the rich and the poor. the smart and the stu.. not so smart.

i have talked too much science lately, lets talk about some social issues as well. i hear and read sometimes that poor and/or not so intelligent people shouldn’t have kids, that most of them engage in not so healthy behavior, pulling down the speed of development of the society. well, let see how humans became who we are — by natural selection, by mutations. if one lives a stable social life with healthy habits, then new mutations are rare. it is way more likely to get some genetic mutations when people are smoking, drinking hard and so on. not all the mutations are beneficial, but due to natural selecton, people with bad mutations will be wiped out, while those who survive difficult environment may carry extremely beneficial genetic traits. and about intelligence — those who are truly more capable than others, will show their talents to the society regardless of difficulties and social inequality. good life doesn’t mean that all the talents are applied, because there is no pressure. in some cases it’s rather contrary, because high society has own restrictions and family traditions, plus duties of keeping the prestige, not allowing every talent to thrive. thus, in conclusion, the society should give free booze to everyone, and free education of course. keep studying hard. and also.. keep drinking h… well, don’t.

a problem with hawking radiation.

the event horizon around black holes is an imaginary line, far from the black hole itself, thus virtual particle pairs appearing at the event horizon cannot be converted into real particles by taking energy from the mass of the black hole. furthermore, at the event horizon the virtual particle pairs can be converted into real particles both ways — outside and inside. as the extra energy needed to convert virtual particle pairs into real particles cannot be taken from the mass of the black hole, then it is taken from the gravitational field by slowing the rotational velocity of the black hole, both for the particles outside and inside the event horizon. because of stronger gravitational pull inside the event horizon, the virtual particles should become real particles more often inside the event horizon, and to increase the mass of the black hole after falling into it. in any case, the mass of the black hole, which is far from the event horizon, cannot be affected instantly, but the creation of real particles is possible. also those real particles, which are created outside the event horizon, will ultimately fall into black hole due to its gravitational pull. the hawking radiation created at the event horizon, must be going both ways, away from black hole and in the direction of black hole. black hole cannot evaporate — the mass of black hole can only increase, even if part of the radiation is measured coming from the black hole event horizon. the extra energy, for any radiation created at the event horizon to escape, to be visible or measured outside, will come from the gravitational field by slowing the rotation of the black hole.

please don’t take the logic described above as a verified conclusion, because i came to it by visualizing the processes in my mind, without any calculations.

_

my posts on the YE blog on the subject of aether..
https://youthextension.wordpress.com/?s=aether
my posts on the YE blog on the subject of gravity..
https://youthextension.wordpress.com/?s=gravity
_

a proposal to foundations for advancement of science.

there exist such foundations, and i propose they should create compensation packages (severance packages) to those scientists who disclose scientific taboos. the “truths” that are stilll in science textbooks but are wrong, known to many scientists but forbidden to talk about, must be disclosed. sure there are many scientists out there who are gagged by threatening them with losing job, and even titles in science, after speaking up. i think that for the advancement of science, the scientists who disclose the taboos, providing evidence for the mistakes in textbooks, with proofs of the new knowledge, must be protected. when scientists are fired for speaking up, then a foundation for advancement of science should compensate them for their lost income, and provide means to continue their research if they lost access to necessary technology for their research.

_