• Home page of novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • About author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Books by novelist William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Reviews of the writing of author William S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Blog of author William (Bill) S. Frankl, M.D.
  • Contact author William S. Frankl, M.D.
Title: Blog by Novelist William S. Frankl, MD

Clovid-19 and China’s Responsibility

May 3rd, 2020

It is clear that Clovid-19 came from China. And the Chinese did not inform the rest of the world concerning many facts of how this coronavirus was released out of a laboratory in the city of Wuhan, and the nature of the virus’s capabilities for death and distraction. The following commentary by the Heritage Foundation provides an interesting approach to China now that Clovid-19 has destroyed the world as we know it.

 

Clovid-19 and China’s Responsibility

Commentary By

Riley Walters

Riley Walters is a policy analyst in the Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation.

Dean Cheng

Dean Cheng brings detailed knowledge of China’s military and space capabilities to bear as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow on Chinese political and security affairs.

 

Americans are understandably upset. Businesses are closed, and people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake.

It makes sense that people would demand the government take action against those responsible for the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic once we’ve made it through.

Here’s how—and how not—to hold China accountable for the new coronavirus.

>>> When can America reopen? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, is gathering America’s top thinkers together to figure that out.

As of right now, for very good reason, the Chinese Communist Party is culprit No. 1. However, it won’t be so easy getting it to fork over restitution.

There’s the reality that nations are generally not able to be sued, under the concept of “sovereign immunity.” While there are some exceptions, it would require the construction of a very tight case, in this case against the Chinese Communist Party.

In these trying times, we must turn to the greatest document in the history of the world to promise freedom and opportunity to its citizens for guidance.

To build such a case, policymakers would need to answer three important questions:

  1. Who exactly is responsible for the COVID-19 outbreak? Meaning, who in the Chinese Communist Party is responsible for suppressing the information that heroes such as Dr. Li Wenliang tried to share with the world before COVID-19 grew rampant?
  2. What exactly are they guilty of? Meaning, is the Chinese Communist Party simply guilty of the suppression of information? Are they also guilty of not acting soon enough? What else, exactly?
  3. How do we even begin to calculate the restitution owed to the U.S.? Some estimates suggest that the coronavirus has generated losses of as much as $4 trillion. That’s roughly one-third of China’s economy.

Perhaps because of the complications with a legal case, folks are talking about ways to make China “pay” in other ways. Many of the ideas are lacking a dose of reality.

Here’s how we should not hold China accountable:

  1. Refuse to pay Chinese holders of U.S. debt. As of January, Chinese investors held $1.1 trillion worth of U.S. Treasury securities (debt). Chinese holders of U.S. debt (both private and government entities) account for more than 15% of total foreign holders of U.S. debt, but only a fraction of total public debt.

If there is one thing that would destroy the credibility of the American dollar and the American financial system, it would be to raise any doubts about the American commitment to meeting its financial obligations.

Such a threat would shatter the faith of every holder of American debt, not just the Chinese.

After all, if the U.S. could suddenly decide not to pay Chinese holders of American debt, what would keep us from doing the same to the Saudis? Or the Japanese? And that, in turn, would effectively end the role of the American dollar as the global reserve currency. This is truly one case where the cure would be worse than the disease.

  1. Get U.S. companies to leave China and come home. Some suggest COVID-19 is a great opportunity to bring U.S. companies back from China. The problem is that while some companies might leave China (and there could be incentives to encourage them to do so), few would then relocate back to the U.S.

Companies went to China in pursuit of cheaper costs, and COVID-19 doesn’t change that. Most of the companies that are leaving China won’t be coming to the U.S. They’ll more likely be going to Vietnam or Mexico, or many other places.

  1. Kick out all Chinese news reporters. This has little to do with China’s suppression of information about the COVID-19 virus, and more to do with China’s overall suppression of a free press.

After all, it wasn’t Chinese reporters in the U.S. that failed to report on COVID-19 developments in China.

Kicking China’s reporters out of the U.S. would simply justify China’s ejection of American journalists, to little effect on the pandemic (other than limiting what unrestricted information is available).

  1. Decouple entirely from the Chinese economy. Some suggest the U.S. should have no business with China whatsoever. But China was our fourth-largest trading partner in 2019, with $560 billion worth of traded goods.

Historically, U.S. and Chinese investors have directly invested more than $150 billion in each other (about twice as much U.S. direct investment in China than vice versa). Subsidiaries of U.S. companies sell hundreds of billions of dollars of goods in China every year on top of what they export there from the U.S.

These benefits would be hard to give up. Are there costs of doing business in China? Yes. But businesses are there because there are also benefits.

There are more realistic ways to put the Chinese Communist Party’s feet to the fire and hold it accountable.

  1. A human rights approach. Sanctioning specific individuals for specific rights violations can be more successful than trying to punish a nation of 1.4 billion people.
  2. An international approach with allies. This includes taking international legal action as another possibility. Legal scholar James Kraska has laid out one such approach. But litigation could take years and still lack the desired effect Americans might want to see this year.
  3. Public diplomacy. It will take some patience and not have the visibility of legal action. That is to say, legal action would feel good up front, but would take years to maybe reach results, and then only if accompanied by painstaking diplomatic work.

Diplomacy includes keeping the spotlight on the Chinese Communist Party and the nefarious impact it has on the world. Results may vary, but doing this and letting people and governments around the world take matters into their own hands will have a lasting effect.

The truth is that this virus has given the Chinese Communist Party a big black eye and right now the Chinese are doing all they can to shift the blame or obfuscate the truth.

The Trump administration is likely to continue pushing back against China’s efforts to reshape the international narrative, much like we’ve seen the U.S.-China competition across the international arena.

But the outbreak of COVID-19 doesn’t change that the People’s Republic of China will be our most persistent and consequential U.S. foreign-policy challenge for the next several decades.

There might be right ways to hold the Chinese Communist Party accountable for the COVID-19 outbreak and its other misdeeds. But there are also wrong ideas that undermine U.S. long-term interests.

Let’s not mix those up.

 

 

The Raven

May 3rd, 2020

As I already have indicated, I believe that the world is in one of its most deadly times, a truly enormous cascade of events that have changed human lives forever. Indeed, we are living through what might well be considered a tale of horror. My close friend, Doctor Stephen Dubel, has recently dissected Poe’s great poem of revulsion and terror, and here it is :

 

The Raven

BY EDGAR ALLAN POE

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,

Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore—

While I nodded, nearly napping, suddenly there came a tapping,

As of some one gently rapping, rapping at my chamber door.

“’Tis some visitor,” I muttered, “tapping at my chamber door—

Only this and nothing more.”

 

Ah, distinctly I remember it was in the bleak December;

And each separate dying ember wrought its ghost upon the floor.

Eagerly I wished the morrow;—vainly I had sought to borrow

From my books surcease of sorrow—sorrow for the lost Lenore—

For the rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore—

Nameless here for evermore.

 

And the silken, sad, uncertain rustling of each purple curtain

Thrilled me—filled me with fantastic terrors never felt before;

So that now, to still the beating of my heart, I stood repeating

“’Tis some visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door—

Some late visitor entreating entrance at my chamber door;—

This it is and nothing more.”

 

Presently my soul grew stronger; hesitating then no longer,

“Sir,” said I, “or Madam, truly your forgiveness I implore;

But the fact is I was napping, and so gently you came rapping,

And so faintly you came tapping, tapping at my chamber door,

That I scarce was sure I heard you”—here I opened wide the door;—

Darkness there and nothing more.

 

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there wondering, fearing,

Doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before;

But the silence was unbroken, and the stillness gave no token,

And the only word there spoken was the whispered word, “Lenore?”

This I whispered, and an echo murmured back the word, “Lenore!”—

Merely this and nothing more.

 

Back into the chamber turning, all my soul within me burning,

Soon again I heard a tapping somewhat louder than before.

“Surely,” said I, “surely that is something at my window lattice;

Let me see, then, what thereat is, and this mystery explore—

Let my heart be still a moment and this mystery explore;—

’Tis the wind and nothing more!”

 

Open here I flung the shutter, when, with many a flirt and flutter,

In there stepped a stately Raven of the saintly days of yore;

Not the least obeisance made he; not a minute stopped or stayed he;

But, with mien of lord or lady, perched above my chamber door—

Perched upon a bust of Pallas just above my chamber door—

Perched, and sat, and nothing more.

 

Then this ebony bird beguiling my sad fancy into smiling,

By the grave and stern decorum of the countenance it wore,

“Though thy crest be shorn and shaven, thou,” I said, “art sure no craven,

Ghastly grim and ancient Raven wandering from the Nightly shore—

Tell me what thy lordly name is on the Night’s Plutonian shore!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

 

Much I marvelled this ungainly fowl to hear discourse so plainly,

Though its answer little meaning—little relevancy bore;

For we cannot help agreeing that no living human being

Ever yet was blessed with seeing bird above his chamber door—

Bird or beast upon the sculptured bust above his chamber door,

With such name as “Nevermore.”

 

But the Raven, sitting lonely on the placid bust, spoke only

That one word, as if his soul in that one word he did outpour.

Nothing farther then he uttered—not a feather then he fluttered—

Till I scarcely more than muttered “Other friends have flown before—

On the morrow he will leave me, as my Hopes have flown before.”

Then the bird said “Nevermore.”

 

Startled at the stillness broken by reply so aptly spoken,

“Doubtless,” said I, “what it utters is its only stock and store

Caught from some unhappy master whom unmerciful Disaster

Followed fast and followed faster till his songs one burden bore—

Till the dirges of his Hope that melancholy burden bore

Of ‘Never—nevermore’.”

 

But the Raven still beguiling all my fancy into smiling,

Straight I wheeled a cushioned seat in front of bird, and bust and door;

Then, upon the velvet sinking, I betook myself to linking

Fancy unto fancy, thinking what this ominous bird of yore—

What this grim, ungainly, ghastly, gaunt, and ominous bird of yore

Meant in croaking “Nevermore.”

 

This I sat engaged in guessing, but no syllable expressing

To the fowl whose fiery eyes now burned into my bosom’s core;

This and more I sat divining, with my head at ease reclining

On the cushion’s velvet lining that the lamp-light gloated o’er,

But whose velvet-violet lining with the lamp-light gloating o’er,

She shall press, ah, nevermore!

 

Then, methought, the air grew denser, perfumed from an unseen censer

Swung by Seraphim whose foot-falls tinkled on the tufted floor.

“Wretch,” I cried, “thy God hath lent thee—by these angels he hath sent thee

Respite—respite and nepenthe from thy memories of Lenore;

Quaff, oh quaff this kind nepenthe and forget this lost Lenore!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

 

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!—

Whether Tempter sent, or whether tempest tossed thee here ashore,

Desolate yet all undaunted, on this desert land enchanted—

On this home by Horror haunted—tell me truly, I implore—

Is there—is there balm in Gilead?—tell me—tell me, I implore!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

 

“Prophet!” said I, “thing of evil!—prophet still, if bird or devil!

By that Heaven that bends above us—by that God we both adore—

Tell this soul with sorrow laden if, within the distant Aidenn,

It shall clasp a sainted maiden whom the angels name Lenore—

Clasp a rare and radiant maiden whom the angels name Lenore.”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

 

“Be that word our sign of parting, bird or fiend!” I shrieked, upstarting—

“Get thee back into the tempest and the Night’s Plutonian shore!

Leave no black plume as a token of that lie thy soul hath spoken!

Leave my loneliness unbroken!—quit the bust above my door!

Take thy beak from out my heart, and take thy form from off my door!”

Quoth the Raven “Nevermore.”

 

And the Raven, never flitting, still is sitting, still is sitting

On the pallid bust of Pallas just above my chamber door;

And his eyes have all the seeming of a demon’s that is dreaming,

And the lamp-light o’er him streaming throws his shadow on the floor;

And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor

Shall be lifted—nevermore!

 

Ah, yes. Nevermore, nevermore, shall we see our world as it once was. It shall be different, it will seem strange. And all around us, nevermore!

 

Return to the Blog

May 3rd, 2020

After a four-month hiatus, I am coming home to my blog. The hiatus was an attempt to finish, to my own satisfaction, my latest novel, Donovan’s Run. Although my attempt was partially successful, there still remain more to be done. However, given the enormous amount changes that are occurring all our world at this time, I thought it would be appropriate to return to the blog and inject it with some important elements now moving through our lives. So, I will thank in advance the few good friends who will continue to read this material and tell me when it is good, when it is bad, and when it is indifferent.

Space Travel? Yes or No?

December 15th, 2019

The following article is quite interesting and perhaps prophetic. I have just completed another novel that discusses this issue at great lengths with similar but somewhat different questions. Certainly, with the amazing progress in Astrophysics and space travel, we should be addressing these issues.

 

Why We Should Think Twice About Colonizing Space

We’re getting closer and closer to the final frontier. What could go wrong?

Nautilus | Phil Torres

My conclusion is that in a colonized universe the probability of the annihilation of the human race could actually rise rather than fall. Illustration by David Revoy / Blender Foundation / Wikicommons.

There are lots of reasons why colonizing space seems compelling. The popular astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson argues that it would stimulate the economy and inspire the next generation of scientists. Elon Musk, who founded SpaceX, argues that “there is a strong humanitarian argument for making life multiplanetary … to safeguard the existence of humanity in the event that something catastrophic were to happen.”  The former administrator of NASA, Michael Griffin, frames it as a matter of the “survival of the species.” And the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has conjectured that if humanity fails to colonize space within 100 years, we could face extinction.

To be sure, humanity will eventually need to escape Earth to survive, since the sun will make the planet uninhabitable in about 1 billion years. But for many “space expansionists,” escaping Earth is about much more than dodging the bullet of extinction: it’s about realizing astronomical amounts of value by exploiting the universe’s vast resources to create something resembling utopia. For example, the astrobiologist Milan Cirkovic calculates that some 1046 people per century could come into existence if we were to colonize our Local Supercluster, Virgo. This leads Nick Bostrom to argue that failing to colonize space would be tragic because it would mean that these potential “worthwhile lives” would never exist, and this would be morally bad.

But would these trillions of lives actually be worthwhile? Or would colonization of space lead to a dystopia?

In one article in Futures, which was inspired by political scientist Daniel Deudney’s forthcoming book Dark Skies, I decided to take a closer look at this question. My conclusion is that in a colonized universe the probability of the annihilation of the human race could actually rise rather than fall.

Consider what is likely to happen as humanity hops from Earth to Mars, and from Mars to relatively nearby, potentially habitable exoplanets like Epsilon Eridani b, Gliese 674 b, and Gliese 581 d. Each of these planets has its own unique environments that will drive Darwinian evolution, resulting in the emergence of novel species over time, just as species that migrate to a new island will evolve different traits than their parent species. The same applies to the artificial environments of spacecraft like “O’Neill Cylinders,” which are large cylindrical structures that rotate to produce artificial gravity. Insofar as future beings satisfy the basic conditions of evolution by natural selection—such as differential reproduction, heritability, and variation of traits across the population—then evolutionary pressures will yield new forms of life.

But the process of “cyborgization”—that is, of using technology to modify and enhance our bodies and brains—is much more likely to influence the evolutionary trajectories of future populations living on exoplanets or in spacecraft. The result could be beings with completely novel cognitive architectures (or mental abilities), emotional repertoires, physical capabilities, lifespans, and so on.

In other words, natural selection and cyborgization as humanity spreads throughout the cosmos will result in species diversification. At the same time, expanding across space will also result in ideological diversification. Space-hopping populations will create their own cultures, languages, governments, political institutions, religions, technologies, rituals, norms, worldviews, and so on. As a result, different species will find it increasingly difficult over time to understand each other’s motivations, intentions, behaviors, decisions, and so on. It could even make communication between species with alien languages almost impossible. Furthermore, some species might begin to wonder whether the proverbial “Other” is conscious. This matters because if a species Y cannot consciously experience pain, then another species X might not feel morally obligated to care about Y. After all, we don’t worry about kicking stones down the street because we don’t believe that rocks can feel pain. Thus, as I write in the paper, phylogenetic and ideological diversification will engender a situation in which many species will be “not merely aliens to each other but, more significantly, alienated from each other.”

But this yields some problems. First, extreme differences like those just listed will undercut trust between species. If you don’t trust that your neighbor isn’t going to steal from, harm, or kill you, then you’re going to be suspicious of your neighbor. And if you’re suspicious of your neighbor, you might want an effective defense strategy to stop an attack—just in case one were to happen. But your neighbor might reason the same way: she’s not entirely sure that you won’t kill her, so she establishes a defense as well. The problem is that, since you don’t fully trust her, you wonder whether her defense is actually part of an attack plan. So you start carrying a knife around with you, which she interprets as a threat to her, thus leading her to buy a gun, and so on. Within the field of international relations, this is called the “security dilemma,” and it results in a spiral of militarization that can significantly increase the probability of conflict, even in cases where all actors have genuinely peaceful intentions.

So, how can actors extricate themselves from the security dilemma if they can’t fully trust each other? On the level of individuals, one solution has involved what Thomas Hobbes’ calls the “Leviathan.” The key idea is that people get together and say, “Look, since we can’t fully trust each other, let’s establish an independent governing system—a referee of sorts—that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. By replacing anarchy with hierarchy, we can also replace the constant threat of harm with law and order.” Hobbes didn’t believe that this happened historically, only that this predicament is what justifies the existence of the state. According to Steven Pinker, the Leviathan is a major reason that violence has declined in recent centuries.

The point is that if individuals—you and I—can overcome the constant threat of harm posed by our neighbors by establishing a governing system, then maybe future species could get together and create some sort of cosmic governing system that could similarly guarantee peace by replacing anarchy with hierarchy. Unfortunately, this looks unpromising within the “cosmopolitical” realm. One reason is that for states to maintain law and order among their citizens, their various appendages—e.g., law enforcement, courts—need to be properly coordinated. If you call the police about a robbery and they don’t show up for three weeks, then what’s the point of living in that society? You’d be just as well off on your own! The question is, then, whether the appendages of a cosmic governing system could be sufficiently well-coordinated to respond to conflicts and make top-down decisions about how to respond to particular situations. To put it differently: If conflict were to break out in some region of the universe, could the relevant governing authorities respond soon enough for it to matter, for it to make a difference?

Probably not, because of the immense vastness of space. For example, consider again Epsilon Eridani b, Gliese 674 b, and Gliese 581 d. These are, respectively, 10.5, 14.8, and 20.4 light-years from Earth. This means that a signal sent as of this writing, in 2018, wouldn’t reach Gliese 581 d until 2038. A spaceship traveling at one-quarter the cosmic speed limit wouldn’t arrive until 2098, and a message to simply affirm that it had arrived safely wouldn’t return to Earth until 2118. And Gliese 581 is relatively close as far as exoplanets go. Just consider that he Andromeda Galaxy is some 2.5 million light-years from Earth and the Triangulum Galaxy about 3 million light-years away. What’s more, there are some 54 galaxies in our Local Group, which is about 10 million light-years wide, within a universe that stretches some 93 billion light-years across.

These facts make it look hopeless for a governing system to effectively coordinate law enforcement activities, judicial decisions, and so on, across cosmic distances. The universe is simply too big for a government to establish law and order in a top-down fashion.

But there is another strategy for achieving peace: Future civilizations could use a policy of deterrence to prevent other civilizations from launching first strikes. A policy of this sort, which must be credible to work, says: “I won’t attack you first, but if you attack me first, I have the capabilities to destroy you in retaliation.” This was the predicament of the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War, known as “mutually-assured destruction” (MAD).

But could this work in the cosmopolitical realm of space? It seems unlikely. First, consider how many future species there could be: upwards of many billions. While some of these species would be too far away to pose a threat to each other—although see the qualification below—there will nonetheless exist a huge number within one’s galactic backyard. The point is that the sheer number would make it incredibly hard to determine who initiated a first strike, if one is attacked. And without a method for identifying instigators with high reliability, one’s policy of deterrence won’t be credible. And if one’s policy of deterrence isn’t credible, then one has no such policy!

Second, ponder the sorts of weapons that could become available to future spacefaring civilizations. Redirected asteroids (a.k.a., “planetoid bombs”), “rods from God,” sun guns, laser weapons, and no doubt an array of exceptionally powerful super-weapons that we can’t currently imagine. It has even been speculated that the universe might exist in a “metastable” state and that a high-powered particle accelerator could tip the universe into a more stable state. This would create a bubble of total annihilation that spreads in all directions at the speed of light—which opens up the possibility that a suicidal cult, or whatever, weaponizes a particle accelerator to destroy the universe.

The question, then, is whether defensive technologies could effectively neutralize such risks. There’s a lot to say here, but for the present purposes just note that, historically speaking, defensive measures have very often lagged behind offensive measures, thus resulting in periods of heightened vulnerability. This is an important point because when it comes to existentially dangerous super-weapons, one only needs to be vulnerable for a short period to risk annihilation.

So far as I can tell, this seriously undercuts the credibility of policies of deterrence. Again, if species A cannot convince species B that if B strikes it, A will launch an effective and devastating counter strike, then B may take a chance at attacking A. In fact, B does not need to be malicious to do this: it only needs to worry that A might, at some point in the near- or long-term future, attack B, thus making it rational for B to launch a preemptive strike (to eliminate the potential danger). Thinking about this predicament in the radically multi-polar conditions of space, it seems fairly obvious that conflict will be extremely difficult to avoid.

The lesson of this argument is not to uncritically assume that venturing into the heavens will necessarily make us safer or more existentially secure. This is a point that organizations hoping to colonize Mars, such as SpaceX, NASA, and Mars One should seriously contemplate. How can humanity migrate to another planet without bringing our problems with us? And how can different species that spread throughout the cosmos maintain peace when sufficient mutual trust is unattainable and advanced weaponry could destroy entire civilizations?

Human beings have made many catastrophically bad decisions in the past. Some of these outcomes could have been avoided if only the decision-makers had deliberated a bit more about what could go wrong—i.e., had done a “premortem” analysis. We are in that privileged position right now with respect to space colonization. Let’s not dive head-first into waters that turn out to be shallow.

Phil Torres is the director of the Project for Human Flourishing and the author of Morality, Foresight, and Human Flourishing: An Introduction to Existential Risks.

This article was originally published on July 23, 2018, by Nautilus, and is republished here with permission.

Did you enjoy this story?

 

Multiverses

November 12th, 2019

Sure, there really are loads of universes out there, a multiverse. You just have to go looking. You will like this.

 

 

Rui Sonofel, Lifetime gathering knowledge from multiple areas

Updated Jun 30, 2019 · Upvoted by Abhas Mitra, Ph.D. Astrophysics, Head, Theoretical Astrophysics Section, BARC. Best Young Physicist Prize in 198… · Author has 6.1k answers and 12.6m answer views

Originally Answered: Though some physicists are avid believers of the Multiverse Theory, is there any factual evidence to support it?

Though some physicists are avid believers of the Multiverse Theory, is there any factual evidence to support it?

Yes. One. The fact that we are here is the biggest evidence. Although it isn’t in any way proof. At best it’s a big question mark.

I know some people are also great supporters of Stephen Hawking theory about the creation of the universe. And although the idea seems good it isn’t flawless. Hawking theory fails to explain where the “ground” came from, what is the “ground”, and what mechanism actually “creates the mount” while “digging the hole”.

So far there’s data that supports the idea that this universe is finite, but none that supports the idea that’s infinite. So if the universe if finite, then that initial energy had to come from somewhere. And that somewhere is a great unknown. But if it came from somewhere then we can theorize there’s something else beyond this universe.

One generalized theory is that of the Multiverse. But even the idea of Multiverse isn’t seen exactly the same by everyone. There’s actually 5 theories about what the Multiverse actually may be.

The first theory is directly connected to Black Holes. It states that when a black hole is created, and the singularity in it, that eventually the singularity bursts and inflates into another new universe. That remains connected to our universe until the black hole dissipates. Here’s a little show and tell…

So first when the black hole is formed, it creates a singularity. A point of energy of nigh infinite density.

Eventually that singularity expands into a new universe. Creating new space-time.

And we get something like this. Where each black hole is nothing more than the creation point of a new universe. And that our universe was created in the same way.

There’s also another theory that defends that each universe is actually created apart from each other. Where we have what can be called a extradimension, that most people call Multiverse. And from the fabric/composition of that Multiverse, is from each of the universes are formed.

Something like this…

There’s also the idea that our universe is actually a multiverse. That during the inflation, speed wasn’t evenly all throughout space-time. And our universe is actually a multiverse divided in sections.

And here there are two sub-theories, that say A) it goes on forever B) as the final most advanced section of the multiverse comes to an end, a new Big Bang happens and thus the Multiverse is constantly renewing itself in a endless cycle.

Something like this…

This would be an example of the sectioned multiverse. Where there’s a limited amount of sections that endlessly recycle each other.


William S. Frankl, MD, All Rights Reserved