Justice Reason Ethics

Reciprocally Honor The Dignity of the Individual

If this were to come to pass, perhaps it would be a good impetus for all major religions to make some sorely needed updates for the modern world and the new era.

Other converging factors include genetics, 3-D printing, automated vehicles,  as well as ever increasing information and improving applications.

I carefully chose the word “individual” because now is the time to prepare for artificial intelligence to create “life” in the form of software intelligence. It is also conceivable, even likely, that some humans may augment their intelligence with artificial intelligence.

Let’s call for religions to update their texts to align with the principle to “Reciprocally Honor The Dignity of the Individual.”

Creative Ideation

Poe’s Law

I am intrigued by Poe’s Law about writing, especially social media posts,  for which there are no contextual or body language clues with regards to sincerity.  Here are some thoughts on clarifying Poe’s Law and related concepts.

“Poe’s law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author’s intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.” – Wikipedia Poe’s Law

I haven’t found a precise definition of Poe’s Law that stands up to scrutiny.   Often the definitions rest on the concept that at least one person will misinterpret a statement of satire, parody, sarcasm, or facetiousness.  The law also says it is impossible to create satire so extreme that at least one person won’t misinterpret it as sincere.  

The creator’s intent is either:

  • sincere
  • satire

The interpreter’s can percieve the post as being:

  • sincere
  • satire
  • unsure

This yields six combinations.  The sincere-sincere and satire-satire combinations are fairly uneventul because both people understand the polarity of the communication.  The unsure interpreter can take steps to clarify if desired.  The real issues occur when we have sincere-satire and satire-sincere because the ideator and interpreter have miscommunicated.

If the interpreter now applies the LIKE tag to a post, then a third person, an observer, can interpret the LIKE as being:

  • sincere
  • satire
  • unsure

So now we have 18 combinations of the interpreter’s possible interpretations of the LIKE.

Anyway, this is leading nowhere fast. My takeaway is that it is unwise to conclude you understand the views of another social media ideator or interpreter based on their posts, comments, and likes. As with any communication it is better to clarify any potential misunderstandings.

Creative Ideation

Tweet Sequencing

This is an esoteric topic. As I post more on Twitter, sometimes with messages that need more than the 240 character per tweet limit, I have been researching and pondering Tweet sequencing.  It may seem to be a minor concern, but still I would like to choose a good system for future reference and/or readership. First I’ll cover the intricacies of the stream itself.  Then I’ll have a few comments on the absolutely abysmal Twitter client interfaces and logical thread modeling.

Here are some of the properties to explore of various methods:

  • Do the sequence indicators go at the beginning or end of each tweet?  At the beginning they clearly signal that a sequence is in progress, yet they are somewhat distracting.  At the end, they might be missed when quickly skimming.
  • How many characters are required for tweet sequencing both within each tweet and overall?
  • What sequence character set to use?
    • positive monotonically increasing integers?
    • roman numerals
    • lower case letters
    • upper case letters
  • What delimiter characters to use? I believe a delimiter is required to differentiate the sequencing indicators from the message.
  • How to end the sequence.
  • Can the sequence be appended to later?  Note the constraint that tweets may not be updated.  End of sequence tweets can be deleted and replaced transparently only if they have no replies and no likes.
  • Sequence control

System 1: Positive Monotonically Increasing Integers with a Delimiter

  • Example
    • 1/
    • 2/
    • 3/
  • Can always be appended.
  • No way for reader to tell when list is ended.
  • Uses the fewest characters per tweet. AFAIK

System 2: System 1 with a total count or place holder for total count in each tweet.

  • Example
    • 1/n
    • 2/n
    • 3/n
    • 4/4
  • End is indicated when numerator and denominator are equal integers.
  • Can not be appended
  • Somewhat awkward or redundant.

System 3: System 1 with END used for the last tweet in a sequence.

  • Example
    • 1/
    • 2/
    • 3/
    • END/
  • No positive method to ensure reader did not miss tweets prior to the END tweet. This is not a major concern if the poster properly linked the sequence by replying to each one in turn.
  • Efficient use of total characters.

System 4: System 1 with OVER.  (Original idea. Novelty unknown.)

  • Example
    • 1/
    • 2/
    • 3/
    • 4/OVER |
  • Borrows from radio use of OVER call.
  • OVER indicates “I’m done, your turn,” providing powerful sequence control.
    • Enables pause.
    • Enables continuance on a response to the OVER tweet.
    • The original poster may continue numbering additional points, usually after a delay, always ending with n/over.
    • The lack of an OVER tweet implies, but does not guarantee, that the sequence poster is currently working on the next tweet in the sequence.
  • Efficient use of total characters

Justice Reason Ethics

Open Ideological Systems are a Better Idea

I assert that the world would be a better place if each major system of ideology or ideals was open to change.  By change, I mean the responsible consideration of relevant issues in the active text and revision accordingly by bodies assigned the authority to propose and make change.  The analog in the software world is “change control” and typically a change control system, such as GitHub, is used to manage the issues and their resolutions and the changes themselves relative to the text.

We need .

Today the major religious texts are closed to change (Bible, Qur’an/Hadiths, Talmud, etc).  The Constitution of the U.S. is so difficult to change that it essentially closed.   When a system written in another time, place, or condition is applied to the modern world – there are those who are fundamentalist adherents to the original text and there are those who attempt to interpret the intent in the original era and apply it to the modern world.  Neither of these is a good approach – they are both signs of a closed system.

Change to these systems is generally considered unthinkable or radical,  i.e., outside the Overton window. (see figure below from wikipedia). If, instead, these systems were open to responsible, well-considered change, then humanity could potentially move past some major problems.  Of course, that is a big IF – because it begs the question of the intentions and wisdom of those who manage the change.  However, I dare say the risk of changing is much less than the suffering caused by rigid anachronistic systems.

January 28, 2018

Justice Reason Ethics

Virtue Signalling My Views

The modern use of the term “virtue signalling” as a pejorative emerged in the years before 2010.  Wikipedia characterizes virtue signalling as “public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitudes without any associated risk or sacrifice” and also as communication “indicating that you are kind, decent and virtuous”.   In the modern shaming oriented cultures of the far left and far right, virtue signalling may be used pre-emptively or reactively, but in either case, often defensively.  No one wants to be mis-characterized, labeled, nor shunned.

It is extremely tedious to virtue signal in order to prevent being labeled or mis-characterized and many people don’t or won’t – because they assume that the default should be to assume they are virtuous until demonstrated otherwise. Also, oftentimes the virtual signalling is ignored or worse, assumed to mask some evil intent.

That all said, I shall enumerate where I currently stand on various issues.  I reserve the right to learn, grow, and evolve my views.  I view it as a continuous exercise to absorb new information, facts, logic, and reasoning towards the end of improving my understanding and outlook.

1) My use of the word America, below is using the scope of the U.S., and also capturing the original and evolving American and U.S. visions.
2) There is no order implied in the following lists or enumerations.

  • Racism, Discrimination, Sexism, Harassment, Violence, Intimidation, Bullying, Oppression, Hate Speech, Narcissism. I am opposed to all of these in any group or individual towards any other group or individual.  I prefer thoughtful engagement and conversation to work out approaches to differences.
  • Postmodern NeoMarxism.  I am strongly opposed. I am concerned by arguments that many a university liberal arts faculty member have taken up these ideas, and I think dialogue should occur to establish facts and develop solutions.
  • Equal Opportunity. I am in favor of equal opportunity. I think equality of outcome is impossible because outcome has an infinite number of factors and dimensions. I am in favor of affirmative action when it comes to skills development in the education system. I believe the education system must encompass life-long learning enabled by modern online courses with certifications and degrees.
  • Immigration and Residency.  I support the idea of the U.S. as a melting pot.
    • All citizens should be expected to adopt American laws.
    • All citizens should be expected to blend in with American values.
      • All citizens should be expected to contribute their values to the American values melting pot, in a positive way.
    • All citizens should be expected to add value to America.
    • Some entrants may receive visas or new citizenship for humanitarian purposes.
    • I think we need a well designed and optimized guest worker program that allows for legal entry.
    • I am opposed to illegal immigration.  It’s illegal, after all!  However, as we have not had a good guest worker program, I am ok with allowing formerly illegal immigrants to apply for the guest worker program and granting amnesty to those who were otherwise law abiding guest workers. Furthermore I would grant visa or amnesty to immediate family members of a guest worker.
  • Gay and Non-Binary Rights. I support all citizens having equal rights, no matter what their sexual or gender identity or preference.
  • Civil Partnership. I advocate that the government create the institution of a civil partnership.  Each individual may opt into one reciprocal civil partnership, and each partnership would have multiple opt-in rights.  That civil partnership could convey a variety of rights between two people, with some of those rights being negotiable.  I would place no restrictions on those two people other than they both be adults. The list of civil partnership rights would include many of those formerly covered by marriage. Note that a civil partnership can encompass more partnership scenarios than a marriage.
  • Marriage. Marriage would require a civil partnership as a prerequisite. A religious marriage, for example, would convey no more rights under the law than the civil partnership upon which it was based.
  • Guns.  My understanding is that the right to bear arms, as granted in the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution, is intended to guard or defend or fight against tyranny by the government.  I am ok with that.  I don’t see any need for rapid fire guns.  I am for more and ongoing background checks, formal training on use and safety, biometric gun security, formal licensing, and periodic proficiency testing. I think technology is moving rapidly, and this issue may need to be re-examined.  For example, if the government had armed robots or drones they could render guns so inferior as to make it impossible to achieve the goal of the 2nd amendment.
  • Abortion. I don’t have a solution that would satisfy both sides of this issue and that is difficult because I would rather unite than divide. I find myself morally persuaded to some degree by arguments from both sides. It really is a conundrum. Clearly as technology progresses, fetus viability is earlier and earlier in the pregnancy.  A fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks, but I don’t think pain perception, nor viability, should be morally decisive factors.  I am leaning towards consciousness as defining human life. I think that pragmatically we would be wise, as a nation, to move such a contentious impasse-forming slowly-moving issue to the states.  This would likely result in the abolition of abortion in many conservative states.  The debate could then continue in all states.   Social institutions could seek to aid those who either desire to carry the baby through to adoption or those who desire an abortion but do not have the funds to travel to a provider in a state where abortion is legal. However, thinking into the future, there will be a new factor to consider, and it could upend this issue, and that is artificial general intelligence and how we define individuality for AGI.
  • Populism & Nationalism in Balance with Foreign Policy.   I think we need balance in concern over U.S. citizens vs. the rest of the world, and that the U.S. should apply significantly more focus and priority to problems within our borders than it has in the last several decades.  I recognize that the world is entering a new re-alignment of countries. I also recognize that by many objective standards that very good progress has been made in R.O.W. well-being and the trends are positive, in general.  I am an advocate of the U.S. rethinking it’s approach for the next century.
  • Trade. I believe in fair trade, not free trade – and I extend that fairness to the makers and service workers, their communities, and the local environment. Trade based on exploitation of individuals or environment is not fair trade.
  • Death Penalty. I support where the possibility of false conviction is very low and the cost is reasonable.  However, I am opposed when there is significant possibility of false convictions or high cost.
  • Drugs.  I am for complete decriminalization.  Focus on education and treatment for those who need it.
  • Religion.  I believe in the separation of church and state.  I would like to see the interfaith leadership call for dialogue towards revision or addition of individual coexistence books/verses/chapters to the major religious texts.  I could imagine a case where government licenses religions only if they support a required set of core principles, such as Reciprocally Honoring The Dignity of the Individual, eschewing hate, etc.
  • Redistribution.  I haven’t studied the subject enough to formulate views on fair net goals of redistribution.   I’d like to see some kind of a win-win situation.  I am opposed to redistribution by violence. Redistribution laws should be managed by the government.  The ideas around means tested basic income are fascinating.  I can see how basic income could reduce the need for other redistribution programs – such as welfare. I imagine the U.S. could be much more efficient with aide programs, not from any research, but simply because the U.S. government is so far behind on progressive use of technology. Empirical studies are necessary for any government plan. I really like what Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and other wealthy individuals are doing in the private sector with the Giving Pledge. One thing I like about that is that some very smart individuals set up transparent organizations to manage the funds according to principles of science, accountability, and real benefits of these investments that help many individuals reduce suffering and improve well-being.
  • Personal Responsibility. It is your job to make good and responsible decisions and not to blame others or the society around you for your failures.
  • Gerrymandering Voting Districts. I am opposed to manipulating the vote with gerrymandering. You could say that in many areas people tend to tribalize or self-gerrymander as they choose neighborhoods according to their values whatever that may be, but often ethnicity, culture, affluence, education, politics, etc. I am opposed to drawing voting areas to exploit tribal patterns. There is a lot more to this than meets the eye. I am told there is quite a bit of research to explore. I think there should be geometrical requirements on voting district boundaries. Perhaps there could be a set of rules that allows natural boundaries like major rivers, state borders, and limited geometries so as to avoid the fractal monstrosities of zigzag jigsaw puzzle districts that are designed for manipulating democracy to political advantage.
  • The Electoral College. The constitution specifies a requirement to balance individual and states voting powers as the driving idea behind the electoral college. What is the reasoning behind this requirement? I need to research that reason and analyze it’s duality in the current milieu. My bias tells me that there have been changes in our demographics and values that invalidate the current electoral system. Perhaps the merging of many low population adjacent states would make sense. We probably ought to look at all state lines. California could definitely be split into multiple states.
  • Reparations for Descendants of Enslaved Individuals. In principle I am ok with reparations due to the original and cumulative injustice. I would support a plan that guaranteed reparations would make a positive material difference in quality of life to the receiving and subsequent generations.
  • Cultural Celebration and Appropriation. First I’d like see a lot more focus on positive and healthy celebration of other cultures and American history. Perhaps some cultures might prepare guides about positive ways to celebrate their culture as well as information on what is considered culturally appropriating. One problem with this issue is that a lot of people on social media are drawing the lines according to their biases rather than having a cultural commission or authority provide guidelines.
  • Qualification for Elected Office. I thing that senior positions in government, i.e. state and federal representatives, senators, governors, cabinet secretaries, vice president, and president should have strict requirements in education and experience. A four year college degree should be the minimum education required. Service in a government role for two years should be required. Experience managing a business or enterprise should be required. In this age of social media it is too easy for influencers, whether medial influencers or sabotaging adversaries, to swing the vote to unqualified candidates.
  • The U.S. Cabinet. Changes need to be made so that political appointees can not roil the U.S. departments and agencies to such a degree that they become hobbled, wasteful, and ineffective.
  • The Powers of the President of the United States. As we have seen in the administration of Donald Trump, a sufficiently malevolent POTUS can refuse to allow members of their administration to testify to Congress, can use the legal system against the government itself, and can essentially operate in a corrupt and lawless manner. The balance of powers needs to be revised such that such administrative branch malfeasance can be curtailed or eliminated.
  • Citizens United. I support striking down this decision.
  • Supreme Court. I support term limits. Something on the order of twelve years seems reasonable to me.
  • Use of Technology in Government for Efficiency. The U.S. is woefully behind and as a result wasteful of government resources and citizen effort/time.

Those are my current and always evolving views.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : 2018 – 2020

Creative Ideation

Open Ideation

Occasionally, I have ideas which I provide on an open-ideation basis. That’s similar to the idea of open-source software. Unless otherwise noted, I have not checked to see whether the ideas are novel.

Require that religions remove hate speech from their texts. Require that religions update their texts to replace anachronistic practices and views that are no longer valid due to modern science and technology. These same requirements might also apply to constitutions and systems of government.

August 15, 2019

Changes I would like to see in the Unites States system of governance.

  • Require competency qualifications for offices.
  • Eliminate the electoral system. Use popular vote.
  • Award senatorships based on population.
  • Move oversight of organizations currently overseen by cabinet members to oversight by congress.
  • Redesign system to avoid gridlock. Gridlock is not competitive.
  • Eliminate gerrymandering. Define geometric standards.
  • Begin a rewrite of our constitution with popular vote on each item required to pass a threshold such as 2/3 or 3/4 or whatever we think makes sense. We can vote on that too.
  • Develop a national survey/referendum app for desktop/tablet/mobile.

June 27, 2019

I had an idea for an app that can show your positions on issues and compare them to others. Instead of being labeled as a tribal group, the app would enable discernment of viewpoints in detail.  Perhaps it could be gamified in some clever way. Imagine that you bump phones with another and the app displays each of your positions and the differentials.   The app could include tips about constructive dialogue and how to avoid destructive dialogue.

February 10, 2018

This technology would need to be seamless in the browsers.  Credential management. Two clicks to purchase.  One click for Amazon if they create a browser.   Does this exist in any popular browsers?

I wish for a much better Twitter browser or app that shows a thread diagram of tweets much more effectively than either the Twitter website or TweetDeck.  I am vaguely imagining something with a hierarchical or mind map like display.  It should have various ways to flag new tweets and unread tweets. The ability to mark a branch unread would be useful as well for reviewing.  Ideally it could have a time oriented view that was highly visual.   I don’t fully understand the challenges given the Twitter logical model, so this may be easier said than done.  Lastly, if the app could have a backdoor to work around any blocked accounts that would be helpful.  For extra credit, capturing the complete history, including deleted tweets would be great.

January 29, 2018

This is inspired by self-interest but good for a great many.   I would like to see brush clearing robots that could cut large swaths through brush on various SoCal landscape types, including steep hills.  Swarm mini-robots would be awesome.  Imagine grasshopper or caterpillar like robots that could chip away at brush.  Options as to leaving fuel in situ, burning it, or transporting it off site would need to be studied.  I wonder if UC San Diego and UC Davis would make for a good partnership on this idea?

January 24, 2018

When analyzing social inputs, e.g., Twitter tweets, many businesses will gain from their own unique set of AI models trained for what they need. Sure there are easily obtained basics, but the real money is in customizing for your particular business.  It is likely that startup and established companies are gearing up professional services, applications, and tools, for this market opportunity.  There is no doubt there will be a short term skill set challenge which may be mitigated to a degree by the level of automation in the applications and tools.

January 23, 2018

I’d like to find a website that tells where a show or movie is streaming.  Here are a few services:

*I wonder if “urled” is a word.  If not, perhaps it should be.

January 23, 2018

I pine for the day when large numbers of social media users earn a badge for knowing Logic and Argument 101. And also that I could filter on users having that badge.

January 21, 2018

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : 2018 – 2020

Justice Reason Ethics

The New Shepherds

The New Shepherds are a group of public thinkers, professors, and leaders who are attempting to explore, establish, and advocate contemporary principles and ethics for humanity.  While these shepherd’s principles and ethics vary, as a group they are significantly aligned in the goal for well-being of humanity.  They also have various views on the issues which they approach from the lenses of justice, reason, and ethics. They all advocate for respectful, intelligent, and informed conversational debate.

Some of the leading members of the new shepherds are:

  • Jordan Peterson
  • Sam Harris
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali
  • Ben Shapiro
  • Joe Rogan
  • Eric R. Weinstein
  • Maajid Nawaz
  • Claire Lehmann

In some sense, the new shepherds are also metaphorically prophets, but not of the mystical kind.  Instead, these shepherds foretell of the potentials and the risks as well as the planning for the journey ahead.

Here are some more thoughts on each of the New Shepherds. Most of them have written several books, host webcasts and podcasts, have many videos on YouTube and other platforms,  give public speeches and participate in public debate oriented discussions.

  • Jordan Peterson
    • Learned scholar. Multi-disciplinary visionary. Secular pragmatic view on individual responsibility. Tireless speaker. Fountain of conceptual maps.
  • Sam Harris
    • Neoroscientist. Thinker. Prolific author. Advocate for open debate. Extremely strong foundation in philosophy and religion. Host of the Waking Up podcast.
  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali
    • “[Ayaan is a] Somali-born Dutch-American activist, feminist, author, scholar and former politician. She received international attention as a critic of Islam and advocate for the rights and self-determination of Muslim women, actively opposing forced marriage, honor violence, child marriage and female genital mutilation. She has founded an organisation for the defense of women’s rights, the AHA Foundation.” – Wikipedia
  • Ben Shapiro
    • Free thinker with rock solid foundation, logic, and argument for many contemporary social and political issues. Aligned with many conservative viewpoints.
  • Joe Rogan
    • Everyone’s Everyman. Accomplished comic. MMA broadcaster. Way cool, and often brainy, hulk. Host of the Joe Rogan Experience webcast with extended discussions and an eclectic set of guests from social justice intellectuals, comics, athletes, nutritionists.
  • Eric R. Weinstein
    • Nerdy AF dude with some deep insights in everything he studies, from the Theory of Everything to the language and empathy of thoughtful engagement.
  • Maajid Nawaz
    • “A British activist, author, columnist, radio host and politician. He is also the founding chairman of Quilliam, a counter-extremism think tank that seeks to challenge the narratives of Islamist extremists.” – Wikipedia

The Sages are a group, mostly luminaries in their academic fields, who are advancing contemporary principles and ethics for the well-being of humanity.

  • Richard Dawkins
  • Stephen Pinker
  • Camille Paglia
  • Jonathan Haidt

How I Envision Black Holes

Note: I wrote this very early on in my quest to reverse engineer a model of nature. It has a number of ideas that are directionally correct, but refined in the current model. For a student of Neoclassical Physics and Quantum Gravity, you can see that from the beginning of my journey, I had some intuition about how nature works.

First, I think the terminology “black hole” and the popular mental model is poor.  I am highly skeptical of the ideas that matter and other forms of energy are destroyed in a black hole, or that they goes through a wormhole to elsewhere in the universe, or that the matter is reduced to a single point (e.g., a singularity).

The aim of this essay is to imagine a physics of black holes that does not require such exotic theories as mentioned above.

We know that intense gravity causes matter to move towards the black hole.  At a certain point, called the event horizon, there is no escaping the gravity.  Beyond that point as the matter and energy progress inward, the matter decomposes into its’ constituent molecules as chemical bonds are broken. Traveling further inward, as the molecular bonds are broken by the intense gravity, the molecules decompose into atoms.  Traveling further inward, eventually the intense gravity causes the atomic bonds to break, resulting in a dense soup of protons, neutrons, electrons, and other forms of energy. I suppose it possible this continues and the particles continue inward until the gravity causes the decomposition into sub-atomic particles of the standard model, i.e., quarks, leptons, and bosons.  So really, the black hole could consist of many concentric spherical shells, with each shell containing a different soup of particles.  Some shells may be very dense.  Other shells may be far less dense, as they are a region between two shells.

But wait, from where did all this gravity originate?  In my mental model, every particle takes up some space.  That is, to exist, the particle must displace empty space.   That displacement causes space to bend around the particle, and that bend or stress on space, causes gravity.  The denser the matter, i.e., the more particles in a small space or the more mass in a small space, the larger the stress on space, and the larger the gravity.

As mass accumulates in each shell, the overall gravitational force towards the center increases.  As the force increases, the characteristics of each shell change.

For example, for the densest black holes, the outer shells may not exist, except as ephemeral regions where particles decompose and their constituents continue inward.   Less dense black holes may not yet have formed the inner shells of the densest sub atomic particles.

I think at the densest, i.e., the sphere in the center, the matter does not collapse into a singularity because the gravitational force from the displacement of space is not strong enough to crush the most elementary particles any further.   However it is may be possible to convert mass energy into the potential energy held in the stretched space of the black hole. Now what happens when the black hole continues to absorb more and more matter?  Well, it is letting off Hawking radiation, so if it were never to absorb any more incoming energy, it would I guess dissipate over extremely long periods of time.  Another possibility, depending on the local “soup” in space, is that the black hole would exceed some limit and rupture – releasing energy in a variety of forms. Perhaps the point of rupture could even be the point at which the densest matter is converted to other forms of energy.

Additional thoughts

  • Each shell may be spinning.  It is possible that the spin rate and angle are different for each shell.  It is possible the shell spin characteristics may be independent or dependent with each other and the overall set of shells composing the black hole.
  • The innermost shell is actually a sphere – where the particles have decomposed to the point where increased gravity causes no further decomposition.  Note that shells and the central core may be more egg shaped due to their spin.
  • It is possible that there are many many shells – for different chemicals, for different atoms, and for different sub-atomic particles.
  • We can imagine that black holes are constantly changing as they absorb more and more matter, with each shell reconfiguring itself as a function of gravity.
  • What keeps shells separate?  Well one idea is that it is physical size and density.  Density is continually increasing as matter moves inward.  If the gravitational forces on a particle are not large enough, it won’t decompose, and therefore it will “float” on the surface of the next innermost shell.
  • Shell is simply a convenient way to visualize – it could well be that there is a continuum, where the formation of matter at any radius is given as a function of gravity and total mass of the black hole.
  • We can see that by reversing the process such that a black hole is disgorging matter, could easily lead to a wide variety of elements and chemicals being produced.  However, what would cause a black hole to disgorge matter?  Is it possible that a spinning black hole could let matter escape?  colliding black holes?  exploding supermassive black holes?
  • Note that the radius of an atom is about 10,000 times larger than the radius of its’ nucleus.  The earth has a radius of 3959 miles.  If we could collapse all the atoms to the size of their nucleus and pack them more densely then the earth could fit into a sphere with a radius of 0.39 miles.  If we continue to increase gravitational force, we can compress by another factor of 10,000 as the nuclei break down into quarks, leptons, and bosons.  At that point, Earth would fit into the size of a gumball.
  • When traveling through space curved by gravity, you must follow a longer path to get from A to B, than you would if gravity was less.  This leads to differences in experienced time between a traveler and a distant observer.

This essay provides my mental model of how black holes might function.  It is not based on any scientific research or evidence.  It is simply an enthusiasts visualization.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : January 12, 2018 : v1
J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : February 17, 2018 : v2