — doesn’t matter what form a regime is actually practicing. For example, a democratic country is relatively poor, and so such a country will not be able to have strong leadership even though it got a democracy. Without a strong leadership, things tend to slip in and out between cracks, and so the corruptive agents could easily use such opportunity to do corruptive things out in the open.

In a dictatorship regime, corruptive agents in the position of power would be unchallenged since there won’t be enough checks and balances to curb such power. If a dictatorship regime got a weak leadership, the country could experience widespread corruptions that go unchecked. A good thing about the dictatorship regime is that if a country got a strong leader who actually cares for the people, such a leader could use the absolute power to weed out the corruptions really fast and effective. Basically, there are pros and cons to a different form of governance and style of a particular government.

I think to fix a corruptive country, the most important things are to find the right leadership and enhance or rebuild a governance structure so the country could thrive on rules and order. As long the rules and order are making sense and the people could feel safe, then other good things may come eventually. For example, a strong economy is a must for a leader to keep the people happy and healthy. When people are happy and healthy, they tend to do the right things and be supportive of the government. With strong support from the people, the government could exert enforcement to weed out corruptions without much of any opposition. Heck, when a government is being loved by the people, the government could take a lot more risks to achieve its aspirations.

I’m curious anyone else thinks this is the right approach to fixing a corrupt country?  Please leave a comment or two in the comment section if you agree or disagree with my suggestion.  Thanks.

I Think It’s Stupid To Think That It Takes Only 98 Healthy People To Sustain A Human Species

So, I’d just finished reading “How many humans would it take to keep our species alive? One scientist’s surprising answer” article and I was amazed that his answer is just only 98 healthy people.  Afterward, I scratched my head in doubts.  Obviously, these 98 people would band together to produce more offsprings so the population could grow larger.  Also, we could imagine that these 98 healthy people are the sole survivors of the planet earth since an apocalyptic event had wiped everyone else off the planet earth.  So, is it true that it would take only 98 healthy people to start the new seed of a lost civilization for generations to come?

I don’t think it is possible for 98 healthy people to redevelop a lost population/civilization!  In my opinion, if an event that could wipe out 99.999 percent of earth’s healthy population, how could we be so sure that the other 98 healthy people would last?  Furthermore, a much smaller group of people is going to be more susceptible to extinction since any number of unfortunate circumstances could reduce this small group into an even smaller group.  Of course, you can argue that these 98 healthy people are special since they survived the apocalypse and got a very good protective shelter such as they’re escaping the planet in a very capable spaceship.  Then again, the universe is so huge which harbors all sorts of danger — how could one know that these people would survive through one generation?

Of course, you could argue that space is very safe for a generation of people who travel in a very capable spaceship to begin a repopulation program which could last for generations to come.  Here I begin to doubt even more!  How could anyone know how long a spaceship would last?  Unless you have a crystal ball, I don’t think you could really know how long a spaceship would last.  I imagine a spaceship got some moving parts and all sorts of things that could go wrong at any moment.  I also imagine that space is a very lonely place, and so these 98 healthy people could suffer all sorts of depression.  It takes only one crazy depressive person to dwindle this group into a smaller group.  Thus, extinction is very near and dear!

I don’t like how one would think it takes only 98 healthy people to repopulate earth or sustain human species because this would encourage the crazies to believe that the other 99.999 percent of earth’s population is dispensable.  My argument is very real for the reasons I stated above.  Basically, I don’t think 98 healthy people could sustain a human species for there are too many variables that could dwindle this small group.  From human emotions to outside variables, any one of these variables that turn negative could greatly reduce this small group.  My answer is that I don’t believe 98 healthy people could actually sustain a human species!

Could Yes Also Mean No? Oh, The Realm Of Probability and Possibility!

I don’t usually think in a mathematical sense but I rather think in a philosophical sense… I think!  Anyhow, I love to wonder about the realm of randomness and probability from time to time.  It’s intriguing to me when I think about how large is the universe; it seems to go on endlessly without a border in sight like how earth got its own boundary.  Thus, I would think — could we ever calculate the possibilities and the probabilities of each possibility and the possibilities of each probability within our own universe?

The universe is so large and so we may not know where it would end so there could be a beginning of something else.  Multiple universes?  We don’t know really!  But I guess scientists out there got their own mathematical formulas and scientific theories to provide them some basics of a foundation to provide many inputs into a computer model so we humans can simulate a known universe.  Nonetheless, what we don’t know may not allow us to calculate what we want and wish to know — that is the beyond!

Quantum computing is gaining innovative developments each day.  This could allow us to have a much more powerful mean to calculate whatever.  I guess we could simulate a known universe in a quantum computer with more ease than how we’re doing with the traditional computer technology.  The question is, can a quantum computer help us sprinkle the probabilities and the possibilities of what is known and what is only a guesswork into our computer models so we could arrive at a point where we may discover more about our own universe?

I even question on the rigidity of theories and known facts because I think to go beyond one must take a risk in traveling the unknown seas — in a time when we have no idea and not a clue of what would lie ahead.  Could the rigidity of theories and facts prevent us from developing more knowledge?  Nonetheless, we cannot just simply enter a magical element into a well-developed computer model to simulate what we truly want to know about the universe, right?

But to think a fish cannot fly could be right on earth, it could be wrong on another planet when everything could fly!  Of course, I truly do not know if there is such a planet.  This is the magical element I’m talking about!  Thus, entering the probabilities and the possibilities of what if as if how we explored the unknown seas back in time.  Right now, our new unknown seas are the new boundaries and borders and stuff within our universe.

I also think if such magical element could help us discover more about the universe, could it allow us to calculate the probabilities and possibilities of a possible future — giving that we’re knowing some known facts and theories that would be married to a magical element or elements?  I guess the quantum computer technology could really help us here.  I skim some texts on probability through the web and they describe probability as events with yes and no such as 1 and 0.  Nonetheless, I question this as I ponder a fish could fly.  Why?  Sometimes, could yes also mean no?

Can The Universe Itself Be A Smart AI According To Some Higher Being’s Design?

In the last blog post “Can Our Universe Expand Forever Or Expand Then Contract Later Just So It Could Die?” I surmised that the universe (our universe among many others) could have been expanding and contracting according to how it got fed with external energy — where such force would have to wander outside our very own singularity.  Without such external nursery of energy, I surmised that our universe is like a quantifiable fish aquarium.  Nonetheless, we all know that even a human being could be intelligibly randomized things at will — thus I think according to the universe we’re sentient beings are the AI (artificial intelligent).  How about let me surmise some more and say that — what if the universe itself is a higher artificial intelligent force in which it could randomize things at will to expand and contract according to circumstances?

We human beings could only see the results of why the universe is expanding and contracting according to our very own whatever theories — but why would the universe do such a thing?  What’s the point of expanding or contracting?  Expanding to create more empty space for what?  Contracting is like a suicidal attempt of killing itself off so the existence of the universe itself would cease to exist.  Furthermore, perhaps the universe itself is like a smart TV or fishbowl/aquarium in which it was designed by a higher being.  This way the purpose of expanding and contracting won’t be the burden with which the universe has to carry.  This burden could be carried by the designer of the universe.

At this point, I think it’s more like a philosophical thinking than anything concrete on this matter, but it’s so intriguing nonetheless.  In my opinion, philosophical or not, it’s rather important for us sentient beings to dig deeper into our origin.  After all, if we could not remember how we’d come into being, then we would forever aimlessly forget about our root and forever lost — wandering in a dark forest (Three Body Problem’s sci-fi trilogy second book is also titled as The Dark Forest).  I think only when we could figure out our true root of how we’d come into the existence, it is then that we could evolve to be something greater.  Perhaps in such a quest, we could discover new technology to bring us to new heights; we could grow into even more capable and intelligent sentient beings.