2,000 Greater & Lesser Mysteries/2,000 Greater and Lesser Mysteries.iso/philos/mys01581.txt

Text File | 1994-06-10 | 34.2 KB | 577 lines

JDR_1091  by John David Rohner, Milwaukee, WI

Well, this marks the start of a change-over.  I did NOT alter the JDR_0891
(TXT or WP5) files at all.  I just tossed most of the new stuff into this
file.

The reason is that starting with the next version I'm dropping WP support, and
will use a viewer/converter to display the text.

The viewer aspect will be primative and much like Buerg's List utility.  The
converter will convert the special text file into a standard text file (for
those who wish a print out) and in the future to WP format.

Also in the future, the viewer will be highly graphical.

So far, my development plans are as such:
  1. Go thru all previous JDR_mmyy's and convert paragraphs to single (long)
     lines.
  2. Put the 4 digit version number at the beginning of these lines.
  3. Starting with the first one I put out, go thru (automatically) comparing
     each version with it's predecessor to keep track of which lines changed.
     Lines that have changed will keep the date of the more recent version,
     lines that didn't will keep the old date.
  4. I'll then go thru and manually add codes for italized and underlined
     words, and do footnotes, by hand (by comparing it with the WP version).
  5. Finally I'll write the first version of the viewer, which will take these
     "version deliminated" long lines and display them in a nice, normal,
     format on the screen (not showing the version numbers).
  6. I'll then put this up on the BBS as a viewer.
  7. Then I'll add the option to "list all new entries since version mmyy"
     which should make it MUCH easier to see what's been updated.  I'll also
     add colors, and an option to "show surrounding paragraphs on new
     entries".

I've made this a "cheapo" version, and haven't started the viewer yet, because
the JDR_BBS software is very near to release and probably will come out before
the next version of JDR_mmyy.


---------------

     Since they've just about merged all the four forces, perhaps they should
revamp the energy spectrum to include forces (gravity, magnetic) as well as
electricity.

     I mentioned that ants and plants should be considered biological machines.
     I've decided that on the other end, dogs (and cats, apes, etc.) should be
considered sentient.  That they should be thought of as a separate race and
considered equal regarding all laws/dealing/etc. where ever possible.  While we
both share the planet, the fact they are severely underdeveloped
technologically means we should exercise minimal contact--each keeping to our
own spheres.  This is not a problem with cats/dogs/apes/chimps/etc. as they
are all on the same technological level.
     Conclusion: any pets such as dogs and cats should be regarded as equals
and given all the due protection under the law.  Animal habitat zones should be
set up which don't allow humans, and human zones should be set up which don't
allow animals.
     Questions unanswered: pets like birds, pigs, horses, cows, etc.
     If insects and plants are machines, then we live on a piece of rock
surrounded and supported by machines.  What should happen if these machines
decide to stop?  Are we sure evolution created them?
     Possibility: dinosaurs ruled the land--were wiped out, replaced with
insects and plants of the current order, then mammels were seeded to be grown.
Making us scientifically grown intelligences.
     Intriguing.  Idea stimulated by one of asimov's stories in Robot Dreams.
     As long as a life-form can EVENTUALLY grasp the design of the Universe, it
must be considered sentient.  Which pretty much means that it need only a brain
that is changable--can adapt without evolving (like EPROM's).  How good is this
idea?  I came across it almost similarly (although more subtle) in the book
Transition.  The author had an advanced race that went around and saved dying
sentients.  It had saved a couple of humans, a lot of "long horn cattle like
creatures" and a lot of Meerkat's ("weasel like creaturs").
     So, the lines of sentience are better defined.  Of course, for those whom
have forgotten why this matters: you should treat sentient races as you would
expect other sentient races to treat you.
     The question left hanging: if a species has the potential (through
evolution) to develop a "sentient brain", can it be considered sentient during
that span in which it isn't?  And what about a sentient being temporarily going
into a non-sentient state (such as freezing/death), are they still sentient?

     From the organized religion's point of view they don't like deviation
because it muddles them and could lead to competetion.  On the other hand, if
you do support a religion, then all the power and organization of it's many
members can be used against other religions (so the "little man" always get
buried under as the "big guys" fight it out.) Examples include churches,
political parties, all the military organizations around the world, etc.
     In the end, it's still one person vs. another.  The Pope, Budda, Stalin,
your brother, etc.  The organizations provide a big advantage.  This can be
seen by the way big companies can destroy an individual or his claims by simply
making it a long drawn out affair in the courts.
     I, for instance, have the BBS and JDR-mmyy as a pulpuit.  This gives me an
advantage over the person standing on the corner preaching--but not over the
person in the church down the street.
     Belief's are a part of people.  Attacking beliefs hit them on an emotional
level and they tend to strike back with emotion.  But cool thinking will always
will against an emotional opponent. Organizations provide cool thinking (most
are downright insensitive).

     I've pretty much decided on the following:  The brain stores two forms of
primary data for manipulation: image and script.
     Not moving images (like film).  Images are remembered (color/etc.) and
shapes are remembered, then to form an object the image is wrapped around a
created shape.
     For animation though (imagination/dreaming/recalling) a script is read,
then the brain draws out images to match (as best it can (fuzzy)) the script.
This method explains a lot; how we can create what we haven't seen, why dreams
"grow" and expand as we realize objects are missing in them, and the very
limitations of the brain in storing such huge data.
     But remember, the script isn't in english.  It's in the brains own
language, which may be permutations of it's neurotransmitters, or the chemical
(mixture) values sensed at multiple points.  I suspect mastering this can lead
to improvements--since the script can be thought of as software.
     At this point I figure it's set up to record in one of two ways:
     Method 1: record all input.  The five senses, the brains' thoughts, maybe
the subconscious thoughts, and maybe the automonous system's current readings.
     Method 2: record only those input that pertain.
     Remember, the script language will most probably be either a sequentially
read/write type of environment.  Since that is how organic systems like to
work.  Also, the recordings will be individual--a script of single letters--
each meaning something different.
     Unanswered questions: whether the "language" is made of the finite number
of combinations the input can supply, or whether on object of this language can
reference another (forming a true langauge vs just having a coded language).
     Things to look for: Does the exact same conditions produce the same
thought, and does erasing this thought and replacing it with another eliminate
the previously stored thought (like macro keys).  The building upon of previous
ideas, are they expanded enhanced, or copied over--then added upon, and the old
one deleted.  The key to answering this: does previous/eliminated ideas
sometimes appear, because I suspect only knowledge really isn't over-written
once it's stored in long term memory--although it may first decay then die as
it is organic in nature.
     I forgot about music/musicians.  One reason I thought I could issolate
images from the script is because it's the type of thing that varies from
person to person.  Some people are good at remembering faces, some not, etc.
     The same applies to music.  Therefore this, and others, can be classed as
"skills"--probably represented in the script as a CALL/JMP/GOTO/GOSUB/etc. to
another part of the brain to do the processing.  Indeed, this suggests the
script is itself a language and not just a representational code.
     Music, like other skills ((programing/mathwood work/etc.) do seem to be
learned skills.  I know that I can't replay in my mind (on order) even a
complete riff.  But sometimes when I'll relaxing one will come complete with
stero/etc--suggesting the brain correctly recorded it--but when I concentrate
on it (like dreams) it starts to fade as my conscious becomes more thoughtful
about it.
     I suspect any skill is something you can develop a "feel" for--you feel
something when you're exercising that skill--something is stimulated.  I also
suspect the spatial capabilities of the brain play a large part--since you
often "pre-see" what you intend to do.

     "Hmm...the thing about stereo particularly puzzles me...how can we
THINK...in stereo.  I know I can, but it doesn't seem PROPER stereo, it just
seems as if the mind is saying "This sound is in the left channel"...I really
wonder about that.  Also, what is interesting about the mind as musical
instrument is that it can act as both synthesizer and sampler...not only can it
play back parts or snippets of things we have previously heard with stunning
accuracy, it can also create its own sounds...one can listen to a song in their
head and "play" over it with a "mind-created" solo track...its as if the mind
is a giant mixing board, all with SMPTE time cues for images and MIDI to bring
it all together into a unified whole.  But one can do that with accuracy and/or
variation that NO electronic equipment could ever provide in speed and
clarity." --David Cowen
     This is an example of mixes up scripts, skills, and multi-tasking.  I
think there is something important here, but haven't realized it yet.

     I bet it's this constant antagonistic pressures that will help us to
become "all we can be" one day.  Races that live in comfort and relaxation all
the time probably don't advance too rapidly.  This is, unfortunately, probably
true of races that have long life-spans--so this is something to watch out for
and to avoid.

     One of the things I believe is that there is at least one "collection" of
sentient races who work together in our galaxy.  And that they either haven't
found us, or find us too primative to contact.
     But, you know, there may be another reason: they don't care.  It's just
possible that races develop to such a level that they can effectively ignore
any new races among them.  Like Galactus in Marvel Comics, or other races that
are neither helpful nor deadly toward developing races.
     Just about everything anyone could think of may be out there.
     That's why I like to use statistics.  It shows anything is possible.
     Trouble arises when taking the universe as a whole (which I don't think is
possible).  Then it becomes: there is one god, there isn't one god, etc. etc.
Nobody says: one god controls xxx billion stars, another and another xxy
billion stars, etc.  Because that's not dealing with the whole, and therefore
falls into the realm of probabilities (making it as equal as anything else
anyone comes up with).
     Indeed, maybe thinking of the universe as a single subject should be a
religion in itself.   Can't find any answers on less than the whole
picture--so try for the whole thing.
     It's a joke to try to figure out the whole universe.  Not even comparable
to primitive land dwellers trying to figure out the oceans or the
planet--before developing the boat, the submarine, etc.
     What we really need right now is some thing to "get" out of space
exploration.  Without a good reason, the politicans could easily stop the space
program.  This would be death.  Since we'd build a nice utopia like world and
slowly die off.
     "Slow but steady progress (if you call it that) is what has been going on
with the human race, but it can only continue until a point - you cannot
progress forever without eventually something happening" --Mark Noel
     The beneifits of space exploration are only understood by a very few
(physisists and astronomers.)  I think it's the imagination and adventure that
keeps "everyday" people's interest.  But, the space program isn't controlled by
the astronomers/etc.  It's controlled by politicians, who are controlled by us.
If we suddenly decide we'd rather have a tax break than a space program, and
then some guy decides to make it a referendum (like limiting insurance costs
in CA).  Then we'd be stuck.
     We need something that can only be found in space.  My guess is that
manufacturing will discover something that must be produced in a low-gravity
environment.  Maybe the 80xx86 packed with 2 gig's of mem and cray-like
abilities would be so small that it would need to be produced in space.--some
sort of "everyday" device.  Or more likely in the short term--some sort of
superhard metal/creramics/superconductor.

     We probably don't need a reason to colonize space/other planets/etc. when
the technology becomes available.
     But there will a pressure to do so when we develop long life.  Since with
long life will inevitably bring people who simply "stay in place" at the top
for very long times.  These people will include people you like and don't like.
Their own decisions won't be the primary determinant--but those around them who
what to keep "a good thing going".  This will lead to a lot of dissatisfaction,
and the answer for both sides will be "emigrate to space".  It is, after all,
the common practice for those "out of power" who challenge it.

     I've mentioned in my document that where does the responsibility lie when
an advanced race comes across a "primative" race.
     I was thinking about ST:NG and the "Q" "race" and their contact with
humans (specifically I was thinking about the "cyborg race" episode, and what
would ST:NG have to do to stop them).
     I've now realized that for an advanced race to even contact a lesser race,
is the equivalent of teaching that lesser race.  "Popping" in and saying hello,
is just like telling them that: 1) their are other races, 2) this is what one
of them looks like, 3) this is their level of technology, 4) these things they
can do.
     It's 4 that's the most interesting.  Since observation of what the advanced
race is doing (eg. "popping" in and out) will confirm to refute various
theories of theirs--leading to quicker solutions and discoveries along the
lines of the theories that were'nt disproven.  In effect, the advanced race
told (taught) them what was wrong with some of their theories.
     It's an all-or-nothing situation.  If the advance race contacts the
primative race at all, it must then watchover the race and either "bring it up
to speed" or completely nullify the encounters effects.
     Of course, all sorts of different race "types" will come across primative
races--including those who only wish to destroy all life forms.  I think races
that are well organized and have a good sense of ethics (towards other sentient
life) will be in the majority.  Why the majority?  Because "extreme" races are
races undergoing change--they're active, they want to do things--whereas
"conservative" races sit back let everything slowly change.  I've already gone
over all this in my document, but it's really just an application of a
"natural" phonenoma.

     Xenophobia: the fear of strangers or foreigners.
     Human models spread out across the globe from single points.  We're the
only animals with laughter.  We and the rest of the great apes have a genetic
"need to deceive" our fellows.
     Another nail: xenophobia.  Whether we want to admit it or not, we'd like
to see the destruction of all those "not like us".  Starting with groups (eg.
white, black, asian, spanish, arab, indian, etc.).  Once those "opposing"
groups are gone, groups of those who disagree (eg. religion, life-style, income
level, etc.) would be next.  Eventually the "need to eliminate" would kill off
all but you alone.  That is, should that we have allowed the instinct free
rein--it's only allowed moderate rein now, usually do to something stirring it
up.
     Question: do you think the "need to decieve" and the xenophobia of the
human race (and probably most animals--a survival trait after all) is sufficent
to produce humor?  The vast majority of humor is, after all, about suffering.
     Spatial abilities are needed to design and formulate the joke, and the
joke also provides advice (warnings of what not to do--yet another form of
xenophobia--conformality) which perhaps explains why they're so prevalent in
humans alone, as well as why they've survived (most early lessons on life were
transferred though the generations only by speech and song).

     From: A&E's "The Birth of Europe":
     Apparently--at just the right times--there were ice ages in europe.  What
this did was create vast deserts (like now really) in northern africa.  So, a
land that was perfect for humans, was now an unpassable wasteland.  One model
trapped north--evolving, and another trapped south--also evolving in the
tropics.  When the desert receded--the southern models (twice) came out and
wiped out the old models.
     Another bastion falls.  So, remember, when people talk about evolving from
neanderthal/homo erectus/peking man/java man, or when they talk about dark
matter, or the big bang--they're wrong.  Isolate the facts and reform theories
presuming those aren't options.  And remember the billions of stars in each
galaxy--and that the number of solar systems we know that don't contain life,
is zero.

     With the natural resources just about gone, the human race could never
're-invent' the industrial revolution if it as a society fell back to
pre-industrial age.  We would develop a more
thinking/visualizing society--perhaps what the indians would have become?
After all, without computers only the human brain and art would be used to
create/visualize new ideas.]

     This may sound morbid... but I'd like to hear/see/read a daily "death
stats" of the day.  Containing, basically, the number of people around the
world that died of such-and-such the previous day.  I think this would do a lot
to making people understand their own mortality.
     What would also be nice is if they could be broken down by country.

     I think it's in mankinds nature to wage war when the technology is
available to do so--and not before.  In fact, the pressure point seems to be
just when that technology comes out, in the rush to make use of it/take
advantage of it, or simply to stop the other side from using it.  Of course,
that doesn't include the "tiny" "emotional" wars--where politicians stir the
public to correct some supposed wrong.

     The Dalmer case has left a question.
     My logic in the matter:
       1. it was his own belief structure to kill people.
       2. moral/immoral is relative and doesn't matter.
       3. good/evel is relative and doesn't matter.
       4. right/wrong is based on the law's belief system.
       5. the general population each has a belief structure: pro or con and to
          various extents/degrees either way.
     Supposedly the law's belief structure is a representative of the
population's belief structure (not sure if it's based on the majority or that
of a dominant sub-group within the population--such as judges).
     The law's belief structure has the belief of imprisionment.  Since it's
the stronger combatant--it has won, and now dalmer cannot exercise his belief
in public anymore.
     The question: how to combat an opposing belief when part of the opposing
belief structure is to argue with physical force?
     PS. if you thought dalmer was wierd--go visit a meat processing plant, one
where the animals enter one door alive.

     Question: WHO is in charge of evolution?
     Should we do our best to protect the "natural evolution" of animals.  Or
do we have the task of "forcing evolution" to get the animals to grow.
     The question occured to me when I saw a news report about the successful
(more or less) transplanting of some birds onto an island.
     In all probability, the stresses of the changes will force some sort of
minor evolutionary change.
     Should we put all the animal species through obstacle courses to enhance
their brains/etc. (like we do now), or put them into protected/isolated areas?
     What if an advanced race came and said: we're going to teach you all we
know, then you'll want to live in space--where your brain will increase and
your body shrink.  Is this right or wrong?

     It seems that whenever a political system fails, the nation
restricts/censors that method.  Germany with the nazi's, now Russia with
communism--and of course, dictators and kings throughout history.
     It's not the system, but the people in the system.
     Eventually Democracy too will fail.  So I propose the following solution:
Anarchy.
     Not the old traditional "do it yourself, and only by yourself" type of
anarchy.  What I picture is a system, under which EACH INDIVIDUAL could pick
and choose from the various laws to follow.  So, if you live in Wisconsin, and
like Iowa's drunk driving law better, you can proclaim to "be under Iowaian
law" for that particular law.  And so and so for all the other laws throughout
the world.
     After all, not every country has banned communism, nazism, dictators, or
kings.  Because they work someplace, not because of the system, but because of
the quality of the individuals in those systems.
     I know, the world isn't "really" as bad as make it out to be--but it has
the potential.  Right now, the framework is here for allowing governments and
police to do whatever they want.  This is america--land where if your house is
in the way of a development project, it can be condemded.  However, now I'm
also starting to understand people.  They are the same the world over, have
been for thousands of years.  I now realize, for instance, that everyone is
corruptable.  Which is nice, because it fits with the theory that deception
was one of the major evolutionary factors for brains.

     If you really want to see the stars, and be awed at the same time--take a
look at the maps of the stars they're making.  Inspiring! Reminds me of a
sponge.

    Ok, you don't want to live forever, but, is 60 years enough--or would you
like more than that?  The thing with immortality is that, while you may live
forever if you wish, there's nothing stopping you from dying after 5, 60, 150,
750, etc. years--you decide when.
     But in reality, I don't think we'll obtain immortality for a very long
time.  What we are likely to achieve is long-life.  But it would be interesting
in how far "long-life" was practical.  For instance, if you were involved in a
space battle, and your ship and you got blown to bits, would technology be able
to put you together again from a couple of parts?  True immortality would't
require others to rebuild you, but long-life does.
     One thing that promotes long-life I see comming up over the next 10 years
is prothestics.  The mergeing of computers/CAD/CAM and medicine should make
"designer bones" more practical, cheaper, and much more like the originals.
The problem right now is the cost and that phoney bones can't duplicate what
regular bones can--but these are being worked on.  If one can successfully
replace all the bones in the body with, say, plastic parts that last longer,
then people would be able to maintain a physical peak even after their brain
goes.  (The weakening of bones and joints is a serious problem as you get
older.)  We can thank the multi-millionaire sports players for a lot of the
modern developments in the art of body repair.
     Quality of life, that comes under my title as "improves provided you can
survive until then".  To be honest, in such a situation where the person is a
vegtable, it might be better to take the "1000 year risk" and freeze them,
rather than the "100 year risk" of waiting for a cure.  Also, if the brain is
decaying--like it does in comatose people--then it's better to maintain life,
but stick 'em in the freezer.
     It seems I've been assuming that given long life/immortality, you could
always find a way to die--even if it took you millions of years to dissolution
yourself atom by atom.  However, I now realize I was assuming material beings.
An energy-based being, or even worse, a "space itself" based being, may not
have the choice or the ability.  In some ways they would then be prisoner's
themselves.

     In some ways my beliefs and many of the religions are compatible--I rule
out one God--but I replace him with many "gods" in the form of advanced beings,
or even FTL, but don't give them powers that we ourselves as a race may not one
day have.  Of course, where we really differ is that I preach, "fear death",
whereas it seems everyone else is saying "fear not death".  Which isn't a
logical way to approach an unknown of such ruinous potential.

     It's been said that around solar systems may be an Oort Cloud--a "cloud"
(lots) of asteroids/etc.  If this exists, it would provide very nice
protection from light speed projectiles.


---------------

SPACE, MATTER, AND IT'S INTERRELATIONSHIP (gravity by any other name...)

Matter (atoms, molecules, you, me, the planet, etc.) is made up of little
things I'll call "Quantum physics".  Within quantum physics, there are quantum
particles, quantum energies, quantum accountants, quantum mail-room clerks,
and who knows who else.  Quantum phsysics is made up of little quantum things,
so little, we can ignore it here.

Space, without matter, is nothing more than a big black area with quantum
physcis flowing through it.  Quantum physics, and space, are one and the same
thing.

Reality is Space with matter flowing through it.  When you drop an object in
water, the water moves away to give the object room--unless the object being
dropped in is water iteself.  In space, all matter is made up of quantum
physics, just like all space is.  So when you drop an object into space (such
as a planet) it doesn't displace space.

Gravity, however, is the visible evidence that matter is displacing space.

Conclusion: matter does displace space.

But wait!  If we displace sand by dropping a rock on it, or displace water by
dropping a rock in it, we're left with "extra" sand or water near the rock
(the displaced sand or water).

So, we should have "extra" space near matter.  Moving objects should slow down
near other objects, as they are passing through regions of "thicker" space.

This is not happening.  The higher you drop a rock, the faster and harder it
hits when it reaches the planetary surface.  No, instead of slowing objects
down, matter causes them to speed up, to be attracted at a faster rate based
on such things as mass types.  Newton.

Einstein came along, and pointed out that it wasn't matter that was
responsible for these effects, but space itself.  That matter was "warping"
space near it.  So that objects of matter moving near each other followed
these warpings and moved close together.

This warping is accomplished from the center of the object outward, most
warping at the center, least warping at the sides, and the amount of warping
is based on the objects mass.  Thus the earth, if it's mass stayed the same
when hollowed out, would still show the exact same gravity.

Hold on here.  Matter just warped space, and is primarily clumping that space
at the center of the object?  Quantum phsics has many laws, and I'm sure one
of them is that you can only clump so much matter at any one point.  But this
note isn't about black holes made that way.

As this theory goes, we've just "stretched" space near matter.  The space
around objects was "stretched" by the space making up an object.  Much like a
sponge in water--it absorbed whatever water it could.  What I'm saying: the
quantum physics of the matter "drew in" the qauntum physics of the space
around the matter, because, for some reason, quantum physics needs more space
when it has more matter.

The next question: where did all this "additional" quantum physics space goto
in the matter/object?  Did it go to the middle, the sides, or distribute
itself evenly?

Just as the quantum phsyics of space and matter are fighting among each other
for domminance, so is the quantum physics of the matter/object itself.

Atoms, while being tiny, are far bigger than quantum physics.  Throughout
matter, each atom has absorbed (and stretched) the space/quantum physics
around it.  Similarly for molecules, ants, and continents.

Indeed, it's this stretching of space by the atoms that probably causes the
need for "more space" from outside the object/matter.  Quantum physics, it
seems, likes to maintain a balance.

Well, all the above is to point out two things: 1. space is not "nothing", and
2. space stretches.

Moving on.  What is "stretched space"?  Merely quantum physics stretched out a
little bit.  In some places in this stretching, there won't be any quantum
physics at all.

What happens when quantum physics/space is no longer there (after being
stretched)?  Not much, it is in a 3 dimensional environment after all.  Just
like water rushes in to fill a void left by you removing some of it, so does
space.  Even though the whole area has been stretched, when a "hole" appears,
it'll draw in the stretched space first, causing a ripple effect outward,
eventually leading to space/quantum physics outside the object/matter to be
pulled in.

However, where this "hole" appears, there is no law, there is no resistance,
and because there is a "natural" need to fill this "hole" with matter, it will
accept quantum physics (or it's larger form, matter) at a very high speed.

So, if someone can find a way to stop quantum physics (perhaps with magnetism)
then it's possible to build a capsule in which there is no space, no quantum
physics.  What will happen to anything that enters this capsule, or the
capsule itself, is for future speculation.

I suspect that these "holes" happen all the time among the atomic world, that
it's a "natural" moving about of energies.  Noting incredible, nothing unique,
just the way things are.  Indeed, this may explain the "Heisenburg uncertainty
principle"--which has components of quantum physics appearing and
disappearing.

Black holes provide something of interest.  It keeps taking on matter, without
giving off a whole lot of space/quantum physics.  It's certainly not
compressing it tighter and tighter--there's only so far you can pack stuff
together.

Another unknown: whether stretching stops when the object equalizes with the
space around it, or whether the space around it can stretch only so far.  I
suspect space can keep stretching.  This would make the area between two black
holes that are close very interesting.

I suspect that the distribution of quantum physics/space/gravity within
objects is greatest towards the sides.  Because the same effects the object
produces outwardly from the survace, also acts inwardly--stretching the center
out to the sides.  This is because there's so much more matter making up a
"shell" of an object rather than it's central areas.

In normal objects, this isn't a problem, as there's plenty of space for new
quantum physics/space/matter to filter down to the center.  But in black
holes, this may not be the case.

The centers of black holes may therefore be "holes" in space.  I further
suspect these holes provide "instantaneous" movement to another location in
space.  Because any matter entering this would be speeded up far beyond light,
it's logical to assume it would then be able to "jump" to another location in
the universe.

It also helps that the only matter it's likely to see is highly compressed
matter.  This doesn't happen with "loose" objects because they can obtain
equalization, whereas black holes everything comes in, little comes out.  It's
also comming in constantly, whereas with a planet, say, it would equalize
since there is no matter continuly being added, and it's not highly
compressed.  If a black hole stops receiving matter, it too will eventually
equalize.

This "location" that the matter comes out would be some point in space--look
for a spot in space that's spewing energy.  Also, this may change, since it's
location would be based on the amount of matter entering (and perhaps the size
of the black hole itself?).  So it might actually appear as a "tear" in space
that's spewing energy.

Another possibility: black holes are linked by these forces.  The lose of
energy could take the for of super-strings: the packed paths of inter-black
hole connections.  I mentioned once that black holes would probably be whats
used for "mapping" in FTL.  It may also be possible that linked black holes
are the "nodes and network connections" of the universe's structure itself.

I guess this theory also is saying that "gravity" only effects a small area.
But that the effects of these small alterations, can effect a large area as
the mass of the matter/object is increased.  Logical, as more space is
compacted into a smaller area with matter/objects.

In sum: remember that matter is only clumped together space, and when this
space moves, it requires the space it moves through to to pass through it, to
do this, all moving matter must be able to interact with the space around it.
Perhaps, even, that clumped up space that makes up matter is also contantly
changing as it shifts space through its quantum physics--perhaps the "space"
that made up us last year, is now a light year distant as we've moved through
the universe.  After all, in this universe, nothing is at rest--we know atoms
are hopping around, but quantum physics may not be able to hop, only to change
form, first attaching to the clump of matter that comes near, then pulling
away from that clump of matter as it "passes" by.

-------------