Strange Shit That Tom Says...

The founding intention was to allow "We The People" to remove the government if the government became tyrannical. Our "freedom" started out with freedom from an oppressive government and the founding fathers wrote protections into the constitution and bill of rights.

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.

A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concerned about political corruption and governmental tyranny.

Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Our current condition:
Originally, the Constitution and Bill of Rights protected US citizens against an over-bearing government.

Problem is, "We The People" Have given their power to the government because its easier to just let someone else call the shots. Its not about owning guns its about protections to keep our government in check and we are failing at that more and more as time passes.

The original system of State actually worked but we have given up our power.
Our government is broken. The 2nd Amendment gives the people the power to do something about our broken government but we choose to sleep instead.

The 2nd Amendment needs to stay in place because even though we are currently not of mind to do anything about our broken government our children, or their children may decide to replace it.

The 2nd Amendment gives "We The People" the right to change all the monkeys, by force if necessary. That's pretty important if you ask me...and you did.

Black Holes
Try to realize the terms "Black Hole", "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy" are placeholder names given to ideas and observations we have no actual words for.

A "Black Hole" is neither black or a hole.

It appears black because gravity is so great at its center, light cannot escape.
It acts like a hole because things we see getting pulled to it seem to disappear forever. Like they go into a hole.

The black is defined by what is called an "Event Horizon".
The Event Horizon of light is the boundary where the gravity is so powerful light can't escape.
There are other "Event Horizons" as well.
The Entire Milky Way galaxy is within the event horizon of Sagittarius A (the "supermassive" 'black hole' at the center) and is why everything in the galaxy is spiraling towards it.
There is also a more distant event horizon which captures our local dwarf galaxies known of as The Local Group.
Many people "think" the term "Event Horizon" only applies to a black hole's light boundary. This is an error. Event horizon is actually just the horizon of influence of something on something else.

We see it as black so we think it must be black. Its is merely the absence of light because light never makes it to our detectors/eyes.

Now, think about "Hole".
Its common to think matter falls INTO a black HOLE because it disappears never to be seen again. The mind demands it must 'go' somewhere so we think it goes into a hole.
However, if it were an unseen hole in space-time, falling into another dimension or Universe, once it falls in, it would no longer exist in our Universe. If it no longer exists in our Universe, how can any black hole get larger and larger? How can any black hole influence this Universe if it no longer exists in this Universe?
I don't believe matter falls into a hole at all.

Consider what we understand about star formation.

Dust and gas start to coalesce. The matter clumps together into larger and larger clumps and the increase in mass increases its gravity.
With more gravity, more mass is collected resulting in even more mass and so on.
As the mass is collected, it collects unequally and the force of mass hitting the object at an angle cause it to spin. As it collects more and more mass on to the object the mass is packed tighter and tighter as the gravity increases.
Eventually, it ignites as atoms of mass start to fuse under the immense gravity.
As long as there is more mass within its gravity influence (event horizon) it continues to get more and more massive.
At a long distant point in time, the mass becomes so great, even light is captured by its gravity.
The object becomes what we call a black hole.
It was a super-massive star when we could see it.
Now we only see black but inside that horizon of black, it is still a super-massive star. Remember, super-massive does not necessarily mean big.

The size of the object is shrinking because its gravity is packing it tighter and tighter.
There MUST be a limit to how dense a mass can be because if there wasn't, the object would continue to pack tighter and grow smaller as it accumulates more mass.
The FACT that black holes grow indicates there is a limit to mass density.
A singularity point.

Now think about why a star gets brighter and brighter as it gains more mass.
Its getting hotter because the act of ramming mass together produces heat.
As the black hole collects mass it gets more massive which makes the mass slam harder onto it.
That mass singularity in the middle of that black horizon is white hot.
Brighter than any other mass in the Universe.
Its spinning.
As mass is collected, it collects at its equator. The resultant energy builds and the excess is thrown out at its poles in the form of gamma ray jets.



A Black Hole is not a black hole, it is a White Singularity.
It only looks like a black hole.
Matter does not fall "into" a black hole it is gravitationally drawn to the singularity mass so it falls "Onto" not "Into" then it is absorbed by the mass.

White Holes - Yeah, I read science fiction and fantasy too.

Worm Holes
Einstein–Rosen bridge (Schwarzschild wormholes)
In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance.

Space-time is imagined as a fabric stretched across the Universe.
This fabric of space-time is how we model the effects of gravity on mass.
Like a bowling ball on a trampoline.
A worm hole is a hole in that fabric which connects to another distant hole like a folded piece of paper with a pencil poked thru both ends of the paper.

I have a problem with worm holes.
While it all seems logical considering space-time may be a fabric it fails to consider one very important point of space-time.

Space and time is not flat like a piece of paper.
The gravity well example we have all seen is not accurate.
Space and time is a volume, not a flat surface.
Mass affects gravity in a sphere around it.
It does this because space-time is a volume.

The Einstein–Rosen bridge would have to pierce infinite volumes of space-time to connect back onto itself. The problem with that is the folding of space-time. Can you fold the water in a bucket so one side of the water connects only with the other side of the water submerged in the center of a lake? Can you fold a column of vacuum in a larger vacuum?

I'm a dreamer.
I like to think somewhere in this Universe there is a technology that can create worm holes. It would be pretty cool.
While worm holes make for some fun science fiction and fantasy, I doubt they exist.
I admit I've fallen behind on my quantum theories.
Worm holes might be possible in quantum, I don't know.
There have also been some recent discoveries/theories on time travel which I have not read yet. Time travel relates to worm holes.
Time travel is another thing I can't agree with, but that is an entirely separate discussion.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject.
Just one man's opinion.

While I like NDT and his version of Cosmos, Dr Sagan's Cosmos really inspired me to find out more about science. I also bought and read Pale Blue Dot which was wonderful.
I remember a kiosk at the planetarium in the St Louis Science Cente had a short video playing Powers of Ten. I liked how it went small and large.
Just recently I found an kinda/sorta video on youtube by Metal Ball Studios which looked at a similar journey.
:star:UNIVERSE Size COMPARISON :star: [EVERYTHING]

What was interesting is the fact it starts at Quantum Foam/Planck Length.

They also do...
BLACK HOLE in perspective :milky_way:


and

STARS Dimensions | MetaBallStudios

Our purpose in life is to survive and pass our genes. No matter how much we debate about this, it seems life is like a virus and it aims to survive at any environment through reproduction which increased survival of the genes which will be passed on.

In this Universe exists such a thing called Entropy.
In this Universe exists such a thing called Chaos.
These two words represent unpredictable disorder in the Universe.

"Life" uses up as it propogates thru time.
Think 'burning calories' to simplify a complex concept.

Living things are made up of cells.
The cells 'use up' their material which constitutes the living process.
When the material is 'used up' to a point where the living process no longer functions it dies.
We sluff off dead skin cells constantly. It makes up for a great portion of household dust.

Immortality would cause cells not to 'use up' the materials of life. No living cell would die. If no living cells die, no new cells would be needed to be made to take their place. You would stop many things you might love right now.

You would no longer need to sleep.
You would no longer need to eat.
You would no longer need to drink water.
You would no longer need to reproduce.
Just a few simple but important things, there is much more not listed you would give up.

Thing is, when you no longer need to eat, you no longer need a digestive system.
Likewise, when you no longer need to reproduce, you no longer need a reproduction system.
Do you really want to live forever in a body that can't eat or have sex?

Skin is a protective covering for your body. A 'buffer zone' kinda.
If you were immortal, your internal organs would no longer need protection from the environment so you might lose your skin.

So, you no longer need to eat, sleep, drink, have sex or have protection from the environment.
You wouldn't need a house. No need to have plumbing because if you don't eat and never shed skin, no need to bath or go to the toilet.
Your cells would be immortal meaning they need nothing to survive.
You wouldn't need air to breathe, you wouldn't get too hot or too cold but you could freeze or burn up because the laws of thermodynamics would still apply.

I see no benefit to immortality according to the things in life I enjoy now.
Living is the process of dying.
The finality of death makes living enjoyable.
Take away death, that joy is also removed.

There is a potential form of actual immortality.
Its the theory of nano-assemblers.
Far beyond our current abilities in nanotechnology right now but a potential based on atomic manipulation.

Eric Drexler's Engines of Creation has explored nano-assembler technology. Its a decent read...

Not only does it have the potential of keeping living beings alive indefinitely, it promises to rebuild the health of our planet and possibly terraform other places.

It does this by rearranging individual atoms.

If we stop the aging process at a cellular level, the cells do not die.
If the cells do not die, they do not need to be replaced.
If they do not need to be replaced, there is no reason to build a new one.
If no new cells need to be manufactured, no new material needs to be added to the body, there is no need to eat.
All the body parts related to eating are then obsolete.
Those parts go the way of our tails.
Likewise, If the organism lives potentially forever, reproduction is no longer needed. Thus all the organs related to reproduction become obsolete.

If you were born in space in micro-G and lived your life in micro-G your muscles would waste away because you no longer need to use them.
Astronauts must exercise because they want to return to Earth.
They need muscles so they can function when they return to the planet and the gravity.

If you never age, you never return to aging.
If you never get hungry or horny, you will stop exercising those aspects of your body and they will waste away.

Having more time to think things, your brain/skull would likely grow disproportionately large requiring your neck and chest to also enlarge.
Your senses would ramp up because your brain would have a higher capacity for their input. We might develop new senses as well.

I'm just saying there are many things associated with aging which hide below the surface concept.
People have a tendency to only see the surface of things when a whole bunch of stuff is happening behind the scenes.

Immortality means immortal, does not die.
Immortal means the cells which make up the body no longer need anything to stay vital, you wouldn't sweat, you wouldn't breathe because the cells no longer degrade. You would not get tired, you wouldn't need to sleep.
All the cells in your body would function at peak efficiency all the time.
You would stop growing hair and nails too. You would no longer cry. Never cough or sneeze. You wouldn't need clothes, shelter, food...You would be immortal.

There is a difference between shadow and dark.

We see because our eyes detect the spectrum of light that reflects from a mass.
The brightest objects are objects which reflect on the faster wavelengths of visible light.
The darkest objects absorb the faster wavelengths of visible light.
An object that absorbs (does not reflect) all visible light will appear completely dark because our eyes do not detect any visible light.

Shadow is an occlusion (blockage) of light from a mass.

Our detectors can detect light wavelengths beyond the capacity of our eyes.
Both in the ultraviolet and the infrared.
An object that appears dark to our eyes may be visible using these specialized detectors.

Using our detectors we can see far past the ultraviolet and infrared.
However, there may be spectrum we can not detect yet. Those objects would appear dark to our eyes and our specialized detectors.

Everything we can see or detect is a reflection prism of the whole.
Dark is the absence of reflected light, nothing more.