Another Fantastic “gift” for the C-R Theory, from NASA

[an item about the Lunar ionosphere], but first:

      Welcome to our 40,000^th visitor to the home page, and still counting.  Many more have visited the other parts of this web-site, too, without always visiting the home page. I hope you all find what you are looking-for, right here, at the C-R theories.

      I was recently looking over a review of last year’s findings (for 2011), and noticed an item that only the C-R theory could appreciate, and welcome “with open arms”. Apparently, some scientists have known about this for many years, but the item was news to me, [although not as surprising as others have felt at this news].

      NASA just announced a new theory from one of their scientists about why the lunar ionosphere exists. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/14nov_lunarionosphere/ While the C-R theory does not necessarily agree with this new theory, it is gratified to see mention that some scientists have apparently known for years that there was an ionosphere on the moon.  Another article, I will link to http://www.isas.ac.jp/publications/report/678/67803.html also mentioned that this lunar ionosphere existed some 10's of km. above the moon’s surface.  It also mentioned that from 500, up to 1000 extra electrons, per cc [or cm³] surround positively charged particles of moondust.  (If one does the math, for the large number of potential cc’s and km’s involved, there should be alot-of-em.)

      Elsewhere, an article stated that the Soviet Luna 19 and 22 missions also detected this lunar ionosphere, back when they were operating.

      I also found an article about similarities to Mars’ ionosphere.  At least Mars had a thin atmosphere to support the zone with electrons.  This indicates that the ionosphere is not just a “local” problem with the moon, but has something in common with other planets, too.

      Since the moon is not supposed to have any (significant) atmosphere at all, the scientists were surprised that our moon still had a discernable ionosphere.  One of the articles promised science would provide more updates within the next 40 years.

      While this news that there was an ionosphere on the moon is “tolerated” by some theories, I would say that only the C-R theories would “warmly welcome this phenomenon into the pro-C-R theories family”.

      I know of no other theory which has advocated as strongly for any evidence supporting the presence of excess electrons as publicly as the C-R theory.  While this does not necessarily “prove” the C-R theory’s ideas are right, it is a nice bit of supporting phenomenon that no other theory “wants, needs, or appreciates”.

      While I’m sure NASA did not have the C-R theory in mind when announcing this lunar ionosphere, I tend to regard it “as a gift” to only the C-R theory, and kind-of “an annoying pest”, to every other theory.

      The article announced that one of their scientists had a new theory to explain some of the lunar ionosphere’s properties, by having moondust ionized by ultraviolet light, then eventually lodging in the ionosphere.  It was thought that the dust would explain some atmospheric glow-like phenomena noticed by the original astronauts. That theory did not provide a good explanation for the electrons, however, which is where the C-R theory might be helpful.

      While I have not yet seen anything stating the total estimated quantity of electrons involved, it probably is less than the “up-to 5 million amperes (each second)” of flux-tube currents flowing between Jupiter and Io.  With known auroras on most planets and even on some moons with atmospheres in the solar system, science should find a harder time denying that there is “something electrical” going-on just about everywhere we look, nearby.  Lightning and thunderstorms also feature prominently in planet’s weather systems.

      Just last year, a planet-circling storm on Saturn showed a persistence and a fierceness unseen before.  The March 2012 Astronomy magazine mentions on page #19, that the storm enveloped over 2 billion square miles, or over 5 billion square kilometers in Saturn’s northern hemisphere.  NASA’s Cassini spacecraft provided the details.

      Since the energy that Saturn gets from the sun’s light is considerably weaker than on Earth, due to the increased distance, could an abundance of electrons be part of the cause of the violent thunderstorms?

      Another item of interest last year was the discovery of at least 6 “Y” class white-dwarf stars, with some having surface temperatures of “a balmy 80° F”.  If space itself was not so hostile, one could *almost place your lawn chair on the surface, and be comfortable. [*Readers, please do not attempt to do so, outer space is still too dangerous for recreational suntan purposes, much less white-dwarf surfaces.]

      I would venture to say that those tepid temperatures would tend to minimize any possible energy contribution by ongoing fusion reactions as the ultimate temperature source.

      In a similar vein, a new star was seen to have spiral arms.  While many galaxies were known featuring spiral arms, this was the first known individual star to have such a feature clearly displayed.  Here again, I would like to point out that such a feature seems much less possible for a fusion-powered star, where gravity must first gather enough hydrogen gas to the center, (to get the fusion started), than for some other potential energy producing method, [like: Black-Hole ^C-R powered], not needing a critical mass to be gathered-up to initiate fusion.

      It is possible that greater insights might be gained in the planetary-generating process, if further pictures of stars like this become available for study.  Time-sequence shots will likely prove quite beneficial, too, for information about planet-building.

      Yet another recent item was from the Voyager satellites, now exiting the sun’s protective bubble, (the heliopause) and encountering the raw magnetic fields thought to be present in true interstellar space.  These have been more varied, and more turbulent, than were expected. http://www.space.com/13824-nasa-voyager-spacecraft-interstellar-space.html

For 2012:

      My overall goal in the C-R theory is to show visitors some new items, and have them reconsider how science understands several key phenomena, especially Black-Holes ^C-R , gravity, and our entire universe.  I do apologize that I could not simply use all of the pre-existing concepts, and then build upon them, but had to (very) reluctantly discard some (way too many, in the expert’s opinions), to make-for a better overall fit.

      If you start out disagreeing with all, or many of the ideas here, that is expected.  If it takes you several visits to warm-up to these new ideas, and start to understand why they simply work better, and give a more human-friendly path to your reasoning, using new concepts not available anywhere else, that is expected, too.

      I can easily sympathize with those who cannot accept these new ideas, as I came from their perspective originally.  In my case, an original line of new reasoning led me down a different path, and I was able to gain new insight (for me, at least), and I believe that I now understand what I could not realize back then.  That is why I can empathize with those who have not accepted these ideas, as I can understand your perplexity; but I also think I found a new and better way to understand what you are actually looking-for, even if you do not know it, yet.

      I would urge you to temporarily accept these ideas, for argument’s sake, (without rejecting them first), then take them out for a test drive, get the feel of their power, and evaluate them after a brief trial period.  If you do not accept these ideas, they will remain as “foolishness” to you.  If you insist on holding-on to a list of Newtonian views, you WILL certainly reject the newer ones.  I try to treat you incoming readers more-as pre-realizers, rather than condemn you (by the C-R theory’s standards) as unworthy.

      If I did not feel that I gained true, unique, and useful insights from them, I would have left you alone, and kept these thoughts to myself, for my own use.  I am excited by yet another opportunity to share these ideas in this continuing series of blogs.  What I think I know (now), is what I never even suspected, before I adopted the C-R theory as my own.  If I can convey to you some of the concepts that I think I have found-out, and I am not just inventing something fake, to lead you astray, then I might help some-of-you to understand, or at least, start-to-consider a new pathway to understand the problems, and a new solution, to gravity.  The C-R theory also uses new approaches to radically change [and ultimately, simplify] how you “see” our universe.

      Let me say, I never anticipated that I might gain insights that have eluded others, and I cannot rule-out some special “help from above”, but I cannot prove it, either.  I can state that I now have a reasonable degree of confidence I have significant understandings that you will never independently discover.  This is less due to “my brilliance”, than to the haphazard and convoluted steps that it took, {or that nature led me thru}, which are quite unlikely to ever be repeated independently.

      See for yourselves if the C-R theory ideas are not simpler, and more direct to understand, and more fulfilling than the competition.  If it takes you 5 to 10 years to switch sides, it will be worth it.  If you cannot accept it, maybe I can still provide you with new ways to look at other old ideas.

      If C-R’s critics say, but science is not supposed to be like this, I would heartily agree.  BUT, since I have these answers now, I am not throwing them back into an abyss, to try my “luck” again.  If I cannot fire-up your sense of curiosity, and pique your interest here, let me encourage you to try again (for something better?), elsewhere.  If you will not try-to accept some new concepts, you simply will fail to make the required connections.  If you will let me, I will try to impart to you, (with considerably less grief than it initially took me), a new set of pathways.

      If you can accept my sense of humor, please enjoy the Comedy-Recycling theory. If you are from another country, and do not fully understand the potential comic twists and puns and potential that the English language is capable of, please use the Completely-Recycling theory to review my ideas.

      Thank you for visiting, and stopping by.

      If you have questions, or have topics you would like me to discuss (C-R Theory related ones, mostly), please feel free to write in.  You can click on the Contact the Author banner on the top of the homepage.

      P.S., we may soon start a discussion topic corner (or board) where home readers can post topics for discussion, or join-in.

      I have just renewed my web-hosting arrangement for this site, and I have upgraded to a higher level of service, greater on-site storage capacity, and the newest-available web-server potential methods for you to download the information stored here.  If I can get busy, and create new items, I would like to feature more training materials, too.

      It is also possible that we might have a link-to recommendation site, where home readers can link to interesting sites which have some relevance to the C-R theory related items, pro or con, or do a particularly good job of explaining a topic.

      I would like to spend some time this year, going over many of the basic items where the C-R theory has differences from almost all of the conventional sources.  Since there are no other places where you home readers can obtain these details, I try hard to re-explain them in new manners, hoping that each time I do, more readers can catch on to the truely vast scope of the changes needed, and to try again to explain just how different the C-R theory is.

      When I understood just where science probably went wrong (although they do not know it yet), there were specific areas where the C-R theory needed to change.  They are not random, capricious or arbitrary, but were mandated by the new realizations of how nature might work.  I can state that I had no agenda at the start, before I ever had this theory.  I never set-out to write any theory, either.  I simply wanted to know how nature worked.

      I had always assumed that I might walk down the aisles of a library, and find an obscure book from years-ago, that no-one had ever heard of (or that modern science had forgotten about) from long-ago, and I would find an answer that made sense to me, and would explain something, or give me good insight into the modern world.

      Writing a new theory was the last thing I had ever intended to do.  It never occurred to me that I might “stumble over” a simple, NEW idea, that would lead me into a whole-new way of thinking about how Black-Holes ^C-R work.  Even then, it was quite a while before I intended to write something major* about this new way of thinking. (*I did typewrite about 10 pages on the new ideas shortly after my first insights, to share with friends, in 1979.  I had no good way, back then to make those ideas public.)

      It was probably 5 years after my initial thoughts, when I first realized that I would need a NEW way to describe a Black-Hole ^C-R, or to specify something different-enough about one (but without trying to come-up with a totally new name for one).  I ultimately decided to add the superscripted, hyphenated ^C-R after a capitalized, hyphenated Black-Hole, something like a “trademarked” item with a ^tm superscript afterward, but without the “financial” exclusivity.  Even though the term is ALMOST the same (as a black hole), it is intended to describe a specific item, with very real differences.

      If I can ever “train” the world into recognizing the differences, and to start-to appreciate the real benefits of using the C-R theory’s pathway [or now: theories’ pathways, for both versions], this term still is “comfortable-enough” to sound the same, like something we are already familiar-with.  It is not that I enjoy taking the effort into adding the superscripted ^C-R, every time, but I need to show there is such a difference that must be noticed (and acknowledged) differently.  In retrospect, it may not have helped me very much with the search engines, which throw away or ignore the superscripting, but it should help most of the home-readers to start to recognize there is a new concept that has not yet been accepted (much less, even considered), by science.

      HISTORICAL NOTE: Before 2005, I added the superscripted ^C-R without the space between (as in: Black-Hole^C-R), but I think that ruined many chances for the search engines back then “to find the imbedded term, black hole”.  The main search engines also ignore the significance of the dashes (or minuses).

      Although I do thank the many search-engines for bringing in a majority of the first-time people who find the C-R theory, (as compared to those who hear about it directly from a friend, or from passed-out business cards, or limited advertising), I do wish I could get them to consider the dashes and superscripts in the text (especially in MY TEXTS), are AS IMPORTANT AS the “regular text”.

      I would be open to reader’s suggestions as to better options, or a more “search-engine friendly” way to get the point across.  I have been using this method since at least 2005, and visually, I am very happy with the result I SEE that something important is being offered, that STANDS OUT from the crowd.

      I would also welcome reader’s assistance in finding new links to known phenomena that would help to support (or even refute) any of the C-R theory’s ideas, especially if those sites are not written in English.  If your home country has articles relevant to the C-R theory’s expectations of phenomena of excess electrical currents, magnetic fields, positive ionizations of supernovae, which you come across, I would appreciate your letting me know about it.

      This is where I could ask those readers who DO find the C-R theory ideas interesting, or at least, discussion-worthy, to recommend it to your friends.  As a joke, I also recommend, if you hate the C-R theory, please recommend it to your enemies. Either way, we could use the publicity.

      Part of my goal is to get a good dialog started, and really have science reconsider what they so easily accepted, almost without questioning it, some 90 years ago.  I am trying to make it easy for you, by showing you what to look-at, where to look, what to notice, and WHAT WAS MISSED.  If my arguments are invalid, or just stupid, they will not hold up.

      If I were merely fibbing, falsifying, or fabricating great claims, I would not have picked excess electrons coming from Black-Holes ^C-R as a likely item for home readers to gullibly fall for.  I picked that idea only because it fit-in so well, and suggested a likely new use for matter that science would never suspect.  I felt compelled-enough to demand that this phenomena is real.  This either happens, or it does not.  The C-R theory’s usefulness depends heavily whether this phenomenon really exists, and can be found in nature.

      If the phenomena of excess electrons ejected from every Black-Hole ^C-R is not there, and therefore: cannot be found, the C-R theory IS wrong.  The last 30 years of discoveries have been kinder to the C-R theory, than should be the case if it is wrong.

      Again, my thanks to all of the 40,000 plus visitors to the home page, and other visitors to more specific portions of the C-R theory.  If this material helps YOU understand what is seen in this universe any better, or helps you chose another (even better?) option, I am glad I could help.  Even if you were merely entertained, I hope I could shed some new light on what you learn, and help to create a hunger for more knowledge.  If I can show you some of what is already known-about, we ALL gain from that.

      Much of what we might need to understand this universe may already be at hand, if we can just make the proper connections as to how “what we see” fits together.  If I can contribute to your puzzle-solving abilities, and you can contribute to mine, the world may be yet better off.

Jerry Reynard Feb. 6^th, 2012