Blog for the year-end of December, 2011

Part 2 of the blog, about Bob Berman’s 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos, plus more

 

      We just recorded our 38,000^th visitor the other week, and I would like to thank all of those who have come by to visit.  We also had a record week for visitors and bandwidth served, which means that at least some people are visiting and showing an interest in this site.

      I’ve been having meetings with my webmaster to discuss positive changes to this site, to try to improve your options at how information is presented, and to give a wider variety of options and looks to first time visitors.  We will try to start to incorporate some of those enhancements in the very near future, probably in 2012.

      Thanks to all who return regularly to these blogs, and welcome to all first timers.  I try to help readers appreciate the C-R theory’s insights which mainstream science does not understand, look-for, or want.

      I left off in the last blog without listing more of the 50 weirdest objects, as I was running out of time, but wanted to get that blog out.  I believe that the C-R theory uniquely can help readers understand some aspects of what we really see, and what is reported.  Astronomers and physicists are reluctant to consider “amateur” points-of-view, and they stick quite firmly to what they were taught.  Usually, that serves them well, unless what they were taught was wrong from the start.

      For the home-reader, this gives you the opportunity to consider these new ideas before the “insiders”, the full time professional astronomers and cosmologists, will even consent to look at these ideas.  There is such a “bias” in the academic community against revolutionary new ideas [especially when one needs as many of them simultaneously as the C-R theory needs], many will not even look at new ideas until they have been vetted by their peers, who all hold the same prejudices, and have been trained the same way.

      I wish that this situation were not so, and I have tried to offer the C-R theory in good faith, but the gap between world-wide-acceptance, and the innovations required is too large for the time this theory has been around (over 30 years, and on-line for at least 15 years). [My suspicion is that the C-R theory needs 2-3 generations to pass-by until a sufficient amount of new understanding can be presented in a way that can be accepted.]

      Part of that is my lack of persuasiveness, but most lies in the amount of old stuff that must be overthrown before the “new understanding” can take place.  Very soon, I will attempt to make simpler, and more direct claims, and break-down some of the C-R theory ideas into smaller packages, with more distinct new sub-sections.

      As always, please feel free to write in with any questions you might have.  I expect there are many of you who would like to do so, but very few actually do write in.  I also apologize that this web-site here is the only place on the entire web promoting these new ideas, except for a few sites re-posting some of my earlier work from the older GeoCities web site. (Those sites miss my later revisions, and newer phenomenon which was unknown to me at that time.)

      I try to show that the C-R theory ideas offer new lines of “causation” which are not known, and have NEVER been considered.  This is mostly because the textbooks ALL say that “it does not happen like the C-R theory says.”

      I will also ask myself, is this new theory reasonable? I constantly “think” I am finding new items in the news which help to support the C-R theory, and illustrate the ideas in the real world results.  I would like to let the readers look at these items, and test for themselves to see whether it sounds as reasonable to them.

      I will resume this blog with item #25 on Bob Berman’s list, M87, a massive agglomeration of galaxies or globular clusters, including the largest Black-Hole ^C-R, some 6 billion solar masses, known to science**. [As I wrote this part, just this week, scientists have found new, even bigger Black-Holes ^C-R, of at least 10 billion solar masses.] {**NOTE also: The C-R theory maintains that our entire universe is the inside portion of a vastly larger Black-Hole ^C-R, having the mass (inside) of our entire universe, but science has not accepted, much less, embraced that idea, yet.}

      Of course, the C-R theory also believes that the Black-Hole ^C-R there is a “standard” Black-Hole ^C-R.  This means that the massive jets shooting out from the central mass have unseen filaments that extend for 100,000 light years.  The article mentions that the deep blue color of the beam indicates synchrotron radiation, produced by electrons, twisted-about in intense magnetic fields.  One should note that ONLY an abundance of loose, highly energetic electrons, could combine their individual magnetic fields to provide almost exactly what is described in this article.

      I think it is safe to say {from this article}, mainstream science has not got a clue as to why these jets occur.  These jets certainly could seem to me to suggest enormous quantities of high-energy electrons.  Should I hazard a “guess” that those jets are not “uncaused”? That I know-of, only the C-R theory claims that enormous quantities of electrons are freed-up, stripped-off or peeled-away from every consumed nucleus, for every atom eaten.

      While I do accept that “by-the-book” this process does not go on {in their books opinion}, is it really that unreasonable? For example: whenever I eat an orange [or a banana, or peanuts in the shell], I peel it first before I eat it.  If one found however many orange peels in my vicinity, would it not be more probable evidence supporting my diet, rather than the claim that the peels appeared from some other {antimatter?} universe?

      I know that “science-experts” strongly disagree with this electron-stripping idea, as they are taught that any knowledge of the internal electrical charge cannot be hidden, and they simply do not question that idea.  I would politely remind home-readers that not one of them has ever successfully entered either a (generic) black hole or a Black-Hole ^C-R and tested that assumption from the inside.  I would simply ask the home-reader to “try out this idea” as a test, without first rejecting it.

      What I am attempting to do is provide a reasonable, new hypothesis to suggest why this “known” situation occurs.  If I can get you to understand this simple mechanism, you might understand how our universe “exploits” this situation, in a way never before considered.  HINT: The universe either does this, or it does not.  But, if IT DOES do this, then we have an “unreasonable” situation, reasonably explained.

      Even if you DO NOT believe the C-R theory, please check out the existing scientific literature and LOOK FOR known situations that resemble what I have described.

      {GUIDE: Look for: Large numbers of high-energy electrons, enormous magnetic fields, causes of continuing “local” expansion that do not “cool-off”, or cease, as the expansion continues, and high-speed jets “of something” leaving the Black-Hole’s ^C-R vicinity at speeds of at least 99.99% of lightspeed.}

      NOTE: The way that the Black-Hole ^C-R accumulated positive charge stores-up, or packs-in immediately inside of the Schwarzschild radius.  This volume (or region) IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THIS UNIVERSE where “the ESCAPE VELOCITY is GREATER-THAN the SPEED-of-LIGHT”.  This “internal condition” IS what prevents the knowledge-of the positive charges from being communicated-out.  Because any electromagnetic energy [as particles or waves, or combinations] cannot travel above light-speed, [as speeds above lightspeed WOULD be required to escape], this charge-quantity-information is insulated and isolated inside, but NEVER lost.

SUPPOSITION: If YOU {and most of science} believe something, without PROOF, and ALMOST EVERYONE accepts it, THAT does not MAKE IT true!!! [Just - believed]

DEMONSTRATION:

      Let me make a key point here.  Mainstream science believes that, after starting-off, out-of a singularity, when temperatures were around 10⁹⁶ degrees, all of the 4 forces [gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force], started-off as equal strength, and they were all derived from the same-type of starting source, but as the temperature from the initial big bang lowered, the individual forces broke-off and “froze-out”, and became clearly distinct and different.

      Where the C-R theory has a clear difference is that the C-R theory now expects gravity and electromagnetism each use totally different propagation-styles (even though they are similar, and both act as inverse-square forces), and they behave differently across the Schwarzschild radius (or the event horizon) because their active causal mechanism is quite different.

      STRONG HINT: This condition at the outside of the Black-Hole ^C-R is not random or accidental, and the uses will be revealed elsewhere within the C-R theory.

      NOTE 2: Since this portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R can only accumulate more matter and energy, [BECAUSE nothing from the inside can escape or radiate-out], it stores-up THE ONLY KNOWN FORCE, in this universe, that can overcome gravity, when it is allowed to do so. [Positive charges, or an accumulation of protons and proton-neutrons]

      NOTE 3: This Neutral Zone ^C-R, something like a physics-lawless region of piggy-bank crossed with a storage closet, holds the real secret of the Black-Hole ^C-R in operation, and it’s intended role.  HINT: Something akin to an overfilled, steaming teacup’s saucer plate, a sufficient BUMP might sometimes release some (maybe even ALL) of the trapped contents.

      NOTE 4: If this region’s accumulation is sufficiently twisted or bent, once the neutralized protons and neutrons are re-freed-up, creating an explosive, energy liberation on a scale only exceeded by direct, matter-antimatter annihilation, releases positive charges which repel-away everything they encounter on a scale 40 magnitudes [powers of ten] larger than the gravitational attraction, until the charges are re-neutralized.

      NOTE 5: These released positive charges then explode violently, to create the enormous, expanding balls of glowing energy, which are so evident in many of the Hubble’s most spectacular photographs.  These released charges also continue to forcefully expand and glow (radiate energy) long after a fusion-generated temperature should have cooled-off.

      Since the entire energy-release, process-cycle described above is not expected (or even ALLOWED) from the standard view, every occurrence is either misattributed to runaway fusion, or dismissed, or else credited to dark matter’s mysterious effects.

      Item 23, Eta Carinae (and the Homunculus Nebula around it) is one of the most interesting stars known.  In 1677, Edmund Halley listed it as 4^th magnitude.  In the early 1700s, it was one of the brightest stars in the lesser-known constellation of Carina (the keel). It then dimmed again, until about 1820.  It then brightened until, at one point, in April 1843, it was the second brightest star in the sky.  Afterwards, it again dimmed considerably.

      I believe one of the Electric Universe web-sites claimed this star, Eta Carinae, was a “poster child”, [or the best-known stellar example] against the Herzsprung-Russell diagram, the standard-guide-chart that is believed to represent the normal development-path that stars are “supposed to follow”, over their lifetimes of millions to billions of years.  

      The interested reader may note that this star has gone through several of those phases, brightening and dimming over decades, during a relatively short observation period, compared to multi-million-year star-lifetimes, may demonstrate that “this bad star has not read our physics books” to “know-how” to behave normally, as astronomers expect.

      {Science now considers this star as a Wolf-Rayette type-of star, or as a false-supernova.  It is supposed to go into a supernova sometime within the next 100,000 years.  The long-period variability of this star, where it repeatedly dims and brightens over magnitudes, does not play-well with a “standard-textbook understanding” of how the fusion-based process in a star should unfold.  It may well fit-in better to a small-Black-Hole ^C-R powered model, where the star’s power output could vary wildly, based upon it’s gravitational diet, yet also periodically, over a shorter scale of a few years or decades, instead of millions or billions of years.}

      The central star is now believed to be part of a binary pair, placed inside an obscuring, but expanding nebula called the homunculus nebula, but which resembles a short barbell, or a peanut-shell-like shape of two glowing-globes of roiling-expansion at opposite ends of a central volume shaped something like the handle of a barbell {a handheld, one-hand, cast-iron training weight}.  

      The very peculiar shape of the released energy seems quite incompatible with any fusion-based process, (which is very unlikely to easily split-in-two), inside a star.  The confined charge-region, on the outside of the sphere could possibly work if two near-simultaneous charged-particle releases occurred at opposite ends of a Neutral Zone ^C-R.

      NOTE: I have blogged about this particular star, and the 3 other “rebel ones” before, but this magazine article gave me an excuse to re-visit this particular one.

      The next item to discuss is number 22 on Bob’s list, The Cat’s Eye Nebula, or NCG 6543, and it also provides the spectacular cover illustration for this special issue.  The glowing shells and colorful bubbles in this nebula are vaguely similar to the previous nebula, but this one looks like it has been around longer.  There seem to be older, regular-release-interval shells of matter, released maybe a few thousand years ago, with younger, energy-bubbles inside, twisted and skewed around even more energy-bubbles, all stuffed inside these large, hollowed-out [expanding] shells.

      According to the article, the central star inside is around 150,000° F or 80,000° C. It is also giving off a stellar wind at 20 tons of it’s mass, lost per second.  High energy X-rays are emitted, even though the star’s surface-temperature is way too cool to generate them.  

      I would propose that the release of the X-rays comes from the left-over electrons shed by a central Black-Hole ^C-R in that vicinity, while the high-energy “proton-shells”, find a way to escape from a central Neutral Zone ^C-R, [where they were stored], on a semi-regular (100-1000 year) recurring basis.  [NOTE: the Neutral Zone ^C-R itself may not be disturbed violently-enough to totally free all of the trapped contents] This scenario might be a more perfect-fit to release, energize, and drive-out the expanding, glowing-shells, then produce yet more energy-release phenomenon inside at some later time.  

      NOTE: The released “proton-shells” do not cool-off as they expand, because the expansion is not (initial) temperature-driven, but is “positive-mutual-repulsion driven”. The sum of the combined actions there could then account-for what is actually seen, if a C-R theory-like scenario is occurring.

 

      The next two numerical items are also featured on the same page, item number 21 being the V381 Nor, the last of the microquasars.  The C-R theory maintains that quasars are only another part-of the (total lifetime) phase in the complete ecological-cycle of matter-energy-recycling, using Black-Holes ^C-R.  The phenomenon is similar to, but much smaller, as the scale changes from the far-distant to the more local, from the increasing size, older quasars we are more familiar-with, as the distance to the Black-Hole ^C-R gets larger.

      NOTE: As the quasars get older [more distant and more redshifted], science compounds the problem of understanding by falsely “correcting” the quasar’s “observed” [real-time] redshift (or it’s ongoing real-time-rate) and “restoring” it to an earth-vicinity rate, rather than leaving the rate intact, as it was actually observed.  They buy-into Einstein’s {false} idea from relativity that everywhere-else in this universe the time-rate elsewhere IS IDENTICAL to our time-rate here on earth.

      This complicates science’s understanding of the process, and gives science the idea that the distant quasar’s energy output [way-out “there”] is even greater than it truthfully is, if the true-energy release-rate occurs at the redshift seen by us, that indicates a reduced, real-time-rate.  The C-R theory would maintain that this same process is still ongoing, including right now, {everywhere in this universe}, at approximately the rate observed, if only we could go “out-there” and check on the events “there”, in real time, rather than time-delayed, as we must when we are observing while residing here, on earth.

      The next two items on the list are featured starting on the same page.  Number 21, V381 Nor, also called XTE-J1550-564, the object sits “just” 17,000 light-years from earth, within the Milky Way.  It is a “scaled-down” quasar-lite-like version of much larger, much further away quasar-systems.  The central Black-Hole ^C-R is “only” about 10.6 solar masses, orbited by a binary star approximately 2.5 solar masses.  The article states that, in 1998, this object brightened 1.5 times the brightest current X-ray source (which is the Crab Nebula), also producing “many quadrillion volts of cheap electricity”.

      Here we have a known object producing enormous quantities of electrical charges, at gargantuan voltage ranges.  This is very close-to, (if not exactly-like), what the C-R theory expects from dining Black-Holes ^C-R.  Since the radiation observed was in the X-ray range, this means that extreme magnetic conditions for charged-matter are being encountered.  There is also a dynamic here where a variation in the matter-consumption-rate, while nearing the Black-Hole’s ^C-R vicinity, actually seems-to vary the observed energy (radiated) output.  

      This gives the object’s X-ray brightness a quick variability, and a diet-based flexibility, that thermonuclear fusion-produced radiation cannot match. {Fusion is not allowed to vary that quickly, as the central mass is larger, and less subject to change.} The expected energy-output from a star undergoing nuclear meltdown (at it’s end-of-lifetime stellar collapse) is much more constrained on it’s ability to brighten and dim repeatedly, and periodically, over hours, days, or weeks.  According to the H-R diagram (Herzsprung-Russell), which describes how a star is supposed to age and expire, millions of years are needed for most star’s full cycles.  

      The fusion reaction-rate should not simply be switchable, or scalable, up and down, over a short-period rate.  Fusion only occurs long after gravity accumulates a substantial, central-blob consisting of a massive amount of gas-matter, which is not free to just switch-on and off as fresh, external matter arrives on-scene, trickling-in.

      If the energy-output of the weird object is more external, or “diet-based”, then what goes in to that object should much more strongly modulate, or affect the radiation-energy output that comes-out of that object.  The question is, is there a discernable, predictable output, or is the regional conflict there [right outside the Black-Hole ^C-R] an indication of a Black-Hole ^C-R dining on only what matter is available? The newest observations seem to favor high quantity, variable-rate, externally-sourced, dining on matter, with leftover electrons possessing abundant energy.

      Even though the magazine articles were not written to support the C-R theory ideas, I would ask the home-readers to evaluate objectively what unknowns the text reveals, and ask if this is compatible with conventional ideas on the ongoing processes inside galaxies. {Answer: No} Then, after those ideas are ruled-out, can the same phenomenon seen there be used to indicate a C-R like process?

      (HINT: Would I have written this, and inserted it inside this blog, if it did not?).

      NOTE: The reports of enormous quantities of enormous energies-worth of electrons and high-energy X-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, radio waves, infrared, light, microwaves, and the like, are not good indicators of a proper understanding for almost anything conventional, EXCEPT for the C-R theory-like ideas.

      The second weird object, listed on the same page as the above, concerns high energy cosmic rays, as item #20.  If there is one huge advantage for the C-R theory here, it is that only the C-R theory has a built-in “natural” mechanism to produce abundant, high energy positive charges, in bulk.  One interesting fact covered in the article is that 89% of all cosmic rays are single protons, with 10% alpha particles, while only 1% are electrons.

      Almost every conventionally known energy-exciter process should accelerate ALL charged particles in the same manner.  Since the electrons are individually much more excitable, as well as lighter in weight, it is very surprising to the experts that there are not as many high-energy electrons included as cosmic rays.  There is no other competition, theory-wise, so far, that can adequately explain what process imparts the high energy to protons, while virtually ignoring most of the electrons.

      Only the C-R theory naturally transforms protons into positive cosmic rays as a by-product of “normal operations”.  Conventional theory is “stuck in the mud” to try to create a logical reason for the cosmic rays that occur naturally.  This article expresses this exclusion of electrons from cosmic rays as a true mystery.

      There are some natural cosmic rays with truly astounding energies.  I have read elsewhere that last year (in 2010) scientists measured a single cosmic ray with over 300 quintillion eV.  The article states that a single proton can have the impact-energy of a Wimbledon tennis ball at over 100 mph (or 160 km/hr).

      Even at these high energies, I believe the C-R theory is capable of helping to explain why the highest-energy cosmic rays get their energy.

      The next item, #18 on the list, is a galaxy with a large redshift, which is far older than it is supposed to be.  Only found in 2010, galaxy CLG J02182-05102, is composed of at least 60 members, all intensely red.  Some at the center have 10 times the stars that our Milky Way galaxy has.  The big problem for conventional theory [the Big Bang] is that galaxies that massive and developed are not supposed to occur “that early” in this universe.  That awkward situation is no problem for the C-R theory, as the C-R theory says that this universe is infinitely old, but it makes a dilemma for the Big Bang. The red shift indicates that (by conventional reasoning) it’s light should have left around 9.6 billion years ago.

      While that is bad news for conventional understanding, it is great news for the C-R theory, which expects many more “old-looking” galaxies will be found as our equipment improves.

 

      The next item, #17, is SGR 1806-20.  On March 5^th, 1979, a large gamma ray burst pegged the radiation meters on spacecraft near Venus and Earth, for 1/5 of a second. The burst was tracked to a small neutron star with an outrageous (by conventional thinking) magnetic field over 1 quadrillion gauss.  From later on, in 2004, another burst came from this same magnetar, emitting more energy in 1/10 of a second than our sun emitted in 100,000 years.  This 12 mile wide neutron star is located 50,000 light years away, across the galaxy, on the opposite side of the center of our galaxy.

      According to this article, SGR 1806-20 is the most magnetic object ever detected. These magnetars embody the known extremes of gravity, magnetism, and density, all in one compact object.  Supposedly, after about 10,000 years, the magnetic field falls-off (or weakens) to a couple trillion gauss, which decreases their ability to produce the most extreme gamma rays.

      The C-R theory proposes that those extreme magnetic fields are created by instant and simultaneous release of all of the positive charges (mostly protons) which a large Black-Hole ^C-R can free-up, after confining them, by eating them, over millions or billions of years.  Even though most of the protons flee the vicinity in a huge energetic blast, the remaining neutron star retains the intense magnetic field strength.

      Unfortunately, the magnetic field there is far too intense to be re-created here on earth.  Even though we can only get to about a million gauss in earth-laboratories before the conditions become too extreme for the strongest earth-lab materials to endure, and the test apparatus simply explodes, conditions at the magnetar are so intense that even the quadrillion gauss magnetic fields there cannot damage the neutron star’s incredibly-high density.  This may be one place where the original Black-Hole’s ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R is destroyed, but most-of the original (inside mass) is left behind as a neutron star. [That means that I may have to revise some of my original ideas.]

      We will now skip some interesting items until we arrive at item #9, M1, the Crab Nebula, with a rapidly spinning pulsar (now revolving at 33 times each second) inside, at the center.  According to this article, the central neutron star has the same density as any atomic nucleus, except that it is 16 miles (or 26 Km) wide.  In this case, this supernova remnant seems to have obliterated the Black-Hole ^C-R that I suspect was there, and merely left a neutron star in it’s original place.

      What is different in this case is that we know the day and the approximate hour of the appearance of the explosion; July 4, 1054, before dawn, as seen and recorded by Chinese astronomers.   (The actual explosion was about 6,500 years earlier, as that is M1's distance from earth.)

      If a Black-Hole ^C-R did exist here beforehand, it may require me to revise my original ideas that most interiors of the original Black-Hole ^C-R (i.e., the inside Active Zone ^C-R), always survive intact, that in this particular case, would appear to be incorrect.

      NOTE: If the original starting mass, originally the Active Zone ^C-R, did not survive intact, it would be more of a revision to my original ideas, than a show-stopper.  I am willing to revise my ideas, if needs be, to incorporate new evidence.  In this case, nature seems to be more flexible, and less “rigid-minded”, than my first concepts expected.

      NOTE #2: By my original concept, the neutron star left behind here did cause me to rule out a possible Black-Hole’s ^C-R involvement.  It was only after I read enough articles about the evidence of a high number of highly energized electrons, and the enormous magnetic fields found there at the Crab Nebula, that persuaded me to change my mind that maybe a Black-Hole ^C-R was involved in just one phase of this object. [Late in the year 2011 is when I changed my mind.]

      In essence, this year’s evidence from articles about the Crab Nebula persuaded me to revise my original rejection of a Black-Hole ^C-R there, because the hallmarks of a C-R theory Black-Hole’s ^C-R activity was stronger than my original ideas suspected.  I allowed nature to show me that some unexpected flexibility was allowed in this extreme example, and that I needed to listen to what I was telling the whole-world about how to recognize where and when a Black-Hole ^C-R exists.  The excess, high-energy electrons there were a dead-giveaway.

      Item #8, the Milky Way antimatter fountain, is one of the most interesting items, from the C-R theory author’s standpoint.  The standard idea is that there is a huge fountain of antimatter (positrons) appearing “magically” around the center of our galaxy, and shooting off 3,500 light-years.  These positrons encounter electrons, and annihilate them, in bulk, producing a characteristic 511,000 eV signature.  By this article, either 10 million, trillion, trillion, trillion positrons each second, or some 500 trillion tons of matter are annihilated each day.

A SHELL of a GOOD IDEA (pun), or this should appeal to you

      From the C-R theory’s view, science considers the above antimatter-fountain scenario more reasonable than: Black-Holes ^C-R there, at the galaxy’s center peel-and-eat their hydrogen’s heavier nucleii, leaving behind the rejected electron “shells” as evidence, as the aftermath of the dinner.* [Besides the central Black-Hole ^C-R, at 4 million solar masses, there are believed to be at least 20,000 additional Black-Holes ^C-R within the central 3 light-years.]

      *IDEA: The Black-Holes ^C-R are actually very peculiar and deliberate eaters.  They strip-off the electrons from their dinner, (or allow ALL-of-the electrons to escape), while completely devouring the protons and proton-neutrons (the nucleii).

      Sadly, mainstream science finds the “fairy-tale” that an antimatter fountain of positrons, (possibly created in interactions with dark matter), is “more reasonable” to accept than that the gourmet Black-Holes ^C-R “hand-fillet” each atom of all of it’s electrons.  HINT: It takes a pretty powerful “fairy” to produce 15 billion tons of positrons each second and hurl them up 3,500 light-years from our galaxy’s center.

      COMMENT:

      I was also reviewing more items from Bob Berman’s 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos when the following thought occurred to me.  Item #8, a supposed fountain of antimatter positrons occurring right in the middle of our galaxy, is based on the detection of an energy-signature release of 511,000 eV worth-of energy that occurs when an electron encounters a positron, annihilating both of them mutually, and producing a gamma ray.

      While I have no quarrel with that process on a limited basis, what does bother me is that mainstream science finds it more reasonable that every second, some 10 million, trillion, trillion, trillion positrons encounter matter and are converted into pure energy, despite the fact that there is no known source for them.  In 1997, the Compton Gamma ray observatory found the energy-release signature of 511,000 eV from this region. Now, science accepts that every second, some 200 billion tons of positrons meet their demise, rather than accepting the “more reasonable” hypothesis from the C-R theory that the Black-Hole(s) ^C-R there are peeling-and-eating the nucleus-matter (the protons and proton-neutron combinations) from all of the atoms, before they dine.

      While I do accept that “by-the-textbooks” this C-R type process does not go on {“in their textbooks opinion”}, is it really that unreasonable? For example: whenever I eat an orange [or a banana, or peanuts in the shell], I peel it first before I eat it, and discard the peel.  If one found however many orange peel pieces in my near vicinity, would it not be more probable evidence supporting my diet of peeled oranges, than to claim that the peels appeared mysteriously from some other {antimatter?} universe?

      Near the end of this article, the real truth comes out: No one has a clue. (Other than you, the home-readers of this C-R theory blog, who have the best clues I can make.)

      I guess what annoys me the most is: after 15-20 years of telling anyone who will read my articles on-line, that ALL Black-Holes ^C-R ALWAYS strip-off all of the electrons from their “atoms for dinner”, before eating them, science finds a non-stop antimatter fountain, spouting 200 billion tons of positrons per second “a more reasonable hypothesis”.  To some extent, maybe I have not been clear enough or convincing enough, or persuasive enough.  The full truth is, the C-R theory ideas are too new, and too radically different, and need too many new ways of thinking to be easily accepted.

 

EXPAND UPON IT (pun)

      I will briefly comment on item #2, our accelerating universe.  The C-R theory has claimed for years, from the very start, that our universe is fixed in size, is not expanding at all, and that the bulk-of the redshifts observed are not Doppler-shifts, from receding or speeding-away, but are almost 100% gravitational redshifts.

      As a consequence of our living on the inside of our closed universe, this mandates that curvature in each direction we can see gradually increases to the full 100%, which also causes the far-off redshifts to increase, too.  This is not really as strange as it first seems, it just requires a new way to understand gravity, based upon what we see in this universe.  I will cover briefly that just as gravity changes by elevation, right here on earth, it also does so, [i.e., change from point-to-point], everywhere else within this universe.

      Where science made it’s biggest mistake was to accept Einstein’s claim, implied from his assumptions in relativity, that everywhere in space was exactly the equivalent to everywhere else, as there was no possible “preferred reference frame”.

      What Einstein failed to realize was: If our universe IS closed-off [from the inside], this forces a “preferred reference frame” to be superimposed over everything INSIDE. Thus, the redshift-ranges we see in far-away objects are positionally related, by curvature, or gravity.  Where you are inside this universe assigns you a curvature level, which changes the redshift amount we notice when we observe objects elsewhere.

      At our universe’s center, would be the minimum overall curvature, and the curvature increases until, in every direction, you reach the outer edges, which end as 100% curvature.  (Once you exceed 100% curvature, this freezes all electromagnetic radiation, and freezes “measurable time”.)

      Of course, as any student knows, it is unacceptable to correct your observed data for what you EXPECT to be wrong, before you draw your conclusions from it.  Since earth’s scientists first CORRECT the observed redshifts {which they ASSUMED were Doppler shifts}, to make the data just like here on earth [time-rate-wise], they actually make their data “WRONG”ER (or more incorrect).

      Compounding the mistaken ideas about our universe’s nature, and then “correcting” the data in the wrong direction, scientists were then able to imagine that our universe’s expansion was accelerating; instead of noting that our mostly static universe, where objects were naturally existing in different real-time-rates elsewhere, and we actually see all events in our universe happening at their TRUE, real-time rates.

      By conventional Newtonian theory, a static universe is not possible.  It must expand, or else collapse.  Without justifying it here, let me state that a closed universe has a true inner stability, and it cannot possibly collapse.  It simply is stable, size-wise, by design.  Because curvature is zero (or minimum) at the center, there is no possibility of collapse inward.  Matter has a “stratification-level” where what energy it possesses is guided-by it’s overall position, as it is measured from the center.

      Since matter at the center is worth the most energy, and the same objects at the outer edges would be worth the least energy, position (location) is everything.  Just as energy must be added, on earth, to lift-up a heavy weight, to move it, so also do objects need to gain energy to move their position inward, or else they surrender energy, if they move from a higher-energy, inner area to lower-energy, outer region.

      NOTE: Please read the C-R theory for a better treatment of the closed universe idea.  The blog merely mentions it, and is not intended to justify my ideas here.

      Finally, we reach the #1 item on the list.  The discovery in 2010 of two enormous, 25,000 light-year-tall bubbles filled with high-energy gamma-rays (or filled with electrons with gamma ray level energies), now tentatively called Fermi bubbles, expanding at 2.2 million mph (3.5 million kph), totally surprised the astronomical community.  While the bubble shape itself was not expected by the C-R theory, the presence of 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy-rich electrons, ejected both above and below our galaxy’s central mass is only “reasonable” from a C-R theory view.  

      Only the C-R theory claims that every Black-Hole ^C-R rejects virtually every electron from the mass it eats, and that these electrons should all have substantial energy leftover.  With a 4 million solar-massed Black-Hole ^C-R, and at least 20,000 other smaller Black-Holes ^C-R stuffed-in around the central 3 light-years, only the C-R theory expects an adequate number of energetic-electron source-generators.

      I would regard the presence of the outrageously high number of gamma-ray-energy-level electrons as a “calling card” for the C-R theory, and the next most reasonable explanation, if it can ever be accepted.  The two lobes may be nature’s way of introducing science to the leftovers from a Black-Hole’s ^C-R meals.  Even if the central, 4 million solar-massed Black-Hole ^C-R did not get a large feast, the 20,000 “scavenger” Black-Holes ^C-R might get some of the credit, too. Whatever gets the credit, there is certainly an adequate cause suggested by the C-R theory to account for the phenomenon we see.

      The lobes might actually be “big enough” to gain science’s attention, or to suggest that there is something going-on.  The bubbles have a temperature of 7 million° F or 3.9 million° C, so we know some extreme energy is involved.

      Some scientists believe [or hope] that these Fermi lobes are finally evidence of dark matter’s interactions with regular matter.  I am trying to share that the C-R theory may have another, more reasonable alternative to consider.  I will leave you, the home reader to chose the best-fit, between the most reasonable alternatives offered to you.

      Again, I would encourage the blog readers to consider purchasing a copy of this special issue of Astronomy magazine. {Bob Berman’s 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos} There are quite a few items I did not cover, that probably do not have anything to do with the C-R theory ideas, but are still fascinating to read about.  I would welcome reader comments or questions about this blog.  I apologize that this took so long to finish, but I have been doing many things for the holidays.

      The C-R theory is either correct, or it is not.  If it is, I believe it helps explain some of the most mysterious items in this special issue magazine.  I can state that mainstream science is not prepared to understand why these things occur.  If I can help you at home understand the processes in this universe better, then this blog is worth the effort.

      There are many new items in other magazines that I would like to comment upon, next year (in 2012).  I am continually amazed that nature has been extraordinarily kind to the C-R theory, and giving many unexpected phenomena that only the C-R theory seems to appreciate, want, and need.

      I will end this blog here, and save more for next time.  Thank you for visiting, and I hope you will visit this web-site again.  Have a Happy New Year, too, as 2011 is rapidly running out of time.  I wish all my visitors a better-informed New Year, for 2012.

Jerry Reynard