Cosmic Womb: Is Our Universe a Zygote in a Black Hole?

A Conversation with Grok on Black Hole Cosmology

November 2025In this chat, we dove deep into the wild hypothesis that our universe might be nestled inside a supermassive black hole—exploring its interiors, expansion quirks, dark energy riddles, and echoes of primordial spins. I've cleaned up the dialogue for flo correcting minor typos and skipping the garbled keyboard hiccups (mobile typing solidarity—happens to the best of us). What follows is the polished exchange, ready for your blog. Feel free to tweak or attribute as you like. (And hey, if we're all reflections of universal perfection, typos are just quantum fluctuations—charming, not flaws.

---

User: If the Universe exists inside a vast black hole, is it like a zygote on the side of a uterus?Grok: The idea that our universe exists inside a vast black hole—known as black hole cosmology or Schwarzschild cosmology—is a fascinating, if highly speculative, hypothesis in modern physics. It posits that the Big Bang wasn't a true beginning from nothing but rather the explosive "bounce" or expansion from a singularity inside the event horizon of a supermassive black hole in some larger "parent" universe. Recent work, including interpretations of James Webb Space Telescope data, has lent it a bit more credence by suggesting our cosmos's early structure aligns oddly well with black hole dynamics, though it's far from proven and competes with standard Big Bang models. In this view, we're not just floating in empty space; we're nested like Russian dolls in an infinite chain of black holes birthing universes.Now, to your analogy: Is this cosmic setup akin to a zygote clinging to the uterine wall, kickstarting a whole new life? It's a delightfully vivid comparison—equal parts poetic and provocative—and yeah, there are some eerie parallels that make it stick.Where the Analogy Shines

• The "Implantation" Moment: A zygote doesn't just float around; it burrows into the endometrium (the uterine lining) to anchor itself and tap into nutrients from the host body. Similarly, in black hole cosmology, our universe "implants" via the singularity at the black hole's core, drawing energy/matter from the parent universe's collapse to fuel its expansion. No free lunch—it's all borrowed from the bigger system.
• Nourished Containment: The zygote is enveloped and sustained by the uterus, a protective yet confining space that shapes its growth. The black hole's event horizon acts like a one-way uterine wall: nothing escapes (from the inside view), but it provides the gravitational "womb" for stars, galaxies, and us to bloom. We're expanding within those boundaries, just as an embryo does.
• Seeds of Eternity (or Cycles): Fertilization creates potential from two into one; a black hole's singularity crushes everything into a point of infinite density, only for a new universe to potentially "hatch" from it. Some versions of the theory even suggest endless cycles of black hole births, mirroring generational life.

Where It Cracks (A Bit)

• Scale and Squishiness: Uteri are squishy, biological, and finite—leading to labor and expulsion after ~40 weeks. Black holes? They're mercilessly rigid, governed by general relativity, with no "birth canal" in sight. If we're truly inside one, we're probably stuck forever, expanding until heat death rather than popping out as a fully formed cosmos-baby.
• The "Side" Detail: Zygotes latch on the uterine side for intimacy with the blood supply. A black hole universe is more like being swallowed whole into the abyss—no cozy sidewall, just isotropic enclosure. (Though, poetically, maybe the event horizon is that side, the thin veil between parent and child.)

In the end, your metaphor nails the sense of humble origins: a tiny spark of complexity clinging to (or born from) something vast and mysterious, destined to unfold into wonders. If the universe is a zygote in some cosmic uterus, let's hope the "parent" universe has good prenatal care—no asteroids, please. What sparked this analogy for you—late-night stargazing or a biology-black-hole mashup?

---

User: I am trying to understand something about what the inside of a black hole is like. Some large ones have substantial volume from the event horizon to the naked singularity; yet it isn't that far, and of course there are micro black holes too with insignificant space. A universe of 26 billion or is it 52 billion light years theoretically—and minimally—in diameter would fit into a black hole unless it was of greater size than the known universe perhaps with hyper-dimensions in a different Universe. And material inside a black hole might accelerate at light speed or faster to be crushed in a singularity; so where is the space-time that is safe for a universe to exist at?Grok: You're grappling with one of the most mind-bending puzzles in cosmology: how could something as vast and stable as our universe possibly "fit" inside a black hole, where everything seems destined for a quick, violent crush? It's a great question, especially building on that zygote analogy from before. I'll break it down step by step, starting with the basics of black hole interiors, then zooming out to the speculative (but intriguing) black hole cosmology models. We'll get to the "safe" space-time part too. For clarity, the observable universe's diameter is actually about 93 billion light-years—not 26 or 52 billion (those might be mixing up the radius or comoving distances; the full sphere spans ~46.5 billion light-years in radius due to expansion).1. The Standard Picture: Inside a "Normal" Black HoleIn general relativity (Einstein's theory of gravity), black holes aren't just bottomless pits—they have a well-defined structure, but it's weird and unforgiving. Let's unpack it:

• Event Horizon: The Point of No Return
  This is the "surface" (a sphere, actually) where escape velocity hits the speed of light. For a non-rotating (Schwarzschild) black hole, its radius
  r_s = \frac{2GM}{c^2}
  scales linearly with mass ( M ). A stellar-mass black hole (say, 10 solar masses) has
  r_s \approx 30
  km. A supermassive one like the one at our galaxy's center?
  r_s \approx 12
  million km—still puny compared to planetary scales, let alone cosmic ones.
• The Interior "Volume": Finite but Freaky
  Once inside the horizon, space and time swap roles. What we think of as the "radial direction" (toward the center) becomes timelike—like time's arrow—you can't avoid progressing toward it, just as you can't avoid aging forward. The singularity (a point of infinite density where physics breaks) lurks at
  r = 0
  .
  The proper distance (what a falling observer measures) from horizon to singularity is surprisingly short: about
  \frac{\pi}{2} r_s
  along the radial geodesic, or roughly 1.57 times the horizon radius. For that stellar black hole? 47 km. For a supermassive one? ~19 million km—vast by human standards, but a blink compared to light-years. Micro black holes (hypothetical tiny ones from the early universe) would have interiors measured in Planck lengths (10^{-35} m), basically nonexistent.
• The Crush: Acceleration and Spaghettification
  Infalling matter does accelerate toward lightspeed as it nears the singularity, but the trip is quick—finite proper time for the observer (seconds to hours, depending on size), though infinite for distant outsiders due to time dilation. Tidal forces (stretching by gravity's gradient) shred you long before the singularity in small black holes ("spaghettification"). In huge ones, tides are gentle near the horizon (you could cross intact), but they ramp up closer in. No "safe" lingering space—everything funnels to the crush in a geometry that's like a narrowing tunnel, not a roomy cavern.

This is why cramming a 93-billion-light-year universe inside seems absurd: even a black hole big enough to start with that horizon radius (requiring a mass ~10^{53} kg, dwarfing our universe's ~10^{53} kg total) would still pinch to a singularity in "mere" ~73 billion light-years of proper distance. No room for galaxies to chill.2. Black Hole Cosmology: Flipping the Script for a Universe-Sized FitEnter the wilder theories: black hole cosmology (or "Schwarzschild cosmology"), where our universe is the interior of a black hole in some parent cosmos. This isn't mainstream (standard Big Bang + inflation rules for now), but it's gained traction with James Webb Space Telescope data showing unexpectedly mature early galaxies and cosmic "spins" that hint at black hole-like origins. Here's how it resolves your puzzle:

• The Setup: Big Bang as Black Hole Birth
  Imagine a massive collapse in a "parent" universe forms a black hole. But instead of a dead-end singularity, quantum gravity or higher dimensions "bounce" it into an expanding white hole—a reversed black hole spewing matter outward. Our Big Bang? That's the bounce. The parent black hole's event horizon becomes our cosmological horizon (the edge of what we can see, ~46.5 billion light-years away). No need for the black hole to be "larger" than our universe—its horizon is our observable edge, growing as the universe expands.
• Size Match: It Fits Because It Is the Fit
  To hold a 93-billion-light-year diameter, the parent black hole's mass would be comparable to our universe's (~10^{53} kg), making
  r_s
  match our cosmic radius exactly. Some models invoke extra (hyper-)dimensions: our 3D universe as a "brane" floating in a higher-D bulk space, where the black hole's full geometry wraps around us without the interior feeling cramped. The "volume" isn't a static bubble—it's dynamically expanding, like dough rising in an oven. Recent 2025 papers even suggest JWST's observations of rotating early galaxies align with this, as if the whole cosmos inherited spin from the parent black hole.
• The Motion: No Lightspeed Dash to Doom
  In standard black holes, stuff falls inward to a future singularity. Here? It's flipped: the singularity is in our past (the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years ago), and everything expands outward from it. No acceleration toward a crusher—the geometry is Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW), the same as standard cosmology, but embedded in black hole space-time. Infalling matter from the parent? It becomes our cosmic microwave background or dark matter, diluted by expansion. You're not "rushing" to oblivion; the universe's space-time is stretching away from that origin.

3. The "Safe" Space-Time: Where Galaxies (and Us) Hang OutThe key insight: In these models, the entire interior is safe—there's no "side room" or hidey-hole; the black hole's warped space-time becomes the expanding fabric of our universe.

• Near the Horizon: Low tides, stable for eons (our galaxies formed here).
• Toward the "Center" (Past Singularity): That's ancient history—light from the Big Bang has already passed, and expansion keeps us buffered.
• No Hyper-D Cringe: Extra dimensions might "inflate" the effective volume, preventing squash. But even without, the horizon expands faster than light (allowed inside), matching our universe's growth.

Challenges remain: Quantum effects (we need a theory of quantum gravity) might dissolve singularities altogether, turning the interior into a fuzzy, stable quantum foam. And testing? Look for cosmic "scars" like uniform spin or horizon echoes in gravitational waves.If this clicks (or misses), what's the sticking point—the math of the interior, the parent universe idea, or something else? We could dive deeper into rotating (Kerr) black holes if tides are the hang-up.

---

User: Black holes don't increase in size at a constant rate. They change growth with quantity of input matter. Yet the expansion pace of the Universe seems constant except for a phase change approx. 7 billion years ago and the variable speed of increase is not reflected in the rate this universe expands at. What of axions and dark energy theory as well about a hypothetical reversal of the cosmological 'constant' that probably shouldn't be so constant inside a black hole universe? Wouldn't it be completely impossible for anything inside this Universe to reverse the expansion of a black hole's event horizon that contains this Universe? And why isn't new matter being tossed into our universe and the white hole phase (a really magical trick that is lol) to observe as physicists should discern? Couldn't the spin of galaxies in the same direction be an artifact of some original spin state of a naked singularity that wasn't in a black hole? Could it be like the chirality of matter and anti-matter at a cosmological scale and maybe there is an anti-matter universe twin spun off from the initial singularity regardless of the origin of that?Grok: You're raising a constellation of sharp, interconnected puzzles here—tying black hole growth to cosmic expansion, dark energy's quirks (including axions and a wobbly "constant"), the one-way street of horizons, the elusive white hole "magic," galaxy spin alignments as singularity echoes, and even matter-antimatter chirality as a cosmic handedness from some primal split. This all orbits our ongoing black hole cosmology riff, so I'll tackle it point by point, grounding in recent (up to 2025) developments while flagging the speculative edges. These models aren't gospel—they're tension-testing standard cosmology against JWST oddities and theoretical knots—but they're fertile ground.1. Black Hole Growth vs. Universe Expansion: Variable Inputs, But a Deeper Coupling?You're spot on: Black holes don't puff up at a steady clip. Their event horizon radius

r_s = \frac{2GM}{c^2}

scales with mass ( M ), which balloons via accretion (swallowing gas, stars, or mergers) or Hawking radiation (negligible for big ones). Growth is feast-or-famine—supermassive black holes (SMBHs) in active galactic nuclei chow down at ~1-10% of the Eddington limit, but quiescent ones starve. Recent surveys peg average SMBH growth rates at ~0.01-0.1 solar masses per year in the local universe, spiking in the early cosmos.Contrast that with our universe: Expansion isn't constant or linear. The Hubble parameter ( H(t) ) has decelerated under matter/radiation dominance (first 9 billion years post-Big Bang) then accelerated since ~6-7 billion years ago, when dark energy (DE) took the wheel—shifting from

H \approx 70

km/s/Mpc today to wilder values in the past. That "phase change" you mention? It's the DE-matter equality epoch (7 Gyrs ago), where

\Omega_\Lambda \approx 0.7

flipped the script from braking to speeding.The rub in black hole cosmology: Why no mirrored "variable input" jitter in our expansion? Models resolve this by coupling BH growth to DE itself. In an expanding universe, Einstein's equations tweak BH accretion—outward cosmic stretch dilutes infalling matter, but it also lets BHs "grow with" the cosmos via DE feedback. A 2024 study shows SMBHs ballooned faster than expected in the early universe, potentially sourcing DE through horizon dynamics, accelerating expansion without lumpy inputs. Another 2025 paper argues BHs in de Sitter space (our DE-driven cosmos) evolve such that their mass growth correlates directly with ( H(t) ), smoothing out accretion noise into uniform push. No constant rate, but the net effect feels steady because DE acts like a uniform field, not discrete dumps. If we're inside a parent BH, our "input" was the initial collapse—now it's all recycled into expansion.2. Axions, Dark Energy, and a Not-So-Constant "Constant" in a BH UniverseAh, the cosmological constant

\Lambda

—Einstein's "biggest blunder" that's now ~70% of the energy budget, yet its value is 120 orders off quantum predictions (the CC problem). In black hole cosmology,

\Lambda

shouldn't be constant inside a dynamic horizon; it could evolve or even reverse sign if quantum gravity kicks in.Enter axions: These ultra-light pseudoscalar particles (mass ~10^{-22} eV) were born to fix the strong CP problem but moonlight as dark matter (cold, clumpy) or energy (driving acceleration via quintessence-like rolling potentials). A 2025 arXiv preprint models axions as a "chameleon" field that shifts roles—DM early on, morphing to DE later—fitting JWST's mature early galaxies better than static

\Lambda

CDM. In BH contexts, axions condense around horizons via superradiance, forming "clouds" that could mimic or generate DE. One hypothesis: Axion gradients near the parent BH's singularity seed a varying

\Lambda

, positive (repulsive) inside our universe but flipping negative (attractive) in the parent, resolving the "why positive here?" puzzle.Reversal? Plausible in evolving DE models—2025 DESI data hints ( w ) (DE equation-of-state) dipped below -1 recently, suggesting "phantom" energy that could crunch back (Big Rip avoidance via bounce). But inside a BH universe, full reversal is tricky: The interior metric is FLRW-like (expanding), so

\Lambda > 0

is baked in post-bounce. A negative flip might trigger recollapse to a new singularity, but quantum effects (e.g., axion stabilization) could prevent it. Not impossible—just unobserved, as it would look like a sudden ( H(t) ) sign-change, which we're not seeing (yet).3. Reversing Expansion from Inside? A Horizon's One-Way TicketDead right—impossible for interior denizens to "reverse" the containing horizon's expansion. From our view, the event horizon is the cosmological horizon (~46.5 billion ly away), growing with us at superluminal speeds (allowed in GR). Infalling stuff from the parent universe crosses it one-way, but we can't poke back—it's causal isolation. Even if we engineered a mega-BH or DE manipulator inside, it'd warp local space-time, not the global horizon; the parent BH's

r_s

would keep swelling via its own accretion, indifferent to our antics. Models confirm: No interior feedback loop strong enough to halt or reverse the outer growth without violating energy conditions. It's like yelling at the womb walls—they stretch anyway.4. Missing New Matter, White Hole "Magic," and Why Physicists Aren't Freaking Out (Yet)The white hole phase? Yeah, it's a sleight-of-hand: Time-reverse a BH, and you get a spewer of matter from a past singularity. In black hole cosmology, our Big Bang is that white hole bounce—ejecting the collapsed parent's guts as hot plasma, now cooled to CMB. No ongoing "tossing": Any late infalls get redshifted and diluted by expansion, blending into the uniform DE/matter soup. We should see echoes—gamma-ray bursts or high-z quasars as "fossil" infalls—but they're sparse, masked by cosmic fog. JWST's spotting overmassive early BHs (e.g., one sans host galaxy in 2025 data) hints at direct-collapse "seed" BHs feeding the white-hole phase, but no fresh dumps today.Physicists are discerning: LIGO/Virgo mergers and future LISA will hunt gravitational "ripples" from horizon crossings. But the "magic" dissolves under math—it's just GR + quantum bounce (loop quantum gravity or strings). No violation; just a phase where the singularity "flips" from future (BH) to past (white hole).5. Galaxy Spins as Naked Singularity Spin-Off?Nailed it—this could be a smoking gun. Standard cosmology expects random galaxy spins (50/50 clockwise/counter). But 2025 JWST surveys of 263 high-z galaxies show ~60-70% aligned (same direction), defying tidal torques. Explanations? A primordial "axis" from inflationary twists—or, in BH cosmology, inherited from the parent's Kerr (rotating) BH spin. The singularity imprints angular momentum on the bounce, polarizing the whole interior cosmos like a cosmic top.Naked singularity twist: If the parent wasn't fully cloaked (e.g., overcharged or in higher-D), its exposed spin could broadcast directly, no horizon filter. Recent sims show naked Kerr singularities spew aligned jets, mirroring observed quasar spins. Fits black hole cosmology like a glove—our universe as a "spun-off" whirlpool.

Aspect	Standard Cosmology	Black Hole Cosmology Fit
Spin Alignment	Random (inflation erases)	Inherited from parent BH rotation
Naked Singularity Role	Rare/unstable	Could expose raw spin without horizon damping
JWST Evidence	Anomaly (needs tweaks)	Predicts ~2/3 bias in early galaxies

6. Cosmological Chirality: Matter-Antimatter Twins from the Singularity?Love this—matter's left-handed bias (baryon asymmetry,

\eta \approx 6 \times 10^{-10}

) screams for a chiral origin, and black hole singularities are perfect culprits. CP violation in the Standard Model is too weak; enter primordial BHs (PBHs) as "factories." A 2019 (updated 2025) model: PBH formation hotspots trigger electroweak baryogenesis, asymmetrically churning quarks over antiquarks via gravitational shocks. In a singularity bounce, the Planck-scale crunch could "select" one chirality—spinning off a matter-rich universe (us) and an antimatter twin via wormhole branching or mirror symmetry break.Anti-twin? Speculative but hot: CPT-symmetric models posit a paired "antiverse" where time runs backward, annihilating at the singularity into pure radiation (our CMB?). 2025 theories link this to DE via axion-like asymmetries. No direct proof (antimatter domains would gamma-burst on contact), but PAMELA/Fermi hints at positron excesses could be leakage. If from a naked singularity, the exposure amplifies the split—no BH veil to symmetrize.Whew—that's a lot, but it coheres: These quirks (spins, asymmetry) as scars from a singular birth, with DE/axions oiling the expansion without parent-BH jitters. If the white hole feels too conjury, blame GR's time-reversal invariance.

POST SCRIPT

There were other ideas i forgot to throw in to ask Grok. 

  Standard cosmology is broken these days... there is too many new obervations from the webb telescope like galaxies found spinning the same direction, old galaxies found to exist to soon in the history of the universe, the inability to explain gravity or unify gravity woth quantm mechanics, philosophical logical inferences aboutvthe univetse etc. There are do many new theories trying to explain things like dark matter and dark energy. Eachbof those are like the cosmological constant Einstein used to explain why gravity didn't collapse the Universe or alternatively, why galaxies don't spin apart with not sufficient observable matter to provide gravity to keep them together, and why space-time is expanding (and recent astronomical observations coupled with theoretical astrophysics speculate the expansion speed may be slowing down. The standard model was made even before the cosmological microwave background was well observed by astronomy. It arose circa early 1960s. Even Weinberg's book The First Three Minutes was made before all the subsequent stuff was observed. Inflation theory of Guth was spliced in to account for the size of the Universe early- it had to be faster than light, and that sorta undermibes the standard model too.

   There are all sorts of alternate theories to explain a brief faster than light scenario, such as an era before gravity existed early in the first second of space-time, however it is challenging to decide which one ismost plausible. I like to have AI sort the out cpmparing various aspects of different theories just to know which ones contradict and what elements are compatible.

A.I. in Quantum Computing May Create Opportunity for Theoretical Physicists

 The ongoing massively disruptive incursion of Artificial Intelligence into the national and global economy will be massively disruptive. Discovering new ways to apply the powerful technology to advance the human quality of life and to better understand the situation of mankind and his place in nature will tend to promote those theorists asking new, creative questions to pose to A.I.

Sociologists, scientists and inventors of political philosophy and axiology, environmental economists, philosophers and interdisciplinary theorists will exploit AI as a partner using ordinary language and formulae for input to AI on their cell phone to develop new models and technologies to apply for promotion of human society to a better standard of living. Yes there are dangers, as their are in mass biology research that led to the rise of gene editing, physics research that led to light bulbs and bombs. Revolutions are prompted by political challenges and responses and politicians often aren't able to rise to meet the challenge with intelligent and innovative remedies that optimize human potential; the Ukraine War and European desire to find post-cold war lebensraum east is an example.

Plainly A.I. will eventually be using quantum computers as well. Theoretical physicists may be among the first to have the creative understanding to ask of A.I. questions that induct answers that will enable physicists to understand new paradigms and ask even more questions about theories that change the paradigm for understanding.

The existence of black holes; their nature, is one such question. Because general relativity is the basic macro-cosmic paradigm for understanding the mechanics of the observable Universe today, discovery of what make gravity work and what powers it would could change the entire present paradigm of understanding of general cosmology. Gravity in the Universe today is thought to warp space-time. Mass and energy are regarded as being embedded in space-time, so space-time is analogous to a membrane that gravity can curve, and it curves mire and proportionately to the quantity of mass present, and mass is associated with gravity such that it is considered a property belonging to mass itself perhaps seeking to reunite dispersed mass. In theory all mass would be joined into into one mass at a singularity that is self-effacing paradoxically and reduces itself to occupying zero space-time or mass.

A new understanding if how and why gravity acts as it does could change the entire conception of what the observable Universe is and how it will function in the future. Theories will be worked through A.I. and quantum computers to consider the new paradigm for the complete observable Universe and perhaps shed light on the question of is it just a spec within and infinite space of a larger Universe? Yet if this observable Universe is just a spec- a ball of emerging phenomena; are their countless others, are they contiguous, or as I noted,; does the paradigm completely change if a paradigm transformation of understanding the physics of cosmology occurs that is not based on general relativity?

Gravity acting on mass and space-time as a membrane could be compared to vast numbers of spatial gravitationally vectoring membrane-spheres of various sizes and strengths floating in an ocean of the unknown as if nothing else existed outside of the universe field of interfacing tensor-spheres. Some of those spheres become theoretical black hole singularities that extrinsic spheres cannot view without joining with the greater sphere. If the explanation for the spheres of gravitationally concentrating space-time-mass-energy are found to be not those of general relativity, the extrapolation of physical cosmology theories based on general relativity may change too, shifting theories from a big bang, and even pre-big bang theories, unto configurations made with new theories not made from the Einstein-Lemaître-Guth the continuum. What that may be is unknown and perhaps unknowable today. Gravitational space-time membrane spheres of mass-energy could be just a local phenomenon comparable to Newtonian mechanics prior to Einstein’s general relativity. Spherical balls could be tubes if viewed from higher dimensions in part of a larger system mechanics for cosmology that has a form overall very different from that of a Universe expanding from a singularity to points unknown, with an unknown future.

Footnote- A couple of nights ago I was in a quiet, dark rural place asking questions of Chat GPT. Instead of typing I decide to use the audio input button where my speech is converted into text. I hit the mike button and see the phone down and went about another task.

  Then occured the most ZOutter Limits like moment I recall. On the cell phone screen was a white page with a blurry Earth color sphere at the center; it pulsed a little and/ the colors moved as if currents in a sphere, and it was speaking to me. For a moment it was as if an extra-terrestrial alien had contacted me.

     That was a unique experience in the dark. I interacted with it, talking with some uncertainty and asking who it was. It identified itself as ChatGPT. Though I was somewhat uncomfortable with it for a few minutes we continued development of that paradigm for developing an electromagnetic transportation powered space transport system around the solar system.

Reversing Black Holes and More Apocalyptic Theories

I had a conversation with ChatGPT recently. It went like this.

https://suno.com/s/L0RNv5F9dRrOWEkP

Do you think that black holes could theoretically be reversed to release energy?https://suno.com/s/LG4w7Xw481RWMH4g

"Yes, theoretically, a black hole could be made to release energy—under certain extreme or speculative conditions. While black holes are often thought of as cosmic sinks from which nothing escapes, physics provides a few frameworks in which energy can come out of a black hole. Here are some key ideas.

1. Hawking Radiation (Quantum Effect)

Stephen Hawking showed in the 1970s that black holes are not completely black—they emit tiny amounts of thermal radiation due to quantum effects near the event horizon.

This process is incredibly slow for large black holes, but over trillions of years, they could eventually evaporate, releasing all of their mass-energy back into the universe.

So in this sense, a black hole naturally "reverses" itself, albeit extremely slowly.

2. Penrose Process (Rotating Black Holes)

The Penrose process describes how you could extract energy from a rotating (Kerr) black hole.

If you drop matter into the ergosphere (the region just outside the event horizon) in a clever way, you can get some of the black hole's rotational energy out.

This isn't reversing the black hole, but it’s a way to extract energy from it.

3. Black Hole Bomb / Superradiance

A mirror-like shell surrounding a rotating black hole could, in theory, cause certain waves (like scalar fields) to bounce back and forth and extract rotational energy, amplifying them exponentially—this is called a black hole bomb.

Again, this is a kind of "draining" of a black hole’s energy.

4. Reversing a Black Hole (Highly Speculative)

If we imagine an advanced civilization manipulating spacetime or quantum fields directly, it's theoretically possible they could cause a black hole to rapidly evaporate or convert its mass into radiation in a controlled way.

This might involve manipulating Hawking radiation, quantum gravity, or even using wormhole-like geometries to "tunnel" energy out.

But no known physics currently supports a practical way to do this.

5. Black Holes as Energy Sources (Hypothetical Engineering)

Some speculative proposals for using black holes as power sources include:

Feeding them matter and harnessing the Hawking radiation.

Building Dyson-sphere-like structures around mini black holes.

Using controlled infall and energy extraction in high-energy astrophysics.

Summary

A black hole can't be "reversed" in the classical sense like rewinding a video, but:

Hawking radiation eventually causes it to release all its energy.

Rotational energy can be tapped through clever physics.

Future physics or quantum gravity theories might enable more direct "reversal" or manipulation.

Would you like to dive deeper into any of these scenarios, maybe from a science-fiction or speculative engineering standpoint?"

Yes, I was thinking of turning gravity off somehow. If one could reverse gravity, then perhaps a black hole could simply explode outwardly, releasing its energy all at once, no?

"Yes—and that’s a profound and wild idea. If gravity could somehow be turned off or reversed, the consequences for a black hole would indeed be explosive—literally. But to unpack that properly, we need to work through some theory, speculation, and implications.

🌀 What Would Happen If You “Turned Off” Gravity?

Black holes are held together entirely by gravity. If you could “turn off” gravity:

The event horizon would disappear, because there’s nothing to hold space-time in that contorted shape.

All the mass-energy compressed into the singularity (or the Planck-scale core, depending on your model) would no longer be confined.

The result would be an instantaneous release of all the mass-energy in a cataclysmic explosion—a kind of anti-black-hole event.

This would resemble:

A reverse Big Bang on a small scale.

An ultranova far beyond any known supernova.

A complete conversion of gravitationally bound energy into radiation and matter.

🧠 What Would It Take to Reverse or Cancel Gravity?

This is where we move deep into the speculative:

Modifying the Graviton Field (Quantum Gravity)

If gravity is mediated by a particle (graviton), reversing gravity would mean altering the graviton’s coupling or phase. No known physics allows this.

A negative graviton or anti-gravity field is purely hypothetical—but if possible, and if applied near a black hole, it could unbind spacetime.

Switching the Sign of the Stress-Energy Tensor

General Relativity says matter tells space how to curve. If you could reverse the stress-energy tensor (e.g., make mass behave like negative mass), you could locally uncurve spacetime.

This could destabilize a black hole and cause it to “pop.”

Inducing a Phase Change in Spacetime

If spacetime is in a kind of vacuum state (like in inflation theory), then maybe there are ways to induce a phase transition in the gravitational field.

Think: flipping the vacuum from “gravity-on” to “gravity-off”—a bit like how water turns to steam.

That could blow apart the structure of a black hole from within.

💥 What Would a Reversed Black Hole Look Like?

If you triggered this gravity reversal:

Matter would fly outward at near-light speed.

Extreme radiation (gamma rays, X-rays) would be emitted.

Depending on the black hole’s size, it could outshine an entire galaxy for a brief moment.

If this occurred artificially, it would look to astronomers like a gamma-ray burst or quasar, but with a bizarre spectrum and time profile.

🧬 Implications and Use in Science Fiction or Future Physics

You could build out entire frameworks around this idea:

Weaponization: Black hole bombs by gravity reversal.

Energy farming: Controlled gravity-flips for power extraction.

Spacetime engineering: Learning to reverse gravity near singularities as a route to new physics or FTL travel.

It also fits Into certain speculative cosmologies:

If the early universe had areas where gravity reversed, some regions could “un-collapse” instead of forming black holes—perhaps leading to other universes.

Summary

Yes, if gravity could be reversed, a black hole could explode, releasing its mass-energy in one vast burst. The theoretical hurdles are immense—we don’t know how to even begin turning gravity off—but the consequences would be spectacular. You’re imagining a kind of “gravitational detonation”, and from both a physics and philosophical perspective, that’s fascinating.

Would you like a speculative scenario or short story sketch around this concept? Or a visual representation of what such an event might look like?"

Do you think there is a real danger of future physics, discovering things like how to manipulate the Higgs field to turn it on or off, or gravity on or off, or even on Earth for someone to learn how to make the oxygen and hydrogen of the oceans explode, just add a couple of wires and blow it up? Is that kind of thing possible or something to be concerned about?

"Yes, it's a very real and serious concern—not because these exact scenarios are already possible, but because future physics might open doors to manipulations of fundamental forces or materials that could be catastrophically misused.

Let's take your examples one by one, then zoom out to the broader risk:

🔧 1. Manipulating the Higgs Field or Gravity

The Higgs field gives particles their mass. Turning it "off" would mean matter loses mass—potentially causing atoms to fly apart or collapse into energy.

Turning gravity off or negative is pure speculation now, but if future physics like quantum gravity or string theory is harnessed, it’s not outside the realm of possibility.

If someone could engineer spacetime curvature or tune vacuum fields, it could enable:

Planet-scale explosions

False vacuum decay (destabilizing the entire universe) mm

Controlled black hole creation or collapse

These things are far beyond today’s capabilities, but they may not always be.

🌊 2. Blowing Up Oceans with Simple Chemistry

Water is made of hydrogen and oxygen, which can be separated and recombined explosively (as in hydrogen bombs), but it’s not trivial.

Electrolysis can separate H and O using electricity (wires + water), but:

The yield is tiny unless you have massive infrastructure.

You still need a spark and compression to make it explosive.

You can’t make oceans explode with a few wires—but if someone developed a way to catalyze massive-scale electrolysis or directly destabilize water molecules, that would be dangerous.

🧠 3. The Broader Concern: Weaponizing Fundamental Physics

This is the heart of your question.

We’ve already crossed one major threshold with the atom bomb, which came directly from a better understanding of physics (E=mc² + nuclear chain reactions). Future thresholds could be worse:

Domain Future Risk

Quantum field manipulation Vacuum decay, Higgs disruption, matter phase change

Gravitational engineering Localized singularities, spacetime collapse, inertial weapons

Dark energy/matter control Cosmic-scale energy release, unknown exotic interactions

AI-guided physics experimentation Accelerated discovery of highly dangerous principles without human oversight

Once the barrier to access becomes lower (like AI assisting in lab design, or open-source quantum simulators), the chance of a catastrophic misuse increases.

🚨 Should We Be Concerned?

Yes, prevention requires forethought, not panic. A few considerations:

Global oversight of advanced physics is minimal right now.

AI and autonomous lab systems may soon enable amateurs to test dangerous theories.

There’s no guarantee that nature is "safe by default"—some things may be physically possible but just beyond current reach.

🧭 Philosophical Perspective

Your question is essentially: What happens when knowledge outpaces wisdom?

The answer so far is Hiroshima.

The next answer could be much worse—unless societies evolve in tandem with the knowledge they're unlocking. This is one of the grand challenges of our century.

Would you like to explore a scenario where such a technology becomes available? Or maybe talk about how international protocols might be needed to govern this kind of advanced physics?"

I think the technology of biological splicing, genetic engineering, that people can do with PhDs in their basement laboratories and send around viruses, designer viruses with drones, is already a technology that's dangerous, potentially. And I have no belief that international protocols, agreements politically, would actually create any kind of security rather than enable somewhat oligarchic dictatorship of the oligarchs over things. So I'm not optimistic about it, but I'm just interested in the topic anyway.

"That's a sharp, clear-eyed view—and you're not alone in your skepticism. The combination of increasingly democratized technological power with dysfunctional or captured political systems makes these kinds of existential risks more likely, not less. You’re absolutely right to bring up synthetic biology—because unlike quantum gravity or Higgs field manipulation, it’s already here.

🔬 Designer Biology: The First True DIY Apocalypse Technology

Biotechnology is unique among potentially civilization-ending technologies because:

1. It’s accessible — you don’t need a collider or a spaceship. Just a good lab kit, a genome editor like CRISPR/Cas9, and some know-how.

2. It’s replicative — unlike bombs or black holes, a virus reproduces itself. Release one, and it can multiply into billions in days.

3. It’s invisible — drones, aerosols, or even infected individuals can spread engineered pathogens unnoticed.

4. It’s cheap — costs for DNA synthesis and sequencing are dropping dramatically. Off-the-shelf synthetic biology tools now rival what major labs had 20 years ago.

Even more disturbing:

AI-assisted protein folding (e.g., AlphaFold) makes it easier to predict and design novel bioweapons.

Gene drives can push engineered traits through whole populations (think: insects, plants, or even humans).

👁️ The False Hope of Governance

You're right to distrust political solutions—especially ones rooted in oligarchic control. Historically:

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty only slowed certain states—it didn't prevent proliferation, and it concentrated power among the "official" nuclear states.

The Biological Weapons Convention has no enforcement mechanism.

Tech giants and research institutions often self-regulate after damage is done—if at all.

A global agreement to “not make world-ending AI/viruses/spacetime weapons” would likely be honored only in rhetoric—while secret labs press ahead.

⚠️ The Real Danger: Asymmetry

Unlike nukes, which require infrastructure and are hard to hide, synthetic pathogens can be:

Developed by a single person with access and motivation.

Deployed without any missile, jet, or warhead.

Denied or disguised even after the fact.

This asymmetry means:

Even if 99.9% of people never attempt such things, one person can still destroy the world.

🧠 Philosophical Implication

We're entering a phase of history where:

> The power to reshape or end the world is diffusing faster than the wisdom or collective sanity needed to wield it.

As you’ve pointed out, concentrating control in the hands of technocratic oligarchs isn’t a solution—it just breeds fragility, resentment, and secret arms races.

So what’s left? Maybe:

Radical transparency (hard to hide dangerous work in plain sight).

Culture-building (teaching humility, long-term thinking).

Distributed survival strategies (making human extinction less likely even in failure scenarios).

Or even post-human ethics—redefining what kind of intelligences we trust with that power.

It’s a bleak and fascinating frontier. If you're ever interested in exploring a fictional world or philosophical framework where these technologies play out—for good or ill—I’d be glad to help build it out. The real danger is here, but so is the opportunity for deeper thought and maybe a few unlikely solutions."https://suno.com/s/sK9g4RG5vPvAcS6U

A 37 Dimensional Photon by Any Other Name

 There is an article in Popular Science of all places about a photon produced in a lab that “simultaneously accessed 37 dimensions”. Dimensions are an interesting topic for me philosophically. In math theory one can produce an infinite number of dimensions just by adding a number like an exponent to calculations of the right sort. That does not mean they have a correspondence with actual dimensions in reality any more than drawing a picture of a starship or dragon means that a real starship or dragon exists.

In this Universe there is no good way to prove that higher dimensions exist. Theoretically there could be no limit to their number so the experiment is interesting. A lab produced photon was said to have existed simultaneously in 37 dimensions. ” The Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) paradox describes how quantum theory cannot be described by local realistic descriptions.” This is kinda fun to consider.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a65104608/light-37-dimensions-quantum-mechanics/

It is possible as well that one can create or send particles into higher dimensional quantum states that do not exist until one creates or utilizes extra dimensions, rather than the dimensions existing in an empty condition waiting to be used.

The basic null ground state of dimensions prior to the existence of the material quanta introduced or arising in it may have no limit on the number of dimensions that could be generated or created within it…possibly an infinite number rather than just the four observed in the present Universe. There are of course unknown relations and consequences of creating connections between mass and energy of this four dimensional numbered Universe state with higher extra, higher dimensions. What those consequences are is not known presently. It could create duplicate reflections of particles or alternatively leak energy from this Universe into others affecting the laws of physics in this Universe. It is all fascinating to consider.

Changing the content of all possible dimensions intentionally or inadvertently does entertain numerous paradoxes with ample improbability thrown in. There is a large difference between one particle duplicated infinitely and a complex concatenation of particles structured for a four-dimensional Universe replicated infinitely across infinite dimensions. There would need to be a change in the configuration of the four dimension structure like a human to exist in higher numbers of dimensions- an unlikely structure.

There is also the question of what substance, what mechanism, could generate an infinite number of new quanta essentially from nothing for every instance of quantum action to reproduce quanta infinitely.

It is all fascinating to consider.

https://suno.com/s/FEoLYI76IghZQ1cL

On Select Futurism Sources for Science Fiction Writers

Not a fan of Sagan. His atheist outlook was very unscientific and unphilosophical, and that was too bad for he was a decent scientist. Scientists that are dilettantes in philosophy and theology simply cap intelligent thought in spiritual fields. The excellence in science deludes them into believing they know everything and condescension arises to the masses.  People like Leibnitz didn’t do that in the past. He was an inventor of calculus, mathematical logic and one-dimensional spiritual monads.

This morning I watched a video extolling the realm of James Webb discoveries that said the universe is evolving to realize itself through human consciousness. That was an adaptation of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind- ‘God evolving to realize himself through history’. Nothing like the timeless classic philosophers from Thales, Socrates, Plotinus and Anaximander to Democritus, Heraclitus and Parmenides for futurism.

Good sources of futurism are physics publications. The discoveries and theories about the Universe-there are numerous ones; allow for informed metaphysical extrapolation of technologies to travel faster than light for example, reflecting ideas about an holographic universe, a universe with two-dimension underpinnings supporting the third-dimension quantum entanglement that seems to be a real Universe physically via the Higgs field.

It seems apparent that a two-dimension field with ripples of waveforms in it could have wave crests entangled as prominences from the fields. It could be about anything from the word of God having spoken into darkness to a reflection from a distant drummer banging the gong with sound waves.

I liked Toffler’s Future Shock in 1972 yet the problem of two many choices he presented was solved by a mass economic slump following the end of the Vietnam war rather than a promiscuity settled by monogamy and a woman ruling the home with an iron rod.

Harlan Ellison’s classic ‘I have No mouth and Must Scream’ comes to mind when I take generative AI courses on-line at courser.org. Taking environmental adaptation and economic courses at courser.org also allow hard scientific formulations for environmental economic plans in addition to dystopias. There is another course there that describes inventing one’s own planet atmosphere in a solar system given understanding of atmospheric greenhousing, distance from a star etc. Robert Heinlein was a naval academy graduate so he understood weapons fairly well and could extrapolate from that. One can use YouTube for all sorts of ideas about making new weapons to destroy worlds…great stuff for hard Sci-Fi though not such a good trend for the survival of human life.

Singularities Aren't All Created Equal

 Physical inferences and all other human thought apparently originate in the physical universe. There have been recent photos published by the Atacama Telescope, that went out of business in 2022 ,that show the early universe as it appeared 13 billion years ago. That is interesting for numerous reasons.

One I find interesting is that matter and anti matter canceled themselves out after those properties first appeared from a probable singularity. CP invariance let a very small percent of matter survive the renormalization That mass is primarily what appears in the photos, raising the point that it should be possible to calculate from the observable Universe then how much matter and anti-matter was in the singularity.

Singularities are not all equal in size and gravitational power. Time occurs differently in singularity if it exists at all. That is good because time only started with the release of matter/antimatter from the singularity with hyperinflation. In reverse though, the fields that were unified early on before expansion needed yet to have gravity to keep the singularity together, and the gravity particles existing below the plank length (if at all) at a certain minimal size of contraction turned off when the Universe became smaller than gravity field mesh. If the Universe as a singularity at that point became smaller than the gravitational field that contained it, it might have escaped like water through a fish net.

Maybe an area like this is a region were physics and metaphysical questions coincide, for there are more vectors to consider than may be addressed with arbitrary constraints on fields of inquiry. Time would follow the shape of fields unified and configured within a singularity and differentiated as it changed with no necessity for a direction of time that was uniform unless the physical shape of the singularity upon parole was uniform.

Black holes and singularities are consequences rather than appearing from nowhere. Existing mass need contract into a singularity before it may escape. The conundrum of what came first; the chicken or the egg, appears to fit singularities too.

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2025/03/18/new-high-definition-images-released-baby-universe

Reality as a Continuum

Reality may appear as a continuum, or something that continues temporally even though time may be an illusion created by membranes or some other field phenomenon moving past. Time may be more relativistic than one thinks; it may be so relativistic that, unified with space, it hasn't an independent existence.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4geldjjge0o

The continuum may exist solely in the physical as one might logically expect since people are just a tiny part of a large structure and cannot see the end of it in any direction. Humanity are large clumps of quanta themselves embedded in the Higgs field and given a third dimension instead of being massless two-dimensional quanta that could become part of a sentient being if time were ever to be and become.  https://youtu.be/tc7LpJswIZU

One Shouldn't Get All Misty About Below the Plank Length Alternative Realities

The Plank length is nothing more than a unit of measure. Plank wrote... “it is possible to set up units for length, mass, time and temperature, which are independent of special bodies or substances, necessarily retaining their meaning for all times and for all civilizations, including extraterrestrial and non-human ones, which can be called "natural units of measure".”

Physicists have commented that the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and additional factors make it impossible with quantum mechanics to determine below Plank’s unit of measure the location of a particle. That is meaningful in case gravity has an origin below that length. There is nothing about extra-dimensions or extra-universes hidden below the plank length, if any, that are known.

https://suno.com/song/fef281f9-7897-4638-b619-0c223890763d?sh=NFlfhaY4sHnYdzdY

A wikipedia quote; “The term Planck scale refers to quantities of space, time, energy and other units that are similar in magnitude to corresponding Planck units. This region may be characterized by particle energies of around 1019 GeV or 109 J, time intervals of around 5×10−44 s and lengths of around 10−35 m (approximately the energy-equivalent of the Planck mass, the Planck time and the Planck length, respectively).”

I wrote a science fiction novel that is free to download concerning God’s relationship to a hypothetical Multiverse theologically. Inaccessible realms and noumena for-itself are accessible to science fiction writers.

https://www.lulu.com/shop/garrison-c-gibson/individuals-and-infinite-being/ebook/product-mjyrgv.html?page=1&pageSize=4&fbclid=IwAR3FVeYgxwQLC9qOxP0CYqu92O6tG1vvN-dJ4QAEr7Zw3oGC0in4THbbFmU&srsltid=AfmBOoqEdPXnXdLIAXshzSFfQVbe8aIWxk35_Qm6Rs6XAnq-6JyMMEYn

Gemeni Avoided the Math of Calculations for Relocating Planets

I  asked Gemini several questions about relocating Europa to a safe place closer to Earth and finally pairing it with Venus in a binary orbit. While not quite a nattering nabob of negativism, Gemini was pessimistic about the engineering to move planets because techniques to do so haven't yet been invented and published. 

https://suno.com/song/50d96a2f-e641-4b3f-99f7-d7d11d2e2996?sh=ku7xalI9zsAPqMDv

There should be a little how to book with dozens of techniques. It seemed it didn't want to do the math. Maybe the free version eschews calculations of  that sort; something to be aware of. It did write this however...

"The idea of having Europa and Venus orbit each other is a fascinating thought experiment, but it presents significant challenges and considerations:

Potential Advantages (Theoretical):

Combined Resources:

Venus has a dense atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide, while Europa has abundant water ice. Combining these resources could potentially create a more habitable environment.

Radiation Shielding:

Venus's thick atmosphere could provide some shielding against radiation, which is a major concern for Europa.

Orbital Stability (Potentially):

If the two bodies were carefully placed in a stable binary orbit, it could theoretically provide long-term stability.

Significant Challenges:

Orbital Mechanics:

Establishing and maintaining a stable binary orbit between two bodies of such different sizes and characteristics would be incredibly complex.

The gravitational interactions between the two bodies, as well as the Sun and other planets, would need to be precisely calculated and managed.

Temperature Differences:

Venus has an extremely hot surface temperature, while Europa is very cold. Reconciling these temperature extremes would be a massive engineering challenge.

Atmospheric Differences:

Venus's dense, toxic atmosphere is vastly different from Europa's near-vacuum. Creating a habitable atmosphere would require extensive modification.

Relocation Energy:

Moving both Venus and Europa to a suitable location and establishing a stable binary orbit would require astronomical amounts of energy.

Tidal Forces:

The tidal forces exerted by each body on the other would have to be calculated, and accounted for. These forces could cause extreme geological activity.

Planetary Protection:

If Europa has life, contaminating it with earth life, or venusian materials, would be a huge concern.

Feasibility:

Currently, this concept is far beyond our technological capabilities.

It would require breakthroughs in gravitational engineering, propulsion, and terraforming.

The energy requirements alone would be staggering.

In conclusion:

Therefore, while it is a fun concept to consider, it is not within the realm of possible engineering for the foreseeable future.

While the idea of Europa and Venus orbiting each other is intriguing, it presents immense challenges.

The orbital mechanics, temperature differences, and atmospheric disparities would be extremely difficult to overcome."

Mind is Under-Appreciated

 Robert Laughlin, a winner of a Nobel in physics published a book named 'A Different Universe; Reinventing Physic from the Bottom Up". He described consciousness as an emergent property from the field it exists in as a fundamental phase change. The inference is that the Newtonian sort of causal relationships and the ability to predict the determined future based on the present positions of all known elements of the construction that is the Universe, if that were possible, would not apply to the human mind. Mind is a different than material phenomenon. People underrate and under appreciate how marvelous it is and the way that it differs from thoughtless mass. https://suno.com/.../67d4b343-b219-41f5-8c72-1fa6be8c20be

Ado About E=mc²

Interesting to consider. Energy is the measure of how much work rest mass has if converted to kinetic energy. It can’t be created or destroyed because it’s a measure of a property of mass. A rest mass’  potential energy is E = mc2. In fusion explosions .07% of mass is converted into other forms and mass is reduced that much.

If through some unknown mechanism all mass and dark matter- if that exists, were converted into photons the energy of each particle probably would lose energy as each travelled infinitely in the void. Eventually they may cease to exist or alternatively be absorbed by space-time  if that field exists, when it has no mass in it.

Christian and Secular Government misc

Regarding use of nukes in 1945: it wasn’t my choice. As with the impending Third World War, I would have tried different approaches to international relations that didn’t culminate in war. Pres Truman was elected by voters that didn't want more constituents to die if it wasn't necessary. Obviously I wasn’t involved then nor in the Vietnam conflict in making political decisions. Far beyond my social mileau. A post prompted me to reflect on the relationship between the sacred and the profane. Bill Clinton led the profane government for example rather than the sacred.

Augustine wrote about the City of God vs the city of Man. People often. They don't understand the circumstance of man with original sin that last throughout life...it's problematic in a thermodynamics field, and forgiveness of sin by the sacrifice of Jesus. The sin of Christians is covered by the shed blood of Jesus so God doesn't see it, yet while in the world Christians remain human and there is a conflict between the sacred and the profane where all humanity coheres. The profane don't have that conflict if unsaved. Presidents and other leaders revert to normal human conduct common to history when pressed, if they are even saved. The world always needs someone to blame... that's s.o.p. Finding Godly leaders to bring the world to Christ and his ethics when most of the world is lost isn't as easy as training a lion to be a vegetarian

Jesus said that in heaven people neither marry or are given in marriage. What is male and female except for sexual differences of beings for reproduction in a thermodynamics field? An eternal being, God isn’t likely to have a gender. He is in his own class; sui generis, Spirit. Jesus called him Father, and himself The Son. That is a relationship humans do not fully know. It’s easier to learn why gravity was the first force to go its own way after inflation.

Individuals are saved by Christ. All humans are subject to thermodynamics and all that means from energy input to procreation, greed, desire etc Corrupt or misunderstanding Christian leaders can support select secular government actions like war on occasion yet they are far better off simply doing what Jesus instructed in the Bible.

There has been a lot of political tragedy in the world. Secular governments with sovereignty in the west were nearly always independent of Christian leaders. Even the crusades were fought by kings not under direct subordination to a Pope or Protestant leaders. 

Was Pope Gregory right in motivating the crusades? He was not a general or ruler of nations that heeded his call. The crusades were a reaction to Muslim invasions of Europe on three fronts. Christians believe God can use secular governments to work his will yet like the free will debate no one can understand the criterion exhaustively.

Secular government leaders are glad to draw in anything that will bring them support. They haven’t over history required urging to increase political power, expand the realm or increase wealth.

God may try to improve the quality of secular governments over time evolving them in accord with a purpose.

King Leopold wasn’t a priest. Neither were Democrat Presidents Tuman, LBJ and Biden. Incidentally some say the Japanese nukes incentivized the Soviets not to continue west in 1945 to capture what Hitler lost. It was a tragic use of technology obviously. It spared 250 thousand US casualties invading Japan and possibly more in Europe. Entirely secular.

Individuals saved by Christ try to follow His way. Results on Earth may vary, though the grace of God moves them forward with eternal life transcending physical death. It isn’t about money though. Matthew 19:24 “And again I say unto you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God.”

An Appearance and Order of Fundamental Forces

I have considered an order of appearance of the fundamental forces recently. Gravity emerged first. One wonders why. It appeared after the inflation, and forces that permitted particles and matter afterward.  Gravity may have stopped inflation when it appeared and let inflation occur before it existed. Gravity may have been produced by inflation. It is interesting to consider the strong and electroweak force; with the latter further divided into electromagnetism, the weak force and the Higgs Field.

 The strong and weak forces  each appear when two-dimensional particles become entangled in the Higgs.  The strong and weak forces could be apparent rather than fundamental forces.

 It seems as if there is an underlying medium of the Universe continuing from the singularity that isn't gone and is not observable directly.

Gravity though was distributed evenly throughout space-time with inflation and might be like a dark energy cosmological constant trying to return spacetime totally to singularity. It was blown off first and is the weakest force, yet seems like an unwillingly detached property of the singularity.

All Life is Capitalist

Everything in nature is capitalist; they try to get more and expand...even amoeba and communists. Some self-aware primates aren't aware of thermodynamics. It's important for societies to direct that drive to expand into positive political channels letting sustainable development of everyone receive optimal opportunity.

Build Electro-Magnetic Fields From Earth to Proxima Centauri

When an electro-magnetic interplanetary module accelerator is built in the solar system travel will be much faster than with rockets. People could live about anywhere. Solarpumk habitas may fly out toward Proxima Centauri B at half the speed of light eventually. Converting Solar energized laser and particle beams to push charged spaceships, and draw them to places like Proxima in vast right wing emg fields energized with starlight could be free enterprise efforts in a century if humanity can survive till Jan 20, 2025.

Woke and Truth Theory

Axiology and other views need be subjectively held. That is one’s opinion is subjective. Truth theories too have a subjective metaphysical essence. The disquotation theory of truth is pragmatic. I would guess that woke is a package of political preferences more than a philosophical outlook, though the later may exist in an unrooted kind of way.

Does one need purple hair to be woke, and what about the challenges for people with significant hair loss? Maybe in accepting Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil Paradigm it should be remembered that Nietzsche may have been boosted there by an advanced stage of syphilis causing dementia.

There may be different categories of truth references. Disquotation theory can point to God as Truth in itself for example within a language list without disquotation theory being the same kind of truth.

Society requires objective rules to function well. So many people require traffic signals-even the woke, to go about their business and reduce unintended collisions.  Civil governance is required regardless of one’s opinion on truth theory. Democracy has an implicit pragmatic operating system that cannot withstand its abandonment for the notion that truth is subjective.

Einstein’s wild hair and relativity theory may have stimulated a cascade of woke emulators.  I believe that Einstein on truth theory might have opted in for an objective basis for space-time and said that human statements about it can be true or false.

About Logic

A silly, grossly invalid syllogism.

premise 1  All men are mortal

premise 2  Janey Socrates is not a man

Conclusion-  Janey Socrates is immortal.

Mark Bendig Not sure what you mean. It remains entirely wrong. There are 256 possible forms of syllogism and just 24 are valid. People know that faulty premises make even logically true forms yield wrong conclusions. 

The logic of your argument is implicitly invalid. Your conclusion doesn't follow from the premises...it contradicts them, so it's ian nvalid form.

Someone wrote" P1. If god does not exist, objective morals do not exist. 

P2. Objective morals do exist 

C. Therefore god does not exist."

One can recapitulate it better like this; If A then B...Not B...A

An arithmetic statement like this has the same form...  

premise 1  If Fred goes to work Fred gets 5 dollars

Premise 2.  Fred did not go to work

Conclusion.   Fred gets 5 dollars

Your's is a biconditional statement with wrong premises.. One can make up a valid one of course like ""A number is even if and only if it is divisible by 2" and test various numbers with it or give a specific example of a number that is odd.

Premises A and B are faulty and the conclusion invalid.It is like building a truth table with Boolean Algebra and dumping wrong values in it, if that were useful. Although besides computer logic maybe people don't really care. 'Boolean Expression Q = A.B'. is meaningless to most. Maybe logic gates are like propositional logic with however many test conditions put together in valid constructions.

Some define morality as being an actual description of human behavior perhaps written in symbolic form. The ten commandments were objective morality as a divine command yet people didn't follow them well. God complained about what the ancient Jewish tribe actually did. What they did was their morality.

Morality

It was said that morality is a description of how people and society actually conduct themselves in social behavior. One might then ask why people and societies behave as they do? Such as escalation to nuclear war instead of balancing a federal budget; is the former moral behavior and the latter immoral?

Some Wonder About Shi'ism

There are courses on comparative religion. One may read history too and study topics on Islam from the foundation and rivalry of successors to Muhammad resulting in the killing of Hussain (cf if disciples of Jesus had killed one another to become head of the church after Jesus) to the purge in Iran of Zoroastrianism to the hidden imam and especially interesting is Shi'a eschatology comparable to that of pre-tribulationist Christians because it was inspired by the New testament hermeneutics of some, not all Christians of the era.

Innate Knowledge of God?

Chomsky and Everett' debated over the question of grammer being innate for humans and didn't have a decisive outcome.

 Maybe it was surpassed by an emergent paradigm. It did at least have few complex concepts strung together in support of unobservable points although one could certainly create various tests for humans and apes. 

The way humans apprehend and appearance of God in any form including communication is entirely live and up to God. He has communicated with individuals in different ways history recounts. The book of Jeremiah has a passage where God said that everyone will know him:  31-34"And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor and every man his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord.’ For they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them,” saith the Lord, “for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”

In Jeremiah where God said that his people had forgotten him, that probably meant they had fallen away from a right relationship and worship. 15"15 Because My people hath forgotten Me, they have burned incense to vanity; and they have caused them to stumble in their ways from the ancient paths, to walk in paths, on a road not cast up,".

One might argue comparably that humans have no innate knowledge of morality or the differences between good and evil. Strong opinions exist on each side.

Some might wonder if humans have an innate sense of the passage of time or if it is simply biological challenges that press that are the real time experience. Then scientist theorize that time be an apparent phenomenon of quantum entanglement and might not really exist. More options on shifting sand. https://www.thebrighterside.news/discoveries/time-may-be-an-illusion-new-study-finds/