Eugenics and Culture

A New Global Society uproots old cultures, but is there a danger of creating permanently isolated communities?


Are we creating an Elitist Society?

We are today experiencing a time when those with the greatest wealth and privilege are accelerating towards an isolated elitism, while those who are in poverty are being pushed ever further into isolation and ideological neglect. The danger is that if this continues to the degree that we see today, this separation between those who have everything and those who have nothing may become reinforced by the natural principle of selection. After awhile nature will reinforce the cultural axiology, the values contained within a given society with what may be a genetic predisposition. At least we should pay some attention to the possibility if we are to keep democracy vital and meaningful for posterity.

In the past we have all heard of the so called science of Eugenics. Simply put, it is the art of breeding a superior human specimen. The basic idea of breeding certain desirable qualities in any organism is simple enough, take two animals with desirable attributes, mate them, and their progeny will have those qualities, and a new better breed will evolve. At least the idea is simple, though in practice it may not work out that way exactly.

Still it’s a simple idea with a very long human history. We have applied this principle to just about everything and anything we have been able to breed, including but not limited to cats, dogs, sheep, plants, cattle and even human beings. The results have at times been beneficial, at times there were the proverbial bugs to deal with. The less than aspired to results of our attempts to engineer a new breed for a given purpose. Yet, the truth is, as we have all been made aware of through Darwin’s monumental work, nature herself is the real breeder, and breeder par excellence. She breeds what she needs for the purpose of perpetuating a more enduring life form. However, nature is not limited to the wild as we often tend to believe. Nature is everywhere, even in each of us. Her laws don’t stop at our cities’ gates. They are indeed the animating principle behind all our “man-made reality”.  She is the queen from whose fundamental order we can never escape.

The fact is that breeding takes place in our own human world. We live by her laws, whether we like it, or not. In effect our culture breeds what it needs to perpetuate its own modus operandi.  Our civilizations are in part due to our breeding for as in “Wild” nature, if we must distinguish between human and natural, our cultures breed according to what we come to value as desirable qualities. Natural laws, we should say again, don’t  stop at the city gates;  they are the fundamental force behind all human society.

Individual Freedom of Choice

In the past it has been often suggested that we can systematically choose our mates in order to better the human stock. But of course most of the time our conscious efforts create buggy people. As is the case with “pure bred” dogs or cats. There is a price to be paid for selection. An enhanced quality here, often means a detriment somewhere else. Today we hear of DNA technology and how this will change our human form. This is very doubtful. In the end, the product will have biological debts, and these debts may not be affordable. So it’s very unlikely that any systematic way of breeding is going to work and its certainly not the way we have evolved so far.

Rather what determines how we breed most of the time-aside from the fundamental law of nature-  is our culture.  But before we go on, we should pre-empt some arguments and ask this question: how in a true democracy can we really choose how we should breed? If we listen to the DNA enthusiasts, we should go to a professional and have him or her tell us who our mate for procreation should be. But this is dubious at best. They may breed the right genetic material as they see fit, but the human being is awfully complex, and there will be bugs to deal with of that we should be certain. And no amount of screening is going to weed out the problems. Besides, it may well turn out that we are ourselves far better at choosing our mates than any system ever could be, assuming we make a real effort.

For one thing, we can’t ask the government to choose our mate for us, since we are after all a Free People, we are Free to Choose who we want to be our progeny’s parent. Asking the government would be counterproductive to anything like a democratic principle. And if we are concerned about our progeny, we should also be concerned about their chances of living in a free world as well.

Therefore, we should understand, even before going any further, that individual freedom demands that an individual choose their mate, and make the final estimation of what that mate might parent from each of us. Should freedom of choice ever be compromised in this respect, democracy will almost certainly fail. Free people will probably believe that their children too should be free as well.

Freedom of Choice is a necessity and an unimpeachable right of a free individual, but it must be tended to carefully.

Race Myth

We should consider another matter before going on: whether there is some truth to the statements of some that Race is in effect the natural selection process in action. Again, there is little point in stirring the putrid stew, we all know of racist claims that some races are simply superior to others and that nature has chosen one race to be master and another slave. We have heard the arguments countless times, one builds a conquering civilization, the other a slave civilization ripe for conquering. We have all heard the arguments of Hitler, and Himmler for example that some are born out of certain harsh necessities and this builds strength and power etc etc etc while others are bred for slavery and serfdom etc etc etc.  But of course these arguments are ancient, and the Romans, the Greeks , and countless other elitists all around the world and on every continent and of every “race”, Black, White, Asian, American, or even Aboriginal has at one time in history used some such argument to justify their superiority over another, and to justify their rule over another. But the ultimate truth is that there really doesn’t seem to be anything like a “race” in the real world, save but a few general and superficial qualities like general skin color, or hair texture.

Like all formal doctrines taken too far, this doctrine of race too fades to nonsense when pushed to all powerful nature’s limits(as far as they apply to human beings.) The fact is that though it is true that terrain, and climate will favor certain human traits over others, and it is true that privation of one sort or other will tend to weed out those not suited to competition for a given resource, the reality is that those traits are rarely that well isolated. Those racial traits are never “pure” as the political ideologue is often prone to assert.  Rather any given trait, in any culture, is usually balanced with another. Moreover, there is no “pure” race. Even the most isolated of peoples such as Inuit, or some of the more remote tribes of New Guinea are really just mixtures and admixtures of various human migrations. Even the Aboriginals of Australia are the result of historical migrations from southeast Asia and over time they have developed certain traits suited to their existence in a harsh, hot, dry climate.

There are no “pure” races as once believed. There is no “Black” race, or “White” race, or “Asian” etc. All these are mixtures and admixtures over of migrations which have occurred over tens of thousands of years.

Culture and Axiology

Rather what there does seem to be is culture, and this tends to be ephemeral, and always evolving, or devolving. And this is most likely the primary “breeder” inclusive of all natural necessity and privation. As we have come to realize today, even the most isolated of species will eventually evolve into something different given natural necessity.  But human beings especially are never sedentary. It seems to be in our blood to occasionally ramble, to change locale, to move, to expand into a new world. A species like this will mix well no matter what it’s given state might be at any given moment. And this is more likely the true impetus behind our civilizations and their endless expansions, and “natural” selection. Why build a city where the toilet is five feet from the dining table unless there is  a need to keep someone out? But cities never last if all they do is try to keep people out.

So even if environment will be a factor in breeding a particular group of people, the stronger factor is usually the process by which a given culture acclimates itself to a given set of circumstances.  Culture is perhaps the most dominant force behind the particular traits that we choose to foster in our progeny, and this is natural and reasonable to assume.

The truth is that each individual in any given group, or society is made of many individuals, a genealogy thousands of generations long, and this is usually inclusive of most all human groupings. Each culture is usually an amalgam of groups and what traits may seem prominent, are almost always accidental, and ephemeral and would quickly disappear or redirect given any change of fundamental circumstance. Yet each culture has a set of values and its these values, these ideals that tend to create a society. These ideals, or principles, in most structured societies tend also to be one of the main factors for breeding.

Who is pretty, who is ugly, who is good, who is not, who is talented, who is smart, who is sane, who is not, who is rich, who is not, who fits, who doesn’t. All these are determined by the evolution of cultural values, and these have as their foundation the necessity of living in some harmony with the given environment. These are the determinants of human breeding over time.

Why Consider this at all?

Even if “Race” really is an ephemeral classification in the natural scheme of things(certainly it is not equal to the definitions of specie, and so biologically pretty insignificant) we can still consider the natural process of breeding. For though racism is not founded on much reality, natural, or even human selection is. There is a genetic factor at play in any given civilization. We really don’t have to look far to see this.

Consider that the Japanese are usually of a slight smaller build. This was probably necessary due to the difficult terrain of the Islands they inhabit. Japan is not the heart of Europe which can produce much more food than the rocky volcanic islands of Japan can, and so a smaller frame is probably needed in order to conserve the available food. It may also have been necessary to be small in order to negotiate the steep mountainous regions of the Japanese Islands.

Yet when we look at the Sumo wrestler we see a giant. We see a primed athlete that is much larger than the average Japanese and of course much stronger. Moreover, these people are to some extent bred as such in that they are families which tend to marry between themselves. It’s a profession, an honorable profession and Japanese culture has chosen to develop it. But even in what happens to be a very simple example we can get a sense of how culture and axiology can choose to breed certain types of people with certain attributes.

Consider also the two NFL quarterbacks Peyton and Eli Manning. We know that they come from “football” families. Their father Archie Manning was also a Quarterback. His two sons were apparently skilled enough to become NFL quality players. His first son, Peyton Manning is often considered one of the best ever to play the position. There is also the case of the “prodigy” Andrew Luck, who is today fast on course to becoming the next great quarterback of the National Football League. His father too was an NFL Quarterback. The same was true of Bob Giese, and his son , Brian.

Even in coaching we see the father former defensive coach for the Chicago Bears, Buddy Ryan whose two sons, Rex and Rob Ryan are now prominent coaches in the NFL also.

And there are many other examples in the NFL as well as other sports leagues.

The same is seemingly true of baseball player Bobby Bonds, and his son, now the home run king Barry Bonds.

There will be arguments here that all these talents are merely taught and not genetic. But there is a much better truth available, and which is critical here in that these people likely inherited some proclivity that made them learn a particular skill much faster and much better than most because their parents had that same proclivity. This is not to say that someone better might not come along without a notable parent having the same skill, but rather that there is a factor here, and it is “real”. Whether its vocal chords or the length of ones’ finger’s, as might be useful to a Quarterback, there is probably a natural tendency, or availability of certain traits conducive to a particular mode of existence. As long as the culture recognizes this, it can in some cases isolate it. Football families sometimes stick together for example. But even if they didn’t the notion and values may well help to create a reason for being with someone.

It is interesting to note that the Bach family too was a “musical” family. They tended, as a group of trade musicians to mingle, and marry. Whether this was intended or not is unclear, but the family did manage to produce one of the greatest of composers. Beethoven too had a parent who was a musician. Again, education is crucial, but aptitude and predisposition for given subjects may also be influenced by the parents. This has often been maintained by the science of psychology which will often attribute as much as 70 percent of a given aptitude to some innate predisposition as opposed to environmental influences. But environment may initiate the main selective process behind those individual predispositions.

Although there is much debate here, and it’s easy to see why, there are reasons why this may be a subject we should all concern ourselves with.

The fact is that environment, family, community, and culture act to in some way determine, modify and direct certain innate human traits over time. Even traits which are often considered abnormal, or aberrant behaviors can often be redirected and applied successfully in a well ordered community. What is not usually successful however, is when certain traits are reproduced without any cultural or behavioral modification or intervention.

Every nation on Earth has depressed sectors. They comprise every , “race”, creed and color of ethnic flag,  and the consequences are usually the same for all of them. They show signs of poverty, crime, lack of mobility. Quite often they are that way for decades. Is part of the reason selective reinforcement and complete neglect?

The question is unsavory, and often those who might bring it up will be attacked as being racists, but the truth is that breeding even in human beings can be a natural force. And a community that loses its cultural cohesion and fundamental axiology will not have any of those orienting tools to deal with aberrant tendencies. We can argue these points forever, but no one should believe that genetic proclivities do not in some manner or form result in the existence of particular tendencies. Nor is it unnatural to assume that if all there is crime, and isolation, that the people who will be “successful” in those cases will be those most naturally suited for those activities. Again we can take a liberal way out of these possibilities and say that only education, and money make successful people or successful communities, but this would be wrong. Like all other creatures we tend to breed what we need. And if we are not careful, or if there is not enough social order to judge the outcome of pairings, the results could over time become catastrophic.

We have seen claims of malnutrition, or familial abuse, or crime running rampant, but quite often these reasons cannot explain the full scope of observed problems. Nor are these problems to be found in any one particular group. This is crucial, for the problem may be widespread and not merely limited to certain areas, or particular groups of people.

Again we should be careful here. We are not implying that everyone in a depressed, or socially isolated neighborhood anywhere in the world is condemned to being a criminal genetically. That is nonsense. But overtime certain “eccentric” or anti-social behavior can be established or reinforced by the choices made by individuals living in such communities.

It’s enough to say that poverty and social isolation of depressed communities can by itself cause psychological extremes to arise, but it is also true that if there are natural psychological eccentricities and these are not identified or processed by the culture eventually those eccentricities will propagate throughout the community and this may result in education and intervention becoming ever harder to apply. We can again say “this can’t possibly be true” but natural law would not confirm our claims. We are not very much different than other animals in this respect, save but that our “rationality” is a major component of the attributes that can be selected and passed on. Darwin’s revelations are probably just as applicable to human beings, as they are to any other species.

Society Seeks Order on all Levels

The key here is not genetics or breeding alone. The key is culture. Culture determines who we are more often than not. We are made of many souls, and we are taught from a young age the ways of perception and judgment. But over time these perceptions can lead to choices which can either help a community or hurt it.  Our “rationality” can actually select the attributes it most values and can amplify these attributes through special selection,  assuming rationale is in some way applied.

Though the early Europeans were often prone to judge so called “primitive” cultures as being weak or unprincipled, the truth is that many of those cultures encountered by the European explorers were actually quite advanced. Many took thousands of years to form and stabilize. During these great stretches of time a culture orders its ceremonies and hones its axiology and reinforces those attributes it most values. For one’s daughter to marry someone a certain set of criteria were necessary, and as these criteria were repeated throughout the ages, certain proclivities were prone to develop. Over time it would be natural to think that those who had certain talents that were viewed as valuable to the society at large, would tend would be enhanced through selective marriage and pro-creation.

This is not to say that all of this was just or good. It is true that some segments of the population were shut out. We need not look beyond England in the late eighteen hundreds to see what Charles Dickens had seen and what Lord John Russell had tried to change. Groups of depressed communities shut out from the mainstream and forced to live in perpetual poverty. This isolation is usually not going to produce good tendencies. Any instability would tend to propagate through the genetic pool and be reinforced, especially if the underlying culture was in some way compromised. Culture may take thousands of years to form, but it can be destroyed overnight. This was in fact the case with the Industrial era as many people flocked to the large cities for work.

The point is simply that a well developed culture will influence the development of talent even before conception.

Democracy and Principled Individuals

We have a culture in the global community which though strong is relatively young. The dynamism of the past few centuries has caused various fundamental changes in perception, customs and traditions. We have in many cases throughout the world corrupted the old cultures in favor of the new. Though there is some real good in this change, there is also potentially a great danger. The social norms and customs that are usually needed for the procreation of a new generation may no longer exist.  There is a larger, very structured community, but often this community is presented to people as mass produced goods or form of behavior meant for mass consumption with too little care given to the details. More often than not we are being sold a new way of being with little concern over what this might ultimately produce. Often this can result in children coming into the world with little prior thought for their ultimate disposition. Again this is a touchy subject, and I know, but if there is no care given to the potential outcome, over time we may produce children that will have a difficult time adjusting to an ever more complex world. It is no accident that cultures which have been razed by conquest often degenerate to depressed levels only a few generations later. Without a certain degree of cultured order, whatever eccentric tendencies exist will eventually be propagated to a significant degree especially in communities isolated in poverty for long periods. This has happened many times before to many an empire.

Though we all support freedom, and government that serves and responds to the needs of individuals, we often do not pay attention to the details. That a democracy can only stand strong if the individuals who support it are themselves highly educated, and highly principled. A Democracy can easily degenerate if those who support it tend towards degeneration. We need not look too far or too long in history to see this. A Democracy that isolates large groups of people in perpetual, generational poverty   eventually will degenerate and succumb.

Simply put, if isolation, poverty and crime are to become the norm for any given community anywhere in the world, nature will in time intervene and begin to create those individuals most suited to that existence. At least we should say that there will be a powerful natural impetus towards perpetuating this state. In such a state children may not be able to overcome no matter how much education is applied. This danger is of the worst kind and should not be ignored. If we continue to isolate communities in long term multi-generational poverty we will create a faltering democracy that ultimately degenerates to a severe loss of personal freedom. If a degenerative process of this nature continues, it could result in the return of some form of slavery.

Beyond that, we should not believe that this effect will remain in any given depressed and isolated community. If a strong principled culture does not exist, or is not reinforced in the larger community, the effects will propagate throughout the entire national entity.  We would then have a Democracy suited for the elite, while the majority are doomed by nature and circumstance to a permanent lower rung.

What can be done?

The first thing that probably needs to be done is for a society to recognize and reaffirm its principles. By reaffirming those fundamental principles upon which a democratic society is based , a spiritual reanimation and revitalization of that society can begin. Quite often it is not a matter of economics, but of an ideological movement. Too often people think that the only way to energize communities is by throwing money at them. But more often than not this fails since the fundamental principles of Democracy are not based on Capitalism but on fundamental principles of individual freedom, and principled existence. Although freedom of expression and evolution of a liberal nature can be beneficial to a society it must be well balanced with a strong conservatism that maintains and reinforces the fundamental precepts of the democracy. In essence all things in good measure are what will breed excellence. An ideological regeneration is really what is needed in the nation at large, and then once the nation itself has regained its own integrity it can begin to impart that integrity on all the various communities which comprise the nation at large.

Today we have absurd models for the procreation of children. In some places it looks fashionable for an unwed mother to have a circumstance baby. As if there’s something cool in being an unwed mother. The media has little helped with this. It has often happily broadcast the accidental baby to a famous person as if to say  being famous means you can have a child out of wedlock, and out of any commitment. This tends to reinforce common cultural trends and many are bound to replicate the behavior. But this is destructive, and it begs nature’s awful wrath. Like any cultivated plant, or flower, a child will only grow well if cared for, and if its inception was well planned and the planting well executed. Children are serious business, and culture, and the consideration of culture and community should be a “data point” from which all families form. Having children as a fashion statement is not going to result in anything good in the long run, most especially as nations grow ever larger, and ever more complex.

As a Democratic nation becomes larger and more complex there will be an increasing danger of creating isolated pockets of perpetually poverty stricken communities. For this reason a strong ideological foundation is required that is free of political incentives and biases. Though practical solutions are always necessary, most of the time it’s the assumption of principles that will have the desired effect. It is ideas that motivate people, it is ideas that get people to construct well functioning communities, it is ideas that build strong family units,  it is ideas that build individual character. Industry alone is not going to be enough. To prevent a self reinforcing cycle of endless social degeneration a powerful reanimation of the fundamental democratic ideology must be undertaken, and if this fails, it is very unlikely that consumerism, or capitalism alone are going to prevent the complete degeneration of our society.

A note about Racism

Racist ideologues have in the past used notions of Eugenics and breeding to justify their views. But as we have pointed out, there is really no such thing as a race. In all continents we see vast differentiation of peoples to the point where its really very hard to say that any two people are from the same district much less are of the same “Race”. But even if this is so, and even if racists have at times misused these ideas, we should not ever think that natural law stops at anyone’s door. It just doesn’t. Having children is serious business, and it really should not be so haphazard as it seems to have become in some areas. Culture breeds what it needs, and a degenerating culture will do the same as a revitalized culture. Some awareness of this should be part of the calculus of any or all Democracies.

As for the racist ideologues, we can say with some certainty that in all things there is some truth, and a lot less than that as well.

Post Script

Though some of what is being said here is ugly, this post is a warning really. If what we want to build is an elitist society nature will eventually oblige us and may predispose our democracies to oligarchy through natural selection. If we continue to isolate groups of people,  nature might affirm that this is really what we want to do and finish the process through selection;  but once done we may not be able to change our direction all that easily and our collective fate may be sealed. Our natural predispositions are very much a part of our society.

A true democracy must depend on all its people, and must culture and cultivate the talents of all its people, or it eventually stops being a true democracy. We must reawaken the fundamental ideology at the foundations of our democracies and apply these everywhere within in order to avoid creating a natural predisposition to oligarchy.

There is a price for everything, and we should be careful what we buy into. We may not be able to afford the final cost.

Black Holes in Space are Scary

They're out there....but where? There is much talk of Black Holes in space, but  are they really there?
They’re out there….but where? There is much talk of Black Holes in space, but are they really there?

Black Holes are everywhere, and nowhere.

” A theory is only as good as its predictions…..”

Since the death of Einstein a popular new theory has arisen in cosmology which asserts that certain stars, if massive enough will eventually collapse into what are called singularities or Black Holes(BH).  These singularities have a long mathematical history and are in fact a direct implication of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity which has to do with the effects of light’s speed limit and gravitational effects on time.

“When they reach the singularity, they are crushed to infinite density ….”

Late in the 19th century an experiment performed by two physicists, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, verified experimentally that light had an absolute velocity beyond which it could not go. This was found to be 186,000 miles a second. They discovered that no matter which direction they shot a beam of light, no matter how they tinkered around it, the absolute speed-in a vacuum- would be 186,000 miles a second.

The verification by Michelson – Morley meant that light was indeed the fastest thing in the universe since this speed was theoretically established as the limiting speed of energy already.

Later, another physicist, by the name of Hendrik Lorentz realized that if this was in fact true it would have enormous implications on local time and would mean that our perception of time itself was subject to this limit. As we observed a clock from a moving vantage point, light speed limits would give us the impression of a slowing down in time, if we were going fast enough, and if close to the speed of light.  Time, both perceptual, and real,  was relative to how fast you were going.

A few years later, Albert Einstein would take this basic idea and math, and apply it more generally to the theory of physics and this would lead to the far reaching Special and General Relativity theories which in effect influenced just about every phenomenon in the Universe.

Points Become Curved Spaces

However, much of this theory was so complex and difficult to express that new and powerful mathematics were needed to express it, to make it legible to the human mind. Lorentz had used the mathematics of Gauss and Riemann who earlier had invented various -non Euclidean- ways of describing curved spaces, and curved surfaces which came to be known as differential geometry. This new Geometry was then applied to the description of  light as it traveled through space and time. These mathematics allowed physicists to express the various changes in space and time directly rather than as a consequence of particle motions. However, as Einstein began to apply this to Gravitation and the effects of gravitation on light the mathematics began to take an ever more complex form, and ever greater consequence.

“Extending these solutions as far as possible reveals the hypothetical possibility of exiting the black hole into a different spacetime with the black hole acting as a wormhole

The basic idea in any case was that space would be treated as a thing, a real thing, and not just as a mathematical construct. And instead of using forces between two objects as Newton was doing, physicists were now forced to describe the motion of objects  from the mathematical viewpoint of pure mathematical space.

Points were, in some sense,  no longer the old fashioned Euclidean points, but spaces subject to stretching, shear and stress. They were containers sort of.

Three D becomes Four D

One of the chief reasons for this is that we could no longer look at the world in three dimensions. We were now forced to look at the world with an eye towards the fourth dimension, therefore time. In four d, space starts to stretch, and extend into time. You are in a way, not standing still anymore, and even if you are,  in three dimensions, with the addition of a time coordinate, you are now moving through the fourth dimension. As you can imagine, if you try to visualize it(not an easy thing to do) this involves a lot of stretching as even a point standing still in space was now subject to the dynamics of time, and being that time was now subject to relativity, it changed its inherent value the closer to light speed one could get. That is to say, time itself kind of stretched to longer and shorter duration-relatively speaking.  A good way to visualize it is by watching slow motion photography where points of light tend to stretch into bright streaks.

So from this point on we would no longer talk of forces so much, as we would about the space that these forces created or allowed. Therefore the kind of space these forces projected in four d. This was the only way to deal with Gravity and the effects of Relativity as it concerned the speed limit of light and the variation in the measurement of time as one got closer to light speed;  since talking about forces would make things impossibly hard to describe if we had to account for all this variation in Euclidean point coordinates.

We should make sure to clarify one thing in particular. The difference between special and general relativity is the difference between the effects on time stemming from traveling at speeds close to light speed vs the effects on time stemming from gravity. In essence, and to make a long story very short, gravity slows down light in some sense. This is the gist of General Relativity basically. Because it slows light, it in a sense slows time since all time concepts are tied to light and energy transfer.

 Gravity Described as Shapes, not Forces

But there was a more pressing reason for not talking about forces directly, and this was because there was no real theory of gravity anyway. Even Einstein would find that such a theory, fully describing gravitation in terms of the other known forces was not a possibility at that time, or for that matter even in our time. All we could do is describe the deformity of gravitational forces on space itself as it stretched in relativistic time.  So the best we could manage here was a metric, or a description of what gravity actually does to space in general, but not so much as to attempt to really describe what gravity is in-itself or how it interacts with matter minutely.  We don’t know what gravity is, as astonishing as that may sound.

This is a difficult point to understand but it may help to realize that the forces of Electromagnetism had already been translated to wave form at the time of Einstein and Planck, and later they were even ordered into discreet particle theories which are in essence localized self propagating fields(at least that’s the theory) and so we could speak there of interactions of particles and waveforms and describe these phenomena in detail(however tedious this might become), but with Gravity no such essential waveforms were ever discovered. All we could say, if anything,  is that particles under the influence of gravity, including light will take a certain path through spacetime, and as long as we can define spacetime geometrically we could get an idea of what these particles were going to do. However, this meant a subtle acceptance of the equivalence of mathematical space to real space. Unfortunately that was an awful big assumption. Yet, there was no real alternative because no theory of gravity existed which could related it to the electromagnetic forces of matter or energy. We could only describe what we saw happening.

We should again say here that that gravity in relativity theory seems as if to pull a space down towards a given mass. Its as if the space in which objects lie is itself being pulled down(or even stretched in extreme cases) towards a mass. There is here a subtle difference between saying a particle is pulled towards another particle and the space in which a particle exists is being pulled towards another particle. But this is the basic difference between Newtonian Physics and Relativistic physics. One talks of mass interactions, the other talks of spatial interactions in which all particles reside.

At the turn of the century, a giddy time of big thoughts and boundless optimism, it was seen as only a matter of time, if you can excuse the pun, that all this would be sorted out in a grand unified theory of both gravity and electromagnetism which would by implication give us a very good idea of what space was-essentially. It was never assumed by anyone, least of all Einstein, that space was only a figment of our imaginations. He was, like many others quite confident that space, like time, must be made of something, and soon he and others would know what that something was. Unfortunately it did not turn out that way. Neither he, nor anyone else has found out what exactly space is. Oh yes there are elegant formal theories of how this stuff should behave, but the only truth here is that absolutely no one knows what this stuff we call space, or spacetime really is. And that’s a real big problem for all involved, most especially for the Black Hole theorists who make the incredible presumption of its disappearance into what might be an infinitely small ball of pure energy!

Singularity becomes a Black Hole

At the time of General Relativity’s immediate rise to prominence, it was soon realized that if Einstein’s equations were thought through carefully one very odd phenomenon would have to be accepted and that would come to be the existence of something called a Schwarzschild radius.

A Schwarzchild radius, discovered by the German mathematician Karl Schwarzschild implied, mathematically, that anything that had mass, and was sufficiently small could actually bend spacetime so much that not even light could escape its grasp. That is if a mass became compressed enough, and small enough, spacetime, both mathematical and real, would be curved to such an extent that light itself would not be able to get away from the field. A mass small enough and dense enough could bend spacetime so much that we could not see it. But as this implied a kind of disappearance from the entire world as we know it, there was much more to it than just darkness.

It would be left to another Physicist, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar to go on and show that certain stars approximately three times larger than the Sun would all eventually collapse into these singularities. According to Chandrasekhar any star larger than 3.14 times the mass of the Sun was doomed to collapse into what would come to be known as a Black Hole, or a Singularity from which no known energy could escape.

Yet Einstein himself did not seem to accept the theory of Black Holes.  He could not bring himself to accept such a theory feeling that something somewhere must be wrong, especially since some very real physical laws are known to be violated. Then again, at the time,  he was still quite confident that a unified theory would at some point be discovered and all these little problems of Space and Time and Gravity would soon become clear and would eventually dispel this strange notion of a Black Hole in the Universe. So he remained quite unconvinced.  But others soon came to the rescue of the theory and it stayed alive long enough to gather steam enough to blossom into our own age. Yet for the time that Einstein was alive, the theory was not widely accepted save but by a few.

But since Einstein’s death in 1955, and since his authority was no longer around to insist that these things could not exist(since they imply the end of the universe as we know it), there has been a runaway discourse on the subject. At first it was with great difficulty that you could find anyone who was willing to accept the existence of Black Holes, but soon this was replaced by entire hoards of Cosmologists who were certain that such phenomena must exist. In reality the Big Bang Theory itself requires that they do exist if we are to take it seriously and so this gives many people some real motive to insist that such things as Black Holes really do exist.  But do they?

Below is a simple set of arguments that would preclude the formation of Black Holes in the real world. This is not to say that we are proving that they do not exist, rather we are only saying that there are very practical obstacles to the formation of such things in real space and time. Though to be sure, some have gone further and to the source of the problem to say that Black Holes violate some of the most important of physical laws, including the conservation of energy. But here we are only going to look at the most practical reasons why these things would in many instances not form in the real world.

“Can several angels be in the same place?”

Exploding Supernovas Create Black Holes

A Black Hole is supposed to form when a large star collapses so violently that nothing can stop that collapse-as far as we know. There are stars so massive that indeed if they were to collapse perfectly, that is in a perfect round ball, or if this collapsing ball were to be enhanced by a gigantically powerful explosion around it-as in a Supernova(SN), there would be no known nuclear force that could stop this collapse.

The assumption here is that a gigantic star explodes, but it does not do so at the core, but rather the explosion starts in its outer layers only- even as the core collapses. So here there is a recoil going in towards the center of the star for which there is no known resistance. The matter in the outer layers is thrown off into space, while the core layers-which are supposed to be exceedingly heavy- are to be compressed by the energy traveling towards the core. This core, which is in large stars so dense and heavy-or so we assume- cannot help but develop momentum towards the center that cannot be counter acted by any known force, and so it keeps collapsing forever. Even the enormous energy that is released as such a collapse occurs is supposed to be trapped by the gravitational pull of this collapsing core so that nothing, no radiation at all can get out. Not even light can get out. That’s why it’s called a Black Hole. Since we cannot really see it. In essence spacetime itself is so far bent and curved that even light cannot escape.

Although the British Physicist Steven Hawking did prove that some kinds of radiation would ultimately manage to escape after a very long time, still for us this phenomenon would be a virtual Black Hole since no light or substantial energy could escape enough for us to see it, or slow it down. This is critical to understand, Black Holes do not stop growing. They continue to collapse, and continue to devour other matter and energy, so they are, once formed, destined to continue to grow unabated, even infinitely, or as much as the entire universe will fit in them. And one Black Hole will devour another, eventually. Remember, Black Holes unlike other large bodies of mass will not release any of their energy and so all they do is grow. A star, no matter how massive will eject much of its mass and energy and so will have a limit as to how far it can grow. No such limit is posited for BH. So they can keep growing forever!

Now as we have said,  we should also say all this is based on the idea that very large stars begin their explosions not at the core, but at the outer layers of the star. Yet before we go on, we should warn, that if we were actually wrong about where this Supernova reaction actually begins then most of this theory becomes impractical, even if theoretically possible. That is to say if an explosion were actually to  begin in the core itself and not in the outer collapsing layers, well then we’d have a problem already. Since any reaction that begins at the core is going to completely shed the outside layers and no Black Hole would ever form!

In fact there is one type of Supernova that actually does begin this way, and is perhaps the most common way, but allowing for what is called a White Dwarf to gather matter from another star etc, does not really affect the overall health of the BH theory. But we must consider that if the actual dynamics of our theories are wrong, then a star could conceivably blow itself apart at the core and leave no Black Hole.

So even before we begin the easy stuff, there is already a warning that something may not be right after all even on hypothesis, and perhaps this is why Einstein himself did not very much like the idea.

The Theory May be Correct, but is it Probable, or Practical?

There are some very simple and powerful arguments against the practical existence of black holes. When we say practical it should be interpreted as reasons for why a Black Hole would not form in the real world even if it is possible theoretically. We are not here going to challenge the theory behind BH .  What we do feel needs more emphasis is the practical difficulties in the formation of such objects in nature.

One practical problem is that BH seem to lead to a world we cannot really explain. The reality is that while Black Holes are predictable from the known physics of our day, they wind up taking us to a world that we know nothing about.  Although we can say BH have formed, we cant really say what’s inside them or what that really means.

“Whether a Million of Angels may not fit upon a needle’s point?”

Quite often Black Holes are held to be bridges to another Universe of some kind. Amazingly even Einstein was willing to entertain such an idea for awhile. These would be the famous wormholes. But these are even more bizarre than Black Holes when you think about them. These have been proposed to be anything from a bridge to another part of the universe, a kind of warp drive like the one we see in star trek, to openings into an entirely different Universe. All of this conjecture and little more.

 Large Stars tend to Disintegrate by Stages

One of the most powerful arguments against the formation of Black Holes is that a star that reaches the supposed unstable mass that is supposed to trigger a collapse powerful enough to form BH’s  has almost always been observed to lob off huge quantities of itself before it becomes a supernova. The larger a star is, the more unstable it is, and so it is usually ejecting huge quantities of itself into space long before it collapses.

Most stars are going to become unstable, and throw off gigantic amounts of matter long before they go Nova, especially if we insist that it is the aging stars that actually Nova.  As stars age, or rather as they expand they seem to toss much of themselves away. Yet again stars evolve in billions of years, we have a life span of about seventy so our observations are quite limited. Yet, it can be argued that if a large star lobs off huge quantities of itself what cause is there to think that it will ever gather a core large and heavy enough to turn into a SN or collapse into a BH?

Star must be a Sphere to become a Black Hole

Another very troubling aspect is that for the run of the mill BH to take place you would have to have a near perfectly symmetrical collapse. That is all sides of a star would have to collapse at the same time. If they didn’t then a star could easily blow out a side of its substance large enough to prevent the formation of a black hole.

Truth is, we cannot know for certain that such explosions do begin from perfectly circular collapses at all. It is today theorized that these stars form very heavy cores due to the fusion process which they use. The idea is that these cores after a time become so heavy that when finally the star stops radiating energy it will then begin collapsing from the outer layers on into this very heavy core. When this starts there is then no known force which would stop it. But this is the problem here. There is no known force, but we could very well have an unknown cause.

We must remember that by implication we are saying that all matter in this BH will by Einstein’s equation e=mc2 turn into energy. But because the force of gravity and the “Curvature” of space is so great there is no pathway for that energy to leak out. If it did of course, then there would be no argument for BH’s in the first place.

So much of this depends on the idea that in fact energy will maintain its gravitational pull on itself. Einstein indeed thought it would, or at least thought that this energy would bend spacetime and its on this idea that we have the notion of BH’s. That is even if the entire star were to turn to energy it would still bend spacetime to such an extent that nothing could escape. But do we really know that? Do we know that gravitational force is actually maintained when all matter is turned to energy?

Do we know for a fact that the gravitational constant G will remain stable at those pressures? If the constant G actually decreases as this energy is compacted to infinite levels, then we might in fact have the grounds to abandon this theory altogether since the gravitational pull of matter may in fact weaken after a certain energy level is reached. The blunt reality is that without knowing exactly what gravity is we cannot know its limitations, nor the full spectrum of its variations.

Ultimate Compression = Pure Energy?

Yet another problem to be seen is that as the mass is compressed to enormous levels the energy would probably reach ultimate levels as well. This almost certainly means that this mass is no longer sitting in one place, its probably oscillating wildly. But oscillations, density differences, and distributions could all serve to distort the inherent gravitational field. Truth is we dont know. This is far beyond anything we have ever experienced, or for that matter even theorized about. Could the energy inside a BH distribute itself in such a way as to release much of the stored energy inside it? Is there no such possibility? For if there is, eventually this possibility will arise! One thing is evident even to a child, gravitational contraction effects are nearly the exact opposite of energetic effects. When matter becomes too energetic it seems to fly apart rather than contract. Are we all that certain that this is not an inherent fundamental property?

We will not here get into the problems of spacetime as a notion, but we will say here that in reality our concepts of spacetime are little more than mathematical constructs. They are necessary for Einstein to express his theory as a  differential manifold, but to give this theory reality to the extent that it would not allow infinitely compressed energy to escape is taking these mathematical constructs to their absolute limits-and beyond. The blunt reality is that we know virtually nothing about the essence of spacetime. We know nothing about how it really behaves as a thing by itself, yet we are saying that it will be so distorted that it cannot allow near infinite amounts of energy to escape!

Along these lines we might add that no one can tell us what a BH really is as a thing by itself. What’s inside this BH? What sort of spacetime, or energy resides within it? We are merely told that well we can’t know. This is much like saying that this is a bridge to another universe, and indeed this has been postulated, but can grounds ever seriously be found to justify this idea? In the end it all comes down to our understanding of spacetime, and yet the most profound truth is that in fact, other than mathematical speculations, and formalism we really have not a single clue. In essence we are told that inside a BH time stops as far as we can tell. That is nothing happens! Yet quite frankly this looks like a dilemma than a positive assertion of some truth. Unfortunately this is much like saying that once you die you’ll experience a Birthday party that will never end. Its fine for people of faith to have faith. But Cosmology is not about faith.

So we must here understand that the formation of BH’s depends much on our understanding of both Gravity and Spacetime itself as things in themselves, to borrow a phrase from the philosopher Emanuel Kant;  but in reality we have no workable theory of what either Gravity is, or Spacetime! In reality, although Relativity theory does generalize Newtonian mechanics, the truth is that Newton’s understanding of Gravity is still quite valid. Rather, the mathematics required for Relativistic Mechanics forced the reclassification of the idea of what Space is and unfortunately much of that mathematical necessity was translated into worldly existence, but this is not so. The reality is that outside of forces interacting with real particles, or energy we have no conception of spacetime other than as a mathematical construct. But no one should equate mathematical constructs with Nature. This could lead to many errors in judgment and the necessity for a tremendous leap of faith that our physics are still valid at all.


Yet another very difficult problem to overcome is that most stars are rotating, some at absolutely astonishing speeds. Not only that but any star that collapses, especially a large star would have to conserve angular momentum and this would force it to spin at tremendous speeds. However, the faster a star spins the less likely it is for it to collapse into a black hole spinning fast enough to overcome the energy flash that would result. It is also true that some stars observed, even young stars like the star Regulus, often rotate at enormous speeds for which we have no explanations.

The original formulation of the Black Hole theory by Chandrasekhar insisted that a body not be rotating. If on the other hand it were rotating then things get very complicated from that point on. Unless we are to believe that angular momentum is not conserved by BH’s, we would have to at some point in time start thinking about infinitely fast spin as far as angular velocity were concerned!  We are saying therefore that a star would eventually become a particle of some kind. A particle that is, however, for all its dynamism undetectable.

But aside from the fact that a BH forming from a spinning object would imply an infinitely fast angular velocity at some point in time in its evolution-this assuming time exists in the world of BH’s at all, we have the very serious problem that anything that spins is going to eventually become a disk. So at some point in time we will be talking about a Black Hole disk that will spin at infinite angular velocities! But of course this disk will become infinitely small as well. It may even begin to oscillate as the necessary formal distortions cause occasional imbalances in gravitational equilibrium, and once such an oscillation began it would never stop and also increase to infinity. In due time, BH time that is, the structure would have to evolve to a ring of sorts spinning infinitely fast.

The reality of this particle- disk is that as it spins ever faster it would of course become less stable at the center. What that would mean is anyone’s guess at that point, we cant know and all that’s said here is nothing but wild speculation, and that’s the meaning here.  But what is important is to understand that there are some very serious practical obstacles here to anything becoming a BH if the original star has spin. We will wind up having to explain what a known phenomenon is supposed to do in an unknown world.

If it’s not a Sphere then it’s probably not going to be a Black Hole either.

Moreover, as we look more closely at these highly unstable stars that are the best candidates for such collapses , like the famous supergiant Betelguese, we see that this thing is quite irregular. It is not a perfect  spheroid. The less of a spheroid it is, the far less likely that it is going to have enough inertia concentrated at the middle which is what would allow it to develop the gravitational force needed to create a Black Hole. If a BH were to develop any  imbalances in its early formative stages,  it would begin to wobble at enormous speeds and each time lobbing off gigantic parts of itself probably deep enough into the core to leave very little mass at the core.  The other famous supernova candidate that we know of, Eta Carinae, has actually two giant lobes at its side which would indicate that it probably exploded in some way already. Yet it’s a giant star and extremely unstable and is a perfect candidate for going Supernova, according to present theories.

At this point we should point out that as a star collapses it will begin to spin at tremendous speeds, but will also blow off many layers. If enough layers are blown off over may cycles, what is the likelihood that there will be enough material left to form even a theoretical black hole? As a star goes through explosive phases it will rid itself of much mater, perhaps that is what we are seeing with Betelguese and Eta Carinae as we see material ejected violently during what are probably many cycles of such turbulence.

But even if a star that is extremely massive and had the intact core and were to remain stable enough to collapse, it would soon develop into a spinning disk which would spin at tremendous speeds possibly even great enough to preclude the possibility of a Black Hole altogether as more and more energy were placed in its angular velocity.   Although pure speed might remain within real bounds since the spin of an object will conserve tangential speed, the fact is that this curvature would take away from the strength  and imminence of the collapse.

Planetary Nebulae

Here is another tid bit of disagreement. We have seen what we believe to be the remnants of dying stars in the galaxy and we have named these as “Planetary Nebulae”. The reason why they are named as planetary is because at first we did not know what caused them and they looked like planets orbiting a faint star in the middle. Later as theories took off in the direction of the Main Sequence, the present name for the theory of stellar evolution, we became aware of the possibility that these objects are actually the remnants of dying stars.

After studying these things for awhile we realized a few interesting facts about them. One of which is that almost always there is a small white star in the middle, what we call a white dwarf, which we assume to be what is left of the old star. These are usually very small, Earth sized actually. Many theories have sprung up about them and much debate and calculus has been directed at these little guys.

However, far less debate has been directed at the other remnants of these planetary nebulae, therefore the disks.  The strange thing about these disks is that they are not what would be expected from the death process of a star. Rather they are extremely complex structures that are thrown out into space with all kinds of structures and sub-structures that are so far unexplained. But the point is that we do not have a great idea of wherefore these things are grown. This brings into great doubt our theories of both stellar death, and BH which are also supposed to be a form of stellar death. We are saying therefore, if we can’t explain the Nebulous disks around dying stars, how then should we have any faith in the far more ornate BH theory of dying stars?

Neutron Star

Much of the expectation  for Black Holes began with the visual discovery of the Neutron Star. After what appeared to be Supernova explosions a very small dense star was left at the core of these explosions. This Neutron star tends apparently to be very small, heavy and exceedingly dense, often theorized to have  an exceptionally powerful gravitational field for its size. Sometimes they even emit radio signals like the news media and spin with extreme rapidity, and when this is the case they are called Pulsars.  The idea is that these stars must be made of Neutrons because these are the only type of particles “known” that could possibly explain such a dense star and explain an electrically neutral surface. The problem with that is that we have absolutely no idea what is left at the core of such explosions in reality. We have absolutely no way of knowing whether such things are made of Neutrons, or pea soup when we consider how far away these things really are, and that we are observing only a few pixels of their existence even with the best of our telescopes.

Most of all this theory is based on observations of very cold matter! Our theories of this kind of matter is based mostly on the observation of how matter behaves at absolute zero temperatures. This is ironic, on the surface at least,  since what we would be looking at in a neutron star, or a white dwarf would be created in unimaginable levels of heat and radiation. Yet, most of what we would consider left at the end of such unthinkable events is derived from observing things at very cold near zero temperatures. At those temperatures near absolute Zero matter seems to lose much of it hierarchical particle structure. It is then what is called degenerate matter where atoms are turned into free roaming particles devoid of their normal relationships with each other, or something akin to the “Fermi Sea” named after Enrico Fermi,  the physicist responsible for the practical development of the Atom Bomb who first theorized about what might happen if matter were devoid of all heat.

Yet this is a strange theoretical foundation to use as the basis for understanding the cores of degenerate stars left over in these unimaginably violent explosions. Somehow the reasoning goes, this is what we should expect at the end of a giant star’s life. What is more troubling is that observations have not really confirmed the theories here. For example white dwarfs, another Supernova left over, have not conformed to the theory that they would be made of Carbon and Oxygen which is the expected result of such massive explosions to begin with. Rather most have atmospheres with the usual Hydrogen, Helium mixture that we see just about everywhere else. They also tend to be much hotter than cold matter “Fermi Seas” would require. After digging up thousands of these, they found one or two that seem to be cool enough to pose as candidates for the theories, but these are still at 4,000 degrees! The majority of these Supernova leftovers are not conforming to general theories at all.  One explanation is that the Universe is just not old enough to catch up to the theories yet; this being a popular contention that we find in many other areas of Cosmology and Physics at present.

Moreover we really have very little to tell us how small these things really are, or how dense. Although the going theory is that they are made of Neutrons on the surface it is really a wild guess at best and little is known or even dared beyond that. For example few would claim to know what exactly a Neutron star is just below the surface. We really do not have a great idea of what the Sun is made of just below the surface – worse yet, the contents of Earth’s core itself are very much in question even though we stand on this planet all our lives.  In the case of the Neutron star, it would be very difficult to know what lies under the strangest piece of matter ever encountered in the universe when it is also thousands of light years away. For all we know, when observing what we like to call a Neutron star, we may just as well be looking at one giant particle of some kind or possibly even a new form of matter or element. These things are so far away it is hardly in our power to have any real idea of what it is they are. Even more important is that the Universe is so large, so ancient, and so complex that we may not have even a decent idea of its evolutionary nature. Although the Big Bang theory is popular today, and for all we know could be true, there are an infinite number of other pathways to Galactic evolution that we probably do not know.  True there is no crime in speculation but speculation should always remain as that and nothing more. But wherever money and funding are involved there will always be some pressure to make a hypothesis look more like a theory and a theory more like fact.

Matter and Energy

Perhaps the ultimate problem which has not been addressed no matter what is claimed,  is that if indeed a BH continues to collapse, why should it stop? If not,  matter will be compressed to such a level that it will eventually be turned to pure energy, or basically into photons. But photons have no mass. Therefore they should have no gravitational attraction.

At some point in the compression the gravitational field will weaken. The assumption seems to be that BH will remain at peak gravitational constant G while they collapse, but this seems a rather iffy proposition. As matter is converted to energy, mass is lost! Energy simply does not have the same curving properties of space as matter does!

Why should we be coy here? When matter is put closely together gravitation does in a pure sense weaken! That is to say things are no longer pulling together, they are pushing apart! Oh yes but the physicist will be quick to say that gravitation does not weaken, its only that the energy levels of particles increases due to heating and compression and that’s why things push apart. But the question is what is gravitation? The answer will be an attractive force, but the reply is just as simple, the attractive force is now weakening and being pushed apart. The gist is that if we don’t know what gravitation is, we cannot simply say well it’s still there even if things are flying apart. As far as we really know gravitation is nothing more than the tendency of matter to pull together. But when matter is pulled together beyond a certain point, it pushes apart! Since we have no real understanding of the relationship between those forces pulling together and those pushing apart we cannot really know why one force weakens and the other strengthens.

For as long as we do not have a unified field theory we cannot expect to explain away the difference between those forces that pull together and those that push apart! Simple as that. To say that gravitation will continue to compress matter even while the core is being turned to pure energy is not based on known facts.

One thing is quite true, there are now and have been a number of alternative theories to the evolution and state of the Universe than just the Big Bang theory, which by the way is heavily dependent on the BH theory. For all we can tell in earnest, the Universe may still be evolving at a fundamental level and that what we have so far supposed is only a speck of its total existence.

The math behind the Black Hole theories is sound to be sure. But then a mathematician, like a programmer can come up with a fantastic world of goblins and unicorns fighting for good or evil, if he or she is allowed to make the required assumptions, or postulates.   From what we know here on Earth, Black Holes may develop, at least there is some mathematical theory that says they might, but there is much that can stop their development in the real world. And once they do develop, all our laws of physics seem to disappear inside them.

Lack of Observational Evidence

The most damning evidence against Black Holes frankly is observational. For a long time now many theories have come out predicting that stars more than three times larger than the Sun, or thereabout, would of necessity develop into Black Holes(Chandrasekhar and Oppenheimer.) Yet when we observe the Universe we don’t see them even though there are billions of stars that are large enough to qualify. The theory of star formation and evolution would actually imply that such stars have been quite numerous in the past since the larger a star the quicker it dies and so there would have been many stars out there that would fit the bill;   yet when we look we see no great evidence of black holes around. Even if we could not see them, we would at least come to see their effects. Yet no such visual evidence has been found. There are no stars rotating around empty space for example, as would be expected if Black Holes actually existed. We don’t see stars spewing out their surfaces into dark vortices as one would expect if Black Holes were as numerous as some insist. There is very little evidence of any star formed BH anywhere, and considering the present theory we would expect to see entire populations of such objects left around the galaxy. But we don’t.

In fact the only Black Holes that are claimed to exist at the center of galaxies. And there we hear more and more tales about how each galactic center must have giant Super Massive Black Hole because the stars around these galaxies are travelling so fast that no other explanation can explain it.

The problem here too,  is that we have absolutely no idea what may lie at the center of a galaxy. For one thing our gravitational theories have clearly failed to explain many simpler aspects of galactic rotation and now to assume that we have a knowledge of the most complex part, a galaxy’s core, is a stretch at best. That stars are traveling very fast around galaxies is-probably- true. But that this is due to super massive black holes, which we cannot observe directly is not a very convincing argument.

There are still more questions about this theory which we will not get into in this post, but to be sure, the theory of Black Holes stretches the extent of our knowledge. The reality is that we really do not have a good theory as to what gravity really is, nor do we have any good theory as to what space itself is. Making complex assumptions about one of the most exotic forms that matter, gravity and spacetime can ever take seems to require a lot more caution than we are seeing today. To say that these things are ubiquitous and are present in every galaxy observed, including our own, is again not quite justified.

For now, we will leave it at this simpler stage and say that given even these simple arguments above, given now the notion of dark energy, simply pointing it out as an obvious obstacle, given the lack of observed phenomena such as these, given the very unlikely chain of events that would be needed to form such objects, perhaps it’s time that cosmologists and astronomers eased up on this notion of Black Holes being everywhere and devouring the entire universe. Yes there are certain conditions where you might, we emphasize might have a case for the formation of such strange objects, but even as Hawking proved, a true Black Hole is a very difficult and a highly improbable object. Sooner or later energy would escape.  Maybe it’s time we stop making these gigantic claims when we are not all that certain that these claims are fact.

Speculation is fine, but with that ought to go extreme caution. Maybe what we are really saying is we need a change of attitude in present day science, and we should not make gigantic claims when even Einstein would often be heard saying “all it takes is one refute” to kill the best of theories!

We have so far seen popular cosmology make all kinds of assumptions and then corrections to account for fallacies when observed. But how long can that go on before trust in the science is lost completely? It is true that we live in a time where such exotic ideas are not critically analyzed. We live in a popular, multi-media culture which is conducive to big bright, flashy ideas, whether they are valid or not as long as they gain the interest of the viewers, but It is doubtful that such ideas would have gotten very far in the nineteen thirties less so before the turn of last century where standards for scientific claims were quite strict, and loose assertion was cut to the quick.  But still, if we continually make room for a conclusion that continues to introduce discrepancies into the science there will come a time when a general refutation will arise. Then much of what we do know will come under highly critical scrutiny and faith in the science will be lost for a very long time. This would be especially true of cosmology which frankly has very little practical use and thus would provide little motive for funding.

To make a point and say “well its possible” is a much different attitude than one that asserts the absolute existence of that point. To say “Black Holes may exist somewhere out there, maybe even in galactic cores” is one thing, but to say “every galactic core has a Black Hole in its center” is a whole new level of assertion. The problem is attitude more than anything else.

To propose a new idea is always welcomed, no matter how strange the idea may be. That’s how humanity has progressed all these centuries. But determining whether this idea is true or not should never be left to polemics, or media, or popular opinion. That’s not science.

Cosmology is a science of hope

If anything,  cosmology provides a kind of hope for people. It shows us all how truly vast the Universe is, and how beautiful it truly is. It even provides us with a story of how it all came to be. But we should be careful to respect that beauty, especially when we are so small by comparison. To assert the absolute existence of things that are at best only possible under extremely rare conditions is to undermine our respect for Nature and Natural Science, Cosmology being at the highest peak of beauty in the spirit of science. For this we have to be cautious about what we assert as being true in Cosmology, otherwise we may undermine all of science and the basic faith that people have in it.




Will the Climate be Hot or Cold? It may become violently unstable!

It might not be the Heat that Kills, it might be the changes

It might not be the Heat that Kills, it might be the changes

Four Billion Years of Stored Carbon Fuels Have Been Used in one Hundred Years of Industry


What we Observe

The debate about whether there is global warming or not has raged now for over a decade and has not ceased nor is there any sign that it is going to become a passing trend buried by habit or the wavering attention of the masses. The issue of whether we have the ability to alter our climate is not going to be forgotten any time soon. Our climate has obviously undergone some changes. There is a very significant melting in the Northern Hemisphere especially and there is noticeable change in the world’s largest glaciers. More and more there is every indication that some kind of warming has in fact taken place over the past twenty years. The concern is that if this warming should continue our existence may well be in jeopardy.

However, the peak of the warming occurred in 1994. This is critical. It will of necessity  make some doubt the longevity of this warming process and with that doubt the issue of whether we should change the kind of fuel we use to power our world’s industries. If global warming does not continue, then perhaps the theory of man-made global warming due to carbon fuel pollution is wrong. Perhaps human industry had nothing to do with global warming. So why spend trillions of dollars trying to change to a far less efficient form of energy such as the so called green fuels, which are indeed renewable, but are far less useful in that they require large amounts of energy to produce and thus yield far less net energy?

Simply put, to change our fundamental energy source could require the assumption of several hundred trillion dollars of credit globally over a time span of two hundred years.  That cannot be good for the economy. So any motive to deviate from the course will be taken by those who see a clear clean profit to the use of oil and gas instead of an alternative.

But the truth is far from definitive either way. Indeed there has been a drop in temperature over the past ten years. It seems as if the weather is coming back to “normal” or at least is not as hot as it used to be. Certainly we are not seeing those constant highs that we saw in the nineties. But is that really significant?

Though we have not seen temperatures continue to  rise unabated, we have still witnessed glaciers melting at a high rate and moreover have seen dramatic changes in climate around the world. Areas that were once considered lush and wet, are now turning dry, and vice versa. Areas once considered dry are now turning wet.

However, the most extreme changes are seen in the extreme nature of storms that we have witnessed. The Earth may be cooling, but it is doing so by creating some fearsome storms. And that is as would be expected. Indeed, that is exactly what global warming would create : large powerful storms that would scatter the Earth’s equatorial heat to the poles. Certainly a category three hurricane hitting New York has managed to convince many in the media that there is indeed something notable in the weather. Moreover the monsoon like climate experienced by the American people in particular has left many with the impression that something has changed in the climate.

So even if temperatures have dropped, there is the predictable change in precipitation and the formation of storms which the Earth would use to cool the climate.  Thus there is indeed some kind of climate change to be sure. The temperature may have started to drop, but this is only because the Earth is creating powerful storms to dissipate the heat and this is exactly what we would expect of a homeostatic climatic system. Whether this is “normal” or accidental, or part of a general process is unknown. Whether this change is temporary, or will be with us for decades, or centuries or thousands of years we do not know. But there is some kind of change. This we do know. We are also beginning to see that this change can be quite destructive.

 What we don’t know

Does this change have anything to do with the use of Carbon Fuels? This again we do not know conclusively. No matter what many claim, the definitive proof is not there. The reason is really quite simple. In plain truth we do not really have a great understanding of climate. We really don’t know why the Earth’s climate is as it is. Listening to the Media you might be tempted to think we know the workings of the most distant object in the Universe, the truth however, is we don’t even know how our own climate works. Knowledge has never come easy. Humbling this may be, but in the end living with a knowledge of our limitations can mean the difference between life and death.

We know the Earth is heated by the Sun’s rays on the surface. However, the Earth is also the container of gigantic amounts of geologic energy. The Earth is hot. Moreover we really don’t know why it is hot. We have always assumed that the Earth would be hot from its birth. The going theatrical theory  is that the Earth formed due to the collision of left over solar material which coalesced into the planets we now see. However, this is little more than a computer simulation. Bode’s law, and the newly discovered exoplanets orbiting around distant stars would indicate that the process by which planets formed may well be more complex than a simple random collision of left over solar disk material. In the end, we do not  know enough about it, as we said above, we don’t even know how our own local climate works.

The Earth is hot. This we do know. What we don’t know is why it is hot or how it actually maintains its heat. We were,  a few decades ago convinced that the Earth’s interior must be cooling. But having witnessed the moons around Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus we can now be certain that something more than left over primordial heat is causing their heating. Our own theory here at HCE is that the Moon’s pull on the Earth is causing differential rotation and is causing a friction like heating in the deep layers of the planet. We also believe that the tectonic plates are in fact moving because of the Moon’s differential pull on the surface and that instead of tectonic plate movement being solely the result of core heating and convection, are actually the cause of some this sub-surface  heating being that they are probably causing friction over the underlying magma layers as they move.

Others believe that at the core a type of plasma might exist or that elements become unstable and thus radioactive, or that naturally heavier radioactive materials would trend towards the Earth’s core and are generating the excess heat that we see. But there is little evidence of this in lava flows which aside from the elevated levels of iridium show no signs of being generated from radioactive materials. Why is the Earth’s Moon not showing signs of active volcanism though made of the same material as Earth?

All of these are theories but there is little certainty concerning the source of Earth’s core heat.  All we know is the Earth is hot and that’s basically it.  All the rest is theory, but far from proven.

But if we do not know the exact mechanism responsible for the Earth’s sub-surface heating then how can we possibly claim that we know anything about its climate which must to be affected by the sub-surface heat to some significant degree?

A very simple truth is this. What happens below the surface is very significant in determining the Earth’s climate. You need only go to San Francisco in the Summer to see the effect. There a cool ocean current  keeps San Francisco in the sixties even when the rest of California is in the nineties. Or perhaps you might visit London during winter, which by all rights should be a frozen wasteland but is instead a cool rainy temperate zone. In the South of England there are even palm trees! All this due to the ocean’s heat channeling abilities.

But the ocean is not alone. There is virtually no question but that if the Earth’s sub surface , or mantle temperature were to drop by a few degrees the Earth’s climate would be devastated by cold. The total heat of the planet determines in large part how hot or cold the surface is. This is not a leap of imagination, but very simple reasoning. This is especially true with the presence of a significant atmosphere, and even more significant with the presence of an ocean which two will tend to contain the sub-surface heat and channel it to the surface climate. Along with the Sun’s heating, the sub-surface heat mechanism will create the climate as we know and experience it on the surface.

But all of these gaps in our understanding preclude the possibility of knowing to any significant degree the cause of the temperature spike that took place in the nineteen nineties.

We do not even know enough about the Carbon Sink Cycle. That is to say we still do not know how the Earth deals with carbon dioxide as an element, how it creates  it, how it uses it, and how it stores it.  All models so far presented, as far as HCE knows have yet to prove that we fully understand where and how Carbon Dioxide is processed. There are seemingly large gaps in the amount of CO2 present and CO2 available. Thus even here there is a hole in our understanding of how the CO2 is processed by the Earth, and if we do not know how it is processed, how then do we know if there is too much or too little of it? We don’t know how much there should be in the first place!

 What we know

But are we therefore saying that spewing all this carbon dioxide out is healthy and good for our climate or our environment? Absolutely not! What we know is this : We have seen definite spikes in temperature and these have had a definite impact on our civilization. We have seen the definite melting of glaciers and this will have an impact on our society in that much of our water comes from those glaciers.  We have seen an increase in climate activity and severity of events and have sustained billions of dollars in damages because of those events.  We also know that the Earth stored all this carbon fuel from dead plant and animal life in a time span of some four billion years. Humanity has lit a match to all this material and burned it all up in 100 years releasing all the CO2 and other elements contained within it during the process! We took a resource that the Earth managed for four billion years and blew it all in 100 years!

Nor can anyone deny that Carbon Dioxide levels have risen dramatically over the past hundred years of human industrial activity. This is not open to question. We have seen levels rise at highly accelerated rates and yes we do know that in a test tube Carbon Dioxide will tend to trap heat. This we know for a fact.

Humanity has without a doubt disturbed the natural balance of Earth’s environment. We are at present witnessing a large mass extinction, and have seen our forests depleted to dangerous levels. We have seen pollution destroy large areas of our world, and only a few years ago our need for energy had seen the poisoning of both the Gulf of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean due to the events of the BP oil leak and the Fukushima reactor breach- which is probably still not under control. These events cannot be doubted

Though we cannot know exactly what the impact of human industry will be, we can reasonably conclude that disturbing the basic order of the Earth’s climatic and environmental processes is going to have significant consequences on our environment. The complexity of the system, and its rather delicate balance guarantees this. If you throw a wrench into a complex  clockwork you can be sure something bad is going to happen, but of course you don’t know exactly what. But you know for certain that somewhere that wrench is going to hook into a gear, somewhere,  and the whole system is going to break down. This much you can pretty much be certain of. The Earth’s system is so complicated so delicate and so extensive that we don’t know exactly where all this will hit. But instead of expecting things to break down and stop working altogether it is within reason to presume instead that by disturbing the balance of the natural order we can expect to see an amplification of natural events and not simply a break down as you might expect in a non-organic mechanism like a clock.

The Earth’s system is a compensatory dynamic system rather than a direct mechanical system. Where one process breaks down another takes its place, for this reason it’s unlikely that we are going to see the cessation of a given set of processes but rather the end of one process and the start of another in its place. The excess amount of Carbon Dioxide is bound to amplify any normal natural event that has an accord with that element.

Plants use CO2 to breath and when they exhale they create Oxygen. More CO2 will probably mean more Oxygen for example. That might be a good thing or bad. More Oxygen may mean a cooler environment since Oxygen releases atmospheric heat. Thus while one process is enhanced, another process is also enhanced. Unfortunately they may not balance as in a laboratory. The Earth’s organic system is not simply going to take the average and give it to us in summation, it’s going to add up all the numbers one by one and we will experience each and every addition and subtraction.

During the Jurassic period it is believed that both Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide levels were far greater than they are today. This would make sense for as the Earth warmed and became more moist due to Ice cap melting the climate became conducive to the emergence of a richer plant life. Or so we would think in a laboratory. This reasoning might allow us to think that as plant life became more extensive so too would the presence of Oxygen since plants  exhale Oxygen as a by product of their life process. The excess Oxygen may have helped the Dinosaurs to grow to the size they did as they would of course require large amounts of Oxygen to power their giant bodies. But as you might see through this oversimplified reasoning, if true at all, is that perhaps the consequence of one process becoming more prevalent is that another is also accentuated. More Carbon Dioxide, led to more Oxygen, led to both more plant life, and more animal life. Like adding a steroid to the environment.

This might indicate that the present climate process is not simply going to break down and result in more heat being trapped and ever rising temperatures, the climate is going to probably become more dynamic, more changeable, more violent,  as the Earth compensates, or tries to for this excess in green house gasses. However, the more dynamic it becomes, the less stable it will be.

 What we should be concerned about

Therefore, if indeed the Earth does naturally expunge excess heat from its core occasionally, or very likely constantly if in fact there is a renewable source of heat in the core, as we believe there is, then at each of those occurrences there will be an amplification of effects. So if the temperature should rise three degrees naturally, it will likely rise much more due to the excess Carbon Dioxide created by our industry as more heat would be trapped by the excess CO2.

However, the reverse also may be in play. If the temperature would then drop down to normal  during a normal cooling process, it would instead drop to a much colder temperature because of manmade pollutants. The longer we leave the water boiling while making coffee in the morning for example,  the more heat is expunged. But once that heat is expunged, the less of it there will be left immediately available.  So continuing the metaphor, we would have to add more cold water from the sink, and heat it up from the beginning again if we want to have another cup of coffee, but this will take longer and more effort to prepare. This may well be what might take place with an Earthly processes. It may take the Earth longer to bring the warming process back to a state where it can impact the climate again simply because an excess of available heat was expunged during the first warming cycle.

In other words instead of thinking that the temperature is going to rise constantly, it may well be that we are going to see monstrous oscillations begin. The temperature may go from normal to very high, then back down to extremely cold weather all while storms and droughts become ever more extreme and damaging. Instead of seeing a constant rise or fall in temperature, we may instead see extreme oscillations in climate while the Earth attempts to restore a natural balance.

Is this to say that we should not then worry about a rise in temperature? Is it possible that the Earth will balance all this out with its compensatory system?  The rise in temperature may happen anyway. The next time the Earth is ready to expunge heat it may be in a position to release even more heat for all we know.  But just like the stock market, climate is not a constant vector in a constant direction. It oscillates up and down. The higher it goes, the further it falls, but the further it falls the higher it goes on the next swing up.

The Earth’s climate might become so dynamic that life on Earth may become untenable.  Remember that it is the constancy of climate that allowed for human society to develop in the first place. Changing that constancy may well result in our own disappearance. No one should question what a short lived ice age would do to our world. We fear the heat now, but tomorrow a little ice age can be just as devastating if not more! We would require far more fuel to run our world and this would only worsen the situation as amplification of natural events becomes ever more extreme. More storms, more droughts more extreme changes.

There are also additions to worry about. For example we have all heard of the possibility of methane gas deposits in the ocean deeps suddenly being released due to increasing water temperatures. This is an addition to the environment which may be in the works. If the Earth’s temperature oscillates enough we can see some very unstable conditions develop where either extreme can cause extreme counter reactions. A release of methane hydrates may indeed cause the temperature to rise, but right after the rise, there would be a giant drop in temperature as the Earth tries to compensate. We may find ourselves subjected to the kind of extremes that one might see on another planet. A Summer ten degrees above normal and a Winter nine degrees below normal. In trying to compensate for those extremes our civilization would reach the limits of its viability in a hurry. It should not be assumed that a wildly changing climate is better than a steadily rising temperature. In practice it may be far worse and present indications are that this is really what we’re facing here.

There may  even be a rise in geological activity, which as we know can be the most devastating. Is it really by coincidence that we have had two monstrous tsunami events in ten years? Is it a coincidence that we have had some of the most devastating earthquakes in years so close together?  We don’t know! Just as we do not at present know how our climate might reciprocate effects upon the geological activity. It has always been assumed that geology and meteorology are two different realms. This assumption may well have been wrong.

We may be witnessing the birth of an extremely dynamic unstable environment that will require much more flexibility to live with. Unfortunately, increased flexibility requires more energy, resource and effort and expending more energy may result in an even more unstable environment amplifying an already unstable dynamic. At some point the system breaks down, or more likely our civilization breaks down.

 Is it time for our Civilization to Change?

It is interesting to note that the Japanese have always maintained that man’s role is to live in harmony with nature. The traditional Japanese civilization esteems the society that manages to live with nature and does not disturb the balance of nature.

To a large degree this was also very true of the Ancient Greek civilization. The Greeks too were very aware of the need to maintain a balance with nature and that imbalances can be quite destructive when created. These civilizations knew that attaining this balance was no small feat. They knew that their citizenry had to be disciplined and some degree of self sufficiency, and limitation was needed. These were civilizations that knew self-control and understood that nature is complex and that only a fine and extensive knowledge of her ways could lead to a successful existence. These civilizations revered nature and her rich complexity and over time developed a sacred respect for her ways. In finding and cultivating those principles they managed to build austere but noteworthy admirable societies for which they are remembered and admired even today.

Perhaps it is no accident that both cultures, themselves separated by both distance and time, having limited resources, lived in geologically unstable regions by the sea. Maybe it’s time for all of us to pay some attention to an ancient wisdom that managed to survive and prosper,  for we too must learn to live with nature, quite possibly even as she becomes more dynamic and difficult. If we manage,  maybe we too can be remembered for our reverence for natural order and our ability to live in harmony with the natural order of the world. If we don’t find a way to live with nature however, there may well be no one left to remember us.

Global Warming: Vulcanism